All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
Mulatto Queen by Gary Lloyd - Drama - King George III signs contract to marry German princess sight unseen. When princess arrives in London, it's at once clear she's a mulatto. 119 pages - pdf, format
Mulatto ... - you seriously still use this word??? Oh, and by the way, you title the script 'The Wedding of King George' on the actual script. Boy, are you starting to look dumb so soon. Your log-line's crap too.
I took a look at this, only because I've used the word Mulatto in my script too. I don't think there's anything wrong with the word when used in historical context. Personally, I don't follow PC crap anyway and don't believe there is anything wrong with the word at all.
Cracker and Red Neck are also racist terms... yet they are used frequently without admonishment. I bet I could write a script entitled Randy the Redneck and nobody would bat an eyelid.
Onto the script... I'll read the first ten as this isn't really my thing. Although I love historical fiction... that doesn't fall under kings and queens romance stuff. Maybe there is lots of action in this, but it seems like a girly film and you've listed it as drama... I just get the impression there isn't going to be much for me in this. If I saw it in a shop I would walk right by it... don't take that the wrong way. I prefer thrillers, action, horror or historical action and adventure.
OK, I'm on page 1 and I notice that you know what you're doing. You write actively, succinctly and you know how to use commas correctly. That's great news... however as I get towards the bottom of the page I notice Barricks. Do you mean Barracks? Also, you've used the American version of Armour. May not matter to any Americans reading, but as somebody British, reading something set in England, with British Royal Family... I expect proper English.
Code
Elizabeth -- now with SWORD and SHIELD -- leads the
PREOBRAZHENSKY GUARD down the hall to Regent Anna
Leopoldovna’s bedroom. Three of the OPPOSING GUARD run into
the hall WEAPONS drawn.
GENERAL OF PREOBRAZHENSKY REGIMENT
Drop your weapons or die!
The opposing guards look at each other, then to the general,
then to Elizabeth.
ELIZABETH
My cousin will not be harmed --
this I promise you.
Realizing dying will accomplish nothing, the opposing guards
drop their weapons.
In the above scene, it isn't clear - from the initial action block - how many guards Elizabeth is with. I read her being with just one guard. However I now realise you must mean the entire guard, plural. I had to double back over everything, like rewind then come again. Your writing is really good though. I just think an extra line of clarity or even description to help better set the mood. Brevity is good but it should never be at the sacrifice of atmosphere. Add a sense of urgency here, imo.
Ah OK... well done. I was wondering how you were going to pull off the mulatto getting into the royal family as I knew about the portrait thing. They always saw a picture... but often the portraits would be an over-exaggeration. Is that where this story stemmed from? A worst case scenario with an exaggerated portrait? Obviously relative to the times... and probably today too come to think of it. Interesting.
OK, your first 10 are good. Then we get to your pivotal point... the portraits and how you've handled it is not how you should, which is why - I'm guessing - you've taken from page 11-23 to try and explain it. Why not just have Shackleton die in a convenient accident?
You explain the confusion over the portrait with him being drunk... but once faced with the king, he would rather admit the complete truth than risk being beheaded or hung. You have him drunk doing the painting etc... that's pretty good, but then an accident where only his paintings and notes survive would suffice, rather than all this conversation. 12 pages is a lot for one scene and you don't really pull it off... it actually descends into comedy which is not what you're going for, I imagine.
OK, I may come back to this later. Got some work to do. 1st Act is pretty good though. Some interesting characters... not sure how much of a part Shackleton plays later, I hope it isn't pivotal.
Not a genre that interests me, but I read the first few pages just out of curiosity. The word "mulatto" got my attention, and not in a good way, but it did provoke a read.
Anyway, I thought the writing was surprisingly crisp and efficient. I couldn't hang with it, because the subject isn't my thing, but that's not a reflection on your writing, which is quite good.
As for the use of "mulatto", I suggest that using it in dialog is one thing, but a logline is your voice, not that of a character. It's like the confederate flag. It's ok to use as a symbol in a film to depict an attitude, but if you wave it from your house, that says something about you (at least it does to me). Yes, the use of the word provoked a read from me, but I'm guessing it would have the opposite effect on professional readers.
How is red-neck a racist term? Lost me there, but I'm willing to be wrong on that one. Mulatto's certainly archaic, and likely pre-dates pc. QT used n1gger in a script - doesn't mean it isn't offensive; I cringed personally. And anyone else who did isn't necessarily from the pc brigade.
