Continuing:  

Quoted Text The Last Statesman is a serious drama (not sure why it is in the comedy section)that attempts to address tough, modern day issues. The difficulty is that the story is nose down in the seriousness through most of the film. So much so that it frequently forgets its audience. I believe that material can be so heavy that the weight of it can keep an entertaining story from coming to the surface. The Statesman isn't preachy (and it the writer does a good job with this) but the script uses up most of its time making sure the audience is along for the ambling ride.

It was not intended to be a serious drama. It was intended to be a dramedy - it's in the comedy section because it doesn't fit in the drama section and there is no dramedy section (wish there was - I think I'll make a suggestion). Think "As Good as it Gets" for example. It could have been:

A recluse writer with OCD just wants to me left alone. That all changes when he is forced to help his gay neighbor survive a brutal beating.

That would have been a serious drama. Instead it was really this:

A phobic, sexist curmudgeon with OCD must overcome his flaws in order to win the woman he loves.


The latter is not a serious the drama, although important, serves as the backdrop for the comedy. That was my intent here. So, if you have viewed it as a "serious drama" - then the failure was it not being funny enough - not the other way around.  

Quoted Text Generally speaking, the story gets the job done though is lacking in several key areas. The first and most important is the dramatic question. One is never asked. The story relies on whether or not Lowell has a terminal illness or not. This point is moot because we know early on that he does. The real issue and dramatic point that should be sharpened is what he's going to do with the time that he has left (because he knows and the audience knows in the first 4 pages). The story touches this but doesn't effectively use it as the thing that not only drives Lowell but drives the story. This should be the thing keeps the audience interested. When the "reveal" occurs  around page 69, it doesn't have its intended effect. Partly because there is nothing at stake. I know on the surface it seems that there is (getting the witness protection program overhauled, the governor getting re-elected) but there isn't anything really at stake for our main character. So what if he doesn't get the witness protection thing done? Who cares if Jason doesn't get re-elected? So what if Mckinney wins and becomes governor? More importantly, who really cares if he has a brain tumor? The reason these things don't do it is that the stakes whether Lowell succeeds or not aren't introduced in the beginning (or ever as far as I can tell). And since there isn't a real starting point (the dramatic question), it is difficult to build suspense, intrigue or drama. You want the audience to say, "Oh God, I hope he does it." and then have him either "do it" or "not do it". I think if you readdressed this, the story would fall into place. Almost everyone's actions should be antagonistic to Lowell's, preventing him from achieving this goal. You need to ask yourself, "Why does Lowell need to get the witness protection program overhauled? What's at stake?"

I wanted the audience to assume up front that at least Lowell already knew he was fighting against time (i.e., the TICK TOCK) in the opening scene. I don't consider the confirmation of the tumor later on in the story "a reveal". Long before that we should be able to determine that the man is dying. I had hope to establish that up front.  I will revisit things to see if I can make that clearer. The "stake" was not intended to be the witness center. The stake was supposed to be legacy.  i.e., Lowell realizes that after 40 years of service he hasn't really done anything. He also realizes that he does not have the time to endure the normal bureaucratic process to get something done - hence the shenanigans. The short answer to the question you posed - Why does Lowell need to get the witness protection program overhauled - is so that he can die knowing he accomplished something of importance.

Quoted Text Once you sit down and answer the above, then I would take each character and mentally (or on paper) figure out the backstory between he/she and Lowell. The story relies so much on the interaction between Lowell and these characters that knowing the histories between them is of utmost importance. Right now, I feel like the script relies on exposition to fill in the backstory and this makes the dialogue difficult reading in places. Every word of dialogue should have subtext. Somebody owes somebody money, a favor. Someone knows Lowell's deepest secrets. Lowell knows one of the board members has been cheating (but doesn't say anything). Right now the dialogue is superficial. These people know things about the other. Things that they may be embarrassed about. Things that would make them look like a saint, a hero. When your characters speak, it feels like they just met. Casual conversation with the guy at the bus stop. There is more there. The dialogue should reflect this. There is one exception to this and it is the interaction/relationship between Lowell and Karen. These two have a history and you can tell by the way they interact on screen. When these two characters are together, they both jump off the page. It is very good. Duplicate this with your other characters. Again, once you know this backstory everything, including dialogue will fall into place.

