How does this art-house darling about a paraplegic look on the page? Pull up your wheelchairs and find out!

Genre: Drama
Premise: When a woman loses her legs in a killer whale accident, she engages in a strange friendship with a street fighter.
About: This is a Belgium film that’s heating up the indie circuit and is as an Oscar contender in the “Best Actress” category for Marion Cotillard. The film is directed by Jacques Audiard, who directed the hit 2009 French film, A Prophet. Audiard has been writing for film and television since the 80s. This is the promotional version of the screenplay being used for Oscar consideration, so I assume it’s the shooting draft.  I’ve also been informed that the movie is in French (didn’t know that when I read it) which means this is a translation.  However, it’s unclear who translated the screenplay to English, and why they wouldn’t format it properly upon doing so…
Writer: Jacques Audiard
Details: 125 pages – August 16th, 2011

Whenever you’re sitting around and someone says, “Oh my God. Have you seen xxxxx? It’s amaaa-zing,” you don’t forget that movie title. You place that one up there on the mental “must-see” list. That’s what happened a few months ago when I heard someone raving about Rust and Bone. I knew then I had to see this movie.

But let’s be honest. The title “Rust and Bone” doesn’t exactly have you microwaving a big bag of popcorn and melting down a half stick of butter to coat it in. It’s the title for a movie you watch alone in the dead of winter when your life is spiraling out of control and the only way you’re going to feel better is to watch something that’s more miserable than you. Sort of like the movie version of Hoarders.

I know, I know. That’s “title stereotyping.” I shouldn’t be doing that. For all I know, Rust and Bone is about two best friends who win the lottery and buy a candy factory.

Orrrrrr…..maybe not. Turns out this one is just as dreary as its title. Hold on to your Paxil people. Shit’s about to get depressing.

Rust and Bone introduces us to Ali, a sort of tough-guy brawler who’s yanking his tiny little kid, Sam, through the forest. After a few phone calls, we gather that he’s just stole Sam away from his ex because of her lousy parenting skills (which include using him to smuggle dope). After a long train ride, the two arrive at his sister’s, who’s not happy to see her bro but allows them to stay with her as long as they pay their way.

This forces Ali to get a job as a bouncer for, I think, boxing matches, though the writing was consistently vague when it came to anything important so that’s actually just an educated guess. It’s there where he meets Stephanie, a loner party-girl with an attitude. When she gets beat up in a fight, he ends up driving her home, where the two have a really awkward disinterested conversation.

The next day we learn that Stephanie is a killer whale trainer at a European version of Sea World, and during the very first stunt of the day, there’s a whale collision (I think??) that results in her losing both her legs. Stephanie goes through a depressing couple of weeks accepting her new life as a paraplegic, then decides to call her old bouncer buddy out of the blue, even though she seemed to hate him at the time.

Ali is surprisingly blasé about Stephanie’s lost legs, and agrees to fuck her if she’s ever horny, since there aren’t many stand-up guys looking for paraplegics (sorry, I had to go there). She goes along with this agreement and, soon, the two start to actually like each other. Ali eventually gets pulled in to the very boxing matches he’s bouncing, starts winning a bunch of money, and the two end up happily ever after – or as happily ever after as two can be when one person doesn’t have any legs.

Whoa. Where do we begin?

I was so dismayed by this screenplay that I couldn’t write a review without doing some research on the film and finding out how anyone was able to make it out of the theater alive. Things started to make sense when I found the trailer, which is actually really good. If that was my only reference to the movie, I would want to see it. I also found out it was from the same director who did The Phophet, which is one half of an awesome movie. And even though it eventually wanders into total randomness (Go watch it if you haven’t yet. It just keeps going and going and going), there’s no doubt that the director is extremely talented.

But the same problem with the second half of that film is the problem with all of this film. The story is all the hell over the place. I mean it’s a French film, so focus and structure aren’t going to be a priority. But there’s a difference between a script that doesn’t depend on structure and a script that completely ignores structure. This script felt like skin without any bones inside. There’s nothing propping it up.

Let’s start with the kid. Why was he in the movie? We start on him. The implication is he’s important, maybe even the primary focus. His dad having to take him away from his overbearing mom reinforces this. He then proceeds to disappear for 110 pages (spoiler) until he gets caught under an ice lake in the final scene!!! Wtf???

