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.
Wild Flowers by Anthony Cawood - Short, Drama - A couple are driven apart by the death of their daughter, until the murderer intervenes and nudges them back together. (Inspired by the OWC). - pdf, format
Pleasantly written with just enough subtlety. Not sure about the ending though, instead of remaining a small, contained story of your own, it suddenly becomes a Frankenstein spin-off or something. It could work beautifully as part of a whole Frankenstein movie, but on its own like this... I don't know.
Thanks for the comments Sandro - glad you mostly liked... the script was inspired by the recent OWC, so Frankenstein comes from that as a Universal Monster was part of the challenge...
Not to say it couldn't be re-written and made self contained, will have a think...
Hey Anthony, it reads nicely, but one thing really bothers me - how do we know the person who collects the daisies and puts them on the grave etc. is the child's murderer?
We know that the person who collects the daisies is the murderer because he's eventually revealed to be Frankenstein's Monster... and in the 1930s version of Frankenstein, the Monster throws the little girl, Maria, into a lake when they are playing, she drowns and he is clearly very upset by his actions...
That's why in this coda to that film he helps bring Maria's parents to some resolution of their grief, it's also why it is mainly in B&W
As I mentioned above, this was inspired by the recent One Week Challenge on the site, which was to feature a classic Universal monster... and it led to this as well as another script, Pond Life.
I completely forget about the little girl he offs in the movie, Anthony. Makes more sense now.
In fact, now that it has simmered around in my head a while I've likened more to it. Especially picturing the 1930's B&W mood and all.
It could play like an epilogue to the movie. Although, if memory serves, he's burned alive at the end. Then again, he is a sort of a zombie and when don't actually see him croak. So, if his clothes would appear charred in your story...
You're right he does burn in the windmill in the end, first version of my script had him returning to the ruins of the windmill, implying he'd escaped... but I changed it to the current ending... so love the idea of him being charred - will incorporate it into next version.
Like the atmosphere in this one. And the B&W. Thought it a nice touch, and ordinary visuals - like the kettle boiling - took on life as I was reading. I might show more, rather than tell, about the relationship between husband and wife. There's gotta be a way to get rid of the unfilmables with some cleverly placed actions of the two as they're in the bed, and in the final moments.
On the Frankenstein's monster deal - I seem to recall the original version had a scene that was cut out of the monster throwing a little girl into a lake or something. Is this what you're referring to here? Never actually seen the movie, but I do recall that.
Real quick, typo on the first page: She quitely weeps. Quietly.
I liked this. The B&W and transition to colour is very nicely done. I really liked the tone and for a script with no dialogue it was a quick and easy read. I enjoyed the ending too, although early on it was pretty obvious where it was going. I think that's more to do with us knowing it was inspired by the OWC so I was waiting for Frankie to show up.
With that in mind, may I ask why you chose Pond Life over this one for the OWC? Was it because you anticipated the abundance of Frankenstein's Monster scripts? In my opinion, this one feels far more fleshed out even with the lesser page count.
Hi Glenn and thanks for the read, appreciated as always... and glad you liked it...
Damn those typos... well spotted and ta.
Re Pond Life and this... my reasons were just based on the criteria, this is well under the page count and didn't think I should bloat it, but also because I think it plays mostly as drama rather than horror. But I do think this is stronger than PL, so great that the OWC inspired it.
Ah I see, it's nice and tight as it is and I agree, any longer and it could become bloated. On the issue of the tone though, I think you would've been ok. Many of the scripts had more of a drama feel about them.
Anyway, nice job. I'd love to see this filmed. Think it'd look really nice and would be easy enough to do.
Ah, a in between the scenes story. I like that. Simple, no dialogue, made me think of Murnau’s Sunrise. Bare bones but the story didn’t suffer. I liked it alot. Should have tried to sneak this one into the competition. I bet it would have done well!
First, good job. This is a nice little tale. For those not familiar with the original work, some of the references and visuals will not resonate. Something lost? I don't know. It works without the additional knowledge.
This is a personal, highly personal, view about tears on screen. My view is that if you want tears in the audience, you don't put them on the screen. The people in the seats should cry, not the character. To that end, you might work out some action that will demonstrate mom's depth of feeling. Favorite toys always work for me. She puts that little vampire doll on the grave, and you'll have the audience by the heart....yeah, a poor joke.
You do better with dad until he cries. You might simply double down on his anger. He keeps chopping even when he doesn't have to, turning a log into a pile of wood chips.
The bedroom scene is well done. The lack of dialogue works wonders. you might consider having him rise and leave. She soon hears the chopping of wood?
