Genre: Thriller/Romantic Drama mash-up
Premise: A half-deaf woman who’s repeatedly taken advantage of at her job, hires a young ex-con to help around the office, who she then begins to fall in love with.
About: Sur Mes Levres was originally a 2001 French thriller. Naturally, since this is what we do here in America, a company bought the rights to the movie to remake it. And apparently had some dough to do so, bringing in hotshot script writer Tony Gilroy (all the Bourne movies, Michael Clayton, Armageddon, The Devil’s Advocate) to sculpt the screenplay. Alas, this draft was written in 2004, and a remake of the film has yet to pass. Gilroy has two rules for his moves. “Bring it in within two hours” and “Don’t bore the audience.” You can read more about him in this New Yorker article here.
Writer: Tony Gilroy (based on the film “Sur Mes Levres” written by Jacques Audiard and Tonio Benacquista)
Details: 127 pages – 9/28/04 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).

If yesterday’s script was tough to get a handle on due to its simplicity, today’s script is hard to get a handle on because of its complexity. The narrative here is all over the place. There’s no defining hook to the story, making it difficult for an average American audience to understand why in the world they would waste their time on it. Americans like clarity in their concepts. They like when you tell them, “This is why you’re going to show up.” Read “Crazy Stupid Love” and then go watch the trailer. There’s no true hook in “Crazy Stupid Love,” but notice how the trailer emphasizes the “nerd to stud” angle of Steve Carrel, so that audiences can go home and identify it as “that movie where Steve Carrel turns into a stud.” Read My Lips doesn’t have any concept to hang its hat on, so I’m not sure how it would be marketed.

Carla is an executive assistant for a construction management company. This is man’s world she works in, so she’s already fighting for her life, but Carla’s situation is complicated by her hearing problem. She’s half-deaf, and her co-workers relentlessly use her impairment to take advantage of her.

At the center of this advantage-taking is her boss, Paul Verlawn. This man is as pathetic and as slimy as they come, and he repeatedly has Carla doing the dirty work for him then taking all the credit when the big board meetings come around.

One day, after Carla is chastised for not getting enough work done, she’s told to hire an assistant (an assistant to the assistant! – I thought that only happened in Hollywood). She brings a guy in named Danny, who immediately informs her that everything on his resume is a lie and he just wrote it to get the interview. Boy did this guy not get the memo on how to nail an interview. Oh, and he’s also an ex-con who just got out of the slammer. A real winner. But Carla, feeling bad for the guy, actually hires him.

Danny begins to see how Carla is treated and implores her to stand up for herself. So the two hatch a plan to prove that her slimy boss, Paul, is dealing in some shady bidding practices and is on the take. Carla uses her “secret power” of reading lips to track what the big timers are saying to each other in meetings, and uses the info to take Paul down.

In the meantime, Danny’s criminal past catches up to him (those darn criminal pasts – they never go away do they?). He owes some big-timer named Marco a lot of money, and Marco plans to get that money back. So he has Danny start bartending at his club, despite Danny being on probation and knowing that if he’s caught around these dudes, he’s probably going back behind bars, filming scenes for MSNBC’s Lockup.

Eventually Carla figures out that Danny’s homeless, and so illegally sets up a makeshift apartment for him in one of the buildings her company owns. He then starts to hit on her, but because Carla is so unfamiliar with any sort of intimate contact, she doesn’t know how to react, and solves the problem pretty much by running away. However, secretly, when she gets home, all she can think about are Danny’s advances. In the end, they’ll have to take down her boss, escape Danny’s thug friends, and figure out if they’re going to be an item or not.

Just from my summary there, you’re probably a little confused, which shows just how off-beat this screenplay is. There’s a lot going on and unlike a traditional Hollywood movie, the A-plot doesn’t have much to do with the B-plot. What I mean is, part of the movie is about Carla taking down her boss, which is sort of a PG run-of-the-mill underdog story. But then Danny’s storyline is a hard R John Woo mini crime saga with Danny being roped into a sketchy murder attempt. I guess other countries like these schizophrenic storylines. But to Americans, they just don’t make sense.

