Genre: Thriller/Horror
Premise: After suffering a devastating miscarriage, a young woman and her fiancé travel to Italy where she meets his family for the first time, but her grief turns to shock when the local doctor declares that she’s still pregnant.
About: This scored 10 votes on the latest Black List. Writer Christina Hodson still doesn’t have a produced credit, but the former development executive turned screenwriter is churning out lots of product in the hopes of getting there. She wrote previous Black List script, “Shut In” (a creepy script about a woman who must take care of her catatonic son), is adapting the thriller, “Unfogettable,” (about a man whose new wife is being harassed by his ex-wife) and also adapted the novel “Good People,” with James Franco starring (about a couple in debt due to expensive fertility treatments, who stumble across a solution when they find money in a deceased tenant’s apartment). Hodson making the Black List has been pointed out by some to be a rarity, after it was revealed that only 20% of the Black Lists selections are from female writers. While many declare this cause for alarm, when this very topic was brought up during Ladies Week on Scriptshadow, a commenter pointed out that if you go by the number of females who comment on Scriptshadow (few), any disparity in the male-female screenwriting community shouldn’t be surprising at all. If there aren’t that many female writers participating in the screenwriting community, why would it be surprising that they make up a small percentage of said community? This is a debate that will continue on until someone figures out the actual percentage of female writers pursuing screenwriting. Only then will we know if 20% on the Black List is a disproportionately low number.
Writer: Christina Hodson
Details: 96 pages
Winter’s Tale tagline: It’s 1846! No, it’s 2014! My horse can fly! Love is forever!
There is a new phenomenon sweeping the entertainment industry that’s making Gangnam Style look like Flappy Bird. It’s called Winter’s Tale! The runaway sweeping fairytale-slash-romance-slash-time-travel-slash-immortality flick from Akiva Goldsman killed it at the box office, finishing number 5 for the weekend. So many people have gone to see Winter’s Tale, they now have a name for those who have seen it five times or more (Winter’s Tailies). I’ve only seen the movie twice myself but I can confirm it’s every bit as heart-wrenching and mind-bending and utterly-baffling-that-someone-decided-to-make-it-ing, as has been rumored. The character-naming alone is downright historic. I mean, who hasn’t dreamed of naming their characters stuff like “Pearly Soames”? Or “Dingy Worthington”? Or “Cecil Mature”?
Oh! And guess who makes a cameo in the film! (Close your eyes if you’re going out to watch the movie this week and don’t want to know). None other than Jaden Smith’s dad! No word on who he plays, but estimates are on the flying unicorn that’s become so popular in the trailer. Whatever the case, you have to wonder what kind of dirt Akiva Goldsman had on Mr. Smith, Colin Farrell, and Russell Crowe to force them to be in this movie. Clearly something unsavory is going on here.
And if we’re being honest about unsavoriness, I have to admit I haven’t actually seen the film. Sadly, I am not three viewings away from being a Winter’s Tailie. So that was a lie. But a good lie. Because, I mean, come on. There’s no way this movie can be good. In fact, I’m convinced it was made by accident. Some editor in the Warner Brothers’ editing room has been randomly splicing together outtakes from the last 20 years’ worth of Warner Brother’s films and during the recent regime change, someone assumed that the finished product was a film they were releasing. That’s the only excuse for this film being released, right?
So how does all this factor into today’s script review? Well, Seed looks to be inspired by the classic Roman Polanski film, Rosemary’s Baby. Which was, of course, about a woman who has the devil growing inside of her. And since hell would freeze over before anyone were to go see Winter’s Tale, I figured they were a perfect fit to blog about.
Seed introduces us to a chick named Leila. Leila is 29, and one of those lucky gals who was able to snag a hot Italian guy. And she didn’t even have to use Tindr to do it. Tomaso, 33, is a hunk and a half, prime-rib Valentine’s Day meat, you might say, and head over heels in love with Leila. What he’s not in love with, though, is his past. Tomaso had such a bad experience back in his home-country, Italy, that he’s never gone back.
Unfortunately, Tomaso’s father is dying and the family thinks he should come say his goodbyes. Not only does Tomaso hate his dad, but he and Leila are having their own problems. He inadvertently impreg-sauced Leila, who’s since found out that the baby has died inside of her. Because surgery to remove the stillborn fetus is too expensive, all she can do is wait for it to pass through her body naturally.
The thing is, because the two have zilch in their bank account, they can’t even afford rent, so they figure they can kill 2 birds (and one father) with one stone, by going to Italy, saying goodbye, then mooching a room and meals for a couple of months while they look for some more permanent options.
When they get there, though, Leila is shocked to learn that Tomaso’s family is extremely rich. They live in a picturesque, sprawling vista at the top of a hill, and are quite famous in the area.
Tomaso’s father was a well-known “new-age” author in Italy, and preached about spirituality and one-ness and all that other new age gobbledy-gook that women love. But at his deathbed, we get a hint of why Tomaso hates his old man so much. With his last breath, the dad reaches up and rape-kisses Leila! It’s unsettling, and Leila is so not cool with it. Strangely enough though, a day later, the doctor says that that supposedly dead fetus in her isn’t dead at all. It’s growing! Yaaay!!! Or… not yay?
