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.
Jessup by Mark Lyons - Short, Drama - After an outburst at work, a young man obsessed with control is ordered to see a therapist, who might just be as equally manipulative as he is. 11 pages - pdf, format
Really nice blend of simmering confrontation and quietly combative leading character and antag from the outset. And you've already got me saying 'ewww' with the description of the soda and the spittle. Not to mention what comes later...
But, where's the description of your main character, at least? (See below)
This is a terrific story but I think it could be even better if you up the stakes.
The one thing I would have liked to see is if Jessup had actually done something really horrible or highly questionable on the job. He's being called in for what? Insubordination? Right, reading on he had an 'outburst' and yelled/called his supervisor out over something, yet this will be overlooked if he has some counseling due to the fact he's a valued employee. That doesn't seem that big a deal really.
Take it a step further even if your audience never actually knows what this terrible deed is.
I picture part of this guy's M.O. would be in manipulating and getting one over those weaker than he is - in particular females - perhaps some sexual harassment - or worse even (ramp up the stakes - perhaps an alleged rape or act of indecency/assault) so that his job is really on the line. Whatever it is make it bad, even if it's only alluded to. I also wonder if it would another dimension if Simplot were in fact a female or if the supervisor (who we don't ever see) is female.
Likewise when Simplot is trying to intimidate Jessup but failing perhaps Simplot pulls something out of his hat. This would further ramp up the tension/battle of wits and thereby make Jessup's need for revenge (and what he does at the end) more potent and justified. Perhaps Simplot holds a trump-card or at least pretends to have some info on Jessup that no one else knows about - this would really threaten Jessup - doctors can often subpoena records and if he's been in trouble in the past then this info wouldn't be hard for him to come by.
Jessup sits quiet, but the anger might slowly be building in his eyes.
Apart from not being fond of the 'might' in description I got no sense at all that Jessup was feeling threatened at this early point. I think it's best to wait on that until something really threatening is in fact revealed. Perhaps give this guy a (show) instead of (tell) here - maybe a nervous twitch - something subtle that with time gets worse or becomes more noticeable.
Likewise on p6 I'm not sure you should have 'the anger rises again in jessup' - Like I said at this point I still picture him pretty cool. Simplot is the one who appears rattled.
Jessup reveals to Simplot exactly who is in relaying how he manipulated and bullied his own mother but perhaps if it was a worse recounting of events. Unless he's not revealing all of the story... Make sense? Make him dangerous.
Your story definitely packs a punch due to the rather gratuitous scene at the end. Your main character is obnoxious and possibly a sociopath and he sets out to get one over the other guy but I think this would be far more effective if there was more at stake for Jessup which would in turn justify what he does at the end.
A couple of issues of phrasing for me but I think this is probably a personal style thing.
This one:
'Pop runs straight through me anymore'
I think the word 'anymore' is superfluous - if you're referring to the character's inability to control his bladder at a previous time - in other words he doesn't have that control anymore then it could be reworded to reflect that.
How does having better supervisors make his (Jessup's) tasks more important? I don't get that?
'gone in a heartbeat' is enough if you ask me without the pre-qualification of 'not even'.
If you can't start controlling 'these tantrums' or 'your temper' instead of 'your tantrums' - I dunno - maybe personal choice again.
'You're a young kid' would suffice as 'kid' or 'you're just a kid' - sounds even more condescending without the 'young' ironically, least imh.
'You're a crybaby. You're a crybaby in all sense of the word.' - 'every sense of the word.'
'You're a disgusting drinker' - I suppose this says it all but perhaps Jessup would be a little more articulate - something like: 'you clearly have issues with personal hygiene and your table manners belong in the gutter. Just a suggestion.
Also, I pictured Jessup just a little bit older - I don't know perhaps a little more life experience under his belt to reflect his conniving manipulative ways. And, some description of him would be good as I said above - you've got none at the moment.
