Guest screenplay reviewer Amy Suto buys a box of chocolates in preparation for today's 2009 Black List script and recent Sundance purchase, Celeste and Jesse Forever.

Hey everybody. As I continue to close in on the book release and re-launch of the site, I once again turn to Scriptshadow readers to help me meet my review quota.  I figured it's Valentine's Day (ahem - did you get your significant other something nice yet??) so why not go with a Romantic Comedy! Today's entry is probably the most controversial entry on 2009's Black List. The script was so universally panned that the Black List conspiracy theorists were out in full force - and with good reason (I read it and thought it was awful).  But hey, it's the most love-focused day of the year. It's a day when you celebrate your significant other.  So maybe guest reviewer Amy Suto will let the mood whisk her away to a positive review....  Maybe. 

Genre: Romantic Comedy

Premise: (from IMDB) A divorcing couple tries to maintain their friendship while they both pursue other people.

About: (Carson breakdown) This film just debuted at Sundance.  "Parks and Rec" star Rashida Jones wrote the script with actor Will McCormack.  The movie stars herself and Saturday Night Alive alum, Andy Samberg (whose Pirates Of The Caribbean video is still one of the funniest things I've seen ev-er).  The film was directed by up-and-comer Lee Toland Krieger, who won the 2009 Emerging Filmmaker award for his film “The Vicious Kind” at the Denver International Film Festival (a movie that starred fellow "Parks and Rec" cast member Adam Scott).  

Writers: Rashida Jones and Will McCormack

Details: 109 pages – March 18th, 2009 (This is an early draft of the script. The situations, characters, and plot may change significantly by the time the film is released. This is not a definitive statement about the project, but rather an analysis of this unique draft as it pertains to the craft of screenwriting).

Rashida Jones from Parks and Rec and Andy Samberg from SNL are set to star in Celeste and Jesse Forever, written by Jones herself alongside Will McCormack. The star-studded cast also includes Emma Roberts and Elijah Wood. How could this project that's drawn so much attention not be exciting?

The opening montage is set to Sunny Levine's sentimental (and kind of offbeat) “Love Rhino.” We see Celeste and Jesse grow up as the penultimate “will they won't they?” best-friends-with-sexual-tension cliché we all know so well. Through this montage we learn that long time best friends Celeste and Jesse finally get married in a heartfelt montage and everything is hunky dory... or is it?

Skip to present day, where Celeste and Jesse are singing along to said song. We learn that she's a professionally-minded trend forecaster, and he's a perpetual man-child who cares more about having fun then pursuing a career, and he sort of annoys Celeste because she can't change him to be more like her.

Later, Celeste and Jesse decide to go on a double date with Beth and Tucker, two friends from college who are engaged, when... SURPRISE! We learn that a few months back Celeste and Jesse decided to break off their marriage, yet they still hang out every day and participate in their quirky inside jokes as if nothing ever happened.

But now, Celeste begins to wonder if spending so much time with her ex (who is living out of her guest house because he's broke) is a good idea. What healthy human being tries to stay friends with their divorced spouse? There's gotta be some resentment there.

Skillz, Jesse's pot-selling fellow man-boy dispenses advice (and a gratuitous amount of drugs) throughout the story, although his role in actually moving the story forward is nonexistent. He convinces Jesse to ask the Yogurt Shop Girl out on a date and he does. She talks about herself, he is bored, and so are we. Once again, this encounter appears to have no lasting significance on the story.

Jesse then realizes that an old flame of his is pregnant with his kid, and they fall in love. This woman – Veronica – is only described as happy, elegant, and likeable. Naturally, Celeste gets jealous, and goes out and dates random men and complains to everyone about how her ex is moving on and she isn't.

The rest of the movie is basically Celeste in a downward spiral, being snarky and cynical and laughing at gay sex jokes and kind of helping a celebrity re-do her image by telling her off.

The end of the movie fizzles out without any major change in the characters or an attempt at a theme, and (SPOILER ALERT!) Celeste and Jesse will not be together forever.

Let's bring this back to Carson's age-old wisdom of utilizing your GSU-- goals, stakes, and urgency. This script had none of the above. In fact... it had very little plot or direction at all, and progressed like a series of meaningless vignettes.

But, in all seriousness, what is Celeste's goal? To get back together with Jesse? No, she outright tells him that the two of them aren't getting back together after a session of drunken sex. Is her goal to move on? Not really, because she blows off all the guys she meets.

From the logline, it appears to be that Celeste's goal of sorts is to remain friends with her ex. But... they're already best friends at the beginning of the movie, and they stay friends the entire time. Jesse actually disappears for most of the discernible Act 2, but it seems that they can't stay mad at each other for too long.

As for stakes, it's not like achieving her goal will make her happy; whenever a character makes it her goal not to change, the story is most often self-defeating. The story starts and ends with the characters still friends, but it leaves the reader unsatisfied because nothing has happened. Nobody has learned anything because things are, in essence, the same.

What about urgency? She has a cushy job, and really isn't in danger of losing it. There's no ticking time bomb or attempt at pacing. Her and her new love interest Paul have a good thing going, even with his judgmental attitude towards her job at first and his strange yoga sayings (which actually are the highlight of the movie.) There's no conflict there.

This script doesn't work because Celeste is a passive main character – perhaps the single deadliest sin any screenwriter can commit. Things happen to her and she merely reacts. She reacts to Jesse's news that he's impregnated a girl he barely knows by complaining to other people about him, and by telling him off. But does she actively try and change his mind? No. Does she actively pursue him? No. She does drugs and drinks herself into a whiny stupor so she won't have to make any decisions. Celeste spends most of the movie telling people off and not much time actually doing anything.

The characters fall flat on the page. Scott, her boss, is described as “gay but very straight,” but is really just a bland excuse for a character who spouts unfunny jokes. Beth, the best friend, has no definable traits other than she is described as “energetic”, but she essentially only serves as a sounding board for Celeste's complaints. So what? These characters' vaguely interesting quirks cannot carry the story.

The part of the script I did like was Jesse and Celeste's relationship prior to realizing they are divorced. Their quirky memories, ridiculous inside jokes, and fake German accents all were the highlight of the script. It reminded me a little of Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist, but without the charm. If these characters had a different goal – to get back together, a la It's Complicated with Meryl Streep and Adam Baldwin – then the story could have meant something, perhaps exploring the thread of what it takes to mend a broken relationship. But just “staying friends” without learning something along the way? That's not a goal that can carry a movie.

By divorcing the characters and not allowing them to get them back together or mend their broken relationship, the audience can't really root for them. In fact, I liked Jesse and Celeste's other love interests. Paul's deadpan hipster humor and Veronica's niceness seemed more appealing than Jesse and Celeste getting back together or even staying friends. We also never really know why they divorced in the first place. If they're such good friends, why couldn't they make it work? I smell movie logic.

Basically, this script can be boiled down to: Boy and girl break up. Jealousy on both ends. They date other people. It works out after awhile. Cue bittersweet ending and... roll credits. I was rooting for this script to be... something. Maybe an earnest depiction of the hurt feelings left in the wake of divorce. Maybe some conflict-charged scenes between Jesse's new girl and Celeste (which did not arrive). But by page 50 I was banging my head against the wall and begging for the script to be over.

Now, this is a draft from 2009, so we can still hope that some substantial changes have been made to the script. I'm rooting for these guys! It just goes to show that screenwriting is a tough craft to master, even for those working in other areas of the industry.

[x] What the hell did I just read?

[ ] wasn’t for me

[ ] worth the read

[ ] impressive

[ ] genius

WHAT I LEARNED:

Your characters need to be actively working to achieve some sort of victory (goal), with a looming fear of failure (stakes), while some sort of time-sensitive motivator fuels the story's fire (urgency). Otherwise, you end up with some disconnected scenes that don't tell any story at all.

Carson touts character development on here a lot, but it bears repeating – especially in this case. All of the minor characters could have benefited from actually having definable traits and goals of their own. Memorable characters are everything in a romantic comedy, and without them your story will not even last as long in the minds of the audience as Celeste and Jesse's relationship did. Forever, indeed.

type='html'>

Is recent screenplay sale "The Driver" the driving movie that confused "Drive" moviegoers were desperately expecting?

So my book is finished. The problem is, editing takes a lot longer when you’re dealing with a book than when you’re dealing with a script! But we’re still on target for a late March release. I was going to make it April 1st, but I figured I’d be opening myself up to WAAAAY too many jokes, heh heh. And since I’m planning for this book to be the most helpful screenwriting book ever written, I couldn’t risk that. So late March it is! For those wondering about Twit-Pitch, we’re still working on it, but I’m thinking it could happen within the next 2-3 weeks. So finish those scripts! In the meantime, because this stuff is keeping me busy, the Tuesday guest reviews will continue. Today we have Aussie Gary Murphy taking a crack at a recent spec sale, The Driver. Enjoy!