Also, the love story is really odd. It’s never clear why Carla hires Danny in the first place (“feeling sorry for him” was my best guess). Carla spends the majority of the time equal parts angry and afraid of Danny. Yet when she’s alone she walks around naked in his smelly t-shirt. When she does start to accept his advances, he’s angry and frustrated by her for some reason. I don’t know. I just never really understood what was going on there. But at the same time, that’s why I kept reading. Their relationship was so weird, I had to see where it ended up.

Where you could really sense the Europeaness of the story, though, was in Carla’s impairment. Carla is half-deaf. This is so not a Hollywood choice. In Hollywood movies, things are black and white. You’re either all deaf or not deaf. You’re not half-deaf. An audience doesn’t know what to do with half-deaf. “Well, she can still hear,” they say. “What’s the difference between that and being able to hear perfectly?”

I suspect it’s to set up her lip-reading ability, but that was another problem I had with the script. The lip-reading is given a pronounced set-up, but it never really comes into play in a huge way. It’s more something they depend on sporadically, helping them here and there but that’s it. It’s this sort of “one foot in the pool, one foot out of the pool” approach that confuses us dumb Americans. (“If you made such a big deal out of it, why doesn’t it become a big deal later?”)

Read My Lips’ strength is in its characters. There’s so much going on with these guys. Look at Carla. We know about her flaw (doesn’t stand up for herself), her desires (take down her boss), her handicaps (her hearing), her inner conflicts (wanting to be with Danny but being scared), her relationships (her conflicted relationship with her sister). That’s a character you remember right there. On the downside, the plot is disjointed and unsure of itself. The main storyline we’ve been introduced to (taking down the boss) is solved 70% into the screenplay, turning Danny’s life into the main plot, a strange shift that requires a readjustment we’re not very comfortable making.

I’m going to be a little French Film racist here but I see a lot of French movies that take this unclear narrative route and I’m not sure I like it. I remember watching 2010’s “A Prophet” for instance, and thinking, this film is freaking amazing. It’s this gritty story about a dude dealing with the complexities and politics of jail. But then like 70% into the movie, it switches gears into something completely different. And then it just kept going. And going. And going. At a certain point I realized I no longer had any idea what the movie was about.

But I’m getting off track. Despite all this, Read My Lips has something undeniably compelling about it. Whether it’s the weird romance, the moody atmosphere, or its dual storylines. You want to get to the end. And that’s why I think it’s worth your time.

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

What I learned: Tell us who a character is through the way they react to something. On page 18, Carla’s sister tells her that she’s cheating on her husband. Carla’s reaction to this is one of horror. But not just horror. Naiveté. It’s as if Carla’s never heard of a woman cheating on her husband before, much less her own sister. This tells us a ton about Carla’s character. She’s sheltered, naïve, buttoned up, traditional. It’s a clever way to reveal character. All you had to do was show her react to something.

Genre: Comedy
Premise: A married couple who get a night off from their kids, get adventurous and decide to spice up their lives by making a sex tape. When they wake the following morning, the tape is missing, and they must find out who took it and how to get it back.
About: Sex Tape is one of the biggest spec sales of the year, taking us back to the early 90s with its giant 7 figure price tag. As is usually the case, these huge sales don’t go to newcomers, but rather established veterans. Angelo’s been around for awhile. She was a writer on the TV show, Becker. She was a producer on Will & Grace. And she wrote the script, “The Back Up Plan,” starring J.Lo.
Writer: Kate Angelo
Details: 118 pages – May 31, 2011 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).

Here’s what my peeps are telling me about Sex Tape.

Married Folks: This totally captures what your life (and sex life) becomes once you have children.

Single Folks: I don’t get it.

So there seems to be a sharp divide. Just looking at the concept alone, I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, it seems like one of those ideas where you say, “Why didn’t I think of that?” On the other, it feels a bit dated, doesn’t it? I mean we had the “Zoey and Chachi Make A Sex Tape” or whatever that Kevin Smith movie was, and that script had been lying around for a decade. So has the sex tape thing run its course? Of course, this script isn’t as much about the gory details of the sex tape as it is about getting the sex tape back. In fact, it’s very much similar in tone to Date Night, another big spec sale, and kind of a family film. Does that mean Sex Tape is a family film? I don’t think you can make a family film about a sex tape, can you?

