Wanderlust

Posted on November 1, 2010 | by admin

Genre: Comedy
Premise: An urban couple hit by the recession move into a hippie compound.
About: Co-writer Ken Marino and co-writer/director David Wain are the writers responsible for one of the better comedy screenplays I read in 2008, Role Models.  Their new film, Wanderlust, will be produced by none other than the current Godfather of film comedy, Judd Apatow. The film will star Paul Rudd, Jennifer Aniston, Malin Akerman, Alan Alda, and, I assume, many others. Wain and Marino have been working together for over 15 years, starting on the MTV show “The State.” Before their big studio breakout “Role Models,” they wrote the cult classic “Wet Hot American Summer,” and the more recent The Ten, which consisted of ten shorts based on the Ten Commandments.
Writers: Ken Marino and David Wain
Details: 117 pages – January 21, 2010 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).

Didn’t know much about Wanderlust. Just saw that a pretty interesting cast was being signed up to star in the film and thought I’d give it a shot. Once I realized what it was about, I admit my first thought was, “Doesn’t this sound dated?” Then again, querying the movie memory banks didn’t bring up any similar films so maybe it doesn’t matter. They say the best movie ideas are the ones where you hear them and say, “No, they have to have done that already.” Despite all that, something about the idea didn’t quite sit with me. But I charged ahead and tried to keep an open mind.

George and Linda, two uptight city-dwellers, have finally found their dream condo (all ‘less than 1000 square feet’ of it) in New York. They can’t afford it but like any good American, they don’t let that minor detail get in the way of buying the place.

Now none of us carry a crystal ball around with us but it doesn’t take a crystal ball to know that the newspaper business isn’t on the up-and-up. And unfortunately, that’s where George is employed. Since Georgie didn’t get the memo about the internet, he’s shocked when the company downsizes and he’s fired. Since there’s no way they can afford their place anymore, they’re forced to follow the same path as millions of other Americans and foreclose.

Regrettably, the only place George and Linda can stay is at George’s obnoxious brother’s place in Atlanta. However while driving down there they stop at a Bed and Breakfast for the night and when they wake up, realize it isn’t a Bed and Breakfast at all, but a hippie compound!

Naturally, they’re freaked out, but there was something strangely peaceful about their night there. So when the hippie folk invite them to stay and live with them, the two talk it over and against all reasoning and logic decide to give it a shot. I mean, it’s gotta be better than staying with Brother George, right?

(I don’t know. I know people a lot worse than Brother George, and I’m pretty sure I’d sleep in their damn cellar over sleeping with hippies.)

Apatow

George and Linda are quickly thrust into the hippie life, complete with bathrooms without doors, an economy that’s run on arts and crafts, and the rule of universal possession (George quickly learns that *his* car is now *everyone’s* car).

But we get down to brass tacks when creepy but good-looking Seth, the leader of the compound, takes a liking to Linda, while the “Wicker Man” like beauty, Eva, becomes infatuated with George. You see, out here in Hippie World, sex is like…free, man. If you want to lay down with a lady, you do it. There are no societal confines. Love thy self and love thy neighbor and love everybody…thy else…who…thy…wants to love…or something. Man.

At first George is thrilled by this amazing opportunity, while Linda isn’t so sure. As they become more entrenched in the way of the Hip, however, it’s Linda who gives in to all the free love, and it’s George who realizes, “What the hell was I thinking by agreeing to stay in this rathole?” If they could construct a device where readers could talk to characters I might have been able to tell him that 50 pages ago and saved him a lot of trouble. However that device hasn’t been invented yet, and therefore there’s a good chance George has now lost his wife to a bunch of freaking hippies.

The first question that pops into your mind when reading Wanderlust is the one which, when answered, will determine the success of this movie: Do you actually buy into this premise? One of the hardest things to navigate when writing comedy is, how convincing do you have to be? A part of you says, “Well this is just a comedy, so anything goes.” But there’s still a level of realism that has to be established before you can let loose with your comedy. Many people refer to this as “grounding” a comedy.