As an aside to the above - I just finished watching The Fall - terrific series about a psychotic murderer/rapist. The lead role features Jamie Dornan - soon to be seen in Fifty Shades Of Grey - (which I will not be rushing to see btw) but the interesting point is that the character and casting of him is polar opposite of your stereotypical 'bad guy'. Usually bad guys are depicted as 'ugly on the inside, ugly on the outside' - this guy has matinée good looks and it works for the part and is mentioned in the story. How could someone this good looking be such a monster? You get the gist - I'm interested in how you picture your apprentice sociopath.
Love the final 'Am I pressing any buttons' line. The double entendre is terrific. Great finish!
Thanks, LC, for taking a look at this! I'll respond as soon as I get back from some running around. I just wanted to post before it slips down the portal and I lose it forever.
First, this is a good one. Smartly handled. You clearly know what you're doing.
Second, my main objection: Mr. Simplot should be identified as a "company" counselor. He in no way behaves as a licensed therapist would. Even a dysfunctional therapist (and they're out there) would not approach a client in this manner. BUT -- if he works for the company, I can see it. The Macy's psychologist in the '47 "Miracle on 34th Street" comes to mind (Mr. Sawyer).
I don't agree that Jessup's transgression should be bigger. What he did is the appropriate level for a referral of this kind. A sexual offense? He'd be out. No story.
Small stuff: The use of "anymore" is regional. It always sounds off to me when people say it, but it IS used that way. Like Pop and Soda. But for those who haven't heard it, maybe best to change,
Very entertaining. Of course, some actor's going to have to pretend to rub his face in pee-pee.
I don't agree that Jessup's transgression should be bigger. What he did is the appropriate level for a referral of this kind. A sexual offense? He'd be out.
Hmm, you're probably right. I still think not knowing exactly what Jessup is guilty of but alluding to the fact it wasn't nice (i.e., something a little more sinister than an outburst) might add another dimension. A quietly powerful piece nonetheless.
First, nice job. You manage to set up a good little battle here. However, I have a few nits. First, in most cases, coincindence should not favor the protagonist. The spittle and the urine are coincidental and hence not part of his plan. What happens if they're not there? If he wants to walk away with a sabbatical, he should have a plan going in. Generally, coincidence works against the protagonist.
That doesn't mean he can't use urine. It just should be his own. He can lie about that. And he can get DNA from the can without all the spittle.
Beyond that, in this game of tit for tat I think you might consider more reversals. Yes he removes the cassette (and I'm not sure the machine would work without a tape inside), but simplot has backup. Jessup disables that and simplot has another. Eventually, Jessup has the last laugh, but it shouldn't be easy. Keep us guessing.
Richard, great insight about coincidence favouring the protagonist. It does appear a little convenient.
I suppose the way around this is to have a line where this is not Jessup and Simplot's first session. That'd take care of that.
This guy is a sociopath (least that's my impression) at the very least he has an antisocial personality disorder - I wonder what he would have done as an alternative. I don't think lying about the urine would work - DNA of the sputum and the urine could surely be isolated from the source?
Plus it would defeat the yuk factor and the glorious visual if Jessup used his own.
Anyway, just wanted to say good observation Richard and now I'll back off and let Mark do the responding...
No no no no...this doesn't depend on coincidence...Jessup's an opportunist. He took advantage of Simplot's trip to the bathroom. Hence, the story. If not that, he would've done something else. But THIS is the story.
I know I said I wouldn't but... Henry's comment prompted more thought. I'm inclined to agree the character of Jessup would've found a way no matter what.
Having said that I'll be considering the point Richard made when creating characters and scenarios.
I fully agree that jesssup is an opportunist. That's his persona and charm. That he uses the urine isn't a problem. That it works is what I question. The opportunist doesn't find the key to the lock in the corner of his cell. Of course, if his first gambit fails, he'll try something else and eventually succeed. Not because he luckily found something but because he leverages simplot in a way that exploits simplot' weaknesses. The prisoner escapes when he fashions a key from the chicken bone the guard tosses in scorn or the bone from the finger he rips from his hand.
I will apologize in advance if I have misread the characters and story. I think the piece would be stronger if finding the urine doesn't work and forces jesssup to attack from a different angle.
Hello again. Sorry for such the delayed responses.