Anyway, the script opens with a wonderful fifteen page montage of our two leads, Jay and Annie, meeting at college and falling in love. And fucking. Lots and lots of fucking. They fuck in the school library, in the car, in their dorm rooms – anywhere where two people can fuck, they fuck.

But then they get married and start having kids and the sex starts to slow down. But they still love each other so they keep trying, but now there are babies crying and kids sleeping in beds and kids peeing in beds and Annie being exhausted and before you know it, Annie just doesn’t have time for sex anymore. It’s not that she doesn’t want to. She just has too many things going on.

But when she realizes how much this non-sex is affecting Jay, Annie decides to do something special. So she sends the kids away with their grandmother and gives Jay 12 straight hours of access to her body to do whatever he wishes. Well, one thing leads to another, they turn on a video camera, they eat a few pot brownies, they find an old copy of The Joy Of Sex, and they decide to try every position in the book (and then some) while making the really big mistake of taping it all.

Cut to the next morning and they don’t remember much. What they do remember is that sex tape though, and to their horror, when they look up at the tripod, the camera is gone. Uh-oh. They run downstairs to find the maid, a construction worker, and about ¾ of their house torn up. Whoa, they really went wild last night. Why the construction worker is here is a “wtf” detail I’ll get to later. But basically, they suspect that one of these guys took the tape.

So they follow them and eventually realize they didn’t, and then become suspicious that some other entity stole it, or that the maid passed it on to someone else, and that it’s very likely to end up on the internet, something that cannot happen, since Annie’s blog is a parenting website that is about to be purchased by Fisher-Price, a company that probably wouldn’t embrace an employee with a well-known sex tape, (though you never know these days).

Jay and Annie run around like chickens with their heads cut off, desperately pulling together every little clue and trying to stop the inevitable from happening, all the while wondering what the hell they did on that damn sex tape. In the process, they learn about the importance of putting your partner first in life, even if it takes a little extra effort to do so.

So, how was Sex Tape?

Well, I thought the first act was great. It got a little broad there with the sex tape itself (getting high on pot brownies and turning into Joy of Sex characters and using the baby swing for a sex move? — why not just cut to black and have them wake up – so the audience is just as curious about what happened as them?) but I absolutely loved the montage of them meeting and getting married. I thought it really captured two people falling in love mainly through the copious amounts of sex we all have when we’re first in a relationship.

I also liked the third act. As they’re running around, by this point having absolutely no idea where the tape is, you get some great little scenes, like them at their son’s recital realizing that there’s a very good chance their tape is about to be played in front of their son’s friends and parents.

Also, if you’re like me and have read too many scripts where the writers answer the burning plot question with a total copout (the camera ran out of tape 10 seconds after they started taping so there was never any sex tape in the first place), I have to admit that the explanation for what happened in this one was extremely well set up and satisfying. Always a good thing when you leave your reader on a happy note, and Sex Tape does.

What I didn’t like about Sex Tape was the second act, and the reason is, there was no form to it. And I see this all the time, especially in comedy specs. Where writers set up the first act perfectly. Where they nail the third act. But the second act is just a formless mass of wackiness. And that’s what happened here. The second act was an excuse to throw a bunch of shit against the wall and see what stuck.

It started with the construction worker. First of all, if you plowed a wall over during a wild sex night, how the hell would the construction worker know about it BEFORE YOU EVEN WOKE UP? Can this construction worker predict the future? Did he know you were going to call and so showed up ahead of time? They attempt to explain this by saying the Grandmother sent him over. But that would require some sort of ESP on her part as well. Either that or really good intuition (“Hmm, they probably got so wasted and had so much sex that they knocked over a wall. Better call the construction people.”) So the fact that this guy (and the maid) are our prime suspects right away destroys the early credibility of the piece, and makes getting into the mystery a forced endeavor.

From there on, there’s no real plan or form to the chase. The two just sort of stumble around a lot and run into crazy situations, like the Porn Con, which is a logical place to take this story, but it wasn’t logically explained how we got there. It was more like, “Ooh, they should have to go to the Porn Con.” And that idea was inserted into the script with only threadbare motivation.

