Numbers Numb by Glenn Bresciani (tonkatough) - Short - A woman who can't see numbers is shortchanged by an arsehole. - pdf, format

When I read the logline, I was quite confused because of the whole "can't see numbers" bit. But I read it, and I liked it. Really funny.


SPOILERS


When Olwen asked for the twenty-five bucks, I immediately knew that he was going to trick her and give her less than what he owed her. That's when I was like, "Man, he really is an asshole." Then he started going through the little tests to see if she really was blind, which I kind of thought made the story lag a bit, but I guess it worked to show us that she really could not see numbers.


The beginning was funny, too, with having this plump lady just standing on your lawn waiting for you to look through the window. Kind of creepy, actually...

But very funny, and I think this would also be a good, easy short to film if you're interested in that stuff, also.

Sean

Hi Glenn,

This is a pretty humorous short you have here.

I liked the girl turning up at the wrong house and the guy Roy playing his game.

The only thing I would alter is Roy's last dialogue as I don't believe anyone would admit to being an idiot.  Then again, it's obviously a quirky short so keep it if you so wish.

It might also be funny if Roy pretends not to be wearing his glasses, then asks Olwen to look at his watch and read him the time?

All the best,


Javier

I really loved the concept of not being able to see numbers.  Is that real or did you make that up?

I thought the script was amusing and strangely somehow believable.  I think the ending could be a bit better though, kind of anti-climatic. Not really any suggestions off the top of my head on how to change it but I will let you know if I think of anything.

Cheers.

I thought I'd give this a read since it was short and I'm  cooking.

Liked the idea and the writing was fine.

I could however see where this was heading already on page 2. You sort of fixed that by having Olwen saying she can see dead president's faces.

It did peter out a bit towards the end, but it still worked out better than I thought for a while was going to happen.

You state he wears a woman's pink dressing gown, but adds a t-shirt too? I had a hard time picturing this.

Your descriptions are very good. Especially people descriptions.

Good work Glenn. Tweak the ending and it will be very good.  

Hey.

I saw this coming too. The whole short change thing.

Also, you need a punchline. The dead president line was good, but you need something to finish it off. Something to do with the contents of the parcel?

Maybe something like....

**RUDENESS AHEAD**

(Olwen would give Roy the parcel)

Olwen: Arsehole.

Olwen starts to walk off but stops at the letterbox.

Olwen: Oh, and by the way, do you know what's in the parcel?

Roy: No, what?

Olwen: A dildo. Either your wife is replacing you because you are rubbish in bed, or you have turned slightly gay. Have a good day sir.

Olwen walks off down the street to her van. Roy stands stunned at the doorway staring at the parcel in his hands.

Roy: CHERYL!!!!

Cut.

Hmm? Yes? No? Tom you are an idiot?

Pia... what's cookin' good lookin'?

Glenn, first some technical stuff, then I will get to the artistic merit of this short.

1) When you change persepctives from one character to another, it is commonplace to say Angle on the subject instead of starting a new slug line, for example.


ANGLE ON OLWEN: squinting at the window.

2) It might be a cultueral difference, but for some reason I didn't understand the point of your short. At the end of the day if you are going to attempt to pon this off to a producer, he is going to ask you whats your selling point? I don't think you have any?

3) Who is your target audience?

4) If you plan to self produce this short, what exactly are your expectations?

You see, if you will spend a month filming any short, there has got to be reason for it. Making a short for the sake of writing is a waste of your time and the readers time. And in the end it's not going to make you a better writer but an author of many mediocre work.

Focus and give a crap what your work means to the audience.

Happy writing.

Eric, glad to see you participating here.  

I just wanted to comment on your comment.

IMHO and I mean that. I'm nobody... however, I totally disagree that anyone needs to write ANGLE ON. By separating lines of action you automatically suggests different shots.

A person enters a room.

A gun is on the bed.

The person hurries to the bed.

The person's hand snatches the gun.

Those four lines indicates four different shots. No need to write ANGLE ON.

I could be wrong of course...   Just write it simple, easy to read, easy to understand. The rest is just details.  

Glenn

Funny little five pager. More of a sketch then anything. Not much to add, the writing was concise and direct and characters were funny and varied.