I just wanted to say that Libby hit the nail on the head about me not giving a proper character description. But I have an excuse this time! 'Jessup' was actually written for a specific actor who wanted to use a couple scenes for his acting reel. So I suppose when I wrote this, I skipped over his decription, already knowing what the actor looked like. I should've went back and put in more of a description when I decided to post it here on SS.
He actually did end up filming the script and did use a couple snippets of the screenplay in his reel. Here it is:
Sorry I didn't embed it. That's what I was having trouble with yesterday and ended up deleting my whole post to everybody. I'll figure it out and edit it at some point.
But I just wanted to post the reel up so people could get a drift of Jessup and see if that's somewhat what everybody had in their head while reading.
Libby, Henry, and Richard: I finally have more than ten minutes to myself!
Quoted from Libby
Take it a step further even if your audience never actually knows what this terrible deed is.
I picture part of this guy's M.O. would be in manipulating and getting one over those weaker than he is - in particular females - perhaps some sexual harassment - or worse even (ramp up the stakes - perhaps an alleged rape or act of indecency/assault) so that his job is really on the line
Ouch. Rape or assault? I want him to have a conversation with a company therapist, not a corrections officer. :-) I'm with Henry on this one. Sexual assault may be taking it too far, but I do understand what you mean about ramping up the stakes a little bit, though. An outburst at work may have been a little weak, but, (I know this is a cliche'd argument for shorts, but it's all I have as an excuse) this is only a short and I didn't want to get into too much backstory to make it a half-hour short. I even wanted it shorter than the ten pages it is, but it is a talking heads script so dialogue will take up a lot of space.
Also, though, the idea for this (besides getting angry whenever I walk into a public bathroom and seeing piss all over the seat), came when a little kid through a huge tantrum where I work. After seeing that, Jessup having an angry outburst at work seemed copacetic with Simplot complaining about the brats in stores nowadays.
Quoted from Libby
Perhaps Simplot holds a trump-card or at least pretends to have some info on Jessup that no one else knows about - this would really threaten Jessup
Quoted from Richard
in this game of tit for tat I think you might consider more reversals. Yes he removes the cassette (and I'm not sure the machine would work without a tape inside), but simplot has backup. Jessup disables that and simplot has another. Eventually, Jessup has the last laugh, but it shouldn't be easy. Keep us guessing.
Yes, I totally agree with you guys here. Simplot does need more to threaten Jessup with so the battle is a little more equally balanced. As of right now, Simplot only namecalls and belittles Jessup to get under his skin. Like you had mentioned, Libby, it doesn't seem Jessup would be rattled just from name-calling. Granted, it would add more pages to the short script, but more pages of suspense is never a bad thing and well worth making it a 15 page short.
Quoted from Libby
'Pop runs straight through me anymore' - I think the word 'anymore' is superfluous
'gone in a heartbeat' is enough if you ask me without the pre-qualification of 'not even'.
If you can't start controlling 'these tantrums' or 'your temper' instead of 'your tantrums' - I dunno - maybe personal choice again
'You're a crybaby. You're a crybaby in all sense of the word.' - 'every sense of the word.'
Man, I hope we never collaborate together. It seems local diction would be a huge problem between us. :-)
As I was doing an outloud read-through to myself, pretending that I was the actor, 'Gone in not even a heartbeat' came out and sounded more sinister to me than just 'Gone in a heartbeat.'
And to me, using the word 'tantrums' is more degrading than using the word 'temper'. Tantrums, to me, I associate with young children. Simplot using the word 'tantrum' to Jessup is belittling his intelligence to that of a child, him trying to get under Jessup's skin.
Quoted from Libby
How does having better supervisors make his (Jessup's) tasks more important? I don't get that?
It's all about Jessup wanting to take control. He wants to do more important things to get further ahead in the company and assume more power. (It's not really laid out flatly like that in the story, but it's in the nature of every controlling person.) Managers and supervisors above him sense that Jessup is out for their jobs, so they keep him contained by just giving him remedial tasks. Of course, that's not in the script, it's just alluded to. Again, I didn't want to get into a lot of the backstory for a short.
