For the month of May, Scriptshadow will be foregoing its traditional reviewing to instead review scripts from you, the readers of the site. To find out more about how the month lines up, go back and read the original post here. Last week, we allowed any writers to send in their script for review. This week, we’re raising the bar and reviewing repped writers only. The caveat is that they cannot have a sale to their name. The idea here is to give aspiring writers an idea of the quality of writing it takes to have a professional manager or agent take an interest in your work. Monday, Roger reviewed the Western, “Quicker Than The Eye.” Tuesday, I reviewed the 80s’esque comedy “Duty.” Yesterday, I reviewed the JFK thriller “The Shadow Before.” And today I’m reviewing another thriller called “Skin.”

Genre: Thriller
Premise: A New Orleans tax lawyer finds himself mixed up in the world of rare animal smuggling after investigating the death of a homeless man with the same name as him.
About: Our 4th script for Repped Week. Brannstrom is managed by The Radmin Company.
Writer: Johan Brännström
Details: 104 pages

Of all the scripts I’ve read these past couple of weeks, this one has the most potential, and I’ll tell you why. The majority of thrillers I read these days are about some guy from the future running around trying to escape the bad guys. Or a CIA agent being swindled by the government and/or some secret organization. And I’m not saying that’s bad. I’m reviewing a script next week that falls under that category. But I think the thriller genre has become stale lately, and this trend needs to change. “Skin” is the first thriller I’ve read in awhile that really tries to approach the genre from a different angle. It’s about a tax attorney wrapped up in an exotic animal scam. That’s about as far away from the future and the government as you can get.

And for about 55 pages, everything here was clicking. The setup was intriguing, the twists were original, the subject matter was fresh. The problem “Skin” runs into is that it’s playing in a sandbox as rare as the animals it dramatizes. There aren’t a lot of “zoological thrillers” out there to use as reference points if your plot starts running amok. And, unfortunately, for the second half of this screenplay, there’s a lot of “amok” running around. And “Skin” never quite recovers from it.

Still, there’s something really neat about this idea. It’s just “out there” enough to be different but not so “out there” that it alienates you. The closest movie I can think of is the underappreciated “The Freshman” with Matthew Broderick and Marlon Brando. But that was a comedy. So while I think Brannstrom runs out of rope here, it sure was a fun rope to climb on.

Robert Deville is a tax lawyer in a still devastated New Orleans. As a result, his clientele can be quite diverse. “Sumo” Suma is his latest defendant, a trader in the lucrative rare animal business. He’s currently trying to get a tax write-off on an extremely rare yellow turtle, but the judge doesn’t think the turtle exists.

So off Robert goes to get proof of this turtle at a local zoo, when he runs into a strange non-talking homeless man, who, after a quick “conversation,” hands the missing turtle over to Robert. Hmm, that was weird. Why would this man have the turtle? And who is he? Before Robert can get answers, the homeless man shoots off.

Later the next day, Robert finds out that the homeless man committed suicide. And not only that. But the man had the same name as him! Whoa, this is getting weirder by the second. Naturally curious, Robert decides to do a little digging, and finds out that this man hasn’t always been homeless, and may have been employed as recently as a couple of weeks ago. His curiosity turns out to be a devastating mistake though, as he comes home later that day to find his wife brutally murdered.

Exacerbating the problem, his wife’s father, a powerful judge, believes that Robert is the killer, and tells all the policeman in town to shoot first and ask questions later. Within 24 hours, Robert’s on the run with no one to turn to. And it’s not lost on us that Robert’s situation is starting to look a lot like that other homeless guy, the one with the same name. What’s going on here? And what does the trading of all these rare animals have to do with it? Robert better find out soon. Or he could be the next person who “committed suicide.”

There’s a lot of good in this script, and most of it comes from how the mystery is set up. Every twist adds more pieces to the puzzle, and we’re just dying to figure out how they all fit together. Brannstrom’s biggest strength though, is how he creates tension in his chase scenes. He makes sure his hero is in a bad situation. Then he makes it worse for them. And worse. And worse. There’s a scene in a Bingo parlor for example, where Robert’s pretending to be one of the players, and the cops come in looking for him, and just one thing after another goes wrong (i.e. the person playing in front of him turns around and recognizes him), so it was really fun watching Robert continue to escape these impossible to escape situations. In general, all the chase stuff was top notch.

