Four Men in a Boat by Daniel Silman (ds)  (OWC name - Sean Connell)  - Short, Thriller - Murder, misogyny and a boat: Four friends take a deadly trip in the most innocuous of settings.       August '07 One Week Challenge entrant. - doc, format  

Quick notes -

p1. Slugs. Dashes between subjects. EXT. WOODS - NIGHT
p4. ALEX needs to be above the second block of dialogue. Or, include "(chokes for the first time)" between blocks.
p8. Sound effects are written as usual actions. "Outside, rain patters down the windows."
p9. In Max's line, spell check might be nice. "Even" instead of "eve". "My" instead of "mu". "As" in Del's line.
p10. The Sound FX again...
p15. "No", in the action, instead of "now".

Page numbers need to be in the top right corner. I had to add my own numbers. Try not to keep the lines and action on separate pages. Hit a page break, or space, until the entire line and action are on the top of the page.

Now for the story - I really, really enjoyed it. At first, I was thinking "Who in the world sits there and talks about murder?" but by the twist, I understood it. It was really, really good.

This one was amateurishly-written, but the story itself was very good with a nice twist in the end. I could tell that, despite lack of experience, the writer was very dedicated to this project. I can see better stuff coming from him if he learned more about screenplay formatting and all the "dos and don'ts".

Don't write things that can't be recorded on screen. We can't tell if Max is brash and burly just by looking at him. You did this with all your charcters. Try not to make these mistakes in the future. Write physical descriptions too--don't leave us in the dark as to how the look like.

--Julio

Julio - You sound like you've read all the formatting/screenwriting books there are. You preach these "do's and don't's", but then tell people to describe characters. How much description is too much?

I've been told that describing your characters is a bad thing, because it "limits casting", or something. I refrain from describing characters, beyond the most superficial things, unless it pertains to the plot.

I think "big and burly" is an acceptable description. I can picture that.

What I'm referring to is stuff like "docile, bitchy" etc. Stuff that can't be recorded. That should all clear itself through dialogue, not description. Stuff like that belongs in a book, not a script.

It's true that it limits casting, in a sense. But no role is for everyone. A VERY BRIEF physical description of a character helps the reader picture that character in his/her head.

I once wrote one of my characters as: "MARLON--a built, spike-haired bartender." That's it. I didn't describe him any further.  You dont' wanna overwhelm the reader with description, just give them a small glimpse of what the character looks like, and have his attitude be discovered through his actions (although in this case, I did not develop this particular character at all-- so shame on me ).

If you do not describe your character physically, your reader will not be able to picture him and thus the reader might lose interest and stop reading if he/she cannot picture some of the main players in the story.

I'm not trying to sound hateful of the screenplays I'm just saying this because it's a turn-off for many readers, is all.


--Julio

Thought I’d just start with the first one and work my way down the list. So, here goes nothing.

Spoilers...kinda

This one was disappointing. Your concept was original and interesting but poorly executed. First, the descriptions and dialogue felt extremely wooden and awkward to read. This really sucked the life out of your twist ending with the wife and destroyed any chance at suspense (which a thriller should have plenty of)

Second, there was no distinction between each character. Each friend sounded exactly the same and that created some confusion. I was having a difficult time keeping track of who said what. Lastly, your resolution was sort of sudden. Maybe that was your intent, but it felt like you just cut it off at the fifteen page mark.

Nice try.  

When I finished this, I felt like I had read a short Woody Allen piece about morality.  This may not have been the most polished script I've read so far (five of them).  But, it had the best story and best characters.  If I encountered this on television one night, I certainly wouldn't turn it.  Seems like the bitchy wife turned Alex into quite the sadist, that he'd blackmail his lifelong friends like that, but I don't know, it still seemed believable, as did the characters' interactions.  I'm glad that I read it.

This one had good dialogue, but then again, there was too much of it! I didn't count on how many pages you had with just dialogue and little action, and I started getting bored with all of it, except for the fact that all this dialogue had to tie up with the twist at the end. Maybe you could shorten it all down a bit, and your script will be shorter and easier to read.

Your formatting was a bit off in some places.

