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.
Gingerbread by Curt Harris (dethmyke) - Horror - The fragile and disturbed mind of an African-American teen is possessed by his deceased grandmother, a voodoo queen of black magic, convincing her grandson that all white people are devils. 123 pages - pdf, format
Right off the bat, your opening slug is incorrect. The last segment is reserved for the time, not location. I'm guessing CARD is another way of writing SUPER so I'll trust it. The action lines following the CARD are a bit redundant. You've told us that there's a fierce wind so adding the swaying of the trees (which is misspelled) from the breeze should be cut.
More slug issues. The SECONDS LATER are written as CONTINUOUS. You don't even need that second slugline with the outside window. Since we're already outside, you could just add it to the first action lines.
Tyrone is never introduced properly. I'm guessing he's the body you keep referring to. We can't actually "see" the voice of the elderly woman speaking out so that action line can be cut out. Just have her speak and add her accent in parenthesis. You can also get rid of the, "soft voice wines out loud." You don't have to tell us that they're speaking, just have them speak.
No need for the MORE or the CONTINUED at the bottom of the page. It just adds to the length. Hopefully this helps you out a bit.
The logline intrigued me so I figured I'd look at this.
The writing here isn't bad, but in some places it could be a bit more visual. "A gingerbread figure with a scary face" isn't very visual. Something like "a gingerbread figure with a gruesome snarl" is much better.
"The body sits up like a ghost; it gets out of bed with the quilt covering the entire body" reads poorly, mainly because of your extra use of "the entire body." I think "the body sits up, quilt covering it like a ghost" is a better way to write this.
The parentheticals for Tyrone's dialogue are kinda redundant. "Whines" "sniffs"... just tell us he's crying.
Tyrone isn't introduced properly (until next scene), but because we don't actually see him under the sheet this isn't an issue for me.
Typo on page 3: "he no signs of pain." And later, "the sound of the door is unlock."
No need for all the mini slugs if everything is in the same room. They interrupt the flow for me. Not to mention MIRROR, SINK, MIRROR, SINK gets tedious fast.
I think the drug dealer acted slightly cliched, plus the whole choking thing was over-the-top. If you want him to be scary, make him scarier on more of a psychological level rather than choking people and pointing guns at them.
What's with "7 AM" in the slug? We won't be able to see this in screen. Plus it doesn't really serve the plot, as far as I can tell.
I like the premise here. It's unique, definitely not something we've seen lately, plus it has the potential to be very disturbing if handled right. However, I don't think the execution is quite there. Right now it's over-the-top and sometimes cliched. Like I said about C.J., the story should be more psychological.
And just an idea... begin the script with the kids on the bus talking about how scary "Gingerbread man" is, and how you don't want to mess with him. Then cut to that night, where we finally see what Tyrone's life is really like, and how he's got psychological problems/ghosts. Could be more effective that way.
I haven't seen you on the boards, so I'm going to stop here. Hopefully this will help.
Read scripts and contribute to the boards if you want more reads.
Thank you for the useful comments. The CONTINOUS at the bottom of the page is something that appears using the Celtx program. I'm working on another rewrite to polish the script up a bit from the advises I've received. Thank you Crookedowl on your comments that my script have potential. That the kind of motivation I need to continue with my project. I will use the ideas you suggested especially the suggestion regarding the bus scene. You're right, it sets up Gingerbread's entrance perfectly. I plan read other scripts so I can get more feed back.
Found it! I'm just getting started and going back and forth between getting something submitted on my own end, and reading. Top priority, without looking at other's yet, I will definitely get some thoughtful feedback on this to you, tonight (or in the morning with my insomnia). Take care til then!
