Here’s Jessica Hall once again with our Weekly Rundown! Some great info here. Oh, and the Efron project she’s referring to (the time travel one), I believe is titled “Algorithm” and I’m desperately searching for it. So if you can get your paws on it, please send!

Still no action on specs this week and very little lit news until everyone returns from Sundance. A few announcements came out of the Festival, but acquisitions were still light.

Chris Sparling’s 2009 Blacklist script BURIED was the first narrative sale at this year’s Sundance Film Festival. The film, directed by Rodrigo Cortes, was picked up by Lionsgate for just under $4 million. The ScriptShadow favorite is about a civilian contractor in Iraq who is kidnapped and awakens to find himself buried in a coffin in the desert. (http://bit.ly/57UjAp)

Writer/director Michael Winterbottom will take on “Promised Land” as his next feature. Project explores events leading to the 1948 partition of Palestine and the subsequent creation of the state of Israel. Winterbottom currently has THE KILLER INSIDE ME showing at Sundance. (http://bit.ly/bGILgh)

The Butcher Brothers aka Altieri & Flores have announced their next writing and directing project. BLACK SUNSET, about seven friends on a surfing trip to Mexico that turns deadly, will be financed by Queen Nefertari Productions, a film finance fund run by Gersh Agency. Writer/Directors also have THE VIOLENT KIND at Sundance. (http://bit.ly/bpAZsC).

2006 Black List writers Calpin & Jakubowski (ASSASSINATION OF A HIGH SCHOOL PRESIDENT) have written an Untitled Time Travel script. Zac Efron is set to star in the Action/Adventure project for Warner Bros. and Mark Gordon Co. (http://bit.ly/d9DU4I)

2008 Spec THE COMMUTER by Byron Willinger & Phillip De Blasiwas was set up at Gold Circle with Olatunde Osunsanmi (The Fourth Kind) to direct and possibly rewrite. In the action/thriller, a mysterious cell phone caller directs a former NYPD detective to find a federal witness aboard his commuter train, and kill him before the train reaches the end of the line. Willinger and De Blasi are currently rewriting “The Fourth Horseman” for Intrepid and writing “Paradise Lost” for Legendary. Osunsanmi is also set to write, and potentially direct an adaptation of the yet-to-be-released video game Zero-G. (http://bit.ly/bQefKV)

Martin Scorsese signed on to direct THE INVENTION OF HUGO CABRET from John Logan’s (SWEENEY TODD) script. Scorsese replaces Chris Wedge who dropped off the project about 12-year-old orphan Hugo, who lives in a train station and must finish what his late-father started by solving the mystery of a broken robot. (http://bit.ly/6MP5GV)

From the 2008 Black List, PASSENGERS (script review here) by Jon Spaihts may be getting a new breath of life with the rumor that Gabriele Muccino (SEVEN POUNDS) is circling the project. Highly regarded script is about a man who accidentally awakens from hypersleep with ninety years left in an intergalactic journey and decides to wake up a beautiful fellow passenger to keep him company…even though doing so means she too will die before they reach their destination. (http://bit.ly/8XJ0YV)

With The Mulroneys hard at work on the script for SHERLOCK HOLMES 2, Warner Bros. and Silver Pictures announced that Guy Ritchie, director of the first installment, is set to direct the sequel. (http://bit.ly/dlsUsZ)

Writer/Director Boaz Yakin (REMEMBER THE TITANS) is in early pre-production on SYMPATHY FOR THE DEVIL, the story of two Baton Rouge Detectives who find themselves involved in a case that escalates into a cosmic confrontation between Heaven and Hell. Samuel L. Jackson is set to star. Film marks Yankins return to mainstream fair after directing the ill received film DEATH IN LOVE, which showed at last year’s Sundance Festival. (http://bit.ly/6sQB6W)

David Berenbaum (ELF) will write a new project that George Lucas will produce. The untitled animated musical will be directed by Kevin Munroe (TMNT). (http://bit.ly/bpqr45)

Gotham Group optioned DARK LIFE, the first book in a series by Kat Falls. Producers are currently out to directors. Books are set in a near future world, where rising ocean levels and catastrophes have led some people to homestead on the ocean floor. Story focuses on an underwater boy, and a surface girl who join forces to uncover a government conspiracy. Book was featured on the 2009 Book List. (http://bit.ly/aixkUj)

Permut Presentations is developing a biopic about controversial civil rights activist Bayard Rustin. They have yet to announce a writer on the project. (http://bit.ly/607SWR)

Doug McKeon will write and direct HARD WIRED from Kari Lee Townsend’s book. Pic is about a girl with a lousy sense of direction who becomes Techno-Girl when she touches a meteor while talking on the phone and gets all the capabilities her cell has (GPS, phone, text, camera). McKeon last directed COME AWAY HOME.