For me, the Frankenstein setup wasn't clear and didn't work all that well. I didn't get that he was the killer. I know big hands and feet, but had you added stitches to his wrists, I would have run with you.
Was Frankenstein literate? I'm not familiar with the story, so making him literate seems a stretch. Now, if he puts the daisies in the form of a little girl? That might frighten me more.
In any case, you've done a good job. Work on tugging the heart strings of your audience. it's sor of like life. If yoy cry, I don't have to.
Glenn, thanks and you never know, someone might pick it up...
Logan, thanks for taking a read and the kind words, appreciated.
Richard, I know what you mean re tears, but on the flip side, not showing them sometimes can feel a little unnatural too... I toyed with stitches on the wrists but thought it might be too obvious - I'll have a think. Frankenstein being literate, hmmm it's a fair shout, one to ponder. Thanks for the thoughts and suggestions.
Regarding Frankenstein's monster's literacy: a while ago I read the following on the movie's IMDb page's FAQ:
"Probably the biggest change is that, in the book, the monster (asides from looking radically different) is intelligent and articulate, arguably more so than his creator in the end, and is also rather well read, often philosophically musing the nature of his own existence."
Wild Flowers takes place days/week(?) after the events of the original movie, so it's quite possible that even the dumber movie version of the monster became literate. In any case, he just wrote the girl's name (which he might've simply copied off her tombstone) not a Shakespearean sonnet.
I had to read through the comments to figure out what was going on with this story. I've never seen the black and white Frankenstein film and I read the book over 25 years ago. I remember Frankenstein's monster saving a little girl from drowning in a river, not killing her. Frankenstein's monster is more of a misunderstood good guy in the book... as I remember it anyway.
I think that if you're going to nod toward anything then that should be the original material and not a film that gets the story deliberately wrong because they believe it will sell more copies.
So this is for fans of that particular black and white film, not fans of Frankenstein. I didn't have any idea what was going on. Frankenstein's monster appearing at the end meant nothing to me. If I'd seen that black and white film then it might have.. but even then, I would need to have watched the film recently... but, I'd rather read the book again, I think.
In fact, my son is reading it at the moment. He's 11. It's free on Kindle.
So, putting the film aside, assuming that I had seen it. Frankenstein's monster kills a little girl, and putting a few flowers outside the house, spelling out her name, is enough for the grieving parents that have lost a child through murder to come to terms with it. And the person that's helped them do this is the murderer.
He's very, very sorry for murdering their child. Here are a few flowers spelling out her name, job done. Everyone is happy.
It doesn't work for me, mate. It's just too neat and easy and, as such, doesn't make complete sense.
Thanks Sandro, Dena, Dustin for the reads and comments
Sandro - this is intended to come immeadiately after the 30s movie, where the monster is portrayed as illiterate,,, but as you say could have just copied the gravestone... think in my first draft he just laid the flowers in the woodpile.
Dena - Thank you very much, glad you like the bleed into colour.
Dustin - As above, this follows the 30s film, and in particular the once banned sequence of the monster throwing her into the lake... it's a very effective scene in the film and really showed the confused humanity of the 'monster'. As for the other comments, ces't la vie, can't please everyone all the time thanks for taking a read though.
Dustin - As above, this follows the 30s film, and in particular the once banned sequence of the monster throwing her into the lake... it's a very effective scene in the film and really showed the confused humanity of the 'monster'. As for the other comments, ces't la vie, can't please everyone all the time thanks for taking a read though.
I get that, but he's not the protag.
I read somebody else mention drama... but I'm not seeing enough drama here to qualify that. There needs to be dialogue between the couple... and perhaps even interaction with the monster. What happened to the parents afterwards? It's an interesting question.
The filmmaker will need permission to film this with the monster because the make-up is under copyright till 2026. But Shelley's original is public domain and far more horrifying, imo, anyway. Not sure about the Universal story itself. They changed certain things, like killing the girl in the lake, that they may have copyright over. You might be fine though, but it's best to be safe than sorry. I also feel that this will be seen as fan fiction rather than a standalone story.
Hopefully I'm wrong. This one just isn't to my taste. Good luck with it though, all the same.
Lack of dialogue is intentional and in my opinion I think more starkly shows the distance between them, but alternate opinions are always welcome, there's always other ways to represent things.
Thanks for the info re copyright, probably a muddy area but some creativity with how the monster is revealed may be enough to allude to the original but differentiate it.
Pages: 
Author
Wild Flowers
Logged
Locked Board