Brett -
Your script stopped hurting my head when I took it for a black comedy. You gotta be joking? This sad story is pretty much just what actually happened
|
Rayness!
I think I meant to say, political satire.
The way the soldiers went about things, I felt it played out like a dance.
They dance with their superiors, their superiors dance with the media, etc.
Once I saw your characters through that filter, the read got easy for me.
I guess I have to find a tone to latch onto a story.
Once I bottled that vibe, I ran with it and the script came to life for me.
In my head, I heard like waltz music and stuff as they "danced" around the incident. You're a funny man, Brett.
|
It's true! I swear! It had Kubrickian moments at times.
But it's all played straight, policy, procedure, protocols came out like a waltz.
I rode that wave through the rest of the script, satire is hard to pull off.
I don't know how one plans satire, it's such a tricky delicate thing.
It must be somewhat organic, tell the truth and let it speak for itself.
Your format is so thick,... I don't know what that means. Sorry.
|
These format exercises are so dense, to the point of being jungle like.
I have to wade through them to get to the story.
In this case, I think that helps sell the "media dance" aspect of the story.
I don't think you planned it, but that's how it reads to me.
I would say your molasses like formatting works about 65% of the time. D@m Ham! What do I need to do? I'm following the assorted SLUG rules. I'm chopping my descriptions to sentence fragments with comma splices. What else?
|
I''d say its time to consider moving towards the opposite end of the spectrum.
Economize.
"Lie Detector" was an exercise in description economy for me.
No more than two lines of action description. Ever.
I was looking for a fluid read combined with suggestive visual flashes.
Tickle the imagination of the reader just enough.
But keep the read moving like a rollercoaster.
You've tried bombardment and complexity, now whittle it down to its basics.
You're ready, pal. Let her rip, :)
The aftermath on the roof with the pair of insurgents, I don't get it. Okay, here's the fun part. WITHOUT that inclusion CLEARLY there were some unjustified manslaughter charges coming towards the STOKES, SKINNER and HOGUE. There was no evidence of any enemy insurgent activity collected at the scene. No gunshots on the Xiphos guards or their vehicles. Yeah, well... What if... What if STOKES really did see flashes of gunfire coming from the vicinity of those three vehicles? It wasn't FROM the vehicles, just from that vicinity. Then he would have been justified - sort of. But without any evidence - STOKES is screwed - except that the entire investigation was bungled on purpose. So...
Are they bad guys according to the evidence? Are they bad guys according to what was about to happen? Are they bad guys according to what did happen? Real life gets messy.
|
I like your explanation, now shoehorn it into your story somehow.
As it stands, I don't get that from the pages, but I'd like to.
A VO or something perhaps to wrap up the story might work
As it stands, once I found my footing, I really enjoyed this one.
I really hope you get more reads on this one, you deserve it!
Thank you as well for your review! I'll be onto LIE DETECTOR shortly! |
I always appreciate your time and effort spent on my work.
You were one of the early champions of Widow's Walk.
We "bonded" over our novel like descriptions, gosh, doesn't seem that long.
But I guess internet months are like dog decades. =p
Keep writing and rewriting and rewriting and rewriting...
Regards,
E.D.