My feeling on this... how's the guy used a different title for the script? I think provocation personally, but again I'm open on that one. My question, is why use the term in the log-line? The log-line is not context based, the story is.
How is red-neck a racist term? Lost me there, but I'm willing to be wrong on that one. Mulatto's certainly archaic, and likely pre-dates pc.
Redneck harks back to the white slave days.... when we were kidnapped by blacks and enslaved in Africa. Also redlegs, redshanks... quite a lot of red... because of how our skin went while being worked like dogs for our black masters. Educated white and black people know full well the true meaning of redneck... yet it is just fine, even today, to call a white man a redneck. It's exactly the same as calling a black man a nigger. Yet none of the PC brigade bat an eyelid. They probably wouldn't even care... oh the horrors those poor black people must have gone through... doesn't matter that whites went through exactly the same thing. Doesn't matter that whites were the first to abolish slavery either, while it still continues in Africa today.
Indeed it took a couple of wars in Africa to stop them kidnapping our people into slavery. It stopped and we continued simply because we were bigger and stronger (in terms of arms and technology)... if the Africans were stronger then it would be a different world today. I believe the evidence also points to the British being in it with the Barbary coast... at least in regards to dumping our poor there.
In regards to the term mulatto... that is not a derogatory term outside of the US and even there it is debatable. Just because a word is old it doesn't make it bad.
I had to look it up and found out that it's a pretty archaic term and more modern uses are "mixed" and "biracial".
--Steve
That's it... that's all mulatto means. Most were proud to be separated from the blacks. They viewed themselves as a separate race and traded in slaves themselves. Indeed there was a whole class system of Mulattoes. I find this guy is excellent... not only does he tell it like it was, but he's also black.
If you look into the history of slavery in the US you'll also find the first slave owner (before that it was indentured servitude) was a black man. He won a court case to keep forever a black servant he owned, therefore enslaving him. He started as a servant himself... feck it... you can read it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)
Doesn't matter that whites were the first to abolish slavery either, while it still continues in Africa today.
I'd like to expand on this point because it is a little unfair to Africa. Africa is a country that is kept destabilised so that we can reap the resources as cheaply as we can. It's one of the reasons (if not the largest) poor people here (in the West and East) can afford to get fat. It's the reason we can complain about a minimum wage while going on holiday to exotic locations.
Not that that is the fault of you and me, nor of the millions of Africans that would much rather be poor here than working 16 hours a day (and still not able to afford food every day) there. Or even the millions that are starving to death. It is the fault of the system we have created, and are creating every day. Public opinion rules this world and is the beast within, it creates the have and have nots because secretly we'd all want to be at the top... no matter how much we bullshit each other with politically correct bollocks to assuage our guilt.
I understand what is going on in this world... why it is the way it is. Maybe there is a better way. I know I'd be willing to give equality a go. Unfortunately, our society doesn't believe there is a problem, certainly not one that is its fault. It must be the fault of this person or that person, scapegoats, people we put in charge to take the fall when it inevitably goes wrong... time and time again, like a - really bad - soap opera.
This stuff is heavy. The majority of people that go to the movies just want to be entertained for a couple of hours. How many people actually want to tackle this stuff head on while paying money to boot? Documentaries maybe.
I come from East/South Europe, Mulatto isn't considered a very offensive word here, maybe because there aren't many mixed people here but I've never heard anyone get offended by it.
I come from East/South Europe, Mulatto isn't considered a very offensive word here, maybe because there aren't many mixed people here but I've never heard anyone get offended by it.
I'm sorry, but that's really an ignorant comment. The NAACP has nothing to do with the word being offensive. I've never heard it used in the states as a simple description, but rather only in a derogatory way, usually with a racist intent. Nobody to blame for that except the speaker.
To be clear, though, I'm not accusing the author of the script on this thread of anything. It appears they just didn't know.
Why exactly is it ignorant? Please explain? I'm curious indeed.
Tony-
How is the NAACP to blame for the term "mulatto" being offensive to some people? I consider the word offensive, and I have no idea what the NAACP's position is on the subject, if any. Do you?
I apologize for not being clearer. Also, I don't want to troll this thread. In the U. S. there exists tons of organizations that claim to organize for the better of a specific group. Meanwhile, they specialize in 'agitating' everyone else into guilt over mostly assaulting the freedom of speech. No doubt there is a group that would jump on the word mulatto.
Just look at the lightening buzz around Noah movie already, and that hasn't been released.