Genre: Mystery/Thriller

Premise: David Weaver is on his way to work when he finds a stranger tied up in the trunk of his car, along with a bomb and a cellphone. What started out as a simple commute to the office ends up as a fight to save his own life and that of his family.

About: This script was picked up in December by Voltage films (The Hurt Locker) and according to IMDB is in pre-production. Spenser Cohen, one of the writers, is slated to direct what appears to be his first feature.

Writers: Zach Luna and Spenser Cohen

Details: This review is based on the July 2011 draft.  Since it was written I have read a later draft dated January 2012.  Very little has changed in that draft other than changing city locations.

The last script I read was Origin Of A Species, a script where absolutely nothing happens for 50 pages, so it was fairly weird to then pick up a script where the action does not stop - I mean literally it does not stop - for a single beat. I honestly cannot remember the last script I read that never had a single moment to pause, especially like this one where the lead character is in every single scene.

I decided to read The Driver because I knew absolutely nothing about it, not even a log-line. Not knowing what the script is about is a rare enough treat that I thought I would give it a go and see where it took me. For an idea of where it did take me, if you imagine a mash-up between ‘Phone Booth’ and ‘Collateral’, with a little bit of Reservoir Dogs and The Usual Suspects thrown in, then you would not be far off.

It begins with our hero, David Weaver, a guy about to give the most important presentation of his career and desperate to get to work on time. We first meet him at breakfast with wife, Samantha, and two young daughters. He drops his kids off at school and then continues on his way to work. But on the way he hears a strange noise coming from his trunk. When he pulls over and opens the trunk, he is slightly surprised to find a guy tied up in there. Not just a guy though, because attached to his jacket is a cellphone. Mega-confusion. And not just from David either. The guy in the trunk seems just as confused.

The phone rings and a “Woman’s voice” informs David that he is not just carrying an extra passenger but also a rather large bomb - David checks it out , he sees wires and stuff - its true! - this is getting serious.

David’s told he has thirty minutes to drive to an address and wait for further instructions. No police, no funny business, or the bomb will detonate and kill them both. David’s obviously seen these kinds of films before because he doesn’t need to be told twice.

Anyway, after an eventful drive that includes the obligatory traffic cop stop scene (which sees David get a ticket for running a red light) he finally makes it to his first destination. As soon as he pulls over, a guy dressed in a suit (called “Suit”) climbs into the back of the car and gives David the next address. He too has a phone and appears to be getting his instructions by text message.

We then have another drive across L.A. with some brief chitter chatter as more of the mystery unfolds before us. Next they pick up a Russian guy (called “Russian”) followed by another drive across L.A. and the pick-up of a guy named “Duffle Bag” (I’ll let you guess what he’s carrying).

None of these guys seem to know each other, and although little is actually said, it’s clear that they are all like David, following instructions on their cellphones. What follows is a script full of twists and turns and while the direction it takes is not always a huge surprise, it is fresh and different enough to be an enjoyable and quick read.

I loved both Phone Booth and Collateral.  I remember both times I read the scripts before I saw the films and thought both were among the best scripts I’d ever read. Mainly because they were exactly what I have been trying to come up with myself - a simple edge-of-your-seat thriller with limited characters and locations.

From a screenwriting point of view, while the script has its faults, it has an awful lot going for it as well. A stand out and something I know is close to Carson’s heart is that every scene had a sense of urgency - literally the clock was always ticking, to the point where it was impossible to put the script down. Something was always happening.

Also, 90% of this script takes place in a single location, David’s car, and it meant that the writers really had to nail the characters. I think they did a pretty decent job of it. We got a fairly good understanding of David, who has a crappy job and obviously cares a lot about his family. The Driver never pretends to be a character study, but enough time is put into the characters to keep us involved.

What I really loved, though, was the three supporting characters, I thought they were brilliantly written and really made the difference between an average script and one worth the read. All three stood out as completely different, so much so that their very character traits were the source for much of the drama.

I loved how they were named, and it certainly goes back to last week’s script, ‘Run all Night,’ where one of my issues (and I know many others too) was keeping track of who was who. While there was nowhere near the number of characters here, it was still a stroke of genius to not give them real names. I guess this only works when your characters don’t have real names in the dialogue, so it’s not very often you’d get to do it, but here it worked brilliantly and I think really played a part in how easily and naturally the action kept flowing.

I did notice one potential plot hole in The Driver, and something that bugged me a bit. What would have happened had David been playing music in the car and not heard the banging in the trunk? Surely he would have just driven to work? That did confuse me and I thought the final twist explained it, but looking back again, I’m not sure that it does.

Anyway, questions aside, this was a very good script which I enjoyed reading.

[ ] Wait for the rewrite

[ ] wasn’t for me

[xx] worth the read

[ ] impressive

[ ] genius

What I learned: If your characters don’t need names then don’t give them names. Calling them something that alludes to a key character trait or physical feature makes so much more sense. This script has a good flow and stopping to remember which one was “Anthony” only serves to pull me out of the script.

type='html'>

Today's screenplay asks that eternal pestering question that never seems to go away no matter how hard you try. No, not "What is the meaning of life?" But "Are you a DUFF (a designated ugly fat friend)?"

I'm sure all of you are just as devastated as I am that Ben picked Courtney, but I figure we'll get over it at some point.  In the meantime, I'm calling on my British buddy Anthony Jackson to write us today's review.  He's madly in love with teen high school movies so he's the perfect reviewer for this material. Editing the Scriptshadow Book continues to occupy all of my free time but hopefully it will pay off soon!  Also, Twit-Pitch (pitch me your script on Twitter) IS coming, so be ready.  It's still probably 2-3 weeks away and will happen on a Saturday, so you better be finishing those scripts of yours!  I'll have plenty of announcements on the site as it gets closer.  But for now, I'll let Anthony take over...

GENRE: Teen Romantic Comedy

PREMISE: An “invisible” high school girl discovers that she is the DUFF (Designated Ugly Fat Friend) and sets out to change things up for the homecoming dance.

ABOUT: CBS films acquired this property last year. Writer Josh Cagan has previously had success with the teen film, BandSlam. DUFF also made its way into last year’s Black List, finishing near the bottom of the pack with 6 votes.

WRITER: Josh A. Cagan. Based on the novel by Kody Keplinger

DETAILS: 103 pages – 2011 draft (This is an early draft of the script. The situations, characters, and plot may change significantly by the time the film is released. This is not a definitive statement about the project, but rather an analysis of this unique draft as it pertains to the craft of screenwriting).

American teen comedies are my guilty pleasure. Growing up in England, me and my best friend spent far too much time watching and re-watching American Pie, Road Trip, Slackers, even Get Over It (that weird movie with Sisqo. We were big fans of the Thong Song too).

I live in California now and having attended an American college for a year and discovered that teen parties are waaaay better on film that in real life, I’ve cast aside my doe-eyed reverence of all things teen and adopted a much more critical eye… which is a fancy way of saying that even though I know teen movies are totally unrealistic I still watch and love them. So I opened up DUFF hoping to be transported to that wonderful movie world of jocks, nerds, hot babes, cool parties and, of course, ridiculous teen sex lives. Was I disappointed? Let’s check out the plot first…

Bianca is a seventeen-year-old girl who doesn’t conform to the high school pressures of looking and acting cool. She doesn’t wear make-up. She’s a straight-A student. She shops at thrift stores (and not in a cool hipster way). However, these social faux pas do not prevent her from having two extremely hot and cool friends: Jessica (super-model style) and Casey (indie-rock hot librarian). When Bianca’s not managing her hot friends’ calendars, she likes to take some time out to spy on the dreamy Toby; a feminist dude who plays guitar and wears leather.

Bianca tags along with Jessica and Casey to a party and is approached by the school quarterback and overall clichéd dumb hot guy, Wesley. You see that even though Bianca isn’t cool enough to feature on anyone’s radar, she conveniently lives next door to Wesley so that he actually knows her name. More than that he wants her help. He needs intel on Jessica and Casey. Bianca explains that it’s not her job to dole out info on her best friends to perverts so Wesley, subtle as an autistic six year old, informs Bianca that it is actually her job because she’s a DUFF. She’s there to make her hot friends look hotter and assist in other hot people getting access to them. He tries to numb the sucker punch by highlighting all the other DUFFs at the party, male and female, but the damage is done.