Where this story falls apart though, is when Robert meets the wife of the homeless man who was murdered. From their very first meeting, something felt off. Robert has never met this person before, yet just seconds after meeting her tells her her husband is dead. Her reaction? Nothing. She doesn’t cry or get upset or anyting. But that’s not what bothered me. Because maybe she hasn’t seen her husband in a couple of years, or maybe they’ve grown apart, or whatever. What bothered me was that Robert just assumed he could hit her with this and start asking questions about who he was. The scene just had no truth to it.

If you’re going to tell someone their husband is dead, you’re going to do it very carefully. And you’re definitely not hopscotching into the details of his life after a 15 second cool down period. You’re going to ask if they need to sit down. If they need a minute. And odds are, they’re going to need a lot of minutes before they can say anything. So that one single scene really changed the way I saw the script. Because up until that point, people were acting realistically. Now I started to wonder if “Skin” was falling into that tragic trap, where a writer is making choices solely because it’s convenient for the plot.

The scene then unexpectedly becomes a key turning point in a lot of ways, because the wife then becomes a central character, and eventually a love interest. Introducing a key character halfway into the script is always a risky proposition, but introducing the main romantic interest halfway into the script is almost impossible. This combination of a late-arriving character, a tough-to-buy love interest, and circumstances that make it nearly impossible to believe these two would be together, really hurt the second act. In short, it feels like someone told Brannstrom “You need a love interest here,” and he complied with them, even though he never truly bought into it.

Another thing I was hoping for was that the plot would hinge more on the rare animal element. That’s what makes the script different. That’s the worm that hooks us. So when the animals become more Beyonce’s background singers than Beyonce, I was disappointed. They’re actually a big McGuffin when you think about it. This is really about a group of back alley thugs orchestrating run of the mill scams. The animals could easily be substituted for anything: drugs, weapons, pirated DVDs, what have you. My point is, you don’t want to hint at an exotic mystery thriller, only to finish the story with something we’ve seen a million times before. You want to deliver on the promise of the premise.

But as I mentioned earlier, this script has a lot of upside. I would just keep going at this thing until I got it right. A fun read. Just gets way too messy in the second half.

[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[x] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: I’ve actually encountered this situation a lot lately, so I think it’s relevant enough to address in a “what I learned” section. Here’s the deal: It’s really hard to kill off your hero’s spouse in a movie, then try to give them a romantic interest later on. Think about The Fugitive. What if they would’ve added a love interest for Harrison Ford’s character? How wrong does that sound? Now there are circumstances where it can be done. For example, in Braveheart they do it, and it works because years have passed since his wife’s death. It can also work if a couple is having serious problems in their marriage, then the wife dies. Since we know the hero had already emotionally moved on, we buy into him hooking up with another woman. But if two people love each other, and one of them dies, and your script doesn’t have any large time jumps, it’s really hard to buy into that person falling for someone else. That’s why I always say, kill that person off before the movie starts if you can. That way you have romantic reign in the story.

For the month of May, Scriptshadow will be foregoing its traditional reviewing to instead review scripts from you, the readers of the site. To find out more about how the month lines up, go back and read the original post here. Last week, we allowed any writers to send in their script for review. This week, we’re raising the bar and reviewing repped writers only. The caveat is that they cannot have a sale to their name. The idea here is to give aspiring writers an idea of the quality of writing it takes to have a professional manager or agent take an interest in your work. Monday, Roger reviewed the Western, “Quicker Than The Eye.” Yesterday, I reviewed the 80s’esque comedy “Duty,” and today, I’m reviewing the JFK thriller “The Shadow Before.”

Genre: Thiller/Drama/Love Story
Premise: John F. Kennedy made a speech in Cork City, Ireland five months before he was assassinated. This is the story of the two weeks leading up to that speech.
About: This is the third script of Repped Week. Martin McSweeney is represented by Conrad Williams at Blake Friedman UK. This script is an adaptation of his own book, “Two Weeks In June,” which you can find here.
Writer: Martin McSweeney
Details: 113 pages

I’m by no means a Kennedy conspiracy freak. I watched Oliver Stone’s “JFK” when I was a kid but I was more consumed with the strange directing style of this off-his-rocker director than I was the actual movie. But it is a shady slice of American history and it’s clear the entire truth has never been revealed. So when the subject pops up in a concept, I usually take notice.

