Abracadabra by Darren J Seeley (DarrenJamesSeeley) - Short, Gothic Horror - An eccentric 19th century magician hired to expose a paranormal fraud gets more than he expected. 15 pages, 5 characters, PG-13 Rating - pdf, format 8)

Got a bit lost, not sure what was going on sometimes tbh, but I think that's my fault.
It is very eloquently written with enjoyable poetic descriptions and images but some of it came across as a little pretentious.
Use of italics and wrylies broke the rhythm of the read.
Victorian catherdrals were not built in 1787 - the victorian period began in 1837 ended 1901
Loved the language in the dialogue, very era appropriate and the atmosphere was tangible.

I like this very much, although it is confusing, it's very entertaining.
The characters and dialogue seem fresh and original.
The feeling of madness that's just-under-control in the story keeps expanding, but not too far, this script seems to be just the right length.  My favorite, so far.

There were times that the descriptions were too terse/staccato for my taste.  

...I'm afraid that I found this one very confusing.  Really didn't understand where it was going, or what previous relationships existed between the characters.  

It caused me to feel that this one meandered too much...lost steam towards the end.  FWIW: felt the red ants in the eye sockets was a nice touch...  :))

This one subscribes to the literal misinterpretation of a ghost.
Is Anton on a bridge AND dealing with a wooden monster?
Seems to me novelistic prose creating logic snafus on page one.
And more chunky descriptions clogging the story’s arteries.
I struggle with it too from time to time, over visualization.
Page eight. How does a dead goat squeal?
I had a hard time following this one.
There was a deception, I guess a misunderstanding about a ghost.
Ambitious and not overly expository, but didn’t fully work for me.
Thanks for playing OWC.

Regards,
E.D.

I read this one first based on the logline.

Parts of this I liked the writing very much, but other parts confused me.

The style seems almost inconsistent, in a way, and with far too much of a focus on the feet of your characters.  Seriously, by page 3 you must have mentioned them a dozen times.

I stuck this out for 12 pages, but it was a difficult read.  I would never have been able to make it through a feature written in this style.  The wonderful parts were offset (and outnumbered) by the confounding parts.

Stop trying so hard.  Remember that in a script, the key element is clarity.

It is fine (though risky) to challenge your reader with a literate style -- but you must be cautious to never confuse them outright.

Here, you have done the latter.

Hello James,

To keep it brief, I like others, found this a hard read but it has potential.

Wooden monster?
One scene is titled balcony then she looks out a window - not sure that's wholly clear
Over description in parts eg cadence walk, doesn't help me
Dead goat squealing?

All the best.

Yeah...very awkwardly written.  Very novelistic.  Writer trying way too hard with descriptions, phrases, and words that have no right being in a Spec script.

I stopped before page 2, because I know that every mistake I saw on page 1 will repeat itself again and again throughout.  Sorry.

Congrats on completing an entry for the October OWC.

I think you have some very good moments with this, but there are issues in nailing the "what it about" factor early on.

Let's take a look:

>Moonlight shines off a small European village town off in the distance.

Take a look at: village town

Use one or the other, but not both.

Why not put SMALL EUROPEAN VILLAGE as a slug.

This:

>Moonlight shines down

Yes. It always shines down. Maybe have it illuminate from the a cliff on a rise or something. Do something to make a really clear impression.

I know if I just read "moonlight shines down", in my head, I can be down on the ground receiving that moonlight, or up in the clouds with the moon, as if, dispersing it; so I think you can work on clarity.

I like:

>Heavy winds sift through his dark coat.

For me it gave the perfect image.

The work you did with the visuals of the old rotten bridge was good, but we need to get into the essentials of the story faster I think. And we need to feel and know Anton's personal motivations for coming there very clearly early on.

All the Leo and John banter in the dialogue at the beginning had me clueless.

See page three and you'll maybe see what I mean. And the excessive wrylies take the reader out of the story and also, they're just over directing the actors. Good scripts are written with a lot of strong implicit clues and they are contextually based. It's the context that provide the actors with what to do. Then they can work their magic with it.

I could go on, but I'll just stop for now.

I see some good work here. I don't see so much of the theme. Also, I think you can work more on character. I say that a lot though.