What happens next is pure Creepy Factor 9000, as Tomaso’s older sister Myrra starts teaching Leila the ways of her father, and Leila starts buying into it. She doesn’t think to question the people who live off the family’s land, who sleep in nearby housing, and who are starting to look an awful lot like a cult. Tomaso sees where this is going and does his best to convince Leila to leave with him. But Leila decides she’s staying, that she’s having her baby here. Regardless of what that baby is!
I really like Christina Hodson as a writer. I liked her script, Shut In. She knows how to come up with a concept and exploit it. That’s what screenwriting is all about. It’s finding a cool concept that people will want to pay to see. Then it’s figuring out all the scenes and characters and situations you can milk from that idea, so the audience (or reader) feels like they got their money’s worth.
The worst thing that can happen is when you promise an audience something, then give them something else (or barely give them anything at all). I recently re-watched the 1999 film The Haunting (with Catherine Zeta-Jones and Owen Wilson) wanting to see a film that really exploited the haunted house concept. Instead I got a bunch of over-the-top effects and a rambling storyline. When that happens, you feel gypped.
In this case, Hodson’s trying to write the next Rosemary’s Baby, and she just might have pulled it off. By taking the story out of the U.S. and into Italy, then involving a cult, you have enough external dressing to distract you from the fact that this is basically a remake. It’s a smart move. We’re all basically re-hashing plotlines from the movies we love. The problem is, if our creations are too similar to the movies they’re inspired by, they feel like inferior copies. So you have to change the key ingredients involved so they feel fresh.
Rosemary’s Baby happened in the most populated city in the world. So where does “Seed” take place? The countryside! It seems like a small change but because it changes every aspect of the visual surroundings, it’s actually quite dramatic.
If I have any issue with Seed is that it’s unapologetically formulaic. I mean, there are strong and unique choices made here, as I mentioned. But the way the story evolves and the way it sits squarely within its pigeon-holed genre, it feels a teensy bit generic. The thing that I’m realizing these days with the ever-evolving VOD market, is that these genre movies are being measured on whether they’re big enough to have a theatrical release or if they’re going straight to VOD. If they’re going to have a theatrical release, there needs to be something special in them (an amazing role for an actor, a unique twist that’s never been seen before, or a unique voice that an esteemed director is going to want to do something with).
I can honestly trace the moment studios got scared of giving films like this wide releases back to the film, The Rite. The movie simply didn’t have the muscle to be released on 3000 screens, and opened weakly as a result. Since then, something’s changed. Studios are more cautious when deciding which path to take these movies on.
Look at Robert Ben Garant and Thomas Lennon, two of the biggest comedy writers in the business. Well, their recent film, Hell Baby, went straight to VOD. Talk about a tough reality. However, then there’s The Conjuring, which probably went through this vetting process as well. In the end, The Conjuring was based on a real story, which makes the horror genre a lot easier sell to audiences. That was its X-factor.
Ironically, I believe Hodson’s other script, Shut In, does have this quality. It’s unique and different and I could see some weirdo hot-shot up-and-coming director wanting to do something fun with that.
None of this is a bad thing, of course. I still think this script rocks. But I’m learning that, with the market getting more and more competitive, particularly with horror films, you need to bring something big or different to the table to get that coveted theatrical release.
[ ] what the hell did I just read?
[ ] wasn’t for me
[xx] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius
What I learned: Every writer needs an opposite-sex bullshit detector. If you’re a guy, give your script to a girl after you’re finished and have them “bullshit proof” all the female characters. Ditto if you’re a woman. Have a guy read your script with the focus on, “Would a guy ever act like this or do these things?” If you don’t, those characters are bound to come off a little false.
Get Your Script Reviewed On Scriptshadow!: To submit your script for an Amateur Review, send in a PDF of your script, along with the title, genre, logline, and finally, something interesting about yourself and/or your script that you’d like us to post along with the script if reviewed. Use my submission address please: Carsonreeves3@gmail.com. Remember that your script will be posted. If you’re nervous about the effects of a bad review, feel free to use an alias name and/or title. It’s a good idea to resubmit every couple of weeks so your submission stays near the top.
Genre: Dark Comedy
Premise (from writer): A colorful but washed-up bad boy recounts his epic rise and fall in Hollywood on an online video blog.
Why You Should Read (from writer): Imagine walking into Dylan’s Candy Bar in NYC and receiving a grab-bag of delicious wonderment– a daze of brilliantly colored candies in odd shapes, colors, and textures. In fact, when you first open the bag a pop of glitter explodes in your face. You suddenly get slapped on the back by Christopher Walken, then an adjacent clown blows a bull-horn in your left ear. You’re not quite sure what just happened, you don’t 100% understand… but you think you like it. That’s how reading this script feels.