I was particularly intrigued by this premise, which wasn’t focusing on the actual assassination, but rather something that happened a full 5 months ahead of it. Could an event that took place in a small Irish city 8000 miles away from Dallas have had something to do with what happened on November 22nd, 1963? I didn’t know, but I wanted to find out. Strangely, any expectations of what I thought I was about to read were dashed within the first act. This Irish tale is a curious cross between a drama, a love story, and a thriller.

It’s June, 1963 in Cork City, Ireland. In two weeks, John F. Kennedy will be arriving to deliver a speech. It’s a turbulent period in Ireland, with a large portion of the population upset that the British keep sticking their noses in Ireland’s affairs. Since Kennedy’s speech is rumored to address some of these issues, and since the word is that it will be Pro-British, there’s a lot of fidgety Irish folk preparing for the worst. The IRA, in particular, is worried about the fallout if America publicly sides with Britain.

The Brady Bunch-sized Horgan family has lived in Cork City their whole lives. And the gem of the family is 19 year old Mary, a beautiful shop worker who, like most women of that era, is on the hunt for a husband. Unfortunately, her pursuits have led her into a disastrous date with Willy, a wrong-side-of-the-tracks type who, even though Mary has moved on, believes that the two are still together. A day in the life of Mary involves being on the lookout at all times, as she’s never sure where Willy is or what he’s capable of.

Luckily for Mary, she meets a dashing 30 year old American named Dean Reynolds. Although nobody knows what Dean does, a thick layer of charm and the non-invention of google keep the suspicions at bay. He seems nice enough. And he’s from America. So who cares what he does?

In the meantime, Mary is unaware that her two older brothers have joined the IRA. The Kennedy speech fears are reaching a fever pitch, and Cork’s IRA chief wants the brothers to deliver a letter to the local paper. The letter subtly warns Kennedy that if his speech is pro-British, there will be repercussions.

Cork City

Back to Mary, who’s quickly falling in love with Dean. So blind is this love that she doesn’t much notice when her pervert boss is severely beaten. And that old Willy character? Yeah well, he hasn’t bothered her much recently because he’s DEAD. Doesn’t take Einstein to figure out Dean may be connected somehow. The suspicious-o-meter hits car alarm levels when Mary’s brothers spot Brendan out in a secluded field with a souped up sniper rifle, taking down targets hundreds of meters away. Could Dean have been sent to Ireland to assassinate Kennedy?

When the IRA gets wind of this, they start sweating the same bullets Dean’s shooting. They just put a public letter out vowing that if Kennedy showed support for Britain, they would retaliate. But they didn’t plan on actually *doing* anything to Kennedy. Now, if things shake out the way they’re looking to, and Kennedy is harmed or killed, the IRA could be in some hot water.

So what’s the deal? Is Dean really trying to kill the president? If so, will he be able to before the IRA get to him? And how does this affect Mary? Dean’s expressed interest in marrying her after Kennedy’s speech is over. Is she in trouble too ? Hmmm. I guess you’ll have to read the script to find out.

The first thing I noticed about The Shadow Before was that it was an odd way to approach a thriller. I think that worked both for it and against it. “For it” because I love reading scripts where I have no idea what the next page will bring, and because the love story and the mystery are so heavily intertwined here, I was always wondering which aspect would dictate the next plot point. I mean, I knew we were going to end up at Kennedy, but I had no idea how we were going to get there. “Against it” because I had no genre to ground me. “Thriller” and “love story” are such odd genres to mix that I always felt off-balance. It’s kind of like taking your girlfriend to the gun range on Valentine’s Day. Something doesn’t feel right about it. I think the bigger issue here though is that the concept hints at a JFK thriller, so that’s what I was anticipating. Disappointment crept in when that anticipation was only partially met.

