Guest Review - My Dark Places

Between keeping track of Star Wars 7 rumors and this whole voting for a new leader of our country thing, I had to take a day off this week But fear not. I'm leaving you in good hands. Ralphy is one of the sharpest screenwriting minds I know. If I have a question, this is the man I go to - when he's around at least. He can be more elusive than even I. But I found him long enough to get a great review of an older script out of him. Enjoy...

Screenplay Review – My Dark Places
Genre: Crime-Drama
Premise: As a publicity stunt, a successful crime novelist tries to solve the thirty-seven-year-old murder of his mother, from whom he was estranged.
About: Apparently, this script has been around for quite a while. The last time I checked IMDB, the project was listed as “in development.”
Writer: Jan Oxenberg. Based on the autobiography by James Ellroy.
Details: 125 pages. Draft date: June 18, 1999.

James Ellroy, author of such notable dark crime novels as L.A. Confidential and The Black Dahlia —both turned into films, one critically acclaimed, the other not so much—published his autobiography, My Dark Places: An L.A. Crime Memoir, in 1996. In it, he chronicled his attempts to unravel the mystery of his mother’s thirty-seven-year-old murder by hiring a retired Los Angeles detective noted for his ability to solve old, unsolved cases. The crime itself had a profound effect on Ellroy’s life—it inspired his desire to write crime novels.

The script, penned by TV writer/producer Jan Oxenberg, takes that basic premise and creates a character study out of it, an exploration of an outwardly callous, fast-talking joker whose constant barbs at his mother’s expense never really hide his confusion about his relationship with her. The story opens in 1958, when James Ellroy is just ten years old, and his father, Armand, is actively trying to get dirt on his promiscuous ex-wife, Geneva “Jean” Ellroy, so that he can prove she’s an unfit mother and therefore win custody of James. Right away, we see that the relationship between Armand and James is much more reminiscent of that of best friends than of father and son. We get the sense that they survive by propping each other up—that they’re in life together till the end. Nothing is taboo between them; they’re just two guys hanging out, cooking frozen hot dogs and talking about the shaved pubic region of a woman in one of Armand’s girlie mags. They also discuss James’s mother, for whom Armand has little respect and isn’t shy about dissing in front of James. At one point, James refers to his mother as a “hairy bitch whore,” and Armand just laughs. It becomes obvious in just a couple of quick scenes that they’re a team trying their damnedest to take her down.

As juxtaposition, Jean is presented as a beautiful woman prone to serial dating—looking for attention but not commitment, thanks to having been in a loveless marriage with a man who could offer her neither. When we meet her, she’s dancing with a Swarthy Man in a tacky desert inn. She’s talkative, flirty, coming onto him in every way she knows how. But he seems bored with her, unwilling to give in to her advances. They drive out to a diner, then to a secluded wooded area near Arroyo high school. And there he strangles her to death.

One of the things that immediately stands out in this script is its deft ability to shift between tones. Irreverent humor, hard hitting crime fiction and pathos take turns vying for our attention, letting us know that there’s always something deeper going on here. After a while, however, the tones blend together, and we realize that the division between them was always arbitrary at best—a product of our own minds. For instance, an early moment of irreverence turns into something much deeper in the long run: when James finds out about his mother’s murder, his reaction is not one of shock and sadness—he smiles as a photographer takes a picture of him. Moments later, he again refers to his mother as the “hairy bitch whore,” right in front of photographers, detectives, and his mother’s neighbors. It’s a simple reaction from a child whose first impulse is to feel relief because he can now be with his dad, unconditionally. And it hits hard for us because it’s a jarring moment. The kid doesn’t understand what just happened… or does he? We’re not quite sure. Do we have a sociopath in the making? Or will James grow out of it? It is in these initial scenes that the script establishes its voice and signals to us that it’s going to keep us on our toes for the duration. And it is here that the script becomes impossible to put down.

From the murder, we transition to 1995, where the adult James Ellroy, now a successful crime novelist, is at a book reading and signing with his girlfriend Helen, also an author. Ellroy is now a smart-alecky, verbal wordsmith dazzling his audience with colorful, improvised turns of phrase, which are very “crime noir detective” in their temperament. While this bit of bookstore theater is taking place, Henry Stans from Unsolved Mysteries bursts into the room and confronts Ellroy about participating in a period piece episode about Southern California unsolved murders, in which an entire segment will be devoted to his mother. Not surprisingly, Ellroy wants nothing to do with this at first, telling Stans that “the only person who exploits my mother’s death is me.” Apparently, Ellroy hasn’t grown out of his disdain for the woman his father turned him against. At the very least, he’s developed a frosty self-defense mechanism designed to keep that part of his early life firmly in its place.

