I love all the people who come on Scriptshadow to do interviews. But today is different. I think Lorene is just really gifted. She sees people/characters in a way no other writer does. That talent is the one that truly separates screenwriters in my eyes – the ability to craft interesting, unique and realistic characters. My fawning over Lorene’s talent probably isn’t a surprise. She’s got two scripts in my Top 25 (The Mighty Flynn and Seeking A Friend). So I’m just happy she answered my 528th e-mail request for an interview. Kidding. Lorene is actually a fan of the site!  So she was actually – gasp – EXCITED to do an interview.  Hey, you can’t make this stuff up. Anyway, she’s now making a huge career leap into directing, having directed Steve Carrell and Keira Knightley in Seeking A Friend For The End Of The World. Let’s dive into her writing process and see what makes this screenwriter tick.

SS: Okay, so first thing’s first. How are we going to get The Mighty Flynn made? From what you know, what’s keeping it from being produced?

LS: Thanks for keeping it alive for me, Carson! I think I’m ready to cast it out again and see if it gets any actor interest. When “Up In The Air” was made, it felt like I had to put the story of an efficiency expert to bed, but now that some time has passed, and honestly thanks to your vote of confidence, I’ve come up with a few potential ways to make it new and interesting. One possibility is changing the time period, which could work thematically while also allowing me to keep devices like the phone book and resumes at Kinko’s without feeling dated. Also, the relationship between Flynn and Boaty is one I’ve been trying to tell for a long time, so I found myself naturally drawing from it for Dodge and Penny in “Seeking a Friend”. I like a male character who’s anything but a man-child and then prying him open with the help of a free spirit who’s anything but type-A. It’s basic storytelling, I guess, but it’s actually personal for me. As long as it feels different, I’ll pursue it. You’ll have to help me fix the ending!

SS: Do you need me to call anyone?

LS: Please call Jason Reitman in 2008 and ask him to make Juno 2 instead.

SS: Could you tell us a little about your emergence as a screenwriter? How many scripts had you written before you got your first job?

LS: I was always in love with plays and movies, so I started writing psuedo-screenplays when I was a kid. I still have many of them, including “Ripple”, a romantic dramedy about dying dolphins, “starring Lorene Scafaria and Ethan Hawke”. With those delusions of grandeur, anything was possible. I wrote a few plays, put up my first in the greater New Jersey area, and eventually put up a relationship play in New York called “That Guy And Others Like Him”. I was answering phones at a film company, doing an embarrassing amount of extra work, and decided to adapt the play into my first true screenplay. I wrote two other scripts, then started looking for an agent and moved to LA. Five scripts deep, I teamed up with my then-roommate on a children’s adventure called “Legend Has It”. It wound up being optioned by Revolution Studios so that was technically my first job. Two years later, I wrote “The Mighty Flynn”, which was number eight, and got it set up at Warner Independent. I was basically hired off of that to adapt “Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist” and that was the beginning.


SS: Was that first job how you got your agent?

LS: When I first moved to LA, I was talking to a smattering of agents who never called me back. My very very first agent came from sending a query letter, so I still believe that a well-written, well-intentioned letter is a good way to reach out, especially in this era of accessibility. I looked up which agents sold scripts from first-time writers. She said she liked my letter and the title of my script and asked to read it. She later sent me a rejection letter and then called a few days after that to say forget it and could she read anything else. I sent her my other two scripts and she suggested I move to LA. She almost immediately switched agencies and I got lost in the shuffle. My old writing partner and I were working with an agent-in-training who helped set up “Legend Has It”, so he became our first official agent and we became his first clients. I changed agencies a few years later and have been at the same place since.


SS: Looking back at those first (paid) experiences in the business, what did you learn from them? What kind of mistakes were you making as a screenwriter then that you’d never make today?

LS: I’m sure I’ll continue to make the same mistakes. I’m lucky in that I’ve had a variety of different experiences, from writing on spec and pitching original ideas, to adapting a novel or real life story or an all-too familiar musical. I’ve also failed at selling pitches and been fired and rewritten. I’ve spread myself too thin. I’ve quit. So hopefully I’ve learned from those larger mistakes. I try to work with people I like and I try not to get involved in anything unless I think I’m the right person for the job.