(non-specific spoilers from here on) Another issue The Shadow Before runs up against is that we already know no one’s going to kill Kennedy, because, well, it’s history! And that takes away a good amount of suspense. This is why I dislike the idea of prequels in general, and why I don’t like films such as 2008’s Valkyrie. The entire movie is geared towards a climax that we already know the outcome of. That takes away one of your most powerful tools, the element of surprise. But there are ways to make this foreknowledge work for you, and it’s all in how you handle the characters. In American Beauty, for example, Lester tells us he’s going to die at the beginning of the film. Yet we’re still riveted because we see each of these characters develop motives to kill him. There’s still a big mystery involved. WHO is going to kill Lester? The Shadow Before uses a bit of that magic itself, as it takes the focus off of Kennedy, and puts it on Dean. The central question becomes, “Is Dean good or bad?” Is he here to kill the president or save him? And what happens then, if the IRA prevents him from doing either of these things?

But I think whenever you base your concept around JFK, and specifically his assassination, you’re tapping into an audience that’s eager for tidbits about the conspiracy, especially when you imply that the conspiracy is dealt with in your logline. For that reason, it was a little disappointing that this was such a self-contained story.And what I mean by “self-contained” is there’s nothing here that makes you look at the real assassination, which happened five months later, in a new light. And the hook kinda hints that there will be.

Still, this is a very well-written script and an engaging character story. I enjoyed never quite knowing where it was going, and for that reason, I think it’s worth the read.

[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[ ] wasn’t for me
[x] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: Whenever you tell the audience your ending ahead of time, especially at the beginning of the film, you’re putting the primary load of your screenplay on your characters. Since we know where the story’s going, the only uncertainty left is the characters who take us there. For this reason, you need to be extremely strong with character development if you use this device. If you don’t know what a central character flaw is or how a character arcs or how to set up original and compelling relationships between your characters, I would stay away from this device.

For the month of May, Scriptshadow will be foregoing its traditional reviewing to instead review scripts from you, the readers of the site. To find out more about how the month lines up, go back and read the original post here. Last week, we allowed any writers to send in their script for review. This week, we’re raising the bar and reviewing repped writers only. The caveat is that they cannot have a sale to their name. The idea here is to give aspiring writers an idea of the quality of writing it takes to have a professional manager or agent take an interest in your work. Yesterday, Roger reviewed the Western, “Quicker Than The Eye.” Today, I’m reviewing the first comedy of May, a story about lifeguards!

Genre: Comedy
Premise: When the Chanute, Kansas public swimming pool is going to be shut down by the uppity assholes at the country club, it’s up to lifeguards Austin and Lawrence to save the day. Welcome to the shallow end of the pool.
About: Kevin Brennan and Doug Manley are managed by Chatrone. This is the second script of Repped Week.
Writers: Kevin M. Brennan and Doug Manley
Details: 104 pages

I mean, it’s like, so obvious. They NEED to make a movie about lifeguards. Public pools are bizarre never-ending parties where every demographic comes together to celebrate the gift of water. It’s 99% chaos 100% of the time. And there those life guards are, perched on top of their tall chairs like Greek Gods, seeing everything, coming to the rescue of those of us stupid enough to try the one-and-a-half flip belly flop 30 seconds after a full lunch (tried it – loved it). They’re H2O supermen. A movie about these guys seems like a foregone conclusion. So why hasn’t it been done? Well, if Kevin and Doug have their way, it WILL be done.

25 year old Austin Travis doesn’t have the commitment gene, nor is he interested in acquiring one. The guy just likes to get drunk, get laid, and do a little work in the meantime. Austin is a life guard at a local public pool. It may be the easy life, but he takes a surprising amount of pride in his job. This is in stark contrast to Austin’s best friend however, the eternally moronic Lawrence. Lawrence is your garden variety fuck-up. There was a time, long ago, when the man was the fastest swimmer in the state. Now, the only thing he’s fast at is the pre-party beer choice – you know what I’m talking about. Standing there at the convenience store, looking at all the beer choices, wondering how the HELL you’re going to decide which one to buy. In short, Lawrence is the breast stroke to Austin’s butterfly (6 years of swim classes here baby. Hellz yeah).