I mean do you really believe a neurotic intelligent city couple are going to spend one night in a compound and think, “Hey, why don’t we live here?” Wain and Marino do a good job setting up the couple’s predicament, but still, “being low on funds” and “being so low on funds that I’m going to live in the middle of a forest and dress in rags” are two different things.

If you look at Apatow’s most successful films, movies like Knocked Up and The 40 Year Old Virgin, even though they’re comedies, there’s a level of believability built into each premise. A woman gets knocked up by a loser on a drunken night out. There’s a part of her that’s going to want him around to help with this baby. The 40 Year Old Virgin, as silly as it gets, is still a plausible situation. Some guys at work realize you’re still a virgin and want to help you get laid.

My feeling is always this when it comes to comedy. The more the plot is tied into a particular story element, the more logical (as opposed to ‘comedic’) that story element needs to be. So in this case, since the story element (choosing to live in a compound) is directly tied into the premise, it has to be convincing.

Of course there’s no science to this stuff. Sometimes if an audience loves a couple enough, they’ll be more forgiving with a hard-to-buy setup. But no matter where I was in this story, I kept coming back to that question, “Would these guys really be here?” And I kept thinking, “No way in a million years.” And I think that’s what prevented me from really getting into this story.

My only other observation is I thought Seth should’ve been more of a phony – more of a villain. It’s not really clear whether Seth believes any of the hippy shit or is just using it as an excuse to bang hippie chicks. The indication, though, is that he believes in it, and I just thought he could’ve been so much more evil and fun if he was a phony, using this opportunity to run his own little mini-cult.

I didn’t think Wanderlust was bad. I just never totally bought into it. I didn’t like how our characters could get up and leave at any moment, yet despite numerous instances where it would make perfect sense for them to do so, they’d stay because the movie needed them to. There’s definitely some funny stuff here, and I’m sure Apatow will be exercising his now famous “improvise everything” technique resulting in an even funnier film. It just wasn’t for me.

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

What I learned: Create your own opportunities. As a 21 year old glorified assistant at MTV, David Wain’s idea for a show was shot down, so he grabbed a camera and some friends and went and shot the show on a Hi-8 camera anyways, bringing it back to the MTV people, who liked it so much they ended up using it. Opportunities are everywhere people. You gotta go grab them.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

It Flies At Night (Roger Review)

Posted on November 1, 2010 | by admin

If you have those Blood List scripts, keep sending them in.  My mailbox definitely isn’t bloody enough.  This week is the week of the amateur as Roger reviews an amateur script today and I review one Friday (Amateur Friday got moved forward a week).  In the middle, we’ll have…some other scripts.  How’s that for a teaser?  Hey, I’m tired.  I just spent the entire day walking back and forth to the front door giving kids candy.  HERE’S ROGER!