I have to agree with much of the other guy's input, and crookedowl, who actually gave a lot of the same (very helpful) advice on my own, but if I could add to that format stuff - now probably obvious to you - before getting into the writing... the one thing I disagree on is the MORE issue. With your software, the continues are actually redundant to a reader who can see the action will carry on, they and the mores in dialogue are automatically placed below the margin line, and do not affect the bulk of the work. They don't add to the number of characters found in the body of it (I've experimented with this) with celtix and finaldraft's tendency to break lines anyway. Get rid of it. Put it back. Go to the bottom of your script and see if anything moves. It likely won't. If it does, look for the problem spot, because the program may be confused on where a sentence is ending, or a typo. When looking for something to get your length and flow right - or even when dealing with some of the "unfilmables" that are actually acceptable, according to Scorsese. In the hands of an experienced master like him, who is attempting to capture a very specific sense of feeling that will be seen on screen in only subtle ways that can't be summed up in words very easily - if it doesn't actually break a line and affect the length with the standard margin settings, it may not be that big of a deal. Even though it should be for a very small percentage of the whole, of course, if something questionably unfilmable truly captures the artistic sense of the moment, I leave it. Thinking that way, the really wrong ones become much more obvious, and then are open to re-writing properly. Sometimes, overused parentheticals and beats can push a page past that break, and really do need to be removed except in the most specific and micromanaging cases between the writer and director when communicating. They can be cluttered, I admit. Back to the mores, then, as a tool that is automatically provided by professional software for professional use, the mores keep an organized and aesthetic quality to the dialogue where actors require seeing a precise description of flow, as they often go by the words exactly, or improvise in the spirit of it if they're good enough. It would be reasonable, though, to possibly not have that MORE on the first page, at least (which might even be fixable just by taking care of the paras on the same page), if only for flow, a strong start, and a good-looking hook for sale's sake. Really, the preference should/could be to just not let dialogue hit a page break in the first place, leaving it for when absolutely necessary. This will naturally limit things, that way.
Having said that, a few additional concerns stand out on the first page that were not addressed yet. It's general stuff. For example, we're all in the habit of putting "..." in our writing all over the place these days. However, in screenwriting it has a specific meaning, and for your actor, in dialogue, the ... means to draw out the last sound of the word. So, if you want them to say, "You promised me... You said I don't have to do it again..." They will want to be going, "Meeeeeeeee," and "Againnnnnn," on screen. It's a habit I had to break, myself, but am glad I did for the unexpected benefits it created elsewhere.
One piece of advice my teacher gave me, who has been in the business of screenwriting for almost 40 years, participated in Cannes, etc., and passed me the link to this website, told me after my first attempt at a short that it's very good practice for the action lines to take up no more than three lines, each. I know that writers don't always do this, and don't necessarily have to, worried about the effects on their length, but personally, I've found this constraint forces me to rewrite things in ways I wouldn't have otherwise, and has kept me from overwriting much worse than I ever did before. So, referring to where you have paragraphs that reach four lines, splitting those or backing them down through rewriting would force you to have to remove true fat elsewhere - though this is a very casual suggestion.
Okay, now I've hit you with enough, I'm sure, to start off. First impressions. I'm going to finish taking in the whole, for sure, and let you know as soon as I do. I'll say this... Gingerbread is in much better shape right now than my own when I first received the concept from my co-writer. He basically needed help, and it turned to full-on collaboration. What makes this all ready better off, especially, is that I can definitely see some camera motions coming through from this, even if just attempted or if a few little things get in the way here and there, with grammar. I'll get back to that stuff in my follow-up post later. It's moving towards something, absolutely!
Got completely through it. Wow, what a creepy start to the character Gingerbread with his mom, the brothel, and the pimp C.J. Honestly, I fell in love with the idea of Tyrone/Gingerbread as a character, right there, because I have known that kid in real life, and I have seen those places in real life. On the setting, too, I served in the Army and am a veteran, and spent my time in training stationed at Fort Benning, GA, where I also got to travel through some pretty poverty stricken and forgotten areas of Alabama, on a volunteer duty where we helped build some stuff around a town, like a church and a town hall. I got to see and meet some of the sweetest, kindest, most interesting characters of my entire life in those places. It's also a horrible place that is virtually unreal compared to normal experience, strange and magical in a lot of ways. This is the place for Gingerbread, then. I know he could exist there. Due to the hardship and struggle, a lot of really bad can happen. I have a true, passionate hatred for rednecks and confederates as a result, and can really relate to that aspect of all this in Gingerbread, at the same time, know that a lot of this could potentially be real or based on real life, at the beginning. In the beginning of this script, it's very real to me. I think it's about time that poor boy got a voice in cinema. It's that immediate connection that caused me to read through the whole thing, even if there are actually a lot off issues that should be addressed about the entire rest of the narrative. I saw Gingerbread's potential waaay up high on this tall ladder, and there are just a number of steps left to reach it. Quite a few. It's going to be a difficult inner struggle, because so much about this script seems so personal, angry, and about speaking a message to the world about many things. I will not try to bombard you with essays, but as you know, it's hard for me not to overwrite. So, I will try to list things as they come to me, but with no real priority - I'm just going to try to cover as much as I can.