Warner Bros plans to remake fight/action film MORTAL KOMBAT, based on the popular 1992 video game. 2009 Black List writer Oren Uziel (SHIMMER LAKE) is in talks to write. (http://bit.ly/dzisPr)

Walter Parkes and Laurie MacDonald to adapt “Eat, Sleep, Poop: A Common Sense Guide to Your Baby’s First Year” into a feature comedy for DreamWorks. Allen & Wilson (FOUR CHRISTMASES) are set to write. Scribner is publishing the witty guidebook by Beverly Hills-based pediatrician Scott W. Cohen on March 30th. (http://bit.ly/a2tgST)

Gonna wrap up my not-so-comprehensive Sundance Week here. Just the other day we had my review of the Sundance film, “The Company Men,” and now we’ve got another one for you called “The Romantics.” To read some past reviews of this year’s Sundance crop, check out my posts for HappyThankYouMorePlease, Nowhere Boy, and of course, Buried.

Genre: Drama/Ensemble
Premise: Seven friends from college reunite when two of them get married.
About: Starring Katie Holmes, Anna Paquin, Malin Ackerman and Josh Duhmal, this was one of the films playing at Sundance. Nierderhoffer has quite a history behind her. She’s been producing small independent films for over a decade, focusing on dramatic offbeat fare such as Lonesome Jim (Casey Affleck) and Saving Grace (John Cusack). During that time, she’s also written a few novels, such as The Taxonomy of Barnacles, and The Romantics, which she adapted into the screenplay herself. She will now become one of the few people who can claim to be an author, screenwriter, producer, and director, as she has directed this movie as well. I hear next year Galt will be up for the part of Mary Jane in the Spiderman reboot.
Writer: Galt Niederhoffer
Details: 113 pages

I always wanted to get back together for one weekend with six college classmates that, because of time and space and distance and life, I wasn’t able to keep in touch with. I wanted an unlimited supply of beer and to be out in the middle of nowhere and have seven sunsets a day so the lights’ always perfect and sexual tension so thick even the walls couldn’t stop it and music from ten years ago that makes you both cringe and smile at the same time, and unfinished business and decade old drama. But most of all, I just want to put life on hold for a few days and enjoy the company of people I spent four intimate years with, but don’t know anymore. I want to catch up and make out. I want to see where we all ended up.

But since none of this is likely, I wanted The Romantics to bring me as close to that place as possible.

Did it?

Holmes will play Laura.

The Romantics follows 7 friends from college: Laura, who we’re told is a “beauty,” Tom, who we’re told has “puppy-ish green eyes”, Lila, who has a “cascade of blonde hair,” Weesie, who’s “put together even in her pajamas,” Tripler, who sounds like a guy’s name but since there was no pronoun in his introduction, I figured out was a girl 60 pages later, Pete, who’s “handsome and athletic,” and then there’s Jake, who gets the only introduction that actually gives us a sense of who he is and what he looks like, described as a “shaggy haired modern-day Victorian poet,” despite the fact that he’s probably the smallest character of the bunch.

These 7 are the bestest of best friends. So best friends-ish in fact, that they’ve given themselves the nickname, “The Romantics.” There’s a lot of heavily implied history between the group, but unfortunately we don’t get any of it. The only piece of information that makes its way to us is that Laura and Tom are together and that Laura and Lila are closer than peanut butter and jelly. Waking up after a crazy night of drinking, the 7 realize that they’re all late for graduation, so they hurry up and get ready, only to run outside and see a sea of caps flying into the sky. The seven have missed their own graduation.

Duhmal will play Tom.

Flash-forward 10 years and we’re shocked to find out that Lila is getting married. No, that’s not the shocking part. The shocking part is that she’s getting married to Tom, Laura’s old boyfriend. The seven besties reconvene at Lila’s mansion, ready to reignite old times, with no one seemingly concerned about the fact that Lila is marrying her best friend’s boyfriend of five years. It’s as if no one thought this was going to be an issue. Laura pretends that everything’s fine. Tom bumbles around, rarely saying anything to anyone. It’s a really weird vibe and an awkward set-up to the weekend’s events.

Despite this triangle of non-fun, the rest of the group does their best to get drunk and live it up. There’s laughing, flirting, even a little bit of kissing. But it always comes back to Tom and Laura. How did they break up? Why would Tom end up with her best friend? Why is he marrying Lila??