After much soul-searching, Bianca decides to test Wesley’s theory and ignores Jessica and Casey. Sure enough, without those two around, she quickly becomes invisible. Bianca tries to make the most out of this invisibility, doing and dressing however she wants, but ultimately what she wants is to ask Toby to homecoming. However, because she’s spent all of high school assisting Jessica and Casey, she’s never developed the social skills to actually talk to him. So she returns to dim-witted Wesley, who is failing science and facing the prospect of being kicked off the football team, and suggests a deal. He teaches her to be social and she’ll make sure he passes science. But will their deal develop into something more and will Bianca ever be able to kick the label “DUFF?”

The concept behind DUFF is actually pretty good. It takes a well-worn teen staple – the ugly ducking transformation – and puts a new spin on it. There’s a clever line in the movie where Wesley tells Bianca that every group has a DUFF and if you don’t know who it is then it’s probably you. This idea is the foundation for the story. Bianca has no idea how much of a mess she is and this gets our sympathy. High school kids are cruel. However, having created this new angle on a familiar story, DUFF goes on to tell a terribly clichéd and uninspired tale. I’m talking every teen movie beat/scene you’ve ever watched. A dressing room ‘let’s try on new styles’ montage. The ‘catch my crush with the girl I hate’ chestnut. All leading up to the, you guessed it, dramatic finale at the school dance. These clichés can work if you put a new spin on them (look at Easy A or Mean Girls) but DUFF plays them straight and it suffers for it.

The cliché also drips into the characters. Wesley as the dumb jock is almost painful. Cagan actually tries to do something different halfway through the script, revealing Wesley’s dorky side. This becomes one of the ways he and Bianca connect but there is something very manufactured about the whole thing. The attempt to round him out falls short because I don’t buy that this is his character. One minute he’s punching out anyone who says anything bad about Bianca and the next he’s moping about being with the school hot girl because “that’s what he’s supposed to do.” I’m sorry but I can’t feel sorry for a guy with these kinds of problems and if I can’t empathize then this kind of movie collapses.

Bianca is better as the smart and sarcastic protagonist but even this gets old. It's almost as if it's accepted that if someone is not physically attractive then they have to be witty. Her goal of asking out Toby is reached pretty quickly but is dealt with well as it is used to springboard the story to the bigger question; can Bianca comes to terms with who she is. This issue is actually dealt with pretty well but it certainly doesn’t re-make the wheel.

Another major issue with script is tone. I called it a ‘Teen Movie’ in the introduction but ‘Tween Movie’ might be a better description. Cagan’s previous film, BandSlam, looks to be exactly this (I admit, I haven’t seen it). DUFF revolves around a group of seventeen year olds but their dialogue and actions feel much younger. It’s a diluted high school where no one curses and although sex may be hinted at, making out is as far as anything ever goes. The tone affects some of the story choices and certainly the ending (I won’t spoil it but needless to say everything gets wrapped up with a bow on it). There’s nothing wrong with this type of movie and they’re certainly popular… but when I read the logline for DUFF I was expecting something closer to Easy A and what I got was High School Musical without the music.

I don’t want to completely bash the script because despite its childish tone and cliché choices, there was some clever stuff. Cagan uses some cool stylistic techniques to suggest the social media influence in high school, and I can definitely see that stuff being utilized. The side-plot with Bianca’s Mom, who uses the five stages of grief to counsel people on any problem (loss of pet, male baldness etc), was funny and incorporated into the story well.

Ultimately though, DUFF is not something me, or my younger seventeen year-old self, could ever watch and think “Wow, I want to be somewhere like that”… which is really all a teen movie needs to achieve.

[ ] Wait for the rewrite

[x] wasn’t for me

[ ] worth the read

[ ] impressive

[ ] genius

What I Learned: Beware of false advertising. It’s been said before on this blog but it’s definitely worth reiterating. Tell the story you pitch. This means plot, characters AND tone. The term Designated Ugly Fat Friend is obviously mean and a little crude and suggests that what will follow will also be mean and a little crude. DUFF was almost the opposite of that. If the script had been called ‘The Invisible Girl,’ I would have had a completely different set of expectations and may have possibly been less frustrated with the outcome. (Carson note: This “What I Learned” is heartily endorsed by Carson!)

type='html'>

Peter Pan mixed with Lord Of The Flies mixed with...zombies? Sounds like an interesting little screenplay. Let's find out if guest reviewer Amy Suto liked it...

Since I’m tired of giving you guys vague updates about my book, the site re-launch, and Twit-Pitch, I’m putting together an official schedule (with real dates!) that I plan to post this weekend. I’m like the U.S. Government. I’m posting about a post that I’ll make later. Heh heh. In the meantime, I’m bringing back guest reviewer Amy Suto, (who reviewed Celeste and Jesse Forever a month ago) to take on some zombie madness. Or, errr…are they zombies? I’m confused. You know what, I'll just let Amy clear it up.

Premise (from IMDB): A group of teens living without adults and under their own social order in a small fenced-in neighborhood are forced to face what they fear is the inevitable physical danger beyond the fence.

Writer: J. Daniel Shaffer

About: This is Shaffer's first writing credit. Breyton Avenue finished with 6 votes on the most recent Black List. I know Shaffer has written three drafts since this one, carefully chipping away at the script’s issues. I also know he’s been reading Scriptshadow forever and is very excited (and surprised) by all the love his script has gotten.

Details: 112 pages – undated.

This script starts out with a bang: eight year old Noah witnesses his parents die at the hands of a vampire/zombie hybrid that drinks his mother's blood but, for an unexplained reason, leaves Noah and his brother, Sam, alive.

Noah wakes up from his nightmare, and we discover he's living in an enclosed town where kids have banned together against the threat of these monsters – called the “Unwelcomes”. These Unwelcomes drink blood, but they can also infect others through... blood lesions or something? I'm not sure. The script was unclear about exactly what the lesions did, but I do know that if you get them, it's not a good sign.

Noah is taking care of his younger brother, Sam, who is deaf. Not only does our protagonist win our sympathy because he lost his parents, but because Noah's taken on the role of protecting his younger brother, that sympathy’s taken a step further.

We soon meet the others in the town. Marshall is the fearless leader who sets curfews and organizes the kids. Hawthorne is described as “pounds of muscle and wrath with a tribal tattoo on his neck” and is the obnoxious jerk who is engaged in a power struggle over Breyton Ave with Marshall. He's the bully who slaps people around, and we know he's a tough guy because he gives himself his own tattoos. Another standout character is simply known as, “The Boy Who Never Leaves” because... well... he never leaves his house. He stands in the window wearing a gas mask and writes foreboding sentiments on his window. Creeeeeepy.

Noah's got the hots for Madeline, the sister of our resident abusive jerk, Hawthorne. He spends most of the script making awkward sexual advances that culminate in the two of them watching the stars on his roof as they are surrounded by fireflies.

After their night on the rooftop, Noah is chosen to go with Marshall and the others to gather supplies outside of the safety of their fenced-in neighborhood. They stop at a drug store, and, in a homage to Zombieland, find a whole bunch of Twinkies! One of the kids runs over and starts stuffing his bag with them. But wait, this is where things get weird: in the back of the store there's some sort of hospital for the Unwelcomes! And they find other kids there – with tubes in them – who are still alive. The Unwelcomes attack the boys, and only Noah gets away. He makes his way back to Breyton Ave, and we are left with more unanswered questions. Why don't the Unwelcomes kill kids? Are there more survivors outside of Breyton Ave? Are the Unwelcomes sick?

The script ends with a massive battle against the Unwelcome, and Noah's younger brother Sam ends up saving the day by using his ability to communicate with the dead. Sam may be deaf, but he can hear the Unwelcome talking to him. In the end, Noah gives a speech to the remaining kids and they ride off into the sunset on a quest to seek out other communities of survivors.

This script is Lord of the Flies meets The Village: it's intriguing in a way that makes your skin crawl, and it has a supernatural slant to it that makes it unique. The writing is solid, and the story is moving. This isn't your average apocalyptic killfest. This apocalyptic killfest has heart. It's poignant and gruesome and you just can't shake it from your head.

What really jumps off of the page is the vivid atmosphere. The tone of the script is consistent. From the little touches (a wheel of an overturned bicycle slowly turning amongst a pile of abandoned toys) to the sweeping descriptions of the depravity of the state of the world, Breyton Ave is immersive and gripping.

This script is also set apart by the unique details and flourishes that Shaffer peppers in throughout the script. For example, the quote “Second star to the right, straight till morning” is scrawled on a wall in graffiti. For the uninitiated, the quote is an allusion to Peter Pan, and is ironic yet fitting: Breyton Avenue is a twisted dystopian Neverland where there are no parents – where children must fend for themselves against monsters that seek to destroy them. These subtle details are marks of a talented writer.