Then there’s Stephanie, who we meet out partying. The next morning, she’s all of a sudden a Killer Whale performer. Just something that seemed totally out-of-character from the person who had been set up (and not in a “that’s the idea” way).  But what was more startling was that one scene later her legs are chomped off during a performance. Don’t we need to establish her life as a trainer first before turning her into a Halfsie? It would be like in Million Dollar Baby if in the very first fight, Hilary Swank fell on that stool and became paralyzed. Not only that, but the scene was so poorly described, I didn’t know it was the whale who bit her legs off until page 95 when it was explicitly stated. At the time, I thought some electrical equipment fell on her legs. That’s how often I was confused while reading this.

Then there was the dialogue. Now, in retrospect, I realize this is translated, but still, the translator should’ve prevented unbearable lines like “Stop this car on the double!”  And when a defeated intern is being scolded for her job performance, she counters, “What are you trying to make me believe, that I wasn’t up to par?” I can’t imagine anyone saying that sentence ever.  If you’re having your script translated for Oscar voters, make sure it’s from someone who knows what they’re doing.

Then there were these elaborately described characters who were presented as potential cornerstones of the story, only to disappear two scenes later. Like Giles, the heavily scarred fellow paraplegic Stephanie meets in rehab. I mean this guy was more well-drawn and memorable than probably anyone except for Stephanie. Yet he’s gone before you can press your scroll button.

I’m still wondering if this is a culture thing. These character-driven movies with floating storylines and zero structure fit better with European audiences who don’t need everything to be so clean-cut, so buttoned-up. Their movies are more like real life (or as real-life as someone getting gobbled up by a whale can be). So I’m really curious what the European (and particularly French) Scriptshadow readers think of this. But I just could NOT get into it at all. I need structure! There’s a fine line between “purposefully unfocused” and “sloppy,” and this felt sloppy to me.  Despite this, I will see this movie based on the trailer.  In winter.  Up in a mountain.  Inside a shack.  With a stack of Hoarders DVDs.  Wish me luck.

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

What I learned: I’m going to be honest. When something isn’t formatted correctly, I completely lose confidence in the writer. Every little misstep or confusing moment or badly described scene or muddled motivation I see after that is just confirmation of what I already assumed, that the script is going to be bad. Rust and Bone has left-margined character names in the dialogue, underlined slugs, lack of spacing between some action blocks. I’m not ruling out that this format may be commonplace in France. But if you don’t already have the movie made (like Jacque) and you’re writing for the American market, good formatting has to be a given. Once I see even ONE PARAGRAPH that’s incorrectly formatted in a script, I think to myself, “They’re not using professional screenwriting software which means they’re not serious about screenwriting which means this is going to be bad,” because that’s what’s happened the last 99 scripts I read with bad formatting. So please don’t make this very avoidable mistake!

One more quick thing regarding the book. There seems to be a misunderstanding regarding the offer I put out in my newsletter, with people believing that I was offering scripts for positive reviews. This wasn’t the case. I did incentivize readers who read the book to give Amazon reviews for two “mystery” screenplays, but I never told anyone to give a positive review. In fact, quite the opposite. This is what I said (caps were included): “I DO NOT WANT YOU TO LIE in your review! Be honest, please. That’s important to me. I’m just aiming for 300 Amazon reviews, good, bad, or indifferent, and I know you guys can get me there.” I hope that clears things up and thank you to everyone who tried to make this clear to those who had the wrong information. Onwards and upwards! :)

Hey everyone. For those of you who read about an offer from me to send you screenplays in return for posting a review of my book on Amazon.com, I need you to know that I can’t provide that exchange. Feel free to read my book and review it, but not with the expectation that I will be sending you any screenplays in return. Thank you so much for understanding.

This project is bursting with backstory to the point where you don’t know what to focus on. Maybe we’ll start here: Is “What Makes Sammy Run” the next Citizen Kane?

Genre: Comedy-Drama
Premise: In the 1930s, energizer-bunny producer Sammy Glick became one of the biggest producers in Hollywood. But even with all his success, he still had one thing missing – someone to understand him.
About: This one has an interesting backstory. The script is based on a 1940s novel by Budd Schulberg, who happened to be the screenwriter for 1954’s Oscar-winning screenplay, “On the Waterfront.” Now this is just hearsay, but the rumor is that Steven Spielberg acquired “Sammy” to make sure it never got turned into a movie because of its blatant racism towards Jews. Still, Ben Stiller became attached to star somehow and wrote the script with Jerry Stahl, the guy Stiller portrayed in the cult favorite, Permanent Midnight, which Stahl wrote. That was about Stahl’s $6000 a week heroin habit while he was a writer on NBC’s, “Alf.” This looks to be the final draft they turned into the studio, but for whatever reason, it never got made.
Writers: Ben Stiller & Jerry Stahl (based on the book by Budd Schulberg)
Details 3rd Draft (April 1st, 1998)

I don’t know what I expected when I opened this script. Actually, I do. I figured it was going to be some piece of trash that Stiller and Stahl belted out between projects. Not because I didn’t have faith in the two. From what little I know of their writing, both these guys are competent. But I figured, if it was forgotten, there was a probably a reason for that. The script wasn’t any good.