I like to see some more substantial work from you tho, in terms of scope. I've only read 5 pagers from you and a couple of 10 pagers.

Do you have anything around the 15 or 20 mark, a more developed story rather then just a situation and punchline. I'd love to take a look at them.

Cheers

Col.

Hey Glenn,

What is it with you and people with weird ailments? Phobia 39, Schizo Express and now Number Numbness - some funny shit (actually, I think you should name the disability, you know, use some fake Latin title like "Numero Difficile").

All in all a quick easy read with a valid punchline. I actually thought Roy was gonna get away with being such a prick but the dead presidents-line was a really good way of putting Roy in his place. I didn't get why you needed to put Roy in a dressing gown though.

And Pia, you're absolutely right about the ANGLE ON thing. Any writer can use the ANGLE ON approach but a good writer doesn't have to.

Quoted from sniper Hey Glenn, What is it with you and people with weird ailments? Phobia 39, Schizo Express and now Number Numbness - some funny shit (actually, I think you should name the disability, you know, use some fake Latin title like "Numero Difficile"). All in all a quick easy read with a valid punchline. I actually thought Roy was gonna get away with being such a prick but the dead presidents-line was a really good way of putting Roy in his place. I didn't get why you needed to put Roy in a dressing gown though. And Pia, you're absolutely right about the ANGLE ON thing. Any writer can use the ANGLE ON approach but a good writer doesn't have to.

Sniper a good writer can write a good story regardless of how it is written. ANGLE ON is an industry term for change of perspectives. Inserting a new slug line when the scene obviously hasn't change locations is redundant. If that makes one a bad writer than so be it.

Quoted from eric11 ANGLE ON is an industry term for change of perspectives.

I know this but there's no reason to use it. The scene Pia just described is a perfect example on how to use the ANGLE shots without stating it.

Quoted from Grandma Bear Eric, glad to see you participating here.   I just wanted to comment on your comment. IMHO and I mean that. I'm nobody... however, I totally disagree that anyone needs to write ANGLE ON. By separating lines of action you automatically suggests different shots. A person enters a room. A gun is on the bed. The person hurries to the bed. The person's hand snatches the gun. Those four lines indicates four different shots. No need to write ANGLE ON. I could be wrong of course...   Just write it simple, easy to read, easy to understand. The rest is just details.

Hey Me, I returned only to wage my terror on everyone then leave again! Lol. Actually I am writing two screenplays, and taken a little break before going at it again. What are you working on?

Now inregards to your points.

Using ANGLE ON is a bit of an art, because you pointed out, sometimes one can just leave out and subsitute it with flowing action. In reality there is no convention on this subject, just common sense.

If I were the director of this short, I would wonder why the writer used mast slug lines for a simple change of perspectives.

Changing master slug lines, means there is a change of location or a change of time. That is the only time one should use master slug lines

Using mini slug lines is fine two. However the way this short reads, the camera wasn't moving with the action, it was simply changing directions.

That is why I would have used ANGLE ON instead of a master slug line.

My two cents.

Quoted from sniper I know this but there's no reason to use it. The scene Pia just described is a perfect example on how to use the ANGLE shots without stating it.

It is sniper, but as I pointed out to ME, that if the camera isn't following the action, which it isn't in this case. Using ANGLE ON seems the most appropriate thing to do.

What Me was describing is a camera following a montage of actions where the DP would have to relight his set thus the action implies a new shot (however not necessarily so, because in the movie Cloverfield, scenes where often handled using one long shot keep the audience following the action is if it were happening live, thus you need to be careful to make that assumption).

ANGLE ON tells the DP to pivot the camera not to change it's location per say, but again there is always acceptions to this.

Quoted from eric11 ANGLE ON tells the DP to pivot the camera not to change it's location per say, but again there is always acceptions to this.

Are we talking about spec or shooting scripts now? Obviously, in a shooting script you would find all those ANGLE ONs, POVs and what not but in a spec script the writer shouldn't be directing the DP imo, he should be directing the reader.

It's not just Sniper's opinion, either.  Everything I've ever read says to avoid using camera directions in spec scripts.