Quoted from Libby
where's the description of your main character, at least? ... I'm interested in how you picture your apprentice sociopath
Hopefully, Justin's acting reel answered both of those questions. (Lol. Not that I picture Justin as a sociopath in real life! Just for the story. :-)
Quoted from Henry (Stumpzian
my main objection: Mr. Simplot should be identified as a "company" counselor
Actually, in my head, he was a company counselor, who just happened to work out of his home. :-) Basically, because of filming for the reel purposes, the setting had to take place in a house. I'm really not sure the criteria Fortune 500 companies use for company counselors, but I figured outsourcing to a small therapist wasn't totally out of the question.
Quoted from Henry
Of course, some actor's going to have to pretend to rub his face in pee-pee.
Ha! Justin Colon told me that his mother didn't really care for his acting in 'Jessup'. That's the first scene that popped into my head.
And just for the record, since I know this has been posted in the 'Unproduced Scripts' section, this was only filmed for the acting reel. There's no more plans on anymore editing or submitting to screenplay contests, as of now.
Quoted from Richard
in most cases, coincindence should not favor the protagonist. The spittle and the urine are coincidental and hence not part of his plan. What happens if they're not there?
The way I pictured it, Jessup is so used to getting his way, he knows he can walk into any situation and manipulate it and get it under his control. Even if the spittle on the can and the urine on the toilet weren't there, he'd come up with something else.
Actually, this whole story is coincidental. Justin contacted me on a Friday night saying that he needed a dark story by Monday morning to start pre-production. By Sunday, I had absolutely nothing for him. Until the little kid at my work had his tantrum and this story slowly started to form. I fully planned Jessup using only the spittle from the can as his only form of blackmail. Then, later on at work, I went to the bathroom and someone pissed all over the toilet soon. Boom. Both the tantrums and the urine on the toilet were both coincidental in this story getting written before the deadline.
If those things wouldn't have happened that day, it didn't matter to me. I know I would've came up with something anyway. (Not saying that I'm controlling and manipulative, of course. :-) It's just being confident knowing that you can always make something go your way. In my head, that's how Jessup felt going into his appointment.
Quoted from Richard
That he uses the urine isn't a problem. That it works is what I question. The opportunist doesn't find the key to the lock in the corner of his cell. Of course, if his first gambit fails, he'll try something else and eventually succeed. Not because he luckily found something but because he leverages simplot in a way that exploits simplot' weaknesses. The prisoner escapes when he fashions a key from the chicken bone the guard tosses in scorn or the bone from the finger he rips from his hand.
I loved that. Excellent comparison with the key and the chicken bone. :-) Like I mentioned, the spittle was the only thing I had when I started writing the story. The spittle was the key and seemed a little weak. To me, in my head, when me and Jessup came across the urine on our toilet seats, that was the chicken bone.
Thank you very much guys (and girl :-) for checking this one out and sharing your thoughts. Glad you guys mostly enjoyed it. I thought nothing of this story after I finished it and when I came across it again a couple weeks ago, I never realized how much I enjoyed it.
Ouch. Rape or assault? I want him to have a conversation with a company therapist, not a corrections officer.
Ok, granted I went a bit far on that one. I'll go back to my original idea and say I still think it would add another layer if it were something (bad) but we never quite find out what... But don't mind me, I think I've watched 'Doubt' too many times.
See this is the trouble with fellow writers - they try to re-write your script for you. I for one really hate that. Almost as much as I hate a wet toilet seat. I just accidentally typed 'ate' and had to correct it.
Oh and btw I agree 'tantrums' is the better word, not that I said it wasn't. Nice and belittling. And as for that collaborating comment that'd just make it all the more interesting I think.
Jeepers, talk about emoticon city. I'll quit that now.
Quoted from Mark
And just for the record, since I know this has been posted in the 'Unproduced Scripts' section, this was only filmed for the acting reel. There's no more plans on anymore editing or submitting to screenplay contests, as of now.