But Helen, Ellroy’s confidante and conscience, convinces Ellroy to learn more about his mother. Believing he can get some publicity out of this, Ellroy acquiesces. So they fly out to Los Angeles to take part in the Unsolved Mysteries episode, and there Ellroy hires retired homicide detective Bill Stoner, who is known for solving cold case murders. Stoner’s first impression of Ellroy is that he doesn’t give two shits about his mother, especially when he watches Ellroy interacting with the actors portraying young James and his mother in the dramatic reenactment for the show’s segment. At one point Henry Stans asks Ellroy what he thinks of the actress playing his mother, and Ellroy replies, “She doesn’t look cheap enough.” Stoner is immediately put off—to him, this is all just a publicity stunt. To make matters worse, he and Ellroy clash, Ellroy making it quite apparent that he doesn’t want Stoner’s pity—just his help.

From there, the script flips back and forth between Ellroy and Stoner’s 1995 investigation and sequences dealing with young Ellroy and the original investigation. It’s not a revolutionary structural device—some might even consider it trite—but it works well for this story. Young Ellroy’s relationship with his mother is obviously strained due to her sleeping around and his father’s constant criticism of her, but what is also obvious is how much she always cares for Ellroy, no matter how he treats her. And on some level he knows this. Always has. There’s a scene early in the 1995 investigation where Stoner and Ellroy are in an interview room looking over the old file on her murder, disorganized and overflowing with notes and crime scene photos, and Ellroy, prone to bouts of OCD, straightens out the papers, creating neat stacks. Stoner pitches in and helps him, and it’s a surprisingly touching moment because it’s the first time we and Stoner really see Ellroy’s human side. From there, the beat where Ellroy sees the crime scene photo of his mother’s corpse hits hard. Ellroy tries to play it off and remain professional and detached, but Stoner notices that something more is going on. Throughout the script, Stoner tries to figure out which Ellroy is the real one: the human being with genuine emotions or the smartass who seems not to care about his mother. And as the story progresses, and Ellroy’s obsession with this investigation grows, we and Stoner understand that Ellroy is far too complex to be pigeonholed into either category.

There’s a wonderful motif: a collage of Jean’s death Ellroy has plastered over the walls of his hotel room, consisting of crime scene photos, newspaper clippings, a police sketch of the Swarthy Man based on interviews with two witnesses, and other evidence. As Ellroy’s obsession grows and the case becomes more personal to him, the collage becomes denser, more and more obsessively ordered. Toward the end of the script, the nature of the collage changes as Ellroy picks up old photos of his mother from her relatives. It transforms from a detective’s wall to a tribute to her, no longer about publicity for his book or his attempts to play detective and solve a crime. It’s now about his love for his mother.

The investigation itself is wonderfully played as Stoner and Ellroy plow into old leads and question old witnesses, each bringing his own unique personality to the proceedings. Also, there are some great little details in scenes that in less capable hands might play out in a boring, same-old-same-old way but are made livelier by unique and creative touches, like one in which Ellroy and Stoner interview a 14-year-old girl whose grandmother was a carhop at a diner where the Swarthy Man took Jean. The girl tells them that her grandmother passed away a couple of years ago; that she had brain cancer and died in a beauty salon. And the kicker is that she apparently hemorrhaged while she was getting her hair done. Such a seemingly small detail adds a great deal of richness to the story. Ellroy and Oxenberg have created a vibrant world here—a crime story infused with voice.

A lot of the dialogue is incredibly sharp and entertaining, but not in a way that draws attention to itself—in a way that breathes life into the characters. At one point, Stoner reveals to Ellroy that “Freeways are the Southern California victim drop zone of choice.” He then goes on to say, “I hate ‘em. One thing I swore was, once I retired, I’d never drive these freeways again.” Yet here he is, doing just that, and it’s a sign that he’s unable to retire… that he may never be. There’s another great line when Ellroy interviews his mother’s old neighbor/landlord that lands perfectly thanks to what we’ve learned about his past. When Ellroy was a kid, he used to compulsively stab the banana tree in front of his mother’s place with a knife, to the point where his mother’s landlord had to call in a tree surgeon. As such, the landlord couldn’t give Armand the full deposit back after Jean’s death; she had to take fifty dollars out to pay to have the tree revived. Thirty-seven years later, adult Ellroy introduces himself to the landlord as “James Ellroy. The kid who ruined your tree.” And these types of exchanges pepper the script, giving us insight into the people who populate its world. Not one line of dialogue is a throwaway.

The investigation comes to a climax in a scene where Stoner and Ellroy confront the man their investigation has finally led them to, almost by accident. He’s their prime suspect—a man who used to work with Jean. Now 75, he’s still muscled but skinny. In the face of Ellroy’s accusations, he’s scared to the point where he pisses himself. (SPOILER) But it turns out he’s not the perpetrator. (END SPOILER) And here we discover the script’s true purpose. It’s not really about Ellroy solving his mother’s murder as much as it is about his coming to grips with the fact that she truly loved him. In the process, he also makes peace with his own feelings about her, including some confusing childhood sexual fixations. There’s a great moment at the end when he and Helen are in his hotel room, facing his wall of photos, and he addresses his mother directly, telling her, “Swarthy Man took you away from me. I want you to meet the woman who brought you back.”

