Genre: Drama/Black Comedy/Thriller
Premise: A Midwestern wife/schoolteacher begins to suspect that her husband’s cheating on her, so enlists the help of a fellow teacher she has the hots for to catch him in the act.
About: This was the #1 script on the 2013 Black List. Some of you will probably be depressed to hear that the writer, Andrew Sodroski, attended Harvard, implying that in order to be a top screenwriter, one must be Ivy League educated. But fear not, Sodroski’s road was not an easy one. He’s been writing since at least 2007 (when he wrote his only other known credit, a video short titled, “The Handmaid”), and therefore had to put in plenty of blood sweat and tears to get to this point. Wait, I don’t know if that makes us feel better or worse. If someone from Harvard is having a tough time breaking into Hollywood, what does that say about the rest of us?? Anyway, the script is being directed by heavy-hitting documentarian Errol Morris (this will be his first feature) and have Naomi Watts in the lead role.
Writer: Andrew Sodroski
Details: 117 pages

I suppose I should be excited that I’m one of the few people reading today’s script who’s actually BEEN to Holland, Michigan. I’m thinking that makes me better than everyone else somehow. Not sure how that would be, exactly, but I’m working on it.

What I don’t seem to have perspective on is why the number 1 Black List script had so few votes this year (45 I think?). I remember a couple of years ago when The Imitation Game, the number 1 script on the list, had like 120 votes. What does this mean? That not as many people are voting on the Black List? Or does it mean there are actually a lot more good scripts in town and the votes are more evenly dispersed (or possibly the opposite – there’s nothing good so they’re more evenly dispersed)? I’m not sure. But the low vote count is tickling (tee-hee) my concerned bone. Let’s untickle it with a little review, shall we?

“Holland, Michigan” is a strange little script. The first half is basically a combination of past Black List entries “The Details,” “The Oranges,” and “Jeff Who Lives At Home.” It’s a quirky little story about a Midwestern teacher named Nancy Vandergroot (nailed the Midwestern name) who’s feeling a little stuck in life. Much of this is via her own doing, though she doesn’t realize it. This is that woman in town who lives by God’s word, and who’s never performed an evil deed in her life.

Nancy has a wonderful little boy, Harry, and an optometrist husband, Fred, who spends the majority of his free time on his elaborate train set in the basement. To say that Nancy is a little jealous of that train set is a Midwestern understatement.

Well one day, Nancy is going through her jewelry box, only to realize that one of her earrings is missing. At first she suspects the babysitter, but after conferring with another teacher at her school, reformed bad-boy Dave, he convinces her to look deeper before she convicts anyone. She does, and is surprised when she stumbles across a group of Polaroid pictures in her husband’s basement.

Strangely, most of the pictures are of the model houses he’s built into his train set, but one is of a woman, and this is when she begins to suspect what was previously unfathomable. That her husband is cheating on her. After doing some more investigating, she gets a reluctant Dave (who she’s beginning to see romantically) to follow her husband on his next business trip in hopes of catching him in the act.

Dave does, and here is where we move past the mid-point, and EVERYTHING changes. I will say this. I was wondering what the big deal was about Holland, Michigan through those first 60 pages. I mean don’t get me wrong. It was good. A fun look at Midwestern America. I just didn’t understand what about it was “No. 1 Worthy.” However, when we find out what Fred is REALLY doing on these business trips and what’s really going on with his elaborate train set, let’s just say you immediately understand why the script snagged the top spot.

Okay, since you can’t discuss this script without spoilers, I’ll warn you when they’re coming. But I wanted to start by saying even before the twist came around, there was some pretty good writing to admire.

What stuck out to me was that all the characters had something they were doing. In a character piece, that’s essential. I see too many amateur writers giving only their hero and romantic lead “things” to do. Good writers give everyone something to do. So here, Fred, the husband, is all about his train set. Harry, the son, is all about getting ready for a dance he’s doing at the upcoming fair. Nancy is first obsessed with her missing earring, and then later with her husband’s potential infidelity. And Dave is trying to help a struggling student in one of his classes. These pursuits are what individualize and deepen your characters. Without them, they’re more “words on a page” than “people in a world.”

And as I always say, even when you’re writing these smaller character-driven pieces, you still want to use a goal to drive the story. That’s because goals KEEP YOUR MAIN CHARACTERS ACTIVE, which is exactly how Nancy is drawn. At first, she’s looking into who stole her earring, and that leads to her following clues to determine if her husband is cheating on her. This is the action that drives the story along. It’s why we keep turning the pages. If Nancy’s simply hanging out with friends, bitching about her husband, we get bored quickly. She NEEDS THAT GOAL. The story NEEDS TO PUSH TOWARDS SOMETHING.