Writer: Mayhem Jones
Details: 86 pages
Today’s script seems apropos in the wake of Shia LaBeouf’s very public celebrity meltdown. He’s sorry. For what, he’s not saying. What’s eerie is that today’s protagonist, in a script written many months ago (I’m assuming), has a shockingly similar meltdown. Granted, there’s a little Charlie Sheen thrown in for good measure, but it’s weird. Then again, “Dexter Strange” is written with the kind of raw energy that one might assume could be birthed in a Red Bull infused 24 hour writing marathon. So maybe, just maybe, it was conceived in the wake of Shia’s “I Am Sorry” campaign. However, whereas Shia seems to speak by not speaking, Dexter Strange seems to speak by… speaking a lot. A really lot. There’s a lot a lot of speaking in this script. To give you a little preview, here’s a line from Dexter…
“If we work made-up jobs to earn made-up money, then the fact I’m an actor means my made-up job is a made-up job where I make-up being other made-up people in a made-up job I make-up to make made-up money.”
If you’re not prepared to read a lot of sentences like that, then Dexter Strange slash Shia LaBeouf slash Charlie Sheen probably isn’t for you. Was it for me? Let’s find out!
44 year old Dexter Strange is a former movie star. He’s still sexy. He’s still good-looking. But things aren’t going well for him lately. At the moment, he’s sitting in front of his computer, live video streaming his breakdown, which includes lots of drugs, lots of booze, and a couple of hookers shimmying about in the background.
The nice (or un-nice) thing about Dexter is he’s very forthcoming about his meltdown. Like he wants you to know all of it. He will talk and talk and talk and talk until there’s nothing left to say, then he’ll talk some more. Most of his talking has to do with his philosophies on life (there’s a lot of stuff like the “made-up jobs” observation above). Interspersed between these talkings, we get flashbacks of Dexter’s rise to fame.
If you can call it that. Dexter’s rise is surprisingly general. We only get these snippets of it here and there, like when he meets his agent, when he dumps his girlfriend, and when he fake-marries a trashy Lindsey Lohan clone. It’s what’s so strange about this script. For all the exceedingly specific dialogue and voice over, we’re not seeing nearly enough of Dexter’s life.
In the end (big spoiler alert), Dexter doesn’t make it. He kills himself. And I guess that means this lands somewhere between a cautionary tale, a tragedy, and a satire. Does it succeed at any of these? Honestly, I’m not sure. But what I am sure of is that it’s a hell of a ride while we’re trying to figure that out.
The first thing that comes to mind when you read “Dexter Strange” is not the story, or even the character. It’s the writing itself. It’s very fast, energetic, confident, delirious, crazed, as well as a number of other adjectives I can’t think of at the moment.
For the most part, I liked that. Because I’m used to reading a lot of boring writing when I pick up a script. Whether you like this story or not, the writing stays with you. And when the writing stays with the reader, that means the writer has a shot in this business. (#VOICEISIMPORTANT)
The problem with this type of writing, though, is that it’s very “look at me.” It’s more about the writing than the story, and while that works for awhile, it almost always becomes tiring. And in cases like this, where the writing is SO big and SO “in your face,” it can become irritating. I mean here’s one of Dexter’s many monologues, this one on page 13: “What is your thing? Ordaining pastors? Protected sex? Hey. Why don’t you blow my fuckin’ mind for once? You’re– we’re on Rumspriga now, OK! You can wander a little from the farm. Step astride the buggy. Halt churning that goddamn butter. Or do you miss–(flaps arms) BA-CAW! Runnin’ around with the chickens? BA-CAW! Marty. Remember Marty? No-name nothin’ feed corn farmer? Seriously. Inferior corn. Can’t even grow shit fit for human consumption– and he’d kill to be in your loafers right now. But who’s my best friend? Who drove me to Los Angeles, not even a blink, for an agent meeting? Do me a solid by doing me proud. Pretend Marty’s watching us right now– you’re on a screen! Hey, Marty! We’re on TV. Let’s do it. The rabbit hole beckons. Just a taste. A lick. A toe-dip. Here, a puff—“
It’s hard for a reader to take that kind of crazy for 90 minutes.
Assuming that works for the reader though, you’re still fighting an uphill battle with this structure. The script is essentially a ranting character intermixed with flashbacks of his rise to fame. There’s no real story here. We’re not pushing towards anything. We’re recalling everything. What I mean by that is, there’s nothing more to gain. There’s no goal. There’s nothing our character wants. Everything that’s relevant has already happened. And that means the story is only going backwards. A “backwards” story is hard to tell, because most audiences want to go forward. Ripley doesn’t recall the tough life that she had growing up. She goes to that planet to destroy the aliens. In “Dexter Strange,” we’re just remembering a very sad man’s life where very sad things happened.
Now if you want to play this as a tragedy, that’s a different deal. But the thing with tragedies is we still need that building-up period. We need the happy stuff. The good times. A world that our character can fall from grace from. In Goodfellas, Henry Hill achieves a hell of a lot and lives a wonderful life before he starts to fall. As does our friend Tony Montana in Scarface. In “Dexter Srange,” there’s never really any good times. Dexter is screwed pretty much from the beginning (he’s forced to give a producer a hand job on his very first meeting for a role).