And that’s exactly how the script started. It was a mess! I know Stahl had a very public substance abuse problem and my guess is that most of that abuse took place during these first ten pages. We start in the 30s, flash-forward to the 90s, go back to the 30s, then flash back WITHIN the 30s. Oh, and not too long after, we find ourselves in 1965! What the hell??

However, once the story finds its bearings, it turns into this tragic strangely moving tale of a really lonely man. In fact, one might even compare it to Citizen Kane, which it seems the two writers (and author) were strongly influenced by. I’m not going to say anything crazy, like it’s as good as Citizen Kane. But it’s hard to read this and not be reminded of that film. So what’s it about?

Sammy Glick.

It’s New York, the 1930s. Radio was still cool. This is where we find producer/writer Sammy Glick. Sammy writes radio plays. Actually, he has his secretary ghost-write them for him. Sammy doesn’t need to write. Not when he has the gift of gab. And boy does he have that gift.

As we see early, this nobody 20-something radio writer cold-calls the biggest agent in LA and tells him he’s gotta a hot script for him. The writer of that script, a naïve young man named Julian Blumberg, is excited that someone – anyone – likes his screenplay, so he’s more than thrilled to have Sammy pitching it for him.

But Sammy’s plans aren’t exactly on the up-and-up, as his co-worker Al Manheim notices. Al is the opposite of Sammy. He’s a slow-talker. He stumbles over his words. He’s uncomfortable in social situations. If you would’ve put Al on the phone with that agent, he would’ve hyperventilated his way into a coma.

But Al, unlike Sammy, is actually a talented writer. Which is why it’s so ironic that Sammy’s the one jumping up the ranks. In fact, it isn’t long before Sammy moves out to California and starts producing movies. Nothing big. Not yet at least. But he’s starting to be a player. All because he can sell ice cubes in Alaska. He’s the stereotype slimy no-talent producer who makes everyone else do the work, then takes the credit in the end.

And that’s exactly what he does to poor Julian Blumberg. He steals his script and slaps his own name on it. The film is a hit and pretty soon Sammy is practically running a studio. In the meantime, poor Al, the guy who does things “right,” gets spit out of Hollywood faster than an A-cup porn actress, and resorts to drinking himself to sleep every night back in New York.

But all isn’t so bad for Al. Through Sammy, he meets the beautiful Kit, another talented writer, and she becomes his muse, inspiring him to write again. You may be able to figure out the rest for yourself, but in the end, it’s Al who finds his way to happiness and Sammy who realizes that while he has all of Hollywood in the palm of his hand, he hasn’t got a single friend to share it with.

Let’s jump right into it. Structurally, “Sammy” is messy. After the confusing time-jumping opening I mentioned above, we settle into some sort of rhythm, but this isn’t your typical screenplay with character goals and shit. It’s a tragedy. Which means we’re going to see our hero rise up. And then we’re going to see him fall. See that’s what you have to remember. In “happy” movies, the main character always overcomes his flaw. He changes. But in a tragedy, the flaw is never overcome, and ultimately does our character in.

Sammy’s flaw is that he only thinks of himself. He cheats and lies in order to get what he wants, regardless of who it hurts. Since he never learns to change this part of himself, he of course ends up sad and alone. Tragic indeed!

Hold up though. Let’s get back to those opening pages. How can they be such a mess and the writers get away with it? Not only are we needlessly jumping all over the place, Stiller and Stahl don’t do a very good job explaining who the characters are or what they do (I didn’t know if Al was a critic, an author, or a radio writer. At certain points he was all three). Well, they get to do this because they’re working with the producers. They’re hashing things out between drafts, explaining to them what they’re going to do next. Because of this, the producers have some context when they read the pages. You’re not talking to any producers as an unknown spec writer. So they don’t have that context. Which means you gotta be a lot clearer. Unfair? Yes. But that’s the way it is.