Marshall, who is the fearless leader and Noah's mentor, had many memorable lines of dialog. His most profound words, which Noah repeats on the final page are: “You shouldn't let death scare you, Noah. It can only grab you once, and you won't remember. If there's anything else after, well it didn't really grab you, did it?” When your movie is extremely quotable, that means you've done your job in the dialog department.

Shaffer also understands that film is a visual medium, and the imagery within these pages is delightful: The fireflies. The close up on the coils of a light bulb. The spinning of a record player. The swarms of flies, which are a sign that Unwelcomes are near. On page 67 “a thick, wet, crunching bump” is heard when Noah runs over an Unwelcome with the bus. Can't you just see that in your mind's eye? Yeah. You're welcome (or unwelcome).

The weakest part of the script had to be the character of Madeline. She's described only as, “vulnerable and introverted and beautiful... And we know from Noah's face that he is in love.” I may be biased, but only describing a female character as beautiful and vulnerable feels like a crutch. Especially because in the script, she repeatedly disproves this description. She speaks up in the meeting, declaring that girls should be able to go to the Gathering as well, and stands in Hawthorne's way when he storms out. Her interactions with others likewise don't suggest introversion: sure, her date with Noah does carry the awkwardness of teenage love, but she never seems particularly shy or withdrawn. She's using aerosol as a flamethrower, she's demanding to be included, she flirts with and teases Noah, yet she's as passive as can be. Her sole purpose is to fill the love interest void. She doesn't have any defining goals. I'm being nitpicky because she's the only major female character in the story, and it's frustrating to see these blank, aimless girl characters floating around. So, gentlemen, please do your female characters justice, and don't forget to give them traits, flaws, and goals of their own.

Noah's also not an active character, and is only reacting to what happens to him. Weakness is his flaw. He couldn't do anything when his mother was killed, he can't defend himself against Hawthorne. The sympathy generated by protecting his brother and losing his family offsets his passiveness to an extent, but I still expected him to step up when Marshall died, expected him to fill the leader void and fight off the invasion. But, alas, it was not to be. He rigged some traps in his house and his little brother saved the day. Sam was the star of the story, not Noah. Noah was more of the narrator, the everyman we can identify with. A vehicle for the story, not an actual character in it.

However, the plot was so strong that even two underdeveloped leads couldn't slow it down. In a TED talk, J.J. Abrams said that writers must establish “mystery boxes” for their audience. You must present your viewers with questions they desperately want answered. In this script, new questions cropped up every twenty pages. Why did the Unwelcome leave Noah alive? Why does Sam hear voices? What is the Gathering? Who is the little girl? Are there any survivors left besides the kids? What about the boy who never leaves his house? What do his messages mean, and who are they for? This script reached page-turner status with all of these mysteries, and tied up all the loose ends nicely by the final fade out.

[ ] Wait for the rewrite

[ ] wasn’t for me

[xx] worth the read

[ ] impressive

[ ] genius

WHAT I LEARNED

Create a sense of foreboding in your script right away. In Breyton Avenue, there's the boy wearing the gas mask who writes warnings on the window, the upcoming Gathering expedition, the voices Sam hears, and the dead animals that repeatedly show up around town. These events hint at something big happening, and the story holds our attention. One of the most important aspects of storytelling is making a promise to your readers that your story is worth their time, and Breyton Avenue does a fantastic job of building the suspense and anticipation leading up to the final battle through the ominous set-ups in acts one and two.

type='html'>

Roger Balfour comes back from the dead again to review a script that I'm reasonably certain was written exclusively for him. Jack The Ripper...and vampires.

Genre: Period Piece / Thriller / Gothic Horror

Premise: Secretly imprisoned in a London insane asylum, the infamous Jack the Ripper helps Scotland Yard solve a series of grisly murders whose victims all share one thing in common; dual puncture wounds to the neck.

About: Writer Ian Fried came out of the gates swinging when his The Ever After Murders landed on 2010’s Black List. Gaslight was on 2011’s Black List and was scooped up by Exclusive Media’s Hammer Films (yep, Hammer Horror) after the success of its British horror flick, The Woman in Black.

Writer: Ian Fried

Details: 127 pages - 6/26/11 draft (This is an early draft of the script. The situations, characters, and plot may change significantly by the time the film is released. This is not a definitive statement about the project, but rather an analysis of this unique draft as it pertains to the craft of screenwriting).

What a great year for screenplays, right guys? Last week, there was a three-million dollar sale (eat your heart out, Shane Black). According to Scott Meyers at Go Into The Story, there have been 32 spec sales this year. That’s a 33% increase from last year. But, most of the acquisitions seem to be what I like to call safe purchases. Stuff that’s not too expensive to make or belonging to a low-risk genre.

That’s why, back in February, I was excited to see that one of my favorite scripts of last year had sold. Gaslight hit the market in June 2011 and made quite the impression. It’s not Found Footage, it’s not a Romantic Comedy, it’s not a Modest Budget Thriller. It’s a Gothic Period Piece with horror and fantasy elements, and other than using a mix of historical figures and characters from Bram Stoker’s Dracula, it’s not based on a graphic novel or Young Adult property. Nor is it a piece of Twilight fan-fiction where all the names have been changed (cough, Fifty Shades of Grey).

We all need a little variety in our Story Diet, but it’s hard to sell such a beast, a fantasy (I would argue that this is dark fantasy) spec that’s not based on preexisting material. I imagine it’s even harder to sell one that’s also a Period Piece. Not even Guillermo Del Toro, the King of Dark Fantasy, and his super friends James Cameron and Tom Cruise could convince studios to greenlight the HP Lovecraft adventure At the Mountains of Madness. A similar struggle is also happening with Stephen King’s magnum opus, The Dark Tower.

It takes balls to write something like this, and the route to production is a tougher one. It’s easier for a creative exec to say “No” to such a spec (risks and costs are too high), and in this day and age, most of them do (unless you’re Helgeland spawn).

So, it’s good for us all when a genre behemoth like Gaslight sells. It proves to us that there are people in Hollywood with discerning taste who get excited by such heady story fare.

Although the script was the talk of the town for a while, it didn’t sell until eight months later when Hammer Films decided to take the plunge after its success with The Woman in Black. (And can I just say, Kudos to Hammer for being willing to pull the trigger on great stuff like Cherie Priest’s Boneshaker, a steampunk novel I championed on this site over two years ago.)

So, what’s this sucker about, Rog?

As any good Gothic tale should start, we begin with death in the midst of a storm. We’re aboard a Russian Immigration ship, which we learn later is appropriately named The Demeter, where the First Mate finds the slashed and marbled remains of the Captain. He runs through the ship, witnessing ghastly sights such as the boil-covered and bloated bodies of the Russian passengers as he searches for the killer. And as any good horror teaser unspools, we can guess the fate of the First Mate as the last thing he sees is a shadow-covered phantom coming at him.

Cut to the establishing shot of Victorian London, the land of fog-drenched cobblestone streets, the threat of a cholera-outbreak and bloody murder. We’re at the scene of a Jack the Ripper-esque kill site, where an alabaster skinned beauty sports twin puncture marks on her neck and has been exsanguinated. She’s surrounded in gold coins. A mason jar filled with congealed blood sits nearby. It’s a gruesome scene and our Scotland Yard boy Donald “Monster Hunter” Swanson notes that the gold coins aren’t local currency.

So from the very beginning we have this mash-up of Ripper-style killings (slashed bodies and female corpses in alleyways) with distinctive clues pointing to a Bram Stoker-style vamp (dual puncture wounds and exsanguination). So, who exactly is the culprit? Is it Dracula? After all, the very first scene took place aboard The Demeter (a vessel all Stoker fans should recognize). Or, is it Jack the Ripper, trying to misdirect the investigators? Or, is it someone and something else entirely?

That’s the narrative question of this whodunit, and I would not spoil the answer for anyone, but I did forget to mention this savory detail: The label on the mason jar full of red sticky reads, “Lucille Westernra”. Does that ring a bell? It should, because that’s the ‘ol red-headed slut from Dracula. That’s right, that’s Lucy’s body marinating in the alleyway.

Why is the Scotland Yard Inspector nicknamed “Monster Hunter”?

Well, we can single out one suspect because he’s already being kept under lock and key. Chief Inspector Swanson took down the Ripper a while ago, losing someone he loved dearly in the process (and baring the psychological and emotional scars as a result). Jack the Ripper is now known as Patient 1167 and he’s caged like a Victorian Hannibal Lecter in the basement asylum underneath Carfax Abbey operated by...wait for it...Dr. John Seward.

Another individual from Bram Stoker’s novel who helped take down Dracula. Interesting, that.

Swanson’s boss, Commissioner Bradford, puts some pressure on our Monster Hunter to consult Patient 1167 because the serial murderer is the closest thing to whatever’s out there leaving a trail of bodies and frightening the London public. The newspapers and turn-of-the-century paparazzi are already spreading fear about the murderer, and with the worry of a cholera outbreak, it’s only a matter of time before mass hysteria takes to the streets.