Genre: Horror Western/Creature Feature
Premise: After committing a massacre in an Indian village, a cavalry troop finds their remote fort under siege by vicious flying reptiles seemingly sent to avenge the massacre. Fort Apache meets Aliens.
About: Michael Ezell is a Project Coordinator in the Makeup FX industry. From his email submission for an Amateur Review: “I have to read countless ‘horror’ films to do budget and bid breakdowns. All those ‘slash and hack’ films and creature-features with yet another group of teenagers camping in the woods inspired me to break that mold and write something different. I happened to be watching a doc on John Ford at the time and thought, ‘What if John Ford had decided to direct a creature film?’ The result for me was ‘It Flies At Night’.” Ezell is a Nicholl semi-finalist.
Writer: Michael Ezell
Ah, the ‘ol Horror Western.
It’s a genre mash-up I have an affinity for. Something about those big, wide open spaces and shots of vast, rugged terrain framed by doorways seems like a rich setting for scares, thrills and a healthy dose of repulsion. There aren’t many of these suckers. For me, the most notable as of late are JT Petty’s “The Burrowers” and perhaps Antonia Bird’s “Ravenous“. The latter is definitely a Period Piece, but I suppose it can be debated whether or not it’s a Western. In screenplays and literature there’s always Zahler’s “The Brigands of Rattleborge” and McCarthy’s “Blood Meridian“. I guess people attempt to write these genre mash-ups but I rarely come across a script that pulls off this particular brand of alchemy.
When I came across the submission, I decided to give the script a chance because the writer told me about his background in the Makeup FX industry. He told me about his inspiration behind the script, that he was watching a John Ford documentary and dared to dream what a creature-feature by the famed director would possibly be like. Not only does that take balls, but here was a guy trying to break the mold of all the other horror scripts he was being forced to read because of his job. He assured me that reading his amateur script wouldn’t be a headache, that he was a Nicholl Semi-Finalist and had been writing scripts for a few years. To make me trust him more, he even provided a synopsis of sorts to peruse in case I had cold feet.
Well, instead of reading the synopsis, I decided to look at the first ten pages of his script. So far, so good.
I kept reading.
So, who are the Cavalry Troops on this bug hunt?

Lt. William Griffin is in charge of this group of men investigating the death of two families who lived and worked on the land near Fort Lewis. He’s the youngest man in the troop, the most educated, but the one with the least experience.

Private John Carson is too old to be a private. While the other men carry standard military gear of the time, Carson carries a tomahawk and big-ass knife. We understand he’s probably been demoted for his drinking at some point, and this seems to be a point of contention between him and his rival, 1st Sergeant McCallister.
Not only does McCallister wear the rank Carson used to wear, but the guy’s an ex-Union soldier while Caron’s a former Rebel. I thought this was a great dynamic because it guaranteed there would always be conflict amongst the troop, and it’s actually the set-up for an antagonist who decides to screw the rest of the soldiers over when things get dicey.

Rounding out our triumvirate of heroes and villains are the comic relief, Tate and Arbuckle. Two Abbot and Costello idiots anxious for some action. The troop has two Indian guides who are reluctant to lead them into a valley because of superstition. To make matters worse, they encounter an omen in the form of a mutilated buffalo during their expedition. There’s some speculation as to what killed it, and although no one can agree, there’s the tell-tale sign of a reptilian claw print nearby.
When Griffin spies some branded horses, he ignores the bullying of McCallister, and with the support of Carson, leads the troop into the valley.
Why are the guides superstitious of the valley?

First off, there’s an Indian encampment in the area that they’re wary of, as they’re not of the same tribe. This particular tribe seems to be living under a dark cloud. No one is playing or laughing and braves are all equipped with not-so normal spears, weapons easily over ten feet long.
The English-speaking spokeswoman of the tribe, Bluebird, confronts the soldiers and tells them they did not steal the branded horses. Rather they found them, and there was no trace of their riders. Although while Griffin is taken with her beauty, he doesn’t quite believe her story and decides to speak to their shaman instead.
They find the shaman inside his teepee chanting in front of a fire, and he holds a strange ceremonial knife that has a big, albino reptilian claw as a handle. There’s a painting on the wall of a strange animal, a horrible lizard thing that warriors are fighting off with long spears. He tells them they all must beware of something he calls It Flies At Night, and he also says that he must sing his song to this thing and give his sacrifice, otherwise they’re all going to die, Indians and whites alike.
McCallister, frustrated by Griffin’s patience, jumps the gun and points his gun at the shaman. Demands the braves who killed the settlers. Of course, everything goes to shit and the shaman cuts Griffin across the face with his strange knife-claw and McCallister blows him away. Thus, the massacre begins as Indians take arms against the troops but are shot down by the frightened soldiers.
They decide to flee back to their fort before the braves return, and it’s when they decide to camp that they are first attacked by something from the sky. A soldier is killed and mutilated. They escape to the fort and Griffin is convinced it’s the Indians retaliating for the massacre. He aims to return to the camp the next day and give them some come-uppance, which McCallister is all about while Carson is the reluctant one. Sure, they found bodies, but they didn’t exactly see what attacked them.
It’s only when more soldiers are snatched from the fort wall and pulled up into the sky that Griffin starts to think it isn’t Indians, “What on God’s green earth was that?”
“Well, it sure as hell wasn’t Indians. Unless they learned how to fly.”
But McCallister isn’t totally convinced. “Fuck you, Carson. Whatever it is, they had somethin’ to do with it.”
So, what exactly was it, Rog?