The carefully constructed universe these two live in is about to be thrown for a 300 pound cannonball though because the owner of the pool, Leon, DIES! In his will, Leon leaves the pool to Austin, and tells him to never let go. This pool is the one thing that keeps this community together. If it dies, the community dies… Problem is, the economy’s a bitch and Leon’s left something else with Austin – 20,000 dollars worth of debt! Since the pool’s value is 50,000, it’s all of a sudden a tempting proposition for Austin to just sell the thing and live the high life.

In fact, there’s even a ready buyer. The high rolling James Merkin and his “young preppy asshat” of a son Tyler, want to purchase the pool and make it a part of their country club. This would, of course, prevent the public from having access to the pool, and that would be bad. But if Austin doesn’t come up with the 20 grand soon, they’ll have to go into default anyway, and the Merkins will be able to steal the pool away by way of the back door. The only solution, of course, is to have the pool party of the CENT-UR-RAY!!! And raise enough money to save the pool!

Okay, first thing’s first. Cause I know you’re probably wondering this yourself. How can there be an owner of a public pool? Aren’t public pools owned by the city? Good question. And I was wondering that myself. The writers can correct me here, but I think that Leon bought the pool for himself and then made it open to the public. But that’s neither here nor there. Let’s get to the main event.

First, the good. The structure here is solid. The motivations are clear. The story is properly laid out. They’re going to lose the pool in “X” amount of days unless they come up with the money. This may seem obvious to some, but I still encounter tons of comedies where I have no idea why any of the characters are doing what they’re doing. Or, in worst case scenarios, I don’t even know what they’re trying to do. If we don’t know what your characters are doing or why they’re doing it, you’re not telling a story. This goes back to the “what I learned” section in my review of “Bad Teacher.” One of the simplest but most effective plots available to you, is to give your character a clear and important goal and have them try to achieve it by the end of the movie. And that’s exactly what Kevin and Doug do here. So far, so good.

Also, these guys bring the funny. The dialogue, in particular, is really snappy in places. And that’s probably the script’s biggest strength. Most of the scenes are geared towards the dialogue between Austin and Lawrence, and while it gets repetitive in places, it’s usually pretty good. Speaking of Austin and Lawrence, I liked most of the characters here. My favorite is probably the moronic Tyler. In one of his more classic moments, when they’re trying to figure out how to thwart Austin’s pool party, he suggests to his father that they “burn down the pool.” His father just looks at him. Did he say “burn down the pool?” Just in general, there’s a lot of funny lines like that.

My big issue with Duty is that it’s too safe and too predictable. In the very first scene, Austin wakes up in a girl’s bedroom after a night he doesn’t remember. The scene does a great job of setting up the main character (I knew exactly who Austin was after that scene), but I’ve seen that scene in movies close to 300 times before. This predictability bleeds into the character of Lawrence as well. I’d seen the goofy fuck-up who’s always striking out with the girls more times than I can count. The character didn’t have anything new to him. One of the things I loved about The Hangover was the character Zach Galifianakis’ played. I remember reading that character before the movie came out and thinking, wow, I’ve never seen the goofy sidekick portrayed quite like this before. It was different. We also get a scene with boys peeking in on the girl’s locker room. But there was nothing new to it. There were too many times, like this, where I felt “Duty” was playing it safe.

Take the aforementioned “Bad Teacher” as another example. Look at how daring that plotline was. It’s about a pissed off teacher trying to steal money from children to buy herself a new pair of boobs so she can land a sugar-daddy. I’ve never seen that movie before. That’s why it was such a fun read. And I’m not saying that “Duty” can’t get there. I just think these guys need to take a few more chances, get crazier, and do something different. They do it with the dialogue in places, but not with the plot and characters.

I also would’ve liked a little more complexity out of Austin. The thing that makes characters in these kinds of comedies interesting is their inner conflict. What are they wrestling with inside their heads? Austin is a tad too content with his life here. There’s no OPPOSING CHOICE. You want to TEMPT your character with something else to draw out the drama within him. What if Austin had a true passion, something he’d always wanted to do, but couldn’t because he never had the money to do it? Well now the sale of this pool has some serious consequences. With that 30 grand, he could finally pursue his dream. All of a sudden, your main character has something substantial going on. Help himself or help the community? And I know this is only a comedy, but I think you need complex characters no matter what genre it is. So I was hoping for a little more of that.

