The Actor by Simon (SiColl007) - Short, Action, Adventure - An amateur actor get more than he bargained for… 11 pages - pdf, format

This starts out very interesting, but once the story went to the classroom it didn't hold together for me.  Perhaps I was just confused.

Oooooh! That is a twisted little tale! Well Done, Simon!

Some little typos, missing periods after Mr, 'is something wrong,?'  is should be capitalized.
We'll be able to expand further at the station...  sure you want to use expand?  sounds kinda awkward.
They use military time for college classes?

The students listen; we see them listening;
moving across them, left to right.
Kinda awkward, especially since you say left to right twice.  Camera directions are discouraged, there's probably an easier way to say this
I don't know where this is, but i've never heard of a judge "directing"  the jurors to a particular verdict.  That negates the whole point of trial by jury.

The "are you dumb" wrylie is pretty superfluous and odd.

Overall, nasty little idea, making actors put their money where their mouth is.  Decent story, well done.

Wouldn't the cops catch on after awhile?

I don't get it.

For me there is too much guesswork, although I THINK I get it, but, if I have to think too hard about it, then it doesn't work for me, and I had to think too hard.

Spoilers...

I could be wrong, but I understood it as kind of a test/contest for the actors.  They put themselves in a situation with no evidence either way, then the best actor is the one who convinces the jury.  Though the penalty seems a tad steeper for the guys than the girl.

Simon,

This has a similar concept - from what I can see - as that of 'Pathology'. I agree with Jackx that it's a game where the actors test their skills against one another.  However, it does become overly convoluted when they're both in the stands - who did she accuse? She says she didn't know? And why place the first scene in? To tell us it was Glen? That really doesn't make sense to me.

The main issue here being the leaps in time, with flashbacks covering too much ground. Not enough time is spent setting up the characters, so it comes across a little empty. This would work a lot better as a 25-30 page script where you can set up the situation and keep the audience in the dark as to who may be guilty or the worst actor of the three, using the extra backstory and plot to drive home the reveal.

There is definitely a potentially decent concept here if you intend to set it up as a battle of wits where Glen and Mark are using their abilities to escape the charge, while Ellen must convince the police she was raped/attacked.

If that isn't the story, then just disregard, and I will confess to being totally and utterly befuddled.

Compelling read, though. Just a little uneven right now.

Andrew

Simon,

This was a good effort along Warren's Choice on the recent OWC. I lked it but it could do with some retooling:

-- Some of the dialogue was on the nose, esp. the first two pages with Glen and Ellen and the cops.
-- Judges do not instruct juries to find a person not guilty. That's the jury's job.
-- Typos, punctuation (run a spell checker) and grammar "is sat", for example, is better as "sits.'
-- Word choices "expand" and "convincing and convicts" were awkward.
-- Nick's dialogue when picked up for questioning was atrocious though I expect it was to show Nick was a bad actor
-- You were trying so hard to obscure the ending that you obscured the story. Showing us flashbacks and twists in 11 pages is hard to pull off for anyone.
-- Did you consider making the entire acting class in on it? A thought...

Hope this helps,

Gary

EDIT: The story seems to be about Nick. A little more focus on his character might help.

Quoted from jackx Some little typos, missing periods after Mr, 'is something wrong,?'  is should be capitalized. We'll be able to expand further at the station...  sure you want to use expand?  sounds kinda awkward. They use military time for college classes? The students listen; we see them listening; moving across them, left to right. Kinda awkward, especially since you say left to right twice.  Camera directions are discouraged, there's probably an easier way to say this I don't know where this is, but i've never heard of a judge "directing"  the jurors to a particular verdict.  That negates the whole point of trial by jury. The "are you dumb" wrylie is pretty superfluous and odd. Overall, nasty little idea, making actors put their money where their mouth is.  Decent story, well done.

Hi thanks for that - wasn't too sure what to put instead of the are you dumb bit, but I concur that it's not so helpful.

Maybe in the US there is a different system, but in the UK a judge (in certain circumstance) can direct a jury (we get high on ceremony here...).

And I can see your other pointers as well,  makes sense.

Simon

Quoted from TheRichcraft Wouldn't the cops catch on after awhile?

It's arguable that this is only the secnd time that they have done it...

Quoted from jackx Spoilers... I could be wrong, but I understood it as kind of a test/contest for the actors.  They put themselves in a situation with no evidence either way, then the best actor is the one who convinces the jury.  Though the penalty seems a tad steeper for the guys than the girl.

That's on the money, a put your skils where your mouth is situation - yes, the guys do run a bigger risk, but then we can argue that guys tend to do that kind of thing..

Quoted from Andrew Simon, This has a similar concept - from what I can see - as that of 'Pathology'. I agree with Jackx that it's a game where the actors test their skills against one another.  However, it does become overly convoluted when they're both in the stands - who did she accuse? She says she didn't know? And why place the first scene in? To tell us it was Glen? That really doesn't make sense to me. The main issue here being the leaps in time, with flashbacks covering too much ground. Not enough time is spent setting up the characters, so it comes across a little empty. This would work a lot better as a 25-30 page script where you can set up the situation and keep the audience in the dark as to who may be guilty or the worst actor of the three, using the extra backstory and plot to drive home the reveal. Andrew

Hi there Andrew - Glen was in the docks first, and was found not guilty - Glen & Ellen then set about finding a new recruit in Mark, who unfortunately is found guilty - neither attacked Ellen.

I'm not too sure about what you mean when you say 'she didn't know'. Ellen does not speak when Mark is in court, only when Glen is in court.

Quoted from grademan -- Typos, punctuation (run a spell checker) and grammar "is sat", for example, is better as "sits.'

ok

Quoted Text -- Word choices "expand" and "convincing and convicts" were awkward.

yeah... possibly overused.

Quoted Text -- Nick's dialogue when picked up for questioning was atrocious though I expect it was to show Nick was a bad actor

Do you mean Mark? If so, then yes.

Quoted Text -- You were trying so hard to obscure the ending that you obscured the story.

Mmm... it was supposed to have a twist in the tale, so I was reluctant to give too much away - I guess it could be re-worked in a linear fashion & see how that goes...

Quoted Text -- Did you consider making the entire acting class in on it? A thought...

Can't really go with this - seems to add even more complications, and much of the feedback is geared towards simplifying things alittle.

Quoted Text EDIT: The story seems to be about Nick. A little more focus on his character might help.

Well... Mark is the fall guy, but I would consede that the relation between Glen and Ellen could do with working on if you didn't feel that they were the central characters....

Thanks anyway - good food for thought.

Hi all,

I agree with Andrew, this is more a 20-30 page script than 11.

I didn't get the opening...What were Glen and Ellen talking about? And why does he actually attack her?

As for the 'are you dumb?' I had a similar situation with my script (what? You haven't read it yet?) I put "so-and-so gives him/her a look" instead and then she can say "no.". It worked for me.

Also I agree with "TheRichcraft" in terms of catching on. If Ellen accused being raped and the suspect was find not guilty wouldn't they be a little cynical the second time (the court that is)? I'm assuming this was not on the same street either (as the one in the opening either).

I think it is the fact that you don't signify the flashbacks that makes the script so confusing, you shift back and forth using only headings as if it were the present.

I personally would find it more satisfying if the tables get turned on Glen and Ellen in some way...through their acting of course and by another of the students who finds out whats going on when a number of students begin to disappear.

Anyhow, good effort.