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.
Thanks for checking this out. No worries about the delay.
Cheers for the kind words, I’m glad it worked for you. I know it’s not the most original of scripts, it’s pretty generic but I had fun writing it. It was inspired by bingeing the Sopranos over a 3 week period. The Telly and Crispy dynamic is a nod to Tony and Christopher’s relationship in that show.
My one issue/question about the format deals with the scene where Crispy finds out that Marion was cheating on him with Telly. Shouldn't that scene be written with a FLASHBACK in the slug line, since it's a flashback?
You must have missed it but on the bottom of page 16 there is a super (superimposed text) that says “2 Weeks earlier”
When it comes to the narrative, I like the non-linear aspect of the story, beginning with the In Medias Res opening that showed Crispy and Telly dumping the body. That kept me fascinated as to what that was about. another cool thing is that you gave all the major characters their moments, which is impressive given it's twenty page limit. Betrayal seems to be a very strong theme with the script. Telly betraying Pete, Marion betraying Crispy, and Crispy betraying both of them in the end. Once again, it you did a great job on the film. I hope it gets picked up.
Cool, thanks again. Yeah you got it, betrayal, hierarchy, ethics. It’s all in there
I read this again this morning. It's a good read. My only issue with it is that it runs very long. I'm pretty sure the first six pages could be cut without hurting the narrative much. There is some exposition that can be cut here and there.
This is low budget, but I feel that the 20 pages will put a lot of prospective wannabe producers off. It's a pretty simple story that should be able to be told in 10 pages just as well as 90.
That this has sat here for 5 years means it's likely not going anywhere soon in its current form.
You're right. I did kind of overlook that, on page 16. Thanks for pointing that out.
@Dustin, I gotta disagree on the length. I think it's a well told story, and it has so many different plot threads, which is impressive for a 20 page short film. For all of those plot threads to be resolved, you needed a longer script.
My point on the length was that it will put off a lot of potential wannabe producers. The script has sat here for 5 years already. I've sold a few short revenge thrillers in that time. None of them over 10 pages.
My suggestion is to write a 10-page version as they can be shot in a couple of days.
I disagree that the plot points of this story need more than 10 pages. This script isn't exactly bloated but it goes a longer way around than necessary for a short. I don't see any complications here. It's a standard revenge thriller. The same story has been told over and over in revenge thrillers three times as long. If it can be shortened into a 20-page story it can also be told in 10 or 5. Too many charcaters too. I'd consider cutting at least one of them.
Yeah, it's a valid point. This could be reworked and shortened to make a more producible version of the story. This was just the version I wanted to write.
It's one of the reason I haven't written a short in some time now. I struggle with length. I've only got a few pieces that are under 10 pages, the rest range between 15-30 pages. I write them mainly because I enjoy writing them rather than any aspiration to get them made. I focus mostly on features now and still have trouble keeping them below the 120 page mark.
Anyway, thanks again to you both for checking this out.
TELLY We�ve talked about this, fellas, we�ve all seen the signs...we�re a platoon without a lieutenant. Ever since his heart began complaining he�s been a different man. He�s weakened, jaded, he wants to keep things safe and avoid bloodshed no matter what stunts the others try to pull. You remember the length of our straw for that ice haul a few months ago? We picked up the fucking crumbs! Pete wants longevity, to preserve himself...rather than us...
Telly pauses a moment to let his words sink in.
TELLY (CONT�D) We said we�d give him time and we have. I talked to him and got nowhere. The bastard is getting stubborn in his old age and he�s not about to step aside anytime soon. Meanwhile, that prick Philly Wright tests the water, turns the screw and Pete reacts exactly as he hoped! That was no accident and we know it...except the person that matters. We could all be hit next...because if one of the families had someone like Pete calling the shots I would be thinking the same fuckin� thing
This monologue felt a bit too much like spoon-feeding - I pretty much already got all of this from the previous scene (well, not all of it - but the important aspect of a rift in the Telly/Pete relationship) - which could be expanded slightly to show the decaying faith in Pete which would negate this monologue.
If I was watching this, not sure I would enjoy this scene.
Quoted Text
INT. RESTAURANT - NIGHT Posh..
I don't comment much on the technical side of your scripts - You are already a dab hand and some of the stuff that I don't necessarily like/agree with are style choices and I guess that is just the way you like to write (Some people dislike my style choices, but I'm unlikely to change them). Anyhoo... I quoted the above because it seems like a good idea to include extra detail in the slug so you don't have to do it in the description block INT. UPMARKET RESTAURANT - NIGHT - for example
Quoted Text
INT. MOTEL ROOM - LATER Two BODIES writhe under the sheets, heavy breathing passionate...Telly and Marion go at it hard
ouch, now there's a stab in the back
Quoted Text
This bitch is gaggin�, empty reaches
Did you mean retches? - what's an empty reach?
Oooh good work on not showing us the actual shooting - we already know it gets done so you show us the aftermath - well played.