Ackerman will play Lila

Apparently, the reason Tom and Laura broke up was because…well, actually I don’t know why they broke up. But the reason they’re not together anymore, according to Tom, is that he loves her too much. And they had such a great time together, he doesn’t want to screw it up. He wants their time together to remain perfect. Which brings us to his relationship with Lila. He hates Lila. For all intents and purposes, he despises her. Isn’t a single trait he likes about the woman. So obviously, he’s marrying her. Why? Um, I believe it’s because it makes him feel like less of a fuck-up. To complicate matters, Laura and Lila, who are still supposedly friendly with each other, have NEVER SPOKEN ABOUT THE FACT THAT SHE’S MARRYING THE MAN LAURA STILL LOVES. Am I the only one who thinks none of this makes any sense at all?

But that’s not the only problem with The Romantics. I never knew any of these characters. I was barely given a description of them in the first place so I had no idea what they looked like, and once we got to the present, I was never told who they are out in the real world, what they do, what their dreams are, what their problems are. And the person I’m told the least about, Tom, is probably the most important character in the entire story. And I know absolutely nothing about him. There’s vague notes thrown out like, “lawyer” and “married” but that’s all they are is notes. The lack of time you have in a screenplay prevents you from getting into a character’s autobiography, but if all I’m told about someone after 110 pages is that they’re “put together” and “married,” I mean… how can I root for that character. It’s like asking me to root for the stranger I watched cross the street the other day. And I probably know more about him than I do these characters, as I could at least take an educated guess about who he is based on what he was wearing.

I get it. This is a writer-director project. Not everything needs to be spelled out, as long as the director understands what she needs. But in leaving so much on the cutting room floor, in preventing us from truly understanding these people, all we’re left with is a bunch of pretty faces.

The script does some things right. We have an obvious ticking time bomb here (the wedding) and potential for a dramatically played out love triangle. The opening and closing images were perfect. But it didn’t matter cause none of it felt real. I was miles away from ever understanding where these characters were coming from.

What’s so odd about all this, is that the adaptation of her other novel, The Taxonomy of Barnacles, which I reviewed here, has some really nice character work in it. It was adapted by someone else but still. I came out of this one stumped.

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

What I learned: I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Ensemble pieces are a bitch. And my advice is to stay away from them. Why are these films so hard? I’ll tell you why. Coming up with an interesting character that an audience wants to watch for 2 hours is one of the hardest things there is to do in the world. That is not hyperbole. It’s why studios pay half a million dollars for screenplays that get it right. It’s why they then back up that investment with 100 million dollars to put it on screen. In what other medium is such a huge investment made on something so tiny? – So when you essentially say, “I’m not going to just come up with one compelling character, I’m going to come up with seven!”, it’s like asking if you can enter your lottery numbers in a drawing that’s seven times bigger than the normal lottery. And that’s just the beginning of your problems. As I mentioned above, one of my issues with The Romantics was that we didn’t know anything about these characters. Well, when you spread your movie out between seven different characters, there’s not a lot of time to *go into* these characters, which forces you to have to do *more* in *less* time. So it’s just a really hard type of script to get right. I am not saying it can’t be done. It has obviously been done before. I like these types of movies and have even tried my hand at a couple myself. But you just have to know that you’re stacking the odds against yourself when you do it. My advice is, if you’re still in the early stages of your writing, try to write a script that has a single compelling character for 120 minutes. If you can do that successfully first, and you still want to tackle the ensemble, then go for it. God be with you.

Genre: Thriller
Premise: A straight-laced but depressed cop goes on a mission to find out who killed his daughter.
About: On the eve of the announcement that Mel Gibson is reteaming with Shane Black, we get his thriller, Edge of Darkness, an adaptation of an old BBC mini-series, in theaters this Friday. This is the first project Mel’s starred in in a long time, and there were whispers it was because he was blacklisted in Hollywood after his drunken rant a few years ago. For awhile, DeNiro was actually attached to this project, but dropped out a few days into shooting because of “creative differences.” Usually, we never find out what these “creative differences” are, but in this case, we learned that it was because DeNiro didn’t memorize his lines! How cool would that have been, seeing Gibson and Deniro work together? Aww man, what could’ve been.
Writer: William Monahan
Details: 127 pages (undated)

Monahan holding up the little gold guy, looking as uncomfortable as I’ve ever seen a man.

Surprising as it may sound, I’ve never read a William Monahan script before. “Surprising” because if there’s one writer who I’m continually told other writers are in awe of, it’s Monahan. The thing is, I haven’t been impressed enough by his movies to seek out any of his scripts. Despite a few nice scenes and a couple of good performances in The Departed, I thought the story was all over the place. I know some people think I’m batty for saying so, but look at Kingdom of Heaven, which also supports the case that his stories are unfocused (and yes, I saw the extended cut as well – which turned unfocused and short into unfocused and long). Body of Lies would’ve been a bad direct-to-video title had it not been for Scott, Crowe and DiCaprio’s involvement. So I was struggling to figure out just why people were so impressed with this guy.