Agree and Disagree. I am quite comfortable with the interaction/relationships between:

Lowell/Doctor Ferguson
Lowell/Karen
Lowell/Jason
Lowell/Tess

I do think there is some opportunity in the history between Lowell and the other Supervisors.

Quoted Text Pg 6. Pretty callous to have the board members act this way in front of a deposition, especially one that is televised. Maybe have McKinney the only one showing his disrespect.

First - yes, it definitely is. Sadly, it's true. Like medicine is your background - this is mine. I served the Board for thirty years. Believe it or not, the interactions are actually a little more polite then I portrayed. That being said - readers don't share my actual experience and as a result I could be losing them here. - I'll take a fresh look at it.

Quoted Text Pg 11. Quoted Text LOWELL Don't fret about it. We're both too old to get a long term illness. This is soooo on the nose. It is the most obvious response. He's a smart ass. Make him say something smart ass.

Concur - thanks. After she asks him what has gotten into you I think I'll have Lowell respond - "so far, tar and nicotine"

Quoted Text Pg 12. Quoted Text LOWELL ...I should have stayed a cop. Again, on the nose. His actions should say that he was a cop. Don't give his history away with one piece of dialogue. It's cheating. And it doesn't work.

I don't agree here. He's outside reminiscing - thinking about his life. I'm okay with the line. Perhaps there should be some reference to this earlier. I might include something with his first doctor visit (i.e., an injury related to the force)

Quoted Text Pg 17. Quoted Text LOWELL I'm sorry. Um, I-I need to leave. Again, I'm sorry. Again, no dialogue is needed here. Just have him leave without saying anything.

I like that change - thanks.

Pg 20.

Quoted Text Quoted Text JASON You mean, did I read about my dad? No. Jason should never say those words. We need to LEARN this through his interactions.

Why?

Jason is just calling out Baker on his shit. i.e., you're not really ask me if I read the paper - you're asking me about my Dad.

Quoted Text Pg 21. I notice that if you were to cut the first (and second) line of dialogue, each conversation seems to flow better. Quoted Text JASON I read it. BAKER This is not a good thing. DELETE UNTIL... BAKER (Cont) Californians don't want a governor with a crazy father. We're right in the middle of fund raising. The last thing we need is... JASON It was a one day outburst. Leave it alone. It'll go away. IMO, this flows better and accomplishes the same thing.

Thanks - but I don't agree with that suggestion.

Quoted Text Pg 23-24. Great back and forth dialogue here. You really have the relationship between them down solid. It comes through in the dialogue.

thanks.

Quoted Text Pg 24. Not sure the next place I would have my character after a scene like that is telling fart jokes at a bar. You go from a crucial, serious scene to this. Lowell would still be thinking about the previous scene, IMO. I did like the dialogue, just make it one of the other characters saying it.

I don't agree - he's drunk and has been there awhile (that was the set-up). If he were sober - I would agree with you.

Quoted Text Pg 31-37. One trick I use with long stretches of dialogue is break it up with bits of action. Otherwise I tend to picture the characters stone like delivering their lines. I (and the audience) want to see what Lowell is doing while the others are talking.

Oh - great point - that will help a lot here. Nice tip.

Quoted Text Pg 44-47. You use up 3 pages to get Lowell through an MRI scanner. This should be a half page at most.

I don't agree - the scene is more then about getting an MRI

Quoted Text Pg 54-58. Again, I would interrupt this long stretch of dialogue with bits of action. Again, maybe Lowell is doing something crazy that Jason notices.

Yep - good tip.