Swanson is the best person for the job, despite being emotionally damaged from his previous encounters, because the other detective in line would botch the investigation and Scotland Yard would have another Sweeney Todd fiasco on their hands.

What’s Jack the Ripper like?

A beefy and mustachioed Hannibal Lecter with a penchant for self scarification mind games. He’s a cocky hulk with silver-capped teeth (the ones that aren’t rotting) who seems to know too much about the murders.

Of course Swanson is reluctant to talk to him but he really has no choice, so we get a sense that he’s facing his fears every time he visits the killer.

Luckily, Swanson has the help of one Florence Nightingale, whom he has a romantic background with. The nurse turned doctor is recruited by the detective because he’s curious about the nature of the blood that’s left inside the mason jars. She proves useful, because she’s the one that figures out that the blood left behind is diseased.

Astute Stoker fans will recognize the cast of corpses and potential suspects as more and more bodies begin to pile up around London, but I challenge the audience to guess who and what is responsible for these crimes. As Swanson is forced to have more face time with Jack, the more clues he gets to aid him in his quest.

Sounds a lot like Silence of the Lambs. Is that the template?

Yes, but that’s not too hard to figure out from the logline. Think the familiar template of Silence of the Lambs combined with a rogue’s gallery of drug-addicted victims and suspects from Bram Stoker’s Dracula with a smattering of Victorian CSI and you get the idea. It feels like everyone is hiding a secret and I think that’s crucial in making a murder mystery work.

But you know why I like this script? I was not disappointed by the reveal of the villain. Part of me was scared that I was going to be disappointed after such a buildup, but I’m pleased to report that the villain, his motivation and his plan are really cool. It was just something that satisfied my imagination and I even wanted to know more about the back-story. The third act is full of havoc and I think it’s something that deserves to be on the silver screen.

I also have an appreciation for the world-building in this script. Not only is there pressure coming down on Scotland Yard from Queen Victoria, but newspaper headlines and even a cinematographer recording footage of the unfolding investigation really helps root the story in a believable world. We get a sense of how the events are affecting characters in different layers of the London society. The writer also did his research, using details from Stoker’s novel and historical events (even using Buffalo Bill Cody’s Wild West Show which was in London at the time) during the time period to add realism and flavor to the story.

So, what’s the verdict, Rog?

Hollywood espouses that it wants fresh but familiar, so when considered as part of that formula, it’s rather quite brilliant. Sure, there are the familiar beats of our detective consulting with the dangerous Jack a la Starling consulting with Hannibal Lecter (and yeah, of course Jacky is gonna break out and complicate things), the comfortable rails of a crime procedural and a ghoulish plot against London.

But, there’s also the freshness of the setting. Sherlock Holmes may have made Victorian London familiar to audiences today, but there’s something atmospheric and distinctively imaginative about London during this time-period, so much so that the whole steampunk genre thrives on its aesthetic.

It’s the combination of historic police procedural combined with vampires versus Jack the Ripper that gives this script edge, the sum of its familiar parts that makes Gaslight so fresh. It’s a Gothic amalgam of a serial killer tale and creature feature. The fact that the writer pulls it off makes this thing a marvel. Usually such fare goes off the rails or the parts don’t work as a whole, but everything feels pretty seamless here.

Critically, I think amping up the Jack role would give this script even more of an edge and make it feel less predictable, especially to those of us who know The Silence of the Lambs by heart. What makes him tick? Why is his capture kept a secret? These are a few questions I had about him while reading the script. When I see the logline to this script, and I imagine when I see the trailer, my expectation is that I’m gonna get to see Jack the Ripper help Scotland Yard fuck up the undead. The thought of that makes me geek out, and I would have liked to see the nucleus of this concept exploited more.

Thematically, although the character stuff with Swanson is good, I feel like it could also be tweaked to make it great. As writers, sometimes we have to decide to either give a character what they want, or what they need. Right now Swanson is a man who has lost, and in the resolution, he may get what he wants, but I feel like the writer should give him what he needs. Does that make sense? He may accomplish his goals as a Scotland Yard detective, but on a heart level, I still think there’s more to be explored here. Perhaps the key is his unrequited romance with Florence Nightingale. I like how it ends, but it feels like there could just be something more.

Regardless, Gaslight is solid. It goes from murder mystery to an apocalyptic and action-packed third act, and it works. It takes a master world builder to drop someone like Jack the Ripper into the Dracula mythos and sustain the story for over a hundred and twenty pages. Not only that, but I think it holds its own with Frank Darabont’s great Frankenstein script. The undead have never been so classy.

[ ] Wait for the rewrite

[ ] wasn’t for me

[xx] worth the read

[ ] impressive

[ ] genius

What I learned: Dramatic Reversal. This is a simple but powerful tool when writing a climax. Call it formulaic, but every climax when the conflict is man versus man (especially in adventure and action flicks) involves a moment of isolation where it’s just the protagonist facing down the antagonist. The Dramatic Reversal occurs when all the odds are stacked against the protagonist. In Star Wars, think when Luke is about to be blown into smithereens by Darth Vader and the TIE fighters. For an intense moment, it seems like all is lost. But then Han Solo swoops in with the Millenium Falcon, saving Luke’s ass so he can take out the Death Star. Gaslight has an effective moment of Dramatic Reversal where we think all is lost, but the person we least expect explodes into the scene and changes the course of events so that the odds are favorable for the protagonist. This is effective because at some point, the protagonist made a hard choice that carried them into the climax and put their life in danger. It may seem like they’re about to be punished for making this choice, but then narrative poetic justice sets the scales right and then it feels like the protagonist has been rewarded for making the right decision. Which is to say, always have a chess piece ready to bail out your main character, and make sure it’s organic to avoid being accused of using a deus ex machina.

type='html'>Oh man, I'm Twit-Pitched out. Last night it all hit me and I just crashed, leaving a ton of work on the table, which I get to make up for today. Yahoo! Luckily, I have my trusted readers to pick me up when I'm down. Today's review comes courtesy of longtime Scriptshadow reader and former reviewer Christian Savage, who takes on one of Scriptshadow's favorite writers, Dan Fogelman. It's another day at the office for Dan, selling ONCE AGAIN, a 2 million dollar spec. God do I want to be this guy.

Genre: Dramedy

Premise: Disgraced Senator and presidential hopeful, Nathan Decker, returns to his hometown after stepping down from office in the wake of a sex scandal, but can he find a way to reconnect with his family and salvage his reputation?

About: Dan has another huge payday, with rumors that both Tom Cruise and Ben Affleck are interested in playing the title role.  I don't think anyone's signed on the dotted line yet, but we should see a major star attach themselves soon.  This is too fun of a role not to sign up for. 

Writer: Dan Fogelman

Details: 125 pages (This is an early draft of the script. The situations, characters, and plots may change significantly by the time the film is released. This is not a definitive statement about the project, but rather an analysis of this unique draft as it pertains to the craft of screenwriting).

Okay, I have to admit it. I kind of love Dan Fogelman. If I were a Hollywood producer looking for a solid family comedy, he's the first person I'd ask to write it. He has to be one of the more dependable screenwriters working today. Every time I crack open a Fogelman script, I know exactly what I'm getting. Some people might think this predictability is a bad thing. But, it's not. He learned what kind of story best showcases his strengths, and he has stuck to that formula for much of his career. And that formula has made him a lot of money, not to mention the most important thing: His scripts get turned into movies that do well at the box office. So, what are the qualities that define a Dan Fogelman script? I think we can find some answers in Nathan Decker, one of his latest spec sales.

When we first meet Nathan Decker, he's a 40-something Pennsylvania senator, on the fast track to becoming a great man. Maybe even president of the United States. His winning smile gleams from the cover of Time magazine. Random people walk up to him on the street and request autographs. Wives across the land would leave their families for him. But, Nathan's more than a shallow celebrity politician. He has genuine ideals and substance. He reaches out to people facing hard times, and turns down corporations wanting to buy his loyalty. He also helps pass a $4 trillion infrastructure bill, in both houses of a polarized Congress. For any other man, that would be the greatest accomplishment of his life. For Nathan Decker, it’s Thursday. He's absolutely perfect, which is why it's inevitable something awful must happen to him.

All is not well, with the most popular man in the country. When Nathan comes home at night, it becomes clear there are some people who aren’t that impressed with him: his family. He’s expected to eat dinner alone. His cold meal is left on the kitchen counter, with a terse note providing heating instructions. No “I love you’s” written anywhere. When he tries to talk to his wife, Tracy, about his potential run for president, she’d rather lie in bed and finish reading her book. His 14-year-old daughter, Zoey, isn’t much better. She hides in her bedroom with her shady girlfriends and tries to pretend her father doesn’t exist. The Nathan Decker love parade ends at his own doorstep.