In the states, it's often used by hate groups with a racist intent. Whatever historical meaning it once had has been tarnished.
I'm not saying it's always spoken from an ugly place, but was merely pointing out the reality that some people find it offensive, and using it (in a logline) is taking an unreasonable risk.
In the states, it's often used by hate groups with a racist intent. Whatever historical meaning it once had has been tarnished.
I'm not saying it's always spoken from an ugly place, but was merely pointing out the reality that some people find it offensive, and using it (in a logline) is taking an unreasonable risk.
You specifically said that you found it offensive. I'm genuinely interested as to the reasons why.
This is a British and European script, where the word is not considered derogatory. Most have never heard of it.
I'm pretty sure that most educated black people are pissed off with white people having pity for them. Worse, being afraid of them. It's a form of prejudice in itself.
I'm pretty sure that most educated black people are pissed off with white people having pity for them. Worse, being afraid of them. It's a form of prejudice in itself.
"Educated black people"? "Pity" and "fear"? Wow.
When a word is used by skinheads and neo-Nazis to brand a type of person, that's good enough for me to forever disassociate myself from ever using that word. It's not complicated.
Interesting quote: most people of mixed white and black ancestry rarely choose to self-identify as mulatto. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulatto)
Mulatto is derived from 'Mule' - the off-spring of a horse and donkey, and describes a person who is the off-spring of black and white parents.
As most people of mixed or biracial origin don't choose this term, it's a fairly short step to see that they may see this term's use as being offensive. Well, at least the 'educated' ones. I guess that means those that have attended primary school or beyond. Not too sure. But thanks for that insight Dustin.
I wonder if the author's going to pop up the boards sometime soon...?
I'm pretty sure that most educated black people are pissed off with white people having pity for them. Worse, being afraid of them. It's a form of prejudice in itself.
Yeah - all the dim ones are quite happy with the status quo.
When a word is used by skinheads and neo-Nazis to brand a type of person, that's good enough for me to forever disassociate myself from ever using that word. It's not complicated.
Educated in true history and social psychology. As opposed to the bullshit they hear on the TV and from politically correct idiots.
Words are used by everybody to brand people. If a Skinhead called a fat person fat, you would no longer use that word? Or would you simply not use the word in a derogatory way?
It isn't the fault of words. It is not the words. Mulatto is the same word as half caste, or mixed race... they all have the same definition. Doesn't matter how many times we change words... people insult with their tone... it isn't the word's fault.
As most people of mixed or biracial origin don't choose this term, it's a fairly short step to see that they may see this term's use as being offensive. Well, at least the 'educated' ones. I guess that means those that have attended primary school or beyond. Not too sure. But thanks for that insight Dustin.
Yet another person that doesn't realise the full range of the word, 'educated'... my-oh-my. You're not educated either. Within context of this subject. As is clear from your responses.
I don't know where you're getting your stat's from and neither do you... it's taken from a wiki page where they asked... how many half-caste people? They don't like being called half-caste either anymore. wtf? why? When I grew up half-caste was the PC thing to say.
It doesn't really matter how people would rather describe themselves, as the differences are all that is important. You can call those differences anything you like... it won't change a thing. In 20 years time, people will think bi-racial is racist. It'll be racist because it's an old word and has negative connotations attached to it.
The reason for that is that it's a word that points out a difference. Simple as that. It's not words that are the problem... it's people.
Yet another person that doesn't realise the full range of the word, 'educated'... my-oh-my. You're not educated either. Within context of this subject.
Sounds lke you're getting quite techy Dustin. So maybe you think a primary school education isn't an education, and you've decided to define education yourself, and therefore decided to define who is educated and who is not educated for the sake of your argument.
But that was the way you were going anyway, via deciding whom amongst the black people would be pissed off and who wouldn't, based on their so-called (& according to your definition of) education.
My material sources, you may notice, are similar to yours, and I pointed out it was 'interesting' not 'defining'.
You point out that 'half-caste' was insulting when you where a child and it isn't now. Spastic was an insult when I was a child and still is now. Some word useage changes other don't. But you can't deny that there are social and cultural implications underlying the use of certain words that will impact onthe way some people will use them.
Having said that, can you clarify that I'm entitled to an opinion on all of this, seeing as I've been defined by you as uneducated, and therefore possibly not entitled to a stance?
Sounds lke you're getting quite techy Dustin. So maybe you think a primary school education isn't an education, and you've decided to define education yourself, and therefore decided to define who is educated and who is not educated for the sake of your argument.