Ten pages into Edge of Darkness, I found out. I don’t know exactly how to explain it, but Monahan has a command over his words that brings even the most mundane passages alive. The thing about Edge of Darkness is it’s so relentlessly depressing that you want to give up by the end of the first act. But Monahan’s writing – the way he builds mystery, the way he builds character, the way he writes dialogue – keeps you pushing down deeper into the darkness…and enjoying it. Make no mistake, this script is about one thing – death – and never has the subject matter been so exciting.

Craven is one of those salt-of-the-earth blue collar honest Boston guys who happens to be a cop. Problem is, he’s Irish. And us Irish aren’t very good with emotions. So when his beautiful MIT-educated daughter, Emma, comes home, there are echoes of an un-nurtured relationship there, but neither of them are able to express it because of that damn Irish DNA. The irony is, this is the last chance they’ll get to break the code, to give in and emote, because there is something wrong with Emma, something very wrong.

Less than a few hours after getting home, she’s vomiting worse than a coed after her first keg party. Even now, Craven can’t muster the courage to ask her what’s wrong, and it isn’t until she’s barely able to walk that the two realize, maybe we should get you to the hospital NOW. The two make it on to the front porch when a man in a ski-mask and a shot gun screams out “Craven!” and pumps a couple of shots into Craven’s daughter. She dies instantly. He runs.

Initial investigation presumes a botched attempt on Craven’s life. Happens to cops all the time. Criminals they put away come back for their own brand of justice. But there’s a problem. Craven doesn’t have any enemies. He’s one of the good ones. As Monahan writes in his dialogue, Craven could “put you away for life and you’d agree that he had a point.”

But Craven knows what these men don’t know. His daughter was the target. They did something to her. But why?

It’s no coincidence this script is titled Edge of Darkness. As far as Craven is concerned, his life is over. He just has one more thing to do before he crosses over to the other side – find out who killed his daughter, and make them pay.

The reason a non-procedural fan like myself enjoyed this procedural is because it’s not another Mel Gibson driving around kicking the shit out of a bunch of deadbeats snoozer. The mystery here, which involves Emma’s employment at a secret nuclear government facility perched atop Boston, clashes blue collar with big government, and watching a nobody cop take on an establishment that normally eats nosy guys like Craven for dinner, is, for lack of a better phrase, funner than shit.

Come on! There are clearly too many edges and too much darkness in this picture.

Some of the story devices used here are as old as the medium itself, but boy do they work. These government officials are used to being able to make one phone call. “Chief, tell your guy to back off.” But Craven’s not answering to the Chief anymore. He’s gone rogue. So watching him inch his way up the company ladder, discovering the truth behind why his daughter was on the verge of dying when she came back to him that day, and outsmarting everyone in his path, is like watching dawn turn into daylight.

Now I’ll be the first to admit, what they were covering up wasn’t as cool as I wanted it to be. (Spoiler) My advice to anyone writing this kind of story. Please, for the love of God, don’t include tree-hugging environmentalists in your conspiracy. The second you involve any sort of environmentalist group into a hardcore thriller, it’s like asking the Backstreet Boys to play halftime at the Super Bowl. It weakens everything. But in the end, it doesn’t matter, because the real reason we’re here is to watch Craven get revenge, one asshole at a time. And in that respect, Edge of Darkness is a 70 yard touchdown.

“You talking to him? You talking to him??” ‘Uh no Mr. De Niro, it’s “You talking to me?”

Lots of things to like in this script. A risky but neat device Monahan uses is to have Craven talk to his daughter during the mission, even though she’s not there. We hear her voice, helping him along, and it’s a great little tool that both strengthens our understanding of how much he loves her, and constantly reminds us why he’s doing this.

Also, Monahan’s style reminds me of Esztheras’ in that once he hits a conversation, he doesn’t gum it up with unnecessary description. When a reader says, “It was 125 pages but it read like it was 90,” this is what they mean.

Edge of Darkness is still hard to read because of the thick stench of death around every Bah-stan corner. Everybody here is either dead, dying, wants to die, or trying to avoid death. It’s a little overwhelming at times and would probably be too much to take if the story weren’t so entertaining. I guess I should be happy that I’m still alive after reading it. And I am. It’s a tough and depressing script to get through, but worth it.

