What if I told you that someone just wrote the female version of Joker, and that it’s actually better than that movie?
Genre: F#@%d Up
Premise: A single mother in New York City begins seeing a mysterious older man from her past around town and becomes convinced that he’s come back into her life to kill her daughter.
About: This one finished with 8 votes on last year’s Black List. Writer Andrew Semans has been writing and directing short films as far back as 2000. His only feature is a 2012 movie called “Nancy, Please” about a man who must retrieve a precious book from his former girlfriend.
Writer: Andrew Semans
Details: 110 pages
To be honest, I’m not entirely sure what I just read.
But I can tell you this. I read from the first to the last page without getting up, without checking e-mail, without going to Youtube, and without checking my phone. I can’t remember the last time that happened.
This script was so freaking weird but simultaneously so amazing!
I don’t know where to start. It’s unlike anything I’ve read before. We’re all trying to answer that everlasting question: What are readers looking for? This is what they’re looking for. Someone with a unique voice. Someone who looks at the world differently, who focuses on things that the average person can’t possibly imagine.
Us readers are so starved for originality that we’re like kids in a candy store when we finally get it.
I have no idea what’s going to come of this script but I can promise you this. A big actress will kill to star in it. This is an actress’s dream role. It has Oscar written all over it. And the writing is so atmospheric and weird (in a good way) that I’m guessing a major director gets involved as well.
I’m reluctant to summarize the script because I want it to be a surprise so why don’t those of you with access to the 2019 Black List scripts (hint hint, check the comments section) go grab this script, read it, then come back.
40-something Margaret works at New York biotech company, Biomatrix. When we first meet Margaret, she seems like a strong, if slightly offbeat, woman. She’s telling her young co-worker, who’s dealing with a controlling boyfriend, how to stand up for herself. How to set boundaries in the relationship.
When Margaret gets home, we learn she has a 17 year old cool daughter, Abbie (When Margaret texts her questions like, “Status,” Abbie texts back, “Shooting heroin”). While there’s nothing overtly dysfunctional about their relationship, we get the sense that Margaret is a bit overprotective.
One day, while on the train to work, Margaret spots a man in his 60s. Overcome with fear, she races out of the train at the next exit. A couple days later, she sees the man again in the park. This is David. Or, as we’ll come to find out, this is who *she thinks* is David, a man she was involved with from the past.
Margaret starts following David around the city and eventually confronts him, tells him to stay away from her daughter. But David, or the man who she thinks is David, says he has no idea who she is.
Margaret’s world begins to crumble. She starts spending more time at home, obsessively keeping an eye on her daughter. She goes to the police to tell them about the man, but they point out that this guy hasn’t called or approached her. There’s nothing they can do.
As time goes on, we learn more about Margaret’s past with this man. When she was 19, she stayed at a remote science lab with her parents. That’s where she met David. He swept her off her feet. But soon, he began making her do things – he called them kindnesses. Small things like not wearing shoes all day. Standing still for an hour. But the kindnesses became more difficult. He kept asking more and more of her.
Margaret eventually got pregnant, and nine months later, had their baby. Her son became her world. Until one day, she came back home to find her baby missing. **And this is where s@#% gets weird** David ate their baby. Not to worry, he says. The baby is still alive, inside of him. If she wants to be with her baby forever, she must stay with him.
But Margaret ran. Ran as far away as she could. Went and had Abbie. And for 20 years, created another life. That is until now. David is back. And he wants to be with Margaret again. He’ll start with a series of small kindnesses. And he’ll go from there…
I KNOW.
It’s weird.
But it’s not the kind of script you can judge from a summary. This script is about its nuances, the cracks and the holes in the wall are where this story lives. It’s so specific and odd and offbeat that you can’t appreciate it unless you read the thing.
I’ll start with the obvious. There’s a sophistication to the way Margaret’s mental state is approached. I see writers trying to write crazy people all the time and they treat crazy like a 10 year old sees crazy. Overly simplistic “crazy” actions like randomly screaming and saying weird stuff.
Movies like Resurrection only work if we believe the craziness. And I knew right away that this writer understood crazy. Margaret obviously has some deep-rooted PTSD that she’s repressed for years and it’s all coming out at once. Her mind is like a popcorn popper. No matter how hard she tries, the kernels keep popping out of her skull.
The thing is, I usually hate scripts about “are they or aren’t they crazy” characters. But when I read a script like Resurrection (which needs to be retitled “Margaret” right away), I’m reminded that a good writer who understands the sophistication behind how people lose their minds, can make it work. It’s that old adage of don’t write something you’re not capable of writing.
I don’t understand the stock market. I’ll never understand it. So if I tried to write a movie about the stock market, it would be terrible. Same thing about mental states. If you don’t truly understand how the mind works, don’t write a crazy character. It never comes off believably. I know this because I read tons of these scripts.
Getting back to Resurrection – this is a script that has a plot. But the real reason we keep reading is the main character. And I think that’s where you find the best scripts. When you’re turning the pages because the character is so interesting and not because you want to find out what the next plot point is.
The specific reason why Margaret is so compelling is because of the contrast in her character. We meet her as this strong, intelligent, determined hard-worker who’s very successful. But, the more we get to know her, the more we realize how fragile she is. That’s where characters come to life – when their external is opposed to their internal. Because that means they’re always going to be in conflict and we’ll want to read to find out how that conflict is resolved.
That’s why I read through this so obsessively. I wanted to know if Margaret was going to fall into insanity or if her external strength was going to pull through.
But don’t get me wrong. The plot was strong as well. We had a clear GSU. The goal was to kill David. The stakes are the safety of Margaret’s daughter. And the urgency is David threatening to kill Abbie soon. So it still works on a basic storytelling level. But the character of Margaret just took this script up 15 levels. She was such a great character. I couldn’t turn away.
If they get the right package of people working on this, this is going to be the first ever Taxi Driver slash Nightcrawler slash Joker with a female lead. And not a lip-service version either. This will stand toe to toe with those movies if it’s done well.
Wow! This was a wonderful surprise.
[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[ ] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the read
[x] impressive (TOP 25!!!!)
[ ] genius
What I learned: There’s something about great screenwriters I haven’t yet been able to quantify. They seem to be able to write weird WITH A PURPOSE. I read a lot of weird scripts. But it’s usually sloppy weird. “All over the place” weird. There’s no rhyme or reason or plan to the weirdness. Whereas with this script, which has a man who claims to be carrying a woman’s child that he ate for the past 20 years in his stomach, the weirdness has purpose. It feels organic to the story. I still don’t know how to explain the difference. All I can tell you is that writers like Semans are able to take offbeat chances and yet back them up with a plan. They’re connected thematically. They’re set up well. They’re paid off well. It isn’t just someone throwing whatever they can think of in the moment at that wall. That’s when weird gets sloppy. So even though you have an “original voice,” that voice is too wild to be taken seriously. You need the ying (structure) with the yang (weirdness).
