Is today’s script “The Player” for Gen Z?

Genre: Thriller
Premise: After passing on a hot new screenplay, a studio executive finds himself trapped as the protagonist inside the film and must regain control before the credits roll.
About: This script finished NUMBER 3 on the most recent Black List.
Writer: Jordan Rosenbloom
Details: 111 pages

Cooper needs a snazzy fun script after the dudtopolis that was Maestro.

“Bad Boy” has set a high bar for the 2023 Black List. I’m doubtful that any script can top it. Oh, and if you’re wondering why I’m jumping from the number 1 script to the number 3 script today, it’s because I’ve already reviewed script number 2! It’s called Stakehorse and you can check out my review here.

As for “Spoiler,” I knew nothing about it going in. Yes, I do those Black List logline breakdowns in my annual Black List Logline Assessment post. But I’ve forgotten almost every script since then. That’s the way I like it. I enjoy going into a script as blind as a bat. It gives me the best chance of being surprised.

Sam Feldstein is a 40-something executive at Silverhead Studios. Sam is about to be named the new head of that studio. At least, that was the plan BEFORE his latest movie, “Captain Queer,” plunged to a 68% on Rotten Tomatoes the morning after the Thursday evening showings. It’s looking like the 200 million dollar movie is going to suffer an Aquaman 2-like weekend.

Sam tries to ignore this while taking a breakfast meeting with the hottest writer in town, “The Kid.” The 20-something “Kid” is all the rage and boy is he eating up the attention. Which, of course, makes Sam’s breakfast with him insufferable. Less than five minutes into The Kid’s pitch for his next movie, Sam tells him to F-off. He’s too douchey for Sam to handle. As far as he’s concerned, Silverhead will never work with this guy.

But before Sam leaves, The Kid makes him take his latest screenplay, and informs him that he WILL read it. Sam throws it back at him and heads to work. Once there, we get bits and pieces about this Captain Queer movie, which stars a young actor named Rocky Jones, who the married Sam had a secret affair with during production. Now, he wants nothing to do with Rocky. ESPECIALLY with the movie underperforming.

When Sam finally makes it to his office, he’s shocked to find that The Kid’s script is waiting for him. Annoyed, he rears back to toss it in the garbage, but out of curiosity, reads the first few pages. And the first few pages include Sam as a character. In fact, the first ten pages are the exact same meeting, word for word, that he had with The Kid earlier.

Convinced this is a sick joke, Sam asks his assistant if she’s seen anything suspicious, only to be told that he doesn’t look okay. When Sam delves further into the script, he’s horrified to see that EVERYTHING that has happened so far in his day IS IN THIS SCRIPT. Determined to find out what’s going on, he barrels into the city to search for The Kid.

When he finally finds him, The Kid comes clean. Sam is not a real person. “What did you do before breakfast today?” The Kid asks him. Sam racks his brain. He can’t remember. “That’s because you didn’t exist before that breakfast. I created you.” Horrified, Sam’s brain starts spinning. That can’t possibly be true. But the further into the day he gets, and the more of the script he reads, he comes to the realization that he is, indeed, a figment of The Kid’s imagination. Which means that when this movie is over, Sam is over. Can Sam find a way out? Or is this the one Hollywood problem he won’t be able to solve?

These scripts always work best on readers who’ve never read them before – these meta “what’s real, what isn’t” living-in-a-movie-or-a-video-game-or-a-book screenplays. But I’ve read a lot of them. So my bar is higher than most. Taking everything into consideration, I thought Rosenbloom’s take was pretty good. But it’s clear that the writer isn’t aiming for “pretty good.” He’s aiming for great.

Here’s the catch with these scripts – once we get used to the gimmick, the script has to deliver on a plot and character level, aka, the same level any other script has to deliver on. Without being able to lean on the wacky meta x-factor to carry the reader’s interest, can the script still be entertaining?

I’ll say this: Rosenbloom gives it his best shot. He is trying to say something here, both with the character of Sam (a man who’s abandoned his family for his work) and with life itself (ya blink and it’s over). I’m just not sure it was presented in a way that changed the game for me. It walked right up to the line of profound but then stepped back and retreated. Yeah, when the movie cuts to black, his life is over… okay. But I’m still sitting there saying, “So what?” Who is Sam? He’s a workaholic borderline a-hole executive. There’s nothing likable about him. I don’t care if he dies.

That’s not to say there weren’t things to enjoy. I liked how the script lures you into a sense of normalcy with its real-time first act, only to then shock the heck out of you later on, when the story starts jump-cutting. When we go that breakfast meeting, drive to the studio, head into work, it’s all happening in real time. Therefore, when the CUTS start happening, they hit us hard. Sam is in his office one second and then – BAM – he’s at a party. For a movie, this is normal. But imagine being a person in a movie and jumping from scene to scene with nothing in between. It’d be terrifying. And that’s exactly what it is for Sam.

I also loved that opening scene. All it is is a ten page breakfast scene. But the dialogue is strong and Rosenbloom does a good job building the tension. It starts off so casual but then the importance of what’s happening becomes more and more evident and The Kid becomes this, almost, ethereal figure, as he imposes upon Sam to read his script at all costs. By the end of that scene, I wanted to keep reading.