Irreverent yet moving, straightforward yet complex, My Dark Places is a subtly wrenching glimpse into an obsession that transforms over the course of its narrative as Ellroy allows the layers of emotional armor, secured into place over thirty-seven years, to drop off piece by piece until all that’s left is a vulnerable human being, abandoned early on by the world (including his father, who passed away when Ellroy was 17) and forced to fend for himself. The script is infused with a voice that strengthens the story rather than distracts from it, and characters actors would no doubt want to sink their teeth into. I hope that after floating around for over a decade, most likely stuck in every circle of development hell at one point or another, it finds its way to movie theaters someday soon. Unfortunately, I fear that its dark approach and constantly shifting tone might make this impossible, especially in the current climate. With that in mind, I strongly recommend that anyone who likes crime dramas, specifically those penned by Ellroy, give the script a read.

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

What I learned: Character, character, character. My Dark Places works so well because every scene not only reveals something about Ellroy but revolves around why Ellroy is the way he is. There are no faux-clever, throwaway lines of dialogue; no meaningless actions. The script is strictly about this human being, and even at 125 pages, it is tight.

Screenplay Review - Stephanie

Genre: Horror
Premise: A young girl who lives alone in a house is shocked when her long-absent parents return and settle back into their day-to-day lives.  However, it appears that they may have a hidden agenda.
About: This script finished high on the recently released 2012 Blood List, run by Kailey Marsh.
Writers: Ben Collins & Luke Piotrowski
Details: A very lean 94 pages

Well that's a bit of a tease, isn't it?  I talk up this whole Equalizer script and all of a sudden don't review it??  Oh, the perils of script reviewing.  Don't worry, I'll review it at some point down the line.  Stay tuned.   I will say this though: That script was one of the best I've ever read at executing the 3 act formula.  It didn't exactly bring anything new to the table, but it was so good at what it did bring, you hardly noticed.  From the sparse but information packed writing style to the designs behind how McCall killed people to the depth behind the secondary characters to the careful escalation of the plot to the several expertly crafted twists.  It was like an entire screenwriting course packed into a single screenplay.  That movie's going to be badass!

Speaking of badass, let's talk about Stephanie.  Not so much the script, but the title character. This girl's only seven years old and she's been able to live on her own in this giant house for weeks (months?).  She goes about her daily routine, snacking on leftover peanut butter and Little Debbie packages, while every once in awhile, the house rocks back and forth, moaning like a broken foghorn.  It's in these moments that Stephanie heads into her dead baby brother's bedroom.

Oh, one thing about her dead brother.  HE'S STILL THERE.  Yes, the poor little baby died weeks (months?) ago, yet continues to lay peacefully in his crib, where hundreds of flies buzz around him.  Stephanie's pretty sure that whatever's making these noises in the house is connected to her dead brother's soul - that he's a ghost of sorts - so she tries to comfort him to keep the horror to a minimum.

Writers Collins and Piotrwoski are pretty damn brave in their first act plotting as very little "happens" throughout the first 30 pages except for Stephanie trying to keep some semblance of her daily routine going.  But little mysteries do pop up here and there.  Why does the house groan?  Why is her dead brother lying in his crib like he's still alive?  Why are there x-ray negatives scattered about showing a tumor growing in someone's brain?

The story finally ramps up when Stephanie's parents return to the house, or at least two adults who we assume are her parents.  Whoever these people are, they appear to be cautious of Stephanie.  They're always speaking in whispers when she's not around.  A decision is being weighed.  And it's a big one, evidenced by the gun the man always seems to be carrying.

But before that decision is made, the man and woman try their best to put life back together in the home.  Everything is cleaned up, the fence in the backyard is rebuilt, and most importantly, Stephanie's little brother is properly buried.  You wouldn't exactly call things "normal," but they're definitely better than a 7 year old girl living alone eating hostess cupcakes for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.  Where are child services when you need them??

However, the semblance of normality quickly disintegrates when Stephanie's dead brother appears back in his room and the man and woman decide to play operation on this little girl who may or may not be their daughter.  Stephanie doesn't like the game Operation, and that means Stephanie is going to make these people who have invaded her home pay.

Stephanie has its share of strengths and weaknesses.  Its biggest strength is probably the creepiness factor.  Watching this little girl wander around this house alone, looking at and talking to her dead baby brother with flies buzzing all around him, is the kind of stuff that makes you lose your appetite.

And it uses that tone, combined with a series of intriguing mysteries, to pull you in.  It's not easy to write 30 pages of a character wandering around a house by herself and keep it interesting, but stuff like the dead brother and the mysterious x-rays achieved just that.  You were definitely frustrated that things were moving along slowly, but at the same time, you couldn't stop turning the pages.  You needed to find out where this was going.

And I really admired Collins and Piotrowski for using so little dialogue in the story.  This was not about long conversations between daughters and parents.  It was about visuals, images, sounds, moments - the kinds of things that make a horror script a horror script.

However, there were a couple of things that bothered me.  The first was that the writers were always waaaaaaaay ahead of the reader.  I mean you didn't have ANY IDEA what was going on at all.  And after awhile, that started to get frustrating.  You wanted answers, and the script wasn't going to give you a single one until the very end.