Scar-Head and her brood are these nasty albino lizard things with wings that can lift entire horses into the sky and drop them on their enemies. They’re tough, ugly bastards that score quite a few gory kills, but other than having wings and claws, and grotesque white skin, there’s really nothing distinctively unique about the creatures. Other than story, I think the one thing that can separate a creature-feature from the rest of the pack is a truly unique monster. The xenomorphs in the Alien movies are the shining example, with their Giger-design, inner mouth, and acid for blood. Not to mention their weird sexual organ imagery. The worms in Tremors are another good example because they make the very ground below the character’s feet dangerous.
Or take something simple like Jaws, where the characters build a mystique around the shark by simply talking about it and revealing the corpses it leaves behind. Like in Cameron’s Aliens, you don’t even see the monster until the mid-point of the movie. I’d say that building a sense of dread and mystique is half the battle in crafting a capable creature-feature.
As far as nasties go, these reptiles are utilitarian. They make a capable threat, but I guess I wanted more mythology about them and wanted features that make them a truly unique monster.
So, what happens?

Well, Bluebird and her love-interest warrior brave, Running Elk, bring their people to the fort and make a demand. They want Griffin and his men to protect their women and children while the men hunt down these monsters once and for all. They want to strike a truce, and only when the threat eliminated, will they deal with their own conflict.
This sends McCallister into conniptions, but Griffin, intrigued by Bluebird and guilt, acquiesces.
The rest of the second act plays out as a sort of Monster Siege on Fort Lewis. There’s some waiting around as the characters get to know each other. Plot-wise, this may make you question if the characters are behaving realistically. I’m not sure if this quite works, because it makes our troop seem kind of passive.
Especially since this doesn’t feel like a Our-Only-Option-Is-To-Sit-Around-and-Wait scenario. The only obstacle is the creature, so I kept thinking, well, if they know the mountain where these things live, why don’t they go kill them?
Which they do, later on.
Pissing off Scar-Head, the brood mother, who goes on a revenge spree against our heroes after they kill her children. Things are also more complicated when McCallister becomes an outright obstacle and antagonist, creating another threat for Griffin and Carson. I liked this human conflict and thought it was more involving than the bug hunt stuff, and there were some touching heroic moments that are well-written, but I think these pay-off scenes could have benefited from a more powerful theme.
Does it work?

As an action-packed bug hunt, it’s a page-turner, but like I just said, I think this sucker could benefit from a more resonant theme. I would have liked to see more meat to the story. Starting with the characters, I definitely think the most interesting was Carson. He was an underdog of sorts who was looking for redemption, and his ultimate pay-off is poignant and cool, but I think the reasons for his fall from grace could have run deeper. My suggestion to the writer is to search for a deeper flaw.
Other than the hatred towards Indians, I didn’t feel there was a strong thematic undercurrent that runs from the beginning all the way to the end of the script. I think part of the genius of Aliens, other than the unique creatures and the multitude of obstacles and the problem-solving of the characters, is the maternal theme. Two mothers defending their broods to the death. It was a subtext that elevated the material and made the characters, even the Alien Queen, feel like real entities with motivations that ran thicker than blood.
But, as an Amateur Script, I was pretty impressed. I would watch a movie like this. I also think the writer shows a ton of promise and is someone to look out for as his craft improves. That’s why I’m giving this a…
Script Link: It Flies By Night
[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[ ] wasn’t for me
[x] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius


What I learned: I’m a firm believer in treating B-material like A-material. Just because something has monsters in it doesn’t mean it can’t have heart or a powerful story. I think the key is creating a protagonist who is looking for something more than just defeating the monster. In Aliens, Ripley wanted to be a mother. She had a hole in her heart for a child. Newt filled that hole. When Newt was endangered, the stakes went through the roof. Create a character who has a void in their heart they yearn to fill, and let the plot become an obstacle to try and prevent them from filling that void. If you do that, I think you’ll find that the theme will rise to the surface as you write and polish and shape your story. That’s my two cents, anyways.







Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Blood List Is Out

Posted on October 30, 2010 | by admin

If you’ve been hanging around the site this week, you’ve been hearing of “The Blood List,” an informal list of the best horror scripts of the year.  Last year’s was posted, and this year’s has just been released.  So, what’s on the list?  Download it yourself and see, although I think a fault of the list is that, unlike The Black List, they don’t give loglines.

If you know the loglines for some of these scripts, please post them in the comments section.  And if you have any of the scripts, please send them to me.  Maybe we can wrangle this thing together. I have Chronicle and a few others, but that’s it.  Enjoy.

THE BLOOD LIST 2010

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Rite

Posted on October 28, 2010 | by admin

Genre: Horror
Premise: A young priest who does not believe in the Devil travels to Rome to study at an Exorcism School.
About: Oh yeah baby. It’s Halloween Week! Why the hell was I thinking of reviewing Wanderlust on Halloween Week? Instead I’ve decided to review a more appropriate script, The Rite. The Rite will star Anthony Hopkins, Alice Braga, and an unknown actor in the starring role (at least he’s unknown to me). It’s directed by Michael Hafstrom, who directed 2007’s fun Steven King adaptation, 1408. Michael Petroni adapted the screenplay from a book by Matt Baglio. In 1994, Petroni moved to Los Angeles to study screenwriting at the AFI Conservatory, graduating in 1996. While at AFI, he wrote and directed his first feature, Till Human Voices Wake Us, starring Guy Pearce and Helena Bonham Carter. He also wrote The Dangerous Lives of Altar Boys and the new upcoming Narnia flick, The Voyage Of The Dawn Treader.
Writer: Michael Petroni (based on the book by Matt Baglio)
Details: 123 pages – April 2008 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).

No offense to some of the recent writers whose scripts I’ve reviewed, but man can you tell when someone knows how to write. Writing isn’t about dictating real life events word for word. It’s about constructing those events in a dramatically entertaining way for an audience. It’s about knowing when to step on the gas and when to ease up. It’s about ratcheting up the conflict when the audience wants it, and keeping it subtle in the meantime. Yesterday my reading experience was pure frustration. I kept thinking, “Is this good and I’m just not getting it?” Today reminded me what real writing reads like.

These days, all you need to do is look around to see to see how many people are acting out their most sinful thoughts. We’re devolving as a species, and the devil is using it as a means to get inside of us. Over 500,000 possessions were reported last year. Priests are our last line of defense against this growing problem. For that reason, in 2007, Pope Benedict XVI instructed all bishops of the Catholic Church to appoint an exorcist in every diocese world wide. But before these exorcists can operate, someone has to teach them.

Thomas is an intelligent 24 year old embalmer for his father’s lifelong business, a funeral home. Close to retirement, he wants Thomas to take over when he leaves. But Thomas has other plans. He wants to get an education. He wants to live a normal life.

But a normal life requires schooling, and his father has made it clear that you don’t need an education to run a funeral home. If Thomas is going to go to school, he’ll need to find the money himself. That’s when he comes up with a plan. If you pledge your life to God, the church will pay for your education. In a move that would surely guarantee his spot in Hell if Thomas believed in such a place, Thomas plans to get his four years of education, then, before taking his vows, say “thanks but no thanks.”

