The Rising by Michael Brendan - Drama - Twenty years after surviving a high school shooting, a newspaper reporter returns to his upstate New York hometown to do a follow-up article in the hopes that connecting with other survivors will help him come to terms with the tragedy. 108 pages - pdf format

Writer interested in feedback on this work

Thanks for posting the revision, Don.

Made a few corrections, tightened the story, shaved seven pages off.

Michael,

Very well written and expertly told. I loved the ending although we’ve seen it before. Characters were well drawn and equal parts sympathetic and detestable when needed. One thing I think you could have thrown in would be some sparse humor. Every good drama has its moments, and although there is nothing funny about the story, I feel a chuckle or two would do to lighten the mood.

Your descriptions were excellent, and just when I thought you’d go too far and start overwriting you would pull it back. You have a knack for it.

I am surprised this didn’t make Page quarter finals. I certainly feel it’s good enough, but perhaps you were right about the subject, sad to say. It’s worthy.

One minor thing that bugged me, though. You use the word “crosses” an awful lot. He crosses to the kitchen, she crosses to the porch, etc. I understand you shouldn’t use the word walk frequently but it just seems like you replaced it with crosses.

I know you wanted Granger to come off as unfeeling and unemotional, but I think you overdid it to the point that almost every time he pops up you feel the need to mention it. Still, fact is, he wasn’t entirely unemotional or unfeeling. Perhaps a
Flashback to when he and Stanley were young? Maybe not. I dunno. But we also come to feel his pain, and I would have liked to see exactly what pushed him over the edge.



I certainly think this would look good on film, however, personally, I feel it’s missing something. I think it’s that there’s

The same with Stanley to a degree. He’s kept all of this pain and anguish internalized. Perhaps during the “sparing his life scene” we could get a little dialogue between the two. A nod of Grangers head. And I hate to say it, perhaps show us through Stanley’s POV what kind of carnage he’s seeing because surely that would have added to Stanley’s decision to internalize. Not saying I want blood and guts, but I would like the reveal to have more of a kick to the gut.

Anyway, I’m glad I read this. You’re a fine writer!

Steve

Steve,

THANK YOU so much for the read and the review!  Words cannot express my gratitude for the time you've taken.  I really appreciate it.

Quoted from SAC One thing I think you could have thrown in would be some sparse humor. Every good drama has its moments, and although there is nothing funny about the story, I feel a chuckle or two would do to lighten the mood.

Agreed.  I attempted to throw in a couple unusual moments to break up the inherently heavy material (the scene in the Cessna with the pilot who may... or may not be particularly good at flying) but I agree, and will try to work something into the next rewrite.

Quoted from SAC One minor thing that bugged me, though. You use the word �crosses� an awful lot. He crosses to the kitchen, she crosses to the porch, etc. I understand you shouldn�t use the word walk frequently but it just seems like you replaced it with crosses.

Absolutely.  Thank you for pointing that out.  That's a bad habit of mine... to utilize a word/phrase I've gotten too comfortable with.  I'll mix that up a little.

Quoted from SAC I know you wanted Granger to come off as unfeeling and unemotional, but I think you overdid it to the point that almost every time he pops up you feel the need to mention it. Still, fact is, he wasn�t entirely unemotional or unfeeling. Perhaps a Flashback to when he and Stanley were young? Maybe not. I dunno. But we also come to feel his pain, and I would have liked to see exactly what pushed him over the edge.

Yeah, this was something I really struggled with.  It's also the element that garners the most criticism.  People tell me they NEED to understand why Jason does what he does.  But is that possible?  Is an answer THAT clear?  As a writer, I feel like I have to tread lightly here.  If I try to assign a specific reason he shot up the school, I feel like I'm venturing into territory that's uncharted for a reason...

For example, if I say "he did it solely because he was bullied," that could come off like I'm justifying acts committed by real-life shooters.  (I think that's why Gus Van Sant didn't try to explain the killers' motivations in "Elephant.")  In the end, I thought the most appropriate way to go was NOT to assign a reason behind his actions.  

In addition, the "sparing his life" moment was Stanley's own personal conclusion.  The  fundamental truth is... we still don't know what truly pushed Jason over the edge.