SS: What would you say is the hardest thing about screenwriting for you now? Why do you struggle with it and what do you do to conquer it?

LS: I struggle with feeling burnt out and uninspired. Even though I only have a few produced scripts, I feel like I’ve been writing a long time. Sometimes it’s hard to live in LA. The same things that make it great can also make it feel overwhelming. Thinking as a director now, it’s harder to write a first draft freely, beginning to end, warts and all, and then give myself the space to fix stuff in later drafts. I find myself rewriting as I go, which can be helpful, but slower. Now I struggle with “what’s next”. I feel like I threw the kitchen sink at “Seeking A Friend”. It explores so many of the themes that swim in my head, and the high concept made it easier to write character-driven scenes within set-pieces. Point is, I’m in my head too much and should probably get some fresh air.

SS: I really love your characters. Especially the ones in Mighty Flynn. Everybody’s so unique. How do you build your characters?

LS: Thanks for saying so! I went through a phase of thinking in terms of a character’s job, like in “Mighty Flynn”. I like exploring someone’s psychology and thinking of what kind of person would do this for a living… what could be in that person’s history and how that could reflect the themes I was interested in expressing. That script sparked “Man and Wife”, again exploring an immigration officer and what a job does to a man when he is “the man”. For both of the male characters, as well as Dodge in “Seeking A Friend”, I was exploring a specific archetype; men who are in need of an awakening. For Flynn, he was a fairly heartless bastard who only moved an inch, but all that he needed to go through to get that far. I’ve always been interested in people and relationships, psychology and sociology, how people react to different scenarios. In the case of “Seeking A Friend”, I thought about everyone facing their own mortality differently, and then came up with the various characters to best articulate that. I think it helps that I look at myself with a critical eye and I look at the people around me with a sympathetic one, so I try to love every character but also know what they’re doing wrong.


SS: What about dialogue? What would you say are the 2 or 3 things you focus on most when writing dialogue? What’s most important in getting it right?

LS: Write how people talk.

Not everyone talks the same.

Keep it specific.

SS: I notice you have a lot of setups and payoffs in your script. My guess is that this means you outline a lot. Do you think outlining is important and what’s your process?

LS: I don’t like to outline that much. I usually prefer to write a first act without outlining so that the characters feel and sound a little more authentic before making major plot decisions. I think then if you write something specific in your first act, it becomes a natural setup, and something you can follow through the script. If those specific things can relate to the theme or the journey that the character goes on, it becomes easier to set it up and pay it off, without feeling like a forced characteristic. In “Man and Wife” I remember the traveling orange was something that became a set up and pay off. In “Seeking A Friend”, the harmonica took on meaning as I went along.

SS: One of the most difficult sections of a screenplay for young writers is the second act. Can you give us any secrets about how to dominate the second act?

LS: I still battle with the second act and I suppose it varies for different genres. I think it’s easier if you break it up as much as possible. I like to think of the page numbers like the minutes on a clock and at every ten to fifteen minute mark, something should change, so the second act has three major shifts to go through… 30-45, 45-60, 60-75… I think those are the points to present conflict and tension so that something changes in your characters. It has to constantly build and unbuild and build again. It should have a big page 60 high and a page 75 drop. I think it has the shape of an EKG or a really good roller coaster or even a song. If a song goes verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, chorus… or something like that… you can sort of see the shape of a screenplay.

If on page 30, your main character has a mission, like Dodge going in search of his ex, then your second act has direction. Then he’s tested, facing various highs and lows, obstacles along the way. Even though I tried to mix it up in terms of genre-bending and surprising moments, it’s actually a very straight forward structure. I remember hearing a complaint that “Nick and Norah’s” didn’t have enough of a ticking clock, so I was sure to give it a huge ticking clock.

SS: Lots of beginning screenwriters focus on getting a script purchased. Lots of purchased screenwriters focus on getting a script made. In your experience, what’s the difference between a script that’s good enough to get bought and a script that’s good enough to get produced?