A note about typos and typography, though, to round out my previous post on format: There is at least one typo on almost every single page, as you may know. I found that the most common of all is actually with your S and D/ed' s. On my own keyboard, my S button sticks and I have the worst trouble with it. They're either getting double pressed or left out, all the time. It makes me look like a mess on facebook and stuff, I'm ashamed to say. The thing is, with something like "He run" that should be he runs, or "He's arm," that should be he's armed, the program will not see a misspelling, and not highlight for easy revision. That means having to reread and reread, over and over again, very carefully. I must have gone over my first rough draft after the original author's version of my own script five or six times, and still, after all that, found some words with a missing S. I would say almost 9 out of 10 of your typos have to do with something like that, with a few others sprinkled here and there of all sorts, and some grammar issues. Your best, smoothest grammar and flow, always seems to be in your violent action parts... I bet, probably because they were your favorite and most fun to work on. That's something we all have in common. We do best with what we like most. Be most careful, then, of the other parts, and don't let them fall by the wayside. About typography: there is a term in the subject of type called an "orphan," and also, a "widow." These are words that are left alone at the tops and bottoms of paragraphs, and are universally considered wrong in all forms of writing. You have them all throughout, and they will drastically lengthen the bulk of your work much worse than any paras, mores and continued's, and unfilmables ever will. Here's one, from page 2, "He plugs the the drain with a rubber stopper and submerges a wash cloth in the hot water..." where the word water goes down to a third line all by itself. The problem with these, is just imagine all the space that is being wasted on the whole rest of that line, all for that one little word. It's pushing the whole rest of the work down an extra line for its self, in other words. There are only two options... one either has to figure out what to remove or change before it, and bring it back up, or take advantage of the rest of that line by filling it with some more interesting and useful/detailed on screen descriptions. It's not overwriting if you are filling a line that would all ready be there for an unfixable orphan, anyway, but it's better to pull one back up if possible. This will greatly tighten things up and leave room for other fixes in the narrative.
About the Narrative/story: I feel that this is a script that does not know who or what it wants to be, yet. The biggest, most stand-out problem I can see is that there is almost no way this will not receive an NC-17 rating in its current state. This is due to the massive amounts of violence, vomit, and sado-sexual undercurrents prevalent throughout. I do not believe in coddling by holding back violence from the audience, though, and enjoyed many of your action sequences on their own, like the rat bite, and the rope-pulled lady. There's just something missing in between that gives them context and togetherness, or even reason beyond the vengeful anger of Gingerbread and some others. I've experienced a large amount of violence in my life, through my dad being a vietnam vet, my being a vet, and even here in the states, since, in some crazy situations all over. I also have a lot of experience with Psychology before getting into Animation. My mom's a Phd in psych, working with my dad a lot on his ptsd, which I also suffer from, now, (and I don't think I never knew my dad til I knew that), and my first major in college was psychology, myself. I know it. I get it. Violence of action. I take its presentation very seriously, feel confident about how to do it, and become concerned in a few modern films that border on snuff porn, like Saw and Hostel, who give violence for violence's sake, and totally miss the point in its use as a storytelling device. Why? Here's my take on violence in film, over its whole history..... Violence is traumatic. Even on screen, for our audience, it's traumatic. In a movie theater or on a couch, there, it's safer and an opportunity for voyeurism, sure, but where it becomes a part of storytelling in the Horror genre is that it is just traumatic enough to remove the watcher's ego a little bit, and open them up to suggestion. Therefor, open to a moral lesson. Some of the most disturbing and yet great horror films of all time get this, and never forget to provide morality with the violence. Like Se7en, they are not just about getting a hard-on to someone suffering, but reach deep to interpret a why and a danger behind it all. Ethically, it becomes very important to make the suggestion responsible and productive, too, if we are going to put them through something, even if we don't particularly like all of our audience members. Plus with the subtle lessons, in a way, this actually adds to the true horror of it all, in a subliminal, psychological way. It's not just about making people sick, mentally, emotionally, and physically, like Saw or the Collector (the collector being a little better at this, and filmography, actually, but still pretty bad in terms of nihilistic brutality), but goes back to the origins of storytelling, all the way back to the dawn of mankind when it was spoken word around a fire, that the heart of telling a story is about a lesson and a moral, always. Regarding all this, though, I did not get the idea that you were always doing this intentionally, but that a moral was right on the tip of your tongue, only to be covered over by the anger and revenge of all the many character's issues. Yet, because it's unfocused and the violence loses its sense of reason, according to the rating system, this will hit NC-17 or even X, as it is, which becomes extraordinarily difficult to sell or promote.