Sam’s backstory also had some nice moments that intersected nicely with the plot. You had this movie that was tanking on its opening weekend. We then reveal that Sam was sleeping with the star. The star, who’s mentally unwell, is stalking Sam, begging to be in his next movie. He then kills himself which, ironically, pumps up interest in the movie. So now Captain Queer is going to be a hit. That kind of plotting isn’t easy to pull off in such a tight space but I thought Rosenbloom did it well.

I was also impressed by how Rosenbloom rode this line between criticizing and championing the industry. “Captain Queer” is obviously a dig at Hollywood’s obsession with wokeness. Yet Rosenbloom plays it straight (no pun intended). He never makes a big deal out of the ridiculousness of the film’s subject matter.

They say to never write a script about the industry. I have an addendum to that. Never write a script about the industry UNLESS YOU’RE IN THE INDUSTRY. Because if you’re in the industry, you can inject the requisite specificity required to sell this world. I don’t know anything about Jordan Rosenbloom but I’d be surprised if he didn’t work in the industry in some capacity. There’s enough specificity here that I believed in his world.

I still think if you’re going to dip your toes into the fourth-wall-breaking meta movie-verse, your entry point should be “Wes Craven’s New Nightmare.” That’s the best I’ve seen tackle this subject matter. But I’ve never seen anyone master it. It’s insanely hard. Still, Spoiler does a decent job.

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

What I learned: It’s easy for these meta concepts to go off the rails. So I always recommend containing the story in as many other ways as possible. That way, even though you have this meta-weirdness going on, it’s still easy for the reader to keep up with the plot. That’s exactly what Rosenbloom does here by restricting this timeline to a single day (with a minor caveat at the end). By keeping everything in the here and now, it makes the weirdness easier to navigate.

How did one of my most anticipated films of the year hold up to all that expectation??

Genre: War/Drama/Period
Premise: A wealthy German family goes about their daily lives living several feet away from the Auschwitz concentration camp during World War 2.
About: This film won the esteemed Grand Prix at the Cannes film festival. Director Jonathan Glazer wanted things to feel so realistic in his film that he set up 10 cameras throughout the home his characters lived in and would do 90 minute takes where the characters would just walk around the house and improvise lines.
Writer: Jonathan Glazer (based on the novel by Martin Amis)
Details: 1 hour and 45 minutes (feels like 5 hours and 45 minutes)

It’s the holiday season.

What better way to celebrate than with a Holocaust movie!?

I’ve been looking forward to this film ever since I heard about it. The premise was so unique. A family living happy unburdened lives several feet from the most death-centric piece of land in human history. The irony was irresistible. People have called it the best horror film of the year.

Well, I checked it out this weekend and, long story short, I’d imagine some forms of heart surgery are more enjoyable than this piece of cinematic torture. I’m canceling the French for endorsing this.

But I’m not going to spend the entire review ripping on it because nobody here is going to see it so what would be the point? Instead, I want to use the film to remind screenwriters of a handful of key screenwriting tips. Because The Zone of Interest is what happens when you ignore the power of good storytelling.

I was debating whether to even write a synopsis for the film since so little happens. But for the sake of context, we follow a family (a father, a mother, and their four young children) who literally live right up against the Auschwitz wall. It turns out that the father is the head administrator of Auschwitz.

The movie follows them through their mundane daily activities, eating or playing in the backyard. The father, Rudolf, who, oddly, is the nicest person in the family, is stressed out by the burden of running his camp. Later in the movie, orders come down to transfer him to another camp. His family stays at the house, though. The climax is Rudolf learning that they need him back at Auschwitz, allowing him to reunite with his family.

By the way, I’m being SUUUUUUUPER generous by making that sound like an actual story. Everything that happens in the script does so randomly. There’s no design behind anything. It’s as if writer Jonathan Glazer threw darts at a dart board for which scenes to write next.

Screenwriting Tip #1: The novelty of your concept runs out quickly. Have a plan for what follows.

The film’s best attribute is the horror that’s happening off screen. We hear the screams. We hear the cries. We hear the gunshots. We see the smoke coming out of the incinerators.

The problem is, the novelty wears off quickly. We get the message in the first ten minutes. With that not working for your movie anymore, what’s your plan to keep us invested? You didn’t have one. You were hoping the off-screen horror would do the lion’s share of the work.

This issue is true for every screenplay. The reader comes for the concept. But the novelty of the concept gets old quickly. Which means you have to come up with an entertaining plot. You have to create compelling characters we want to follow. You have to tell a good story. You can’t rely solely on the concept that got the audience in the door.

Otherwise, make a short film. Which is what Zone of Interest should’ve been.

Screenwriting Tip #2 – Subtlety does not make your script deeper. It makes it more confusing.

The big mistake so many drama writers make is that in their determination to avoid being on-the-nose, they go in the opposite direction and make everything super subtle. These writers then seem surprised when audiences miss key story beats or character motivations.

Rudolf spends the majority of this movie staring off into the distance looking stressed. While Glazer may know what Rudolf’s thinking, how the heck are we supposed to know? Are we mind-readers? This is the problem with being too subtle. We have to guess Rudolf’s thoughts, which means we’re deviating from your, the writer’s, intent.