Someone who read Sex Tape e-mailed me and said, “If this happened to my husband and I, we would sit down and logically map out all the possibilities of where the tape could be. Then we’d methodically go down that list until we eliminated every one.” These two never do that. They act like they’re 14 years old and in movie world, where things don’t need to make sense as long as the wackiness is in full supply.

Despite this, I can see why Sex Tape sold. You have an easily marketable concept. You have a great first act. The ending is satisfying (so important – since that’s they last thing you leave the reader with). And it does have a few good set-pieces and laughs. Combine that with a studio that’s looking for this kind of movie, and you’ve got yourself a sale. I just hope they get that second act into shape.

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

What I learned: I’ve been reading a lot of scripts lately where a key character’s profession is “blogger.” I would warn against this, partly because every writer’s been doing it, but also because it’s a job clearly chosen out of laziness. Who needs to research a blogger? Anyone can blog! Which means you don’t have to think up the job or what they’re doing at the job or any of those difficult details that flesh out a character’s life. You just have’em hang out all day on the computer! Perfect for someone who doesn’t like effort. All I ask is that if you’re making your character a blogger, ask if you’re doing it because it’s right for the story and for the character and fits with the theme, or if you’re doing it cause you don’t want to be bothered with figuring out the details of “a real job.”  As long as the decision makes sense for the story, blog away baby.

What I learned 2: A question to all those with kids out there. When you have kids, does projectile vomiting all of a sudden become hilarious? Because to me and all of the non-married people I know, a projectile vomiting joke is near the top of the list of desperate humor, right up there with stepping in doo-doo and an inappropriate fart. Yet I keep seeing writers use it over and over again. I’m thinking you just have to experience it yourself before you understand its genius? Help me out here.

We’ve had so many sign ups the last couple of days that the Tracking Board guys decided to extend the deal til the end of tomorrow (July 4th).  The Tracking Board has spec screenplay updates every day.  What specs are going out.  Which of them are selling.  Important info every screenwriter should be keeping track of.  Tons of Scriptshadowers have already signed up.  What the hell are you waiting for??  Go to the original post and sign up now!

Genre: Comedy
Premise: Dr. Frankenstein runs a successful cosmetic surgery practice which quickly begins falling apart.
About: Every Friday, I review a script from the readers of the site. If you’re interested in submitting 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).
Writer: Kenneth L. Kleeman
Details: 87 pages

Is there really any way to analyze this script? It’s called “Frankenstein 90210.” I mean, you pretty much know what you’re going to get before you open it, right? Goofiness. Silliness. Ridiculousness. Well you’d be wrong. Or right. Depending on your point of view. Or not? The truth is, there’s no way to categorically explain what happens inside the pages of Frankenstein 90201. Of all the scripts I’ve read this month, this one stayed with me the most. Stayed with me how? That’s the question of the moment. And a question the alien species who finds our remains 2 million years from now will also be asking. “Bekjleira eaja;kj; aalkes? [I do not understand. What is this Frankenstein 90210?].” The script bounces back and forth between off-the-rails sit-commish comedy and Mystery Science Theater 3000 audio track worthiness. I’m not quite sure what I’ve read here, but I can’t deny that I haven’t stopped thinking about it since.

Dr. Tim Frankenstein, who’s, um, Frankenstein, has moved into a plush office space and is one of the 90210 area code’s top cosmetic surgeons. A chimpanzee has torn your face apart? Dr. Tim Frankenstein ts the guy to fix it for you. Kinda.

He’s accompanied by his bitchy secretary, Kelly, who provides a running commentary of all the freaks who walk through the door (and there are plenty), and Tiffany, Dr. Frankenstein’s head nurse, who’s a little grossed out by the job.

Across the hall is, um, well, hmmmm, how do I say this? Well, across the hall is Dr. Frankenstein’s psychiatrist, Dr. Phildrew. Oh boy. You’re going to want to sit down for this one. Are you sitting down? Dr. Phildrew has two separate heads placed on the same body. One of those heads is Dr. Phil (yes, the real life Dr. Phil) and the other head is Dr. Drew (yes, from Celebrity Rehab). If it’s too difficult for you to comprehend why Dr. Phil and Dr. Drew’s heads have ended up on the same body, you might want to avoid this script like facial reconstruction surgery. Cause having two heads is probably the MOST sensical thing about Dr. Phildrew.