I'm not saying my approach was the right one.  Just trying to explain why I crafted the story the way I did.

Quoted from SAC I certainly think this would look good on film, however, personally, I feel it�s missing something. I think it�s that there�s

Was there something else here?  Or are you teasing me at this point?  LOL.

Quoted from SAC The same with Stanley to a degree. He�s kept all of this pain and anguish internalized. Perhaps during the �sparing his life scene� we could get a little dialogue between the two. A nod of Grangers head. And I hate to say it, perhaps show us through Stanley�s POV what kind of carnage he�s seeing because surely that would have added to Stanley�s decision to internalize. Not saying I want blood and guts, but I would like the reveal to have more of a kick to the gut.

Good point.  I'll take a closer look at this.

Quoted from SAC Anyway, I�m glad I read this. You�re a fine writer! Steve

As are you!  Thanks again for taking the time to read it.  I know how valued a commodity time is, and I am forever grateful you made time to help me with my work.  I look forward to reading more of your work.  I'm now trying to finish up a science fiction script--a "loose re-imagining" of the 1987 thriller THE HIDDEN, if you can believe that--but upon completion of that script's first draft, I will immediately come back to this one and your insight will help tremendously with the rewrite.

Thanks again!

--Mike

Mike,

A couple more things.

The airplane/time scene. Wasn’t that line used in Clear and Present Danger? 😉 I wanted to mention that before but couldn’t think of it. Not saying it’s in bad taste, I lift obscure things sometimes too.

Also, have you gotten coverage on this? It might cost a couple bucks but it could help you market this if the response is good. If the response is not stellar, just another set of notes
To work from.

Showing my age here, but The Hidden was one of my favorite movies back in the day! Loved it.

Steve

Quoted from SAC I certainly think this would look good on film, however, personally, I feel it’s missing something. I think it’s that there’s ???

Steve, I'm also curious what the end of this sentence in the critique was...?

Libby, I honestly can’t remember at the moment but if I do I will post it.

Quoted Text Yeah, this was something I really struggled with.  It's also the element that garners the most criticism.  People tell me they NEED to understand why Jason does what he does.  But is that possible?  Is an answer THAT clear?  As a writer, I feel like I have to tread lightly here.  If I try to assign a specific reason he shot up the school, I feel like I'm venturing into territory that's uncharted for a reason... For example, if I say "he did it solely because he was bullied," that could come off like I'm justifying acts committed by real-life shooters.  (I think that's why Gus Van Sant didn't try to explain the killers' motivations in "Elephant.")  In the end, I thought the most appropriate way to go was NOT to assign a reason behind his actions.

Your characters are people, and people have their own personal motivations (Doesn't matter if we agree/disagree - the motivation is real to the character) people are rarely evil for the sake of being evil, there are issues behind them - If you omit it, you are probably omitting an important layer of characterization.

Don't be afraid to tackle the tough issues - Showing us his motivations/feelings/mindset is not the same as justifying them. I.E the audience can understand how he got to this point, but don't sympathize with them.
You can also use it to highlight social or societal issues - so not just vanilla bullying, but maybe social media bullying - no one accepts his friend requests, or follow on Twitter, or swipe right on tinder - highlight social media addiction and the rising trend of young people tying their self worth with how many "followers" they have - (this is just an example, I haven't read your screenplay so no idea what time period it is set in)

Law Abiding Citizen - we understand Clyde's motivations, his family was killed and one of the killers was set free due to the unjust and broken legal system. We don't agree with his actions in killing anyone involved in the legal system, but we understand why.

Thanos - Ultimate bad guy who commits repeated genocides. But his motivation is that the population of the universe has grown too big for its finite resources, unsustainable and will ultimately end all life. That's understandable, and in Thanos's mind it's morally right - even if we don't agree that killing half the population is right, we can understand why Thanos thinks it is.
(again, touches on societal issues of Earth's overcrowding)

I'm going on too much - and what I'm saying is probably a load of bull anyway lol

Point is - don't make your characters 1 dimensional, even the bad guys.