Quoted Text Pg 69. When we "learn" that Lowell has a terminal illness, it doesn't have the intended effect. I think it would be better if this information was learned early on (around the time he learns that Jaime is killed). This should be the news that drives Lowell to do what he does.

Again, I wanted the audience to assume that he was dead meat all along. He goes to the Doctor when he is the type of guy who doesn't - he vomits, loses his balance - etc. I could start the story with "you have a tumor. What I was trying to accomplish is that he already knew he was a goner - obviously, that didn't work for you.  

Quoted Text I'll finish this up over the next day or so and get back to you. I hope this didn't sound too harsh. I think you are a great writer with good story telling chops. I also think this story has great potential. It just needs a couple of rewrites. What do I know anyway? I could be completely off target. Joseph

Not too harsh at all. It's perfectly okay that you didn't like it and I greatly appreciate the read and the comments. Some I agree with - some I don't. But all of the comments were good food for thought.

Let me know when you are done your re-write - would be happy to take a look. Much thanks, Joseph.

Quoted Text The stake was supposed to be legacy.  i.e., Lowell realizes that after 40 years of service he hasn't really done anything. He also realizes that he does not have the time to endure the normal bureaucratic process to get something done - hence the shenanigans. The short answer to the question you posed - Why does Lowell need to get the witness protection program overhauled - is so that he can die knowing he accomplished something of importance.

Yeah, but what is at stake if he doesn't accomplish this? There needs to be a PRIMAL reason to succeed (death, incarceration, loss of limb, etc). That is the question. I just watched The Judge (I highly recommend it, BTW) and Robert Duvall's character is VERY similar to Lowell. His character has the same dilemma. He wants to make sure his legacy, his reputation remains intact (he has been a judge for 40 years with an impeccable record) after being accused of murder. The difference is, there is ALOT at stake with his character. I won't give it all away, but if he is found guilty of the crime that he is accused of, he goes to prison for life (ruining his legacy), if he gets off because of his illness then all the cases he presided over in the year prior will be overturned because of mistrial. So much at stake. With Lowell, I didn't feel that. Yeah, I got that he wanted to "do something" before he died but to me it didn't matter whether he did or not. Even in a comedy, there needs to be some urgency. We need to FEEL SOMETHING. Maybe his wife wants him to do it. Maybe she tells him that he must fix it for her. Maybe she's had it with him. She going to leave him after 50 years because of the way he's done business. She loves him but she hates him for what he does, how he does it. She doesn't know he's dying, he doesn't want her to know. He doesn't want her to stay with him for pity's sake. He wants to prove to the only person that has been loyal that he can do the right thing for the only person he loves. This would give you a needed character arc as well. He starts off trying to get this thing fixed to save his marriage (a selfish reason). In the end he does it DESPITE his wife leaving. He does it because it is the right thing. Maybe all this happens and I would know it if I continued reading!

I'm going to re-read the script from start to finish. I want to get another good look at it.

J

Quoted Text First - yes, it definitely is. Sadly, it's true. Like medicine is your background - this is mine. I served the Board for thirty years. Believe it or not, the interactions are actually a little more polite then I portrayed.

Truth is often stranger than fiction. Believe it or not, I have written medical scenes and readers have been critical of the Dr/patient interaction that I've written.