Is Rudolf scared? Does he feel bad about what he’s doing? Does he want to keep rising in the German ranks? Or is he satisfied with where he stands? We never know ANYTHING because Rudolf never speaks to other characters about how he feels.

Rudolf is just one example of the excessive subtlety in the film. One of the maids may be Jewish. There are subtle hints that this is the case. But we’re never certain. We don’t know if she’s Jewish but pretending not to be. Or if she’s Jewish and the family is aware but letting her work anyway?

Note how either of those scenarios are fertile ground to explore drama. But Glazer ignores both. That’s a running theme throughout this movie. There were so many opportunities to make this a compelling story that were ignored in favor of vagaries and subtleties.

Be clear about things when you’re storytelling. There are times when you want to be subtle, yes. But subtlety only works if we are clear about everything else surrounding the subtlety.

Screenwriting Tip #3 – Put some stakes behind your big plot points.

A major plot point only works if there are stakes supporting it. The lone plot point in this movie is that Rudolf gets transferred. But there are zero stakes attached to it other than he’s going to be traveling away from his family. In a movie about the holocaust, the audience isn’t going to care that the main character is inconvenienced. You need real stakes built into that plot point for it to be effective.

Maybe Rudolf made some major blunder at work, screwing something up enough that it’s being reported to Hitler. The implication is that, if Hitler feels the mistake is bad enough, Rudolf could lose everything. He and his family would be removed from this cushy lifestyle and relocated to some ghetto. You would then play that suspense out over 30-40 minutes. He’s waiting on that decision from Hitler that’s going to determine the rest of his life. That one single change would’ve made this movie five times as interesting.

Without stakes, plot points are lip service. They make it seem like something is happening but the audience doesn’t care because there are no repercussions.

Screenwriting Tip #4 – It’s cause and effect, not effect and cause

This seems obvious to me but I guess Glazer never got the memo. You need to show the cause first AND THEN THE EFFECT. Not vice versa.

A little after the midpoint, Rudolf goes in for a checkup from the doctor. The doctor gives him a basic exam to make sure everything is in order. Then, later on in the film, Rudolf is walking through a building, doubles over, and starts having intense vomiting episodes. It comes out of nowhere (more vagueness instead of clarity). The movie ends quickly afterward.

Consider how much better for the story this would’ve been if they’d shown the vomiting (the cause) first. Now you can draw out the suspense. Does he have a disease? Now that same doctor’s visit (the effect) has more meaning to it. They could find out he’s really sick.

This is Drama 101 but it wasn’t until I saw this movie that I realized some people are so ignorant when it comes to storytelling that they don’t understand the most basic tenets of the trade.

Screenwriting Tip #5 – It’s not “All or Nothing.”

Too many writers think that when they’re writing big Hollywood movies, they should be as big and surface-level as possible all the time. The same problem happens with indie writers. They’re so terrified of betraying their indie sensibilities, they won’t give you a single entertaining plot development in the screenplay.

It’s okay to add thoughtful character development to big blockbuster scripts just as it’s okay to write in entertaining plot developments into your holocaust film. It’s never all or nothing.

In retrospect, I should’ve known The Zone of Interest would be bad. Jonathan Glazer is so artsy, even indie directors find his films pretentious.

Still, I’m left with a longing for what could’ve been. There were so many interesting ways for this story to go. For example, the longer the story goes on, the more we like Rudolf. There’s something borderline sweet about him we connect to. Meanwhile, the wife, Hedwig, becomes less and less likable as the story continues, at one point lashing out at one of the maids by saying her husband could have her ashes scattered all over Auschwitz by tomorrow.

That could’ve been an interesting character study had Glazer committed to it. We think that Rudolf is the monster. But we learn, over time, that Hedwig is the true monster. She’s the one steering the ship from behind the scenes.

Alas, Glazer doesn’t have a single writing bone in his body. It’s too bad. Cause this film could’ve won numerous Oscars if he did.

[x] What the hell did I just watch?
[ ] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the price of admission
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: While audiences do enjoy doing *some work* in a movie, they don’t enjoy doing *all the work*. If you don’t tell us anything about the characters, if you don’t give us any interesting plot developments, if every scene is too subtle to decode, and you’re hoping we, the audience, will put all that together and come up with some profound feeling about your film for you, you’ve failed. That’s not our job. You have to do the majority of the work as the creator to get us to feel something.

Clementine script review with some added insight from the writer!

Genre: Thriller
Premise: (from Black List) Set in real time, a Colombian mother barely escapes a pawn shop shootout and goes on the run from her violent ex-husband, a terrifying mob boss, and a bloodthirsty hitwoman sent to collect an overdue debt, all while trying to keep her diabetic daughter safe.
About: It’s finally here! Boy, I sure do know how to draw out the suspense. Longtime Scriptshadow reader and fave commenter David L. Williams, a man who put his nose to the screenwriting grindstone and worked and worked and worked, completing screenplay after screenplay, finally had it all pay off last year when he made the Black List, earning a highly respectable 12 votes.
Writer: David L. Williams
Details: 91 pages

Alexa Demi from Euphoria would kill this role! No pun intended!

Before we get to the review, which was posted in my newsletter (why aren’t you signed up for my newsletter: carsonreeves1@gmail.com), I wanted to share with you a quick discussion I had with the writer…

Carson: What’s happening with this script currently, David? Who’s going to play the lead role?