It's important to reward the audience every once in awhile with an answer to one of the mysteries, so that we feel like we're making progress.  Take "The Others," for instance, a movie about a mother and her children living in a giant house alone during the war.  They start hearing noises around the house and at first believe it may be a Nazi trying to take refuge in the home.  We have an "answer."  But when that doesn't prove to be right, it's implied that it might just be the kids playing tricks on their mother.  Okay, we have another "answer."  Then, when that's proven wrong, we genuinely believe it's ghosts.  Another "answer."  In other words, we keep feeling like we have a beat on things - only to have a new development prove us wrong, forcing us to start over again.

There's nothing like that here.  Outside of maybe an implication that the dead brother is causing all this, we're given very few if any answers, only more questions.  The parents, in particular, act so damn weird that I don't know what's going on.  I don't even know if they *are* the parents, which is kind of cool in a "what the f*ck is going on right now?" way, but since we've been asking "What the f*ck is going on?" for an hour now and still don't have any leads, we're antsy.

And without getting into spoilers, I'm not sure the ending provided those answers.  Visually, it was really cool to see Stephanie lose it, but I still wasn't sure what happened to her brother.  I still wasn't sure what prompted the parents to leave and why they came back.  I didn't know how long they were gone.  I didn't know why Stephanie wasn't sure if they were her parents or not.  And I wasn't sure how Stephanie became...super-power Stephanie (unless the arrival of this tumor caused it - which felt like it needed way more of a detailed explanation).

On the one hand, I can see why this has received attention.  It's really spooky.  It's a story I haven't quite scene before.  The mysteries keep you turning the pages.  I just wish we were rewarded more often and got more answers in the finale.  This wasn't quite for me.  But, if you liked the second half of Looper, you're probably going to like Stephanie a lot.  Let me know what you think.  

[ ] what the hell did I just read?

[x] wasn't for me

[ ] worth the read

[ ] impressive

[ ] genius

What I learned: I think it's a huge gamble to be too far ahead of the reader for too long.  You can do it for a little while, but sooner or later the reader wants answers.  If you ignore this advice, your ending has to be, like, the best ending ever.  We *really* have to feel rewarded for reading that long without any sort of payoff.

Screenplay Review - The Equalizer

Genre: Thriller
Premise: A former Black Ops soldier, Robert McCall, is trying to make a quiet life for himself, when he's inadvertently pulled into a battle with the world's most notorious Russian criminal, a man with endless resources who always gets what he wants.  And all he wants is to kill McCall.
About: Based on an 80's TV show (which I've never heard of), The Equalizer will star Denzel Washington.  Writer Richard Wenk has written a half dozen produced films, including 16 Blocks, The Mechanic, and The Expendables 2.  Don't let that fool you though.  This script is his best work to date by a million.
Writer: Richard Wenk (based on the television show by Michael Sloan).
Details: 106 pages - 1st draft (June 25th, 2012)
Status: In development

WOW!!!  This is the script/franchise Jack Reacher wishes it could've been.  One of the best scripts I've read all year.  Top notch writing in virtually every category.  But all night working on other Scriptshadow stuff (which will be revealed soon) means the review won't be up until 1:30 pm Pacific Time.  :(

Update: Due to a combination of my laziness and some polite e-mails asking me not to review this yet, I'm going to hold off and review it another time.  But there is a new script review up today.  Go check out Stephanie here!

Sorry for all the foreplay and no climax!  In short, though, this script was awesome!!!

[ ] what the hell did I just read?

[ ] wasn't for me

[ ] worth the read

[x] impressive (TOP 25!)

[ ] genius

What I learned: Just a wonderful way to add backstory and depth to a character by showing and not telling.  McCall is always reading books.  Eventually, we find out why.  His wife was trying to read the "100 Books You Need To Read Before You Die" before she passed away.  So now McCall's doing it, as sort of an ode to his wife.  We have physical images (the book) to SHOW us key McCall backstory (that his wife died).  Great writing!

Cool New Script Out On The Town - Sanctuary!

Awhile back I read a script called Sanctuary under strict confidentiality from writer Todd Warner.  I thought the potential was so freaking high (it felt like that "Next Matrix" everyone had been looking for since 1999) that I tried to get on the project myself, but Todd was already working with people so it was impossible.  However, I believe in the project so much that I'm unabashedly letting everyone know that this IS the next Matrix.  It's basically about this tiny percentage of people who are possessed by demons.  However, with the right training, you can learn to control your demon and actually use them to unleash powers within yourself that the average human doesn't have, such as shooting fire or moving faster than the average person, etc. etc.  It's just really cool stuff.  I also thought it was cool that Todd made his main character a woman, a way to differentiate itself from The Matrix, yet still make it familiar.  Anyway, the script went out today.  If you have it, read it!  Really hoping something good comes of it.  And if not, well, that's not so bad either.  Maybe then I'll be able to convince Todd to let me jump on board.  This is the kind of franchise potential project producers dream of.  I want to be involved! :) :) :)

Amateur Week - USS Nikola Tesla

Welcome to Amateur Week!  All week we're reviewing scripts from amateur writers that got the best response from this post.  We've already had one script perform REALLY WELL in "Fascination 127."  And today we review the highest concept of all the entries, "USS Nikola Tesla."  Is it only a cool concept?  Or is the execution just as good?  Let's find out... 