(spoilers) Okay, now we’ll get into why this script kicks ass. Holland, Michigan has a great little twist. We realize that Fred is not, in fact, having affairs. He’s killing these women. And all the beautifully crafted perfectly detailed houses on his model train set? Those are his trophies. Those are the houses of all the women he’s killed. Oh no!

I LOVED this twist. Twists are always a balancing act. You can’t oversell them beforehand or we’re going to know they’re coming. You can’t undersell them either, or when they happen, we’re going to be like, “Where the hell did that come from?” Holland, Michigan got that balance about as right as I’ve ever seen it. Because when it happened, I was shocked. But at the same time, I said, “Of course!” And remembered all the clues that had been set up. An expertly crafted major twist is the kind of writing that gets Black List voters drooling.

My problem with the script is more about what comes afterwards. I’m not going to get into details, but I think the script tried too hard to live up to its huge twist, and have that third act feel just as big and crazy as the twist itself. As a result, we get a series of questionable choices (Dave deciding to clean up the crime scene he caught Fred in?) and a finale that felt more like an ode to Fatal Attraction than the unique genre-bending script we’d been reading.

Then again, that’s the gamble you take with a script like this. We essentially have a quirky indie black comedy in the script’s first half, then a straight up thriller in the second. Whether you like it or not, there’s going to be some screenwriting collateral damage from that choice.

But man, that twist was so damn good and unexpected, it made me remember why I love reading scripts so much – it’s to find stuff like Holland, Michigan. It’s by no means a perfect script, but definitely worth the read.

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

What I learned: Characters who are stuck in life (like Nancy, or Lester from American Beauty) who are then “set free,” are always interesting because they’re essentially fish-out-of-water characters, and fish-out-of-water characters are fun to watch. Here are these people who have been “good” all their lives, now getting to be “bad.” – I mean how can you screw that up?  Indeed, Nancy is fun to watch for this very reason.

What I learned 2: A friendly reminder to always look for ways to spice up your dialogue. Never go with the expected response. In a great little scene where Fred (who’s an eye doctor) gives Dave an eye exam, they finish up and Fred tells Dave that his eyes are good. Now I want you to think of how you’d write that line of Fred’s. Go ahead, write down what you might have him say. A lazy writer might throw in something like, “Everything looks good.” Sure, it gets the point across, but it’s boring, right? Instead, Sodroski has Fred say, “Well sir, we like to say that only God has perfect vision, but you come pretty darned close.” It’s a sentence that has so much more life to it. What line did you come up with? Share it in the comments. ☺

Genre: Crime/Period
Premise: The 1970s-set true story of a con-artist, who was forced to work with a federal agent to turn the tables on other cons, mobsters, and politicians – namely, the volatile mayor of Camden, New Jersey.
About: I reviewed this script back in April in my newsletter.  Since I’m gearing up for a big 2014, I haven’t had time to put many new posts together.  Hence this is a re-post of that review.  I haven’t seen the movie yet, but I will soon, and I’m interested to see what they changed.  This draft (aggressively titled “American Bullshit”) was written by Eric Warren Singer.  Since then, David O. Russell (who also directs the film) rewrote it.  Singer made his mark over a decade ago when he sold a wild screenplay titled “The Sky Is Falling” that had all of Hollywood a-buzz.  He then went ten more years (selling a few more screenplays) before one of his scripts, The International, was produced.  Singer’s got a pretty interesting backstory worth checking out.
Writer: Eric Warren Singer (based on a true story)
Details: 133 pages – 9/2/10 draft

Okay, let’s get to the important stuff right off the bat. Bradley Cooper is dating a 20 year old?? And her name is Suki Waterhouse?? What’s up with that?? Didn’t Cooper blow off his Silver Linings Playbook co-star, Jennifer Lawrence, because she was “too young”? Well Bradley, she was 22. Which is two years older than your current girlfriend. And Suki Waterhouse? That name is only cool if you’re a movie star. Not cool otherwise.

Now what were we talking about? Oh yeah, David O Russell’s next project. Looks like we’re going back to the 70s for this one. Russell’s been playing with tiny budgets for 15 years now. I guess when you get two actors Academy Awards though, and your last two “artsy” movies made over 250 million dollars, the studio’s willing to open up the offers. Hence, we get a big grand period piece.