Quoted from Matthew Taylor Your characters are people, and people have their own personal motivations (Doesn't matter if we agree/disagree - the motivation is real to the character) people are rarely evil for the sake of being evil, there are issues behind them - If you omit it, you are probably omitting an important layer of characterization. Don't be afraid to tackle the tough issues - Showing us his motivations/feelings/mindset is not the same as justifying them. I.E the audience can understand how he got to this point, but don't sympathize with them. You can also use it to highlight social or societal issues - so not just vanilla bullying, but maybe social media bullying - no one accepts his friend requests, or follow on Twitter, or swipe right on tinder - highlight social media addiction and the rising trend of young people tying their self worth with how many "followers" they have - (this is just an example, I haven't read your screenplay so no idea what time period it is set in) Law Abiding Citizen - we understand Clyde's motivations, his family was killed and one of the killers was set free due to the unjust and broken legal system. We don't agree with his actions in killing anyone involved in the legal system, but we understand why. Thanos - Ultimate bad guy who commits repeated genocides. But his motivation is that the population of the universe has grown too big for its finite resources, unsustainable and will ultimately end all life. That's understandable, and in Thanos's mind it's morally right - even if we don't agree that killing half the population is right, we can understand why Thanos thinks it is. (again, touches on societal issues of Earth's overcrowding) I'm going on too much - and what I'm saying is probably a load of bull anyway lol Point is - don't make your characters 1 dimensional, even the bad guys.

I agree. Perhaps what I was trying to think of was something along the lines of what Matthew is saying. Granger does feel one dimensional in the respects to the way you describe him as always cold and unfeeling. He had a best friend (Stanley) and he had a love interest.

I say add back those seven pages you trimmed and expand on that perhaps. It seems every other character has multiple layers so why not Granger?

By the way, not to be morbid, but the way Granger disposed of his love interest was intense! I’d hold that beat for a few sentences longer. It was good.

Steve

Quoted from SAC The airplane/time scene. Wasn’t that line used in Clear and Present Danger? 😉 I wanted to mention that before but couldn’t think of it. Not saying it’s in bad taste, I lift obscure things sometimes too.

I knew I had heard that line somewhere but I couldn't quite remember where, so I thought I was safe lifting it.  LOL.

Quoted from StevenClark Also, have you gotten coverage on this? It might cost a couple bucks but it could help you market this if the response is good. If the response is not stellar, just another set of notes To work from.

I'll consider it, though YOUR notes were QUITE helpful.

Quoted from SAC Showing my age here, but The Hidden was one of my favorite movies back in the day! Loved it.

Showing YOUR age?  Hell, man, I'M the one devoting otherwise valuable time to writing a re-imagined version of it.  LOL.

--Mike

Quoted from Matthew Taylor Your characters are people, and people have their own personal motivations (Doesn't matter if we agree/disagree - the motivation is real to the character) people are rarely evil for the sake of being evil, there are issues behind them - If you omit it, you are probably omitting an important layer of characterization. Don't be afraid to tackle the tough issues - Showing us his motivations/feelings/mindset is not the same as justifying them. I.E the audience can understand how he got to this point, but don't sympathize with them. You can also use it to highlight social or societal issues - so not just vanilla bullying, but maybe social media bullying - no one accepts his friend requests, or follow on Twitter, or swipe right on tinder - highlight social media addiction and the rising trend of young people tying their self worth with how many "followers" they have - (this is just an example, I haven't read your screenplay so no idea what time period it is set in) Law Abiding Citizen - we understand Clyde's motivations, his family was killed and one of the killers was set free due to the unjust and broken legal system. We don't agree with his actions in killing anyone involved in the legal system, but we understand why. Thanos - Ultimate bad guy who commits repeated genocides. But his motivation is that the population of the universe has grown too big for its finite resources, unsustainable and will ultimately end all life. That's understandable, and in Thanos's mind it's morally right - even if we don't agree that killing half the population is right, we can understand why Thanos thinks it is. (again, touches on societal issues of Earth's overcrowding) I'm going on too much - and what I'm saying is probably a load of bull anyway lol Point is - don't make your characters 1 dimensional, even the bad guys.