The surprising thing is that this isn’t a case of a well-oiled political machine not knowing how to be there for his family. Nathan makes a strong effort to engage in the lives of his wife and daughter. But, they’re burned out on his schmoozing, his enchanting public persona. It's all too much. During a tear-stained confession, Tracy tells him she doesn’t love him anymore. And on top of that, she can’t stand the selfish person their daughter has become. All she wants to do right now is get away from both of them. At this point, Nathan can’t deny it any longer. His marriage is a shambles. For the first time in his life, he has failed at something.

So, Nathan does what any heartbroken man would do. He gets drunk at a seedy bar and meets an attractive young woman in the ladies’ restroom. It’s not as bad as it sounds, but Nathan soon learns the media will take anything they can the wrong way. As you can guess, Nathan experiences a moment of weakness. He takes his new friend, Debbie, back to her motel room, where he proceeds to have the best sex he’s had in 10 years. But, in situations like this, happiness always seems to have consequences. The bartender tips off the paparazzi that Nathan’s putting the moves on someone who isn’t his wife. The incriminating photos get released nationwide and, within 48 hours, Nathan is a talkshow punchline. So, he resigns from his position in the Senate.

With his life in ruins, Nathan receives a call from his overbearing father, Bill, a former Speaker of the House, who suggests he come back to his hometown for a fresh start. Nathan agrees and takes his daughter, Zoey, with him to Doylestown, the place where he grew up. But it turns out nothing's an easy fix. Zoey's distraught over her parents' looming divorce, and Bill's furious that his son's scandalous behavior has tarnished the family legacy. The only bright spot in Nathan's life is his new job as a history teacher at the local high school. This is where he meets Joan Flaherty, another teacher, who helps him step out from his father's shadow, and find his own way in the world.

Okay, let's talk about why this script sold for $2 million. First and foremost, Nathan Decker is a character that A-list actors want to play. He's active, talented, and likable. He also faces a problem that's easy to relate to: public humiliation. Quite simply, this is the kind of character that could make any actor look good. Considering both Tom Cruise and Ben Affleck have looked at the script, it's obvious there's something memorable here. The best thing any writer can do is create characters that are irresistible. Once you've done this, you're so much closer to having a script that everyone wants. Fogelman knows this; even his supporting players are treated with care. The cast is kept small, but nicely textured. You won't see 15 characters introduced in the first three pages. But you will find a handful of well-drawn people, each of whom has a distinct voice. Not once did I confuse one person for another. That's a classic sign of a writer who knows what he's doing.

I also want to point out Fogelman's mastery of structure and pacing. Nathan Decker is almost nothing but setups and pay offs. Just about every plot point and character quirk has a reason for existing, and there are no loose ends. If something is introduced in act I, you can bet you'll see it again in act III. For example, before they meet each other in person, Joan sends a letter to Nathan's government office, complaining about a dangerous intersection in desperate need of a traffic light. So, of course, in the third act, Nathan recklessly enters that same intersection and gets in a car accident. Another instance is when Bill expresses his disappointment in Nathan, by giving everyone in the room a huge serving of ice cream, except for Nathan. It struck me as a fatherly punishment, a reminder that, in Bill's house, Nathan is still a child. But then later, when Bill finally forgives his son, he doesn't give a sentimental speech about it. He just hands Nathan a big serving of ice cream and walks away. The moment is simple, visual, and effective. Other smart choices like this are sprinkled throughout, and they really enhanced the overall quality of the script.

As mentioned before, the pacing was truly a revelation. Fogelman has a great sense of when to speed things up or slow them down, depending on the story's needs. There was almost no conflict in the first 15 pages, and that was okay because it was important to see Nathan at the top of the food chain. The better the man, the more powerful the tragedy when he falls. On the other hand, take notice of how fast Nathan met his one night stand. It happened about half a page after his marriage was over. And when Nathan and Debbie started talking in the bar, they got to know each other for eight pages, before they went back to the motel together. Fogelman knew the audience would need that extra time to accept Nathan falling for another woman, so they'd sympathize with him when things went badly. And it was great when Nathan resigned from the Senate, less than two pages after the one night stand. No detours, just straight to the good stuff. So, the lesson here is that each scene has it's own rhythm. Some scenes are more effective if they linger just a bit, and then others work best by skipping the foreplay altogether. I loved that about this script.

There were a couple scenes that bothered me, though, and both of them were recycled from another Fogelman movie. At the climax, all three of Nathan's women - the wife, the fling, and the teacher/love interest - show up at the big family dinner. It felt a little too reminiscent of the famous scene from Crazy, Stupid, Love, when all the separate love stories crashed together in the protag's backyard. It didn't work as well this time around, because there was no delicious pay off. There were no surprise connections between the characters. No revelations that made you reassess what you thought you knew about these people. So, the dinner scene here felt like a wasted opportunity. Also, Fogelman seems to have a weakness for ending scripts with a corny "Here's What I Learned" speech. He did it in Crazy, Stupid, Love, and does it again here. The saving grace for Nathan is that he was a politician speaking at a city council meeting. So, the situation naturally allowed some leniency. But, if I never see another big finale speech in a Fogelman script, I'd be okay with that.

Otherwise, I thought this was a shining example of a mainstream comedy drama that could play well in the marketplace. It's a crowd-pleaser that feels warm and light, like a loaf of bread baking in the morning. Can't wait to see it on the big screen.

[ ] Wait for the rewrite

[ ] Wasn’t for me

[ ] Worth the read

[X] Impressive

[ ] Genius

What I learned: If you want to sell scripts in Hollywood, a good way to do it is to find your niche and master it. Fogelman has had a lucrative career mainly from writing family comedies, and he rarely strays outside of his wheelhouse. That's not to say you shouldn't stretch beyond your comfort zone as a writer. But if you can come up with a mainstream story template that plays to your strengths, then you can create a brand name for yourself. It's possible to develop an identifiable voice, by sticking to a special set of qualities that studios can associate with your work. If you become known as the go-to person for comedies or thrillers or whatever, then you could be one of the first writers that get called for an assignment. After all, isn't it the brand names that have the longest careers in this business?

type='html'>Carson here.  I'm taking the day off but Roger's here to pick up the slack, reviewing one of last year's Nicholl finalists.  Just to give you an update, I've been reading 2 Twit-Pitches every night and tweeting about them live on my Twitter account. Writers complain that contests are too closed off and they never know why their script was passed over or not.  Well this is about as open as it gets!  I give you REAL TIME reasons for why I like or dislike a script.  Of course, it's pretty late at night but still, you can always go back into my feed history if you missed it. Okay, now to Roger.  Take it away, Rog!

Genre: Thriller

Premise: A by-the-book FBI profiler must track down a serial killer with the help of an illiterate 24-year old psychic.

About: This was a 2011 Nicholl winner.

Writer: Matthew Murphy

Details: Nicholl Draft, 101 pages

You know, I generally stay away from scripts that have “serial killer” in the logline. Sure, last week I reviewed Gaslight, which was about Jack the Ripper (kind of), but that had enough fresh ingredients in the logline to keep the word “cliché” from popping into my thought space. 

So, why did you choose to read the lone serial killer Nicholl finalist script, “Unicorn”, Rog?

Because, it is a fucking serial killer script that uses the word “Unicorn” for a title. Unicorn! So many questions ran through my brain. Why is it titled Unicorn? Are there Unicorns in this script? Is the killer a Unicorn, or does the killer just have a horn? Or wait, is it the psychic who has a horn? How do Unicorns factor into this story? Why isn’t it titled something else? 

More questions flooded my cranium. People still write serial killer scripts? Why not? People still tell vampire and zombie yarns. How do you keep a serial killer tale fresh after seeing stuff like Se7en, Zodiac, The Girl with a Dragon Tattoo and everything else in David Fincher’s misogynist film cycle? After growing up on Hannibal Lecter and Clarice Starling and all the second-rate imitations, how do you keep from creating an imitation yourself?

When I can watch Medium, Fringe, The X-Files, or any other tv show that uses psychics to solve crimes, why should I read yet another script that treads through the same territory? The answer is, I wasn’t going to. These stories hit a saturation point in my interest meter, so I set Unicorn aside. 

And I actually went about my day, thinking I was gonna read something else. And why shouldn’t I? After all, Eastern Promises 2 was staring at me from my shiny iPad screen. Would there be any more naked Viggo Mortensen fights to look forward to and HEY ROGER, THERE’S A SERIAL KILLER SCRIPT ON YOU COMPUTER THAT WON THE NICHOLL FELLOWSHIP AND IT’S CALLED UNICORN! 