Other than that, the twist was good. Nice job.

Sean

Nixon pretty much said what I wanted to say, sorry, Sean Connell

Format was wrong specially the dialgoue measurements. But that's fixable. What needs work are the characters. The characters weren't unique; each sounded alike so it was diffcult to differate btw them.

I also think most of the dialgoue can be changed into visuals. For example, when Alex tells of killing his wife.

Hope this helps,
Gabe

This script moved along very nicely, and I wanted to read on to see what happend, so it was engaging.  The dialogue was realistic and believable.  The way you immediately got across the fact that these were all old friends was smooth:  CHET: "This reminds me of the kind of stuff you'd make us do at school, Alex..."  

The boat was nicely used as the centepiece of the story.  You drew a sense of place well with it, and I could picture being there, cramped, playing cards.  

Max was a well-drawn character.  His sarcastic and humorous comments, before he knew about the murder, were funny.  

I liked Del's noir comment, after Alex tells them about the murder:  "Well, his boat works.  It's not all bad."  

Chet was interesting.  He was the weasel of the group, doesn't even know how to play cards ("Are you going to explain the rules?"), not married (he looks left out when they discuss their respective marriages).  The line I liked best in the screenplay was when Chet deadpans, after Alex describes hitting his wife in the head with the shovel ("a flash, a crack, red"), "I'm going to fold, then."  I hope this was deliberate.  Great black comedy!  I laughed out loud.  

When the murder of Alex's wife is made known, Chet demonstrates the most self-concern. afraid of being identified as an accessory to murder if he helps Alex with money.  Then his strange side comes out, when he reveals that he almost murdered his downstairs Techno-kid neighbor for playing his music too loud.  True to his weasel character, he moved because of it.  We don't even know what Chet did after the kid told him to get out, but we can presume that he just left, still impotently holding on to the knife in his pocket.  

Early in the play, when Chet is asked whether he had ever thought about murder, he vehemently says, "No!"  This is a good red herring, although it is somewhat incongruous that Chet worries that if he gives Alex money, he will spend the rest of his life in jail, yet moments later, it is Chet who brings the shovel down on Alex and kills him, and even pushes him overboard.  On the other hand, there is no explaining what goes on inside the head of a murderer.  Besides, Chet's statements are perhaps precisely what you might expect of a person capable of commiting a murder.  

All of the men seemed a bit weak in character.  They were lifelong friends, yet their first concern once, they found out Alex was in trouble, was for themselves and their money.  In their defense, it did turn out that Alex was trying to scam them.  Was it true that his wife screamed at him, and he looked at her with hate?  Then why would he be willing to scam his friends for her?  Was it true that he didn't want to divorce her because he'd just have to support her and the children?  If so, he is mercenary, placing money before his own happiness.  And no matter what, even if she was the driving force behind the scam, he is still weak.  And certainly, in the end when he tries to blackmail his friends, his lack of character becomes chillingly apparent.

The idea of the closed quarters of a boat at sea causing people to behave in extraordinary and desperate ways was used well in the climax of the play, when they are all struggling against Alex, the "captain."  

Since Chet couldn't swim, it might have been interesting to have him drown rather than reach the shore safely with Max and Del, although perhaps that would have tied things up too neatly.  

One thing that troubles me about the entire screenplay, is that I don't like to think of these three men being so unhappy in their marriages.  

Overall, this was a very thought-provoking screenplay.  

Yea, I already posted, but I want other potential readers to take both my and Tracey's comment to heart.  This was a good script/play about morality that really reminded me of a Woody Allen drama.  The characters are nuanced and the black comedy is well used.  Sure, the script doesn't fit the format, but it's clear the writer at least tried to format it.  Also, he does describe the character's personalities, when, in fact, the personalities are all pretty well fleshed out, despite someone else's criticism.  I actually found the personalities to be the best thing the script had going for it.  While every character was a weasel, all had defining characteristics.  And Chet was such a good character.  

Like I said, maybe not the most well-written script that I've read (not that it's poor, just poorly formatted), but it is my favorite.

Well, the previous posters have mentioned the short comings; I don't want to sound like a broken record.

