Pray for me St. Jude by Joshua A.B. Hinke (joshywa) - Comedy - A lost soul and a quirky girl meet by chance and begin an affair that will lead them to finally do something. 120 pages - pdf, format

This is my first stab at a romantic "comedy"  I was told it was more of a dramedy, but I just want people to see if they A. Like it.  And B. Think it's funny. Thanks.

Your being from Duluth prompted me to read this. I was hoping there'd be some local flavor and I wasn't disappointed -- the Twins, Vikings, U of M, etc.

As for the story, it's described as a "comedy." Yet, there was little to laugh at. That said, imo, this is drama.

S P O I L E R S

Pray for Me St. Jude -- Patron Saint of lost causes -- is an apt title for this realistic look at a young man, Tristan, who is, on the surface, a kinda lost cause. Like many of us, he hasn't a clue as to what he wants to do or be.

He, although intelligent, skips college in favor of a kind of aimless existence. One that, although a struggle, serves to present challenges that, eventually, see him figuring things out.

Along the way, we meet several interesting individuals. The first one is Michelle, Tristan's girlfriend. Her father died in a war that she protested against.

Next is Aaron, a kind of contemptible bastard, a womanizer who offers advice. The kind of advice that only someone, such as himself, could -- the don't do as I do, kind.

Then there is Natalie. The "other" woman.

All of the necessary ingredients are there, and yet, this story, for a number of reasons, fails to satisfy.

First, Michelle, whose character is ripe with potential, quickly disappears, not to be seen again until late into the script.

Second, the story, in the first act, is broken into two, with a kind of A line and B line that don't converge until page thirty -- up until page thirty, it's as if two separate stories are being told.

Third, and this is what most botherd me about the story -- Tristan's interest in Natalie is never fully explained. Why, for example, is he attracted to her? What is it about her that he so likes? As a reader, I haven't a clue.

It seems there are many elements that could be expolited that weren't.

-- Michelle lost her dad to a war that she protested against. With one exception, a single line of dialogue -- late in the script -- this gem is ignored.

-- Natalie also lost her father.  She tells this to Tristan, yet there isn't a connect between the two girls. By that, I mean, knowing this, should evoke a sense of tension in Tristan. It should remind him of his girlfriend.  Another gem ignored.

Seth, Tristan's younger brother, is interesting in that he's chosen a different path. One that presents a kind of dichotomy between the two -- yet there are similarities. Which make the two, when together, interesting.

Virginia, Natalie's mother, too, is interesting, albeit in a disturbing way. She's far too interested in her daughter's sex life. On page 28, responding to a comment made by Virginia, Natalie says, "I just threw up a little." So did I! Still, such people do exist, so I bought into the character. Later, though, after having complained that Natalie hasn't yet had sex, she gets upset thinking that she has. This seemed out of character.

As for the writing itself, you use the word "we," alot. "We see, " etc. This is frowned upon. I, personally, don't mind it. But, apparently, this is a big no-no. Really, there's no reason to use it. If you write something in a screenplay, then it is, by definition, either seen or heard. Habits are hard to break, though, I know.

Your punctuation is hit and miss. Sometimes it's spot-on and other times it's confused. I suspect you know how to properly punctuate a sentence, but like me, and just about  everyone else, you get caught up in the story, neglecting the details. Still, such details are important -- I had to read a few of your sentences twice to decipher exactly what was being conveyed.

Some sentences are just plain awkward. For example, on page 36, you write:  "The party is raging in the house and has spilled smokers onto the porch."  

Anyway, I don't know what draft of this script you're on, but there is, I think, a hell of a story in there -- somewhere. Keep working on it, refining it.

If you work up another draft, and I hope you do, let me know.

Oh, and BTW, on page 54 you write: "Don't worry, it's the Vikings. We always find a way to suck ass." lol, I always say, "The Vikings never fail to disappoint me!

Seth

Thanks for the input.  believe it or not, this is actually like the second draft...maybe.  I agree there really is a story to it and I think it just gets jumbled around.  Part of it is the fact that this script was really born of two different stories, Natalie's and Tristan's, were each seperate screenplays that I mereged into one.  Kind of cheating?  A little hacky?  I know.  But I couldn't help myself.  I definetly plan to revisit this and do some cutting, reworking, rewriting in general.  Thanks for the input.

Proof read your script carefully.  For example, “A tear wells up in her eyes and dribbles down her cheek.”  The grammar isn’t correct.  I know I’m the last person to comment on grammar, but that’s one of my problems grammar and spelling.  I think you might mean, “A tear wells up in her eye and dribbles down her cheek.”  Or just “A tear dribbles down her cheek.”  It can be implied the tear is going to well up before it dribbles down her cheek.  

Parentheticals should be used only in the cases where a line of dialog should be read in some way contrary to logic.   Use the action for character movement.  On page 96, for example, the pointing should be in the action not the parentheticals.

Instead of writing (A beat) you just write (beat) or (…).

Yeah, I realize there's typos.  It's something that happens with every scripts I write.  However, typos are the least of my concerns right now.  I'm way more worried about content and story.  Any comments on that?

Seemed polished enough and there were some clever touches, I just got a little impatient waiting for things to kick off.

ricland

Thanks for reading the script.  Care to elaborate on what you liked?  I can see why you thought it took a whil to take off.  I have that problem.  Anyways thanks for the read and comment.  Just curious and what was clever and what (besides the long intro) wasn't.  Rock on!

Quoted from joshywa Thanks for reading the script.  Care to elaborate on what you liked?  I can see why you thought it took a whil to take off.  I have that problem.  Anyways thanks for the read and comment.  Just curious and what was clever and what (besides the long intro) wasn't.  Rock on!

Blackwrite's comments were vague. So much so that one might suspect that he didn't actually read your script.

I, of course, could be wrong. Maybe he'll return with an indepth analysis. Maybe.

We'll see. In the mean time, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Seth