Genre: Sci-Fi/Supernatural
Premise: (from writer) The American Navy's latest destroyer, the USS Nikola Tesla, disappears without  a trace. Two years later she reappears with no sign of her crew. But no one realises this ship holds a dark secret that dates back to World War Two and a horrifying experiment.
About: The big worry when you open up a high concept script from an amateur writer is that that's all it's going to be.  The writer will set up the high concept in the first 20 pages, we'll be riveted, and then once they don't have that crutch to lean on and actually have to tell a story, the whole thing falls apart.  I PRAY whenever I read one of these scripts that that's not the case.  Because if a reader finds a high concept script that's also a great story?  It's like finding gold.  You can start printing the money.
Writer: Anonymous (more on this in a second)
Details: 99 pages
Status: AVAILABLE

When I recieved the e-mail query for this script, it was accompanied by a very cryptic note from the writer, who explained that he couldn't include his name on the screenplay.  It was something about...I don't know...how he had top secret clearance at Area 51 or something and if his name was associated with the script, men in black would visit his home and terminate him, along with all other members of the Resistance, except for the ones who were sent back in time to save humanity.  I'm not sure what any of that means but it has me curious as to what happens if this script sells.  Who do they write a check to?  The writer obviously can't accept the money.  Maybe I'll take it.  Seems like a logical compromise.

Of course, I've gone down the anonymous writer path before.  You'd be surprised at the lengths writers will go to get their scripts read, and the "anonymous" route is a popular one.  Oftentimes the writer will imply a bunch of vague allusions to "big name actors" circling their script and how they'll get in trouble if they send it.  But they're going to risk it all and send it anyway!  They just can't reveal their name.

There was even one guy who told me he had come across an old screenplay during a yard sale.  He bought it for kicks and it turned out to be the most amazing thing he'd ever read.  If I was interested, he noted, he could send it to me.  I said, "Sure" just to see how far he'd take the story, and he magically sent me a PDF document of the script that was converted from a word processing program.  If this was an old script he found at a yard sale, wouldn't it have had to be scanned?  Anyway, I opened the script up out of pure curiosity, and the first scene was a 10 pager focusing on urinal humor.  Look, I respect playing the game a little.  Just know that when a reader feels like they're being taken for a ride, they're going to be hard on your script.   So, will that approach doom USS NIKOLA TELSA?  Let's find out.

"Tesla" begins with an ode to Close Encounters Of The Third Kind.  A bunch of American soldiers in Afghanistan walk up a hill in the desert to see, below them, a giant half of a submarine.  No, not a submarine sandwich (I should be so lucky).  But an actual submarine.

Meanwhile, in Glasgow, two teenagers are making out on a foggy dock when a huge naval destroyer comes bearing down on them.  They run for their lives, barely able to make it to safety, but soon afterwards, there's a loud groaning noise from inside the ship and then a shockwave of energy shoots out, vaporizing the couple.  And before the dude could even make it to second base!

Cut to army officials in rooms making hushed phone calls.  "It's back," they tell one another.  The USS Nikola Tesla.  Apparently it had gone off on some training mission two years ago and disappeared!  Naturally, they need to figure out what caused its return, so they e-mail the experts.

Two of those experts are Lieutenant Robert Montrose and Lieutenant Claire Allen.  Montrose is a notorious Navy playboy who's constantly looking to get his turret waxed.  And Claire is a no-nonsense engineer who's next sexual encounter will probably be her first.  Obviously, when these two get paired together, conflict is going to fly!

And they do get paired together, along with a group of other officials who have been brought in to check out the mysterious return of this boat.  It isn't long before they realize something's up.  The boat likes to groan a lot, and it seems like everywhere you look, something is dashing behind a corner.  Add a little magnetism to the mix - a pen will be yanked out of your hand and stick to the wall - and boarding this boat becomes its own little house of horrors.

But the biggest question of them all comes in the form of Charlie, a young man dressed in a World War 2 naval uniform who tells Montrose and Claire he'll give them a tour of the boat if they're interested.  Once he touches them, a flash of light occurs, taking our characters to Nowheresville, and the story along with them!

Montrose and Claire end up in a 1950s military hospital and Charlie informs them that he was part of the original Philadelphia Experiment and when his boat was destroyed, he decided to use this new boat to show the world just how stupid they were for messing with science.  How he plans to get his point across?  By blowing some cities up mothafuckuh!  And he has the powers to do it!  While poor little Montrose and Claire only have the power of persuasion to stop him.  Dammit these paranormal Navy ghost World War 2 Philadelphia Experiment castoffs.  They always seem to screw up a perfectly good day.

Okay.

To put it bluntly?  My biggest fear was realized.  Strong setup.  But with every page afterwards, the story fell more and more apart.  And it's not Anonymous' fault.  Well, not entirely.  This is why there's such a steep learning curve with screenwriting.  You have to learn how to tell a story, not just set up a story.  It's a mistake I see made all the time.  Writers think that all they need is a cool idea and they're finished.  No, you need a cool idea AND the knowledge of how to write a second act.  The second act is where the concept takes a back seat to the characters.  If the characters aren't interesting in some way, if they aren't tackling something substantial within themeselves and between each other, then the second act will rest too heavily on a series of forced plot points that we won't care about because we don't care about the people inhabiting them.