LS: That’s an amazing question. I really couldn’t tell the difference for a long time, but when I look back at old scripts, I can see how things got ignored. I still think it’s important to write what’s in your head, because even if it doesn’t get produced, it could end up being your best sample of your voice. Even though I liked exploring characters, it took a long time for me to figure out structure. I still grapple with it. A book called “The Writer’s Journey” and a very patient Dana Fox taught me some phrases and tricks. I still resist convention between the second and third act, which accounts for the change in pace in “Nick and Norah’s” as well as “Seeking A Friend.” I think it’s most important to concentrate on theme and tone. Those will make your story distinct and reveal the “trailer moments” of your script. After that, I think pacing is key. Hearing a script out loud is a good indicator of its possibilities.

SS: Can you give us a couple of “aha” moments in your career– those classic moments where you’re writing and some unforeseen force shoots into you and you realize what you were doing wrong all this time and understand screenwriting so much better now?

LS: The biggest “aha” I can think of was when I was working on the third draft of “Seeking A Friend”. Even though I was thinking of it as an end-of-the-world romantic comedy, I still wasn’t taking the two genres and colliding them within the scenes themselves. That’s when I realized that the riot scene needed to be a break-up scene, and that the scene at Friendsy’s is a date / is an orgy. I realized that at all times, the genres needed to be working for each other, and against each other, and it definitely outlined the larger set pieces and propelled the second act.

SS: A lot of writers say their perspective on writing totally changes once they direct a movie. Now that you’ve directed a film, are you joining the chorus? How did your perspective change, if at all? What did you learn?

LS: My perspective definitely changed. But it doesn’t make it any easier. I always knew that editing was another form of rewriting, but I never realized how much so. There definitely was the script I wrote, the movie we shot, and the story we edited. I wish I had had the foresight to know which scenes we would later cut but we needed to see it all together, with an audience, to know what was affecting the tone in the wrong way. I ended up cutting a few scenes in the first act to make it a more streamlined story about relationships. A few amazing actors were cut out of the film, but it was for the benefit of the larger story. A couple scenes in the third act also were lifted to give it a stronger final push for Dodge and Penny. I definitely learned that sometimes less is more, that something can be done with a look. Not everything needs to be said. I’m going to try to apply this lesson to life.

SS: Knowing what you know now, would you have done anything differently as a young screenwriter in order to break in faster?

LS: I think I was lucky in breaking in fairly quickly as a screenwriter, but because I wanted to be a filmmaker, I wish I had the nerve and capacity and overall wunderkind-ness someone like Lena Dunham had to make a film like “Tiny Furniture” at such a young age. I had a real breaking point six months before “Seeking A Friend” got going. I remember threatening my agent that I was going to start auditioning for indies and pilots, as if this would prove more successful, because I was tired of being a hired hand, or seeing a project through many years and various iterations and only have it fall apart. I was tired of everything being on paper, so I guess I wish I wrote and directed a feature, no matter how small, a long time ago. But I think sometimes you have to reach a breaking point in order to figure out what you really want. Such is life.

SS: And finally, do you have any future romantic comedies planned about a female screenwriter who meets and falls for a really awesome screenwriting blogger?

LS: Boy reads girl. Girl reads boy. Girl does interview for boy and only hopes she didn’t blow it.

Today’s screenplay asks that eternal pestering question that never seems to go away no matter how hard you try. No, not “What is the meaning of life?” But “Are you a DUFF (a designated ugly fat friend)?”

I’m sure all of you are just as devastated as I am that Ben picked Courtney, but I figure we’ll get over it at some point.  In the meantime, I’m calling on my British buddy Anthony Jackson to write us today’s review.  He’s madly in love with teen high school movies so he’s the perfect reviewer for this material. Editing the Scriptshadow Book continues to occupy all of my free time but hopefully it will pay off soon!  Also, Twit-Pitch (pitch me your script on Twitter) IS coming, so be ready.  It’s still probably 2-3 weeks away and will happen on a Saturday, so you better be finishing those scripts of yours!  I’ll have plenty of announcements on the site as it gets closer.  But for now, I’ll let Anthony take over…

A 10 Year American Pie reunion? How bout a 50 year American Pie Reunion! Winter’s Discontent is American Pie spiked with Viagra.

