@ Manolis

Thanks for reading/commenting!

Quoted Text I liked a lot your script, but also your replies in this thread - especially your comment about Angela and the pit bull having become vicious themselves. It shows that this is more than a comeuppance story.

Thank you. It IS much more than comeuppance story... but, if this were a film, I wouldn't be there to tell you what the story is really about (unless there were a Q and A after -- which I've done before at screenings... and choked, not being able to explain shit). The film, just like anything and everything, is open for interpretation.

Quoted Text Not much to add to the detailed reviews you've got, but here's one thing I found strange: Why didn't Angela take the dog with her after the divorce? And why did Dwight keep it even though he hated it? You should probably explain that in the script (unless I missed something).

Some things are better left off screen as it A) Doesn't add to the story B) Impedes the momentum of the story. As to why Angela didn't take the dog with her after the divorce... she just took off and left. She was damaged, hurt by Dwight. And, as an imperfect human being (which is redundant -- human beings are imperfect), she probably worried more about herself leaving. Also, Dwight is such a monster, it's probably best (for her) that she left as quickly as possible. In my head, I pictured her just leaving a note behind... the note being read long after she left forever.

Quoted Text Finally, at some point I thought Dwight hadn't actually survived the gunshot and everything that followed was actually his descent into Hell. In that case, Angela might have been dead too (because of him?), which could give the story a new dimension. Not sure, though, whether that would align with your intentions.

Interesting thought. Like I said, open to interpretation.

@ James McClung

Nice to hear from you, dude, long time no see!

Quoted Text I dug this one a lot. I agree with some of Jeff's comments about the format, but while some changes would be nice, the way the script's written now didn't bother me as much as I think it would've if the story didn't hold my interest. The story doesn't quite fit in a box either, but I kinda liked that.

Not quite sure what formatting issues you had in mind... but as long as the story held your interest...

Quoted Text Again, as Jeff said, it isn't explained exactly what's going on, but I think that lent itself to the confusion and frustration of being an abused dog. It also adds a sinister clandestine aspect to whatever supernatural powers are at play, as if confusion is part of the perpetrator's means of disarming the victim. There's a few horror movies doing this nowadays, e.g. The Witch. I appreciate the approach if handled properly, and even so, we can deduce that Fritzinger is a supernatural entity and that something happens when he shoots Dwight in the face.

It's not just horror movies doing this... "Groundhog Day" ever explained anything. "Field of Dreams" never really explained anything. There were no technical explanations for pretty much every episode of "The Twilight Zone". As for Jeff's comment on how we don't know how other's are perceiving Dwight -- when he's in the kennel, Dwight is screaming and begging. From EMPLOYEE'S POV, it sounds like BARKING. To others, he is an animal... he still sees himself as human.

Quoted Text The ending was pretty brutal but satisfying. I knew what you were going to do as soon as I saw the slug, and thought, "Damn." Definitely ice cold. In any case, unlike others, I didn't have an issue with there being no one to empathize with in the end, except for Dwight, I suppose, nor do I think that even has to be the case generally speaking. The unfairness of it all also lends itself to the concept of Dwight as an abused dog.

Not sure if "empathize" is the right word. I feel like we can empathize with a lot of characters, not just in this script... the media often tries to empathize with criminals, bringing up their backgrounds, how they grew up, etc. I think the word is "sympathize". We can't really sympathize with any of these characters, but I feel like we can empathize.

Quoted from spesh2k Not quite sure what formatting issues you had in mind... but as long as the story held your interest...

Namely the slugs. You have two scenes which begin with no slugs at all. I went with it, but it took a minute to find my bearings. The times are also inconsistent, as Jeff mentioned. I'm also agreed on using repeatedly caps for characters.

I didn't really go into formatting as Jeff pretty much took care of that and then some. I also mentioned it didn't detract from the read, so there's that as well.

Quoted from spesh2k It's not just horror movies doing this... "Groundhog Day" ever explained anything. "Field of Dreams" never really explained anything. There were no technical explanations for pretty much every episode of "The Twilight Zone". As for Jeff's comment on how we don't know how other's are perceiving Dwight -- when he's in the kennel, Dwight is screaming and begging. From EMPLOYEE'S POV, it sounds like BARKING. To others, he is an animal... he still sees himself as human.