Sandra

I usually groan when I read loglines that mention someone getting “more than he expected.” You might be making fun of the expression but it’s right up there with “more than he bargained for,” etc.

So I was drawn in because I’ve dabbled in magic and psychic trickery for years. I was a little disappointed to find this story has nothing to do with that but that’s fine, I can look at it on its own terms.

I feel the description is too poetic. Wooden monster? I applaud you for trying to be dynamic but a lot of the time the description comes off as trying too hard and really just makes what’s going on more confusing.

Not much to say about the story. There really doesn’t seem to be one.

There is some good imagery. Without a coherent story, though, the imagery is really lost.

The story needs to be developed more and the description needs to be a little more straightforward. Nail that and you’ll have something.

Good luck.


Breanne

I was confused from the beginning....wooden monster. I kept getting lost. Some of the descriptions were good but some were almost overboard for me.

Best of luck and thanks for entering!

I just couldn't get past page 2. It tries too hard, the prose is purple yet ineffective. It's just awkward. I'd like to read this with the excessive descriptions dialed down.

There's a lot going for this but I feel you may have bogged it down with your writing style.
Has a very Gothic vibe and although I'm a little confused as to what exactly happened, I believe Mary and her brothers tried to use Anton as a sacrifice in order to give Mary more power - only for their plan to go wrong. How it went wrong kinda evaded me but I'm assuming Anton didn't step in the circle?
Might be interested in giving it another read in future.

The writing is different, well in tune with the topic, and it did make for an interesting read but at times it grated a little.
I enjoyed the visuals and tone.

I think the writer really tried for period detail, but the choice of words made for a confusing read.  The tails ends of his coat flapping like raven's wings was a nice, evocative line.  The wooden monster of the bridge on the other hand, was almost deliberately misleading.

The constant cutting back between Anton and Mary to John and Leo and back muddled up the narrative flow.

I never quite grasped what was going on with the dead goat sacrifice and the dead woman's body and why Anton was necessary.  I was hoping Anton's skill in magic would play a bigger part in the story.  Strange script that would be helped by more clarity in the writing.

I don't get it:( Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm lost on this one.

Still, the imagery was awesome! Right down to the red ants coming out of the eye sockets:p

Good job on setting the mood perfectly.

I don't think the writing is quite as troublesome as others have pointed out.  Although there are many examples of some trouble-spots that need re-reading.  For example:

'Anton watches his black shoes step forward'  -  That's confusing.  Is he watching somebody else' black shoes.  I figured out it was his own, but 'stepping forward', that's a very awkward way of wording it.

'Anton’s dagger stare cuts into the two men.'  -  I thought Anton sliced them up until I noticed the word 'stare'.

'John glances back, Anton’s head down, watches his walk.'  -  Is Anton watching John's feet?  And what's with feet?  This ain't going to turn into a foot fetish porn is it?

'Anton’s gaze falls back to Leo. Leo’s has his back on him. John dares to look back part-way'  -  Huh?  I didn't even try to make sense out of that one.


But I think there's a really good story in the beginning that I was really interested in and was following.

But the ending ruins the story.  What the heck went on here?  Mary's a good guy at first, I think, then she's a bad guy, but then, I don't know what she ends up being in the end.  And her and Anton's making out... I don't know what that was all about.  The end is definitely not cohesive to what was going on in the beginning.  I think there's supposed to be a surprise ending here that got extremely muddled somewhere.

The back and forth between the two scenes didn't read very good, either.  I don't know if it's because of that where we lost the ending, or what.

I think David Lynch would like it, though.  (Don't know if that's a bad thing or not.)

One thing that I really really liked that deserves praise in this, though, is the dialogue.  It was very potent, especially in the beginning.  The dialogue was definitely the driving force behind this story.

So, although not the best story in the OWC, it has the strongest dialogue so far.