When you throw in a main character who’s hard to like (this guy’s an asshole to pretty much everyone), well, you’ve made things really hard for yourself.
You guys know me by now. I don’t respond to stuff that’s all negative, all sad. And to drive that point home, I stopped reading this a couple of times to go read THIS post. That tells you how much this was getting me down.
But I don’t think Mayhem should be discouraged here. She’s created a character that an actor would love to play. And she clearly has a ton of talent. I often gauge a writer’s ability with the question, “Could the average writer do this?” There is nobody else in the world who could’ve written this script but this writer. So that’s saying something. Now if she could just harness her powers and bring that talent to something a little more accessible, I’d be in.
Script Link: The Tragic Life Of Dexter Strange
[ ] what the hell did I just read?
[x] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius
What I learned: Style over substance only works for about 15-20 pages before the reader starts to check out. Doesn’t matter how good of a wordsmith you are, how good you are with prose. 15 pages with all glitz and no story? Readers start skimming.
A friend of mine gave me a script last week with that desperate look in his eyes. You know the look I’m talking about. That tired bloodshot I’ve-been-crying-for-seven-days Shia LaBeouf “I Am Not Famous Anymore” eyes-behind-the-paper-bag look? I looked at my friend and said, “Are you okay?” All he responded with was: “Second act… (then he shook his head) second act.” That was it.
For centuries, screenwriters have stood on the precipice of that second act, looked out at its grand canyon of unknowns, and given up right then and there. I honestly believe that the second act is what sends 80% of the writers who come to Hollywood, looking to break in, back to where they came from. Because when you think about it, the first act is easy. You’re just setting up your concept and your protagonist, something you probably already knew just by coming up with the logline.
But the second act is different. That’s because the second act is where you actually have to BE A WRITER. You have to know how to, you know, craft a story n’ stuff. That takes two things. Practice and Know-how. I can’t do the practice for you. But I can give you the know-how. Now what I’m about to tell you is assuming you already know the basics of structure (and if you don’t, you should buy my book, dammit. It’s only $4.99 right now!). First act is 25% of your screenplay, second act is 50%, third act is 25% (roughly). You should know how to give your protagonist a goal (find the Ark, defeat the terrorists, get your life back on track, a la Blue Jasmine) that is driving him through the story, as well as understand how to apply stakes and urgency to that pursuit. Assuming you’re on top of that, here’s the rest of what you need to know.
Character Development
One of the reasons the first act tends to be easy is because it’s clear what you have to set up. If your movie is about finding the Ark, then you set up who your main character is, what the Ark is, and why he wants to get it. The second act isn’t as clear. I mean sure, you know your hero has to go off in pursuit of his goal, but that can get boring if that’s the ONLY thing he’s doing. Enter character development, which really boils down to one thing: your hero having a flaw and having that flaw get in the way of him achieving his goal. This is actually one of the more fun aspects of writing. Because whatever specific goal you’ve given your protag, you simply give them a flaw that makes achieving that goal really hard. In The Matrix, Neo’s goal is to find out if he’s “The One.” The problem is, he doesn’t believe in himself (his flaw). So there are numerous times throughout the script where that doubt is tested (jumping between buildings, fighting Morpheus, fighting Agent Smith in the subway). Sometimes your character will be victorious against their flaw, more often they’ll fail, but the choices they make and their actions in relation to this flaw are what begin to shape (or “develop”) that character in the reader’s eyes. You can develop your character in other ways (via backstory or everyday choices and actions), but developing them in relation to their flaw is usually the most compelling part for a reader to read.
Relationship Development
This one doesn’t get talked about as much but it’s just as important as character development. In fact, the two often go hand in hand. But it needs its own section because, really, when you get into the second act, it’s about your characters interacting with one another. You can cram all the plot you want into your second act and it won’t work unless we’re invested in your characters, and typically the only way we’re going to be invested in your characters is if there’s something unresolved between them that we want resolved. Take last year’s highest grossing film, The Hunger Games. Katniss has unresolved relationships with both Peeta (are they friends? Are they more?) and Gale (her guy back home – will she ever be able to be with him?). We keep reading/watching through that second act because we want to know what’s going to happen in those relationships. If, by contrast, a relationship has no unknowns, nothing to resolve, why would we care about it? This is why relationship development is so important. Each relationship is like an unresolved mini-story that we want to get to the end of.
Secondary Character Exploration
With your second act being so big, it allows you to spend a little extra time on characters besides your hero. Oftentimes, this is by necessity. A certain character may not even be introduced until the second act, so you have no choice but to explore them there. Take the current film that’s storming the box office right now, Frozen. In it, the love interest, Kristoff, isn’t introduced until Anna has gone off on her journey. Therefore, we need to spend some time getting to know the guy, which includes getting to know what his job is, along with who his friends and family are (the trolls). Much like you’ll explore your primary character’s flaw, you can explore your secondary characters’ flaws as well, just not as extensively, since you don’t want them to overshadow your main character.