Speaking of moral lessons, the next largest issue with the narrative as a whole is that it does not seem to have a theme. Not one theme, I mean, that is a part of the composition as a whole. At the same time, it's not lacking for conflict. There are so many conflicts going on, that it becomes difficult to know which is the most important/core to the story, especially while there seems to be so little theme behind them to bring them together into a cohesive whole. A cohesive set of units or sequences. I think, the closest one you really touch on, is revenge, but there are many things getting in the way of this shining out clearly to the audience, in my assessment, not the least of which refers to what I said earlier, of how this feels like a script that does not yet know what it truly wants to be, fully....
(will continue listing these either by editing this, or on a new post. I've gotta take a break for errands, dinner, family, etc.... the usual, and also some further thinking)
I'm almost unsure where to start about the theme issues, or how the story seems as a whole. So much about the beginning is great and provides a basis for what appears to be a solid, natural continuation of events, but then it totally changes, then it totally changes again and again. I clearly see all of these influences from news, current events, other movies, etc., but it's only in the very beginning that things seem to be coming from life experience, where everything else just becomes wishful thinking, or a way, perhaps, to take out revenge on tons of world issues in a creative way, attempting to spice it up with twists and turns that actually come across as either random, or unusually paced.
As far as pacing, then, some notes on the 3 Act Structure: I was unable to place where the plot points actually are, according to that rule. I was able to ascertain where plot Point 1 might be due to the use of a fade transition, and the timeline change of 20 years... however, I did not realize there was a time change until someone spoke about it in dialogue, later. I then had to rethink, go back, and try to re-figure things out. I absolutely can't place where plot point 2, leading into Act 3, might be, and this is due to some issues of wording in places, simple, but other issues of your attempts to get so many separate seeming stories, characters, and conflicts into one. Here's where I'm on the edge... there are some continuity issues, from this. One example of wording things that actually does happen in the beginning, is on pages 4 and 5, when he sees his mom on the floor. I thought Gingerbread had found his mom dead, not just passed out, and I even thought we might be getting into a story where he had done something he didn't know he did, and then would spend this movie trying to either prove his innocence, or to wrestle with his inner demons. I was way off... suddenly, his mom's back and in a fight, and then she's dead, later, in a scene where the mayor bursts in and interrupts C.J.'s abuse, with his own evil and abuse. That part of my having to re-evaluate that whole flow just in Act 1 itself, came from that little wording issue from page 4. Other parts, later, came as difficulties in pacing and theme, again... Here, we seem like we are in a Jason-like slasher movie, there, a supernatural Candyman-type allegory, there, a Jason Bourne/government suspense thriller, there, a trap master situation set up like the Collector, there, Gingerbread is an active shooter, there, a Silence of the Lambs psycho genius versus government agent, there, a Cabin in the Woods big government getting everybody wrapped up in a conspiracy just at the whim of the powerful, there, simple revenge plot again, there, a grindhouse feeling Dusk til dawn-type sequence, then back to the supernatural again, finally, after almost the bulk of Act 2 being so many other things. In fact, that moment where Gingerbread turns fully into grandma might be where Act 3 lies, but that would mean Act 1 is slightly too long (which could be helped by addressing parentheticals and orphans), Act 2 is waaay too long and confused, and Act 3 is extremely short by the average norm... as a whole, rather than take the audience on a neat roller coaster ride that gradually builds to a crescendo by its conclusion, this goes twist, twist, twist, boom, boom, boom, with hardly any other variance emotionally for the audience to consider or follow along. It's a constant up, or high note of violence intermingled with dialogue driven information giving.