I don't think the dialogue was bad, there was just way too much of it. I really liked the twist about the dict-a-phone. I didn't see that one coming. However, the story seriously lacks suspense or tension to make it a thriller.

Make some cuts in the dialogue portion, add some suspense and you'd have a very interesting story here.

Hope this helps.

This, to me, read more like a stageplay than a screenplay. I very much enjoyed the dialogue. It had a natural feel to it.

Issues of format aside, the problem I had with the story is that I didn't buy into the idea that a recording, such as Alex made, would be enough to blackmail the three. Other than that, I enjoyed it.

Seth

Yeah, this was an enjoyable little short. I think it is a much better read if you think of it more as a stageplay than a screenplay, because it seems more suited to it. The dialog was really good in places, very realistic and there were a couple of good laughs at the beginning, so well done in that regard.

My only real complaint (aside from the formatting, which has already been mentioned) is the scene where Alex tells them all that he killed his wife. I got the impression that they all bought into it a little too easily. I understand that there were time constraints and you could only have so many pages, but it didn't seem very realistic that Alex's friends believed that he killed his wife so easily.

Other than that, I liked it. Not my favourite so far, but definitely an enjoyable read.


Matt.

I thought this was a fairly interesting read, I liked the twist it took at the end - didn't see that one coming. The script itself is way too long though, too much not-so-good dialogue.

There was a couple of format errors and typos and those always hurt a script.

I liked the idea and premise.  I thought the blackmail material was a little weak.  I think that Max, Chet and Del should have each done something more blackmail-worthy to motivate them.  Some of the dialog was a little long.  A thought - use flashbacks of each of the characters doing what they did or thought.  It wasn't clear to me when the four are talking at the end that it was raining.  It seemed the rain just suddenly blasted down.

Don

Premise: Excellent premise tailored perfectly to the remit.  8/10

Relation to the theme: Excellent and proper use of the boat, solid genre  8/10

Story: The blackmail thing was a let down as has already been mentioned. It just didn't hold together.

With a bit more work though this could be develped into a really tense, Pinteresque drama. It's got a great feel to it.

Despite some flaws in the writing this is easily one of the best in the batch and scores favourably for me because it has used the boat properly.  7/10

Although this isn't a "thriller," it has excellent potential to be an interesting story about possible skeleton backrgrounds and difficulty in really starting and keeping new "normal" lives and creating a clean sheet.

I'm speaking about giving these guys a messed up history that we know straight off is not a squeaky clean one.

Here goes the elaboration:

What I'm thinking is that these guys initially are introduced as family men, but suddenly my whole thought train was blown away at hearing them laugh when Alex says, "I killed my wife."

And I'm wondering.  How could they laugh?  Are they drug lord types or...?

If we firmly learn in the beginning something about the nature of these guys.  Perhaps a couple have been through the juvenile detention centers as kids or maybe even regular jail.  

What we might learn is that it's tough for some people to turn over new leafs.  Their desire for freedom maybe is a struggle; if we could see some kinds of flaws in their characters and that they are easily demonstrated by their actions; this would help us to believe that they would be having such a conversation.

Sorry, what is sotto voce? This is just underneath Chet.

I noticed you forgot to number the pages.

Some other typos:

>that he was divorced and [hat] should be had.

>but [eve] should be even

>and [it's be over] should be it would be over
you might want to have a colon mark after [it would be over: the nagging...] to set it off.

>from [mu kids]should be my kids

>[a s] should be as

When Chet speaks >No, I moved because of it... There are 9 lines which I feel need to be tightened up... talking about where Chet once lived and a guy in a type of group home etc...

Again, I think the worst thing about this is that the chance of four family man type guys all thinking darkly and having thoughts of murdering their wives is a bit hard on the suspension of disbelief.  But, I do think it can be made to work if the right elements are put in... like maybe they all grew up in the school of hard knocks and pretty much straightened themselves out, but...

Also, if you made one guy or two guys, "the good guys," who have beaten their past and aren't on the same page as the others and more of a war going on, that would be good.

Few more typos:

>[He'd better less go] should be let us

>[Yeah I could do it with it credit cards] should be do it with credit cards...