These guys have comedy chops. Check out some of the videos on their site for proof (see links below). What I’d like to see is more of that offbeat humor brought into this script. Throw some more twists and turns into the plot. Give us that demented version of Duty you were afraid to try. Like Trent says in Swingers: “I don’t want you to be the guy in the PG-13 movie everyone’s realllllyy hoping makes it happen. I want you to be like the guy in the rated R movie, you know, the guy you’re not sure whether or not you like yet. You’re not sure where he’s coming from. Okay? You’re a bad man.”

[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[x] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: The 70% screenplay isn’t enough. And what I mean by that is, you can’t execute your script to 70% of its potential and expect it to sell. Remember, comedy is the most competitive spec market out there because it’s one of the last genres you can still sell original material in. So you have a lot of fucking competition. For that reason, make sure to always ask yourself: Have I really made sure every scene is unique? Is my premise beyond awesome? Did I take any scenes off? Does every character in my story arc? Am I pushing the limits of comedy? Does my story feel predictable? Am I trying new things? Are there enough surprises to satisfy the reader? If you honestly feel like you’ve pushed yourself to the limit in all these categories, then get your script out there. But if you’re not, clean up the gaps until you get it right. Because I promise you, there’s someone else out there right now writing a similar script who WILL get all those things right.

Wanted to give these guys a shout out cause they have some really great videos on their website. Here’s one of my favorites.

For the month of May, Scriptshadow will be foregoing its traditional reviewing to instead review scripts from you, the readers of the site. To find out more about how the month lines up, go back and read the original post here. Last week, we allowed any writers to send in their script for review. This week, we’re raising the bar and reviewing repped writers only. The caveat is that they cannot have a sale to their name. The idea here is to give aspiring writers an idea of the quality of writing it takes to have a professional manager or agent take an interest in your work. The number of submissions was about 1/10 that of the Amateur week, so only around 90 repped writers submitted. Surprisingly, there weren’t a lot of high concepts to choose from. Maybe you Reppeders were too afraid to send me your pole position titles. I dont’ know, lol. Still, I’ve read my four scripts for the week and there’s a couple of good ones. But it’s Monday, so let’s let Roger will kick us off with his review. Take it away Mr. Balfour…

Genre: Western Adventure
Premise: An Old West magician is forced to break an outlaw from a Mexican prison.
About: Chosen out of the Repped Week Pile because I was hooked by the logline. All I know about this script is that the writer, Jamie Nash, is repped by Chad Marting of Elements Entertainment. To my understanding, although Nash has representation, he hasn’t made a big spec sale yet, which qualifies him for Repped Week.
Writer: Jamie Nash

Magicians, man.

Back East sounds like a Carson script! Not a Roger script! Yet here Roger is stretching his reading muscles and stepping out of his comfort zone. Good for him. While he does that, I’m preparing for a week with a writer interview (hopefully!), and two very popular specs, one from a couple of years back, and one from the nineties. Both lit the spec world on fire in their own way. Finally, I’m reviewing a script that one writer gave me and said, “This is the next ‘All The President’s Men. Best screenplay I’ve read in three years.'” Whoa! That’s a big claim. Was it that good? Find out tomorrow. And finally, if you’re an aspiring or semi-professional writer looking to get your script reviewed on the site, don’t forget to check out the “Amateur Month” post. All the information is there for how to sign up.

Genre: Indie Drama Premise: A young man living in LA heads back east to help his aging folks, only to find himself stranded in a nearly deserted desert town after his car breaks down. While fixing the car, he meets and falls for a sexy traveler heading west to LA with her boyfriend. About: Zack Whedon co-created and co-wrote Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog with his brothers Jed and Joss. Before that he co-wrote an episode of Deadwood and wrote and acted in an episode of John from Cincinatti. Most recently, he’s been working on J.J. Abrams and Orci-Kurtzman’s show, Fringe. “Back East” was on the 2007 Black List with two votes. Writer: Zack Whedon
Details: 92 pages (This is an early draft of the script. The situations, characters, and plot may change significantly by the time of the film’s release. This is not a definitive statement about the project, but rather an analysis of this unique draft as it pertains to the craft of screenwriting)

When it comes to the Brothers Whedon, sure, you can consider me a fanboy. From Buffy: The Vampire Slayer to Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog, I usually love everything these guys do. But every now and then there’s a bump in the road. For every Whedonesque Astonishing X-Men comic I like, there’s an episode of Dollhouse I don’t like. Which brings us to this Zack Whedon spec script, “Back East”.