Another major roadblock, too, is how the dialogue tries to explain so much. It's a common problem for starting screenwriters, but it should be made aware of and worked on as early as possible. The thing is, there are entire sequences in Gingerbread where I probably did not have to read the action lines at all, but could have gotten the entire story just by reading the dialogue. This is not a good state for it to be in, because movies are not stories of words, they're stories told through pictures. If so much is not being pictured besides violence, actions, and going from place to place, that the actual plot, backstory, and character motivations must be explained through dialogue, there's really a lot missing in the action lines. Dialogue is like lyrics in music, then... some songs have more to say than others, but the lyrics are ultimately an accent to the music. They're just brushstrokes on the canvas, then, not the composition or the canvas, as Maynard James Keenan from Tool once said. Look at a great classic like Tangerine by Led Zeppelin as another analogy that only has a handful of actual lines, but it sounds like he's saying more due to repeated phrases, background singing, and especially the breaks and solos, making a great song where people don't know why it's great - except subliminally, where it just feels right. It's simplified to make room for it to become a whole piece. It's the same with movies, except in addition to audio, there are pictures and actions to consider, as well, plus we want to stay away from repeating. What I mean is, though, dialogue is just an accent to the rest, and in life, we rarely or never just declare what is going on except to or through very special characters. Take away the camera, and this is just theater. The essence of this is theater on a stage, as well as storytelling. In theater, there may be a character who presents a set up beforehand, a narrator, but in film we do not even usually go with that. Only sometimes. Moonrise Kingdom has a great narrator (which is usually a clown of some sort in theater), but Wes Anderson breaks a lot of rules because he's a master of that. Most of us don't even go with voice overs or over shoulders, so that we can focus on the visuals and other ways of communicating through more subtle devices. Gingerbread has neither narrator nor subtle devices, but each character just explaining their own point of view on things at different times. It causes repetition of known things we thought we all ready figured out, at the same time, throws random things we could have never guessed into the mix.
So, in dialogue like when Tonya, his mom, realizes his grandma is really possessing gingerbread, she starts explaining to the audience about how this is, how it makes her feel, and how the audience should feel about it. This is a no no. It happens like that many more times (plus, that specific info she gave felt like stuff I should have been getting nearer to the end, and tonya could almost be just fine not speaking at all, except maybe in BG, which I'll touch on later). I just randomly scrolled down to whatever page I landed on... I ended up on page 75. Here's another example, on this page, Sheriff Jenkins is going, (copy and pasting) "Jarvis knew Tyrone was coming back! He knew tyrone was coming to kill us and expose Devil's Breath! Twenty year ago, After the murder charges against tyrone was dropped, the government shutdown the operation and order Jarvis to destroy everything relating to the project..." and continues explaining about twice as much. There is something like this in almost every dialogue exchange between all characters, from start to finish. So, Crookedowl makes a good point about not having unfilmables in the action lines, but the next solution that writers sometimes go to which is also just as wrong, is explaining all of those feelings and plot points in the dialogue, when they can't wrestle with the fact that those things don't need to be there at all. The audience can seem simple, and sometimes is, but the human brain is also naturally equipped to read these same things through the microexpressions and body language in the performance of the actor, the sense of the music and audio effects, lighting, and tone, and can fill in the gaps when well placed cuts are used at the best moments. Continuity and plot come naturally to us all. It's hard to see that or make sense of what to say and what to leave out, though, until you see these things work on the screen. I have to admit that, and give credit, but there are so many moments in Gingerbread right now where a character might as well just look directly into the camera and tell the audience what's going on, what they have planned, what they want to threaten might happen, and backstory, plus some exchanges take up entire pages. That guy who was concerned there was not enough dialogue in a script like my own, pointing out how sometimes many pages went by without any, was actually quite wrong. I politely did not respond to him, there, but there are entire schools of thought on this that agree this extra dialogue of most kinds is a bad idea... wherever possible. Pages with no dialogue whatsoever are nice and clean. See "Drive" by Nicholas Winding Refn for a great example of this, which in someone else's hands could have been the next fast and the furious load of shallow garbage, a car movie, but got turned into an absolute masterpiece. There's hardly any dialogue in it, and when there is, it's barely a sentence here and there that is beautifully vague, open, or so to the point that it just moves right on. Replacing that is an amazing sequence of events presented through gorgeously lit, long, still shots. Telling what these things can show is then strongly ill advised. Instead, we want to fly into some people's lives, some place, see them living them naturally, and then fly away as the world moves on, even if it's a fantasy world....
Which brings me to my final notes on characters and how they relate to this narrative:
First, I want to say that I was station at Fort benning from 1990 to 1995 C CO. 43rd Engineer Battalion a.k.a charlie rock!!!