Translation: This script is available for filming. I hope someone or a few someone's even, pick this up. It's a great contained drama/thriller with two actors - how much easier could it get. The little teaser from Justin's reel really made me want to see the story in its entirety.
I don't want to write your script for you. That's not the point. I appreciate your feedback on my comments. You make a good point. But think of this way. Do you really think Jessup is the first person to try and game Simplot? Here's a guy who's been doing this for some years, and he's never run into a Jessup before? I would think he'd be well versed in how to handle a manipulative sociopath. So, your task is not impossible, just difficult. While the urine is a good gambit, I would think Simplot has backup to counter.
To which, Jessup tries a new tack. The general rule is that the antogoinist is more powerful than the protagonist. otherwise, the conflict isn't really a conflict. Anyone can overcome a straw man. When Jessup wins, and he will, the victory is just that much more satisfying.
Last word on coincidences. I like to think that a coincidence cannot favor the protagonist, but when it does, it leads only to more difficulty. Take a protagonist facing an ogre. He's backed into a wall. He raises his sword, accidentally hits a sconce, and a door pops open. He jumps through the fortuitous door, escaping the ogre, only to hear the hiss of a dozen giant cobras.
Haven't read any of the other comments, so I may be restating some things that have already been pointed out. I apologize if that's the case, and feel free to skip ove those bits or ignore it all together.
Technically, this was a quck and easy read. Furthermore, this seems to have the marks of a very easily produced short film; single location, only two actors, and centered around psychological drama that would keep an otherwise static film interesting. It's a good concept, and I believe you've got two characters with tremendous potential.
The dialogue is pretty weak. The strongest bits were when Simplot started being blunt, and even then, it was still awkwardly written. This is fine for an initial draft when you're simply trying to get the point across, but I think it needs specific attention if you choose to revise it. Much more than big-budget features, dialogue is crucial for low-budget independent film, and especially short films. When someone is producing a short film, they're usually dealing with actors who are both unpaid and inexperienced - even if they're naturally talented or formally trained. In addition, the direct himself is usually inexperienced. A script with Oscar-worthy dialogue delivered by a volunteer, inexperienced actor is usually going to come across relatively hokey in the first place. If a script doesn't already have excellent dialogue, it's going to destroy the seriousness of the piece and undermine the suspension of disbelief the audience has to have to believe that those aren't to actors on screen. I'd say the reason the majority of good, well-produced, high-quality short films come across as amateurish is because of poor dialogue that reinforces the inexperience of the actor delivering it. Just my thoughts.
I simply felt that this was lacking any discernable stakes for either character. Worst case scenerio, Jessup doesn't get fired and goes back to doing his job?
Overall, good start here. I think it's a good concept and for that reason I would encourage you to revise it.
“JESSUP BAUMGARTNER, 20, sits in an uncomfortable chair and stares at a comfortable one on the other side of the desk.”
- First off, what a great name! I like the intention behind this opening visual too but I wonder could you give us more that would visually suggest it, both the uncomfortable and comfortable chairs? Could Jessup shuffle a bit, try to work in his a?s groove, frown, pull a face, etc? Just something to indicate his discomfort while cutting to the plush, leather (or whatever) chair across the desk.
“Jessup notices the unusually large amount of spittle on the open rim of the can and curls his lip in silent disgust.”
- I like the focusing on this minute but bothersome detail, keen observation.
SIMPLOT Sorry about that, Jessup. Pop runs straight through me anymore.
- I presume there is a typo here somewhere, doesn’t make sense. I do love his use of the term “pop” though, gave me a chuckle. I’m glad Jessup picked up on it too. We only say it around my parts in jest, to sound old timey basically.
SIMPLOT It's not your job to make your supervisors better. It's your job to make the company better by doing the tasks you're assigned.
- Straight away I’m curious as to what company Jessup is working for and what exactly his “tasks” are. I mean, how many employers would send you to a therapist for insubordination? Or maybe I’m over thinking this aspect…
JESSUP That's what was wrong with him.
- Ha, nice comeback.
JESSUP Is that why you work out of your home?
- This insult falls flat since isn’t it most people’s dream to work from home? I mean, it certainly ain’t a mark of an unworthy profession.