And that's what happened here.  Once Charlie shows up, the script just becomes one goofy nonsensical sequence after another.  Look at Aliens.  That was a hardcore action sci-fi thriller, right?  But in that second act, you have Ripley battling her trust issues (she doesn't trust Burke or Bishop or the entire operation) and trying to protect this surrogate daughter, Newt.  In "Tesla," we have Montrose and Claire bickering with each other via cheesy dialogue and Charlie being super-dramatic and often confusing with his scientific explanations.  I'm still not sure how Charlie became a part of this ship in the first place.

I suspect that this stems from another common amateur mistake - the refusal to outline.  You can almost always tell an un-outlined script because the further the script goes on, the less it makes sense.  It feels like the writer is making stuff up as he goes along because that's exactly what he's doing.  When you write this way, you feel this pressure to "keep things interesting," and so you try and top whatever outrageous scene or sequence you just wrote with an even MORE outrageous scene or sequence.  It's kind of like that desperate boy pining for a girl's attention.  Sucking up jellow through a straw into your nose didn't work, so why not rip your shirt off and start dancing on the table?

That's not how screenplays work.  You need to carefully plot out what's going to happen 20 pages down the line so you can build up to that moment, whether it be through suspense, set-ups, or character development.  "Tesla" certainly had a lot of stuff going on, but none of it felt cohesive.  It felt more like a distraction to make sure you didn't realize that there wasn't a story.

If I were Anonymous, I'd focus on three things moving forward.  First, learn the value of outlining. Once you know where your script is going, you can create a more logical and plausible plot.  Second, learn how to tackle your second act.  A second act isn't just a bunch of crazy shit happening.  It's a slow build, where you tackle most of your characters' issues.  Which leads me to the third focus - character development.  Give your lead characters something inside of themselves that they're trying to overcome.  With Ripley it was trust.  But it might be the recent death of a family member, an inability to love, or the desire to prove that you belong.  The possibilities are endless. But if a main character isn't tackling SOMETHING inside themselves, chances are they're boring.

[ ] what the hell did I just read?

[x] wasn't for me

[ ] worth the read

[ ] impressive

[ ] genius

What I learned: A screenplay isn't just a high concept you parlay into a cool first 15 pages.  The other 95 pages are going to be read as well, and those are the ones that are going to be more tightly scrutinized. Cause every reader worth his salt knows that that's where you find out if you're dealing with a writer or just an idea guy.  Consider your high concept to be your "good looks."  It's what gets you in the door.  But you still have to be charming, you still have to be intelligent, you still have to be interesting.  Your second and third acts are what's going to prove your value as a writer, so make sure they kick ass.

Blood List 2012 - Disciple Tops Them All!

Kailey Marsh's Blood List 2012 is out.  And guess who's at the top of the list!  Go Tyler Marceca and Disciple Program!!!  If you have any of these scripts, send them my way. :)

"The Disciple Program" by Tyler Marceca 25 Votes
Logline: A "Manchurian Candidate"-style thriller in which a man's wife dies and upon investigating, he discovers it was no accident.
Agents: Rich Cook & Phil d'Amecourt (WME)
Managers: Bard Dorros & Michael Sugar (Anonymous Content)
Status: Mark Wahlberg attached to star and produce for Universal, with Morten Tyldum attached to direct.

"Stephanie" by Ben Collins & Luke Piotrowski 19 Votes
Logline: Psychological horror film described as "Paperhouse" meets "Carrie" that concerns a young girl whose strange powers seem to doom her to a world of lonely solitude.
Agent: Emerson Davis (UTA)
Manager: Nate Matteson (Gotham Group)
Status: The Gotham Group producing with Bryan Bertino and Adrienne Biddle of Unbroken Pictures. Jonathan Van Tulleken ("Off Season") directing.

"Lockdown at Franklin High" by Joe Ballarini & Gregg Bishop 17 Votes
Logline: A girl and her brother must break-out of their locked down high school while a monster stalks the halls.
Agents: David Boxerbaum, Ida Ziniti & Tanya Cohen (Paradigm)
Managers: George Heller (Apostle) reps Ballarini, while Andy Cohen (Grade A Entertainment) and Cindy Cowan (Cindy Cowan Entertainment) rep Bishop
Status: Set up at Sony with Benderspink and Platinum Dunes producing.

"Story of Your Life" by Eric Heisserer 16 Votes
Logline: Sci-fi drama about alien crafts landing around the world and Louise Banks, a linguist expert recruited by the military to determine whether they come in peace or are a threat. As Louise learns to communicate with the aliens, she begins experiencing vivid flashbacks which become the key to unlocking the greater mystery about the true purpose of their visit.
Agents: Barbara Dreyfus & Jon Huddle (UTA)
Manager: Julie Bloom (Art/Work Entertainment)
Status: Set up at 21 Laps.

