Genre: Thriller
Premise: A year after her husband’s death, an adrenaline junkie rock climber finds herself being hunted by a serial killer during a canoe run.
About: This script finished in the bottom half of last year’s Black List. Screenwriter Jeremy Robbins did some writing on the TV show version of The Purge.
Writer: Jeremy Robbins
Details: 96 pages
These scripts are strange beasts.
They’re tailor-made for writing on spec because they’re simple, easy-to-understand, and effortless reads. You can basically keep every paragraph at 2 lines or less.
But they’re deceptively hard sells when it comes to turning them into movies. I just read a really good one recently for a consultation and I’ve been helping the writer send it out. And the note that I’ve gotten back is that it’s “too small.” More specifically I keep getting told that when it comes to action, audiences want that action to be bigger. They don’t want small action. They don’t want one person running from nature, or running from someone else.
So, for these to work beyond getting recognition as a script, they need to have some super marketable angle. A good example would be “The Shallows,” that script about the surfer on the private beach who gets stuck on a rock with a shark swimming around. The shark angle made that marketable.
But hey, who’s to say what anyone will fall in love with, right? Maybe there’s a rock-climbing production head out there dying to make a movie like this.
When we meet 30 year old Sasha, she’s climbing a rock face that would make Alex Honnold anxious. She’s doing so with her husband and I don’t think I need to get into specifics for you to know what happens next. Anybody seen Cliffhanger?
Cut to a year later, after her hubby, who’s name was Tommy if anybody cares, died, and Sasha has become the female version of Alex Honnold, riding around solo in a van, doing the things that adrenaline junkies do. But one thing she doesn’t do anymore is climb rock faces. She’s retired that sediment of her adrenaline-infused life.
Currently she’s about to do a 30 mile solo canoe ride through a very dangerous river. About a mile into the route, however, she notices something very wrong with her canoe. She pulls herself onto shore and sees that someone DRILLED HOLES into her canoe. What in the heck? An hour later, she’s heavily vomiting. Someone poisoned her water!
Sasha comes to the conclusion that while she was camping last night, somebody sabotaged her stuff. And it isn’t long before the saboteur shows up. It’s our Caucasian male villain, Ben, who either is a park ranger or pretended to be a park ranger when Sasha ran into him a day ago. And now he’s hunting her!
Eventually, Ben captures Sasha and makes her climb a rock face with her, before entering a hidden cave. It’s here where Ben keeps his victims, a sort of beautiful cavern with drawings on the walls that have to be thousands of years old.
To make sure she doesn’t escape, Ben handcuff-connects the two with a chain. But that doesn’t stop the feisty Sasha from trying. When he least expects it, Sasha makes a break for the exit, pulling the stumbling Ben along, then leaping off the rock face into the river below.
Ben is eventually able to subdue Sasha once more. But now they’re both injured and need to get medical attention. After deducing where they are, Ben calculates that the fastest way out of the gorge is up a nearby rock face that the two will have to free-solo to the top, connected by rope that ensures if one of them falls… both of them fall.
Today’s script is an interesting comparison piece to yesterday’s script. Because while I did like Apex, I didn’t like it as much as The Bee Keeper.
I asked myself why. Because today’s script is actually a lot more believable than yesterday’s script. I mean yesterday’s script was about bee keeping assassins who use pollen and honey as weaponry.
It goes right back to emotion. Emotionally, I cared more about the characters in The Bee Keeper than I did Sasha.
But why? The entire first scene shows Sasha losing her husband, the person she loves more than anything in the world. Why would I feel more emotion towards a bee keeper getting revenge for a dead neighbor than I would a grieving widow?
The first answer came to me quickly. Unlike in The Bee Keeper, there wasn’t a single reason to show the opening scene of Sasha losing her husband OTHER THAN to make us feel sympathy for her. The trick with mining emotion is that it cannot be obvious that you are manipulating the audience. And this was so so so so so obvious. “PLEASE LOVE MY MAIN CHARACTER! LOOK AT HER LOSE HER HUSBAND RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES!”
The reason The Bee Keeper works better is because the opening scene doesn’t just mine emotion from Eloise’s death. It ALSO sets up the plot. Eloise loses money to this company. So that’s the company that the bee keeper goes after. That’s the advantage of doing 2 to 3 to 4 things in a scene, is that it makes the scene more relevant to the overall movie, and therefore less susceptible to looking like a blatant attempt to mine emotion.
It’s no different than when you have a lot of exposition to get out, so you write a scene that’s ONLY ABOUT THAT EXPOSITION. Every reader who reads your script knows you only wrote that scene to get all that exposition out because that’s the only thing the scene focuses on.
As a screenwriter, you have to learn to hide those things.
This goes back to my theory I was positing yesterday. If we’re not hooked emotionally, we’re not going to love your script. We might still LIKE your script. As was the case here. But rarely in the history of movies do people love movies that they’re not emotionally connected to.
The reason I still liked this script is because the technical execution was very strong. I particularly liked that the writer kept changing things up. For example, Sasha evades Ben for a while, then is captured by Ben for a while, then she tries to escape with Ben attached to her (something I’ve never seen before), and finally she and Ben have to work together.
Also, I thought it was clever how the writer exploited his premise. The hook here is the rock climbing aspect. And he gives us some fun rock climbing set pieces, the highlight of which was the free-solo climb with the two connected together so if one screwed up they were both goners.
The writer was also very good at creating suspense. Ben doesn’t just show up out of nowhere. We see a drone that Sasha doesn’t see 10 pages before he arrives. We experience the deliberately drilled holes in her canoe. A lot of writers don’t have the foresight or the patience to slowly build towards an arrival. They just want to jump to the good stuff! YEEHAW! And that’s not as interesting, in my opinion.
But like I said, these are weird scripts. They’re actiony enough to read fast on the page, but put them toe-to-toe with a film like Nobody and its cool-as-f**k bruiser bus battle and they feel small. And as much as I’d like to say I’m not one of those people, I do occasionally run across these “thriller in a forest” posters when I’m scrolling through Netflix or Prime and I think, “Ehhh… feels kind of small potatoes.”
Let me turn the question over to you guys. Do you watch these films? Or do you find them too small?
[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[ ] wasn’t for me
[x] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius
What I learned: When you’re describing a character, try to find at least ONE VERY SPECIFIC THING that can give us insight into the character. Because if you describe a character too generally, like with one of these types of descriptions – “JOE, 27, is a bear of a man who looks like he’s had a rough life,” – we don’t get a good sense of what’s unique about that person. Check out how Robbins describes Sasha’s husband: “Inside the second sleeping bag is TOMMY (30s). A SF GIANTS BANDANA is wrapped over his face, a makeshift eye-mask.” Even without describing Tommy himself, we get a sense of this guy. He’s from San Francisco. He’s a sports dude. That’s telling me more than some generic cut-and-paste description that I see in 90% of all other scripts.