As the climax for his plan approaches, one of the priests sees Thomas perform an amazing act of God without a shred of fear. He believes Thomas is destined for bigger things and suggests he consider becoming an exorcist. Thomas is reluctant, but the priest convinces him to go to Exorcism School in Rome for two months. If he doesn’t like it, he’s lost nothing.

Once at this school, Thomas is thrust into lectures about exorcism protocol, exorcism subjects, and the spookiest of the teachings, documentation of past exorcisms. But even the most spectacular of cases – and some are truly horrifying – are yawn-inducing as far as Thomas is concerned. He knows there’s a rational explanation behind everything and all this nonsense about God and the Devil are clouding these priests’ ability to judge.

The head priest senses Thomas’ skepticism and decides to send him off to one of their more “unorthodox” priests who does his work off-campus.

Indeed Father Carmine lives by his own code. There’s a protocol to go through before performing exorcisms. You have to see if a patient is mentally unstable. You have to rule out multiple personalities or trauma or psychological issues. Carmine couldn’t care less about that shit. If he thinks someone’s possessed, it’s time to slam a cross onto their forehead and batter them with the word of God.

It just so happens Thomas walks in during one of Father Carmine’s exorcisms, a young 17 year old pregnant woman named Rosaria. The event is horrifying, this young girl doing and saying the most unimaginable things. But even after what he’s seen, Thomas still believes that her problems can be explained away through abuse and trauma.

The rest of the story centers on Thomas and Carmine’s relationship as Carmine takes him through the daily treatment of his clientele. Even when these subjects bring up personal issues about Thomas’ life, he is convinced they’ve either done research or heard information about him from other parties. He knows that it is impossible for a person to be possessed by the devil. Of course, at some point, this conviction will be tested, as he will have to perform the exorcism to end all exorcisms, a task so impossible he will need to believe if he has any chance in succeeding.

I really really liked this screenplay. First of all, this is exactly what I was talking about when I reviewed our last exorcism script. In that review, I talked about how every exorcism movie is about some priest coming into a town to perform an exorcism on some woman. EVERY ONE! Borrr-ing. So taking the exorcism idea and coming at it from the angle of a school was, in many ways, genius. It’s a great reminder that finding a new angle to a tired subject matter just requires a little thought.

Also, as dumbed down as this sounds, this script proves how effective the “crazy mentor character” is. I was talking about this in my review of The King’s Speech the other day (with the part that Geoffrey Rush plays). There’s something about a mentor who does things “his own way” that’s simply fun to watch. It works here with Father Carmine, it worked in The King’s Speech, it’s one of the reasons Karate Kid is so popular. About the only time it hasn’t worked is in Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins.

The construction of Thomas’ character here is also well done. We have a built in fatal flaw – he doesn’t believe. He has a complicated unresolved relationship with his father that we keep going back to. He’s resistant to the job, which infuses most of the scenes with conflict. We understand where the character’s been. We understand where the character wants to go. So many times I don’t know who a character is in a screenplay so it’s refreshing when the writer takes the time to map him out like he does Thomas here.

I think the one challenge for the script was the tricky notion of putting a priest in Exorcism School who didn’t believe in God. This was an essential component to the script working, yet not a logical situation. Petroni (or Baglio) decided to use this desire for education as the reasoning behind why someone who didn’t believe in God would join the priesthood, and it’s admittedly the one conceit you have to make in order to buy into the premise, but I think he gets away with it. And I have to admit, it was a lot more interesting than the tired choice we’re used to seeing , which is to have someone close to the priest die right as he’s starting his journey.