"Country of Strangers" by Sean Armstrong 13 Votes
Logline: Based on true events, thriller follows an inspector during his 40-year search for three siblings taken from an Australian beach in 1966.
Agents: Bill Weinstein & Rob Herting (Verve)
Managers: Peter Dealbert & Susan Solomon (Principato/Young)
Status: In negotiations with unnamed buyer.

"February" by Osgood Perkins 13 Votes
Logline: Horror pic about an unidentified young woman who makes a pilgrimage to the site of a demonic possession at an all-girls boarding school in the dead of winter.
Managers: Scott Halle (Gramercy Park Entertainment)
Status: Bryan Bertino and Adrienne Biddle of Unbroken Pictures producing.

"Interstate 5" by Seth Sherwood 11 Votes
Logline: Described as "Jacob's Ladder" meets "Natural Born Killers," this psychological thriller follows the son of an infamous serial killer and the daughter of one of the victims who go on the road in hopes of tracking the killer down, only to find themselves haunted by demonic forces intent on driving them mad.
Manager: Kailey Marsh (Station 3)
Status: Available.

"Somnia" by Mike Flanagan & Jeff Howard 9 Votes
Logline: Horror pic about a couple who recently lost their son and take in a young boy as a foster child. They soon discover that the boy's dreams manifest themselves in the real world when he sleeps.
Agents: Sheryl Petersen, Debbie Deuble & Chris Ridenhour (APA)
Manager: Nicholas Bogner (Affirmative Entertainment)
Status: In negotiations with unnamed buyer.

"Darkfall" by TS Faull 8 Votes
Logline: Supernatural thriller about a group of residents who must survive the night in their apartment complex as they slowly learn that Darkfall (the rising of demons to take over the Earth) is upon them.
Manager: Michael Botti (Industry Entertainment)
Status: Available.

"Viral" by Dustin T. Benson 8 Votes
Logline: A thriler with action and sci-fi elements described as "I Am Legend" meets "Outbreak." Told from the first-person point-of-view via the helmet cam of a bio-safety suit, story follows a scientist who joins an extraction team through quarantined areas of Manhattan while secretly searching for her missing daughter.
Agents: Ramses Ishak & Mike Sheresky (UTA)
Manager: Brooklyn Weaver (Energy Entertainment)
Status: Adrian Askarieh (Prime Universe) attached to produce with Weaver and Energy Entertainment.

"The Importance of Blood" by James Breen 7 Votes
Logline: Horror pic about the mute servant of a modern-day vampire who returns home to her estranged family 20 years after her disappearance. As she grows closer to her family, her loyalties to her master are finally tested.
Managers: Jarrod Murray & Allard Cantor (Epicenter)
Status: Available.

"Shut In" by T.J. Cimfel & David White 6 Votes
Logline: Horror-thriller about an agoraphobic woman who must fend off a home invasion while she protects a dark secret.
Manager: Marc Manus (Manus Entertainment)
Status: Available.

"Peste" by Barbara Marshall 5 Votes
Logline: Sci-fi/horror pic about a 16 year-old girl who begins to record her life for her high school media class just as a terrifying virus begins to spread.
Agents: Debbie Deuble & Lee Dinstman (APA)
Manager: Ava Jamshidi (Industry Entertainment)
Status: Set up at IM Global with Sherryl Clark producing.

Screenplay Review - Alfred Hitchcock And The Making Of Psycho

Taking a break from Amateur Week because it's HALLLOOOOWEEEEEEN and that means Scriptshadow must be spoooooooooky for 24 hours and that means a horror script review but since I don't have any good horror scripts, I'm reviewing a script that is ABOUT a horror film.  Sound fun?  I hope so cause I ain't giving you another choice here.

Genre: Biopic'ish
Premise: The struggles behind the making of Psycho, the project that would become director Alfred Hitchcock's most famous film.
About:  Anthony Hopkins will star as Alfred Hitchcock.  Helen Mirren will star as his wife, Alma.  Scarlett Johansen will star as Janet Leigh.  Sacha Gervachi will direct.  I believe this is Sacha's first feature film as a director (he's made a documentary).  He's best known as the writer of Steven Spielberg's wackadoozy film, "The Terminal."  John J. McLaughlin adapted the book into a screenplay.  You probably recognize him as the writer of Black Swan.
Writer: John J. McLaughlin (based on the book "Alfred Hitchcock and The Making Of Psycho" by Stephen Rebello.
Details: 104 pages, fourth revision, Oct. 19, 2011 draft

First of all, WTF!!!???

Disney bought Lucasfilm yesterday.  Disney just BOUGHT Lucas.  Lucas doesn't get bought.  He buys other people!  And now we're getting another Star Wars trilogy.  And you know what I say to that?  WOOOO-HOOOO!  I love it.  I've been dying to get Star Wars into real writers' hands forever now, and it's finally going to happen!