It is quite clear that you were not very well educated in this subject. It is quite clear that many others aren't either. That doesn't mean they aren't educated in other areas.
I don't need to redefine anything. I just comprehend the word a little more clearly than you do.
But that was the way you were going anyway, via deciding whom amongst the black people would be pissed off and who wouldn't, based on their so-called (& according to your definition of) education.
Based on their education in this subject. It's not my definition. wtf?
My material sources, you may notice, are similar to yours, and I pointed out it was 'interesting' not 'defining'.
Sources? You cited wiki once and then didn't bother to read the whole article. Just reiterated the part that suited your argument. You didn't look properly. Which goes back to your education on this subject. Do I really have to keep mentioning that it is this subject I'm talking about? You'd think that writers - above all - would understand how to take words in the correct context.
You point out that 'half-caste' was insulting when you where a child and it isn't now. Spastic was an insult when I was a child and still is now. Some word useage changes other don't.
Spastic wasn't and still isn't always an insult. It is a way of describing somebody suffering from spasticity problems. And to prove it, here's a google image search of real spastics, using the single keyword, spastic: https://www.google.co.uk/searc.....biw=1920&bih=992
Words are just words, the insult comes from behind the words. Belongs to the person and their ignorance. It isn't their fault that they are not educated (oops there's that word again) in the right way. It isn't part of the curriculum. You have to go out of your way to learn it. And some believe that is by design. That we're meant to keep pointing out things like racism. It's programming. But I know you won't see that.
But you can't deny that there are social and cultural implications underlying the use of certain words that will impact onthe way some people will use them.
Some words? Any word that describes a difference. I can say the word, black (in context to black people, man, I really do need to point out context?) with venom, or I can say it in a normal every day, the guy is black. Same goes for nigger. Nigger is the same as saying very dark brown. It's just a colour like black. Niggers is the same as saying blacks. They both mean a colour. In fact, nigger is closer to their colour. They're not exactly black. Isn't that more insulting?
Having said that, can you clarify that I'm entitled to an opinion on all of this, seeing as I've been defined by you as uneducated, and therefore possibly not entitled to a stance?
No, you're not entitled to an ignorant opinion. You should at least educate yourself to the subject in hand before going in half-arsed.
You'll note that it is only offensive when applied to people that actually aren't spastics. There are real spastics. To call a spastic a spastic would be pretty pointless. It's just a label, that they actually are. No escaping it.
You can hate them for it if you want to... but it's just a word... a way of describing something.
Constantly changing the words, merely highlights something that wouldn't ordinarily be there if everyone just shut the fuck up and forgot about the differences. Calling somebody a colour, or even rearranging words like half caste into bi-racial doesn't make a difference. Aside from reminding people that there are differences and we should be careful of offending each other simply by pointing them out.
A debate on the subject is pointless. If the word offends even a small fraction of people, no matter how small, using it in a logline is moronic, period.
As far as all the "research", all I need to know is who uses the word and their intent behind it. In the states, it's commonly used by hate groups with a racist intent.
I live in Chicago, not Internet-research-land. I invite anyone who thinks it's not offensive to openly use the word on the streets of several neighborhoods here that I'd be happy to direct you. I'm sure your research will come in handy.
A debate on the subject is pointless. If the word offends even a small fraction of people, no matter how small, using it in a logline is moronic, period.
The word Fat offends quite a lot of people, yet it would be fine in a logline. The word redneck offends too, yet that is also OK in a logline. Spotty. Skinny. Large, small... cross-eyed, bow-legged, buck-toothed... where does it end? What else is left to describe people? Only pick on the indistinctive things so as to avoid offending anybody. We'd be left with the description: well they're a human.
As far as all the "research", all I need to know is who uses the word and their intent behind it. In the states, it's commonly used by hate groups with a racist intent.
Mulattoes use the word to describe themselves and it is only ignorance (yes yours too) that makes the word racist.
I live in Chicago, not Internet-research-land. I invite anyone who thinks it's not offensive to openly use the word on the streets of several neighborhoods here that I'd be happy to direct you. I'm sure your research will come in handy.
That's because people have been brainwashed into believing it is racist. They don't know any better because they are not educated to know. They are educated that white people enslaved black people and subjected them to all kinds of horrors. The opposite is never mentioned. It's never shown that Africa once had rich palaces etc... we only get to see them as savages.