Another dramatic mainstay the screenwriting gurus will tell you is that your main character should have a goal and that that goal should drive the plot. So in The Exorcism, the goal is to exorcise the demon from the girl. In Borrelli’s script, it’s the same thing. This approach keeps the point of the story crystal clear to the audience. But The Rite doesn’t do this. There is no single goal for our protagonist, which gives the story an uncertain quality. We’re not quite sure where it’s going. Which is good if it works, but usually if this goes on for too long, an audience will check out. So how does The Rite make it work?

Well Petroni shifts the focus of the movie from a physical goal to an internal question. Will Thomas believe or not? The answer to that question becomes the driving force of the story. It’s a risky move that I see fail way more than I see succeed because it just doesn’t give the story the same driving force a goal does. But because the characters are so compelling here, because the situations are so interesting, and because we want to find out what happens with Thomas, Petroni makes it work.

If I had a beef with the script, it’s that the ending gets a little crazy. One of the effects of focusing on several exorcisms instead of one is that you have to resolve them all, and with Thomas running around at the end to see all these threads to their conclusion, the finale feels a little scattershot.

But overall, I enjoyed this way too much to let that bother me. A highly recommended read.

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

What I learned: A big reason why this script works is that it’s steeped in conflict. Thomas and his father don’t agree on his direction in life. Thomas doesn’t believe in God. Thomas doesn’t believe in Exorcism School. Thomas doesn’t agree with Carmine’s methods or practice. Everywhere you look in this script, two diametrically opposed ideas are colliding, and it’s the resulting conflict that brings so much entertainment to the ride. Remember, as a story teller, conflict is always your best friend!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Shame

Posted on October 26, 2010 | by admin

Genre: Indie Drama
Premise: A man must deal with day to day life while fighting his crippling sex addiction.
About: This is the next project for rising star Michael Fassbender, who was said to have had the inside track to star in the new Total Recall remake, although now that role looks to have gone to Colin Farrell. The Inglorious Basterds vet has a role in the upcoming X-Men movie, and is said to have a part in the new Hobbit films, though I’m not sure what that part would be. The director and co-writer, Steve McQueen, is also a rising star who’s constantly looking to push the film medium. Many of his early films were made to be projected onto three walls instead of one. His style is very minimalist. His last film, “Hunger,” about Irish hunger striker Bobby Sands, was well-received. His co-writer, Abi Morgan, is a successful TV writer who has recently segued into features.
Writers: Steve McQueen and Abi Morgan
Details: 119 pages, June 28th, 2010 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).

Michael Fassbender

Indie movie scripts are kind of like Indian food. They’re either the best meal you’ve ever had or a horrible adventure that puts you in the bathroom all night. Okay, well, maybe that’s not the best analogy. But reading indie scripts always feels like a gamble to me. Before I open them I’m constantly saying to myself, “Please don’t be a pointless wandering character study where nothing happens. Please don’t be a pointless wandering character study where nothing happens.”

The big issue is that most of them tend to lack any drama, and it’s often hard to tell if it’s because the writer doesn’t know how to write or because they don’t believe in the conventions of artificially constructed conflict. There’s a lot of “real life is boring” as a rationalization for why 30 pages can go by with nothing happening. There’s definitely an audience for this, and the mumblecore movement proves it, but my feeling is that if you’re going to sit an audience down for a couple of hours, make something happen onscreen. We want to see some drama.

So, does Shame fall into that aforementioned category? Or does it rise above and become an interesting indie story?

McQueen directing Fassbender

Brandon is in his late-20s. By the way people treat him, we assume he’s good looking, but we never actually know because for some reason McQueen and Morgan keep that information a secret, limiting his description to his age. This was my first uncomfortable moment with the script.  It seems like in a movie about sex addiction, what the protagonist looks like, whether he’s ugly or handsome, would be an incredibly important detail to the story.  But I digress.

We follow Brandon through his mundane daily life, going to work, mulling through the streets, chilling at his apartment. McQueen’s minimalist tendencies are on full display here, as we rarely hear anyone even speak. And when someone does speak, it tends to be irrelevant to the story. It’s just people talking like they’d talk in real life, in chopped off phrases and random observations. On the one hand it’s frustrating but on the other, it creates a distance between you and the story that strangely helps you understand Brandon’s distant character better.