Russell’s taking on a tough genre though – the crime flick. The only one who makes consistent money in this genre is Scorsese. You saw what happened when they gave a non-Scorsese the reigns to one of these films (Gangster Squad). It landed like a piano being dropped from a tenth story Manhattan apartment. So there’s an inherent risk there. Now, personally, I didn’t think the script to Gangster Squad was all that. When you’re writing a crime flick, it’s gotta have some BITE. It’s gotta have tough scary guys pulling the strings, the kind of guys who make you wet your pants with a glance. Gangster Squad didn’t have that. American Bullshit does.

It’s 1979 and Mel Weinberg (Christian Bale) is living the life. The LYING life. Mel is a professional bullshitter. And lucky for him, he lived in a time where you could make a living bullshitting. There was no Google to do a quick background check. People had to take you at your word. And if you were a fast-talker, charming, and you knew how to smile at just the right time, you could convince a lot of people to do things that they didn’t want to do.

What Mel does for a living is a little complicated. Basically, he gets people to invest money in companies that don’t exist. By the time these investors find out these companies don’t exist, Mel and his partner/lover Maxine (Jennifer Lawrence) are long gone. This works out for him for awhile, but eventually the FBI catch on to what he’s doing and shake him down.

They give him a choice. You can either go to jail, or help us take down some other guys – guys doing the same thing you are. Mel’s first instinct is to go to jail, but when they threaten to throw Maxine in the slammer too, he changes his mind. Fine, he’s in. The catch is, he doesn’t get to work alone. FBI Special Agent James Boyle (Bradley Cooper) will have to work with him every step of the way.

Here’s where things get fun. In order to take down the FBI’s primary target, an influential New Jersey mayor who has his dirty hands in all the Atlantic City casinos, they have to create the kind of pretend investor that would attract him. So they build up this fake Arabian Sheikh who’s willing to throw hundreds of millions of dollars at Atlantic City. The plan ends up working, but a little TOO well.

When rumor spreads that a Sheikh is going to be dumping money into every building with a slot machine in it, everybody wants a piece. But one of those folks sticks out a little more than the others. Arthur Zelnick. Zelnick is the top dog. He controls Atlantic City. Nobody makes money in this town unless he’s taking most of it. If this Sheikh wants to play, he’s going to need to play through Zelnick.

But that’s not the best part. Zelnick is able to operate because he’s paying off congressmen and senators. All of a sudden, the FBI realizes that they’re no longer going after a bunch of nobodies. This could be one of the biggest government corruption busts in U.S. history. What started as a thin story about a fake Sheikh all of a sudden requires elaborate planning and backstory so that nobody suspects the ruse. And the puppet show will be constructed by the biggest bullshitter of them all, Mel.

I’m going to tell you why this script worked so well. STAKES. I don’t know why I keep forgetting how important stakes are. But if you use them wisely, they can make any story interesting. The key is to keep raising them as the story goes on. So at any moment in the script, the pressure and intensity are twice as high as they were 15 pages prior. That’s especially important for crime movies cause what’s the point of a crime movie if the problem isn’t getting more dangerous as the story goes on?

First it’s Mel trying to survive on his own. Then he gets caught. Then he’s told they have to take down 5 small fries. One of those guys leads them to the mayor. Then a couple of bigger guys want the action. Then Zelnick wants the action. If Mel gets caught at the beginning, he gets a black eye. If he gets caught in the middle, he’s going to jail. If Zelnick finds out he’s a sham, he’s dead. Plain and simple. So when we get to that point, we FEEL the enormity of the moment. Mel has EVERYTHING to lose. That’s how you know if your stakes are high enough. How much does your character have to lose if he fails?

The big problem with the script is the female roles. They’re terrible. It’s as if Singer’s never met a woman before. Maxine is a total waste. She has one or two scenes where her and Max have heartfelt conversations but that’s it. Now that I think about it, she just disappears from the last third of the story. I don’t even remember her.

Strangely enough, Mel is married in the story. So you’re thinking that sooner or later he’ll have to make a choice between the two women. Or there’s going to be a confrontation between them. Or his wife is going to find out about Maxine. Anything so that the conflict from that personal part of his life will play into the story. But nothing like that ever happens. It’s so bizarre. I’m guessing that they’re totally rewriting this part for Jennifer Lawrence. Russell’s pretty good at writing female characters so I’m sure he’ll take care of it.

It’s weird. Whenever I see an amateur tackle one of these scripts, it’s a disaster. There are tons of characters and no direction. So when I read something like American Bullshit, where the storytelling is so effortless, it’s a little deceiving, because it tricks you into thinking it’s easy. It’s not. Singer was smart in that he laid out the goal very clearly: We’re using you, Mel, to take down the bad guys. I mean, that’s the story right there. And it worked. This was a good script!