So, I broke my anger management chip in half and opened the goddamn script to quell my curious gray matter. 

Indeed, why is titled Unicorn?

It’s the first name of the psychic character, Skye Huffman. Unicorn Skye Huffman. Or, if you’re her mother Penny, you call her “Yuyu” for short. Before you ask, yes, this is all chalked up to hipster Penny spawning a killer-catching Manic Pixie Dream Gal.

But, we’re getting ahead of ourselves.

Unicorn starts out with your typical Henry-Portrait-of-a-Serial-Killer murder slash rape scenario. A creepy man rapes a duct-taped girl in her apartment, while the body of her fiancé lies freshly slaughtered on the kitchen floor. He seems to time the kill with his orgasm, because he pulls out a scary hunting knife that’s strapped to his leg and uses it to deliver the coup de grace.

Or, so it appears. Because right before the death blow we cut to a pair of green eyes opening in the darkness that seem to be tuned into the victim’s ordeal. 

And that’s the teaser section of this thriller, a bit of nasty business that sets up our mysterious serial killer and our even more mysterious psychic. You know what a teaser is, right? A two to three page sequence that whets the audience’s appetite for more bloodshed to come and more importantly, mysteries to solve. An audience loves a good mystery to solve, and these teasers are important in thriller and horror scripts.

These scenes ground the story in its genre. It makes promises to the audience. The promise of more kills and grisly encounters, and the promise of revealing and hopefully catching the killer. These ingredients are the blood, bones and butter of this particular genre. They let the audience know what kind of ride they’re in for. 

So, who are the other characters?

We meet the broom-up-his-ass Agent Thomas Buck while he’s briefing the Baltimore police department about his theory that there’s a serial killer in operation, targeting couples. The only problem is, there are no bodies. But, since all of the missing women have dark hair and are in their 20s, Buck believes it’s the work of one killer. The disappearances are getting closer and closer together, so it’s time sensitive they catch this guy before there are any more victims.

The scene gets even more intriguing as the green Agent Buck (he’s still in his 20s) gets nervous during his briefing when Detective Roy Weitzman enters the room. He stammers a bit as Weitzman takes a seat in his wrinkled clothes, looking like he should be at an AA Meeting rather than a police station. 

There’s an interesting writer’s rule that says, “If your character cries, your reader won’t.” Now, I don’t remember who first said this, but I know Orson Scott Card teaches it when it comes to fiction. I’m not sure how applicable this is to a cinematic medium, but there is something about seeing a character not cry when they have reason to. It makes the reader express emotion for the character. 

Why am I mentioning this? The focal character in this scene is Buck, so when he gets nervous and shows interest in Weitzman, we’re immediately interested in him, too. This is an example of why point-of-view is important. Every scene should be shown through a character’s particular perspective. Even Christopher Nolan says, “Stylistically, something that runs through my films is the shot that walks into a room behind a character, because to me, that takes me inside the way that the character enters. I think those point-of-view issues are very important.”

Who is this Weitzman cat, and why does he make an FBI Agent like Buck so antsy?

Weitzman just got back from a book tour and the New York Times even compared him to Sherlock Holmes. Turns out he’s caught quite a few killers and the FBI is so turned on by his crime-solvin’ magic that they’ve sent Buck to observe and take note of his methods. Buck worshipped the guy’s work as he was going through the academy, so he’s struck with the idol-worshipping bug. Also turns out that Weitzman’s boss, Captain O’Neill, is friends with Buck’s family, so he’s perhaps a harmless candidate for the gig. 

Of course, we learn all this through exposition when O’Neill takes Weitzman in his office to discuss the investigation. But, you know, exposition is always welcome when we want to know the information and it’s not clumsily handled. Because of how Weitzman is set-up, we want to learn more about him. And, the scene is kind of nice because we sense a real history between the detective and his Captain. 

But, the first act would be boring if there wasn’t any tension between Weitzman and Buck. You guessed it, Weitzman doesn’t want to be saddled with the naïve young gun. Not only because he’s used to working solo, but it also seems that Weitzman has a secret to hide concerning his methods. 

O’Neill convinces the detective to take the agent along, because he’s someone who is smart and loyal and can keep his mouth shut. He gives us a nugget of intrigue as well by saying, “We’re getting old, Roy. Someone else needs to know.”

What is Weitzman hiding?

After the obligatory “Let’s Get One Thing Straight” Scene, where Weitzman tells Buck how it’s gonna be if they’re gonna work together, the detective dangles an enticing carrot in front of the young FBI agent. Not only does Buck need to get autopsy reports and the like, he is also saddled with an odd grocery list: plastic-wrapped art supplies, one bottle of Johnnie Walker, a book of Georgia O’Keefe paintings and a bag of M&Ms.

Now, most FBI agents probably wouldn’t take these kind of demands from a police detective, but an encounter with one of the victim’s parents motivates Buck to play nice. He buys everything on the list and the next day Weitzman takes him to an odd farmhouse out in the middle of nowhere that is surrounded by weird metal sculptures and other odd accoutrement. 

Weitzman gives him three rules before they enter: One, Don’t touch anything. Two, Don’t move around. 

Three, he must tell no one what he is about to see.

Inside, they find the fading beauty, Penny, who aims to get drunk with Johnnie Walker. There are also canvasses everywhere of painted figures. 

All with no faces.

Penny calls her daughter downstairs. Skye, or Yuyu, looks like a Renaissance Madonna. She wears paint-stained dungarees and neoprene gloves protect her hands. Buck is instantly smitten. 

What’s the psychic’s story?

She doesn’t read because she’s dyslexic. She doesn’t speak because she has aphasia. All human faces look blank to her (she can’t tell one face from another) because she has prosopagnosia. 

Give her an evidence bag (conveniently stolen from the evidence lockers by Weitzman), take off her gloves and let her make contact with the psychic memories these objects carry. She’s like an antenna, locking onto the killer after touching some strands of hair. 

Since she doesn’t speak or write, she draws what she sees on a sketchpad. We learn this system is pretty damn accurate, as Weitzman has caught a slew of killers by using his psychic bloodhound, Yuyu. 

But, what about the book he wrote, you ask? How did he portray his techniques and use of informants? Well, he tells an angry Buck he cribbed from Hitchock films and CSI. 

At this point, Buck is so angry that he wants to leave his assignment, but he’s haunted by the victims and the picture of the killer that Yuyu sketched. He stays on the hunt and carries us into Act Two. 

What’s the rest of the script like, Rog?

This was an odd bird. I breezed through this thing because the writing was clean and vivid and I really wanted to know how the sucker would end. Hell, in stories like this, where the Narrative Question is: Will our guys catch the killer?, I will keep reading until that question is answered. If it’s a pleasant read, that is. 

And Unicorn is a pleasant read.

There’s a B Story where we follow the killer through his routine, and that helps flesh out the script but I think the story and characters need to be beefed up. Right now, a lot of Act Two is about waiting for the killer to make his next move. In turn, our protagonists are waiting for Yuyu to gather clues through her sensory and psychic connections. There’s a lot of waiting. They become a bit passive. Which gives time for Buck to have a romance with Yuyu, but it’s bogged down by too much stuff I’ve seen before. 

This created a bump in the read for me as I wanted more tension and emotional weight that wasn’t coupled with locked-room protagonists (not entirely passive, they’re just caged) and a predictable plot. Unicorn works as a by-the-numbers thriller and procedural, but it needs a cohesive theme. It needs more heart.

However, there’s a cool twist at the end of Act Two that creates a very tense scene that puts one of our heroes in a very vulnerable position, and it may be the best scene in the whole script. Although, the mechanics of how the Twist work here don’t seem to follow the psychic rules set-up by the writer. I do think this is an easy fix, though, and it has to do with touch and giving this particular character an object to help them “hone in”. 

For some reason, Unicorn reminded me of one of my favorite scripts, Sunflower. That’s another thriller, but it has some dazzling psychological pyrokinetics between the characters that I loved, and I think Unicorn could benefit by having more mind-games. The chess pieces are all here for something cool, I just think they should be moved around a bit more to not only beef up the characters, but to make the script itself edgier and not as predictable. 