Anyway, Dr. Frankenstein’s business is so stressful that he’s often required to unload his problems onto Dr. PhilDrew, who, of course, gives him conflicting advice.

Part of the reason Frankenstein’s so stressed is that his wife is a major pill-popper. She uses Frankenstein’s practice to score free pills, and in just about every scene we see her in, she’s barging into his office demanding more narcotics. Frankenstien’s just a big pushover so he always lets her have her way.

Also joining the fray is Hunchback Yvette. Hunchback Yvette is a sweet young ambitious nurse with a dream of straightening out her life. Um, literally. Some women have to worry about camel toe. Yvette has to worry about camel….back. So she’s come to Frankenstein, offering her services, if he’ll get rid of her hunchback. Despite the other women in the office being disgusted by the large lump on top of her back, Frankenstein hires her and agrees.

During this time, Frankenstein, his employees, and his patients, all seem to double up on appointments with Dr. Phildrew right after their surgeries, resulting in us moving from one office to the other and back again in an endless pattern. In fact, I’m not sure we ever leave this building during Dr. Frankenstein. These appointments are complicated by an ongoing court battle between Dr. Phil and Dr. Drew for possession of their body. Naturally then, every time we pop in, one of them has the body and the other is relegated to sitting atop an inanimate object, like a box of wood. Also, Dr. Phil likes to slap Dr. Drew around a lot. There’s a lot of slapping here.

Are you confused yet? I know I am. Welcome to Frankenstein 90210.

Okay, I’m going to take a wild stab at this and guess this is Kenneth’s first screenplay. I say that because, obviously, there’s no real attempt at telling a story here. It’s more about stringing together a bunch of silly scenes long enough to get us to the end of the race. This can be seen in the length of the script, which barely meets the spec requirement at 88 pages. We talk a lot about screenplays that are too long, but when a screenplay is under 95 pages, it’s usually a sign that the writer doesn’t know how to flesh out his story.

And that’s beyond clear here. Nobody’s going after anything. There’s no character exploration. There’s no central problem that needs to be solved. I mean there are minor issues, like Yvette’s hunchback, but a story needs a central problem, like the practice being in trouble or something. We don’t have that. So the story just wanders aimlessly.

Also, the scope of the story is too small. If you have only two locations and it’s a comedy, you’re probably better off writing a play. A movie needs scope. Characters need to be going places and doing things. Nobody lives in a world where they spend 99% of their time inside of two rooms. Unless you’re writing a contained thriller with a tight time frame, you need to open your story up.

As for the comedy itself, I’ll get to that in a second, but let me say this. The “anything goes” comedy is not a good avenue for a spec script. You’re putting too much emphasis on the jokes and while those are obviously important, the real stuff, building an interesting story with believable characters, is what agents and managers and producers care about. You have to learn the 3-Act structure. You have to learn how to build a character arc. Even if you’re a really funny guy, industry people want to know that you can CONSTRUCT a story. And that’s where I think Kenneth has to go before writing his next script. Read Michael Hauge’s “Writing Screenplays That Sell”. Read “The Sequence Approach.” Read a hundred screenplays. Then build an actual story around this premise as opposed to just writing one long extended scene off the top of your head.

All that being said, I have to admit that I was giggling despite myself throughout Frankenstein 90210. Kenneth is definitely a funny guy, and every few pages, before I could get worked up about the lack of direction or the total disregard for structure, there’d be a joke that made me forget about it. For example, one of the patients who comes in is a woman who’s had her face torn off by a chimpanzee. We never see her face. Only Dr. Frankenstein’s reaction to her face. After she insists that she needs facial reconstruction surgery, Dr. Frankenstein calmly responds, “While I’m sure having a face would give you a temporary ego boost, I don’t think it would solve your real problems. I think you would be happier if you learned to accept yourself as you are.” Very funny stuff. And then when she’s leaving, Kelly, the bitchy secretary, sends her out with, “So long chimp chow.”