How does this tie into today?  Well, George Lucas was a bit of a pudgy filmmaker.  And so was Alfred Hitchock!  Actually, to be serious, I was not looking forward to this script.  I don't like when entities try and mine a famous event when there isn't a story there.  Like, oooh, it's Psycho!  Let's make a movie about the making of it!  Err, but the making of the movie wasn't any different from the making of any other  movie.  So what, let's do it anyway!

I hoped I was wrong.  That there was some fascinating story behind the making of Psycho that I'd never heard about.  But something told me this wasn't the making of Citizen Kane.

So here's the story.  Hitchcock is coming off of North By Northwest, which is a monster hit.  But he's bored.  Everyone wants him to make another North By Northwest but Hitchcock, like his movies, wants to do the unexpected.  Something unlike anything he's done before.  And when he reads Pyscho, he knows that's it.  That's his next movie.

But this is a strange move.  Hitchcock doesn't do horror.  Only schlocky talentless directors do horror in 1960.  On top of that, it's not something the studios are interested in.  They think this flick is dead before the end of opening weekend.  But Hitchcock has plans to do something a little different with it. He particularly sets his sights on a shower scene, which he believes he can immortalize.  You see, there wasn't much nudity in films those days, and definitely not from movie stars.  Yet Hitchock had a plan to imply a ton of nudity without actually showing any.  It was going to be unprecedented.

If only the studios agreed.  They tell Hitchcock there's a reason everyone in town passed on Psycho and they're not funding it.  I have to admit, I was a little unclear about this.  Hitchcock makes mega-hit North By Northwest and the studio won't fund his next movie, which he's doing for 800,000 bucks?  But whatever.  The movie business was different back then so I'm probably missing something.  Anyway, Hitchcock pulls a Passion Of The Christ and funds the movie himself.

In the meantime, Hitchcock starts fighting all sorts of battles.  He's the master of suspense, but he's 60 years old, and the establishment wants to know when he's going to retire.  Hitch doesn't like getting old, and he feels that this movie is going to make him young again.  Then there's his weight problem.  The dude cannot stop eating.  And he hates himself for it.  He sees a monster whenever he looks in the mirror, and that kills him.  But the biggest battle of all is his wife, who becomes the almost-star of the movie.

Alma was Hitch's right-hand woman throughout his career and, if you believe this script, someone he wouldn't have been nearly as successful without.  But Alma's getting sick of Hitch's lack of attention so starts paying attention to a dashing but not very talented writer named Whitfield Cook.  They start writing a script together while Hitchcock films Psycho and it starts to weigh on Hitch, who realizes that if he doesn't rekindle his relationship with Alma, she might run off with the hack and Psycho will turn out a disaster.

So what do I think about "Alfred Hitchcock and The Making Of Psycho?"  Well, it's a good enough script.  It includes some interesting tidbits about the making of.  But after I read it, I found myself asking, "Why did this movie need to be made?"  "What new does it bring to the table?"  I suppose the story of Alma is entertaining, but the script chooses to focus on Hitchcock as the main character even though her story is probably more interesting (mainly because it's less known).

At times, the writer seems just as unsure as we are about the point of the story.  I mean, we start with two tightly focused scenes regarding Hitchcock's age.  So naturally, Hitchcock's inner conflict will be his inability to accept getting older.  However, after those scenes, the age thing is never brought up again.

Instead, we seem to focus on Hitchcock's food obsession (in particular his foie gras craving), which is unfortunately quite thin.  When things don't go right, he eats.  There's really nothing deeper to it than that.

Finally, we move to Hitchcock's issues with his wife.  He rarely pays attention to her, despite all she's done for him.  This is what leads her on this quasi emotional affair (one which she never physically acts on) and while I guess it's kind of interesting, it's also kinda not.  Nothing really scandalous happens.  It's just a bunch of stares and devilish thoughts, leaving the storyline without a satisfying climax.  And that summarizes my feelings about the script.  It just kind of stands there with little to say.

What saves it are the few behind-the-scenes looks at Psycho's famous scenes and stars.  A heavy emphasis is put on the shower scene, which had never been done before in Hollywood.  The most interesting thing about that storyline was the Censors Board.  I guess before you even shot your movie back then, you had to go to a "Censors Board" and get approval from this dreadful stickler who decided whether everything was okay to shoot or not.  For example, toilets weren't shot back then. So you couldn't shoot a toilet!  Wtf???

And with the shower scene, every freaking angle had to be approved of.  And it wasn't.  They wanted Hitch to shoot Janet Leigh from the neck up.  How boring would that have been?  So Hitchcock ignores the censors and shoots the scene the way he wants it, because he knew that scene was going to be the one everyone talked about.

I have to admit, there is something cool about being behind the scenes of one of the most famous films of all time, and it is enough for me to give this script a pass.  But I'm left with the very same question I had at the beginning of this review.  Is there a compelling enough story here to build a movie around?    I'd probably say no.

[ ] what the hell did I just read?

[ ] wasn't for me

[x] barely worth the read

[ ] impressive

[ ] genius

What I learned: This is mentioned in the script as one of Hitchcocks' staples and a scene that always works - A character needs to get someplace but is held up by someone who wants to chat (Marion Crane just wants to buy that car but the salesman keeps talking to her).  Write this scene into your script.  It always works!