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

What I learned: This complex subject matter (crime, period piece, lots of characters) makes writers think that they have to live up to a certain complexity with their story. But some of the best crime films are really simple, like this one. I mean, the narrative basically amounts to “Good guys go after bad guys.” I think this can be applied to any genre. No matter how big your story is, always ask yourself if you can plot it simply.

Genre: Drama/Sci-fi
Premise: Set in the near future, a lonely man begins to fall in love with his artificially intelligent operating system.
About: Spike Jonze’s (director of Where The Wild Things Are and Being John Malkovich) latest! This is only his fourth directing effort in 15 years and his first as both writer and director. Columnist Mark Harris classifies Jonze’s career best when he says: “As he begins his third decade as a restless genre-hopper in the public eye, he remains one of the rare film artists who is equally respected in and out of the mainstream. He’s never been tagged a sellout, and—amazingly, given the accelerated pace of public taste and Internet mood swings—he has never not been cool.” You can read the rest of Harris’s article here.
Writer: Spike Jonze
Details: 125 minutes!

Sequel “Him” coming to a theater near you early 2015

I had a tough week at the movies this Christmas. I had three films I wanted to see. The first was Walter Mitty. I love coming-of-age movies wrapped inside higher concepts and this looked ambitious and imaginative from the trailer. Final verdict though? It certainly wasn’t bad, but something didn’t click. It never quite grasped what it was reaching for and the final act lost major steam.

Then there was Grudge Match. I know, I know. A lot of you pegged this as sucking brass punching bags long before I paid 10 bucks to see it but I thought it looked fun and the casting was genius. Well, wrong again Senor Reeves. This was abysmal. So boring and on the nose and PREDICTABLE. Of course, seeing as it came from the writer of “First Kid” (starring Sinbad), I shouldn’t have been surprised.

Which brings us to Her. This one had the most upside. Spike Jonze continues to be a hell of an interesting director, and like all good artists, you’re never quite sure what you’re going to get from him. The question is, what kind of “not sure” did we get? The kind we run home and tweet about, or the kind that makes us want to throw away our indie-loving Netflix Instant account?

“Her” is set in a not-too-distant Los Angeles future. Everything’s the way it is today except instead of people being obsessed with their phones 18 hours a day, they’re obsessed with them 23 hours a day. In other words, the future versions of ourselves are tuning out the real world even more than they do now.

Enter Theodore, who writes online letters for people who don’t know the difference between a metaphor and a simile (I admit to being one of these unfortunate souls), a job that allows him to exist smack dab in the middle of this reality-sucks universe. Theodore’s had a rough year. His wife left him (notated by classic indie over-exposed flashbacks of the two during happier times) and he’s still not over it, still not able to give himself to another woman.

And thennnnnn…. And then the first ever artificially intelligent operating system is introduced. This is how Theodore meets Samantha, one of those OSs. Samantha is fun, playful, and efficient, and soon begins thirsting for knowledge. But that search for knowledge quickly evolves into a thirst for Theodore! If you know what I mean.

Theodore loves it and begins to feel alive again. Not only has he fallen in love, but this is someone who can never leave him. I mean, it’s an operating system. Where is she going to go! He begins telling his friends, like depressed documentarian Amy (played by Amy Adams) and is surprised when they actually accept the relationship. But for every Facebook, there’s a Myspace, and the more Samantha learns, the more she outgrows Theodore. Will he be able to contain her and save their relationship? Or is he destined, once again, to be sad and alone???

Ben Stiller in Walter Mitty, one of my other Christmas Week watches.

I loved the setup of Her. I liked Theodore. I liked that he wasn’t over-the-top lonely. He still had friends. He still did things occasionally. It wasn’t that typical amateur writer stuff where he’s an all-by-himself 24/7 super-loser.

I liked the discovery of Samantha, their burgeoning relationship, and I liked how relatable it all was. I mean I think most people under 40 have had a relationship by now that began online, and so you’ve been through those experiences, where you’re the one dating “Samantha.” Where you’re questioning how real a person or a relationship is if you’re not physically with that person. That’s what really stood out here, how familiar these experiences felt and how accessible that made the movie.

(spoilers) Unfortunately, the script takes a strange final act turn that destroys that relatability (yes, I know “relatability” is not a real world. Just roll with me). Theodore finds out Samantha is seeing 600 other guys. Umm… WHAT??? Okay, actually, you know what? This will probably be how it happens in the future when you have Artificial Intelligence able to communicate with thousands of people simultaneously. I get that. But for right now? For here in this movie? There is no real-world equivalent to your partner cheating on you with 600 other people. Unless it’s Elliot Spitzer, of course.