- Mark

ABRACADABRA
By James Hand

Pg. 1 FADE IN: then SUPER: 1787 – LYTHALIA
Pg. 2 EXT. CATHEDRAL - MOMENTS LATE (time frame)
Pg. 2. LEO (O.S.) (quick) - “Told not to look at him.” The line doesn’t make sense maybe I told you not to look at him.
Pg. 3 INT. CATHEDRAL - SANCTUARY - MOMENTS LATE (time frame)
Pg. 4 ANTON- “That they don’t live in France” add ANTON (Contd)
Pg. 5 BALCONY- New slugline added in-place
Pg. 6 SANCTUARY- New slugline added in-place
Pg. 6 BALCONY- New slugline added in-place
Pg. 6 SANCTUARY- “A dead goat, under torn bandages” Move into previous scene
Pg. 6 BALCONY- New slugline added in-place
Pg. 6 SANCTUARY- New slugline added in-place
Pg. 7 BALCONY- New slugline added in-place
Pg. 8 SANCTUARY- New slugline added in-place
Pg. 8 “John plunges the dagger into the throat of the dead goat. It squeals in protest.” It is already dead, unable to squeal.
Pg. 8 a series of shots could be used to in-place of the action lines.
Pg. 9 SANCTUARY- New slugline added in-place
Pg. 9 BALCONY- New slugline added in-place
Pg. 9 SANCTUARY- New slugline added in-place
Pg. 9 BALCONY- New slugline added in-place
Pg. 10 SANCTUARY- New slugline added in-place
Pg. 10 BALCONY- New slugline added in-place
Pg. 10 SANCTUARY- New slugline added in-place
Pg. 10 BALCONY- New slugline added in-place
Pg. 11 INT. CATHEDRAL - BALCONY - MOMENTS LATE (time frame)
Pg. 11 SANCTUARY - MOMENTS LATER (time frame)

This was a good story. I wasn’t expecting Anton to be the ghost. Good work. A lot of Slugline issues. You could have added an ESTABLISHING SHOT or CONTINUOUS ACTION to the scene if you wish to use them as they are.

I am new to screenwriting so any of my suggestions and comments please hold at a novice level, good work and thanks.

Locations & Sets  -   EXT dirt road to European village in distance (matte), EXT Wooden bridge, EXT & INT cathedral with balcony
Actors  -  ANTON (30s),  LEO (50s) and JOHN (20s), MARY (20s), SPIRIT  (30s)
Costumes  -  Anton's black boots & coat, 1780s European costumes, Mary's gown and pale dress
Props  -  lit lantern, dagger, spider webs in windows, beheaded saint statue, candles, wooden altar, red silk sheet, goat corpse and bundling, decomposed body, skeleton that'll break into dust, few cups O maggots, sugar glass church window x 3, red raindrops
Audio FX -  monster screams
Visual FX  -  screaming goat corpse and spewing blood (in a church), decomposed body sits up with reappearing eyes, dark mass that jumps, coat that wraps around John's face, Spirit rising effect, dark hands pulling a sinking Mary beneath mud
Other -  Big fan to blow Anton's coat, lights for night shoot, permission to move church pews
Comments  -  The relationships as described get a little confusing as to who's working for whom exactly.

Overwritten and clunky.  I simply couldn't get into it.  

Sorry.

Greg

There seems to be some deeply thought out elements in this story. And there are plenty of signs that the awkward writing here will soon evolve into something pretty effective. The writer has a visual eye, and shows he can turn a phrase. But this is kind of confusing and hard to follow at times. For example, the wood monster, by which you meant the old bridge, but that just throws people off unnecessarily.

Also, and this has been common in these OWC's, there is too much description of things better left to the director to do. It slows the read. We don't need to know about mummified victims of the spiders.

I'm running out of time, so if after the reveal I find the writer has reviewed my work I will come back to this for more detailed remarks.

Some writers make the mistake of writing too little. Others fall into the trap of writing too much. You have fallen into the latter camp with this particular piece. It is effectively dark, but bogged down by being overwritten.

The story was interesting, and the logline immediately caught my attention, but the script itself felt incomplete. Here you have a wonderful premise, a superb twist...and yet the execution falls flat on its face so that the twist wasn't appreciated as fully as it should have been.

I'd say definitely scrap a lot of his traveling with the dolts who take him in, because that wasn't particularly interesting at all.

Also, "wood monster"? Were you referencing the bridge itself? You should probably have been more clear with that one.

Overall, though, it is good for what it is.

Throughout this script I kept finding myself re-reading lines to make sure I had read them right or to make sure I understood what was being conveyed.  I like the over all imagery but it almost seemed like multiple writing styles were being employed, as if two different people had written this.