Genre: Comedy
Premise: (from Black List) When Herb Winter’s wife of fifty years dies, the faithful but sexually frustrated widower moves into a retirement community to start living the swinging single life.
About: For a script that was so well received and for a writer this good, I find it strange that we haven’t heard more from Paul Fruchbom since 2008, when Winter’s Discontent finished #7 on the Black List. He does seem to be developing another property with Columbia, the same studio that bought Winter’s, called “Career Counselors,” but very little is known about it.Winter’s Discontent occasionally pops its head up into my Top 25.  I originally read it 3 years ago but this is the first time it’s being reviewed.
Writer: Paul Fruchbom
Details: 105 pages – 2009 draft (This is an early draft of the script. The situations, characters, and plot may change significantly by the time the film is released. This is not a definitive statement about the project, but rather an analysis of this unique draft as it pertains to the craft of screenwriting).

 

There are so many professional comedy writers who don’t know how to write that when one comes along who actually does, I’m not sure the industry knows what to do with him. When I say “don’t know how to write,” what I mean is, they can obviously construct a joke, but they lack the skills to create a compelling structured story with three dimensional characters.

Winter’s Discontent is one of the few outrageous comedies I’ve read that still has heart and an actual structure to it. I mean just the fact that the writer starts out with an ironic premise should tell you he’s ahead of most of his peers. Senior citizens in an old folks home who only care about getting laid. It’s the exact opposite of what we expect an old folks home to be like (Never forget! The best comedy premises tend to be ironic!).

Anyway, Herb Winters, a 75-year-old retiree, has just lost his wife of 50 years. I think this is the moment where I officially fell in love with Winter’s Discontent. I was expecting some sappy on-the-nose funeral scene. Instead, the service is interrupted by Herb’s voice over as he explains how psyched he is that his wife’s dead. I sat up and took notice. Hmm, I thought, that’s not what I was expecting.

For example, at the wake, we get this gem: “God, I hate this fucking house. Look at that wallpaper. Ellen loved that wallpaper. She must’ve been retarded.” This is followed by someone offering their condolences: “I’m sorry for your loss.” Herb replies, via voice over, “Loss? If you want to talk about loss, let’s talk about that piano. It hasn’t been touched in 30 years. It has a lot in common with my balls.”

And that’s the real issue here. Herb’s wife stopped having sex with him a long time ago. The man has simply forgotten what it’s like to be a sexually active male. And now that his wife is finally dead, he can find out what that feels like again.

So Herb grabs his best friend, Jules (a “Jewish Mr. Rogers.” Talk about a great description!), and the two head off to Spruce Gardens, a popular old folks home. The plan is to have sex with as many women as possible there. And when they arrive, it looks like that’s exactly what’s going to happen. The women outnumber the men 2 to 1 in this place and they’re all raring to go!

But just when things look like heaven, hell shows up. In the form of Mike Miller. He’s tan. He’s good-looking. But worst of all, HE’S IN HIS 60s! That’s like cheating in this place. And boy does Mike take advantage of it. Every single woman here wants the young meat and poor Herb and his buddies become wallflowers as a result.

As if getting laid wasn’t tough enough, Herb starts falling for one of his 50 year old nurses, Kate. Nabbing that kind of prime filet is going to take a lot more than funny jokes. It’s going to take a time machine.

In the meantime, Herb’s friendship with Jules starts to fray over Herb getting over Ellen so quickly. There seems to be something deeper going on here, to the point where the lifelong friends break up. Kate puts the kybosh on him as well once she realizes what he’s up to. And Mike somehow makes every single woman at Spruce Gardens unavailable. Herb’s dream trip to Spruce Gardens has officially become a nightmare!

I think one of the reasons this script brings a smile to our faces is that it faces a scary situation, one nobody likes to talk about, and has fun with it. We’re not used to laughing about death, yet this script makes it easy to do. There’s something refreshing about that. It’s almost like the script itself becomes a sympathetic character.

From a technical perspective, the script is both traditional and non-traditional. The goal is clear – to get laid. But the stakes are dependent on our character’s conviction. Herb doesn’t really lose anything if he fails, but he so intensely wants his goal (your character should always desperately want his goal!!!) that we do feel like he loses something if he doesn’t get it.