Ok nice, I really like this - A good tale of betrayal and revenge - Bringing Philly back and showing that Crispy had been turned all along was nice and I didn't see it coming
Again though, I would play around with the order of things towards the end. First, we are shown the flashbacks, the plan and Crispy's intention to kill Telly, so when he actually does bump him off, we know it's coming. How about we see the bumping off first, then us (the audience) have that thrilling "holy shit, why did he do that? does he know about him and marion?" I like the V.O. of the conversation while watching the plan - keeps the flow good and the revelations coming thick and fast. I would just play around with the order to maximize impact for the audience - the way it is, it is laid out straight away, and then we see it in action.
Quoted Text
Philly sits passenger, gauges Crispy�s reaction. PHILLY They�ve been at it for awhile, kid. Mostly Thursdays...Where does she tell you she�s going? A couple of Philly�s cronies, familiar from the war ehouse meeting, occupy the BACKSEAT, trade sneers. Crispy crumbles at the increasingly damning evidenc e. PHILLY (CONT�D) That half assed outfit you�ve latched yourself on to is nothing more than a glorified crew. Crispy has seen enough, hands back the phone. PHILLY (CONT�D) And we want you to help us eradicate them. CRISPY What if I don�t? Philly smirks, passes the phone to CRONY #1. PHILLY We�re resourceful...I just thought I�d give you a chance to learn what your �mentor� is really about before I made any rash calls
Personally, I think it's a little much - trust the audience can piece it together without being spoon-fed. If we see it unfold, the showing of the pictures, the revenge killings - we can infer that the two of them made this plan without so much being given to us upfront - am I making sense, I can't tell? I just think it softens the impact of the twist that is to come.
Overall I really enjoyed it - Gangster fare is always fun, and brutal.
I haven't read the other comments, but I can safely assume that two things have cropped up more than once -- Too many characters and too long.
There are a lot of characters and adds to the production costs. You kind of need the gang to show the "taking down" of the crew-- but Crispy doesn't really like them anyway so there's no impact there that he had them killed, personally, I would cut down their screentime. Pam is not needed as far as I can tell. I would remove (or limit) the ancillary characters that don't need to be there - Sexy Girl, the driver and the passenger of the van at the beginning (They don't need talking parts, they are extras, they need to pull over and step aside as their van is nicked)
Is it too long? In my opinion, yes. Rejigging, shortening the scenes that don't really need as much screentime as they get (the Van jacking) will reduce this without removing any of the elements that make it enjoyable.
Once again, good work and an enjoyable tale. This should really be picked up and filmed, maybe if it was shorter it would be more tempting.
This monologue felt a bit too much like spoon-feeding - I pretty much already got all of this from the previous scene (well, not all of it - but the important aspect of a rift in the Telly/Pete relationship) - which could be expanded slightly to show the decaying faith in Pete which would negate this monologue.
If I was watching this, not sure I would enjoy this scene.
Sure this could be omitted or, at the very least, cut down. The reason I allow Telly hold court like this is to emphasize his control over the group. This is his moment to stake his claim, to exert his dominance in a direct, unambiguous manner. Yes, we have already detected Telly’s dissatisfaction with Pete but now he needs to communicate that to the others so they can act on it as one. This is a galvanising speech, akin to something said to the troops before battle, to ensure solidarity. Also, I wanted to exhibit why Telly has the charisma and force of character to assume leadership. However, all that been said, I do agree that it could just as easily be dropped.
Anyhoo... I quoted the above because it seems like a good idea to include extra detail in the slug so you don't have to do it in the description block
INT. UPMARKET RESTAURANT - NIGHT - for example
That’s a good shout. There are definitely instances where it could be put in the slugline. You have probably noticed that I nearly always include an adjective or two at the beginning of a scene and then move on. I don’t dwell on overly descriptive prose unless it’s key to what’s happening.
Ha, good catch. I’ve heard people say “empty reach” to mean the same thing. Even when I Googled it, it doesn’t bring up a definition for that exactly but does direct me toward empty retching/dry heaving. Anyway, I will change it to that to prevent any confusion.
Again though, I would play around with the order of things towards the end. First, we are shown the flashbacks, the plan and Crispy's intention to kill Telly, so when he actually does bump him off, we know it's coming.
Hmm, yeah, see I wanted to keep Crispy shooting Telly until the very end. I figured it would land with more impact then.
How about we see the bumping off first, then us (the audience) have that thrilling "holy shit, why did he do that? does he know about him and marion?"
Yeah, that could work too. I think if we show Telly and Marion together and then show Crispy killing Telly, we will immediately join the dots and he rest carries less import, seems somewhat minor in comparison. However, something like this could definitely be told in a few different ways. I guess it depends on what revelation you think is the most surprising and would be better served been pushed to the back.
I would just play around with the order to maximize impact for the audience - the way it is, it is laid out straight away, and then we see it in action.
Well, the flashback start on the bottom of page 16 and Telly’s infidelity is shown first, the primary motivator for Crispy’s double-cross but we don’t really realize the full repercussion of that until the very end when Crispy pulls the trigger on Telly. Yes, we see Telly’s outfit get ambushed first but that’s only part of the overall revenge.