Another thing you gotta be clear about is your female lead. What almost never fails in signifying a good script is when a male writer cares about his female lead – actually takes the time to make her three-dimensional. Because nine times out of ten, a male writer won’t bother figuring out their female lead other than that she’s hot and maybe had a bad childhood. Here, Kit is a fully-formed character with her own goals (she’s trying to start a writer’s guild in Hollywood) and her own agenda.

But it didn’t stop there. The writers actually weaved this development into the storyline in an interesting way. As Al and Kit started to fall in love, Hollywood turns on Kit since she’s trying to form something that’s going to make all the rich guys less rich. Al finds that his opportunity for success may ride on whether he leaves Kit or not. And I found that a really compelling plot development! It just goes to show that when you take the time to make ALL of your characters interesting, you open up a lot more story options.

I started this one trying to keep my eyes open and ended it rubbing the tears out of those eyes. “Sammy” is a complex tale with an unorthodox structure that somehow comes together in the oddest way. I haven’t been able to stop thinking about it since.

[ ] Wait for the rewrite
[ ] wasn’t for me
[xx] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: Transitions. High or low priority? I remember a writer once said to me that the most important thing about a screenplay are the transitions. You had to cleverly or seamlessly cut from one scene to the next. I didn’t know much about screenwriting at the time, but that seemed…I don’t know…dumb. I bring this up because Stiller and Stahl spend an inordinate amount of effort on the transitions. For example, we’ll cut from the loud obnoxious blowing of one’s nose to the loud obnoxious engines of a DC3. Look, that stuff is fun but it’s like number 300 on the priority list of things that need to work in a screenplay. Focus on a compelling story, great characters, sharp dialogue, high stakes, snappy pacing, etc., before you worry about how to dissolve from one scene to the next.

A handful of Scriptshadow readers pushed me to review this screenplay. Did the Dracula origin story suck luscious grade-A blood or did it just suck?

Genre: Period/Horror
Premise: The origin story of Dracula. A young Transylvanian king named Vlad must fight off a Turkish army intent on stealing his only son and destroying his kingdom.
About: This script made it onto the 2006 Black List. There doesn’t seem to be much information out there about it other than that it was included on the Black List. I’m assuming the writers have been steadily working on assignments since, but I can’t find anything else that they have in development. I know the script is very well liked by Dracula enthusiasts.
Writers: Matt Sazama & Burk Sharpless
Details: 4/28/06 draft

I had no idea what this script was about when I picked it up, so I had no idea that it was actually a prequel to Twilight and about Robert Pattinson’s great great great great great great great great grandfather. That’s right, this script is about the ultimate vampire, Dracula himself! Or “Vlad,” as he liked to be called before the nickname stuck.

Now I’ll say this – if you’re not into Dracula – like really into Dracula – this script probably isn’t for you. But if you’re a Dracula geek, if you wear a black cape to work and impale people for fun and eat Count Dracula cereal (I only do one of these things – I’ll let you guess which one), then you’re going to be really happy. Because this script is like Dracula porn. It’s Dracula University. We find out how he got his name. We find out why he drinks blood. We find out how he learned to turn into a bat.

And then we get some sweet cameos! Like Baba Yaga. Do you know who Baba Yaga is? She’s this witch who used to eat babies for brunch. And then there’s Caligula. You know who that dude is? He used to have these wild orgies and kill anyone who got near him. His appearance here is badass, almost as memorable as the Medusa scene in the original Clash Of The Titans.

So then why didn’t I love this thing? Because, sadly, I’m not a Dracula geek. I gave it a chance though because the Scriptshadow readers said it was great. And sometimes, even if I’m not into subject matter, I can like a script based purely on the characters and the journey. Here, though, I felt like I needed a Dracula Encyclopedia to follow the journey. More on that soon. But first, let’s take a look at the plot.

It’s 1462 in the Carpathian mountains, in a little place called Transylvania. A warrior-king name Vlad presides over the town, serving as its protector, a job he must tend to often, since the nearby Turks are constantly hitting him up for tax money. Now this isn’t the Dracula you know from books and movies. This guy is nice. He actually helps people and cares about his peasants n’ stuff.

That niceness is about to be tested though, since one of the Turk Warlords comes by and tells Vlad the Turk king wants his newly-born son. Vlad doesn’t take kindly to baby-stealers, so he slashes the warlord in half and sends a message to the Turks that the Transylvanites aren’t going to be your little bitches anymore. You go Vlad!