Conflict
The second act is nicknamed the “Conflict Act” so this one’s especially important. Essentially, you’re looking to create conflict in as many scenarios as possible. If you’re writing a haunted house script and a character walks into a room, is there a strange noise coming from somewhere in that room that our character must look into? That’s conflict. If you’re writing a war film and your hero wants to go on a mission to save his buddy, but the general tells him he can’t spare any men and won’t help him, that’s conflict. If your hero is trying to win the Hunger Games, are there two-dozen people trying to stop her? That’s conflict. If your hero is trying to get her life back together (Blue Jasmine) does she have to shack up with a sister who she screwed over earlier in life? That’s conflict. Here’s the thing, one of the most boring types of scripts to read are those where everything is REALLY EASY for the protagonist. They just waltz through the second act barely encountering conflict. The second act should be the opposite of that. You should be packing in conflict every chance you get.
Can someone PLEASE write a buddy-cop movie about Shia’s bag and Pharrell’s hat?
Obstacles
Obstacles are a specific form of conflict and one of your best friends in the second act because they’re an easy way to both infuse conflict, as well as change up the story a little. The thing with the second act is that you never want your reader/audience getting too comfortable. If we go along for too long and nothing unexpected happens, we get bored. So you use obstacles to throw off your characters AND your audience. It should also be noted that you can’t create obstacles if your protagonist ISN’T PURSUING A GOAL. How do you place something in the way of your protagonist if they’re not trying to achieve something? You should mix up obstacles. Some should be big, some should be small. The best obstacles throw your protagonists’ plans into disarray and have the audience going, “Oh shit! What are they going to do now???” Star Wars is famous for one of these obstacles. Our heroes’ goal is to get the Death Star plans to Alderaan. But when they get to the planet, it’s been blown up by the Death Star! Talk about an obstacle. NOW WHAT DO THEY DO??
Push-Pull
There should always be some push-pull in your second act. What I mean by that is your characters should be both MAKING THINGS HAPPEN (push) and HAVING THINGS HAPPEN TO THEM (pull). If you only go one way or the other, your story starts to feel predictable. Which is a recipe for boredom. Readers love it when they’re unsure about what’s going to happen, so you use push-pull to keep them off-balance. Take the example I just used above. Han, Luke and Obi-Wan have gotten to Alderaan only to find that the planet’s been blown up. Now at this point in the movie, there’s been a lot of push. Our characters have been actively trying to get these Death Star plans to Alderaan. To have yet another “push” (“Hey, let’s go to this nearby moon I know of and regroup”) would continue the “push” and feel monotnous. So instead, the screenplay pulls, in this case LITERALLY, as the Death Star pulls them in. Now, instead of making their own way (“pushing”), something is happening TO them (“pull”). Another way to look at it is, sometimes your characters should be acting on the story, and sometimes your story should be acting on the characters. Use the push-pull method to keep the reader off-balance.
Escalation Nation
The second act is where you escalate the story. This should be simple if you follow the Scriptshadow method of writing (GSU). Escalation simply means “upping the stakes.” And you should be doing that every 15 pages or so. We should be getting the feeling that your main character is getting into this situation SO DEEP that it’s becoming harder and harder to get out, and that more and more is on the line if he doesn’t figure things out. If you don’t escalate, your entire second act will feel flat. Let me give you an example. In Back to the Future, Marty gets stuck in the past. That’s a good place to put a character. We’re wondering how the hell he’s going to get out of this predicament and back to the present. But if that’s ALL he needs to do for 60 pages, we’re going to get bored. The escalation comes when he finds out that he’s accidentally made his mom fall in love with him instead of his dad. Therefore, it’s not only about getting back to the present, it’s about getting his parents to fall in love again so he’ll exist! That’s escalation. Preferably, you’ll escalate the plot throughout the 2nd act, anywhere from 2-4 times.
Twist n’ Surprise
Finally, you have to use your second act to surprise your reader. 60 pages is a long time for a reader not to be shocked, caught off guard, or surprised. I personally love an unexpected plot point or character reveal. To use Frozen, again, as an example, (spoiler) we find out around the midpoint that Hans (the prince that Anna falls in love with initially) is actually a bad guy. What you must always remember is that screenwriting is a dance of expectation. The reader is constantly believing the script is going to go this way (typically the way all the scripts he reads go). Your job is to keep a barometer on that and take the script another way. Twists and surprises are your primary weapons against expectation, so you’ll definitely want to use them in your second act.
In summary, the second act is hard. But if you have a structural road-map for your story (you know where your characters are going and what they’re going after), then these tools should fill in the rest. Hope they were helpful and good luck implementing them in your latest script. May you be the next giant Hollywood spec sale! :)
Genre: TV Pilot – dark comedy
Premise: When a coup by a crazed military leader throws Pakistan and its nukes into disarray, the U.S. must make a difficult decision on whether to start World War 3.
