Deader by Garu D. Rademan - Short, Offbeat Thriller - James survives being buried alive, but Digger and Father Mack are sure that's not right. (5 pgs PDF format) - pdf, format

Hey guys , I'd appreciate  a read on this one. It's my first one after the April OWC.

Gary

Hi grademan. Very well written, but I'm not quite sure I understand the story.

What is the significance of the priest's ring and the flashback?

Hey Gary,
You set a nice creepy tone with this. The thing that bugged me was the repeated use of "deader" in the dialogue. At first it came across as kinda cool, but by the end it was too overused and a bit exhausting.

Noticed a quick mistake that can easily be fixed, the "snake bit" dialogue on pg 2 should be "...bite." Overall I think the story could be better suited with more visuals, your opening scene starts off really strong and would benefit from more of a set up. Thought the story and characters were cool, would be interested in reading a more fleshed out, slower paced version.
Nate

Hey Grademan

I liked this short, the whole "deader" thing didn't really bother me, but the story itself seemed kind of pointless, why have they killed James, why not let him go to his loved ones, are they murderers? do they have some sick a twisted reason for burying James? does his burial have some sort of significance to the cemetary?

For some reason I'd like to see something go wrong for digger and father mack at the ending, have them being the ones getting put underground.


Good story





Andrew,

Someone's been watching too much Cemetery man, me thinks.

Anyways, your dialogue is highly annoying at times. It's, overall, a well written piece. Flows nice, but our dialogue is stiff and awkward. The story is highly familiar and it just doesn't have very long legs to stand on.

Between all the "fools" & "deaders" you really don't have a lot of dialogue here. Not to mention a story. It reads like a limerick at times or something along those lines. In the end... I dunno, these short shorts around here are almost becoming not worth my time. I'd rather read really good feature length screenplays with substance.

What happened in the flashback ?

I'm not quite sure about that one. It sure has an atmosphere, but had, IMO, no explanation.

Is James (Marsters?) dead or not? Do they kill him to cover their "mistake" of burying him alive? It's not clear. There's a flame of explanation when the priest says to James he feels uncomfortable in church, but it's not enough.

I'm not sure of the flashback either. It's too cruel to be seen on screen. Don't forget you write a screenplay

Michel

You have an intriguing premise, but it is only partially realized.

I do like that we are never certain if James is really dead or not. You drop some hints that perhaps he should not be alive at all -- and that this is somehow a frequent occurrence in this particular graveyard -- as Father Mack and Digger share an unspoken understanding of what needs to be done.

The flashback, however, is problematic in that it fails to move the story forward.

That is -- the rabbits do not equate to a reanimated corpse -- and if you remove the flashback and follow the story through to its conclusion -- our understanding of this story has in no way been enhanced.
  
Look at your script with the flashback and without it -- either way, I get exactly the same thing from this story.  I hope that makes sense.
  
As I said, the premise -- your set-up and your three characters -- are all sound.  If you were to play a bit more with the ambiguity you have created for James, I think the story would benefit.

I also think that if you could devise a flashback that expands on the unusual relationship between Father Mack and Digger -- giving us new information as opposed to repeating the same sequence of events only moments later -- the story would be stronger.  I would read a rewrite if you do one.

Gary,

This was an interesting pitch for a longer story, I guess.

What you've presented is decent, but there appears more going on than you have on the page.

Unfortunately, we are left wondering what the situation with James is, and this is not a good thing - are we dealing with a maniacal Father and village idiot who are murdering/taking out the trash? Or are we dealing with an entity that is something zombie-like that requires putting down? The flashback suggests we're dealing with the former, but we don't have sufficient evidence either way, and I don't think ambiguity is the way forward here.

Largely it was well-written, however.

Andrew

Hi guys!

Thanks for the reads.  

I see many of you just thought WTF? We are not clear on your characters, the flashback, or the ending.  Sometimes I am just so subtle, I never connect.   And doing this in 4 pages of script was a mistake.

To answer:  

James purpose was to be unclear if he was undead or alive but he is killed anyway.

The flashback was to give a reason for Digger to show his weirdness by playing rabbit  sticks which he uses to kill James and also to hint (the ring) at a relationship between Digger and Father Mack.

And yes, the ending was meant to be ambiguous. James is dead and Father Mack and Digger did it for unclear reasons. (Obviusly, I lost points here because of this)

The review by Bert was spot on regarding my intentions on this one.

I will consider all your points as I rewrite this one.

Gary

Weird tale Gary. I suppose I liked it more than I didn't like it.

Some of James dialogue seemed a little to modern. And what the hell were the Rabbit Sticks? Why not just grab a knife? You need to build on that flash back. Also, does James die in the end? The description is "James stands up confused falling over his chair as he collapses." This description read weird to me and was unclear. Is he dead? A zombie?

Digger is a very interesting character and I'd really like to learn more about him.

2/5

~Zack~

Hello Gary,

This is an okay script.

I didn't like the overuse of deader and feel you should have named your gravedigger a proper name.

Also, James has discovered the gravedigger's name when Digger never introduced himself.  So you'll have to fix that line.

The flashback does need to be rewritten to add to the overall story.

Also, your first slug should start with EXT. and your second slug shouldn't have minutes later mentioned but rather with the action underneath.

James should also be in capitals because even though the grave markings are capitalised, it's an object inserted into the script.

I would also rewrite the line:

James, front on the ground, muddy and exhausted, sits up looks at Digger.

As it is, it's just confusing.

All the best,


Javier

I actually liked this one. The atmosphere was effective but not overdone. Despite the macabre content, this one sorta felt like it took a step back and didn't try to be too grim. Maybe that's just what I gathered from the names and dialogue. They felt tongue-in-cheek and a little folk story-ish. The phrases you came up with were funny, as was the whole way you approached the first scene of James confronting Digger. They were all so casual about it, I thought it wasn't meant to be taken 100% seriousy. Again, very much like a folk story.

Everyone seems to have addressed everything else. I don't know what else to say. If this isn't meant to be funny or tongue-in-cheek, you're probably in trouble. If not, good job. I liked it, anyway.

Hi Gary. I told you my thoughts when I read this before you posted it. I still think you should go with the original premise of setting it in the plague era. cheers.