I haven't seen Field of Dreams, but in the case of Groundhog Day, there's only one element that's not explained. I suppose the distinction I'd make here is that there're multiple question marks floating around at one time essentially from the moment Dwight wakes up. Is he dead, and if not, what happened in the previous scene and what's going on now? What's Fritzinger's role, if any? Is he a dog or a human?

Furthermore, it seems a little ambiguous whether Angela sees him as a dog or a human and if she knows what's going on here. "Sorry doesn't fix things" is a pretty direct and specific line, which suggests she knows who/what he is. The fact that she picks up a weakened "dog" to fight against the other suggests this as well. Otherwise, that'd be a major issue to address.

Like I said, these are all things that provided a certain mystique to the script. I just wanted to clarify my comments/draw a distinction here.

Quoted from spesh2k Not sure if "empathize" is the right word. I feel like we can empathize with a lot of characters, not just in this script... the media often tries to empathize with criminals, bringing up their backgrounds, how they grew up, etc. I think the word is "sympathize". We can't really sympathize with any of these characters, but I feel like we can empathize.

This is a good distinction. Someone else used the word "empathize." That's the word I had in my head at the time. In any case, a few others brought up this issue of not having anyone to sympathize with at the end.

Yeah, as much as I believe that we can always improve as writers, I'm not going to talk about formatting anymore after this... I know how to format a script. I've never gotten a "pass" on a script due to formatting issues and I didn't get a film on Netflix by not knowing how to format a script. Not saying that I don't make mistakes... I do. Don't we all? I'm FAR from perfect and I'm FAR from finished in terms of learning this beautiful craft. But in regards to opening on images, not using a slug to open scenes, etc, I'm not exactly throwing caution to the wind and doing whatever the hell it is I want. Nor am I trying to be innovative. I've read scenes executed similarly many times in many scripts. Same thing CAPPING characters and other nit-picky things that producers could care less about.

Yes, there are basic Screenwriting 101 formatting rules that we've all learned when starting out, I get it. And I respect guys like Trottier and Syd Field. And I stay pretty much within the "rules" we learn from gurus like them. Rules we're taught in Intro to Screenwriting.  But I've read hundreds and hundreds of produced award-winning scripts that, if posted here, would get panned for their formatting "mistakes" by a lot of other writers on here. Yeah, I get that just because an established writer like Tony Gilroy or Paul Schrader has the freedom to write a certain way doesn't mean I can write the same way, blah-blah-blah.

IMO, basic formatting rules are just that -- basic. They're taught to amateur, novice-level writers and are used as building blocks. I'm by no means an established writer, but I'm far from being a novice. Sorry for being a tad sensitive about it, but, agree or disagree, those are just my thoughts on that.

No worries, dude. Fair enough. I only expounded upon the format because you mentioned you weren't sure what issues I had in mind. Otherwise I'm trying to loosen up these days.

Hey Michael, I gave this a read and it was certainly interesting.

Spoilers!!

The opening was horrible and I immediately hated Dwight, which is what you were going for I guess.

I was a bit lost at first when Dwight 'turned' but soon realised what was happening.  

The part that left me the most unsure was the ending. I thought Fritzinger was saving the pit bull but now I find out he's not.  While Dwight deserved his pay back I'm not keen on how he got it.

Good, and surreal, story though.

All good, James, sorry for the little outburst. It gets my goat a little bit, that's all. If it was something that is TRULY incorrect or a matter of poor writing/wording/typos, etc, I don't mind it being pointed out... it only helps me. But when it comes to formatting, I don't do anything that is completely off the wall. Overall, at least in that area, I'm pretty sound.

Hi Michael.

Just read your script and I  have a couple questions.

How did Angela know that the dog was her ex?  The real dog?
I mean, the dog was her dog to begin with,  right?

What  happened to the real dog?
Was he lounging on the sofa?

Okay, four questions.

How did Angela know that he was asking for forgiveness?

Hey Cindy! Thanks for taking out the time to read and comment.