However, there really isn’t any urgency here. There’s no time limit on this goal. But here’s why I don’t think it matters. Fruchbom did a great job always keeping his characters focused on an immediate goal. Either they were trying to have sex with one of the women. They were getting sex lesson to update their moves. Herb was teaching Kate piano so he could get closer to her. If you can keep those smaller goals coming one after another, the reader doesn’t have time to notice that there isn’t a ticking time bomb in the story. It’s when there are large gaps between those goals that the reader starts checking the page count.

Also, when you’re writing a comedy, you want the humor to be PREMISE-SPECIFIC. That means all the humor should stem from your premise. This is a movie about old people desperate to have sex. So you have these nice little gems like Mike Miller being able to drive at night (which means he has the advantage of going on night dates with all the women – something unheard of to the rest of the seniors).

Fruchbom also creates a scenario where if a woman dies during sex, the man involved is blacklisted by the rest of the women. So Herb and crew set up this plan to get Mike to have sex with the most frail likely-to-die woman at Spruce Gardens. If he kills her, he’ll get blacklisted, and they’re all back in the game again. The key here is that the humor is *based on the premise*. It wouldn’t be as funny, for example, if they tried to murder Mike to get him out of the picture. Murder is boring. You can find murder in any movie. You can’t find men sacrificing an 80 year old woman so they can get laid again.  That’s premise-specific.

I know why, despite how well-written it is, “Winter’s” has had trouble getting laid (oops, I mean “made”). Studios only put out these senior citizen flicks once every blue moon. But of all of the geriatric projects floating out there, this script is clearly the best of the bunch. Personally I think it would be a huge hit, but then again I’m not the one who has to put up the money. I hope this finds its way to production at some point though because I believe Paul Fruchbom needs to be in charge of more comedies in Hollywood.

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

What I learned: The success of this script reminded me how important it is to think outside the box with your comedy idea. So many writers focus on that comedy sweet spot of a 30 year old male caught up in some crazy situation. And I understand it. That’s where all the bankable comics are. But if you want to stand out, think outside the box a little. Look for ideas outside the sweet spot. We saw it with the success of this script and we saw it recently on the big screen with the success of Bridesmaids.

Pretty soon I’ll be relaunching the site.  We’ll have a few extra things going on once that happens, which means more opportunities for you guys!  I’m looking for freelancers in two areas, script consulting and graphic arts. These aren’t salary positions.  Those chosen will be featured on Scriptshadow. Any business done through the site will result in a percentage split to be decided upon before the site relaunch.  If this sounds like something you’d be interested in, dust off those resumes!

1) Script Consultants – My own consulting rates have really kicked up lately which means I’ve had to turn down a lot of people.  Therefore, I’m looking for 4-5 Scriptshadow consultants to offer a wider variety of pricing for writers seeking script notes/coverage. Since I refuse to give clients anything but the best, you guys will have to bring it.  Send me your resume and any coverage samples you have.  Consultants with previous experience in the industry and current industry contacts will have a leg up.  But I want a wide pricing structure to service everybody, so some of the lower tier consultants don’t need to have worked with Spielberg. And of course, if your notes are amazing, you’ll have a great shot.

To submit: Send a resume and sample coverage to Carsonreeves3@gmail.com with the subject header: SCRIPT CONSULT.

2) Graphic Artists – The script game is changing. More and more writers are using concept art and one-sheets to market their material. Therefore, I’m looking for a core group of 4-5 graphic artists who specialize in concept art, one-sheets (posters), and storyboarding to service this emerging market. If you’re interested, send me some samples of your work as well as your resume.  The more you can show me, the better. Feel free to include a website sampling as well.

To submit: Send a resume and samples to Carsonreeves3@gmail.com with the subject header: GRAPHIC ART

GOOD LUCK!!!!!!!

He claims his script is better than every script sale out there. He repeatedly trashed Disciple in favor of his own masterpiece. But does writer Jai Brandon deliver on the goods?