Quoted from medstudent Yeah, but what is at stake if he doesn't accomplish this? There needs to be a PRIMAL reason to succeed (death, incarceration, loss of limb, etc). That is the question. I just watched The Judge (I highly recommend it, BTW) and Robert Duvall's character is VERY similar to Lowell. His character has the same dilemma. He wants to make sure his legacy, his reputation remains intact (he has been a judge for 40 years with an impeccable record) after being accused of murder. The difference is, there is ALOT at stake with his character. I won't give it all away, but if he is found guilty of the crime that he is accused of, he goes to prison for life (ruining his legacy), if he gets off because of his illness then all the cases he presided over in the year prior will be overturned because of mistrial. So much at stake. With Lowell, I didn't feel that. Yeah, I got that he wanted to "do something" before he died but to me it didn't matter whether he did or not. Even in a comedy, there needs to be some urgency. We need to FEEL SOMETHING. Maybe his wife wants him to do it. Maybe she tells him that he must fix it for her. Maybe she's had it with him. She going to leave him after 50 years because of the way he's done business. She loves him but she hates him for what he does, how he does it. She doesn't know he's dying, he doesn't want her to know. He doesn't want her to stay with him for pity's sake. He wants to prove to the only person that has been loyal that he can do the right thing for the only person he loves. This would give you a needed character arc as well. He starts off trying to get this thing fixed to save his marriage (a selfish reason). In the end he does it DESPITE his wife leaving. He does it because it is the right thing. Maybe all this happens and I would know it if I continued reading! I'm going to re-read the script from start to finish. I want to get another good look at it. J

Joseph - no worries, friend - it could just be that this is not your cup of tea. That is really quite alright.

As a note - in my mind's eye - Duvall (The Judge) and Lowell have opposite ambitions - The Judge is trying to protect a legacy he is proud of - Lowell is trying to establish a legacy to make up for a past he is ashamed of. At any rate.....

In terms of raising the stakes - character arcs - etc. I guess I am a bit rebellious.  I think in many instances those things are forced in to meet a prescribed writing format - I am more of the - a good story has to have three things kind of guy - a beginning - a middle - an end. I have read and/or seen too many stories that are ruined by artificially high (forced) stakes, weird reversals, trite theme statements, etc. etc. Probably a good discussion for a separate thread.

Thanks again

Hey Eldave1,

I, too, have recently retired and entered this domain.  In my case, I may not be as qualified to offer credible critique, but I thoroughly enjoyed the entire script.

I found the writing (a few typos and all) to be most professional, above all, entertaining.  I loved the crustiness of the Lowell character and found him to be likeable, believable and sincere.  Although I thought you put your touch on his character, he reminded me of Denny Crane (William Shatner's character in Boston Legal) with a cool "don't give a flying fuck" edge to him.  

I thought the storyline had great balance regarding the son's political career, the relationship with the doctor, and what I thought were perfect timelines with the shenanigans.  Furthermore, I thought your character development with Karen accomplished a strong, respect worthy, believable assistant.  I could feel a real working relationship between them.  Even with the "big tits" concern - hilarious - I didn't think he crossed any lines to become an asshole.  As for the Tess character, she simply struck me as a convincing wife indicative of their generation.  

I truly wish you well deserved success with a great script!

Jim Waterous
Winnipeg, Manitoba  

Quoted from eldave1 In terms of raising the stakes - character arcs - etc. I guess I am a bit rebellious.  I think in many instances those things are forced in to meet a prescribed writing format - I am more of the - a good story has to have three things kind of guy - a beginning - a middle - an end. I have read and/or seen too many stories that are ruined by artificially high (forced) stakes, weird reversals, trite theme statements, etc. etc. Probably a good discussion for a separate thread.

Well said, Dave.  You are on point here, and I agree with you 100%.

Don't listen to the Screenwriting 101 type comments that produce the exact same Screenplay 101 scripts, that are turned into the exact same movies over and over.

A script/movie does not have to have grand character arcs, with flawed characters that somehow, usually completely unrealistically, overcome their flaw.

Just write solid scripts based on solid story ideas that come off as real, beleivable, and hopefully engaging.

Good job, bro.  Love it when peeps stick to their guns, respond "nicely", and realize that, although all feedback is indeed good feedback, all feedback is not feedback that should be taken to heart.