About: Writer Roberto Benabib is probably best known for his writing on Showtime’s successful show, Weeds. He also wrote for the hit show Ally McBeal. Here, he teams with his brother to write the show, who’s getting his first produced credit (the show was officially picked up for series yesterday). The pilot for The Brink is being directed by comedy directing titan, Jay Roach (Meet the Parents, Austin Powers, The Campaign). It stars Tim Robbins (Shawshank!) and Jack Black (Tropic Thunder). It will air on HBO. Gotta admit that I’m confused why Showtime, who worked so closely with Benabib on Weeds, didn’t produce The Brink.
Writers: Roberto & Kim Benabib
Details: 34 pages – 6/12/13 draft
It feels like there’s a battle going down. That battle is between HBO and Netflix. The powerhouse DVD subscription-based service shut down one of the biggest entertainment businesses in the world (Blockbuster) in big part because the company didn’t take them seriously. So as they’ve moved into new spaces, companies have fortified their walls and drafted their soldiers. They’re not going to become the next Blockbuster.
The new thing seems to be to casting big film actors in TV rolls. Kevin Spacey with House of Cards on Netflix. HBO retaliates with Matthew McConaughey in True Detective. And now they’re bringing in Jack Black for The Brink. HBO is making it clear that if you want to play with fire, they still have the biggest matches.
None of that explains what’s going on with this show though. It’s one of those projects that makes you go, “Hmmmm.” A show about the end of the world starring Jack Black? A nuclear comedy? I guess it’s been done before, but not in TV form. I admit I was the same way when Jack Black was cast in King Kong. Funny Chubby Singing Guy starring in Peter Jackson’s epic? That didn’t turn out so well. Let’s hope this one does.
Alex Coppins (Jack Black – although he’s described in the script as “think a young Robert Downey Jr.”) is a junior foreign service officer for the CIA. If you’re wondering what that means, the rough translation is: “a low-level nobody.” Alex is a good guy trying to do good things in Pakistan, but on this particular day, everything changes. There are riots in the streets. Locals start throwing rocks at him. So he runs away to safety with his driver, all the while wondering what the hell is going on.
Cut to 60-something Walter Hollander, the Secretary of State (described as: “Think Bill Murray”). He’s a drunk prostitute-abusing politician, everything that’s wrong with Capitol Hill. The difference is, this guy’s got some real power! He’s torn away from an Asian hooker when this Pakistan business blows up, and he’s one of the first to learn that a crazy military psycho has just taken over the country and is threatening to send a bunch of nukes at Israel.
Naturally, this leads us to the president (progressively cast as Hispanic), who’s being pressured by his advisors to take out all the nuclear missile sites in Pakistan before this new army can move the arms and hide them. It’s a tight window and he has to act fast.
The final piece of the puzzle is a Top Gunner pilot named Zeke (“Think Owen Wilson”) who’s less concerned with world wars than he is with expanding his illegal prescription pill operation throughout the armed forces. But the man’s job is to push buttons when the prez needs them pushed so he goes over Pakistan waiting for the final confirmation to rain down nukes and kill a bunch of innocent people’s lives.
In a final “add-on” paragraph at the end of the pilot, we’re told that over the course of the series, all of this will take place in REAL-TIME, much like 24. Then, once the season is over, a new danger will be presented in the following season, and the same principle actors will be involved. I’m not quite sure how they’re going to do that since everybody here (particularly Alex) is so entwined in this specific Pakistan situation.
But that’s a good jumping off point to discuss the pilot. When you think about it, this is why TV is being so celebrated. It’s because they can make shows like this, which don’t fit into any traditional category. I mean you basically have a comedy here about nukes and millions of innocent lives potentially being eliminated.
On the flip side of that, there’s a reason why material like this is considered “challenging.” It’s hard to know if people are going to get the tone. And that was certainly my problem while reading it. I wasn’t sure if I was supposed to laugh or not. The way this doomsday scenario plays out is all rather real and scary. If a nuclear war goes down, it’ll probably be something similar to this (a weak country with nukes gets taken over by a crazy lunatic in a military coup). To that end, I wasn’t laughing.
Problematically, the humor that was on the screen was kind of cliché. The biggest attempted laugh was Walter Hollander banging a prostitute when he’s called to the White House by a presidential female aid.
Here’s what I don’t understand about this kind of scene. It sets up the character well. We see Walter banging the prostitute while drunk and immediately know what kind of person he is. It’s ironic (person in power is such a mess) which is what every screenwriting teacher in the world teaches you to do. But isn’t all of that marred by the fact that we’ve seen this exact same scene a billion times before? “Oh, a politician who’s drunk and bangs hookers.” What’s new about that? Yet I keep seeing it all the time. So I don’t know if my standards are too high or this is as lazy as I think it is. Thoughts?
Not that everything is lazy. I mean, I’ve never seen a comedy TV show that’s dealt with subject matter like this before, so I have to give the Benabib brothers that. But when you’re on the fence about any piece of writing, one lazy choice can result in the reader giving up on the script. I didn’t’ quite get to that point, but Walter’s cliché entrance nearly brought me there.