Personally, I think it's a little much - trust the audience can piece it together without being spoon-fed. If we see it unfold, the showing of the pictures, the revenge killings - we can infer that the two of them made this plan without so much being given to us upfront - am I making sense, I can't tell? I just think it softens the impact of the twist that is to come.
Sorry, just to clarify, are you talking about the order of the flashback scenes or the V.O. been spoken over it?
I haven't read the other comments, but I can safely assume that two things have cropped up more than once -- Too many characters and too long. There are a lot of characters and adds to the production costs. You kind of need the gang to show the "taking down" of the crew-- but Crispy doesn't really like them anyway so there's no impact there that he had them killed, personally, I would cut down their screentime.
Pam is not needed as far as I can tell.
Yeah, some have said this and I agree in terms of production suitability but I do defend their importance to the script as a piece of storytelling. They add an extra impetus for Crispy to betray the outfit and also add some humour and colour to proceedings. They make Telly’s crew feel genuine, not just a group of Faceless Henchman #1/#2/#3 in the background. Pam is there to fill out the double date scenario at the restaurant. She’s a subtle indicator of how much Telly thinks of Crispy, that considers him his peer. Two couples going for dinner like that suggest a certain level of equal standing and mutual regard. Of course, one could argue that Marion might also be a big reason for Telly’s selection of dinner company.
I would remove (or limit) the ancillary characters that don't need to be there - Sexy Girl, the driver and the passenger of the van at the beginning (They don't need talking parts, they are extras, they need to pull over and step aside as their van is nicked)
It would’ve felt a little odd on the page if it were wordless but it could definitely be done that way.
I guess my reluctance in shortening it would be that if someone really had an interest in it, I think they would anyway in its current form, regardless of the cuts you suggested. Seeing where it could be trimmed would come later in the process and I would be totally open to that discussion. However, would those parts you deemed extraneous make or break someone choosing to produce it in the first place or look to at least develop it? I don’t think so...but I could be wrong of course and simply too attached to it as it is now.
Thanks as always for taking the time, man. I really appreciate it.
Technically none of my beeswax (I haven't read the entirety and don't want to appear rude, Col) but I read the context of the 'empty reaches' and the term you're looking for is 'dry retch' or retching, or dry heave. Gagging is the same thing e.g. the gag reflex, so you're kinda doubling up there.
It's dialogue so you could take advantage of the character saying 'dry reaching' (cause plenty of people mispronounce it that way) and have one of the other characters be a smart arse and correct his usage - which in the process wouldn't go down well. Inadvertent pun of my own there. Just a thought...
Technically none of my beeswax (I haven't read the entirety and don't want to appear rude, Col) but I read the context of the 'empty reaches' and the term you're looking for is 'dry retch' or retching, or dry heave. Gagging is the same thing e.g. the gag reflex, so you're kinda doubling up there.
Yeah, upon closer research, you are right. It's just one of those terms that has been distorted over the years, or maybe it's just me who got into the habit of saying "empty retches/reaches". "Dry heaving" is appropriate too but I associate "heaving" with someone who is short of breath rather than trying to keep vomit down.
It's dialogue so you could take advantage of the character saying 'dry reaching' (cause plenty of people mispronounce it that way) and have one of the other characters be a smart arse and correct his usage - which in the process wouldn't go down well. Inadvertent pun of my own there. Just a thought...
That's a good suggestion. It could also be just a quirk of the character that goes unaddressed too. It reminds me of Fargo (the film) when Peter Stormare's Gaear Grimsrud says the line "Pancakes house". Apparently, he said "Pancake House" on the first take but the Coens told him to say it as written even though it was incorrect. I don't think English (or any language for that matter) was that character's mother tongue so it made more sense.
We apparently all use way too many of them these days - a habit and side effect of so much text-speak.
Haha, that's hilarious. It depends on the character and the context I would say. In this situation there is a joke being told and that character is definitely someone who thinks he's funnier and smarter than he actually is.
Good article though, I can certainly be guilty of them during texting, though I try to limit them to one at a time. It would have to be something exceptional to warrant consecutive exclamations!!!
Sorry, just to clarify, are you talking about the order of the flashback scenes or the V.O. been spoken over it?
I haven't slept much recently so bear with me lol
I was initially referring to the conversation between Philly and Crispy in his car after showing him the photos. Although reading it again it's not as long a conversation as I remember. My original thought was that Philly (an already known adversary to Tilly) showing Crispy the photos without the explaining of the plan would have been enough to push the story along. But it's fine the way it is, I'm mostly talking nonsense lol
I was initially referring to the conversation between Philly and Crispy in his car after showing him the photos. Although reading it again it's not as long a conversation as I remember. My original thought was that Philly (an already known adversary to Tilly) showing Crispy the photos without the explaining of the plan would have been enough to push the story along. But it's fine the way it is, I'm mostly talking nonsense lol
Nah, it's a fair comment. It could be done without dialogue and just rely on the visuals and established character dynamics.