And I think that’s important for sci-fi scripts. No, not that Elliot Spitzer cheat on you. But that you make sure the things your characters are going through are relatable to real world people. Or else why would we be interested? How can we be invested? That, to me, is when the movie/script fell apart.

But you could see the writing on the Facebook Wall before that if you were paying attention. Phone calls are BORING to watch. Putting people face-to-face is always better because it’s more interesting to see people duke it out in person. Now there are exceptions. If the phone calls are built into the plot (in something like “The Call” which was about a 9-1-1 Call Center – obviously, phone calls will be needed there), it can work. And the phone calling is definitely a plot requirement in Her. But man, after like 20 scenes with them on the phone together? I’d had enough. It just got too repetitive.

Spike Jonze was, no doubt, aware of this, and he did his best to keep us entertained in other ways. One of the best (and creepiest) scenes was when Samantha got a surrogate woman to have sex with Theodore while she talked to him. Watching the woman come on to Theodore with Samantha’s voice, even though the woman’s lips weren’t moving, was, as Theodore put it, “really weird.”

And there were a few quirky Spike Jonze’isms that kept things fun, such as Paul, Theodore’s co-worker who really really really (like in an unhealthy way) liked Theodore’s letters. And then there was a cyber-sex scene that had Theodore’s partner (voiced by Kristin Wiig, I later found out) telling him to strangle her with her dead cat while he fucked her. A little strange, if not crowd-pleasing. But those moments couldn’t prop up a film that probably would’ve worked best as an extended short, as opposed to a 125 minute feature (125 pages for a script where your character is going to be on the phone 80% of the time?? Come on!).

I came away from this week a little confused, because I watched three sets of writers take three different approaches to their scripts. The Grudge Match writers literally copied and pasted Blake Snyder’s Save The Cat book into their Final Draft document and saved the document as “Grudge Match.” The Walter Mitty writers were a little more ambitious and went off the beaten path, yet lost momentum in their final act as a result (once your main character achieves his goal, as Walter Mitty did at the end of Act 2, it’s hard to keep us interested for another half-hour). And then there’s Her, which took a bunch of chances, and was really the antithesis to Save The Cat screenwriting. Yet without any footing underneath it, it eventually went south as well.

I’m not sure what to make of that. But I think Walter Mitty and Her were definitely more interesting movies than Grudge Match, so maybe the lesson here is to err on the side of taking chances rather than going the obvious route.

[ ] what the hell did I just watch?
[ ] wasn’t for me
[x] worth the price of admission (barely – I’d say a matinee at a cheap movie theater)
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: The Relatability Quotient. This is especially true with sci-fi. Keep your characters and the experiences they’re going through universal so we can relate to them. When Samantha represented our own online relationships, we identified with Theodore and cared about what happened. Once she started seeing 600 other guys, because we have no real-world equivalent for that, we began to feel disconnected from the story. How’s the Relatability Quotient in your latest screenplay?

Get Your Script Reviewed On Scriptshadow!: To submit your script for an Amateur Review, send in a PDF of your script, along with the title, genre, logline, and finally, something interesting about yourself and/or your script that you’d like us to post along with the script if reviewed. Use my submission address please: Carsonreeves3@gmail.com. Remember that your script will be posted. If you’re nervous about the effects of a bad review, feel free to use an alias name and/or title. It’s a good idea to resubmit every couple of weeks so your submission stays near the top.

Newsletter Update: There will be no newsletter this week, just a quick Christmas Gift e-mail that you’re going to want to open IMMEDIATELY. This is a special kind of gift, the kind that if you open late, there may not be anything inside. So be on the lookout tomorrow. I’ll be doing posts on Monday and Tuesday, but no major posts for the rest of Christmas Week. However, as I am wont to do, I may throw something up on a whim. If you’re not on the Newsletter, GET ON IT NOW.  Here’s last week’s newsletter to see what you’re missing.  