Here's the thing, guys.  The point was never to make Jason Granger evil, but to make him a mystery.  An enigma.  A puzzle.  There are scenes showing him getting rejected by a girl, showing the aftermath of being beat up.  But in those scenes, he never displayed emotion.  He held any kind of rational human emotional response at bay to a point where the ultimate release was a horrific act.  He was never depicted as being evil just to be evil.  (Sure, Henry Pickering made that assertion at one point, but that's coming from a man who lost his daughter in the attack.)

I get what you're saying, Matt.  But I struggle a little with the examples you cite.  "Avengers: Infinity War" was an action-laden comic book adventure.  "Law Abiding Citizen" was a nail-biting thriller.  To me, this story is not about Jason Granger.  It's a love story between two people who have drifted apart because they've never found the way to process the horror each one faced.  It's about a mother (Marilyn Granger) struggling to come to terms with her son's actions.  About a teacher (Raymond Thompson) and his supportive-yet-guilt-ridden wife whose lives were altered in the blink of an eye.  About a father (Henry Pickering), struggling not only with his daughter's death, but with his own alienation resulting from feelings and views he possessed long before any shooting took place.  About an embittered man (Scott Billuck) dealing not only with his anger about what happened, but battling destructive behavior stemming from guilt and self-loathing.  In my opinion, each one of these personal struggles derive from an inability to comprehend the motivation at the center... the one who committed the act.  I'm a little concerned that putting too much focus on the shooter will undermine everything outlined in this paragraph.  I feel it may completely alter the trajectory of the story.

That being said, I respect the hell out of both you, Matt and you, Steve.  I'll definitely take what you're saying into consideration when I do the rewrite.

Heck, I'm not even sure if I'm making any sense.  (Just woke up.  LOL.). I just feel like it's not a story about Jason, but about those around him and how they may... or may not... be able to come to terms with what happened.

Or... as with Marilyn Granger, a struggle to "love fully... without full understanding."  (Steve... that's from "A River Runs Through It."  I DID remember that one.  God... I AM a bit of a hack, aren't I?  LOL)

--Mike

I haven't read your script - So I don't know what it is about (I can't commit to reading a feature at the moment) - I was only going off your comment about how motivation could be seen to justify an atrocity (So maybe take my comment as general, and not specific to this script)

If the script is not about Jason, but instead the lives of those the act affected - then yea, don't put too much emphasis on Jason - I assumed the script was about him.

Below is an except from the late Roger Ebert's review of "Elephant."  I didn't always agree with Roger, though I do agree on his point below.  This may help to explain my reservations with regard to the aforementioned suggestions regarding the character of Jason Granger...

Quoted Text Gus Van Sant's "Elephant" is a record of a day at a high school like Columbine, on the day of a massacre much like the one that left 13 dead. It offers no explanation for the tragedy, no insights into the psyches of the killers, no theories about teenagers or society or guns or psychopathic behavior. It simply looks at the day as it unfolds, and that is a brave and radical act; it refuses to supply reasons and assign cures. Van Sant seems to believe there are no reasons for Columbine and no remedies to prevent senseless violence from happening again. Many viewers will leave this film as unsatisfied and angry as Variety's Todd McCarthy, who wrote after it won the Golden Palm at Cannes 2003 that it was "pointless at best and irresponsible at worst." I think its responsibility comes precisely in its refusal to provide a point.

Perhaps I fell short of expectations, but this was how I wanted to present the character of Jason.  Not as evil.  But as a heartbreaking enigma to those who love him and a source of bafflement and fury to those who don't.  

I dunno.  I'll take another look at the script soon.  Thanks for the input, guys!

I'm inclined to agree that not everything needs to be or should necessarily be explained.

Seen this one?

We Need To Talk About Kevin
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1242460/
Based on the novel by Lionel Shriver.

Really heavy film...
The good news is that films like this do get made.

Nature/nurture, bad seed/ innate evil. Does the motive always matter?
The story is primarily about the fallout isn't it?
...
Steve, your incomplete sentence just made me, and Mike mighty curious.
Seems a case of train of thought racing and not keeping time with the keyboard. Happens to me all the time.  