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

What I learned: Edge of Darkness combines two key storytelling devices that work extremely well. Revenge and the Underdog. We like to follow characters who fight back after they’ve been wronged (Taken, Gladiator, Kill Bill). And we love watching an underdog take on a much stronger opponent (Rocky, Braveheart, Die Hard). Combine that with a highly sympathetic character (he just lost his daughter), and you’ve got a winning formula.

Completely unrelated comment of the day: I do not have a single solitary need for the Ipad. It would not improve my life in any noticeable way whatsoever. I don’t even understand why it was made. It doesn’t do anything that other devices can’t already do. And yet, I want one. I hate my consumer side.

I am so happy to be able to share this interview with you today. Stacey Menear is the author of one of my favorite scripts of the last few months, “Mixtape,” a coming of age story about a young teenage girl who finds a mixtape that belonged to her deceased parents. When she accidentally destroys it, she uses the song list to go on a search for all the music. For those who read my review of Mixtape, you’ll remember Stacey’s script was on 2009’s Blacklist with 14 votes. But more importantly, it’s number 19 on MY LIST. This is probably my favorite interview so far because Stacey gives some great advice. Stacey is managed by Jim Wedaa and repped by Valarie Phillips and Ida Ziniti. I’ll shut up now so we can all learn something.

SS: First of all, how long have you been writing? How many scripts had you written before you wrote Mixtape?

SM: I visited my parents over the holidays and my mom reminded me that before I could actually write I would dictate stories to her about the further adventures of Indiana Jones. I don’t remember the particulars, but apparently in my version Indiana befriends a talking snake and the two of them travel the world together going on exciting archeological adventures. Sounds like a good reboot for Indian Jones, if you ask me. So I guess I’ve been making up stories as long as I remember and while I haven’t been writing screenplays all that long I’ve always written short stories and stuff like that. I’d written around 3 screenplays before Mixtape – with various starts and stops and other projects along the way.

SS: I’m sure I’m not the first one to erroneously assume that because your name was Stacey and because the script was about a 13 year old girl, that you were, in fact, female. Two questions. Do you think that assumption helped you (i.e. gave you more credit for understanding what a 13 year old girl would go through?) and what inspired a grown man to write a 13 year old female coming-of-age story?

SM: My name definitely throws people off. Though my mom denies it, my dad, who is a very manly logger living in Oregon, claims the name was a sort of “Boy Named Sue” attempt to make me grow up rough and tumble – an attempt that failed. But I’ve had more than one person tell me that my name is a benefit. I think its surprising when, instead of a 21 year old girl, this sort of nerdy looking guy with a receding hairline walks in – and if I surprise people hopefully they’ll remember me. Every little bit helps, right?

As for the inspiration…I think it came from a lot of different places. I grew up in the Northwest and I remember thinking that the Riot Grrrls were the COOLEST thing ever. I still do actually – in fact, I’m listening to Cadallaca as I write this. Unfortunately for me, I was decidedly uncool back then. I played sports, stayed at home doing homework and rarely, if ever, stuck it to the man. But I’ve always been interested in the movement/era and in girl bands in general. I also knew I wanted to do something about music – and a specific kind of music that you don’t necessarily hear on the radio. And, as you might guess, I’m a big fan of mixtapes. I still have a box full of mixtapes given to me over the years – many of them are broken, but I still have the cases and the amazing art work that someone obviously spent hours on. It was really fun over the course of Mixtape to go back and listen to some of them. They really are these frozen moments in time that capture events and emotions. One of my favorites is a break-up mixtape and on the cover is this really simple drawing of a broken heart and then the tape is just “Forever Young” playing over and over. As for why, specifically, a 13 year old girl? I just kept picturing the girl, Beverly Moody in my head; this chubby, awkward looking girl with big headphones on. I could hear her voice really clearly and it just went from there.

SS: I’ve recently received some e-mails about writers stuck in a rut, thinking their current screenplay sucks, and unable to muster up the enthusiasm to work on it. How long did it take you write Mixtape? Were there any tough times where you thought it wasn’t working? And how did you get through them?

SM: I usually work on two scripts at once – I’ll be doing the actual writing on one while doing the early outlining/brainstorming for the next one. The actual writing for Mixtape took around a month. It was really quick and easy by the time I sat down to write it. Most of my tough times on a script come in the outlining/earlier phases. My writing method includes feeling so anxious that a story won’t work that I stay up all night in bed unable to sleep and just go over the story again and again in my head. And then waking up the next day, still feeling anxious and doing a lot of pacing and mumbling and eating many bowls of cereal. How to get through the tough times is something I’m still working out. I think doing two scripts at once is one solution. It takes some of the pressure off. If you’re having trouble with one, simply go to the other one. I also don’t write scenes in order. I write the scenes that I’m excited about first. If I’m having trouble on a scene it usually means there’s a piece of the puzzle missing, so I’ll move onto something else and come back it later. For me there’s always at least one scene, character, detail that I’m excited about writing. If I focus on that one part I can keep going. It’s when I start thinking about the script as a whole – and the parts that aren’t working – that that I lose enthusiasm for the story.