Quoted from sniper Are we talking about spec or shooting scripts now? Obviously, in a shooting script you would find all those ANGLE ONs, POVs and what not but in a spec script the writer shouldn't be directing the DP imo, he should be directing the reader.

I see what you are getting at. It is a writers preference I guess. For me, ANGLE ON, isn't just about telling the DP what to do, it's about guiding the reader through your vision.

Some people, think readers are like these underpaid amatures who lack the patience or the knowledge of a finely tuned script. That is the contrary to reality. Readers are paid to read what ever you throw at them. Such things like ANGLE on or POV, are not a destraction for them unless it is executed improperly.

Either way, to ANGLE ON or to write flowing action is a writers choice. Remember even a spec is a blue print for a movie.

What's up tonka,

Very good, funny short. I enjoyed the first shot, Olwen standing out in front of the wrong house. I imagined Tony running out a bit cartoony, I would've kept him in his house. The whole exchange between Roy and Olwen was great, I would possibly cut the test down by one number. The punchline made me laugh out loud, even though I saw it coming. I imagined Olwen saying "You're an idiot" and the next shot of Roy, in his ridiculous outfit saying "Yes, I am." I think adding more to the end would be nice, but not necessary.

Oh that bloody Eric!

I got home from work, checked SS and was excited that my new short had 17 replies and over 200 hits in just 2 days. But as I read the replies I was dissapointed to learn the replies where mostly just Eric stiring up trouble as always.

Eric I find the whole ANGLE ON thing very interesting. Checked my script format Bible and does not mention it at all and I've never heard of it. So ANGLE ON must be Director's direction and taught in film school to film directors?

Change perspective is POV or INSERT is another thing you can use. So says my script format Bible.

You've raised an interesting and valid point but i don't full understand.

Okay in my script you got actor on the lawn, camera set up in front of her, then you need camera to take shot of window on the house. See person inside house look out window. What If you have to physically pick up the camera and move it across the lawn and set it up in front of window, isn't that a whole new location, even thou you have probably moved the camera only 5 metres across the lawn.

Beside who said the shot of window was from the actors view point? The script says she is just looking at the house not specifically the window.

Aahhg! This is so confusing. I thought that was the whole point of the spec script to give a filmaker the bare bones so they can come along and work his/her desired camera angles into the script.  How is a director suppose to write in camera angles into my script if I have already cluttered the script with angles?  
    

Quoted from tonkatough Aahhg! This is so confusing. I thought that was the whole point of the spec script to give a filmaker the bare bones so they can come along and work his/her desired camera angles into the script.

Well, that's my impression of how it works, too.  Sure, we can write something in such a way as to suggest certain shots, but the decision is going to be entirely up to the director.  Which is way using explicit camera direction is supposed to be a no-no.  Same with overuse of wrylies.

As for your script, I agree with the others that the ending needs a bit of work.  I like the concept, and I think the joke is good.  The timing just needs to be worked out better.  Or add a little something else, as Tommy suggested.

Also, Tony's reaction to Olwen seemed a bit out of place to me.  First, that he would run at her and second that he would say something so aggressive.  She is a high school girl after all, and I'd imagine that she clearly looks lost.

Finally, I was curious about the location.  "Dead presidents" suggests to me that they're in America, but "arsehole" is not American English.

Eric11, I sincerely love reading your comments. Truly.

Anyway, by the end, I did ask myself, "What was the point?"

There's a concept but no punchline at the end of the short. No closure to reward the audience with. It's one of those endings that an audience has no reaction to whatsoever and they shrug the film off as if they never watched it at all.

I saw the potential for the lead character Olwen to be endearing but it never got there.

I'd say do some drafts and find the ending. Round out the characters a bit and you'll have a nice little short.

Best,

G

Hey Glenn. A nice little short. Pretty solid writing and a pretty funny piece.

Quoted from Number Numb ROY Yes I am.

Absolute best line of the script. I laughed.

It all made sense and was contained nicely, not much else to say.

