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.
I don't think the writing is quite as troublesome as others have pointed out. Although there are many examples of some trouble-spots that need re-reading. For example:
'Anton watches his black shoes step forward' - That's confusing. Is he watching somebody else' black shoes. I figured out it was his own, but 'stepping forward', that's a very awkward way of wording it.
'Anton’s dagger stare cuts into the two men.' - I thought Anton sliced them up until I noticed the word 'stare'.
'John glances back, Anton’s head down, watches his walk.' - Is Anton watching John's feet? And what's with feet? This ain't going to turn into a foot fetish porn is it?
'Anton’s gaze falls back to Leo. Leo’s has his back on him. John dares to look back part-way' - Huh? I didn't even try to make sense out of that one.
But I think there's a really good story in the beginning that I was really interested in and was following.
But the ending ruins the story. What the heck went on here? Mary's a good guy at first, I think, then she's a bad guy, but then, I don't know what she ends up being in the end. And her and Anton's making out... I don't know what that was all about. The end is definitely not cohesive to what was going on in the beginning. I think there's supposed to be a surprise ending here that got extremely muddled somewhere.
The back and forth between the two scenes didn't read very good, either. I don't know if it's because of that where we lost the ending, or what.
I think David Lynch would like it, though. (Don't know if that's a bad thing or not.)
One thing that I really really liked that deserves praise in this, though, is the dialogue. It was very potent, especially in the beginning. The dialogue was definitely the driving force behind this story.
So, although not the best story in the OWC, it has the strongest dialogue so far.
Pg. 1 FADE IN: then SUPER: 1787 – LYTHALIA Pg. 2 EXT. CATHEDRAL - MOMENTS LATE (time frame) Pg. 2. LEO (O.S.) (quick) - “Told not to look at him.” The line doesn’t make sense maybe I told you not to look at him. Pg. 3 INT. CATHEDRAL - SANCTUARY - MOMENTS LATE (time frame) Pg. 4 ANTON- “That they don’t live in France” add ANTON (Contd) Pg. 5 BALCONY- New slugline added in-place Pg. 6 SANCTUARY- New slugline added in-place Pg. 6 BALCONY- New slugline added in-place Pg. 6 SANCTUARY- “A dead goat, under torn bandages” Move into previous scene Pg. 6 BALCONY- New slugline added in-place Pg. 6 SANCTUARY- New slugline added in-place Pg. 7 BALCONY- New slugline added in-place Pg. 8 SANCTUARY- New slugline added in-place Pg. 8 “John plunges the dagger into the throat of the dead goat. It squeals in protest.” It is already dead, unable to squeal. Pg. 8 a series of shots could be used to in-place of the action lines. Pg. 9 SANCTUARY- New slugline added in-place Pg. 9 BALCONY- New slugline added in-place Pg. 9 SANCTUARY- New slugline added in-place Pg. 9 BALCONY- New slugline added in-place Pg. 10 SANCTUARY- New slugline added in-place Pg. 10 BALCONY- New slugline added in-place Pg. 10 SANCTUARY- New slugline added in-place Pg. 10 BALCONY- New slugline added in-place Pg. 11 INT. CATHEDRAL - BALCONY - MOMENTS LATE (time frame) Pg. 11 SANCTUARY - MOMENTS LATER (time frame)
This was a good story. I wasn’t expecting Anton to be the ghost. Good work. A lot of Slugline issues. You could have added an ESTABLISHING SHOT or CONTINUOUS ACTION to the scene if you wish to use them as they are.
I am new to screenwriting so any of my suggestions and comments please hold at a novice level, good work and thanks.
Locations & Sets - EXT dirt road to European village in distance (matte), EXT Wooden bridge, EXT & INT cathedral with balcony Actors - ANTON (30s), LEO (50s) and JOHN (20s), MARY (20s), SPIRIT (30s) Costumes - Anton's black boots & coat, 1780s European costumes, Mary's gown and pale dress Props - lit lantern, dagger, spider webs in windows, beheaded saint statue, candles, wooden altar, red silk sheet, goat corpse and bundling, decomposed body, skeleton that'll break into dust, few cups O maggots, sugar glass church window x 3, red raindrops Audio FX - monster screams Visual FX - screaming goat corpse and spewing blood (in a church), decomposed body sits up with reappearing eyes, dark mass that jumps, coat that wraps around John's face, Spirit rising effect, dark hands pulling a sinking Mary beneath mud Other - Big fan to blow Anton's coat, lights for night shoot, permission to move church pews Comments - The relationships as described get a little confusing as to who's working for whom exactly.
There seems to be some deeply thought out elements in this story. And there are plenty of signs that the awkward writing here will soon evolve into something pretty effective. The writer has a visual eye, and shows he can turn a phrase. But this is kind of confusing and hard to follow at times. For example, the wood monster, by which you meant the old bridge, but that just throws people off unnecessarily.
Also, and this has been common in these OWC's, there is too much description of things better left to the director to do. It slows the read. We don't need to know about mummified victims of the spiders.
I'm running out of time, so if after the reveal I find the writer has reviewed my work I will come back to this for more detailed remarks.