But it turns out the Turks are the least of his worries. Someone is out there killing Turks like they were baby frogs, and it isn’t long before that someone gets his hands on Vlad too. Who is this mysterious murderer? Why Caligula of course! And Caligula lives up to his name, killing Vlad! I think. I was a little confused about that. But anyway, Vlad is now undead, so I guess he didn’t officially die, and he kills Caligula back (that sounds like a cool Bond title: “A Kill For A Kill”), adding insult to injury by drinking his blood to steal his powers. Now Vlad has super vision and super climbing ability and is a lot stronger. Only downsides are he craves human blood now and is sorta dead. So, yeah, that part sucks.

Vlad heads back to his family in Transylvania and gets ready for a major onslaught by the Turks. I never knew the Turks were so badass in the 1400s, but I guess they had a huge army. They were going to use this army to fight someone else but they’ve decided to send the whole thing to tiny little Transylvania, kill themselves some Vlad, and take his son as well.

Also, as if all of this weren’t bad enough, Vlad has to find out who’s responsible for making him this way. I thought it was Caligula but I guess it’s someone more powerful than that. The man behind the man. If he can find and defeat him, he can become alive again and live a happy life. If not, he’ll be doomed as this undead coffin-riding flying vermin forever, which is, like, so not cool.

Here’s the thing. Reading this felt like how a 14 year old girl might feel when watching Lord Of The Rings for the first time. There’s just sooooo much information being thrown at you that if you don’t have SOME prior affinity with the material, you’re going to be lost. And I was so lost. The plot summary above was about as simple as I could make it. But the actual plot was way way more complicated.

Some gypsies steal Transylvania’s money so Vlad can’t pay the Turks. He goes and kills them. The mountain next to him starts spitting out blood. A mysterious killer starts killing Turks and the Turks think it’s Vlad. So Vlad has to go find out who’s really killing the Turks so the Turks don’t kill his people. The Turks want a thousand warriors from Transylvania. Vlad says he’ll fight instead. But then they change their mind and want Vlad’s baby. Vlad finds out Caligula is killing the Turks and is killed by Caligula. And that’s just the first half!

I talk about goals a lot on this site, and to make sure your characters are always going after goals. Now you can change the goals up if you want, so your hero is going after one thing, achieving it, then going after something else, etc., etc. As long as your hero is being active, your story should move along nicely. But if there are too many goals and we’re waiting too long for the ‘BIG’ goal to emerge, we start to get impatient. And that’s how I felt here. It wasn’t until the middle of the screenplay before we learn that Vlad’s ultimate goal is to find and defeat the person who turned him this way so he can become “normal” again.

Personally, for me, it was too long of a wait. I think for others who are really into the mythology of Dracula it wouldn’t be as much of a problem because they enjoy these little side-journeys. But for someone confused half the time about which way was up, I would’ve loved more clarity and direction in the plot. I liked where it ended up, with the Turks attacking Transylvania on the mountain. That would be a hell of a battle on the big screen. I was just frustrated by how much work I had to do to get to that point. This is NOT an easy read. It is something you have to invest 100% of your concentration in to keep up with.

And that definitely weighed on me. At times it felt like boxes were being checked – get the blood-drinking thing in there, get the bat thing in there, get the wolf thing in there – that I was being taken through the mythology beat by meticulous beat, and that’s when I struggled most. The script is best when it’s sailing along and relaxing. Like that Caligula scene, where he’s slitting the hanging soldiers’ throats one by one. That was an awesome effortless scene.

And there was a lot of great imagery here. As someone who e-mailed me said: “This is a movie!” And it is! The vampire trend is probably dead for awhile now that Twilight has ended. But that still leaves the door open for quasi-vampire material that doesn’t fit into the Twilight box. And Dracula: Year Zero definitely doesn’t fit into that box.

I just wish I was more into Dracula so I could’ve enjoyed it more.  What did you guys think?

[ ] Wait for the rewrite
[x] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: The longer it takes to get to the main character goal that’s driving your screenplay, the harder it is to keep your reader interested. People want to know what your script is about fairly early. They want to know that Bruce Willis is trying to fix this little boy’s problem in The Sixth Sense. They want to know that Cobb is trying to implant a thought into this man’s mind in Inception. The sooner you rope us in with the major goal, the sooner we understand what movie we’re watching and can settle in. I just wanted to know what the goal was in “Dracula: Year Zero” much sooner. I’m not saying you CAN’T do it the other way. I’m just saying it’s a lot harder.