As for other characters, Zeke was the most original. He’s got a deal with his pharmacist ex-wife to sell oxycontin to all his fellow soldiers (that Weeds show is the gift that keeps on giving!). I’m definitely seeing more scripts covering pharmacists who are abusing their privileges for pleasure or monetary gain (the upcoming “Better Living Through Chemistry” comes to mind) so it’s maybe not as original as the writers think it is, but I the idea that Zeke is divorced from but still working with his wife in an illegal international drug operation for the sake of their kids. That was unique enough to keep me invested.
And then, of course, with any show, it’s all about “Would I want to keep watching?” What’s the hook that’s going to bring the viewer back next week? The premise here practically guarantees that’ll happen. Who’s not going to want to see how we get out of this? The stakes are sky high (the fate of the world) and presented in a way we haven’t seen before. I mean, we’ve seen the fate of the world at stake in a million movies, but rarely in a TV show that puts us right on the brink of it all. That was a really clever hook on their part.
In the end, this show is going to live or die on how the tone is handled. I don’t envy Jay Roach’s job. How you’re going to balance a comedy with a situation this terrifying – I honestly don’t know how you do it. But there’s enough on the page here to at least give it a shot.
And despite some of my criticism, I want to congratulate companies like HBO and Netflix on continuing to push the medium. Not every show’s going to work, but when just one does, it can quickly change the storytelling landscape.
[ ] what the hell did I just read?
[ ] wasn’t for me
[x] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius
What I learned: So I was reading a particular dialogue exchange in The Brink that I didn’t like. Alex’s Pakistani driver takes him back to his house to lay low for awhile. As they’re walking up to the house, Alex says: “This is nice. You live here?” “What were you expecting?” “A mud hut. Stray goats.” “What does it feel like to be such an asshole?” “Face it. The world is run by assholes. Bows to assholes. Show me one person in a position of power who isn’t an asshole.” “My father.” “Your mother might beg to differ.” I don’t think this dialogue is bad. But personally, I hate these little “button” jokes at the end of exchanges that seem to be there more out of necessity than because they’re funny. “Your mother might beg to differ.” That line falls dead to me, mainly because you can feel the line trying too hard. I bring this up because for a long time, I’d see stuff like this and say, “If they’re doing it, I must have to do it too.” So I’d write stupid little button jokes at the end of scenes that weren’t really funny because I thought I had to to be taken seriously. What you eventually learn, as a writer, however, is that if you don’t like something, you don’t have to do it. Because if you don’t like it, then there are people out there who aren’t going to like it either. Those are the people you’re writing for, people who respond to the way YOU like to do things. So never write something because you believe you “have to.” Write it your own way. That approach is what will set you apart from others and help define your unique voice.
Genre: Sci-fi Drama
Premise: A pair of aliens masquerading as humans take over a farm house on earth. The female alien then begins to lure men into the house, and KILL THEM.
About: Co-writer and director Jonathan Glazer doesn’t make movies often, but when he does, they usually make a lot of noise on the indie circuit. His best-known film is Sexy Beast, but in 2004, he made a movie called Birth that had one of the creepier scenes I’ve ever watched. The film is about a woman who’s convinced her dead husband has come back to her in the body of a young boy. The scene in question has them bathing together. I’ll let you figure out the rest. The point is, the man takes chances, so when he puts something together, it’s worth paying attention to. Under the Skin hits theaters this April (in the U.S.), and stars, surprisingly, Scarlett Johansson. It was developed with the assistance of FilmFour and the UK Film Council. Glazer got his start in commercials and videos, and won MTV’s prestigious “Director of the Year” award back in 1997.
Writers: Walter Campbell and Jonathan Glazer (based on the novel by Michael Faber)
Details: July 10th, 2008 draft – 121 pages
Under the Skin was pitched to me as a thinking-man’s sci-fi drama inspired by movies like 2001: A Space Odyssey. I don’t know if the person who said this had actually seen 2001, but I am here to tell you, this is definitely not 2001.
WHAT “Under The Skin” is is another question entirely. We have a writer-director here, which almost always means someone who sees the writing aspect as a means to an end. Indeed, if you watch a movie like “Birth,” it’s more about mood and tone than dialogue and story. And when you start saying things like, “directing is more important than the script,” you get people like Carson riled up. Because while a strong argument can be made that that’s true, a director can’t do anything unless something is written first. And it doesn’t matter what kind of imagery you put in that cineplex if your story sucks. So why not get the script right?
Under the Skin starts with a farmer in the Scottish highlands who swears he saw a dead man, a little black alien creature, and a bird, having a conversation the other day. His friend, of course, thinks he’s hilarious, not realizing that he’s serious. In fact, the bird comes and visits him at home some days and talks to him. Of course, in true indie form, this trio has little to nothing to do with the story.
Meanwhile, two aliens are born in outer space and turned into human beings, who then land on earth near a farm. Lucky for them, the farm was recently deserted, so they come in and start living there. The male alien is named Raymond, and his “wife” is named Laura.