Wow, you went deep on this! I appreciate that big time! First, I've hired an editor that's going to correct all the spelling, grammar, etc. As for the rating of NC-17, I was aiming for something that was going to make everyone's mouth drop open with the scariest express they can make. I know its a bit confusing when people first read the script but they soon realized that Gingerbread is only the beginning of something very big. Gingerbread is a trilogy, the first script basiclly break down the conflict between Gingerbread, his mother, and a shady sheriff department.
20 years later it breaks down the conflict between Gingerbread, Jessica and the F.B.I. When Gingerbread goes on a killing spree, its clearly a deversion to keep Jessica and Agent Starks occupied while he goes after the people who killed his mother, the cover up murder of his father, and the people who did him wrong.
You see all the plots are tied together, some are explained more than others. The dialog may seem a bit over the top in explanation but that's where the audience can understand how the wheels are turning. To write a horror story mixed with a conspiracy angle is not easy but i think I've prove that it can be done.
The violence isn't something that's never been seen. i own over 1200 horror movies and not the crappy ones. Movies like the remake of the Texas chain saw, the collector, saw, Hostel, and even the remake of the tool box murders were extremly violent.
But I respect your opinions and will try to incorporate you suggestions as well as everyone else that commented in the editing process. I like your style as a critic as well as a writer. Maybe we can collaberate on something in the future. I would love to see this script become a #1 horror movie
I got interrupted by some news, but I'll get by to the character stuff with an edit. It's deep because I took in the whole thing in one sitting, and it brought a ton to mind.
You make a good point on the nc-17 aim for a draft, I'll reverse my position some. The South Park guys, Tray parker and Matt Stone, go for that nc-17 first, every time, because once they whittle it down to what those censors accept, they manage to get away with a little bit more than they would have otherwise. They almost force the ratings people to compromise... but they are also working with a highly established name, brand, and in comedy/satire. I made it a big point for Gingerbread, because it's more direct and brutal than satire. Also, according to the semi-official standards, it's not so much the shooting, chopping, biting, hitting, that warrants this... they have a thing about so much on screen throw up/vomit, bloody or otherwise, that is not presented for comedy, and even then, again, guys like south park have a real problem with not getting NC-17's due to THAT kind of thing. The ratings people are crazier than any of our monsters, like that, for real. The ratings board... man... the things they think...
I'm glad you clarified the trilogy thing, btw... because I was literally going to say this could be three different movies. I feel like I was sensing three different potential narratives inside of it, somewhere, between all of these characters, so I'll make it a point to note that when I talk about characters working within this version as I finish off that critique on some character ideas.
Also, I have nothing against film violence... but the news I got interrupted by was this Conneticut shooting today. Horrible. F-ing horrible and dishonerable, to the core. These are the kinds of things that cause me to bring up ethics in violence so much.... but I want to be more clear, I have absolutely nothing against seeing it (and wow that's quite a collection you have).... I think I was trying to suggest ways of clarifying it's causes just a little further or deeper rather than take it out. Believe me, I wanted to see those people be punished as Gingerbread was on the attack. Badly. And they got their's. Definitely. I love the original and remakes of the Texas Chainsaw massacre, by the way, but they still actually solved the morality issue in a special way, that I feel a lot of new gore flicks miss.... it's character driven, and it captures instantly sympathetic characters in a situation facing true psychosis... I felt a lot of sympathy for the Collector's protagonist, too, and at the end, I definitely said "Wow" for it's overall composition. Also, the Collector is a true sadist... a very realistic one whose performance with his little body twitches and quirks is right on the money with the real thing, enhanced by his ability to make traps. Saw is kind of.... a pussy with a grudge, because he has cancer, and kindof just a dick to me. haha... he's just plain mean spirited, and I never found even the "wake people up to life" explanation enough to justify his actions. Collector's real because he's a lunatic. I think Hostel and the Saw Sequels hacked it the way Chainsaw Massacre and Collector nailed it, some, where the originals were better than the sequels as they began to get diluted and derivative, more about the crazy gimmicks and set ups. You know what got me in Collector? The cat in the acid.... man, that had me cringing in my seat, and turned around. But I forget the great and believable characters it actually contained, and the first Saw. There, the violence worked FOR it. In hostel, I saw almost no redeeming many of the things, beyond nihilism. Nihilism is the Nietzsche based philosophy that "nothing matters, and so annihilate all morality, sense of reason for the 'why' of things, and there are no such things as good and evil, or punishment or reward. God is dead." He wrote about it when he was young, it has been misunderstood for over a hundred years, even though it's prevalent all around us. That's the case, because in so many ways, he was right, but as he himself grew old, he still retracted much of this... the makers of a movie like hostel may know Nietzsche, and support nihilism, like the maker of Antichrist admittedly does, and other filmakers, but