Quoted from JimW Hey Eldave1, I, too, have recently retired and entered this domain.  In my case, I may not be as qualified to offer credible critique, but I thoroughly enjoyed the entire script. I found the writing (a few typos and all) to be most professional, above all, entertaining.  I loved the crustiness of the Lowell character and found him to be likeable, believable and sincere.  Although I thought you put your touch on his character, he reminded me of Denny Crane (William Shatner's character in Boston Legal) with a cool "don't give a flying fuck" edge to him.   I thought the storyline had great balance regarding the son's political career, the relationship with the doctor, and what I thought were perfect timelines with the shenanigans.  Furthermore, I thought your character development with Karen accomplished a strong, respect worthy, believable assistant.  I could feel a real working relationship between them.  Even with the "big tits" concern - hilarious - I didn't think he crossed any lines to become an asshole.  As for the Tess character, she simply struck me as a convincing wife indicative of their generation.   I truly wish you well deserved success with a great script! Jim Waterous Winnipeg, Manitoba

Jim - thanks for the kind words - much appreciated.

Quoted from Dreamscale Well said, Dave.  You are on point here, and I agree with you 100%. Don't listen to the Screenwriting 101 type comments that produce the exact same Screenplay 101 scripts, that are turned into the exact same movies over and over. A script/movie does not have to have grand character arcs, with flawed characters that somehow, usually completely unrealistically, overcome their flaw. Just write solid scripts based on solid story ideas that come off as real, beleivable, and hopefully engaging. Good job, bro.  Love it when peeps stick to their guns, respond "nicely", and realize that, although all feedback is indeed good feedback, all feedback is not feedback that should be taken to heart.

Thanks for the shout out - I know all of Joseph's comments were well intended and he is a very solid writer - I really like his stuff. Some of them I will take into account and make changes with and some not. It has taken me awhile at this to get enough confidence in my own voice to pick and choose.  Cheers

Quoted Text Joseph's comments were well intended

eldve1,
I'm glad you saw this. I meant to only give my opinion.

Quoted Text Don't listen to the Screenwriting 101 type comments

Well, this doesn't sound like advice I'd follow. I think having the basic (ie: screenwriting 101) things in place will allow the reader to focus on more important things (i.e.: story structure, pacing, character development, etc). I would prefer to focus on story and characters when giving feedback than slug lines, grammar, etc (unless it's detrimental to the story). I know some readers obsess over this.

Quoted Text A script/movie does not have to have grand character arcs, with flawed characters

Wow, again, not advice I'd be giving to writers trying to learn the craft. You are correct that these things don't need to happen but if you want to write something that actually gets sold or produced then yes, these things should happen. It makes for good screenwriting and good story telling to have these things. It tells me that the writer has taken his time to carefully place these things in a story, has thought about his/her characters, etc. We can sit all day in our skivvies and write how we want, show the finger to those silly Screenwriting 101 rules. Go ahead. That just means less competition. I'm happy that some writers don't get it. It makes my chances better at selling something.

Again, what do I know. I haven't sold a thing.

Joseph

Hey Joseph - this will be my last comment on this particular issue because I would like this thread to stay focused on the script itself. Like I said, a separate thread on screen writing principles would be of value and interesting to participate in. But, since you were kind enough to work with me on this script I would like to address you last comments.

Quoted Text I'm glad you saw this. I meant to only give my opinion.

Your comments were of value and appreciated. It is difficult to get features reviewed and commented on here and you have now read two of mine - that is invaluable. As you know, I thought some of your comments were dead on and some were not. But I know they were all offered in good faith and look forward to shared reads in the future.

Quoted Text Well, this doesn't sound like advice I'd follow. I think having the basic (ie: screenwriting 101) things in place will allow the reader to focus on more important things (i.e.: story structure, pacing, character development, etc). I would prefer to focus on story and characters when giving feedback than slug lines, grammar, etc (unless it's detrimental to the story). I know some readers obsess over this.

Dreamscale can be terse - that is just his style. Yes, he could have just as easily wrote something to the effect that he disagreed without the screenwriting 101 aside. e.g., something to the effect of you don't always need to raise the stakes...