SS: As everyone in filmmaking knows, music rights are expensive. Was using rare music in Mixtape purely a creative choice, or were you thinking about keeping the budget low to make the script more appealing to buyers?

SM: The musical choices were almost entirely chosen for creative reasons. I wasn’t writing this script for anyone but myself – not a studio or producer – and so I thought I might as well choose the music that I liked and that I thought the parents in the story would have actually listened to and put on this mixtape. In some cases the songs were taken from mixtapes that people made for me, like the Bikini Kill song, and in other cases they were songs that I researched. For the Blue Hearts song I knew that I needed a song in a foreign language, but it took a while to find a song that I thought worked well and fit the story. I never really thought about budget concerns during the course of writing it. I always figured that if someone was really interested in the story I could change the music to fit their tastes.

SS: The thing I like best about your script is the emotional component, which resonates very powerfully in places, yet never goes over the top. Can you tell me how you approach the emotion in your screenplays, and what the key is to not tipping over into melodrama?

SM: That’s nice of you to say. I don’t know if this is a good answer, but my approach is this: I write a scene, then I read it over and ask myself, “Is this cheesy?” And I do that over and over. I was aware that Mixtape could wander off into terra-melodrama – and so, I think just being aware of what kind of story you’re writing is one of the keys. Also, I think that when we talk about melodrama, what we’re actually talking about is monodrama. The film is hitting the same emotional beat again and again. The best films – and most emotional films in my opinion – are the ones that take you through a whole range of emotions. E.T. comes to mind. It’s scary when Elliot first meets E.T. It’s somber when they mention that dad is in Mexico (a scene I love). It’s sad, of course, when we think E.T. is dead. And then unbelievably joyful when he’s not and the boys all fly away on their bikes. And so when you get to the end and E.T. is leaving, you’ve been through all these different emotions – you’ve been up and down and all over – and, if you’re not crying at this point, then you simply don’t have a soul. If the movie was just an alien dying for an hour and a half the movie would suck, for one, but also wouldn’t resonate emotionally the way it does. And so I think if you’re going to do an emotional story you need to hit on a variety of emotions.

SS: How did it feel to land on the Black List? And did getting on the Black List open any previously closed doors for you?

SM: It felt great. Honestly, I had never heard of the Black List until about 2 months before it came out, so it was a pleasant surprise for me. And it feels pretty rad to see your name on the same list as people like Aaron Sorkin. It’s also generated some additional interest in me. There was a first wave of interest when Mixtape first began to leak out and get passed around and being on the Black List has helped keep the momentum building, as well as generate another round of meetings.

SS: I was informed in the comments section of my review that your script won the Zoetrope screenwriting competition. I feel like with you winning, the answer to this question is obvious, but do you support screenwriting competitions? Had you entered a lot of them before? Was Mixtape rejected by any notable competitions?

SM: I love them! When I finished Mixtape I really didn’t know what to do with it. I was living in Los Angeles but didn’t know anyone working in film. This always seems to surprise people, but it is, in fact, possible to live in L.A. and be completely outside the film industry. So, without any idea of how to get Mixtape in someone’s hands, I entered it into Zoetrope (and another competition that I never heard back from). My manager, Jim Wedaa, found the script through the competition and then hooked me up with my agents Valarie Phillips and Ida Ziniti. I’m very thankful to Zoetrope for helping me along – and, from my experience, would highly recommend people try it out if they think they have a good script.

SS: In one of the greatest interviews I’ve ever listened to about screenwriting, Christopher McQuarrie noted that when he wrote his Oscar-winning screenplay, “The Usual Suspects,” it was really a patchwork effort just to get through the thing, and he really had little idea what he was doing. It was only afterwards that he learned the “rules” of screenwriting, and although he doesn’t say it, he implies that he’s still never written anything as good . What are your thoughts on the rules? Do you follow a set structure when you write? Do you break the rules? Should writers follow rules at all?