Laura is shapely and beautiful and everything a man desires. Which is important, because her sole purpose seems to be pulling men in then sending them to her barn prison, which has an alien liquid floor that traps the men inside before slowly dissolving them. Why she does this is not clear, but who are we to question an alien’s motivation?
In the meantime, Raymond, the hubby, becomes obsessed with building a fence around their new property. He saw some chaps hunting foxes on his farm the other day and that just isn’t okay with him (a possible intergalactic PETA connection?). So he spends, literally, the entire movie setting up the construction of this fence.
Eventually, one of the men Laura entraps escapes, dying before he can get to the cops, and an investigation begins (with about 20 pages to go). Will the locals discover that their neighbors are really aliens? And if so, whatever are our human-impersonators going to do?
I can just tell that the way Glazer will shoot and score this, it’s going to be creepy. You can feel that eeriness on the page, which gets into lots of little details, the way these mood-dependent movies often do (“A drone slits the air and a fly lands on the female’s collarbone. She freezes, held by this intrusion. The fly moves on.”).
But it kills me because despite every little wonderfully descriptive passage, the story here is glacial. Very little happens. And what does happen is usually some variation of something that’s already happened. Like Laura luring men in for example. I get that that’s what she’s here to do. But each instance of these men being entrapped is virtually identical to a previous instance. Whether it’s on the street or in a club, she lures the guy in with her looks, chats him up, then brings him back to the barn.
Repetition is one of many mortal enemies of the screenwriter. Stories should evolve, change. If all that’s happening is the same stuff we already saw 10 pages ago, and then 10 pages before that, we’re going to get bored.
Now there are some scripts, like this one, where the very nature of the plot requires the protagonist to do repetitive things. Laura is here to lure in men, so I get that we need to see her do it again and again. But for that to work, each one of her attempts must feel new and different, with unique challenges and stakes.
That was the thing. Laura’s experiences were never difficult. Every guy she approached was so damn easy to get. There were never any obstacles. They looked in her eyes and she had them. Without obstacles, there’s no drama. There’s no, “Oh my God, how’s she going to get out of this?” The reader being unsure about what’s going to happen is what makes us want to keep reading. If what’s going to happen is never in doubt, we get bored.
The thing is, even if Glazer and Campbell were able to make this work, the script still had a couple of steep mountains to climb. First, I had no idea why Laura was trapping these men. It wasn’t like Invasion of the Body Snatchers, where the goal was clear (you get more humans in order to turn them into aliens). She just seemed to want to kill them. But for what reason? Are you really going to travel billions of miles to come to earth to become a serial killer? If I don’t know why you’re doing what you’re doing, it’s hard for me to care.
Also, both characters, because they were emotionless aliens, had very little presence on the page, which made them boring. This is a problem you’ll run into EVERY TIME you try to write emotionless characters. It’s just hard to make those characters pop. One solution is to add another character with a big personality to balance out the lack of personality in the silent character. With The Terminator, for example, The Terminator is emotionless and doesn’t say much, but Sara Conner’s pretty prickly. She’s got some personality, which evened things out. We didn’t get anything like that here.
One of the benefits of studying screenwriting and reading so many scripts is you figure out the things that consistently work and the things that consistently don’t. It doesn’t mean you can’t use one of these “proven bad things” and figure out a way to make it work. It just means you make the job harder on yourself. And the more of these “proven bad things” you stick in your script, the more you skew the odds against yourself.
Here we had a) characters repeating themselves throughout the script b) doing things for reasons we didn’t understand c) never encountering obstacles when doing these things (it was always easy) d) who lacked personality. I’m not saying it’s impossible to make a story like this work. But I can guarantee you it’s not going to be easy.
Sometimes I feel like there’s a book out there called “Indie Screenwriting” that only indie writers and directors know about. In this book, you’re taught to take a really long time to get to your plot points. You’re told to avoid conflict because too much conflict is “cliché.” To make your main characters really introverted and therefore devoid of any emotion. And to never explain what’s happening. Just have things happen.
If more indie writers took traditional approaches to storytelling, I feel they could be telling the same stories they want to tell, but reach a much bigger audience, because there will be clear goals and stakes for the audiences to get involved in. I mean one character in Under The Skin spent 80 pages talking about building a fence. Not even building it. Just talking about building it. What are the stakes behind that? Why do we care if this fence is built?
If he needed to build a fence quickly because they had bodies piling up that Laura was accumulating which they needed to bury – then AT LEAST now the fence would have purpose. But to keep out hunters who have no influence on the story? Who cares, right?
It’s just little things like that that, if taken care of, make the script much better, whether it’s an indie or mainstream movie.
Not going to lie, this one was a little frustrating.
[ ] what the hell did I just read?
[x] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius
What I learned: If things are too easy for your protag, we get bored. Laura catching her prey (men) was way too easy. It’s okay if the first one is easy, but each successive man should be harder to get. The stakes should be higher. Things should go wrong. Bigger obstacles should get in the way. That’s how you infuse drama into your scene. You create doubt!