But he didn't. Again - he is very direct and, in my view, the value to be gained is to ignore how something is said and focus on the germ of the issue.  Long winded way of saying that I think the essence of his point is correct. But that doesn't mean yours was incorrect because this is a subjective craft. Dreamscale is saying don't raise the stakes for the sake of raising the stakes. You're saying the you think that the story could be improved by raising the stakes. These are just two valid views on the same subject.

Quoted Text Wow, again, not advice I'd be giving to writers trying to learn the craft. You are correct that these things don't need to happen but if you want to write something that actually gets sold or produced then yes, these things should happen. It makes for good screenwriting and good story telling to have these things. It tells me that the writer has taken his time to carefully place these things in a story, has thought about his/her characters, etc. We can sit all day in our skivvies and write how we want, show the finger to those silly Screenwriting 101 rules. Go ahead. That just means less competition. I'm happy that some writers don't get it. It makes my chances better at selling something.

You are correct in that many (if not most) successful films contain the elements you referenced. That being said, they are not necessarily required to have a successful script.

For me the epiphany moment was this - I was watching a video of script guru Robe McKee railing against formula driven script writing (I believe that he was assailing Save The Cat). And right after he got done with his diatribe, he says - but - any successful script must have at least three major reversals. WTF!! I thought - the dude just got done saying formulas were nonsense - oh - and here's my formula. That was the point in my writing that I thought - cok it - go with what you think works for you. It is an interesting watch. Here's the link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGpHbIOg6V4

Quoted Text Again, what do I know. I haven't sold a thing.

Nor have I. But you are an excellent write and I do value the feedback you provided even though I don't agree with all of it and I greatly appreciate that you'll slog through a feature when many won't. Don't get derailed by the tone of comments here - I do believe that in most cases they are well intended.

Cheers.

Quoted Text Dreamscale can be terse - that is just his style.

Yeah, I know. We've had similar discussions in the past. It can be off-putting is all.

Quoted Text That was the point in my writing that I thought - cok it - go with what you think works for you.

I agree believe it or not. Who would've though Forrest Gump would have EVER worked structure wise? No clearly defined goal, no huge character arc. I think the most important thing is uniqueness and finding your "style". Most things will fall into place. If the story is good, it will get noticed despite its flaws.

Quoted Text Don't get derailed by the tone of comments here - I do believe that in most cases they are well intended.

Never. I just want to get feedback and read scripts in return. I love this place. It taught me 90% of what I know.

I look forward to future reading trades with you.

Joseph

Quoted from medstudent I agree believe it or not. Who would've though Forrest Gump would have EVER worked structure wise? No clearly defined goal, no huge character arc. I think the most important thing is uniqueness and finding your "style". Most things will fall into place. If the story is good, it will get noticed despite its flaws.

A good story that doesn't follow a predetermined set of rules, isn't flawed, it's genius.

Joseph, I have business in Costa Mesa tomorrow and will actually be hitting Laguna for the afternoon before I fly home. I'll stop by your practice and we can hash this all out.



Kidding about stopping in, of course, but I will be hanging in Laguna tomorrow afternoon.

Everything is a matter of opinion.  Just be sure what you're saying is actually your opinion and not someone elses, who has told you that this needs to be like that, and that needs to be like this.  It's not only OK to step outside the old proverbial box, it's advised.

Welcome to the jungle...

Quoted Text A good story that doesn't follow a predetermined set of rules, isn't flawed, it's genius.

I agree, Forrest Gump is genius.

Quoted Text I'll stop by your practice and we can hash this all out.

Ha! You'll have to come to Florida. Left Laguna some time ago. When you are in Laguna though visit the Montage Hotel. It is breathtaking and open to the public. One of the most amazing views in the world.

Quoted Text Just be sure what you're saying is actually your opinion and not someone elses

My opinion comes from years of experience (and unfortunately age) and knowing what I like and don't like. I would hope that these things are my opinion and not a regurgitation of someone else's.

BTW, Congrats on making in into the quarterfinals for the Page Competition (eldave1 and Dreamscale). No small feat. See, what do I know

Joseph

Thanks much Joseph