SM: This is actually something I’ve thought about quite a bit and here’s what I’ve come up with: for geniuses rules are obstacles, and for the rest of us rules are helpful. I feel like rules and limitations in what I can and can’t do in a script frees me up to be creative. Having said that, I don’t necessarily use the rules I’ve read online and from books. I’ve made up a lot of my own rules as I’ve gotten better at writing. And I think that’s what it’s about – the rules should fit your story and they should fit what you do as a writer. I tend to write in four act structures and always build stories around, what I view, as three premises that could stand on their own as films. I can imagine that as McQuarrie was writing “The Usual Suspects” having little idea of what he was doing was perfect. It helped create this hugely surprising and satisfying twist in the film because not even the writer saw it coming. But I imagine that same style wouldn’t work in doing something like adapting a novel. Anyways, the point is – unless you’re a genius it’s probably a good idea to use the rules. But find the ones that work for you and your writing style.

SS: What is that one thing in a script you try to get right above all else, and what’s your process for achieving it? (ie, plot? character? dialogue?)

SM: I have a sign above my desk (I’m looking at it as I write this) that says, “Character, Dialogue, Motivation, Archetypes, The Unexpected and A Hook”. So I guess those would be the aspects that I focus on. To that list I would add simplicity. I really like simple, elegant scripts. I like scripts that let me know a clear goal, the obstacles, etc. And I like my scripts to read quickly. One of the best compliments I can get for a script is, “I read it in one sitting.” I always think of the person reading my scripts. They’ve read tons of scripts, they don’t want to read mine – so how can I keep them reading?

SS: Let’s go back to the day you decided to pursue screenwriting. When having an agent or a manger seemed a million miles away. If Present You could go back and give that young buck advice on the fastest way to breaking into the business, what would you tell him?

SM: I would pass on this article to my past self http://www.wordplayer.com/columns/wp02.Strange.Attractor.html. My first script was pretty much the most lugubrious, melancholy and hopeless script ever written by man. I would let you read it, but I’m pretty sure it would make you lose the will to live. Not only was it depressing, but it had no real hook at all, no premise. It was just this embarrassingly personal exaggerated account of living in a small logging town. And the worst part was that I worked my ass off on that script. I spent hours and hours writing it and re-writing it. So, if I could go back and to talk to my past self, I’d give him that link and tell him to work on things that at least have some small chance of ever getting made. And also, something that I strangely only learned after writing two full scripts, write the kind of movies you like watching.

SS: Care to tell us what you may be working on next?

SM: Right now I’m finishing up a spec script that will hopefully done in the near future and will be a much different – and much bigger – story than Mixtape was. I’m also sorting through open assignment and trying to find something that I can really get excited about and that I feel fits my writing style. It’s actually a really interesting place to be in – and one that I haven’t heard many people talk about. There are lots of websites and books about writing, but not much about the process of choosing projects and doing pitches etc. So I’m enjoying learning about the next stage and hopefully you’ll be hearing from me again soon.

Genre: Drama
Premise: Three corporate men must deal with the specific challenges of getting laid off during a recession.
About: The Company Men debuted at Sundance with many impressed smiles, despite its downbeat subject matter. Many are calling it, “The film Up In The Air should’ve been.” Man, are we already committing verbal terrorism on the 37,000 foot Clooney vehicle? Well, I certainly had problems with it, but this isn’t the time or the place to get into that. The Company Men stars Tommy Lee Jones, Ben Affleck, and Kevin Costner. Its writer, John Wells, is also its director. Wells has spent the majority of his career executive producing such films as Infamous, One Hour Photo, I’m Not There, and over a dozen more. He’s also written and produced a ton of TV, including that tiny passing fad on NBC known as ER. This is his first feature writing and directing project.
Writer: John Wells
Details: 120 pages (January 2, 2009 draft)

Affleck will play Bobby

Being an executive producer for over a decade, I’m betting John Wells has read a thousand scripts. Looking through his resume, the man clearly thrives on risky independent fare, and you have to respect him for it, because producing films that sunbathe on the indie circuit more often leaves you with a bright red sunburn (both literally and in the old bank account) than a bronzy head-turning tan. I suppose residuals from ER even it all out though. That pedigree of limitless TV work, and not just reading tons of scripts, but reading tons of scripts that actually strive to be different and good, gives Wells a huge advantage on his first trip to the big screen as a writer-director.

I have no idea if this is Wells’ first feature script or simply the first one he’s done something with, but The Company Men suffers from a technical style that, combined with its technical subject matter, makes for a tough read. As always, it should be noted that this is a writer-director script, which means he’s writing it just as much for himself as for others (namely actors he’s trying to lure). Combine that with the fact that this seems to be a shooting draft, and I’m prepared to excuse at least some of the clinical storytelling. Still, there’s so little warmth, in both the style and subject matter here, that I felt it difficult to connect with the material.