Quoted Text How did Angela know that the dog was her ex?  The real dog? I mean, the dog was her dog to begin with,  right?

I tried to be ambiguous with a lot things in this story... I wanted to create a surreal world where, just when you think you know the "rules" to this nightmarish alternate reality, the rules are bent. This was my attempt at an art house horror film, as pretentious as it sounds. A lot of it is metaphorical. As to how Angela knew that the dog was her ex? In my head, the distinction between animal and beast is blurred. The kind of "man" Dwight became (or animal) that caused her to leave him is still the same animal/man that she picks up from the shelter, though he has been through the grinder in terms of punishment/comeuppance. She left him, but, as Dwight states, it is HER dog that she left behind, too. So, the real question is, was there a real dog? In my head, yes... but that dog and his or her mistreatment reflected an abusive relationship that caused Angela to leave. But the fact that she left the PIT BULL with him also shows that she is no saint by any means. In fact, the abuse (not shown, but suggested) that she endured damaged her to the point where she, herself, becomes ferocious. Like a tortured animal, thus, saving him really only to hurt him. When she refers to Dwight by his first name, she is the only one who really knows the kind of animal Dwight is. Everyone else just looks at him like an animal. They see a dog. And hear a dog. She treats him like the animal he is, but knows there's something more than an animal there. There is a history between them.

Everyone here is damaged in some way, including the "real" dog. All due to some kind of abuse. Whether dog or human, that abuse will damage you. The process of reformation is bogus b/c, reformed or not, you are still that damaged animal who, at any time, will react like an animal. An animal that has been hurt. An animal that has grown to be angry and ferocious. This fantasy of revenge and comeuppance is animalistic, no matter how much we make ourselves believe that such an act is "just". At the end of the day, the damage is done.

Quoted Text What  happened to the real dog?

The "real" dog is healed physically. But, obviously, not mentally or spiritually. Hence, the ending.

Quoted Text Was he lounging on the sofa?

Lol, maybe at some point.

Quoted Text How did Angela know that he was asking for forgiveness?

She heard him. She's heard it all before from him. It's a familiar sound. These two were in a relationship serious enough to lead to marriage... at some point, she loved this "dog". But she's been through his bullshit.

I do have a "cleaner", less abstract version that would probably be "neater" structurally. But it wouldn't leave as much up for interpretation. Still thinking of posting that version...

-- Michael

Thanks for clairifying.  I'm old, so...

I see what you were doing now. Duh.

I think it  would be a good idea to post the other version, too.

Cindy

Quoted from CindyLKeller Thanks for clairifying.  I'm old, so... I see what you were doing now. Duh. I think it  would be a good idea to post the other version, too. Cindy

The other version is different once Dwight gets shot...

He wakes up, vision blurred, on an operating table. The doctors are talking about him strangely, unaware that he is slightly awake. It sounds like they are speaking about him as if he were an animal (though subtle).

He wakes up, fully conscious, in a cage at an animal shelter. He, of course, is confused. And panicking. Claustrophobic. As he screams for help, dogs in the other cages bark wildly. One of the shelter employees feels bad for him, offers him a treat, etc. Soon (over a few weeks), he must survive off dog food, water, crapping himself, getting berated by other less-patient shelter employees, etc. He starts to accept his fate, being stuck there. Then, he gets word that he will be put down if someone doesn't adopt him.

That's when Angela adopts him. But, the difference in this version, is that Angela thinks that this is a dog -- she is not aware that this is "Dwight".

She takes him home (same visual of him crammed naked in a little doggy crate). Brings him inside his house.

That's when "Dwight", from his crate, looks up and sees "himself" or the human version of Dwight looking down at him.

Dog "Dwight" has an "Oh no!" moment. Human "Dwight" peers down at Dog Dwight with a look of disgust and says, "An ugly little fucker, aren't you?"

Angela says, "Don't talk to him like that!"

And, final line of the story, Dwight says, "Aw, c'mon. He's just a dog."