Quoted from LC I'm inclined to agree that not everything needs to be or should necessarily be explained. Seen this one? We Need To Talk About Kevin https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1242460/ Based on the novel by Lionel Shriver. Really heavy film... The good news is that films like this do get made. Nature/nurture, bad seed/ innate evil. Does the motive always matter? The story is primarily about the fallout isn't it?

Granted, I haven't seen 'We Need to Talk About Kevin' since it came out, but isn't the theme of that movie all about motive? Not so much the answer, but definitely the question - Why? a moment of bad parenting?  a sense of being unloved as a child? or, unalterably evil.

Elephant on the other hand (I didn't like this movie, but apparently it has some good reviews so I am probably in the minority) touched on nothing, there was no point to it I could find other than to show a school shooting for the sake of it.

Anyway - I was originally only trying to touch on Mike's comment about shying away from the motivation for fear of making it look like a justification for evil acts - and wanted to express that can hinder characterization and to not be afraid of tackling these things.
I have no idea if it's relevant to this story - I feel inclined to read this thing now lol

Ok I read it

1) This movie is not about Jason, not in the slightest lol so who gives a rats ass about his motivations - makes my examples look stupid because both of those were main characters (will teach me to comment before reading the script). But...
2) you give us enough of his motives and mindset before the shooting anyway, through the interview with his mother - most importantly, you give us Stanley's perceived motives, which is important to this story (The fact he blames himself)

To be honest, I would go the opposite way and instead of giving us more about Jason, I would give us less - he gets too much attention in a story that is not about him - I would keep flashbacks, but instead, I would show them from the victims POV, not Jasons. (A lot of the time, the scenes contain too much-talking heads, flashbacks would break this up - more visual.

I have jotted down notes as I went along - I'll post them up later when I get time.

I don't think my earlier advice was wrong - it's just not applicable in this case because of how unimportant Jason, as a person, actually is to this script.

Quoted from Matthew Taylor Ok I read it 1) This movie is not about Jason, not in the slightest lol so who gives a rats ass about his motivations - makes my examples look stupid because both of those were main characters (will teach me to comment before reading the script). But... 2) you give us enough of his motives and mindset before the shooting anyway, through the interview with his mother - most importantly, you give us Stanley's perceived motives, which is important to this story (The fact he blames himself) To be honest, I would go the opposite way and instead of giving us more about Jason, I would give us less - he gets too much attention in a story that is not about him - I would keep flashbacks, but instead, I would show them from the victims POV, not Jasons. (A lot of the time, the scenes contain too much-talking heads, flashbacks would break this up - more visual. I have jotted down notes as I went along - I'll post them up later when I get time. I don't think my earlier advice was wrong - it's just not applicable in this case because of how unimportant Jason, as a person, actually is to this script.

Hey, dude.  LOL.  I was just about to post my response when I saw the above post.  In any event, here's what I had written...

Quoted from Matthew Taylor Anyway - I was originally only trying to touch on Mike's comment about shying away from the motivation for fear of making it look like a justification for evil acts - and wanted to express that can hinder characterization and to not be afraid of tackling these things. I have no idea if it's relevant to this story - I feel inclined to read this thing now lol

Matt, I have the utmost respect for your views.  But I'm afraid you're misunderstanding my meaning.  And it's hard to debate one who hasn't read the script.  (Please understand, this isn't an attempt to shame others into taking the time to read my stuff.)  But I fear we're trying to debate from two entirely different planes of existence.

I completely understand your comments in your initial post.  And when applied to examples like "Avengers: Infinity War" and "Law Abiding Citizen", it makes perfect sense.  I don't disagree with that at all.  

But here's the thing...

There are no superheroes in this script.  There's no large, lavender-tinted villain wreaking havoc.  

When involving incidents like school shootings (or mass shootings in general), it's different.  It just is.  We're talking about a ubiquitous societal epidemic that can rear its ugly-ass head any moment and whose wounds are achingly fresh.  As a writer, if I create a character strikingly similar to any one of these real-life school shooters and I make them the least bit sympathetic, it's not the same thing as creating a comic book villain. It isn't.