Genre: Action/Adventure
Premise (from writer): When contact with an expedition on the trail of a mythical treasure is mysteriously lost, a paratrooper, a gentleman thief, and an archeologist must join forces, or risk losing them forever to sinister forces bent on the same prize.
About: Okay, a little background on this one. We didn’t have an Amateur Offerings two weeks ago, which left today’s slot open. Now it just so happened that Mikko, the writer of today’s script, e-mailed as I was trying to decide what to review, and reminded me of his screenplay, which had the unfortunate duty of going up against “Where Angels Die” in a previous Amateur Offerings post. I looked back at the post, saw that some folks liked it, and said, sure, let’s go with this one. And this is why it never hurts to politely remind folks about your script. You never know when someone’s going to have a free moment to pop your script open. But they won’t do it if they’ve forgotten about it.  Of course, don’t go overboard. Just a polite nudge every once in awhile will do the trick. – Note: This is an updated draft from 6 months ago. Mikko took many of the notes he received from that original post and applied them.
Why You Should Read (from writer): It received a 8/10 paid review on the Black List, but more importantly it was your post promoting the Tracking Board Launch Pad screenwriting competition that got me to enter that competition. I ended up making the Top 25 semis, but I didn’t make the cut to the Top 10. I was hoping you might give my script a go and share some insight into how to make it into a script that would’ve cracked the Top 10.
Writer: Mikko Tormala
Details: 119 pages

The Jaguar’s Fang was pitched as an adventure movie in the vein of Raiders of the Lost Ark. Now on the one hand, that’s exciting. We’ve been looking for the next Indiana Jones for 30 years now. On the other, it’s a bit of a death trap. By saying your script is like Raiders, you’re asking the reader to compare it to Raiders. And that’s what happened here. I was constantly comparing the two scripts. And how do you think you’re going to fare against the best action adventure movie of all time?

Exactly!

But that’s not to say The Jaguar’s Fang is bad. I totally see why this finished Top 25 in The Tracking Board contest. It’s a solidly written adventure film with plenty of GSU and a professional polish to it. But there is something missing here. Something that’s keeping it from reaching the next level. I’m not sure I know what it is yet. But as I talk through the reading experience, I’m sure I’ll figure it out.

The Jaguar’s Fang is set in 1945, and focuses on a World War 2 paratrooper, Quentin Riley, who lost his best friend in battle while defending a bridge from the Germans. It’s been a year and Riley’s taken to the drink. When he learns his friend’s father has disappeared on an expedition to the Yucatan, he vows to find him and give him a letter his son wrote him before he died.

Joining Quentin is sword-fighting thief George McAllister, who gives everything he steals to the needy, and Mary Bronstall, a stowaway whose father was also on the missing expedition. Mary was supposed to stay away but the gal’s too darn feisty to obey orders.

The Expedition was looking for an ancient relic known as the Jaguar’s Fang, which is not only worth millions itself, but is supposed to contain some sort of map that will lead to endless treasures. Of course, it just happens to be located amidst the never-ending jungles of the Yucatan where many an explorer has gone to never see the light of day again.

But our crew gets lucky. They find a lost city where the expedition last camped and follow their trail (spoiler) to an underground Mayan society that is still in existence! Ruled by a barbaric king, they will need to snag the expedition members TONIGHT before they are sacrificed and get the hell out of there or have this underground city become their underground tomb.

Okay, so like I said, there was a lot of good here. We have the goal of finding this lost expedition. There’s a nice mystery. Where did they disappear to? The motivations are all there (Riley needs to get this letter to his dead friend’s father. Mary needs to save her father). And some urgency starts to kick in when another group chases them.

All of that seemed textbook to me.

So then what was missing?

For me, something was lacking on the character front. Riley felt a little bland. He was certainly active, which is good. That’s how you want your hero to be. He was selfless (doing this for his friend), so he was likable. But he lacked definition as a character. I couldn’t peg what kind of person he was (Luke Skywalker, for example, can easily be pegged as a kid with big dreams who wants to take down the Empire). And he didn’t have any personality. He wasn’t funny. He wasn’t sly. He wasn’t unique or unpredictable or roguish or selfish. He was a normal guy trying to get something done.

This is one of the scariest things about screenwriting. You can get a whole hell of a lot right. But if we’re not on board with your main character, it won’t matter.

Similarly, I didn’t know what was going on with George McAllister. At times, I wasn’t sure if this was a two-hander (two protagonists) or if he was just a sidekick. Regardless, he was too soft. He starts off as this sword-fighting thief, but then quickly fades into the background, offering occasional humorous quips. Again, we have another character who’s lacking in definition and personality. If you want to create a Jack Sparrow character, McAllister’s gotta be WAY bigger on the page. If not, I’m not sure you even need this character. I struggled to figure out what he was doing in the story.

In addition to these problems, there wasn’t anything in the script that felt new or fresh. In fact, for 75% of the story, we’re moving along a rather mundane repetitive path. We’re in the forest, we discover something minor, we hear the bad guys are getting closer, we keep moving. The underground Mayan city was the one big “Haven’t seen this before” moment, but it was too little too late. By that point, I hadn’t seen anything fresh enough to keep me invested.

And the set pieces. I mean, when you’re competing against Raiders, you’re competing against the king of set-pieces. And until the big finale, which was admittedly good, all the set pieces were tame. I’m not saying it’s easy to come up with stuff we’ve never seen before, but you have to try. You have to take chances because we readers read every day. We see the same imaginations come up with the same scenarios over and over again. You have to throw out and rewrite a lot of stuff to find those rare ORIGINAL moments. But it’ll be worth it, because your script WILL stand out when you do.

But it all comes back to the characters. If I were Mikko, I’d do a major character overhaul here. Ask yourself, if I didn’t have this wild adventure to put my characters in, would they still be interesting? Would they still say or do things that an audience would want to hear/see? Right now, the answer is no.

I was just reading the Marshal of Revelation (Wednesday’s review) and THAT script is character. Those are memorable people. I think part of the problem here is that everyone in this script is so squeaky clean. They’re so nice and cuddly. Even our thief doesn’t keep his money. He gives it to orphanages! Between Riley and McAllister, I would look to make one of these two a lot more edgy. By doing so, you’ll not only have a more interesting character, but you’ll have more conflict between your main characters (as they’ll want to solve problems in different ways), which should provide some more entertaining scenes.

Structurally, The Jaguar’s Fang is great. But until the character issues are solved, it’s going to be stuck just below “worth the read” level.

Script link: The Jaguar’s Fang

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

What I learned: I think this genre of movie needs a protagonist with more edge. This isn’t It’s A Wonderful Life. It’s is a down-and-dirty adventure film. The hero needs a darkness to him, something that manifests itself negatively. Whether he’s self-destructive, manipulative, a womanizer. Something that gives his character SOME PERSONALITY. I think Mikko tried to do this with Riley’s drinking, but it became a non-factor as soon as they went on the journey, so it never felt like a true character vice.

Genre: Western
Premise: The story of a slimy town marshal who saved the town of Revelation, Wyoming with the help of a mysterious Jewish gunman.
About: Jon Favreau (director of Iron Man) wrote this script while editing the film he’s still probably best known for, Swingers. He and Vince Vaughn really wanted to make it but could never find financing. It’s considered a relic of the past. But maybe Favreau wasn’t right to give up on it. Maybe, just maybe, this is his best script.
Writer: Jon Favreau
Details: 115 – pages (12/17/96) draft

Jon Favreau

I FINALLY understand why Favreau directed Cowboys & Aliens! I didn’t know why anybody would want to make that film. But it’s obvious now he regretted never being able to make “Marshal of Revelation,” and realized this would be his only shot to make a Western.

So what’s going on with this mysterious script you’ve probably never heard of? A script that had no business being good (I mean seriously, are there more boring words to open a screenplay to than “Wyoming, 1877?”). Well after those words disappear, we endure a horrifying scene where a gang of mixed nationalities swoop in on a family home, kill a father, brutally rape and murder the wife, and then wait hours for the hiding son so that when he emerges to run away, they can murder him too.  Hmm, maybe Wyoming 1877 isn’t so boring after all.

Jump forward a couple of years and we meet Isaac Meek, the 1880 equivalent of a car salesman. He’s rough around the edges. But he’s handsome enough and he’s got the gift of gab, which allows him to bed many ladies and talk his way out of any situation. That is until he bangs a business associate’s wife. A Chicago bigwig. Isaac realizes that his life is now in danger so he does what he does best – runs.

He eventually bumps into a Jewish cowboy searching for a Russian man. The Russian man turns out to be the same leader of that gang who massacred the family in the first scene. Apparently, he’s been doing this to many families, and started with the Jew’s. So the Jew’s out for a little revenge. And much like Inigo Montoya, he’s been training his ENTIRE LIFE for this meet-up. As a result, he’s the BEST shot in the country (even better than Buffalo Bill – who makes an appearance later!).

Sensing he needs protection, Isaac promises to help the Jew find the Russian if he becomes Isaac’s bodyguard. The two soon find themselves strolling into the town of Revelation, a once thriving city that’s since been overrun by criminals. After a dazzling display of gunmanship and a few dead bad guys (all done by the Jew but orchestrated by Isaac), the town begins to rally around Isaac as a savior, and makes him the Marshal.

As they continue to clean up the town, Isaac’s legend grows, with no one realizing that it’s the Jew who’s doing all the killing here. However, when the Jew realizes Isaac’s been lying and hasn’t done a thing to find the Russian, he leaves. Finally, Isaac will have to prove his worth on his own, a challenging proposition since he’s grown so fond of his legend that he no longer knows what’s real and what’s fable.

Favreau wanted Vaughn to star. Would he have played Isaac?

Damn, this script was good! It feels Django-like, albeit reigned in. I wouldn’t even be surprised if Quentin read this back in the day and was inspired by it. The Jew very much feels like Django (discriminated against, stoic and quiet) while Isaac is the more flamboyant personality-infused of the two.

Speaking of personality, this script taught me a lot about it. I NEED personality in at least ONE of my major characters. I’ve brought this up quite a bit lately because I continue to read a ton of material with forgettable characters.

We focus so much on things like flaws and backstory and character actions, we forget those only do so much. If a person doesn’t talk in some sort of interesting way, they usually lack personality, which makes them boring. Han Solo, Hannibal Lecter, Lloyd Dobler, Juno, Jack Sparrow, Tony Stark. Give me someone who lights up the page!

Well, you can now add Isaac Meeks to that list. Isaac is a salesman. He’s a con man. He’s a selfish swindler. He can talk himself out of ANYTHING and while we may hate the guy, we sure enjoy watching him work. For example, early on in a whorehouse, Isaac’s confronted by two men. Rather than fight, he plots a more… “Isaac-like” solution:

ISAAC
I can see where this is headed. As you can see, not only is it two on one, but I am without my pistol. Now, if you don’t share General Lee’s yellow streak, you’ll wait for a moment while I go to my room and fetch my revolver.

SOME GUY
Here, Meek, use mine…

ISAAC
I’m afraid that won’t do. A gunfighter’s tools are as unique as his personality…

WHORE
I’ll fetch it…

ISAAC
I’m afraid that won’t do. A gunfighter organizes his belongings in a way as unique as…

SAM
(fed up with the stalling)
Fetch your iron!

Of course, Isaac pretends to do just that, but when the gunmen rush to his room, all they see is an open window and a pair of blowing curtains.

But here’s the reason I really liked “Marshall.” Favreau not only created a great character who oozes personality, he created a great character with zero personality – the Jew. The Jew was all about action. He was all about looks. Where as Isaac sought the spotlight, the Jew basked in the shadows.

Characters like these (quiet ones) are tough to write because the lack of dialogue dims their light on the page. They don’t pop as much. But because the Jew was SO DAMN GOOD at his job and so driven (he’d stop at nothing to kill the Russian), we enjoyed him just as much as we did Isaac.

This script used a lot of Scriptshadow principles as well. The character goals were clear and strong (clean up the town, kill the Russian). The motivation was high (the Russian killed The Jew’s family). We had two very interesting main characters that actors would want to play. And due to the stark contrast in personality of our leads, there was tons of conflict. One couldn’t shut up. The other never said a thing. One was a coward. The other was brave. One had principles. The other stood for nothing. When you have a two-hander like this, you’re really writing THREE characters. You’re writing Character A. You’re writing Character B. And then you’re writing THE DYNAMIC BETWEEN CHARACTER A AND CHARACTER B. If you haven’t given thought to that third character, your two-hander’s probably missing something.

The failure of this film to get made probably comes down to trying to find financing for one of the least bankable genres in Hollywood. You saw what happened with Cowboys & Aliens. You saw what happened with The Lone Ranger. To get these made, you probably need a top ten director on board, who will pull with him a couple of major stars. So it’s too bad that The Lone Ranger tanked. It means a resurgence for The Marshal of Revelation is unlikely. Still, this is a really good script. Nice job, Jon!

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

What I learned: In my book, I talk about the advantage of using “scene agitators” in your scenes. This refers to a third element that occurs outside the primary action/dialogue that gives the scene a little more kick. You use them because oftentimes, having only two people interacting is boring. So in “Marshal,” there’s this great scene where Isaac is playing poker against some dangerous locals. The pot has gotten huge, and the leader believes Isaac is cheating them. As Isaac and the leader keep raising the pot, a man walks in the bar (who we’ll later find out is the Jew). The leader, who doesn’t like Jews, tells him to leave. The Jew ignores him, sits down, and orders a drink. The leader continues to raise the pot, but is agitated by the fact that the Jew is ignoring him. So between exchanges with Isaac, he keeps turning to the Jew and telling him to leave. The pot increases and the tension with the Jew increases until finally the leader storms over and confronts the Jew. This is exactly how you want to use a scene agitator. The poker scene by itself was good. But the agitation the Jew adds makes it great.