there's another side. Nihilism is only part of our evolution, learning, and growth. The next and only logical step in evolution, when nothing else matters and all has been destroyed, the only thing left is a state of pure creativity. A human can be a pure creator. Nietzsche spoke about this later in his life. The nazis actually tried to suppress that while keeping the rest, and it fueled them, as well as many to this day. He's so difficult and deep, so many misunderstand without the full education of his body of work, as a whole. Those who don't achieve that evolution remain pure destroyers. This is the sense I got out of Hostel. Nihilism. It's a valid philosophy, but it's... iffy. Shaky. Floating on the surface and maybe missing the point. Incomplete. Gore porn (which I am not saying Gingerbread is, at all) seems to miss this every time, leaving only the trauma. That scares me more than a bullet, but it doesn't horrify me. It leaves me scarred and angry. They... may have wanted this, and that's okay. I'd forgive them for that, but not who they might leave hurt and confused who cannot understand. Their nihilism approach scars the watcher without providing any indication for how to use that anger and xenophobia in any useful/creative way, but just emptied of context, emptied of hope or one's place in the world.... Like this shooter, today, jeesus... 27 victims, 20 kids... nihilism... against hostel, your Gingerbread all ready does a BETTER job of giving this, I'll say, by at least having the revenge point very understandable. Having jessica being very relatable and sympathetic, too. All I mean is, push deeper where you all ready scratched the surface of your perfectly great justifications for the very extreme violence. Gingerbread deserves to be itself, but also, to be deep. It's potential for depth is really great, and right there in reach. I hope I made the difference more clear, but it's hard, because it's such a fine line. If you think (and your explanation makes more sense - I remembered how his plans played out, with the shooting being a distraction), it advances the plot, then it's part of the story that must be told, by that rule. By that standard... you gotta tell that scene and respect the violence, then. I admit.
My sole worry is that Gingerbread, without context to his actions clearly and early explained in act 1, may not be sympathized with as a killer. As he is, he's an absolute monster, almost just as much as everyone else (except jessica and stark)... and we don't want anyone in the audience who might be that kind of person we want to punish, themselves, suddenly sympathizing with the confederate flag wavers, the pimps, conspirators, etc... the real bad guys. As a grown-up, it makes more sense why he's a murder machine, but as a child, even though we get hints he's been abused and had a terrible hand dealt to him in life, like when he confronts the bullies or kills Ryan, there are moments where it's almost too.... he's supposed to be a force of nature, but he's so much so right away, without progression from innocent child getting abused to unstoppable power, even with his supernatural voodoo grandmother's powers inside, I wonder if it doesn't accidently cause sympathy for the victims, who are the actual bad guys. I think.... because there's not a struggle with the inner demons at that point. He's all ready an established killer of gang members who everyone all ready fears. We could almost go back further in time for his development to understand. His whole childhood, in fact, could be an entire movie (and a good one, too), all by itself. I actually thought it would be, at first. I never expected to see us go forward in time so far at the moment we did, but could have read a hundred more pages about him as a kid, with the rat weapon (which was awesome), and developing his power. But when it comes to sympathy with gingerbread, an being that unstoppable force... those racist jerks deserved some punishment, so take the rat scene for example. It just happens, boom, he's announcing what he's got in store for the devils, they're terrified of him all ready, and they have no chance. If gingerbread were just a little smaller in his power there, if that bully got in a couple punches or we had seen him more under the radar and getting pushed around, and if there was some sort of set-up for the rat like it came from somewhere supernatural or he regularly had it as a pet before, we would suddenly have all of the sympathy for gingerbread, just like when CJ was roughing him up at the start (which was my favorite part of the beginning). What Gingerbread does, then, would still be monstrous, but we would still retain some emotional sympathy for him as a monster, all throughout. This is something even Saw gets a bit of through the cancer angle. As sympathetic as the CJ scenes make gingerbread (and those are great in how you can see and smell the setting and CJ on the scene... I mean, I could almost smell his breath and the nastiness of the brothel), that same sympathy does not come when he encounters others, because of how terrified and small they all are compared to him. Only the one kid, in almost the whole Act 1, even thinks about standing up to him... later on, my only problem with the shooting, also, is not the people getting shot... it's that I was not prepared, or saw no preparation for why and how he is so well armed, then. That's what I mean by context. I didn't get it, in that moment, how he got fatigues, armor, and a burst fire assault weapon with silenced capabilities, and was forced to speculate on all of his preparation into being a shooter, suddenly, which I didn't understand til far near the end after spending a lot of time with the agents, and you explained it further. So in some ways, Gingerbread, the kid and then the man, seems like an expression of simply being powerful, which is hard for the average person to sympathize with and relate to if he is the protagonist. If he's the protagonist, being the important question.