Is it unfair of me to say that I prefer Zack Whedon’s writing on something like Fringe over this small Indie Drama, “Back East”? Maybe I just prefer tales where a guy transforms into a weird spiky monster in an airplane bathroom over a slow burn coming-of-age drama where a depressed twenty-something protagonist shares a few flirtatious moments with a Manic Pixie Dream Girl who is already taken.

Or maybe it’s just that I want more drama in my character studies. I want more personality, dammit.

Who is this about, Rog?

It’s about a depressed twenty-four year old named William. William seems to be drifting through the days in his life, not really moving anywhere. The way he stares at the LA landscape with his headphones on, how he might be physically present at his boring office job while his mind is clearly somewhere else.

He seems numb.

Through a conversation with his mother in Connecticut, we learn that his father’s health is failing. His mother, in an effort to connect to her son, brings up how she just found the ticket stub from when he played a part in the King and I in fifth grade. One wonders if this ties into whatever his LA dream is, and his mother responds to the lack of his reaction, “You don’t care.”

“I care.”

William contemplates his situation. Apparently he doesn’t show up at work one day, and when they try to call him, he drops his cell phone in his fish tank.

He’s made the decision to leave Los Angeles.

He packs everything he can in his little Chevy Nova, and before he leaves his apartment complex, his neighbor Susan catches him. She hands him an envelope. Inside is a joint. “For the road.”

We learn more about William as he drives east, talking to himself, presumably addressing an audience in his mind:

“The thing you don’t realize when you’re writing something like that is the impact it is going to have for so many people…In the midst of writing it you’re so caught up and wrapped up in simply getting it done, getting anyone to read it at all, that the reaction of a wide audience is beyond your realm of consideration.”

Holy shit. Is William an aspiring screenwriter?

Zack Whedon knows readers should be smart. He doesn’t need to spell everything out for us, instead giving us just enough information to make our own conclusions. I like that.

But yeah, based upon other snippets of conversation in the script, and because Los Angeles is the center of what was once William’s plan, I have to deduce that he’s an aspiring screenwriter.

At twenty-four, he’s throwing in the towel pretty early.

It’s not something we dwell on, but this giving up so easily, it’s something that’s gonna have to change for William. And that’s where the town of Dry Lake comes in.

Is Dry Lake the desert town William gets stranded in?

Yep. William’s Chevy Nova breaks down, but luckily, an old tow-truck operator named Jeffrey helps him out. Jeffrey is my favorite character. He’s a retired mechanic, and seems to spend most of his days sitting out in his backyard, trying to remember life when he was younger.

Every now and then he mentions his wife, how she went east to watch the colors change with the seasons, how strange she was. How happy he was with her.

Jeffrey owns a shop, but he tells William, “I’m 79 years old, son. I don’t fix shit anymore…I can do all the thinking and you can do all the working.”

So William, who knows nothing about how to fix vehicles, is going to have to diagnose and repair the Nova himself.

Since this is going to take some time, he takes up residence at a nautical-themed motel and restaurant called The Mariner.

So who’s the cast of characters at The Mariner?

Well, there’s William’s foil, Avery. A congenial guy in his late thirties who runs the reception desk of the motel. His parents, or more specifically, his mother, Joan, have spent the entirety of their lives in Dry Lake, running The Mariner.

Avery seems insecure that he’s from Dry Lake, and although he’s lived in places like Phoenix, he seems uncomfortable that he’s back in Dry Lake, helping his mom run her business. He seems to have bigger plans, and they don’t involve Dry Lake.