Some writers make the mistake of writing too little. Others fall into the trap of writing too much. You have fallen into the latter camp with this particular piece. It is effectively dark, but bogged down by being overwritten.
The story was interesting, and the logline immediately caught my attention, but the script itself felt incomplete. Here you have a wonderful premise, a superb twist...and yet the execution falls flat on its face so that the twist wasn't appreciated as fully as it should have been.
I'd say definitely scrap a lot of his traveling with the dolts who take him in, because that wasn't particularly interesting at all.
Also, "wood monster"? Were you referencing the bridge itself? You should probably have been more clear with that one.
Throughout this script I kept finding myself re-reading lines to make sure I had read them right or to make sure I understood what was being conveyed. I like the over all imagery but it almost seemed like multiple writing styles were being employed, as if two different people had written this.
You have two different types of character introductions. Sometimes the descriptions were far too abbreviated, one person called them staccato which is a great analogy. And some of the descriptions just left me lost.
I think with re-writes this might make a great piece.
Got a bit lost, not sure what was going on sometimes tbh, but I think that's my fault. It is very eloquently written with enjoyable poetic descriptions and images but some of it came across as a little pretentious. Use of italics and wrylies broke the rhythm of the read. Victorian catherdrals were not built in 1787 - the victorian period began in 1837 ended 1901 Loved the language in the dialogue, very era appropriate and the atmosphere was tangible.
First of all, congrats on your entry. It was well done. As you can see, there's a bit of a revision up right now.
You were right about Victorian style cathedrals; it's out of there. There were some italics that were carried over from an earlier draft that I didn't correct. Those (aside from the newspaper clipping at the end) are fixed too. An added page and more clear motive now made some of the wrylies uneeded. It was one of the things in the first posted draft which I had a slight problem with.
I took it out in the rewrite. The idea was that there was an evil spirit possessing the goat, and being transferred to the other dead body, but shortly after I submitted it dawned on me it didn't read the way I wanted it to and prepared to take the hit.
Now for a general concern, and this is not aimed at you personally, but to others with a common denominator.
A lot of folks had problems with the #$%^ wood bridge. I didn't want to say 'wood bridge' all the time, so I used a colorful description and metaphor. Everyone seemed to outright hate it, "got confused" which I think is a load of bull. However, I took it out of the update anyway. I did have my issues with the first draft or so- but "wooden monster" wasn't one of them.
Parts of this I liked the writing very much, but other parts confused me.
The style seems almost inconsistent, in a way, and with far too much of a focus on the feet of your characters. Seriously, by page 3 you must have mentioned them a dozen times. .
It's funny - I hated my logline at the time. When I revised, I tuned the script closer to the logline. I think it (the first draft) didn't really match the logline. I simply had to think of something to put as a logline, an hour before deadline, and I couldn't think of how to put it in a nutshell. I combed through the script, and noticed a brief mention of why Anton was there, and ran with it. I think that's where a lot of confusion came in.
In my revision, Anton still looks down at his feet, but I altered it. Visually he can still "see" his feet. It was a bit repetitive. Thing is that's what I kept seeing.
Nice to know someone liked the logline though. I wasn't one of them. And I wrote the SOB.
There's a lot going for this but I feel you may have bogged it down with your writing style. Has a very Gothic vibe and although I'm a little confused as to what exactly happened, I believe Mary and her brothers tried to use Anton as a sacrifice in order to give Mary more power - only for their plan to go wrong. How it went wrong kinda evaded me but I'm assuming Anton didn't step in the circle? Might be interested in giving it another read in future.
The writing is different, well in tune with the topic, and it did make for an interesting read but at times it grated a little. I enjoyed the visuals and tone.
The story is slightly different now, Anyway, how it went wrong in the first draft is more or less how it went wrong in the second. They didn't know Anton was already dead, living his life as a ghost who used his magic acts for "real" and how he could expose the "frauds".
The tails ends of his coat flapping like raven's wings was a nice, evocative line. The wooden monster of the bridge on the other hand, was almost deliberately misleading.
Thanks, Ryan. The raven line remains. The wooden monster line is now kaput.
The constant cutting back between Anton and Mary to John and Leo and back muddled up the narrative flow.
Folks were either split on this or didn't think it was worth mentioning. After some debate with myself, I decided to veto the naysayers. I didn't do it in this revision, but I may just throw in an INTERCUT down the road.
I was hoping Anton's skill in magic would play a bigger part in the story. Strange script that would be helped by more clarity in the writing.
Strange script? Me?
In the update, Anton's magic skill is hinted at a bit more. I wanted to give the impression that Anton's "magic act" was more supernatural than slight of hand. (see above)
'Anton’s dagger stare cuts into the two men.' - I thought Anton sliced them up until I noticed the word 'stare'.
'John glances back, Anton’s head down, watches his walk.' - Is Anton watching John's feet? And what's with feet? This ain't going to turn into a foot fetish porn is it?
'Anton’s gaze falls back to Leo. Leo’s has his back on him. John dares to look back part-way' - Huh? I didn't even try to make sense out of that one.