James

Quoted from tonkatough Oh that bloody Eric! I got home from work, checked SS and was excited that my new short had 17 replies and over 200 hits in just 2 days. But as I read the replies I was dissapointed to learn the replies where mostly just Eric stiring up trouble as always. Eric I find the whole ANGLE ON thing very interesting. Checked my script format Bible and does not mention it at all and I've never heard of it. So ANGLE ON must be Director's direction and taught in film school to film directors? Change perspective is POV or INSERT is another thing you can use. So says my script format Bible. You've raised an interesting and valid point but i don't full understand. Okay in my script you got actor on the lawn, camera set up in front of her, then you need camera to take shot of window on the house. See person inside house look out window. What If you have to physically pick up the camera and move it across the lawn and set it up in front of window, isn't that a whole new location, even thou you have probably moved the camera only 5 metres across the lawn. Beside who said the shot of window was from the actors view point? The script says she is just looking at the house not specifically the window. Aahhg! This is so confusing. I thought that was the whole point of the spec script to give a filmaker the bare bones so they can come along and work his/her desired camera angles into the script.  How is a director suppose to write in camera angles into my script if I have already cluttered the script with angles?

Hey tonkatough, I can be a bit of a pain in the ars but I don't attend to sound like a jerk, because I am a nice person in real life. Anyways in regards to your question.

ANGLE ON is an industry term for point the audience in this direction, but it isn't taught so much in screenwriting because only the Pros use it as fancy laungage to describe a change of angle. If you read Lord of the Rings, and some of the newer screenplays, you will see ANGLE ON used extensively by the writer.

To ANGLE ON or not ANGLE ON is a writers choice. Some writers choose to write action without inserting a camera direction. That's okay too, but as a director, I personally like it when a writer inserts Angle directions.

POV is different, it means we are looking through the eyes of the subject isntead of looking at the subject.

I know I said before that ANGLE ON means to pivot the camera but I was being a little inconsistent with the actual meaning. It doesn't really matter where the camera is on the lawn, provided that the audience can see the subject in the next shot.

In your scene, the set is outside thus we don't need to worry about relighting the subject unless we are using a sun deflector or white board. Another words you don't need a new master slug line to suggest a new shot/angle.

Okay last point, a spec is a propsed screenplay for the Studios. Some writers call all screenplays specs. That's false, films that are self produced or produced by an independent producer are not specs but screenplays. A shooting screenplay is a screenplay with scene numbers on the right and left side of the master slug line. i.e.

1   INT. CHESTERS CAR - DAY -     1
  
Also, keep in mind the primary reason specs do not contain camera jargon is inorder to sell the script to actors. The "spec" is essentially the actors screenplay.




  

Eric.

Normally your comments make my blood boil but in considering the slug lines in my script you pointed out, you are right. Maybe I should have written EXT. Tony's house- day then wrote in action Olwen on lawn and Tony at window. That does make sense.  

thanks for the explanation on "Angle on." I was honestly not aware of it but now I am.

And in regards to the ending, I have been here on SS long enough to know that when mulitple writers collectively point a fault in your script , the smart thing to do is fix that fault.

I have posted a second draft but don't when it will appear,  

I thought is was a cute little story and made a bit of a statement about how people may try and take advantage of someone if they could.  I picture Walter Matthau as Roy, and I love the image of him in a t-shirt and his wife's duster eating chips.  Hilarious.  I know how I'd tweak the ending, so I can't wait to see how you've changed it!

It's an interesting idea, this concept of a person who can't see numbers.  Whether it's real or not, it makes for an interesting story subject.  The script was funny, as the a-hole gets exposed for what he is.

But after I finished reading this, I kept thinking that you could have done a lot more with the concept.  I was reminded of Memento, where the main character has the flaw of short term memory loss, and the writer was able to make a full-length screenplay out of it. Olwen didn't seem like a very intriguing character to me.  This script was just one scene out of her daily life, but if she has a problem as complex as not being able to see numbers, I'd like to know more about how she contends with it.  What methods does she use for dealing with this problem?  If she doesn't see numbers, what does she see in their place?

This is a good short, but I think you can dig deeper into the concept.

Cam

  

Hey Glenn, sorry it's taken me so long to give you a return read, especially considering how easy and short this was.

Just very quickly - by 'not seeing numbers', do you mean she can't understand them? As in she's number-illiterate? Or can she physically not see them, so to her Roy's notepad would be blank? Not that I suppose it matters...