And while the Dr. Drew and Dr. Phil stuff is completely ridiculous, I admit that for some odd reason I looked forward to going back to them. I mean, I just had to see who was going to win the custody battle for the body!

Frankenstein 90210 is born out of the Family Guy pool of humor so if you like that sort of non-sequitor no central idea type of humor – but like, like it so much that NOTHING has to make sense – then you might want to give this a try. Cause it will make you laugh. Otherwise, I’d probably stay away. Stay very very far away.

Script link: Frankenstein 90210

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

What I learned: You have to figure out which vessel is the best vessel to tell your story through. Who has the clearest most interesting goal? Who has the most going on internally? Who’s dealing with the most issues? Who has the most to gain? The most to lose? Then, make that person your main character. And if you don’t want to make that person your main character? Then build up the person you DO want to make your main character until they’re as interesting as that candidate. Here, Dr. Frankenstein is our lead, but he doesn’t have anything going on. Our most interesting character is actually Yvette, the hunchback. She’s the one who has the big problem. She’s the one who has the most drive. She’s the one with the clear goal. She’s the one who has the most to gain or lose. She’s the underdog. The story should probably be told through her eyes. And yet she’s relegated to supporting role status. Try to tell your story through your most interesting character if possible.

 

I LOVED the script for HappyThankYouMorePlease. Here’s my old review to show you how much. I loved the weird story. I loved the unique characters. I loved having no idea where it was going or where it would end up. But most of all I loved the writing. It’s rare that I slow down just to admire the skill in which a writer puts his words together. But I did here. And my neck still hurts from the whiplash I experienced after realizing that “that guy from How I Met Your Mother” wrote it.

Needless to say, I was interested to see what Josh Radnor was getting himself into, since he was both directing and starring in the film. The cast he lined up was good, including super-hottie Kate Mara, super duper hottie Malin Ackerman, and super duper uber hottie, Tony Hale (from Arrested Development of course). But man, after finally watching the movie the other day, I can’t tell you how disappointed I was. It was nothing like the movie I imagined while reading the script, and it jolted me into lesson mode. Because I love screenwriting (and screenwriters) so much, I sort of illogically cling to this falsehood that a great script is indestructible. That there’s no way to screw it up. Well, I have been proven wrong, and it’s time to figure out why. Folks, here’s how easy it is to turn a good script into a bad movie.

DIRECTING IS HARDER THAN IT LOOKS
One of the easiest ways to get your script made is to direct it yourself. However, that doesn’t mean it’s easy. Anyone can set up a camera. But it takes knowledge and vision to be a director. The directing in Happythankyoumoreplease was, for lack of a better word, basic, as if Radnor had just completed his first year at film school and couldn’t wait to show the world what he’d learned. From the opening low-angle wake up sequence (I think low angles are the first “exciting” shot you learn as a filmmaker) to the outrageous overuse of close-ups. You’d think that New York consisted solely of big heads and bigger smiles had you only seen the city through Josh Radnor’s eyes. Haters gonna hate on Garden State, but all you have to do is watch these two movies back-to-back to see the difference between someone who has vision and someone who just got their first camera the day before production began.

BLOCKING
Piggybacking off that, no one ever moved in this movie. Except for the outside shots where Radnor and the boy walked around, every scene had two people standing or sitting while we cut back and forth between them. It was as if Radnor had walked into a wax museum and simply started taping pretend conversations between statues. This is a good lesson for screenwriters. Try to have your characters DOING SOMETHING in a scene besides just talking to one another. Have them cleaning or setting up their new TV or taking the trash out. We talk a lot about making your character ACTIVE. Extend that concept to individual scenes. Make them ACTIVE in the moment. Brownie points if their actions reveal more about their character.

 
THE COUPLE OF DEATH
Oh boy. When I read this script, the one plotline that wasn’t up to snuff was the “Should We Move To L.A. or Not” couple. I thought it worked in script form, but in retrospect that may have been because I could skim through those scenes and get to the other stuff faster. Onscreen, there is no escape. The couple’s whiney repetitive disagreements become all the more whiney and repetitive because you HAVE NOWHERE TO HIDE. You’re stuck listening to them drone on and on and on about L.A. L.A. is bad. L.A. is good. L.A. is bad. L.A. is good. I quickly labeled them THE COUPLE OF DEATH because every time they came onscreen, the movie died. This is a HUGE reminder to make sure EVERY CHARACTER COUNTS in your screenplay. If you have a boring character or a boring couple in your script, rewrite them. Or get rid of them. Or replace them. But whatever you do, don’t leave them in your movie. Or they will kill your film every second they come onscreen.