I get your objections.  I get Steve's objections, too.  My answer to that at this point (though a rewrite is definitely imminent) is... that's fine.  I heartily invite the audience to draw their own conclusions as to Granger's motive.  (Well... readers instead of audience... getting a little ahead of myself there.). Is it really a problem if art invites debate?  I myself opted not to attempt any clear explanation.  The conclusion of the narrative arc is Stanley's (and Mae's, too)... not Jason Granger's.  That's the decision I made.  This is a love story, first and foremost.  If it inspires debate, I'm actually okay with that at this point.

Yes, I know filmmakers have attempted to understand shootings in the past.  Director Paul F. Ryan made an admirable attempt in a 2002 movie called "Home Room."  And, despite solid performances from Busy Phillips and Erika Christensen, what clear-cut answer was provided?  At the end of a stupefying two-hour-and-twenty-minute runtime, there wasn't a clear answer.  ("Elephant", by contrast, clocked in at eighty-minutes, same conclusion.  Given the choice, I'd rather watch "Elephant" again.  Though it's, by no means, perfect.  Didn't care for the ending.  I get that Van Sant was going for a no-rhyme-or-reason conclusion, but I felt he could have accomplished it better with a concluding scene that wasn't as clunky as "eeny-meeny-miney-mo.")

---------------

But I see now you've addressed those arguments I was struggling with.

Thank for the read!  Appreciate it.

--Mike

hmmm - feel like you are miss understanding me, and hanging on the superhero thing too much.

Point is - the best characters are multi-layered with feelings, motivations, hopes, fears blah blah blah - even the bad ones, the terrorists, murderers, school shooters. I didn't say create sympathy towards them- no one feels sympathetic to a school shooter - just don't be affraid to show their human side (no matter how flawed) think Ted Bundy in "Extremely wicked" or Hitler in "Downfall".... that's all I was trying to say in my long winded and unclear way lol

Anyway, I'm detracting the thread from the script as this point is not relevant to the story.

Just putting my kid to bed, then I'll try and decipher my own notes and put them into something hopefully helpful

Quoted from Matthew Taylor hmmm - feel like you are miss understanding me, and hanging on the superhero thing too much.

Well, you have to remember that when I wrote the above post, I thought you still hadn’t read the script and that you were still approaching the subject matter from a different perspective.

I get your point, but I stand behind what I posted.

That said, I greatly appreciate you taking the time to read and review.

Mike

Quoted from Night_Writer I get your point, but I stand behind what I posted. That said, I greatly appreciate you taking the time to read and review. Mike

That's cool - world would be a dull place if we all just agreed all the time lol

Quoted from Matthew Taylor That's cool - world would be a dull place if we all just agreed all the time lol

Dull indeed!  And in theory, I agree 100% with what you posted.  Absolutely.  It's just that, for me, the subject of school violence is something I want to handle with a delicate touch.

Impressionability.  Maybe that's it.  Maybe's that's my hangup.  I mean, if the average person watches a show about a notorious serial killer, seems unlikely they'd be influenced to kill.  If a troubled teenager sees a movie that depicts a sympathetic view of a school shooter... I dunno.  I worry about sh*t like that.

But in any event, I'm 100% behind what you posted.  Thanks.

Matthew's point isn't about depicting a sympathetic view of the shooter. He's suggesting that you make the characters more real rather than cardboard cut-outs or heavily cliched characters. People do evil things, doesn't mean they do evil things all the time. Some serial killers have happy family lives. Make great neighbours. The only time one sees their bad side is if they're unfortunate enough to be a victim. Otherwise, they're great people.

In fact, some of the nicest people I've ever met have been murderers.

Quoted from DustinBowcot Matthew's point isn't about depicting a sympathetic view of the shooter. He's suggesting that you make the characters more real rather than cardboard cut-outs or heavily cliched characters. People do evil things, doesn't mean they do evil things all the time. Some serial killers have happy family lives. Make great neighbours. The only time one sees their bad side is if they're unfortunate enough to be a victim. Otherwise, they're great people.

Yep.  I get that.  Agreed.