I too could see the ending coming from a mile away. But then you completely surprised me with the 'dead presidents' line, which actually made me laugh out loud. I completely didn't expect that! Nice work there. But surely Olwen should just let him get the correct money, rather than taking the parcel? That bit I didn't get. After all, her boss isn't going to be happy if she returns with nothing!

I kind of agree with Cam that seeing more of how Owlen deals with her very unusual diability (how can she tell what time it is, how does she have a job?) could be interesting, but that would be a whole different script. This works really well as a short little sketch with a funny punchline. Good job!

Jon

An original little tale.

Would team up well with the "haircut" script on here as part of unusual spooky comedy series.
The ending was very predictable, if this could be cloaked a little better then it would be a lot better.
Love the idea of such an unusal disease, the presidents line cracked me up, good work

Thank you everyone for the read. I am amazed at the responses how everyone is so intrigued by the idea of this script that they want more about Olwen's disability. And here I intended it as just a throw away gag not even aware of how much I could have mined out of this idea. Damn!

I have actually tweaked the ending to this script and uploaded it to Don but it is still not available on SS yet. Hopefully one day.  

Glenn,

After reading previous posts, I wish I had something new to write, but I fear my post will just be an echo of all those who have come before me.

Like others have said, I think it's a really neat idea; having your main character me someone who has trouble with numbers.

You crafted an interesting story with an interesting set-up that in the end felt kind of anti-climatic.  As most have pointed out, it was pretty easy to see where it was going.

I guess my suggestion would be to increase the page count a bit and work on the ending.  I think you've got a good ability at exploring people with unique tendencies and I'd love to see another draft of this script.  That is, if you're even humoring taking this script any further.

(NOTE: My review came before I saw your final post about the new draft.  Looking forward to it.     )

Hey Glenn,

You and your damn phobias/quirks.

For what it is, I thought it worked out pretty well.  I see you've written a new ending, so I'd be curious to see what it is.  I won't go on about what you have here because it's alright, but it could be a little leaner and end at just the right moment.

Not to sure how I feel about the pink robe thing.  It's a decent sight gag, but there are probably better ways you could go with this.  Slovenly, effeminate (more than just a ink robe) etc.  Actually the effeminate angle would be pretty funny, I think.  Some pretentious bastard that thinks he's smarter than everyone else gets his comeuppance.  Oh well, another time, another script.

Not bad, but I do have one question.  Are your scripts set to A9 format?  Your sluglines seem spaced out more than what I'm used to.

Thanks for the read Shelton.

Funny you should mention the pink robe cause I was reading one of your scripts which described the same thing as a "free swinging bath robe" and I thought Holy shit! That's so amazing why didn't I think of that. Excellent use of words to paint a clear visual.

I had to look up efferminate in the dictonary. I didn't know what you where talking about.

As for format I use Final Draft so unless the program is doing something I don't know.

Oh and just let everyone know that Don has posted the 2nd draft for this script and Mike is the first one to read it.  

I like the new touch to the ending.  Olwen's indignation at the belittlement is much more pronounced.  I like the 'you're number one!' game.  Great reaction!

Hey Glenn,

Olwen can sure take punches. I liked it.

I'm questioning the ending. I think the embarrassment should be extended a bit in terms of Olwen asking for the exact amount. Roy not having it, Olwen can then take the package away and etc. Just a thought.

Gabe

Tonka,

Just finished reading this one. It was enjoyable - read very easily, and made me smile.

It's essentially a skit, though. This is the problem with shorts, I think - they leave us empty in terms of resonance.

However, this is a decent showcase of what you can do - the concept is intriguing, but I agree that this concept can go further.

Good job.

Andrew

Hi Tonk

long time I haven't read one of yours. Was funny but too much predictable (I know I'm not the one to say so). "Dead Presidents" reminds me some old Terence Hill/Bud Spencer funny lines meeting Sixth Sense.

Anyway I don't think the "finger" was useful at the end. That's too much.

In the other hand, it was well written and funny. What else?

Michel

BTW, one of your sluglines contains NUMER instead of NUMBER

Hey Michel. Welcome back to SS. You have been missing in action for quite a while.

Thanks Tonk. I missed you all too.