David: We have the actress (plus director and financiers). She isn’t well-known but she’s rising and FANTASTIC, and was the director’s first choice. They have it budgeted out to shoot in Miami and Colombia for $10M. The strikes obviously delayed m… everything haha. But they’re still aiming to shoot in or by summer.

Carson: Did you query agents with this script or another one?  Is Clementine how you got repped?

David: So back in 2021 my best friend, Jason Gruich (Cop Cam), and I were both drunk one night and decided to burn cash on evaluations on the Black List *website*. Two days later, Clementine got a 9 out of 10 overall, plus a subsequent 8/10. I kind of hustled that: sent a few queries, told some industry people that I already knew (including reps/execs), and some reps reached out to me via the BL website, my email, and on Twitter (because it was popular on Twitter). I met Mitchell Bendersky at Gramercy Park. Could have gone somewhere bigger, but he’s the most amazing fit that it’s not even funny. He and I are best friends now.

David on left.  Jason Gruich (Cop Cam) on right.

As for agents (Verve), I had a general with a studio exec and he sent that (plus another script he loved that I wrote) to a coordinator there and they flipped. My manager wanted me repped there too, but the exec beat him to it. Lol. Neither of us asked him to. A month later I had a meeting at Verve’s offices and walked out repped.

Carson: So your manager and agent got together and started sending it around to production houses and/or directors?  Is that how the package came together?

David: So I was an Austin Film Fest semi-finalist in 2021 for a pilot and met a finance exec from CAA at a roundtable. I was the only person she reached out to after the fest, but she had initially passed on even reading Clementine and read something else instead (she liked that other concept more). But after I got a 9 on the BL website, she read Clementine and wanted to package it asap. I wasn’t repped with her, she just wanted to take it out. She and my manager took it out the first week of Jan 2022 and that Friday we got an offer for an option. So it actually got picked up BEFORE I officially got agents. My agents came in June, and got me a ton of pitch meetings and more generals. They also rep the company that optioned it. That CAA exec is now an exec at Beck/Woods.

Fun fact. We met our director because he read it off the official annual Black List. He’s Colombian and it really connected with him — he had his reps (ironically CAA) send a really emotional letter to the prod/co. He’s attached to a bunch of cool stuff but we sense that this is like his passion project. And we’re extremely lucky he came to us after we’d already met a bunch of directors.

Carson: You wrote a lot of scripts before Clementine.  Why do you think Clementine was the script that broke you through? What was your mindset when writing Clementine compared to your mindset when you first started writing scripts?

David: Well, the idea hit me like a truck while I was reading a different script, and I started writing immediately, like within an hour. I think there are different ways to hook someone; outside of concept, it can also be presentation and intent. In this case, this isn’t a high concept, but there aren’t a lot of movies that take place real-time and won’t allow you to breathe, and for me and people I’ve met, that was an X-factor.

By the end of that day I had the first act written. The whole script was done in a week. No outline. Haha. What you read is actually the second draft, and it hasn’t changed since 2021. No one has wanted to change anything.

As for what’s different between this and other scripts of mine, while I’m not even sure if it’s my best script, I think it’s the least deniable, if that makes sense. Sometimes in movies like this I think it’s considered great when the protagonist doesn’t have a choice. We love to see what kind of choices characters make, but sometimes it’s more entertaining when the character is faced with “Do this your daughter dies. Period.” I think it has the most clarity and urgency which really does a lot here. I was constantly surprised as the story came to me and I think that comes through.

For example (spoiler) while writing the script, I had no intention of bringing Clementine back after she dies. I was prepared to make it Sicaria’s story. I think that’s what makes it feel so real. While writing it, I literally didn’t think she’d come back.

Carson: Any advice you’d give aspiring writers for getting representation or getting on the Official Black List?

David: When you reach a level where you’re consistently getting little to no notes, and people are flipping for it, send it everywhere that seems legit, as much as humanly possible. And when people inevitably want to meet you, being fun and pleasant go a loooong way. Those are the things that make people wanna be your friend and/or see you succeed: a great script written by a dope person.

Carson: Couldn’t agree more with that answer.  Okay, so what’s next for you?

David: It’s a character-driven sci-fi/drama, vastly different from Clementine, called “Intergalactic.” After Orion’s Belt is destroyed in the night sky, an emotionally unstable teenager attempts to prove to a lonesome astronomer that the event was caused by his ability to move objects in outer space.

Carson: Well I’m rooting for you and I’m sure everyone else here is as well.  Okay, on to the original review from the newsletter!

******************************

I’m not going to pretend like I haven’t been nervous to review this script. David’s such a cool positive guy that I got scared! I didn’t want to rain on his achievement with a bad review should I not enjoy Clementine.

But it’s almost the end of the year and I have to write up my Black List re-ranking post soon which meant I couldn’t avoid it any longer. I had to read Clementine and I had to hope, with all hope, that I loved it. Cause I want David to go far in this business.

We meet 25 year old Clementine as she robs a Pawn Shop with her buddy Disco, and another dude. What we’re going to find out soon is that Clementine owes a nasty guy named Martin 100 grand because she stole from him to get her daughter, Sandy, heart-saving surgery. Sandy is a diabetic and suffers from a lot of health issues as a result.