I corrected a ton of this type of stuff in the update. 'The dagger stare cuts into the two men' in specific. I hated the line, I must have had a sugar rush going on or something. Probably one of the things I hated about my own work originally, thinking off the cuff.
But the ending ruins the story. What the heck went on here? Mary's a good guy at first, I think, then she's a bad guy, but then, I don't know what she ends up being in the end. And her and Anton's making out... I don't know what that was all about. The end is definitely not cohesive to what was going on in the beginning. I think there's supposed to be a surprise ending here that got extremely muddled somewhere.
The back and forth between the two scenes didn't read very good, either. I don't know if it's because of that where we lost the ending, or what.
Again, I am in a slight disagreement on the cutting between the Main Floor and the Balcony, but it's entirely possible that with the exception of one time, they may feel a bit arbitrary. I might decide to either use INTERCUT, or simply...have the two guys in the b.g. The more I think about it, the more I think it might be a better composition. I'll try it, but for now the previous format remains.
I think David Lynch would like it, though. (Don't know if that's a bad thing or not.)
Wild At Heart has always been a guilty pleasure of mine. And I'll always love Twin Peaks. I'm also a closet fan of his daughter Jennifer's work. I won't kid around -the Lynch's were somewhat influential on tmy Feb OWC (Flesh Won't Be Missed) But I like many filmmakers. I'm actually more influenced by (early) John Carpenter, Walter Hill and David Cronenberg. And no, it's not a bad thing to think 'Hey, I wonder if so-and so was inspired by this filmmaker or that writer or that painter etc etc" It's a high compliment.
Pg. 1 FADE IN: then SUPER: 1787 – LYTHALIA Pg. 2 EXT. CATHEDRAL - MOMENTS LATE (time frame) Pg. 2. LEO (O.S.) (quick) - “Told not to look at him.” The line doesn’t make sense maybe I told you not to look at him. Pg. 3 INT. CATHEDRAL - SANCTUARY - MOMENTS LATE (time frame) Pg. 4 ANTON- “That they don’t live in France” add ANTON (Contd) Pg. 5 BALCONY- New slugline added in-place Pg. 6 SANCTUARY- New slugline added in-place Pg. 6 BALCONY- New slugline added in-place Pg. 6 SANCTUARY- “A dead goat, under torn bandages” Move into previous scene Pg. 6 BALCONY- New slugline added in-place Pg. 6 SANCTUARY- New slugline added in-place Pg. 7 BALCONY- New slugline added in-place Pg. 8 SANCTUARY- New slugline added in-place Pg. 8 “John plunges the dagger into the throat of the dead goat. It squeals in protest.” It is already dead, unable to squeal. Pg. 8 a series of shots could be used to in-place of the action lines. Pg. 9 SANCTUARY- New slugline added in-place Pg. 9 BALCONY- New slugline added in-place Pg. 9 SANCTUARY- New slugline added in-place Pg. 9 BALCONY- New slugline added in-place Pg. 10 SANCTUARY- New slugline added in-place Pg. 10 BALCONY- New slugline added in-place Pg. 10 SANCTUARY- New slugline added in-place Pg. 10 BALCONY- New slugline added in-place Pg. 11 INT. CATHEDRAL - BALCONY - MOMENTS LATE (time frame) Pg. 11 SANCTUARY - MOMENTS LATER (time frame)
This was a good story. I wasn’t expecting Anton to be the ghost. Good work. A lot of Slugline issues. You could have added an ESTABLISHING SHOT or CONTINUOUS ACTION to the scene if you wish to use them as they are.
I am new to screenwriting so any of my suggestions and comments please hold at a novice level, good work and thanks.
Yes, you're new. It shows. A few things here:
"Establishing shots" aren't all that needed, They are rather useless, in fact. When you read a (produced) script or a commisioned script that has a draft that doesn't get made, you'll never see that in the script. If no significant action or event takes place in front of that location, it simly won't be there. The writer will get to where the action is. The director, however, can show the building in three seconds time be it a new shoot, model, stock footage or whatever.
CONTINUOUS is fine, but isn't always a requirement. When events happen close enough in real time, it is implied to be so.
As for the slugs. They are fine. They are part of a main interior location; they are SUBHEADS. It's no different if you read INT. BATES HOME and there was locations in the KITCHEN, BEDROOM or BATHROOM. There's no harm in having an INT. there, but it isn't needed.
The SUPER is debatable. What do you see? Words over blackscreen? FADE IN to the opening scene, No problem. It is only preference.
"Told (you) not to look at him"---Leo Interesting catch. I can understand clearly why you think it's wrong. But it isn't. Take the word "you" out .
"Told not to look at him"
If you put "you" in the line, it implies that Leo at some point told John not to make eye contact with Anton. Take it away, and it implies they were told not to make eye contact. (It is suggested that the ghost of Mary made this suggestion.) In the follow up, however, I placed more emphasis on Mary being a ghost herself, that she could communicate with Leo and John and the dead woman to be her dead body.
As for 'the series of shots to replace action"? No dice. I wasn't showing a progession of events over time; there isn't a need for any of that.