Amateur Friday Submission Process: To submit your script for an Amateur Review, send it in PDF form, along with your title, genre, logline, and why I should read your script to Carsonreeves3@gmail.com. Keep in mind your script will be posted in the review (feel free to keep your identity and script title private by providing an alias and fake title). Also, it’s a good idea to resubmit every couple of weeks so your submission stays near the top.

Genre: Thriller/Crime/Serial Killer
Premise: (from writer) The lives of two opposing forces collide, after an argument escalates between a telemarketer and the recipient of his phone call – an active serial killer. Unfortunately for this serial killer, the man that he threatened is no ordinary telemarketer.
About: Jai Brandon has been pushing me to read his scripts for over a year. His constant hyping of The Telemarketer has made him impossible to ignore.
Writer: Jai Brandon
Details: 100 pages

I have experienced my share of confident screenwriters. I, like most of you, lived through Trajent Future (for the time of your life, grab some popcorn and read through the 500 comments of that post). The House That Death Built taught us that the quality of a man’s script is dependent not on one’s bravado, but rather one’s writing. Jai Brandon seems to have ignored this lesson. He places his screenplay up on the highest pedestal, betting that it’s not only better than recent entries such as The Disciple Program, but even some of the classics that have graced our movie theaters for years.

I’d tell Jai that’s a recipe for disaster, but I don’t think he’d listen. However, I’ll give Jai this. At a time where I’ve received more script submissions than any other time in Scriptshadow’s history, this man figured out a way to get me to read his script. True it was done through incessant badgering and enough e-mails to break Gmail’s servers (true story – I opened one of his e-mails and Gmail crashed), but you gotta get your name out there somehow and Jai did it.

Of course, this brings us to the actual script, and I’m not going to lie. I was expecting it to be somewhere between really bad and extremely terrible. My experience has taught me that those who yell the loudest usually have the least to say. The good news for Jai is that the script did not fall inside that category.

But it did fall inside a new category I like to refer to as, “Logic, flow, and tone be damned.” This has to be one of the strangest scripts I’ve read in a while in that Jai actually has a lot of talent, to the point where you occasionally wonder if you’re reading a pro. Unfortunately, that talent is eclipsed by a poor story sense. The script has so many weird combinations going on as to make it almost indecipherable. I’ll get into that in a second but let’s deal with the plot first.

20-something James Walker is a deliveryman. Well, that’s not entirely true. He’s a telemarketer. He’s a telemarketer/deliveryman, working delivery by day and telemarketing by night. Confused? So am I. I guess James doesn’t have to sleep. But neither did Edward Norton in Fight Club so I’m going to let it slide.

Our favorite telemarketer/deliveryman goes to deliver a package at a house only to see three burglars holding a woman hostage inside. Since James is not the kind of person to sit back idly, he sneaks in through the window and systematically kills the men. Add ass-kicker to James’ resume.

Later, a couple of detectives stop by to try and figure out what happened but come to the conclusion that no man could have taken these burglars out the way they did. It would have been impossible.

Off in another home we meet a man known as The Clown Face Killer. This Caucasian fellow likes to dress up in blackface and an afro wig and kill African American women. He also has Alopecia (he’s hairless) which means he never leaves a single trace of DNA evidence wherever he goes. He’s the perfect killer. The perfect CLOWN FACE KILLER.

In the meantime, those “savvy” detectives find a delivery notice on that burglarized lady’s front porch. So they head over to James’ telemarketing job to ask him some questions, namely why the notice is marked with the exact time this burglary took place. But James is as cool as a Kumquat (and as sarcastic as a snapping turtle) and convinces the doofus detectives that he wasn’t involved.

Across town, Mr. Clown-Face Killer continues attacking young unsuspecting African-American women, but during one of these attacks, James calls the house as part of his telemarketing gig. He and Clown Face have a brief conversation and the clown killer decides he’s going to make this personal. He then begins killing everyone in New York named James Walker – our hero’s name!

In the end, the Clown-Face Killer with alopecia gets so worked up that he actually targets James’ own mother. James will have to call on not only his telemarketing and delivery skills to take this man down, but his mercenary skills as well. Wait, what?! Oh yeah, I forgot to mention. James used to be a mercenary too! Will he succeed? I’m not sure. Nothing is certain in…..The Telemarketer.