But the pawn shop robbery goes sideways and Disco and Jake are 86’d. Clementine gets away, but not with the money. It doesn’t take long for Martin to call her and tell her what she already knows. That was her last shot. Now she and her kid are dead meat.

Clementine races home to get Sandy before Martin does and barely beats out Martin’s head assassin, a ruthless scar-faced female killer named Sicaria. Clementine hurries Sandy off to an abandoned warehouse but you knew it wasn’t going to be long before Sicaria found her (big spoilers follow).

Clementine fights Sicaria with everything she’s got but Sicaria is strong and kills Clementine. That’s right. She kills her! Now, we stay with Sicaria, who decides to bring Sandy back to Martin. Afterward, she gets a strange call from her personal cleaner. The cleaner says there’s no female dead body at the warehouse.

Guess who’s coming to dinner, Sicaria. The second time around, Clementine wins. But her daughter is still with Martin. This means Clementine is going to have to go into the belly of the most well-guarded beast in all the city to get Sandy back. Luckily, she’s got the AK-47 Sicaria left behind to help her. Will she succeed? With this script, I can honestly tell you, you’ll never guess.

(Big spoilers follow)

So the scenario I was most afraid of was that the script was going to hover inside of that “not for me” “worth the read” middle ground and I would be put in this position of saying it was “worth the read” even though in my heart it was “wasn’t for me” and you guys would all pick up on it and you would say, “Carson, you’re just giving this a worth the read cause you know David and you wouldn’t give that score if it was a random writer.”

Well here’s some great news: WE DON’T NEED TO WORRY ABOUT THAT.

Cause this script was awesome.

I’m not just saying that. It was really freaking awesome. I’m talking, it will definitely finish in the Top 5 of my Black List Re-Ranking post.

The script is just freaking RELENTLESS.

Something I’m always telling writers is to make things as difficult as possible on your protagonist. Well, David decided that that wasn’t enough. He needed to multiply the words “hard as possible” by a billion.

I can’t remember the last time a script made its hero work so hard. Wow.

I mean, at one point, we kill her! How much harder on your hero does it get??

The opening is a bit overwritten. I didn’t like when David juiced up his prose to sort of break the fourth wall at times. But it was a heart-stopping opening sequence nonetheless. I fucking felt like I was IN THAT PAWN SHOP. Wow. And I’m swearing because it was that intense.

You know what this script made me think of? Remember that script, “Mother,” that went on to star J. Lo on Netflix? There were so many things wrong with that script. This script fixes all of that. This should’ve been the script they picked. Cause Clementine is Mother of the Century with what she has to go through.

A lot of times I’ll give an “impressive” and writers will ask me why this script got an impressive as opposed to other scripts. That answer is easy as pie with “Clementine.” Everything in this script moves like lightning and is as intense as an African safari with no jeeps. But two moments stuck out in particular.

The first is when Clementine is “killed.” I thought she was really dead. And kudos to David for not doing the age-old “psyche out” where she jumps back up at the last second and keeps fighting. No, David commits so hard to the death of the main character that we then follow Sicaria for the next 15 minutes! This made Clementine’s reemergence a gangster twist that blew the doors off my reading Tahoe.
So that was the first one.

The second one was the ending. The ending in this movie is freaking insane! Cause David stuck to that rule of “make things as hard on the hero as possible” and he made sure that, because it was the climax, he made it even harder.

I had no idea what was going to happen. I loved how Clementine grabbed Martin’s son. Because, usually, in any other script, this is a cheap move. But here, it makes total sense. You jacked my kid. I’m jacking yours. You made up these rules. Not me. So it worked perfectly.

But even beyond that, it added an extra variable to the ending where you’re not just asking, “Will Clementine and Sandy get away?” You’re wondering what’s going to happen to this other kid. In any other script, I would’ve known he was safe. But in this script, a woman tried to kill another child. And our main character died for a while! This is exactly where you want your reader. You want them having no idea what you’re going to do and that’s exactly where David had me.

So then, Clementine clears Martin’s home fence with her car, somehow, impossibly, getting past all his guards and him, AND THEN A COP STOPS HER!!! It’s like, “David! You’re killing me, man!” I so wanted her to escape but now this cop stops her. Martin’s son is trying to get out of the car. The cop is threatening to shoot anyone who gets out of the car. Martin’s men are coming from behind. They’re going to catch up to Clementine if she doesn’t find a way out of this cop situation. Then ANOTHER COP comes up and blocks her car….

I mean… dude. David. You win. You – freaking -win. That was some great writing there. This is going to be an awesome movie. I’m so proud of David. GOOD JOB!!!! And now you can read it too. I guarantee you’ll agree with me. :)

Script link: Clementine

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

What I learned: When it comes to backstory/exposition, avoid your hero dishing out their own backstory. Instead, look to have other characters tell your character their backstory. I know that sounds backward, but I’m telling you, it works a million times better. So here, when Clementine first calls Martin to plead for mercy, she starts to talk about her daughter. But, instead of David having her finish, he has Martin give Clementine her own backstory. Clementine (crying): “My… daughter’s—“ Martin: I know your daughter’s sick to hell. I know about the divorce you can’t handle. Your papers. I have your shit memorized.” We get some quick backstory there about Clementine and we don’t realize it at all because it comes from another character. There were tons of other little screenwriting ninja star throws that hit their mark like this. David hasn’t just been reading Scriptshadow. He’s been taking notes!