Quoted from DustinBowcot In fact, some of the nicest people I've ever met have been murderers.

I've got a couple on retainer.  

Alright, here we go.

I'm not trying to tell you how to write, or how to tell your story - below is just my opinion so take what you agree with, disgard the rest.

I'm actually glad I read this - You got a nice emotive story here. Strong subject matter about how an event like this affects so many people, not only in the immediate aftermath, but decades later.
I don't think the subject matter will set you back (I know you have fears of that) - but it is relateable and current - a good director should easily see it's commercial value.

FYI - the below may seem overly negative, but that's only because I am concentrating on the things i think can be improved - overall, the writing was decent and I enjoyed the story (Side note: I had to skim towards the end as I was at work, apologies if I missed something that I comment on)

First some writing stuff - some of these are small and petty, but when they are repeated frequently they can add up to taking away from the read/make the script look a bit messy.

(into phone) - I think you had this every time he spoke on the phone, we know he is on the phone because he jsut answered this - the parathentical is superfluous.
"G20" was in dialogue - numbers need to be written as they are said "G twenty"

There's a lot of unfilmables in here - I get you are trying to set an atmosphere, but try and keep it visual as possible "smell of death in the air" - like, what is a filmmaker supposed to put on screen to convey that?
The prose needs work, some of it felt like it belonged in a novel, not a screenplay - another example "kids hes known, hung out with and laughed since kindergarten" - convey what we can see, as it is happening, keep us in the moment - anything else is just extra words for no reason.

The biggest culprit for overwriting I found was this:

Quoted Text Off in the distance, just above the tip of a hill... a sunset. Something about the way the sun hits the clouds, and the rays of light... so sharp, so fine, as though they were reaching down to caress the land. A view so majestic and infiltrating, it's as if God wanted Henry and Henry alone to witness it.

Very poetic but don't belong in a screenplay - look how many words you have used, and what will we see on screen? sunset and clouds

I do like a good parenthetical - but you overuse them - you need to be brutal and ask yourself "Is this really needed?" for example....

STANLEY
(calls out)
Hello!

He has just walked into an empty house and you have added a ! - we know he calls out

FYI - great name for the protagonist - it's my son's name  

Quoted Text MAE (V.O.) Hi, I'm Mae, and I'm an alcoholic. AA MEMBERS (V.O.) Hi, Mae. INT. CHURCH BASEMENT - AFTERNOON

I learnt this just the other day - in this instance, you can use PRELAP instead of V.O - as PRELAP is used for sound from the next scene that starts in the previous scene (I got what you meant with V.O. but PRELAP gives it that profesional edge)

Quite a few instances of double information and too much information

Double info:

Quoted Text In the corner of the backyard sits a small greenhouse. Stanley approaches, enters the GREENHOUSE

You have told us twice we are in the backyard (it's in the slug) and twice there is a greenhouse - sharpen it up with something like

Quoted Text Stanley walks to the back corner and enters a� GREENHOUSE

Too much info:

Quoted Text Scott cranks down the passenger-side window.

We know he is sitting in the passenger seat - so if you just tell us he cranks down the window, we will assume it is the passenger window

some scenes were just not needed, and others it felt like we entered them too early or left too late - or both.

Example: the scene with him being on the Cessna plane - it literally added nothing other than $$ onto the budget. again, you have to be ruthless with your own scripts - ask yourself the questions "If I cut this scene, what do I lose?" - in this case, nothing.

At the begining, he enters Bannon's office on page 8 - and we stay there for 5 minutes (If I was watching this, I would probably have turned off at that point) it takes too long to convey what it is we need to see/hear/feel - too much buffer get's in the way.
(If I was making this, the first two characters I would cut is Ken and Gabriela - I don't see what their purpose is)
But not only that, when we finally leave the office we are with Stanley and Bannon outside for another 5 minutes - that's 10 whole minutes - and in my opinion, too long - you can't cut all of it, obviously, some important stuff in there, but you can sure as hell trim it right back.

I think that's it for writing stuff - I have given a few examples, but there are others that are of a similar vein.