Okay, so like I said, Jai shows a lot of skill in his writing. Open up this script and read the first scene and you’ll notice the writing is crisp, lean and professional.

The problem is, Jai’s lack of storytelling sense becomes increasingly problematic as the story goes on. What I mean by “storytelling sense” is the combination of structure, tone, understanding of genre, and how to build a story in a believable, compelling and logical way. The Telemarketer builds, but nothing is ever believable. And rarely is the tone of the story consistent. It kind of feels like a pastiche of several different genres slapped together in no particular order.

But let’s back up for a second and start with the title. The reason I resisted reading this in the first place was that the title and the logline didn’t jive. It sounded like a set up for a comedy as opposed to a thriller. A telemarketer taking on a man with alopecia who dresses up in blackface and an Afro wig? I don’t know. That just doesn’t sound like a subject matter you can treat seriously. So that was the first problem I had, and that was before I even opened the script (again – why testing your concept is SO important!).

The next problem I had was the dual jobs. I understand some people work two jobs to make ends meet, but in this case, the two jobs were obviously created for the purpose of instituting key plot points. Jai needed James to be a deliveryman/vigilante killer in order to get the detectives after him. And he needed his hero to be a telemarketer so he could call the woman that would begin Clown Faced’s obsession with him.

My question is, since the deliveryman job has absolutely nothing to do with the story, why not ditch it? Just make him a telemarketer. That’s the name of the movie anyway. By calling a movie “The Telemarketer” and starting off with your hero as a deliveryman, you’ve already confused your audience. In the very first scene! That’s a big problem with the writing here. It just seems to go wherever it wants in order to make the story work for the writer.

In addition to these problems, we just have these really weird scenes that appear out of nowhere. For instance, in addition to being a telemarketer and a deliveryman, it turns out that James also used to be a mercenary. So right in the middle of the script, for no discernible reason, we jump back to James during his mercenary days taking down Somali pirates. To the writer, this may all seem completely logical. “Of course he’s a mercenary. That’s my hero’s backstory!”

But to a reader, it’s utter confusion. We’re adding on to a character who already feels schizophrenic the title of mercenary??? How can an audience take that seriously? It would be like in Silence Of The Lambs if, 60 minutes in, Jodie Foster participated in a local disco competition, won, then went right back to hunting Buffalo Bill. You can’t just do whatever you want in a story. It has to make sense, it has to feel natural, it has to fit within the theme. If it doesn’t, it just feels random.

Another scene that came out of nowhere was James driving his delivery truck and getting stopped by some detectives, but it turns out those detectives were fake and actually robbers! Who rob him! The scene is just some random isolated incident that has NOTHING to do with the plot at all! These moments kept coming in The Telemarketer. Which was a big part of what made the read so frustrating.

The thing is, Jai really does have some talent. And despite his insane bravado, he actually seems like a nice guy. I don’t think he’s going to be telling everybody here (along with myself) that we’re all worthless and don’t know what we’re talking about and he does, a la Trajent Future. But he needs to back up and study storytelling a little more. Storytelling isn’t about throwing a bunch of shit on the page you think is cool. It’s about slowly building up a story where all the pieces fit together in a natural way. There are very few pieces in The Telemarketer that fit together and that’s why, despite the talent, the story doesn’t work.

What did you guys think? Is this better than The Disciple Program, as Jai claims? Or is my review completely off?

Script Link: The Telemarketer

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

What I learned: Be elegant in your plot construction. The more you strain, the more we’ll notice. In other words, never push an improbable or illogical plot point onto your story just because you *really need* something to happen. Here, Jai wanted these detectives to pull his hero, James, into the story. So he created this deliveryman job, which allowed his hero to murder these men, so that the detectives could question him. Keep in mind this job has NOTHING TO DO with the rest of the story. Never once is delivering something ever broached again. So it obviously feels false. You easily could’ve achieved this plot point without adding another job. Why can’t James be the woman’s neighbor? He’s about to go to work and sees something suspicious going on? Or maybe part of the telemarketing gig is delivering flyers about the service. You must be elegant in the way you weave things into your story or you’re going to pull your reader out of that story.