>[don't] the d is left behind on previous line
[
>Wait her] should be Wait here

>[Alex emerges with shovel] need to add [the]

>Add a ? after Alex asks them about rounding up 100,000

>He had [now] should be no choice

>[The three men each the safety] need to add [reach]

I think the ending works.  That tape still sitting on the boat.  Wonderful!

I'm just thinking that if you were to develop this into something longer, it would be interesting to have intercut scenes with "the wives."  What's their take on the whole relationship status.

And I think you could do a lot by actually "showing" the plan between Alex and his wife ahead of time.

What is it that was said and I don't remember by whom?  Show them the bomb that's going to explode first...

So don't keep it hidden.  I think you could really work this to your advantage.

I think Four Men in a Boat in this instance isn't thriller, but it could be.

I can imagine, husbands moving suspiciously around.  Mistrust.  Questions:  "What are you doing honey?  Didn't you do that last night?"

Boy oh boy.  Don't leave this idea sitting as a 15 page challenge.

Take this germ of an idea, water it faithfully, set it in the sun and see what happens.

Hope this helps.

Sandra

Concur with Sandra; I really liked this too, and it think it's a great concept that can be fleshed out to a higher level. Maybe have all the guys in some kind of "lets all try to get away with murder" scheme that of course, goes horribly wrong. I also liked the fact that it took place over in England, with lots of British Flavor tossed in (the petrol bomb, people who actually care about the World Cup). Jolly good.

Decent dialog about middle age and being married. Not real suspenseful or thrilling for me.

Well, the title fits it. It was four men on a boat. Four men rambling on like big babies about how horrible their lives are. This is basically just four wimps blubbering about how horrible their wives are and how horrible marriage is; all of which is their own fault for being pushovers.

The blackmail material was completely unbelievable.

This one doesn’t have a single character to care about. Maybe if there was a single character who took responsibility for himself, this script would have hope. They’re all selfish, unfeeling, uncaring jerks. Not one expresses an ounce of love or care for his family. As it is, it’s nothing but a gripe session for wimpy men who blame women for everything that’s wrong with their lives.


Breanne


[EDIT - Looking back, I realize I didn’t really say anything positive and I probably come off as harsh. Those were my honest thoughts from reading this. On a positive note; the writer’s not without talent. The dialogue is fairly believable. And the writer knows how to provoke reactions.

The whole story is just relentlessly negative. There isn’t a single character with any redeeming qualities. It wouldn’t be so bad to have four irredeemable jerks for main characters if there were other characters to balance things out - but they are the show here and without something to break up the endless stream of misogyny this comes off as nothing more than a misogynistic rant.

There’s no hero. There’s no main character. There really aren’t even any victims. It’s just four bottom dwelling villains feeding off each other.]

Technical Review
Well laid out.

No page numbers (but then I forgot that in my script too).

There were typos galore (page 2, ‘Dell’ instead of ‘Del’; page 3, missing question mark at the bottom; page 8, Max’s speech has ‘hat’ instead of ‘that’; page 9, Max’s second speech has three typos in it; page 9, Del’s first speech has two typos in it; page 11, ‘less’ instead of ‘let us’; page 12, ‘her’ instead of ‘here’ )

Story Review
A nice story, although perhaps requiring too much of a suspension of disbelief to totally work. There were some lovely twists (page 3, the ‘murder revelation’) and the moment when Alex comes back to his friends.

I guess that Chet was American? His dialogue was peppered with Americanisms like ‘block’ and ‘truck’. The others spoke of ‘mates’ and being ‘skint’, so I assumed that they were English. In fact, the setting confused me. Was it England? America? It was only when I realised that the Thames was mentioned that I knew where the action was happening. It might be good to state that Chet is American – otherwise, because of the US and UK mix, readers may be wondering where this is happening.

A good thriller that I enjoyed reading. Thanks for that!

It wasn't bad.  I liked the concept.  I think it suffered from not taking the concept far enough.  The blackmail was a let down after the build up.  The stakes needed to be higher.  The other issue I had with this was the large amount of dialogue.  So much of this script was people chatting.