This is by design. I learned this information from black people... not white. I come from England, and the City of Birmingham, probably the most multicultural city in the world. If not, it damned well should be. I went to a school where I was the only white kid in my class. In my area there were no churches, but plenty of mosques. It's an area called, Handsworth, google it.
Educated black people believe this information is repressed and our images of them as being savages is done by design. While all the while pretending to be against racism, the government are programming each group to be racist. They do it by pointing out the differences, by making certain words derogatory.
Then we learn about it at school. It's everywhere. I remember at school, being the only white kid, having to watch Roots... those muthafuckas. Teacher was black too... can you imagine the stares I got that day? Luckily I was quite personable. Did she mention that whites were also enslaved? Was it ever mentioned even in passing? Was it fuck.
They program us with this bullshit and we suck it up. Just believe what we're told. I know black people that believe the nose was cut off sphinx as it was a negro nose. Of course... Egypt was renowned for it's technology... but black people don't get the credit for it.
While all you politically correct dickheads are running around following the latest PC trends, you're actually helping to perpetuate the very thing you profess to hate. You just can't see it... and for all I know, you probably never will.
It would be good if we could focus discussions on this board as to the script and have race relations, religious, and any other topic not pertaining to the script on a different board.
Some of my scripts:
Bounty (TV Pilot) -- Top 1% of discoverable screenplays on Coverfly I'll Be Seeing You (short) - OWC winner The Gambler (short) - OWC winner Skip (short) - filmed Country Road 12 (short) - filmed The Family Man (short) - filmed The Journeyers (feature) - optioned
While all you politically correct dickheads are running around following the latest PC trends, you're actually helping to perpetuate the very thing you profess to hate. You just can't see it... and for all I know, you probably never will.
Selling scripts is a business. If you have to be PC occasionally to do it, then that's being smart, not a "dickhead".
Sources? You cited wiki once and then didn't bother to read the whole article.
Well, once you've finished spitting your dummy over this, maybe you can mature a little and get on to a reasonable argument. The page is there for anyone to look at, which is why I put the link there - the etymology is clearly there.
Your source was a timid rant, and a factionalist. Just because you decide to run with such fantasists, doesn't anyone who doesn't is absurd.
You obviously have a contorted opinion on this and find it difficult that anyone's opinion should differ. That, I might suggest, is you own inadequacy, and one which I won't indulge anymore.
I mean, honestly, unless one of you is actually of mixed heritage, you are all just whistling in the breeze, you know?
A lovely woman who married into my immediate family is biracial, so I do have a personal point of reference other than obscure websites and blogs with unknown sources.
A lovely woman who married into my immediate family is biracial, so I do have a personal point of reference other than obscure websites and blogs with unknown sources.
Oh well, if we want to get into family... then both my nieces who are coming to visit next week are half Asian. One of my cousins has around seventy kids (just kidding, she has seven), all of them half black and half white. My other sister has five kids, all of them black mixes, depending on which guy she had the kid with.
So I suppose that means I also have a 'personal' perspective on this. Given that half everyone I know is black, asian or a mix of.
Oh well, if we want to get into family... then both my nieces who are coming to visit next week are half Asian. One of my cousins has around seventy kids (just kidding, she has seven), all of them half black and half white. My other sister has five kids, all of them black mixes, depending on which guy she had the kid with.
So I suppose that means I also have a 'personal' perspective on this. Given that half everyone I know is black, asian or a mix of.
Didn't know this was a contest of numbers. You win.
Saw lots of discussion on the word mullato, not a lot on the script. Some quick thoughts.
I'm not a fan of the intro scene. A baby in a bassinet does not grab my attention. Could you not have the same conversation but show the baby's birth? A difficult birth perhaps?
LOTS of names in your script. Everybody has a last name, unless it is super important later on it shouldn't matter. Also you use their last names constantly while writing. makes the read painful and slow. Also your movie shouldn't be a geography lesson. Only a few pages in and I'm reading about this town, that country, some long naming castle. Ditch them. If any of these names are improtant they won't be to the reader because they don't stand out from all the other names you mention. They get lost in the shuffle.
Mean looking porridge? Is it gross? Thin? Discolored? Really good?
Your dialouge is hard to read. Everybody does too much explaining of circumstances and giving introductions of everything around them instead of you actually showing us. 10 pages in and I'm still not sure where this story is heading. Its a period piece so I understand the pace is usually slower but that is all the more case to not be boring. Shorter scences, less dialouge, and more focus will help.
Pages: 
Author
Mulatto Queen
Logged
Locked Board