You have two different types of character introductions.  Sometimes the descriptions were far too abbreviated, one person called them staccato which is a great analogy. And some of the descriptions just left me lost.

I think with re-writes this might make a great piece.

Congrats on completing the OWC.

John

Quoted from darrentomalin Got a bit lost, not sure what was going on sometimes tbh, but I think that's my fault. It is very eloquently written with enjoyable poetic descriptions and images but some of it came across as a little pretentious. Use of italics and wrylies broke the rhythm of the read. Victorian catherdrals were not built in 1787 - the victorian period began in 1837 ended 1901 Loved the language in the dialogue, very era appropriate and the atmosphere was tangible.

First of all, congrats on your entry. It was well done.
As you can see, there's a bit of a revision up right now.

You were right about Victorian style cathedrals; it's out of there. There were some italics that were carried over from an earlier draft that I didn't correct. Those (aside from the newspaper clipping at the end) are fixed too. An added page and more clear motive now made some of the wrylies uneeded. It was one of the things in the first posted draft which I had a slight problem with.

Thanks again.
DJS

Quoted from Electric Dreamer Page eight. How does a dead goat squeal?

Um...Hocus Pocus moment! Better yet, "Abracad..."

I took it out in the rewrite. The idea was that there was an evil spirit possessing the goat, and being transferred to the other dead body, but shortly after I submitted it dawned on me it didn't read the way I wanted it to and prepared to take the hit.

Now for a general concern, and this is not aimed at you personally, but to others with a common denominator.

A lot of folks had problems with the #$%^ wood bridge. I didn't want to say 'wood bridge' all the time, so I used a colorful description and metaphor. Everyone seemed to outright hate it, "got confused" which I think is a load of bull. However, I took it out of the update anyway.  I did have my issues with the first draft or so- but "wooden monster" wasn't one of them.

Quoted from bert I read this one first based on the logline. Parts of this I liked the writing very much, but other parts confused me. The style seems almost inconsistent, in a way, and with far too much of a focus on the feet of your characters.  Seriously, by page 3 you must have mentioned them a dozen times. .

It's funny - I hated my logline at the time. When I revised, I tuned the script closer to the logline. I think it (the first draft) didn't really match the logline. I simply had to think of something to put as a logline, an hour before deadline, and I couldn't think of how to put it in a nutshell. I combed through the script, and noticed a brief mention of why Anton was there, and ran with it. I think that's where a lot of confusion came in.

In my revision, Anton still looks down at his feet, but I altered it. Visually he can still "see" his feet.  It was a bit repetitive. Thing is that's what I kept seeing.

Nice to know someone liked the logline though. I wasn't one of them. And I wrote the SOB.

Quoted from Scoob There's a lot going for this but I feel you may have bogged it down with your writing style. Has a very Gothic vibe and although I'm a little confused as to what exactly happened, I believe Mary and her brothers tried to use Anton as a sacrifice in order to give Mary more power - only for their plan to go wrong. How it went wrong kinda evaded me but I'm assuming Anton didn't step in the circle? Might be interested in giving it another read in future. The writing is different, well in tune with the topic, and it did make for an interesting read but at times it grated a little. I enjoyed the visuals and tone.

The story is slightly different now, Anyway, how it went wrong in the first draft is more or less how it went wrong in the second. They didn't know Anton was already dead, living his life as a ghost who used his magic acts for "real" and how he could expose the "frauds".

Quoted from Ryan1   The tails ends of his coat flapping like raven's wings was a nice, evocative line.  The wooden monster of the bridge on the other hand, was almost deliberately misleading.

Thanks, Ryan. The raven line remains. The wooden monster line is now kaput.

Quoted from Ryan1 The constant cutting back between Anton and Mary to John and Leo and back muddled up the narrative flow.

Folks were either split on this or didn't think it was worth mentioning. After some debate with myself, I decided to veto the naysayers. I didn't do it in this revision, but I may just throw in an INTERCUT down the road.


  

Quoted from Ryan1 I was hoping Anton's skill in magic would play a bigger part in the story.  Strange script that would be helped by more clarity in the writing.