Genre: Contained Thriller
Premise: A young diver heads deep into the ocean to try and retrieve his diver-father’s remains but in the process gets swallowed up by a whale and has the time it takes for his air to run out (roughly 2 hours) to escape.
About: The rights to this novel sold to Imagine Entertainment (Ron Howard) earlier this year. Novelist Daniel Kraus is best known for writing the novelization of “The Shape of Water,” which would go on to win Best Film, after helping del Toro come up with the original concept for his movie. Kraus has a keen eye for picking ideas that both have a level of depth to them but also contain the marketable elements that Hollywood likes. Maybe the coolest thing he did was, after George Romero’s death, completed his unfinished zombie book, “The Living Dead.”
Writer: Daniel Kraus
Details: about 50,000 words (roughly half of most novels)

When I first saw this sale, I thought, “This is the kind of project that would’ve sold as a spec script back in 2004.” It has that “strange attractor” (a man being swallowed by a whale with only 2 hours of air). It fits inside a cost-efficient marketable genre – contained thriller. And it’s not like anything else out there. It’s almost like the Gen-Z version of Moby Dick.

But, unfortunately, these days, if you want to sell something like this, you gotta write it as a book or a short story (ironically, “Whalefall” is both).

The book poses a unique adaptation challenge in that, despite this being a wacky idea, the setting is decidedly tame – we’re inside a stomach the whole movie. I like to place myself in the producer’s stomach for purchases like this and try and figure out what their plan is. Do they stay true to the contained nature of the story and keep it in the whale’s stomach the entire time? Or do they take advantage of the illustrious and unique setting, occasionally taking us outside the whale?

Jay is 17 years old when he loses his father, Mitt. But don’t feel bad for Jay. Jay haaaaaaaaat-ed his father. His dad was a diver and a drunk. He was one of those crusty opinionated dudes who was friends with everyone but would also get into a fight with those friends at the drop of a hat. And he wasn’t a good father. The few times he did pay attention to Jay, it was usually to scold him for being girly or weak.

Mitt got cancer and, instead of fighting it to the bitter end, he took a trip out to where he felt most comfortable – the sea – and simply plunged off the back of the boat, sinking to his demise.

For reasons Jay isn’t even sure of, he decides that he’s going to dive into that same area and retrieve his father’s remains. Jay is not as good of a diver as his dad. But because his dad forced him into so many dives as a kid, he’s good enough. So away he goes, with about 2 hours of air, all by himself. Not advised, by the way.

Not long after he starts diving, Jay sees a fantastical sight. A sperm whale attacks a giant squid! The sperm whale only has one animal it is predator to and that is the giant squid. The squid tries to get away and, in the process, grabs onto Jay. The whale then eats the squid and, with it, Jay.

Jay soon finds himself in one of the whale’s three stomachs. Luckily, the squid gets sucked into another stomach. But it leaves a trail of bioluminescence, which lights up the stomach he’s in. Thank god cause I don’t know how they were going to light this movie otherwise (quick movie fact: The flashlights in Titanic were the sole historically inaccurate element but James Cameron used them because there was no other way he could think of to light the final rescue scene).

As the whale dives deeper into the ocean, Jay must figure out how he’s going to get out of here before his air runs out. Along the way, he develops a close bond with the whale, who is dying himself. Jay begins to see some similarities between the whale and his father, which will allow him, should he not survive this, to at least find closure with his father.

I gotta say: this was one weird book!

For starters, every chapter was 1 and a half pages. I’m not sure I’ve ever read a book with chapters that short. It made for a faster read (almost like a screenplay) but it led to an unfamiliar rhythm that I had trouble adjusting to.

One thing I liked, though, was it placed the amount of air (psi) at the top of every chapter. So it starts out as “3000” and then, with each successive chapter, it goes down. So we know exactly how much air he had left.

I bring that up because sometimes writers will assume that the reader knows things that they don’t know. I’ve read versions of stories like this where the writer didn’t give any indication at all of how much air was left, clearly assuming we knew. So you wouldn’t know if the character was totally safe or at the precipice of dying. I always have to remind writers: “If you don’t tell us, we won’t know.” All the better if you tell us in a creative way, which Kraus does.

Kraus also knows he’s battling his own whale here in that the location is limited. So almost every other chapter is a flashback to some moment in Jay and Mitt’s life. There isn’t any real story to these flashbacks. They’re just meant to fill us in – hopefully create a better understanding of their relationship so that we care more about it being resolved.

The author additionally understands that, even in book form, where it’s easier to ignore dialogue, that he needs some sort of interaction in the stomach. So he creates the voice of the whale, who starts talking to Jay. The whale is the most interesting character in the book. There was something very sad about the fact that it was dying and knew it.

That connection Kraus builds between us and the whale helps lead to the book’s best scene, when a group of orcas attack the whale. They know it’s old. They know it’s dying. So they go after it. But we never see it. We only hear it from Jay’s point-of-view. And then, what happens, is this really cool rescue operation by a group of other whales.