The Company Men follows three employees on different rungs of the company ladder. There’s Bobby, the 30 year old “corporate warrior” with the pretty wife, the two kids, the mortgage, the Porsche, and the membership at the most expensive country club in town. There’s Phil, the aging “Jack Lemmon in Glengarry Glen Ross” type whose difficulty keeping up with current trends may be why he can’t pull in the same mega-deals he used to, and then there’s Gene, one of the few corporate men who still has a heart, trying to save as many employees as he can, at the expense of the bottom line.

Jones will play Gene

All of these men work for a huge company called GTX, a sort of “does-it-all” super-corporation whose divisions are vague enough that I can’t remember any of them. This is one of the first things that turned me off of The Company Men. The company, in its vagueness, obviously acts as a stand-in for every mega-corporation in the U.S.A. Which would’ve been fine, except we spend an enormous amount of time discussing the boring specifics of how the company operates and what’s going on inside of it. I wasn’t sure if I was reading a screenplay or hanging out with Warren Buffet.

When the script gets hunkered down in this discussion about stock shares and sub-divisions and conglomerate theories, it almost enters the realm of anti-entertainment. I didn’t understand any of it which means I had to work twice as hard to enjoy the story. And the problem is that Phil and Gene’s stories through the first half of the screenplay are stuck inside this world. So it’s nearly impossible to get into them.

The good news is that the script has a saving grace. And that grace is in the man who saved our planet from an asteroid. Or at least, the actor who’s playing that part saved us. Bobby’s (Ben Affleck) story isn’t about stock shares or consulting tactics or board room politics. It’s simply about a guy with a family and a mortgage who loses his 120,000 dollar a year job and quickly begins to freak the fuck out when he realizes he may not find another one. Every time we’re with Bobby the script feels like it’s been lifted out of molasses, because it becomes about something. Bobby hasn’t hit any roadblocks in his life before this. He’s one of those people who assumed the good life would just keep on being good. So when his shiny cars are threatened, when his country club membership is threatened, when the very bed he sleeps in is threatened, he refuses to accept it. He goes into Stage 4 denial and simply keeps on living the life he’s used to living. But it doesn’t last. It can’t last. And watching his meltdown is depressing but also the most entertaining part of the script.

Costner will play Phil (now “Jack”)

Unfortunately, Bobby only pops up every once in awhile, his story getting wedged between Phil and Gene’s redundant boardroom politics and backroom parties. And we have to tread through all that molasses to find that little bottle Bobby’s hiding in again, if only for a few minutes or a couple of scenes. Eventually, the Gene and Phil storylines take on a less technical tone, and focus more on the personal side of their journeys, and while it’s a desperately welcome change, it’s too little too late. I had a hard time caring by that point.

The weird thing is, I didn’t feel much sympathy for any of these characters, despite their sympathetic situations. I mean, it’s not like these are high-school flunkies working at Wal-Mart, getting fired from the only job they know how to do. That, to me, is the true definition of a catastrophe. These men all have nice houses, ‘59 Corvettes, and VIP memberships at every establishment in town. I mean, they’re pissed at their company’s outrageous overspending which resulted in their termination. But they’re just as guilty, lavishly overspending in every aspect of their own lives. Who makes 120 grand, 300 hundred grand, 1 million dollars a year, and isn’t smart enough to put a big chunk of it away in case things get bad? And maybe that’s what Wells is trying to say. That we all live above our means and haven’t shit-proofed enough of our fans. But I wanted to root for these characters and their stupidity gave me enough pause to think twice about it.

I guess people are now saying that Up In The Air is “The Company Men for Dummies.” But I’d switch that around. I’d say The Company Men is “Up in the Air For Rocket Scientists.” It’s so entrenched in corporate-speak and CNBC’isms and the technical details of what’s happening at the top, that unless you’re familiar with that world, it’s a tough story to get lost in. It’ll be interesting to see if the movie stresses those things, or focuses more on the personal aspect, which is the where the focus should be.

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

What I learned: The Company Men was a huge reminder of how important it is to focus on your characters and their relationships. Whatever subject matter you choose to tell your story in, it’s obviously important to give us enough of the details that it feels authentic. But if you go overboard, you’re going to lose your general audience, the ones who don’t know enough to be able to follow the specifics of that subject matter. Never forget that the thing your audience cares about is your characters’ journey. We don’t walk out of a theater remembering how GTX fucked over Phil by stonewalling his stockyard division by cutting a secret deal with the Koreans. That’s not what stays with us. What stays with us is an embarrassed Phil having to tell his daughter she can’t go on her school trip to Italy because he can’t afford it. Never forget that. It’s always about the characters.