Then there’s Tamara, a beautiful traveler heading west to LA with her rich boyfriend, Evan. Her and William automatically hit it off while she’s drinking her iced tea at the bar, and William not only dislikes her boyfriend for existing, this stance is solidified when he sees Evan wearing socks with sandals.

I like the idea of Tamara.

I like the idea of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl. You know, that ephemeral Holly Golightly female that exists as salve for the emotional wounds of the broody male lead.

Unfortunately, Tamara’s character ended up disappointing me. And this is where I lost interest with the script.

What sort of problems was Tamara having with her boyfriend, Evan?

I’m not sure exactly. I guess they’re complicated. She loves Evan, who is from LA. She is not. But she is moving there, and this scares her. She doesn’t seem gung-ho about ingratiating herself with all of Evan’s wealthy LA friends.

But she really seems to like William. In fact, she spends most of her time in Dry Lake talking to William. And these conversations are the salt and light that William seems to crave, that he seems to need.

She represents hope and possibility, but it sucks for him because she’s with Evan. He doesn’t understand why she’s with Evan. Hell, I don’t either. I just didn’t get why she was spending so much time with William.

So what happens?

William has to put some effort into learning how to fix his Nova. I suppose, for me, this was the best part of the script.

Jeffrey does teach William a valuable lesson about life, “You got to learn how to do something to know how to do it. The only things you’re going to do without learning how first is waking up and breathing, after that it’s up to you.”

And to me, this is what the script is about.

From fixing cars, to learning musical instruments, to writing, you can’t expect you’re going to automatically know how to do it. You’ve gotta learn. You’ve gotta work at it. Not only is that a fine attitude with which to approach the craft of screenwriting, but it’s the attitude that we should adopt while approaching life and our dreams in general.

See, I get that. I like that. That’s what I took away from this read.

But William wants Tamara.

He yearns for her so much, in fact, he may sabotage Evan’s Jeep Cherokee so that they’re stuck in Dry Lake longer, buying him more time to try and convince Tamara to go east with him.

I guess it’s supposed to be complicated, but if anything, it frustrated me. Although, I did like the final note of hope at the end of the script concerning their relationship.

So what was the problem?

For the first act or so, William intrigued me. And it also helped that Tamara seemed like a mystery (at first, anyways). I immediately wanted to know what sort of territory these characters were heading into, especially since Tamara had a boyfriend, yet spent a lot of her free time at Dry Lake with William.

But, because, to me, Tamara wasn’t that interesting (other than that she pretends to really like ghost towns), I ended up clocking out of the script around the mid-point.

To me, “Back East” felt more like a short story I could find in a literary journal like Zoetrope or Glimmer Train. As prose fiction, the story could work because the writer could do much of the heavy lifting through use of language. But as cinema? I think “Back East” needs more dramatic meat. Perhaps one of the issues is that Whedon is going for notes that are delicate and subtle, and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t. When it works, I marvel at the craft (the drive belt in William’s bag was a nice touch), but when it doesn’t, it feels too understated, almost skeletal.

I saw what the writer was attempting to do, but because I wanted more (more personality, more depth in the relationships) from the characters of William and Tamara, I wasn’t moved like I should have been. I think there are notes that could hit the right emotions on celluloid as a tone poem, but as is, the whole doesn’t feel greater than the sum of its parts.

Script link:

[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[x] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: I wasn’t exactly compelled by the characters in this script, and because this is a tale where not exactly a whole lot happens, my attention kept wavering. The weird thing about these coming-of-age Indie Dramas is that if the characters don’t keep me glued to the page, I start to miss something like plot. Sometimes plot can do some of the heavy lifting when it comes to pace and narrative drive. Plot can keep you turning the pages even if you aren’t ultimately moved by the story. In that way, plot can be like a band-aid for the existence of less-than-stellar characters. But when you have something like a character study or an Indie Drama, you can’t use band-aids. The characters have to have be three dimensional, unique, and possess flaws and shortcomings that creates conflict amongst the characters and an anticipation to find out what happens next. In that sense, character is the engine that drives the story. But in my mind, even if you have awesome plotting, the story should still be character-driven. It should still be moving. At least that’s the high watermark I think we all should aim for.

To get in touch with Roger, you can e-mail him at: rogerbalfourscriptshadow@gmail.com