JOSH RADNOR AS JOSH RADNOR
I get it. All actors are vain. And the guy wants to prepare for his career after “How I Met Your Mother.” Don’t want to end up like Joey or the Seinfeld guys. So from a selfish standpoint, I understand Radnor’s choice to star in his own movie. Still, the number one slam dunk way to ruin a script is bad casting. The wrong actor can kill a character. And Josh was never right for this part. His face is too smiley. He’s too bubbly. I never once bought him as this down-and-out struggling dude. Maybe he does have some suffering in his past, but he certainly didn’t convey that in his performance. If you’re ever in this position, ask yourself, if I was someone else, would I really cast me in this role?

 
BE CAREFUL ABOUT WRITING YOUNG KIDS INTO YOUR MOVIE
It’s really hard to find good young actors (5-6-7 years old) who can anchor a major plot thread for an entire movie. You can scour Backstage West or Frontstage North or Facebook or talent agencies or wherever. The truth is, finding a kid who can nail a role like this is one step higher than blind luck. The boy who played Rasheen in “Happythankyoumoreplease” wasn’t terrible. But he wasn’t good either. He just said yes and no 50 times and that was it. Kids are necessary to tell certain stories. But beware when writing major roles for 5 year olds. Chances are you’re not going to find that actor.

CONVERSATIONS ABOUT LIFE – DITCH’EM
People. Unless you’re Richard Linklater, limit the “conversations about life” scenes in your movie to 1 per script. And if you really want to do the world a favor, don’t write any at all. There are few things as pretentious and grating as two characters opining about existence and life’s difficulties. I’m sure there are a couple of examples in film history of these scenes working, but I can’t think of any. More importantly though, be aware of WHY you want to write these scenes in the first place. It’s usually because your characters have nothing to do. You need to fill some time. So you think, “Hmmm…I’ll have them discuss, like, life and stuff.” Who then, are our big violators of this deathly mistake in “More Please?” Surprise surprise. None other than THE COUPLE OF DEATH! They have nothing to do. Therefore the writer is forced to give them meaningless dialogue. Always give your characters something to do people, somewhere to be, something to get. By doing so, you won’t need to give them pointless things to say.

MORE MOVEMENT – MORE ACTION – MORE CHARACTERS AFTER THINGS
Building on that, the biggest thing I’ve learned here is just how difficult it is to turn talky scripts into good movies. Talky stuff works on the page because readers love to speed through scripts and if there’s a lot of dialogue, it’s easy to get through faster. But what was so fast and easy on the page becomes slow and plodding on the screen if the actors delivering the line are standing around doing nothing. You need a means to liven things up. Woody Allen is a master at this and the main tool he uses is he always has other things going on in the scene besides two people talking. Maybe there’s subtext (one of the characters likes the other but hasn’t told them yet), maybe there’s an external force pulling at them, maybe there’s another couple antagonizing them. People are always in a state of flux in Woody Allen’s scenes, which adds energy, something sorely lacking in “More Please.”

For example, in his latest film, Midnight In Paris, there’s an early scene where Owen Wilson and his fiance are having lunch with the fiance’s parents, and two old friends of the fiance show up unexpectedly. The scene is interesting because the fiance is trying to balance entertaining two opposing groups who don’t know each other at the same time, never an easy task. In the meantime, Owen Wilson doesn’t get along with the parents and doesn’t like the friends, so he’s trying to stave off any attempts to meet up later with either party, which, of course, is exactly what his fiance wants. That’s what I mean by multiple things going on in a scene. It’s complicated. It’s dynamic. And it’s not just two people standing across from each other talking about the meaning of life, which are some of the most difficult scenes to make interesting EVEN IF you’re a great writer.

I hope there’s something in these observations that helped you. But if not, here’s one last tip. Please, never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER write a COUPLE OF DEATH into your movie.