THE END

That was the original idea and it was closer to the Twilight Zone kinda feel I was originally going for. But it seemed more predictable to me. And I really wanted to explore other elements... the human element of the story really made me want to execute it in the way I did in the version you read. I saw parallels between human reformation, animal reformation, brutality against humans, brutality against animals... can an animal really change after enduing such abuse? Can a human? Etc, etc, other deeper themes that sound super pretentious, lol. I suppose the "original" version covers most of the same themes as this version I have posted but cleaner and more crisp (structurally). But that's probably because it was simpler... simplicity can be a good thing. But I feel a few layers are stripped away in comparison to this version.

Thanks for reading!

-- Michael

I like that first version, too.

Maybe the way to make the story less predictable and (add layers as you say) would be to make the protag Mr. Fitz (I forgot his whole last name) instead of the dog.
Maybe he is the vicous force to be reckoned with in animal abuse "Cases" who could still  do the switch...???

Cindy

Quoted from CindyLKeller I like that first version, too. Maybe the way to make the story less predictable and (add layers as you say) would be to make the protag Mr. Fitz (I forgot his whole last name) instead of the dog. Maybe he is the vicous force to be reckoned with in animal abuse "Cases" who could still  do the switch...??? Cindy

I think having Mr. Fritzinger as the protag instead of the dog would have been the most predictable route in the sense that the story has an animal abuse theme and the most obvious way to go about it would be to completely play off the animal-lover fantasy of exacting revenge on an animal abuser. It would turn into torture porn pretty much. I'm sure I could have presented some of the other themes if I went about it more straight forward as you suggested but, at least to me, that would have been too easy and too predictable.

I haven't read this yet, but from the comments it reminds me of an excellent James Herbert book I read as a kid... probably his most original work ever. It's called, Fluke and is about a guy who discovers that he is a dog. Kafka also wrote a similar story, but that one was pretty boring for the most part. Always wanted to write one myself, too.

I'll get to this later today.

This is just a more cleaned up copy of the script. Fixed a few typos, changed a few slugs, added some mini slugs and slightly altered some dialogue. https://www.dropbox.com/s/yv5cezbykif4uuy/Filthy%20Animal.pdf?dl=0

This is NOT the alternate version I described in an earlier comment. I'll probably post that alternate version within the next couple of days. I do like the version I have posted here better though the alternate version is a little cleaner structurally -- it comes more full circle but, IMO, is a little too predictable because of that cleaner structure. I've been seeing a lot of those "full circle" kind of story endings lately, especially stories with alternate realities. I believe I actually just read another short script here with one of those types of endings.

-- Michael

Quoted from DustinBowcot I haven't read this yet, but from the comments it reminds me of an excellent James Herbert book I read as a kid... probably his most original work ever. It's called, Fluke...

I too read Fluke when I was a kid. I read all the Herbert books back then and Fluke was probably one of his best, at least I thought so at the time.

Thinking about it I can still remember bits from it now. Sausages, and how he got his name. The bit where he goes home. I'm trying to be vague, to avoid spoiling it for those that haven't.

This script isn't really like Fluke, apart from a slight passing resemblance.

Quoted from spesh2k And I did think about that when I initially decided to open on a dog turd. Then I thought about it and said, fuck it.

Fairy snuff. I did the same at the start of a script once, but I took it out later. I was interested to hear what a writer who kept it in would say. 'Fuck it' is sometimes the correct answer. I'll keep that in mind.

Quoted from spesh2k Oh, yeah, the "panic/bucket of water" bit at the end of page 7 (used in Tim Roth's story when he sees the cops in the bathroom). I don't think it's a big deal, I used it in description, not dialogue. Not sure how the viewer will know I used that in the description unless they filmed it with a camera pointed at some dude in a chair, reading the script aloud.

I get that it's in the description and not in dialogue so wouldn't appear if or when it's filmed. What I meant was it's a line that took me out of your story and instead got me thinking about Tim Roth as Mr. Orange.


Whilst I like thinking about Mr. Orange occasionally, I'd rather do it when I'm watching Reservoir Dogs again, rather than reading a new script.

Lifting stuff word for word from something fairly well known should be avoided, in me humble. Actually, lifting stuff from anywhere else should as well.

Apart from that line your script was inventive and interesting.

R