If you sharpen it up and cut the deadwood - I think you can shave a lot of pages off of this (I have been told that for a first time writer trying to sell a spec, shorter scripts are more attractive - around the 90 pages mark)

Stanley - I feel like I am not really clued into his inner battle throughout this, he keeps it bottled up (bottled up from the other characters is fine, but as the audience, i want to see his inner struggle). I didn;t know he was blaming himself (or had an inkling) until the end - it's mentioned he hasn't been attending his alcoholic meetings but the cravings never appear in the story. I struggled to really get invested in him.

I was also surprised at how open everyone was at speaking their mind - like everyone. It seemed that whatever was bothering them, they were open and honest about it - even in the beginning with the rocky relationship, Stan and his wife jsut spewed out their feelings like they were in therapy.
He is trying to get people to talk about something devastating - I expected a bit more resistance

Henry talking about his daughters "I like that, daddy" habit was sweet - I really like that breaking down of his shell to show his humanity and feelings.

The story (the one Stanley is writing) - it's a bloody mystery lol I don't know what it is, why it is so important, we don't see or hear any of its contents. I can't get behind the outer goal of creating this story if i'm not clued in to what it's about - is it literally just a piece to see how everyone is feeling 20 years on? we are told it is important, but I can't feel it's importance.

Quoted Text STANLEY In that classroom? I was in the front row. Jason was two feet away. Looked right at me.

A few pages ago, we had a flashback of the shooter in the room - during the flashback, Stan was not mentioned - we didn't see the above happen at all - why? It is much better to show this powerful moment than simply telling us in dialogue - put this in the flashback.

Speaking of flashbacks - (I mentioned this in a previous post) - But i would have them from the victims POV - this is a victims story, not Jason's. having his POV only distracts from it. It would also break up some of the talking heads scenes.
Give us these - piece by piece to tease us - We see a brief flashback from Stan early in the script, in that flashback is Jason entering his room and they make eye contact END FLASHBACK - then later, towards the end with the Stanley breakdown that he thinks it's his fault, we see the next bit - Jason shoots everyone but him.

I think I have banged on long enough now.

Again - It seems overly negative but I am just picking on the stuff I think can be improved - overall I really liked it and I think with some tidying and focus this is a movie that could easily be made

Good work - I hope something I have said is vaguely useful (Sorry for spelling mistakes, I'm writing in a rush)

Matt

Yes!  There is so much here that will help me in the rewrite.  Words cannot express my gratitude!

Quoted from Matthew Taylor I'm not trying to tell you how to write, or how to tell your story - below is just my opinion so take what you agree with, disgard the rest.

I know.  No explanation necessary.  Nobody's skill set ever improved from having smoke blown up their ass.  Criticize away...

Quoted from Matthew Taylor There's a lot of unfilmables in here

Yes.  I was aware of that as I was writing.  I cheated, especially toward the end.  That was me throwing the rulebook to the wind.  I'll own that one.

Quoted from Matthew Taylor I learnt this just the other day - in this instance, you can use PRELAP instead of V.O - as PRELAP is used for sound from the next scene that starts in the previous scene (I got what you meant with V.O. but PRELAP gives it that profesional edge)

Huh.  Never knew that.  We learn something new every day.  Thanks!

Quoted from Matthew Taylor Quite a few instances of double information and too much information

Thanks for pointing these out.  It should help shave pages off.

Quoted from Matthew Taylor At the begining, he enters Bannon's office on page 8 - and we stay there for 5 minutes (If I was watching this, I would probably have turned off at that point) it takes too long to convey what it is we need to see/hear/feel - too much buffer get's in the way. But not only that, when we finally leave the office we are with Stanley and Bannon outside for another 5 minutes - that's 10 whole minutes - and in my opinion, too long - you can't cut all of it, obviously, some important stuff in there, but you can sure as hell trim it right back.

Absolutely.  I definitely need to cut this down.  A lot.  I feel like Stanley needs to get back to Angelica sooner.  Right on.

I've pasted everything you wrote onto a separate document.  It'll come in very handy on the rewrite(s).  Thanks so much, Matt.  Have a good night!  (I keeping forgetting you're about six hours or so ahead of me.)

--Mike