In my experience, at least, with debates on this same subject with my teachers and fellow students, plus my own movie collection....
On character: Protagonist versus Antagonist... the standard definition, in general, is that protagonist is the character who undergoes the most change from start to finish, and the antagonist is the one who brings the conflict. By that standard, I had some trouble placing who was supposed to be what, in this. Clearly, Gingerbread is the main protagonist, but I only got that in the beginning, lost it in the middle where gingerbread seems like the main antagonist and jessica the protagonist, then found it again (confirmed it) towards the end. It's because so many people are monsters in this, I think, which is just fine, but somehow the characters could be separated a little further by many devices.... their little quirks and more depth, for some, to be even more individuals. Jessica could also be argued to be the main protagonist in a lot of ways, but she's presented as a side character, it feels like, at first... even though the football scene is a really good one. Perfect. You instantly know she's tough by taking on some marines... but then she goes back and forth as she starts to confront Gingerbread. After all this time where she might be the protagonist, she goes back to side-character, and even defeated.. she also undergoes little change even though she suffers a lot, which is the time it becomes clear Gingerbread probably is protagonist after all, and not antagonist any more, as he played through act 2. Still, her story and all of the agents takes up a huge bulk of the narrative, and because of this basic P vs A confusion inherent in the combination of multiple plots, as it is, I couldn't tell who to be rooting for after a little while, and yet, this is not good or bad. It's good if you intended that affect on me as your audience member. It's confusing and might be something to address, if not. The antagonist and protagonist roles, versus the side-characters, could use a little work in being nailed down and clarified, in my opinion, but not directly your fault or the fault of any one of the sub-stories. I think with just a few key transitions in the right places, or something just right under your creative nose just waiting to be unlocked, could be all it needs to fix this. I think if you take care of the parantheticals and orphans, and typos like Crookedowl pointed out, I think you will find plenty of room left for one or two things to fill that gap, anywhere, wherever you choose and feel best about. A lot of this critique comes down to that exact thing. If you meant it, go for it. If you think the audience you are trying to reach is best reached through dialogue, then yeah, of course that's a positive thing and a part of your artistic expression. I really do think that. My critique comes from having these ideas nailed into my brain by many hard-line teachers, and all up for grabs, when talking artistic expression.
PS: dude... my real opinion is, if you believe in yourself and work hard enough, you can prove anything can be done. Anything you can imagine, any way you imagine it.
Thanks for the opportunity to read your work and your very open, creative mind. I may only get on this site a couple times a week, but I'm always ready for a good movie chat... any movie, anytime. haha Take care, bro. Fantastic idea on hiring the editor. There's no shame, and I wish I had one. Nothing helps like a second set of eyes when it comes to grammar and spelling, typos and typography, and that's something I never had. It adds too much work and time, for me, not having one, that's killer...
And Thanks for your service, too, before... you were at Benning when they were still making real men there. I was there in 2001, Basic (bravo company, Rock Force), Airborne, then back for Sniper School... but mostly at Fort Bragg with the 82nd. I did that volunteer work I was talking about after getting injured during some Air Assault style training. Things changed there... really changed since the 90's. I don't know what to make of it all now, how or why.... but the ability to drive on and remain steadfast is something that we can still use in our screenwriting, today. hooah. Keep it up. Use that, always. Integrity. Keep your goals and standards high, as well as your own motivation. Gingerbread could do it. You can do it. You can make it happen.
Pages: 1, 
Author
Gingerbread
Logged
Locked Board