[ ] Wait for the rewrite
[ ] wasn’t for me
[x] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: Two things. Point of View and Putting Your Character Through the Ringer. The rule of thumb for creating drama and tension in a scene is by telling it through the character who has the most to lose in the scene. After I read Unicorn, I kept thinking how cool it would be if this was a story told from the psychic’s perspective. She’s mute. She can’t distinguish between faces. Yet she gets startling visions. That seems like such an interesting character to tell a story though, and I think it would make the execution unique. Jennifer 8 did it. Yuyu is such a vulnerable character, and any scene in which she is endangered would be tense as hell. Speaking of tension, it’s hard for an audience to pull away from a scene when the protagonist is being endangered with no easy ways out. If story can be defined as how a character deals with danger, then it would make sense to put them through the ringer to such an extent where they can’t escape without a few bruises and scars. Audiences love to see a protagonist get hit, physically or emotionally, so don’t be afraid to beat them up. Stories where characters get everything handed to them on a silver platter are boring. Make them earn it.

type='html'>

They attached, they waffled, they attached again, they waffled, and now, finally, Leo and Martin are back together again with The Wolf Of Wall Street.

A day off for me but this review is pretty darn good, so I don’t feel so bad. I actually read the book “The Wolf Of Wall Street” a long time ago and thought to myself, “They’ll never make a movie out of this. The main character is the most despicable human being ever.” Though I guess since Scorsese makes tragedies, that doesn’t matter as much. Still, I’m curious as to how he’ll keep us invested in what has to be the single most evil most disgusting flesh-container ever recorded in written form. I also want to know when Scorsese and Dicaprio are getting married. I mean, put on a ring on it already! Here’s guest reviewer Daniel Holmes to report on the script and potential nuptials.

Genre: Biopic

Premise: (from IMDB) Based on a true story, a New York stockbroker refuses to cooperate in a large securities fraud case involving corruption on Wall Street, corporate banking world and mob infiltration.

About: This script landed on the Black List all the way back in 2008 I believe. This is *that* draft. The script has since been through, I presume, many iterations, with Scorsese and Dicaprio flirting with it on and off, until they finally committed to it recently, off a newer draft.

Writer: Terence Winter (based on the book by Jordan Belfort)

Details: 127 pages – first revision, March 4th, 2008 draft.

As a big Scorsese fan, I was excited when The Wolf of Wall Street was first announced. The subject matter seemed like perfect Scorsese material, and with a script written by Terrence Winter (writer/executive producer for “The Sopranos”, creator of “Boardwalk Empire”), I was immediately on-board. The project seemed like a perfect opportunity for a strong return to the Crime genre for Scorsese, and its refusal to die amongst his pile of potential next gigs implied that there might be something special here. But as I learned from Scorsese & Dicaprio’s last collaboration, not even Scorsese can make a great film from a mediocre script. I was cautiously optimistic on whether or not Winter’s script would deliver the goods.

The script opens up with an unmistakably Scorsesean device: a scene that takes place late in the story. Jordan Belfort is the head honcho at Stratton Oakmont, one of the most profitable firms on Wall Street. Jordan and his 700+ minions (most in their early 20s) praise him like a god and they celebrate their success in a scene of such debauchery it would make Gene Simmons blush. Soon after, we see Jordan’s mug-shot taken before being sent back to the beginning to see everything that ultimately led him to this point in his life.

Jordan’s love affair with the almighty dollar has been life long. At 11, he’s collecting nickel deposit bottles and by 16, he’s running his own Italian ice business. He eventually marries a local girl, Denise, whose uncle hooks him up with a trainee job at a brokerage firm on Wall Street. Jordan bonds with Danny, one of the brokers, and Danny takes him under his wing, showing him all the ins and outs of Wall Street (Example: “Fuck the clients. The only responsibility you have is to put meat on the table.”). Jordan is immediately hooked and trains to become a broker himself.

He’s on the road to glory until he arrives for his first official day as a broker on the most unfortunate of days to do so: Black Monday, where the stock market experiences its highest one day drop since 1929. The firm closes down, and Jordan is back at square one. While this incident would send every sane person running as far away from the stock market as possible, Jordan is not like the rest of us. Dirt poor, he soon finds a position at Investor’s Center, a penny stock brokerage which is every bit as bleak as it sounds. However, once Jordan brings his Wall Street savvy ways to the equation, he starts pocketing up to 94 grand a month. He gets Danny in on the mix and soon they open up their own firm. The only problem with Jordan’s success is that it more or less relies on him lying to investors about the shoddy companies he’s pushing them. And since rich people don’t buy penny stocks, all of his oblivious clients are already on the wrong side of the economic spectrum.

Soon, Jordan figures out the key to getting rich people to invest in his penny stocks and so begins Jordansanity, a manic ascent to the top of Wall Street littered with hookers, cocaine, and quaaludes. Jordan gets introduced to Nadine, the most beautiful creature he’s ever laid his eyes on. Naturally, Jordan needs to have her and does so despite his marriage to the loyal Denise, which was otherwise still going strong. Denise inevitably finds out about the affair and Jordan goes on to marry Nadine, and not before throwing a $2 million bachelor party in Vegas.

Everyone wants to be in the Jordan Belfort business, no matter what side of the law they’re on. Everyone, that is, except for Greg Coleman, a pushy FBI agent. Coleman knows Jordan’s up to something, and he won’t be bought no matter how hard Jordan tries. Jordan now has to navigate the rocky terrain of a failing second marriage, drug addiction, sex addiction, and possible jail time all while trying to stay on top.

The Wolf of Wall Street shares a laundry list of similarities with some of the main staples of the Scorsese filmography including: starting the film with a scene that takes place late in the story, a married male protagonist who falls for another woman (who is more often than not blonde), protagonist voice-over, the protagonist's best friend betraying him, etc. It's impossible to imagine any scenario where Winter didn't write this script specifically with Scorsese in mind. Despite this, I'm happy to say that there is just enough freshness in this script for it not to feel like Scorsese will be completely ripping himself off.

For one thing, the character of Jordan is more complex than protagonists cut from a similar cloth usually are. Unlike most of the Henry Hills of the world, Jordan's morality has somewhat of a grey area. With many similar stories, the protagonist’s sense of morality is either backwards or non-existent altogether. Pathologically, they believe the rules don't apply to them and they spend their entire lives breaking them recklessly without any sense of remorse. It’s how 95% of criminals are portrayed on film. What made Jordan interesting is that there’s a part of him (however small) that knows he’s doing something wrong and feels bad about it. When he initially stumbles on to his penny-stock scheme, part of what leads him to going after richer investors is simply to avoid screwing over poor ones.

Jordan is no angel by any stretch of the imagination, but his sense of guilt was just enough to keep him fresh in the pantheon of on-screen criminals. Throughout the script, Winter also employed what I call "empathy checkpoints", where every now and then Jordan either does something or says something empathetic enough to keep the reader within arm's reach no matter how bad his behavior gets. An example is when he's presented with the option of ratting out his associates or sending Denise to jail. Despite their marriage having been over for years, he immediately spends the next six hours writing a list of just about every single person he’s crossed paths with throughout his work life.

The other thing I liked about Jordan is that his problem goes much deeper than the fact that he's greedy. The seed of Jordan's success and everything that comes after it is pure addiction. Jordan is addicted to drugs, to money, and to sex but his primary addiction first and foremost is to success. All of Jordan’s other addictions ultimately stem from his addiction to success. When Jordan first meets Nadine, he needs to have her. It doesn't matter that he's still in love with Denise, or that he’s racked by guilt during his first date with Nadine. Love is no match for the strength of Jordan’s addictive needs.

Another one of the things I really liked about this script was how cinematically it was written. This is one of the few scripts I’ve read in a while that truly always remind the reader that they’re reading a movie. A great example is a scene where Jordan is teaching the employees of his firm his new method for selling. The scene starts off by him explaining the process to a large group of his brokers. As the scene progresses, we cut between brokers applying the methods until we see each one of them having mastered Jordan’s technique having applied it verbatim. The pacing of the scene is impeccable and it’s a great way of visually explaining Jordan’s power and his ability to lead.

Despite the fact that The Wolf of Wall Street hits a lot of familiar beats, I think there’s enough here to bring something relatively fresh to the Crime genre. Regardless, I think the familiar aspects of the script remind one not to fix something that’s not broken. I know Winter’s tackled at least one other rewrite of this script since this draft, so it will be interesting to see how much gets changed.

[ ] Wait for the rewrite

[ ] wasn’t for me

[ ] worth the read

[x] impressive

[ ] genius

What I Learned: Always pace your script in the way most appropriate to the story you're trying to tell. This script is a testament to the strength of proper pacing and utilizing it to build a reader experience that reflects the energy of the story. The pure kineticism of the majority of this script harkens back to one film in particular: Goodfellas. One of Goodfellas’ biggest strengths was its pacing and how every single scene was structured in a way that appropriately reflected the story events at that time. The most famous example being the depiction of Henry’s cocaine use as his paranoia hits new heights late in the film. More than anything else, The Wolf of Wall Street is a story about addiction, and the pacing of the script lends itself so well to bringing the reader along with Jordan to experience that ride of constant rushes.