Eventually David’s sister, Sissy, arrives at his apartment, needing to stay for awhile. The two have a friendly if strange relationship, arguing often about petty things and resorting back to childlike tendencies such as calling each other names and tickle fights.

But the real issue here is that Sissy is intruding on Brandon’s secret. You see, Brandon is a sex addict. He goes to the bathroom at work any chance he gets in order to masturbate. He fills up his days with internet porn. The graphic outline of a female body on a shampoo bottle can get him off.

Alone, he can feed this addiction. But with his sister there, it starts putting undo pressure on this shameful side of him, which begins manifesting itself in his day to day life.

Eventually he meets Marianne, a new assistant at work. In a way, he sees her as his salvation. If he can find a way to have a normal relationship with a woman, maybe he can finally overcome these urges. However, like a lot of the script, it’s hard to get a feel for their relationship. Words are barely uttered between the two, giving us no insight into their characters. Again, I think it’s supposed to feel more like real life, but instead, the characters just feel thin.  I’m not looking for, “My dad died when I was six so I moved in with my grandparents and then got cancer at 13…” but how people talk and what people say and even a simple opinion here or there is what brings characters alive.  Without that, we don’t know these people.

Anyway, Brandon starts living this double life where he’s dating Marianne yet satisfying his insatiable sexual appetite with anyone else he can find. His sister is digging further and further into his condo, forcing Brandon to stay out later and later. Will Brandon overcome his sexual addition in time to save his relationship with Marianne or become a victim of it? “Shame” keeps you guessing til the end. 

McQueen and Fassbender’s last film.

If you’ve been paying attention, you probably already know my reaction to this. “Shame” is unapologetically minimalist. It’s indie to indie extreme. And like I mentioned at the beginning, I just don’t respond to that.

There were so many opportunities for conflict and drama here that were avoided, I couldn’t help but feel frustrated. For example, there’s a subplot at work where Brandon’s been accumulating a lot of porn on his computer. He then comes to work one day to find out his computer has gone in for repair. They have to go through the hard drive and clean out some viruses.

This would appear to be the setup for a great dramatic sequence. How does he get the computer back before they find the porn? The stakes are pretty high as well. He might end up losing his job. But a few scenes later, the problem resolves itself. Brandon doesn’t have to do anything. Again, this may be how it happens in real life, but can’t we all agree that watching our protagonist try to solve a problem is way more interesting than it simply getting fixed on its own?

I think the most frustrating subplot of the script, however, is the sister Sissy. (Sorta spoiler) A ton of emphasis is put on this weird relationship between the two that’s full of tension and flirting and unfinished business. Coupled with Brandon’s uncontrollable sexual urges, it seems like 70 pages is all leading up to something happening between the two. And yet, it never does, making you wonder if the sister should’ve ever been introduced into the story in the first place.

I will concede that the last 30 pages pick up considerably. We watch Brandon’s addiction spiral out of control and to the writers’ credit, I don’t think it would’ve had quite the same punch if the script hadn’t been such the slow burn that it was.

But in the end, I think I have a different philosophy on telling stories than McQueen and Morgan. They wanted to convey real life. I wanted the drama that only a good fictional story can provide. I’m guessing some of you will really hate this and some of you will really like it. If you enjoy Soderbergh’s experimental films like Bubble and Keane (which he produced) or any Mumblecore films, you should give this a shot. But if you like a little more drama for your buck, like me, my advice is to pass.

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


What I learned: The porn-at-work storyline really bothered me because you never want your protaginist’s problems to just solve themselves. It’s boring and feels like a cheat. The audience WANTS to see your character try to solve his/her problems. That’s what they come to watch. The character may not succeed. But you at least have to show them trying.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment