In case you missed it, it’s Double Post Monday! Yeah, you heard that right. Two posts for the price of one. I reviewed Paranormal Activity so if you’re interested in hearing my reaction, scroll down or click here. If you want my twitter (“Twitter” is now a verb used to describe anything quickly) on it, I thought it was a solid scary movie that’s worth the hype. Roger doesn’t have time for such trivial shakey-cam endeavors though. He’d much rather review the long-rumored but never filmed Arnold Schwartzenegger project, “Crusade.” I remember when Harry from AICN would have weekly updates on this script. Now you get a chance to actually read it for yourself. Take it away Roger…

Premise: A prisoner who is set to die is freed when he fakes a miracle during a visit by the Pope, and is drafted to recapture Jerusalem.
About: In the summer of 1994, the film was weeks from starting production under the helm of Paul Verhoeven, with sets being built in Spain and Morocco when Carolco’s Mario Kassar pulled the plug because the budget was topping $120 million. Because Schwarzenegger had a pay-or-play deal, he walked away with ownership of the project and Carolco gambled on Cutthroat Island, which had a budget of $115 million. It only made $10 million, landing it in the Guinness Book of World Records for biggest box office flop of all time and bankrupting Carolco Pictures. There’s a lesson in there somewhere, and I’m guessing an old-fashioned compare and contrast session with each script could yield us much wisdom. Or maybe, we need only ask ourselves, who the fuck says ‘No’ to Arnold?
Writer: Walon Green. Revisions by Gary Goldman.

One of my favorite filmmakers is Sam Peckinpah and one of my favorite films is The Wild Bunch. So much so that I probably drive my co-writer mad whenever we hit a narrative bump and I break the silence with, “Well, in The Wild Bunch…”

So it was a delight for me to read a script by Walon Green. There’s lots to learn from a man who is known for his remorseless sense of structure, his byzantine attention to detail, and his palpably-drawn characters.

Walon Green.

The Wild Bunch.

Sorcerer.

WarGames.

And also…Crusade.

Isn’t Crusade the fabled Arnold Schwarzenegger project where his enemies stitch him into a live donkey?

Fuck yeah, it is. But it’s more like Han shoving an unconscious Luke into the carcass of a Tauntaun, except substitute Han for angry Saracens and Tauntaun for a dead donkey that’s hanging from a spit surrounded by hungry hyenas. But this is just one scene that’s sure to offend special interest groups worldwide, and we have so much more (awesomely) loathsome ground to cover.

The opening title credits are no slouch. It’s 1095 A.D. and we meet a rider named Hagen who proceeds to rob a French Abbey during vespers. In the Abbot’s chambers, it’s more like a bacchanal than a prayer service, where the main course is prepubescent acolyte boy-flesh. If that’s not enough to ruffle your conservative feathers, consider the soundtrack of pan-pipes and lutes.

Long story short, Hagen is caught red-handed and the Abbot sends for Count Emmich of Bascarat, whom we meet raping a pubescent peasant girl in a vat full of grape slime. “Closer to bone the sweeter the meat,” after all, and we are introduced to his villainous entourage who may or may not die horrible deaths at the hands of Hagen (against the backdrop of two civilizations at war) later on.

Here’s the lowdown: Hagen’s inheritance has been stolen from him by Emmich, his half-brother. So rather than serve as this douchebag’s serf, he would rather be a thief. Only problem is, the acquisitive Abbot agrees to keep Emmich’s dirty little secret for a quarter of his estate, in exchange for hanging Hagen.

What gives? Hagen can’t die. Doesn’t he have to fight in the Crusades first?

You betcha. Hagen’s scaffold is struck down when emissaries from the Vatican arrive, heralding the arrival of papal hype-master, Pope Urban II. He spins a tale about a city named Jerusalem, a forlorn place where nuns are ravaged by Moslems and where Christians live in fear and slavery. He urges his crowd to listen to the voices of the martyrs, to take up arms and free Jerusalem from the blackamoors.

He promises remission from all sin and eternal salvation to those who die in battle…and to their families. If people aren’t convinced yet, Pope Urban II guarantees a holy sign to confirm that this war is God’s will.

What’s the sign?

I’d rather not spoil it, but let’s just say that Hagen, not content with merely having his execution date postponed, fakes a miracle from his jail cell with the help of his cell-mate, Ari, a comedic and resourceful shyster.

When it comes to survival, Ari is a great guy to have on your side. Just like in Entourage.

And before we know it, Hagen is pardoned and he’s marching off to the Holy Lands with the rest of The Pope’s Army.

Hagen is the official mascot of Christendom’s war against Islam.

Unfortunately, he is relegated under the command of his d-bag brother, Count Emmich, rather than the knight known as Godfrey of Bouillon, a blind idealist who at least has less scandalous intentions than Emmich.

But don’t worry, Hagen’s situation improves when he royally fucks up his stepbrother’s face in a dispute involving the intentioned rape of Jewish newlyweds who have strayed too close to the army of Crusaders.

Hagen’s not one to sit around and watch his dickcheese brother violate a bride in front of her husband (or at all). Obviously, the deal breaker is that Emmich opts to “protect” his head with a “pot helm”, and Hagen decides to use his brother’s armored head for batting practice with his axe-handle. A combat faus pax? You be the judge. But a fair warning, the description detailing what happens when a blacksmith removes Emmich’s pot helm leaves nothing to the imagination.

Emmich may have lost the battle, but he’s in this for the long run. In a scheme that would make Machiavelli proud, he sells Hagen and Ari to Moslem slavers. So, we’re treated to a cool sea-faring sequence where Hagen and Ari attempt to commandeer the ship they’re on to escape the Saracen corsair. There’s some decapitations and some swash-buckling, but the fun and games ultimately end in manacles.

Except not for Ari. Who speaks enough Arabic to convince the slavers that he’s actually a Moslem that was captured by the Christians.

Things look grim for Hagen.

They get nut-chopping grim when Hagen witnesses another captor get castrated by a cold-as-ice Moslem surgeon and his assistant. And right when Hagen’s member is put on the butcher’s block, Ari dramatically strides in like the best of double-agents and rescues him. Like I said, when it comes to survival, or avoiding the fate of eunuch, Ari is a great guy to have on your side.

How is Ari able to be so convincing?

Ari’s uncle is counselor to Ibn Khaldun, the Moslem Prince. Hagen is to be trained as a royal guardsman. We learn that Crusaders have besieged Antioch, and the only “safe” window for Hagen to escape will open when they march on Jerusalem. Essentially, he’s forced to blend into his surroundings.

It’s in Jerusalem that Hagen learns the truth.

The city is truly a mélange of three faiths where Jews, Christians and Moslems can worship freely.

It is also in Jerusalem where Hagen falls in love with Leila, the daughter of Ibn Khaldun. While Hagen and Leila play cat-and-mouse fuckgames, in which Leila vicariously experiences Hagen’s sexual prowess through her odalisque, Sheba, Emmich rises to power and influence among the Crusaders in Antioch.

In a city that’s stripped of food, what will the starving Crusaders have for their victory feast? According to Emmich, it’s people. “I see no shortage of meat in Antioch. I see ewes that carry ample flesh and tender lambs still fattening at the nipple.” A ghastly stew is prepared for the Christian army, and the soldiers pledge their loyalty to Emmich with their grateful spoons.

Meanwhile meanwhile, the Moslem leaders discuss the possibility of protecting Jerusalem’s walls with archers from Damascus. The plot thickens as we learn that the reluctant Damascan leader is a selfish prick who will only share his army if he can marry Leila. Ibn Khaldun muses that perhaps they can reason with the Crusaders, maybe even attain a truce.

The story kicks into high gear when the Crusaders reach Jerusalem’s walls and Ibn Khaldun sends Leila to her brother’s estate in Nablus, with Hagen as escort. An assault on the royal entourage segues into the infamous donkey scene.

But what about the big war sequence we’ve all been waiting for?

It’s pretty fucking cool. It’s a third act ball-buster that injects some much-needed momentum for those who grew tired of the Moslem girlfriend stuff.

There are some startling images here. Hagen, berserker-fighting through a sea of battle, armed with a scythe that he uses to cut through the ankles of Moslem soldiers. Hagen, his silhouette projected onto a wall of smoke, back-lit by the setting sun, singlehandedly fighting off hordes of men, the tableau rallying the fleeing Crusaders to get back into the fight.

The battle spills into the siege of Jerusalem, and I ain’t gonna lie, it’s grisly.

But the best part, and probably the most resonant, is a scene involving the One True Cross in the Holy Sepulchre. It’s a disarming sequence that cuts through all of Hagen’s war-time survival profiteering and points at a higher power. It’s good stuff.

Crusade has an amazing attention to detail in it that points to an older, tougher era of screenwriting. With today’s “modern” scripts, I can breeze through them in an hour or two. Not so with this one. I was forced to slow down, to pay attention, to savor the words.

This script makes “Medieval” look fucking clownish in comparison. And “Medieval” is a script I like (I’m sorry I’m not sorry, I have doubts about “Predators” after hearing the plot. It’s not “Aliens” to “Alien”. It’s a coin-op arcade game a company like Midway would have made back in the mid-90s.)

It might be blasphemous to say it, especially considering the two iconic characters Schwarzenegger is known for (The Terminator and Conan), but I think Hagen could have been his greatest role. It’s not only iconic, it has a depth to it that transcends the epic breadth of the background story. It’s an underdog story of redemption set against the historical conflict of The Crusades.

I felt there might have been too much exotic girlfriend and not enough holy war, but what the hell, it ties into Hagen’s conflict with Emmich. Which is the overarching theme to Crusade. Redemption. And isn’t that what all redemption stories are about? A man trying to regain his inheritance, a man trying to re-seize a mantle lost? Quim just sweetens that redemptive pot, amirite?

[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[ ] barely kept my interest
[ ] worth the read
[x] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: The next time you’re lost in your own character arcs without a thematic compass, just remember what Conan said: The best things in life are to kill your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women.

Seriously, when it comes to movies about men with swords, everything else is icing on the cake.

Genre: Drama
Premise: Two best friends who live on the small island of Corsica choose different paths in life, one as an honest working man, the other as a gangster.
About: This was the second rated script on The Brit List. Neil Purvis and Rob Wade wrote Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace. Corsica is the fourth biggest island in the Mediterranean Sea. Napolean Bonaparte was born there.
Writer: Neil Purvis and Rob Wade

So I’ve been reading through this Brit List the last few days and I have to say I’m a bit disappointed. A lot of these scripts have their share of strengths, but I’m yet to find one that’s consistently good all the way through. There’s been some discussion in the comments section that the Brit List is mirroring the The Black List and becoming more a marketing tool than an honest assessment of the best scripts of the year. I would hate for that to be the case (with both lists) but I guess on some level it was inevitable. The same thing happened with Sundance. If you had a mess of a film applying for entry but it had Robert DeNiro and Ed Norton in it, are you really going to say no to a couple of academy award winning actors? The Brit List does sort of read like a “Here’s what all the top UK writers are working on now” rundown. The argument for the list would be that the number one script is by a relative unknown, right? I mean, how would George Kay have any power in getting his script to the top of the heap (or is George Kay super famous in the UK?)? It should also be noted that scripts by lesser-known writers aren’t going to get into as many voters’ hands. I’m going to try to get through this thing but it’s hard mustering up any enthusiasm at this point. I need a script to get me excited again. For your enjoyment, I’ve listed the premises of the Brit List scripts I know about:

Anthony Belcher – The unluckiest man in the world is offered seven free days of perfect luck.
Corsica 72 – Two best friends who live on the small island of Corsica choose different paths in life, one an honest life, the other, a life of crime. (Godfather on an island?)
Now Is Good – A 17 year old girl dying of cancer creates a dark bucket list, then meets a boy she falls in love with. (A bit too “A Walk To Rememberish” maybe?)
Salmon Fishing In The Yemen – A henpecked civil servant is sent to introduce salmon to the Yemen. (High praise for Beaufoy but is this not the most unappealing title in the history of movies?)
Best Exotic Marigold Hotel – Don’t know much about this one other than that it seems to take place in an old folk’s home. (How can this be better than Winter’s Discontent?)
I Wish I Wish – A stuck-up beautiful wife who’s had everything handed to her in life, joins the “Make A Wish” Foundation for dying children, and starts to fall for the father of one of the children. (teenagers dying wasn’t enough. Now we have to take out the children)
Conviction – An adaptation of the 2004 BBC TV crime series. Two police officer brothers cross the line while investigating the murder of a 12 year old girl.
Eurovision – A project for Working Title from “Bruno” and “Borat” writer Dan Mazer, focusing on the bizarre ritual of the Eurovision song contest, an annual festival of kitsch… This would not be a faux-documentary, but rather a more traditional movie.
Under the Skin – Hitchhikers in Scotland are abducted by aliens. (I’ll be reading this next)
Grabbers – A comedy-horror set in Ireland, in the vein of “Tremors” and “Gremlins,” from a first time writer. (it actually surprises me that more movies like Gremlins haven’t been made)
Red Circle – A remake of Jean-Pierre Melville’s classic crime film, “Le Cercle Rouge.”
A Trap For Cinderella – A woman survives a house fire but is burnt beyond recognition. (Hmm, this one sounds particularly uplifting)
What Was Lost – A shopping center is haunted by a 10 year old girl. (This might be one to save for Halloween Week).

Cosica 72 is one of the better scripts I’ve read from this year’s list but it’s not without its faults. It follows best friends Marco and Sauveur, who lived on the Mediterranean island of Corsica in the 1970s. They’re on the cusp of adulthood and about to go their separate ways. For Sauveur, that entails a simple life on the island. For Marco, it means joining his Uncle Luis in the mafia. Before they split up though, they both fall in love with the same girl, the stunning Lucia. Marco is the brave one, diving head first into the battle for her heart. But it’s Sauveur who wins the war, mainly because Lucia detests the violent ways of the mafia.

Cut to a few years later. Sauveur and Lucia are happily married. Sauveur is about to start his own business. He begins building on his location of choice, but receives a visit from Marco informing him that he’s required to check in with Luis before building on the island. The land isn’t Luis’, of course, so Sauveur doesn’t see how he has to check in with anyone. He ignores Marco’s warning and, as a result, Luis sends a couple of his henchman to scare Sauver’s younger brother. The henchman screw up and end up killing him by accident. Sauveur is enraged but can do nothing. To make matters worse, his manhood is questioned by Lucia, and when it’s clear that he’ll be perceived as the Island wuss unless he does something, he decides to rock some vigilante justice and murders the two men who killed his brother.

This puts Don Luis in a tough position. If he dosen’t kill Sauveur, he’ll be looked at as weak. So he signs his death warrant, putting Marco in an incredibly awkward position, as he doesn’t want to kill his friend. Before the matter can be resolved, Sauveur flees to the nearby forest, where he begins living a life of exile, looking forward to occasional secret visits from his wife. When Luis starts killing members of his family though, Sauveur is forced to become the very entity he despises – a Don of his own. So he begins ordering his own killings from the forest. A tit-for-tat string of murders begins, which further complicates Sauver’s, Marco’s, and Lucia’s relationship, and pushes them to an inevitably bloody conclusion.

The writing here is great. There’s lots of conflict. There’s lots of intrigue. The stakes are high for all the characters. The characters themselves are rich and well-developed. As a script, it’s a very fine piece of writing. I just couldn’t get past a couple of things. This whole idea of Sauveur racing up into the forest and living there for half the script…it just seemed, for lack of a better word, silly. Not only that but it took our main character away from the action. Also , I couldn’t for the life of me understand Lucia’s reaction to Sauveur not standing up for himself. I thought her whole thing was the mafia was bad because of its violence. So why would she support a retaliatory killing? Especially since it sends her husband into the forest for the rest of his life. I had a really hard time getting over that rationale. Though I guess this is based on a true story so the real Lucia actually made that decision. Either way, it was a choice that confused me on her motivation, and ultimately made me not like her very much.

In the end you gotta take this review with a grain of salt. I’m not a huge fan of mafia movies. I liked but never loved the Godfather films. To me, Goodfellas is the cream of the crop in this genre, and it feels like every mafia movie I watch pales in comparison. So I have a feeling that even if this script was perfectly written, I’d still grumpily point out its faults. It’s still the best I’ve read so far behind Anthony Belcher though.

[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[x] barely kept my interest
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: I think for me personally, I don’t like when my main character is away from the action. I always find it more interesting when he’s down there in the thick of it. If you can, keep your protagonist where all the action is at. I meant that’s where the meat of your movie is, right?

Can we talk about something for a second? One of my favorite screenplays of the year? A little script called “Buried” about a man who wakes up inside a coffin with no memory of how he got there? Oh yeah, did I mention that the entire script takes place inside that coffin? Still not jogging your memory? Go check out my review of the script here. The script was purchased earlier this year and secured Ryan Reynolds as the one-man lead in the film. Production has since been completed.

Through the grace of one of Scriptshadow’s helpful fans who happened to know Chris, I was able to do a little trapping of my own and convince Mr. Sparling to do an interview for the site. Chris was more than happy to help out. A little background on Chris first. He is a writer/director/actor/producer/screenwriting teacher who took matters into his own hands when he wrote/directed/produced his first film back in 2005 titled, “An Uzi At The Alamo.” Chris recently sold another script titled, “Mercy,” to Gold Circle Films on September 24th. Clearly they must have heard he was going to be interviewed on Scriptshadow. Anyway, I’ll stop talking and give the floor to the man himself, Chris Sparling. Enjoy the interview.

SS: How did the idea for Buried come about?

CS: I wish I could say it was some uniquely artistic reason, but it actually was a financial decision. It had been about four or five years since I shot a feature, and I was getting sort of antsy. Anyway, I tried to come up with the most contained story I could possibly tell, in addition to being one that involved as few actors as possible. From there, I felt there had to be a compelling reason why someone would be buried alive, rather than go the straight horror route and chalk it up to some crazy, Saw-like lunatic who just wants to torture someone. After then researching the dangers so many civilian contractors are facing in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the unimaginable conditions those of them who are kidnapped endure, I knew right away I had my reason.

SS: I noticed you were an actor and a director as well as a writer. Were you writing something you could shoot and act in yourself? If so, what made you give up the acting and directing parts?

CS: Although I did initially intend on directing Buried, I never saw myself playing Paul. For one, I originally wrote him as being much older than me (even though Ryan Reynolds ended up playing the role, and we’re just about the same age), and second, I’ve done the DIY, wear-all-the-hats-at-once thing before and the movie suffered as a result. Also, once I saw Rodrigo Cortes’ first film, The Contestant, I knew he was the right person to direct Buried. He’s incredibly gifted, and unlike many other directors we considered, he was the only one who wanted to stay true to the script by keeping the entire story in the box. And, of course, we were fortunate enough to land an incredibly talented and courageous actor in Ryan, who was willing to take a risk on this crazy movie.

SS: How many scripts had you written before Buried? Which script did you realize that maybe you were getting the hang of it?

CS: Before Buried, I think I’d written about nine or ten features and two TV specs. Truth be told, it didn’t start to click for me until about my seventh feature script.

SS: What’s your process as a writer? Do you write quickly? Does it take awhile? Do you outline? How many drafts do you write?

CS: I kind of follow a pyramid design, in that I start with the bigger, broader things first and then steadily make my way up to the more detailed aspects of the script. Typically, I’ll write a brief synopsis (3-5 pages), then a character breakdown, followed by a thorough scene breakdown/step outline, and then finally a first draft of the script itself. Thankfully, yes,I do write pretty quickly, which helps because I usually write at least two or three drafts of a spec.

SS: One of the things I like so much about Buried is that it seems to follow the generally accepted rules of screenwriting, but like all great scripts, does so without the reader realizing they’re there. For example, in my review, I talk about your exceptional use of multiple ticking time bombs and how effective they were. Are you a “rules” guy? Or do you just follow your gut?

CS: Like I said before, it took me writing about seven scripts before everything seemed to click. For me, finally “getting it” meant being able to write from the gut and not having to consciously worry about hitting certain plot points or whatever else, because you end up hitting them anyway.

SS: A mutual acquaintance mentioned that you taught screenwriting. When you go into a semester, what are the most important pieces of information you want your students to leave with?

CS: I only teach from time to time, but when I do, I implore my students to learn how the film business works. Honing their craft should go without saying, which is why I stress the need for them to get out to festivals, make contacts, attend film markets, intern, and do just about anything else they can do to learn about the business they hope to someday work in.

SS: What is the most common mistake you see screenwriters make?

CS: Amazingly, not reading screenplays. This clearly doesn’t seem to be the case for the readers of your site, but on the whole, it’s a mistake a lot of writers make. How-To books are great, as are classes and seminars, but there’s no better (or cheaper) way to become a better writer than to read as many scripts as you can get your hands on.

SS: What do you think the key is, not necessarily to write a great script, but to sell a script? Or are they one and the same?

CS: So far, I’ve only sold two specs: Buried and, most recently, a horror/thriller called Mercy. What made those scripts sell and not the nine or ten others before them? It could simply be that they were better scripts, but it’s probably more do do with access — access to people who are now actually willing to read my stuff. This is why I think it’s so important to understand how the business works. You have to know who the gatekeepers are, how to get to them, how to get them to turn your pages, and then — provided your stuff is good enough — you will get read by the the people who have the power to buy your spec.

SS: How did you obtain agency representation and what is your advice for other writers seeking representation?

As I mentioned before, I made a no-budget indie a few years back, which caught the attention of my manager, Aaron Kaplan. He didn’t sign me right away, but he apparently saw enough promise in me to continue reading my scripts and watch some things I directed and acted in. Fast forward to just over a year ago, when I was already about six months into pre-production on Buried (the no-budget version I was going to direct), I sent him the script and he flipped for it. Two days later he signed me. From there, he got the script over to the agencies he had relationships with and within a week or so I signed with Charlie Ferraro and Doug Johnson at UTA. As for advice on how to get a rep, all I can say is to be persistent. Not overbearing; persistent. Apart from that, another great way is to connect with a producer — one who believes in your talent — and then, when the time is right, ask that person to refer you to some reps they regularly work with.

SS: How important to a screenwriter’s success do you think it is to have other things going on besides the writing (ie directing, acting, producing, blogging, teaching)?

I’m not sure doing any or all of these things are vital to being a successful screenwriter, but they certainly don’t hurt.

SS: With studios putting more emphasis than ever on adaptations (and hiring guns to write them), it’s getting harder and harder to find truly original material. But a couple of original ideas broke through this summer in The Hangover and District 9. What’s your opinion on the state of industry?

I think the public wants comfort right now.. We’re facing unprescedented economic hardship; we want to escape to the places and do the things we know for sure make us happy. There’s no risk there, and that makes us feel comfortable spending our hard earned money at the box office. That’s why everything seems to be pre-awareness these days. But, as you pointed out, there have been several original films that have broken through and, subsequently, performed very well in their own right. In my opinion, as we begin to pull out of this recession, I think the flip back to more original content will start to happen. But until then, enjoy the big screen adaptation of Dan Brown’s latest release, Iron Man 2, Rambo 5, Battleship the movie…..

SS: What is your opinion on Josh Olson’s recent rant that he will not read your fucking script? Would you read Josh Olson’s script?

CS: I understand both sides of this debate. From Josh Olson’s side, I have personally experienced the “No Good Deed Goes Unpunished” backlash from reading someone’s script. About four years ago, a woman (a complete stranger, mind you) emailed me and asked if I would read not one script, but two. Evidently, she and her writing partner had written two different versions of a story they came up with, and they wanted to know which of the two was better. Long story short, I agreed, and when I wrote back and told her I thought script B was better than script A, she got all bent out of shape because she wrote script A. Here it was I gave a complete stranger about three hours of my time (I read very slowly) and an unbiased, somewhat professional opinion, and in return she basically told me I was an idiot and that she shouldn’t have wasted HER time by contacting me in the first place. Again, that’s just one example of why I can see things from Josh Olson’s side. However, and this is a pretty big however, I’m not sure I agree with the way he went about saying what he said. I would imagine he was once a struggling screenwriter too, so he should know firsthand how hard it is to get stuff read — and therefore shouldn’t fault writers for trying.

Thanks again to Chris. I hope you guys found some wisdom, motivation, or inspiration from his words. I think one of the common threads I’m starting to see with success is that people who achieve it attack their dream from different angles. Writing is such an invisible pursuit. No one sees you doing it. So if you’re out there acting, directing, producing, even blogging. Those things are more visible and give you a stage to promote your writing ambitions. Just a thought.

Roger comes with both a review and a surprise today. The review is for a Joss Whedon spec written many moons ago. And the surprise is a…hmmm…shall we say a “not entirely real query letter” he and his writing partner created. This query letter isn’t just bad, it’s downright awful. Yet awfully entertaining. So go check it out over at The Deep Thoughts Of Great Importance Blog. In the meantime, as those of you trolling through the spec underbelly know, The Brit List was released last week, and I plan to delve into a few of these scripts here on the site. The Brit List is basically the UK’s answer to The Black List, which will surely whet our appetite for 2009’s Black List, which should be right around the corner. Oh, and I’ve decided to have a horror week on the week of the 31st where I review…yes, you’re hearing this right…a full 5 horror scripts. So get your suggestions in now. — Here’s Roger with his review of “Afterlife.”

Genre: Thriller, Action, Science Fiction
Premise: A resurrected government scientist escapes his handlers to find his wife, who believes he is dead.
About: Back in the early 90’s, before Joss fled screenwriting to build his television empire, he wrote and sold two high-selling specs. This is one of them. At one point, Andy Tennant (Hitch, Sweet Home Alabama), was attached to direct.
Writer: Joss Whedon

In 1994, three whole years before Buffy the Vampire Slayer debuted on our television screens, Joss Whedon wrote and sold a spec called “Afterlife”, a high-concept thriller about a government scientist named Daniel Hoffstetter.

Doesn’t Daniel die in the first 8 pages?

Indeed, he does. But let’s back up. Daniel is in his mid-fifties. He’s a thin and frail world renowned scientist doing important DNA research. So important, that like a lot of academics, he seems more married to his work than to his wife, Laura.

Daniel loves his wife, but sometimes he has to do things like show his boss, Leonard, the new program he’s been working on rather than take Laura to the annual fair.

A dark cloud hangs over their marriage.

Daniel is sick and we’re not even ten pages in when he dies. Laura never has a chance to say goodbye, because she falls asleep in a hospital chair when his disease-ridden body finally fails him.

But this script is 130 pages long! He can’t die!

You’re right. But don’t worry. Daniel wakes up and notices that there are no tubes connected to his arms. In fact, his arms look different. Strong and powerful.

His boss, Leonard, explains to him that the bio-electric matrix of his mind has been imprinted onto the tabula rasa of another brain.

A mind-transplant.

Daniel has been given a second-chance. The new body his consciousness now abides in is younger and stronger than his old one. An able specimen for fighting and shooting things…should he ever need to do that.

And fight and shoot he’ll choose to do, because, you see, Daniel works for The Tank now.

What’s The Tank?

The Tank is the part of the government the CIA doesn’t even know about. Resurrected scientists who work on secret government stuff, monitored by the watchful eye of Colonel Kendrick and his head of security, Bo.

Daniel doesn’t look at his predicament as a second chance. He sees himself as a prisoner. All Daniel wants to do is talk to his wife, but of course, he’s not allowed. If the CIA doesn’t know about his existence, why should civilians? This is his new life, secluded from the rest of the world in a clandestine facility miles underneath the desert.

When Bo tells Daniel that he should forget about his wife (by callously informing him that she’s now seeing a math teacher), Daniel comes up with a plan. He studies the security tech, the routines and protocol of the bunker.

And in a pretty gratifying action-set piece, Daniel escapes the bunker and makes it to the surface. There’s a car chase involving helicopters (and a tow truck; awesome!), and it’s a great example of how to write action. In fact, the script is one big example of how to write action set-pieces that aren’t there just for the sake of it, but actually serve to move the story along.

But there’s a twist to Act 2 (and to Act 3) that turns on the heat.

When Daniel makes it into a store to use a phone, there’s a reason the little boy sitting atop the Coke cooler keeps calling him “Snowman”. It’s an eerie detail, and we sort of forget about it until the store owner starts yelling expletives, pulls out a gun, and tries to kill Daniel.

Why did the store owner start shooting at him and what does that have to do with the word “Snowman”?

Snowman is the nickname of the executed serial killer, Jamie Snow. His other nickname is The Beast, but I guess that doesn’t really matter. What matters is that Jamie Snow is Daniel’s new body.

So, not only is The Tank after Daniel, but Daniel can’t really blend into crowds or enter civilized establishments without being attacked by pawnshop owners, scared policemen, earnest security guards, and concerned citizens.

If that weren’t enough, when Connecticut Homicide Detective Bob Moody learns that the serial killer he captured, the serial killer that was supposedly executed, has returned and is mingling with the hoi polloi, he obsessively joins the chase, too.

Can Daniel make it to his wife? More importantly, can he convince her that he really is Daniel, and not just a psycho killer (by the way, this script is way better than Andrew Kevin Walker’s “Psycho Killer”) whose path of most resistance is making national headlines?

He can. And he does. Act 2 is a Fugitive-esque race, an entertaining game of cat and mouse that is worth studying, especially if you’re interested in writing scripts that contain action set-pieces. Not only is it great to examine to see how Joss so easily entertains, but it’s worth looking at to see how Joss writes people.

I don’t think it’s a stretch at this point to declare that, simply put, Joss knows that people (characters) make the best stories. He understands relationships. If you don’t believe me, look at the end of the 2nd Act and pay attention to what he highlights.

This is an action script, but he focuses on Daniel and Laura rediscovering each other. He writes their intimate scene (the heart of this script) as if this married couple are two new lovers consummating their love for the first time. A flame reunited. Now that’s vertical relational depth, and that’s why Joss Whedon Is Your Master.
Roger, you mentioned there was a twist as we enter into Act 3?

There is, and it’s one you’ll see coming. (But there’s another one that comes right after it that will either work or piss you off.)

Back at The Tank, the resurrected scientists begin to have problems. Those bio-electrical matrices that have been supposedly imprinted on tabula rasa(s)? Well, they’re sort of going bye-bye. The minds of the “donors” are starting to resurface, erasing the minds of the government academics. In a nutshell? Serial killers are reclaiming their bodies.

And here’s the train-wreck: We know that Daniel is going to fight for control over his new body with the mass murderer, Jamie Snow. And he’s going to be doing it whilst isolated in a cabin with his newly reunited wife.

So Act 3 is a collision of ingredients: (1) A Sybil-like struggle over control of Daniel’s body, (2) Laura trying to escape from Daniel (which goes back and forth; she’s confused), (3) the Tank company men trying to clean up their mess, (4) Detective Moody confronting Daniel in his quest for the truth and (5) local law-enforcement thrown in the mix to complicate the man-hunt.

And yeah, there is another twist which I don’t want to give away here. Read it for yourself and see if it works.

Like at the end of any good Buffy (or Faith, amirite?) episode, conflict is resolved with a healthy dose of fisticuffs. It’s an action movie, what do you expect? It’s also a Joss-tale, so we get a final scene that serves as a bittersweet coda to the end of Daniel and Laura’s journey together. And it connects. It makes you feel.

All in all, a solid script that tells a tale and tells it well. Great dialogue, tangible characters, and action sequences written by a master craftsman. Definitely one of the specs to study if you want to play by the rules (and perhaps the germ for Dollhouse?)

[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[ ] barely kept my interest
[x] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: Even if you’re writing stories with fantastic elements, this script reinforced my theory that it’s best to focus on the human elements. Even though this is science-fiction, it doesn’t feel like it’s set in an imaginary world. It feels like it’s set in the real world, and I think that’s a wise choice. It’s good to remember, that for an average movie-going audience, people are subconsciously willing to invest into suspension of disbelief. More-so than people in the industry. They are more willing to just go with a story, unlike those who are studying the craft, or story-telling in general. But it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t aim high. Where is the line that people start to clock out of a story because they judge it “unbelievable?” And what kind of people are more willing to suspend disbelief and be content to experience awe and wonder? It’s worth thinking about.

Genre: Drama
Premise: We chronicle the infamous career-long battle between screen legends Joan Crawford and Bette Davis, specifically on the set of the only film they ever made together, “Whatever Happened To Baby Jane.”
About: I believe this script is optioned but has not been purchased. The details are a little sketchy. What I can tell you is it came highly recommended from a trusted source. The main film it chronicles, “Whatever Happened To Baby Jane,” was made in 1962 for 980 thousand dollars.
Writers: Jaffe Cohen & Michael Zam

Can somebody say, “Cat Fight?” Rrrreow. I’m going to be honest with you, I’d never seen a Joan Crawford or a Bette Davis film until yesterday. In fact, my cinema I.Q. goes down about a hundred points when discussing anything before 1960. I love Jimmy Stewart. Citizen Kane is rad. Hitchcock rocks. But outside of a few other highlights, it’s all a bunch of black and white over-glamorized over-acted close-ups. I know, I know. The Golden Era of Film and blah blah blah. It’s just really hard for me to get into that time. That’s a long way of saying I knew very little about Joan Crawford and Bette Davis before reading this script. And I definitely didn’t know anything about this lifelong rivalry/feud of theirs. So before I read it I did a little research into the women that pioneered the word “diva” and came away convinced that both of them were completely fucking nuts.

I’m basing this off the writers’ descriptions but for the uninitiated, *on-screen* Joan Crawford was basically the hottest movie star on the planet (Megan Fox type?) and *on-screen* Bette Davis was basically the best actress on the planet (a kind of Kate Winslet?) But we’re not meeting these actresses in their prime. No no. We’re meeting them after all the bright lights and adoring fans have disappeared. They’re in their 50s now, still respected but too old to be headlining anything.

Joan approaches auteur director of his time, Robert Aldrich, with a book she wants to turn into a movie called, “Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?” You might recognize Aldrich’s name. He was the director of The Dirty Dozen. But see that movie was still another five years away. At this point, he had about as much clout as Pauly Shore in getting his next movie made. Anyway, “Baby Jane” seemed like a good bet as it was a contained dark thriller, and another contained dark thriller had just opened in the U.S.. You might remember it. It was called “Psycho” (How appropriate, right?). The issue was a simple but daunting one. The movie centered entirely around two women in their 50s, and Joan wanted Bette Davis to play opposite her. Everybody knew these two detested each other but the reality was, they had become a couple of old movie stars cashing in on their former glory. But the press and media attention surrounding them working together would be unmatched – potentially catapulting them back into superstardom, particularly if the movie delivered. As reluctant as Bette was at first, she too recognized the opportunity here, and signed up.

Now here’s where things get funny. The synopsis of the film reads, “Two aging film actresses live as virtual recluses in an old Hollywood mansion. Jane Hudson (Bette Davis), a successful child star, cares for her crippled sister Blanche (Crawford), who’s career in later years eclipsed that of Jane. Now the two live together, their relationship affected by simmering subconscious thoughts of mutual envy, hate and revenge.” Not only were they playing opposite each other, they were playing opposite each other in roles that perfectly fit their real life personas! It would be like putting Bruce Willis in a Michael Bay movie about an actor and director who hated each other (then again it seems like everyone hates Bruce Willis these days).

As soon as production began, the claws came out. Joan gave all the crew members gifts so they’d treat her better than Bette. Bette way overdid her make-up and costume to make sure she upstaged Joan. The two pouted, threw fits, talked behind each others’ backs to the media. And poor Aldrich had to endure it all, spending the majority of his time playing babysitter to these alcoholic chimney smoking lunatics rather than directing (I hear those eyebrows alone are a direct result of helming “Baby Jane”). And yet because there was so much real life going on behind each performance, the dailies came back celluloid gold.

To be honest though, I was a little disappointed with this portion of the screenplay because my research led me to believe this was the on-set battle to end all on-set battles. Yet the actual blows seemed minor by today’s standards. For example, in a scene where Bette serves Joan a dead rat, Bette switches out the rubber one with a real one. Or later, Joan replaces Bette’s chocolates with packed meat. Packed meat?? I thought these two hated each other. What about poison?? Then there was a scene where Bette, who had a bad back, had to pick up Joan, so Joan added a belt of heavy weights underneath her clothes to make herself extra heavy. Is it just me or are these the kinds of hijinks you might expect on an episode of I Love Lucy? When I compare them to what went down with someone like Orson Welles, who was basically blacklisted out of Hollywood for upsetting William Randolph Hearst…it just didn’t feel like that all-out war I was hoping for.

Luckily, Best Actress wasn’t just about “Baby Jane.” It was about what happened afterwards when Bette Davis was a shoe-in for an academy award then lost because Crawford called all of Hollywood and told them not to vote for her. It’s about these desperate actresses so terrified of being left behind, that a year later after each had endured another bomb, they actually worked together again (in a movie Crawford was later fired from), choosing pure misery if it gave them even an inkling of a chance to hold onto that spotlight for a little longer. And it’s about these two kooky human beings developing a strange bond and respect for each other, despite all that happened between them.

Best Actress was fun. It taught me about a piece of history I knew nothing about and it did so in an entertaining way. The strength here is obviously these two titans, their obsession with fame, and what it brings out in them. I actually realized after finishing the script that its structure was quite loose. Yet it works because we were so obsessed with these insanely complicated characters. As far as its faults, there are a few. I did wish their on-set war was a bit more extreme. Audiences these days aren’t going to think much of an actress trying to throw out another actresses’ back. You might be stuck with history here, but if there’s any way to make these things more menacing, more intense, I believe the script will benefit from it. But other than that, Best Actress was a nice change of pace from all the thrillers, comedies, and action flicks I’ve been reading of late. Check it out if you’re in any way curious. Then do what I did and go rent “All About Eve” and “Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?” Watching each is a riot once you have some background on the two.

[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[ ] barely kept my interest
[x] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: Despite its loose structure, Best Actress works. Why? Simple. It goes back to the most basic element of drama: conflict. You have two people who hate each other. That simple conflict drives the entire movie. Now conflict comes in many forms and you don’t want to have two people at each others’ throats for every movie. But if it fits, that intensity, that energy, can add a surprising amount of drama to your story.