Genre: Thriller
Premise: A true-crime podcaster tries to solve a gruesome cold case, putting her in the killer’s crosshairs.
About: Sony Pictures picked this one up for six-figures. It went on to place on last year’s Black List. The writer, Tom O’Donnell, has written on a couple of Comedy Central animated shows.
Writer: Tom O’Donnell
Details: 120 pages
Reader bias.
What is it?
Reader bias is the factor you cannot control as a writer, nor should you try. It is when the reader simply does not like the genre or subject matter you are writing about. But here’s the good news about reader bias. Just as it can hurt you, it can help you. The reader can love your genre and subject matter. And that’s when you’re in the best position to succeed – when you’ve gotten your script in front of someone who likes that kind of script.
Theoretically, there are four reader situations you will run into.
(Hate – Hate) Reader hates your subject matter and hates your execution.
(Hate – Like) Reader hates your subject matter but likes your execution.
(Like – Hate)Reader likes your subject matter but hates your execution.
(Like – Like) Reader likes your subject matter and likes your execution.
So, assuming you have an objectively good script, you need to give it to at least four people for the odds to sway in your favor that one of them is going to be a Like – Like. And the odds increase if you can double that and get it to eight people (triple with 12, quadruple with 16!). However, this Netflix’esque algorithm only works if the script is actually good. If it’s an objectively bad script (you’re still at the beginning stages of learning screenwriting), you don’t even get the courtesy of being graded.
Today’s script was a Like – Like for me. I’ve been telling anyone who will listen that there’s a great podcast-driven script to be written. And I think today’s writer might have just pulled it off.
29 year old Ana Cohen has a “Serial” like hit podcast on her hands (called “I Heart Murder”). Five years ago, a young woman named Dora Bishop, who lived in a small town in West Virginia, was brutally murdered – burned alive even. After a flurry of interest, the cops in Dora’s town just… gave up. And since then, the murder has gone unsolved.
Ana and her trusty hipster producer, Seth, have raised the case from the grave. In the last few months, it’s become THE must-listen-to true crime podcast. They’ve determined that the murderer is one of three suspects. The cop with a temper, Joe Ivy. The Goth misfit high schooler, Cody Varga. Or the white nationalist, Ronnie Burnett.
The last few weeks, however, have been uneventful. The show is getting stale. So Ana decides to take it on the road to the very town where Dora was killed, a town she has made infamous, and which has a lot of people who don’t like her. While this is happening, Ana starts getting threatening DMs from a person who wants her to stop digging. But one of the reasons the show has become so popular is that Ana is relentless. She will do anything and everything for the show. She’s not stopping til she finds her killer.
Once in the small town, Ana seeks out the three suspects she’s made famous to interview them. Her number one suspect is Ronnie. I mean, heck, the guy has already served time for murder (his wife). It has to be him, right? But Ronnie seems genuinely confused by Ana’s pre-formulated ‘gotcha’ questions, making her question everything she thought she knew about the case.
She starts looking into the other two, but when the police lock up her producer and the threatening DMs start coming more frequently, Ana wonders if she’s finally gotten herself into a situation she can’t dig herself out of. Ana does end up finding the killer. But it’s the last person she suspected. And now they want to do away with her before she reveals the truth to the world.
The first thing that stuck out to me about this script was the main character’s edge.
Everyone in Hollywood is terrified of unlikable main characters. This is why you only see them in fringe independent movies, with maybe a single high profile edgy character making it into the spotlight a year (last year’s Joker).
The problem with that is, characters without an edge tend to be boring (with a few exceptions). Our “edge” as individuals is a big part of what makes us unique. So if you can give your hero an edge, they’ll pop off the page more. And characters who pop off the page tend to get better actors and actresses interested.
Ana is not a good person. She’s selfish and she puts the podcast above everything else, even the safety of her own co-workers. However, that same edginess makes us cheer for when she won’t back down when the locals tell her to leave, or when she sends a clever ‘F-U’ retort to the person who keeps trying to threaten her. You get just as much good as you do bad from her attitude.
But it’s not enough. You need at least one thing in your script that makes your ‘unlikable’ main character likable enough to root for them. For Ana, it’s that she’s doing the right thing. She’s trying to get justice for this victim. I’ve read other scripts that have had Ana-like characters who I hated because they were living vapid directionless lives and complaining about it.
You have to understand, when you’re creating the edgy or ‘unlikable’ protagonist, that everything affects the equation. What might work in one script doesn’t work in another because of the circumstances surrounding the plot or concept. But what I learned from this script is that Ana’s edge is a big part of what makes the script so readable. Had she been a goodie-two-shoes who just wants to do the right thing, I’m not sure I would’ve dug the script as much.
The writer also makes an interesting choice in that there’s no unresolved relationship between Ana and her producer, Seth. In other whodunnits, the central relationship is often the one that’s most explored. But Ana and Seth are co-workers here and that’s it. There’s no previous love story, current love story, issues between them, fundamental differences in how they view the world. Seth is a little more careful than Anna. But that’s it.
When it comes to the central relationship in your script, the reality is that the less there is going on with it, the more realistic it plays. Cause in everyday life, not everyone has drama with everyone else. Unless you’re a contestant on The Bachelor. So you do gain some realism by making that choice. However, you lose an opportunity to explore your characters on a deeper level and provide the movie with another subplot (how is their conflict going to be resolved)?
Silence of the Lambs could’ve been a movie where Clarice and Hannibal just exchanged information. But it was the way that the two explored each other and created that unresolved conflict that elevated the movie to the next level. In the end, it’s up to you what you think is right for your movie. But in this case, the reason I think it worked was because the ‘whodunnit’ aspect of the story was so strong. Had it not been, maybe we complain more about the ‘boring’ relationship between the leads.
Finally, it was a really cool move to send our hero into the belly of the beast. It seems obvious in retrospect but that’s only because we’ve read it. Those decisions aren’t as easy when you’re facing the blank page. But, yeah, once we went down to West Virginia, the constant tension that came from Ana and Seth being in danger made this a quick read, even at its aggressive 120 pages.
Definitely check this one out.
[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[ ] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the read
[x] impressive
[ ] genius
What I learned: Don’t throw something bad at your hero when it’s convenient for them. Throw something bad at your hero when it’s INCONVENIENT for them. When Ana gets her first DM threat from the killer, it isn’t when she’s stuck in traffic on the 405. It’s right before she’s been asked a question in front of an audience of hundreds at a podcasting convention. The fact that she has to pretend like everything is okay in front of all these people is a lot more compelling than if she can have an honest fearful reaction alone in the car.