Strange script? Me? :o

In the update, Anton's magic skill is hinted at a bit more. I wanted to give the impression that Anton's "magic act" was more supernatural than slight of hand. (see above)

Thanks for your input, Ryan.

Quoted from rdhay I don't get it:( Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm lost on this one. Still, the imagery was awesome! Right down to the red ants coming out of the eye sockets:p Good job on setting the mood perfectly.

Hopefully the update takes some confusion out if it. I probably opened up a new can of spinach, to the point of no return...

A second vote for red ants! Well, I was tempted to put in the spider...The ants get a stay. Other things do not.

Thanks a  bunch. Cheers.

Quoted from rc1107 'Anton’s dagger stare cuts into the two men.'  -  I thought Anton sliced them up until I noticed the word 'stare'. 'John glances back, Anton’s head down, watches his walk.'  -  Is Anton watching John's feet?  And what's with feet?  This ain't going to turn into a foot fetish porn is it? 'Anton’s gaze falls back to Leo. Leo’s has his back on him. John dares to look back part-way'  -  Huh?  I didn't even try to make sense out of that one.

I corrected a ton of this type of stuff in the update. 'The dagger stare cuts into the two men' in specific. I hated the line, I must have had a sugar rush going on or something. Probably one of the things I hated about my own work originally, thinking off the cuff.

Quoted from rc1107 But the ending ruins the story.  What the heck went on here?  Mary's a good guy at first, I think, then she's a bad guy, but then, I don't know what she ends up being in the end.  And her and Anton's making out... I don't know what that was all about.  The end is definitely not cohesive to what was going on in the beginning.  I think there's supposed to be a surprise ending here that got extremely muddled somewhere. The back and forth between the two scenes didn't read very good, either.  I don't know if it's because of that where we lost the ending, or what.

Again, I am in a slight disagreement on the cutting between the Main Floor and the Balcony, but it's entirely possible that with the exception of one time, they may feel a bit arbitrary. I might decide to either use INTERCUT, or simply...have the two guys in the b.g. The more I think about it, the more I think it might be a better composition. I'll try it, but for now the previous format remains.

Quoted from rc1107 I think David Lynch would like it, though.  (Don't know if that's a bad thing or not.)

Wild At Heart has always been a guilty pleasure of mine. And I'll always love Twin Peaks. I'm also a closet fan of his daughter Jennifer's work.  I won't kid around -the Lynch's were somewhat influential on tmy Feb OWC (Flesh Won't Be Missed) But I like many filmmakers. I'm actually more influenced by (early) John Carpenter, Walter Hill and David Cronenberg. And no, it's not a bad thing to think 'Hey, I wonder if so-and so was inspired by this filmmaker or that writer or that painter etc etc"  It's a high compliment.

Thank you.
-DjS

Quoted from Zanej Pg. 1 FADE IN: then SUPER: 1787 – LYTHALIA Pg. 2 EXT. CATHEDRAL - MOMENTS LATE (time frame) Pg. 2. LEO (O.S.) (quick) - “Told not to look at him.” The line doesn’t make sense maybe I told you not to look at him. Pg. 3 INT. CATHEDRAL - SANCTUARY - MOMENTS LATE (time frame) Pg. 4 ANTON- “That they don’t live in France” add ANTON (Contd) Pg. 5 BALCONY- New slugline added in-place Pg. 6 SANCTUARY- New slugline added in-place Pg. 6 BALCONY- New slugline added in-place Pg. 6 SANCTUARY- “A dead goat, under torn bandages” Move into previous scene Pg. 6 BALCONY- New slugline added in-place Pg. 6 SANCTUARY- New slugline added in-place Pg. 7 BALCONY- New slugline added in-place Pg. 8 SANCTUARY- New slugline added in-place Pg. 8 “John plunges the dagger into the throat of the dead goat. It squeals in protest.” It is already dead, unable to squeal. Pg. 8 a series of shots could be used to in-place of the action lines. Pg. 9 SANCTUARY- New slugline added in-place Pg. 9 BALCONY- New slugline added in-place Pg. 9 SANCTUARY- New slugline added in-place Pg. 9 BALCONY- New slugline added in-place Pg. 10 SANCTUARY- New slugline added in-place Pg. 10 BALCONY- New slugline added in-place Pg. 10 SANCTUARY- New slugline added in-place Pg. 10 BALCONY- New slugline added in-place Pg. 11 INT. CATHEDRAL - BALCONY - MOMENTS LATE (time frame) Pg. 11 SANCTUARY - MOMENTS LATER (time frame) This was a good story. I wasn’t expecting Anton to be the ghost. Good work. A lot of Slugline issues. You could have added an ESTABLISHING SHOT or CONTINUOUS ACTION to the scene if you wish to use them as they are. I am new to screenwriting so any of my suggestions and comments please hold at a novice level, good work and thanks.