Unfortunately, outside of that great scene (and the initial whale-squid attack scene), there isn’t a whole lot here. I’m not even sure if the setup makes sense. First, you establish that this kid hated his dad. So why does he want to find his remains? And second, what are the chances of diving into the ocean and finding the remains of your father? 1 in 500 million?  That never made sense to me.

Kraus is clearly searching for this deeper emotional connection between Jay, Mitt’s death, and the whale, but, if I’m being honest, it’s hackneyed. At first, the whale starts talking to Jay. But then, the implication is that it’s not really the whale who’s talking. It’s Mitt. But then there are clearly times where it’s the whale again. It all just felt very convenient. It was Mitt when the author needed it to be. It was the whale when he needed it to be. Readers and audiences don’t respond well to writing conveniences. It may make your writing easier. But it almost always makes the story worse.

Kraus also tries to shove in an environmental theme. It was actually interesting learning about how much plastic whales inhale because of all the litter in the ocean. But we’re already focused on this whole other storyline so it didn’t feel organic at all and seemed to support the idea that Kraus was never really sure what he was writing about.

We all have this issue in the early drafts of our scripts. You’re not quite sure what your screenplay is about yet so you add a bunch of ideas and a bunch of themes. But that’s what rewrites are for, to weed out the stuff that is no longer relevant. I suspect that because this novel is so short as is that Kraus didn’t have the option to get rid of the environmental stuff because he couldn’t afford to.  It would’ve made a miniature novel even shorter.

Regardless of the fact that I didn’t love the execution here, I’m still intrigued to see what they do with the movie. It’s too unique of an idea for me not to be curious. Best case scenario, we could be looking at the next Life of Pi, which was a good movie.

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

What I learned: You have a couple of options when you do the death of a loved one in a story. Option 1 is that they really loved each other. Option 2 is that they had a contentious relationship. In my experience, option 2 is the better way to go, as was the case in this book. For whatever reason, if your two characters loved each other, it feels too much like a love-fest and therefore inauthentic, potentially even melodramatic. Whereas, if there was contentiousness between them, it feels more like real life. Also, there are more complex emotions involved in option 2, which tends to make the character who matters (our protagonist) more interesting. If our hero loved the person who died with all their heart, and that person loved them, then it’s just straight sad. There’s not a whole lot to do with “straight sad.”  I’ve seen option 1 work well for secondary characters, like Sean in Good Will Hunting. But not with primary characters.

What a weekend!

If there’s anything I learned, it’s that not even the best logline consultant in Hollywood can compete with a brain-trust of 100+ screenwriters. You guys killed it. I personally liked Katie’s…

A repressed war widow awakens naked in the snow on a military black site and must outwit her ruthless father’s vengeful soldiers when she realizes the carnivorous feline they are hunting is her.

And DG Burton’s best…

A repressed young widow awakens naked in the snow on a military black site and discovers soldiers have been torn apart, she has no memories of last night, and she’s being hunted by the Marines’ most ruthless general – her father.

Now if you could just come up with a logline to erase daylights savings time, I would pay all the money in the world to see that movie succeed! You certainly did better than the movies at this weekend’s box office. This was supposed to be the big Dune 2 opening weekend but the film, like many others, got pushed back because of the actors strike.

It’s so hard to promote a big movie when your stars can’t get out there and make headlines for you. I enjoy the backup plan – sending directors and writers out there – because literally everything they say is more interesting than what actors say. But you can’t deny the fact that, without actors to remind us that their movies are opening, the movies don’t seem as big.

Speaking of someone who’s a writer, director, AND an actor, Sly Stallone has been in the news a lot, with his docu-series premiering on Netflix. What’s interesting about Sly is that he should be one of the richest people in Hollywood. And yet the rumor is, he’s out of money. That’s why he agreed to this docu-series. It’s why he has that Kardashian like show about his family on Paramount Plus. The guy is hustling.

Most of this stems from the fact that he doesn’t own a single sliver of the Rocky franchise. You can’t really fault him for that. He notoriously stood strong when he made that Rocky deal, insisting that he be the star. Which, if he didn’t do, there’s a good chance we wouldn’t know who Sylvester Stallone was today. But he mistakenly didn’t obtain any of the rights to the film, which means he hasn’t gotten paid a single dime outside of his acting fee from the billion dollar franchise.

Still, the dude has 75+ IMDB credits. How are you struggling to pay your bills?? Seems like there’s some serious money mismanagement there.

The reason I wanted to bring up Stallone is that he recently revealed that his first draft of Rocky had a different kind of Rocky. Rocky was a brute. Rocky was a tough guy. Rocky beat you up and didn’t feel bad about it. It wasn’t until a lady friend of his read the script and cried to him that she hated Rocky because of how mean he was, that Stallone decided to change the character into the more lovable iconic character we know today.

His very first change, which was actually suggested by the friend, was that instead of beating up the guy who couldn’t pay his loan, he let him go. The guy even offers Rocky his coat to help pay but Rocky lets him keep it. From there, Stallone just paid more attention to how Rocky acted. He wanted him to be sweeter instead of meaner. As a result, an iconic character was created.

I wanted to highlight this because there’s this erroneous belief that you win “screenwriting street cred” by creating an unlikable character. But in this case, it is literally the thing that would’ve sent this movie down a path where we never would’ve heard of it, versus what it became, which is a billion dollar franchise.

And when we talk about likability, it doesn’t have to be like in Adam Sandler movies where the ten-cent screenwriters he uses have his character save 20 lives before he’s even reached the inciting incident to MAKE ABSOLUTELY SURE you love him. With Rocky, he’s just an understated nice guy who cares about people. He’s not over the top about it. That’s just who he is.

Remember that going forward. You don’t need to have your character save the world for us to like him. He can just be nice! It’s not complicated.

Shifting focus from the movie world over to the TV world, I stumbled upon the latest trailer for a Marvel TV show. It’s a show called, “Echo.” Before I get into my thoughts on the trailer, I know one of the writers on Echo (who’s an AWESOME writer by the way – one of my favorite unknown writers out there). I am not blaming him or any other writer who gets hired to write a Marvel show. I would cash that same check in a heartbeat.

My problem is more with the state of TV in general. Cause when I saw this trailer, I didn’t feel anything. There’s a woman. She had a tough childhood. Now she’s some sort of fighter as an adult. There’s an intensity behind the presentation of her story and it looks totally fine. There’s nothing wrong with this show at all. But it doesn’t stand out in any way. It doesn’t MAKE ME WANT TO WATCH IT.

Echo is a symbol for where the TV industry is today. We’ve gotten to the point where it’s nearly impossible to stand out from the pack. If Marvel, which can afford to put 100 million dollars behind a show like this, can’t get anyone excited about watching it, where are we? We are in the most saturated TV market ever where every show feels the same in the sense that there’s nothing exceptional enough that you actually label it a must-watch.

This begs the question: How do you write a TV pilot in 2023 that stands out? Is it even possible?

As far as I can tell, there are several show-types that get interest. The most prominent are the IP shows that have passionate fan bases. I’m talking Wednesday on Netflix or The Last of Us on HBO. These are useless to aspiring screenwriters, though, because we don’t have access to those properties.

Then you have the high-concept stuff, like Squid Game, Yellow Jackets, or Stranger Things. These are super-expensive but, if you can come up with one, they’re great because they’re the only ideas that can compete with those IP properties. Unfortunately, their cost scares a lot of potential suitors away.

And, finally, you have the word-of-mouth shows, the shows that become hits because of how incredibly well-written they are. I’m talking about the White Lotuses, the Successions, and the Bears. Unfortunately, it’s impossible to strategize around writing one of the greatest shows ever. So it’s yet another arrow we can’t add to our quiver.

But there is one final category which, I believe, is the one that best gives an aspiring screenwriter a shot at writing a show that stands out. And I call it, “The Voice Show.” No, I’m not talking about spinning chairs and overly charming country singers and golden tickets. I’m talking about a show that demonstrates your unique voice. Some recent examples would be Fleabag, Euphoria, Atlanta, Severance, and Beef.

There’s something unmistakably unique when you read these pilots and it’s not as difficult to pull off as you may think. Having a distinctive voice boils down to identifying what it is about how you see the world that’s unique and leaning into that as aggressively as possible. If I’m a Korean-American man who suffers from anger issues, that’s a great starting point for leaning into my voice. Which is how “Beef” was conceived. That show is less about the story than it is about its creator. And how that creator, Lee Sung Jin, sees the world.

The second ingredient to writing one of these shows is to be weird. To be awkward. It’s fine to cover your everyday existence in these shows. You just can’t do it in an expected fashion. Every interaction Fleabag gets into in her show is awkward. There’s one point where she’s in a job interview and inadvertently propositions the interviewer, then is forced to backtrack. We’re all weirdos deep down. We have weird thoughts. We get in weird situations. LEAN INTO THAT WEIRD. That’s how you’re going to make your pages read different from everyone else’s.

The third ingredient to these shows is to take from your own life. You should be using your own life to power all of your writing, of course. But it’s especially important in this type of script because one of the easiest ways to stand out is to chronicle things that nobody else has seen before. And since your unique experiences contain a myriad of specific moments, you want to mine those moments as much as possible. In Fleabag, that heartbreaking Phoebe Waller-Bridge miscarriage dinner with her sister was, supposedly, based on real life with someone she knew.

The final ingredient to writing these shows is to be achingly truthful. When you’re writing big Hollywood movies, you’re often a slave to the plot. You have to have that big twist at the midpoint for example, so you dance around in your mind for a few days until you come up with that twist. You don’t do that here. You lean into the truth. If a character in the throes of drug addiction is confronted by her friends and family, you better have that drug-addicted character act truthfully. That approach led to one of the best episodes of Euphoria when Rue was confronted and she did what any addict would do in that moment. She RAN.

There has to be an element of rawness and realness on the page to truly stand out from the pack. And, unlike movies, which work better within the construct of sexy concepts, TV is more about character and, therefore, more conducive to this sort of writing. By the way, I’m not saying you can’t succeed by writing the next CSI or the next Stranger Things. All I’m saying is that if you want to write something that has the best chance at standing out from all the other scripts that these production houses and studios read? The Voice Script is the number one way to go.

Do you have one in you?