“Jessup sits quiet, but the anger might slowly be building in his eyes.”
- I’d drop the “maybe’ and just say it is.
SIMPLOT I can see it in you. You were the kid that your mom was too embarrassed that she could never take you anywhere because of how spastic you are.
- Wow, he’s really going off book now dropping the “s” word like that. Some kind of unorthodox, new age counseling method, right
JESSUP When my mom finished her punishment and finally got custody back of me,
- This read a little clumsy and that may be the point. Could be rewritten as:
“When my mom finished her punishment and finally got custody of me again” “The anger rises again in Jessup.”
- Given the anecdote Jessup has just relayed, would this obvious baiting by Simplot really be bothering him so much? He’s clearly a manipulative, calculating individual who would detect Simplot’s goading a mile off...or perhaps it’s all part of his act, that and the lip quivering.
“Simplot takes the last sip of Sprite and leaves the biggest puddle of spittle yet.”
- Ha, I’m enjoying the repeated references to that increasingly horrible spittle. “He knows he got to him.”
- On the contrary, all signs point to the complete opposite case. Just my hunch but hey I’m no doctor ...reading on...
“He's agitated and stares at himself in the mirror.”
- Or maybe Simplot has gotten to him.
“Jessup takes a deep breath and, calmly, he rubs his face against the wet, dirty toilet seat.”
- Ha, weird, unexpected, sick, I like it! Let’s see where it goes...
SIMPLOT I told you that's not happening. Just because you rub pop and claim to have urine all over your face isn't grounds for a psychological break.
- Missing “it” after “face” I think.
JESSUP For the police. After you kissed me, and I resisted, you over-powered me, dragged me and held my throat over the toilet. Then you pissed all over my face. Simplot has to laugh.
SIMPLOT Jessup. You can't afford to be this stupid.
- Yeah, that is a long shot, try explaining that in court.
Mmm, I’m not sure about the ending here, the resolution and reasons behind Jessup’s extreme actions. Still wrestling with it. You portray Jessup as a conniver of the most determined and diabolical kind in how he turned on his own mother so I believe he would go to such lengths to get the half paid 6 month leave but I don’t know what we are supposed to take away from it. I mean, would any of us resort to that just to get off work for a bit, I dunno, we’d really not want to work!
Recorded tape or not it’s still a problem child’s word against a respectable doctor’s. Surely the company would back up the latter and the former’s history of victimization would send alarm bells ringing and raise suspicions. It’s that old “fool me once...fool me twice” thing. I assume his mother denied any wrong doing the time she lost custody of him too so there would be some history of Jessup framing events to set people up.
Then again, the dude has piss and saliva on his face, that’s pretty damning evidence right there!
Are we to assume that he improvised this blackmail there and then having seen Simplot’s messy way of drinking? Only when the latter goes to the toilet does he decide to hide the tape and the scheme is set in motion. On that note, why didn’t he just pocket the tape instead of leaving it on Simplot’s chair where it might be spotted? Also, how did he know about the doctor not being an “aimer”, this must have been an on-the-spot revelation, right? And Jessup reacted like any sociopath would Because without the urine on his face he doesn’t have much of a case, you know. Thus, you can see why I’m unsure about the pre-meditation here and in turn concerned how that effects the plausibility of his master plan.
As I already mentioned I really wanted to know what this mysterious company was that would employ someone like Jessup, respect him enough to not fire him for undermining his superiors yet have a structure in place whereby he gets sent to a therapist in order to deal with his “issues”. I thought there was some sinister undertone lurking there to be revealed but it’s never addressed so I assume it’s just an unspecified, faceless employer in the background.
Overall, I did like the unapologetic treachery of the Jessup character, the back and forth between him and Simplot worked great (particularly in the first half of the script) and the antics in the bathroom just for their sheer randomness. However, as I said, I was left unsatisfied and somewhat unconvinced by the final third.
Pages: 
Author
Jessup - In Production - Teaser Trailer Up
Logged
I just accidentally typed 'ate' and had to correct it. 
Locked Board