Yes, you're new. It shows. A few things here:

"Establishing shots" aren't all that needed, They are rather useless, in fact. When you read a (produced) script or a commisioned script that has a draft that doesn't get made, you'll never see that in the script. If no significant action or event takes place in front of that location, it simly won't be there. The writer will get to where the action is. The director, however, can show the building in three seconds time be it a new shoot, model, stock footage or whatever.

CONTINUOUS is fine, but isn't always a requirement. When events happen close enough in real time, it is implied to be so.

As for the slugs. They are fine. They are part of a main interior location; they are SUBHEADS. It's no different if you read INT. BATES HOME and there was locations in the KITCHEN, BEDROOM or BATHROOM. There's no harm in having an INT. there, but it isn't needed.

The SUPER is debatable. What do you see? Words over blackscreen? FADE IN to the opening scene, No problem. It is only preference.

"Told (you) not to look at him"---Leo
Interesting catch. I can understand clearly why you think it's wrong. But it isn't. Take the word "you" out .

"Told not to look at him"

If you put "you" in the line, it implies that Leo at some point told John not to make eye contact with Anton. Take it away, and it implies they were told not to make eye contact. (It is suggested that the ghost of Mary made this suggestion.) In the follow up, however, I placed more emphasis on Mary being a ghost herself, that she could communicate with Leo and John and the dead woman to be her dead body.

As for 'the series of shots to replace action"? No dice. I wasn't showing a progession of events over time; there isn't a need for any of that.

-DjS

Quoted from RayW Locations & Sets  -   EXT dirt road to European village in distance (matte), EXT Wooden bridge, EXT & INT cathedral with balcony Actors  -  ANTON (30s),  LEO (50s) and JOHN (20s), MARY (20s), SPIRIT  (30s) Costumes  -  Anton's black boots & coat, 1780s European costumes, Mary's gown and pale dress Props  -  lit lantern, dagger, spider webs in windows, beheaded saint statue, candles, wooden altar, red silk sheet, goat corpse and bundling, decomposed body, skeleton that'll break into dust, few cups O maggots, sugar glass church window x 3, red raindrops Audio FX -  monster screams Visual FX  -  screaming goat corpse and spewing blood (in a church), decomposed body sits up with reappearing eyes, dark mass that jumps, coat that wraps around John's face, Spirit rising effect, dark hands pulling a sinking Mary beneath mud Other -  Big fan to blow Anton's coat, lights for night shoot, permission to move church pews Comments  -  The relationships as described get a little confusing as to who's working for whom exactly.

Who said you'd need a fan. Ray?  Fishwire that up, put coat on actor's face, yank it off. Reverse film. Oldest trick known to the FX man. Works everytime, costs next to nothing. low light helps cover the fingerprints.

In the rewrite, the dead goat doesn't jolt back to life (would have been a puppet/anamatronic anyway) so it no longer would be an issue. Monster audio FX no longer required. Still would need the usual wind outside though, no biggie.

Hands pulling Mary under mud, another old school cheap-o effect that still is sometimes used now and then; point moot as it is excised from script now anyway.
Old Graveyard set on hill now in its place. Plus new character, Caretaker.

Ghost of Mary and woman corpse/Ghost of corpse, however, one the same.

And we are running though our production, got some painted up chopped gummy worms (no longer edible) or real worms from Mom and Pop Bait N Tackle for five bucks ...rolling right along...


What about the ants?
Ants? What ants  :o
The ants in yo' pants that make ya dance?

The ants that pour of the eye sockets!
The money shot!

(I'm having fun with you here Ray, y'know that, right?)

Anyway, thanks for your input.
-DjS