Pendulum Short by Will Jonassen - Short - A short comprising the back-story for a feature concept, we witness the ultimate dangers of the supernatural and occult in the hands of those who are already worldly powerful, hungry for more. A how and why, with consideration for actual studies into the occult, the inner workings of our world leaders and the international elite, above all and behind the scenes, are given a dark and horrifying twist. A terrible, if not impossible, inescapable dimension.  9 pages - pdf, format 8)

Will,

Good to see more of your work. I've seen you popping up around here, which is good because that's exactly how you get reads.

So first off, I think your logline could use some work. Right now it's pretty wordy, and doesn't say anything about a protagonist or his goals.

This is overwritten in places, but a big improvement from Lycanthrope.

"Yale, 1961" is a title card, I'm guessing, so specify it. TITLE: YALE, 1961

Your first action line is a camera direction, which I'd advise against unless you're shooting this thing yourself.

You've got CUT TO: as well. Again, I'd use it sparingly unless this is a shooting script. Most don't mind it, but for me, CUT TO after every scene is distracting.

Cap PORTERS. Always cap characters when you introduce them.

Your character introductions are technically fine, but I suggest writing their name in caps when we see them. So instead of "The second is a dark haired woman of about 30 years, DONNA", I'd write "DONNA is a dark haired woman of about 30 years."

Instead of "A young man of graduate age is the last to exit. His name is DARWIN VON RICHTHOFEN, a youth from old money," I'd write "DARWIN VON RICHTHOFEN is the last to exit. He's graduate age, a youth from old money."

So like I said, this was overwritten in places. Things like...

"Once inside they are promptly tended to, with their wet coats
gently taken, their hair primped and dried, made presentable
before going further into the stately old building."

...sound more suited for a novel. A lot of times you're telling and not showing (they're "made presentable"). And a lot of stuff in here would be hard to film. The paragraph above isn't real clear on who does the primping and drying.

A better way of writing this would be:

They enter. PEOPLE [not sure what you'd call them] take their coats, primp and dry their hair.

The crowd moves further through the room."

Yeah, so not great, but you get the idea.

Let's look at another paragraph:

"The wood, silver, gilding, and crystal on every surface has been polished to a mirror shine."

Could be:

"All surfaces have been polished to a mirror shine."

Don't get me wrong, this is good prose... but not good screenplay prose.

You've also got some huge blocks of dialogue that could be shortened. You could probably cut up to 4 pages off this, maybe even more.

Hope this helps.

Will

Hey Will,

I'm going to have to second what other Will has already said about this script.

There's no doubt about it... You are an extremely good writer, but in this particular case the writing suits a written prose as opposed to a screenplay. Screenwriting is traditionally written in 'simple english' ... English that idiots can understand. Unfortunately, the way you write gets in the way of the entertainment of the piece. I found myself lost in your words on countless occasions and it ended up detracting from the overall reading experience.

As Will has already said, that log-line is way too long, although it doesn't really give a lot of detail as to what I'm about to read. You seem to be identifying themes in the script as opposed to giving any insight as to what the story at hand is actually about. You reference certain things like "the dangers of supernatural power coming into the hands of greedy people"... Knowing your themes may be a good thing but you really need to identify how this them is relevant to the story you have written. Otherwise it's just another good versus evil concept. On the bright side, the way you have written things in the log-line would work great if you were trying to pitch the idea... As a log-line it simply doesn't do much.

Onto the script...

Page 1: "Fly over of an Ivy League college on a dark night" - Two things here...

1) "Fly over..." is a shot description which is typically handled by a director, not a screenwriter.
2) "... a dark night." - We know from your slug that the scene is set at night. Therefore, it is not necessary to restate this in the action paragraph.

Page 1: "It is raining gently..." - This next comment is relevant for pretty much the rest of the screenplay and I think it's a huge contributor to the overwritten aspect of this screenplay. You need to cut down on the extra fluff here as there is simply way too much of it. Screenplay writing needs to be short and to the point with no unnecessary detail. You should always consider alternative ways of writing certain parts. For example...

"It is raining gently..." could easily just be rewritten as...

"Gentle rain."

Try eliminate things like "it is", words ending in "ing" and words ending in "ly". It's not wrong, but when these things are present in the writing, you should be able to find an alternative way of writing it, in a way that's easier to read.

As Will said, get rid of the transitions on the side of the page. They are redundant and not needed.

Page 2: "... Old Pattison begins chatting about what a big night it will be..." - I'm not a big fan of add libbing in screenwriting. It may be a personal preference, but I prefer to have everything precise in the writing. This is entirely up to you.

Page 2: " The identities of the members present are mostly unclear and anonymous." - How can an audience watching the film see this? How does an individual watching the film identify that most people are anonymous.

Page 4: "... provides some hint that the building shelters a large and well-guarded underground complex deep beneath the earth. " - You're telling the audience rather than showing them. Don't interpret for the audience... Let them interpret for themselves.

Not bad by any means. You just need to focus on not getting too caught up in the writing. You're actually one lucky bugger when you think about it... Not many people are capable of writing good written prose and somehow manage screenwriting as well. Now, it's time to polish up on the way you write and you should have a bright future ahead of you.

Cheers,

Dan

Sorry Will. I would have replied sooner, but I've been away overnight.

I'm not particularly good with writing loglines myself. It's a grey area for most screenwriter and very few actually come out on top. What I think of when I write a logline is just the basics of the story. That's all you really need. The hard part comes in when you try and fit your story into one or two sentences. Not so hard for shorts, but for features it's a bitch and a half. A logline is essentially an incredibly brief way of introducing your main story in just a couple of words. It's designed to attract possible film producers, which means you've got to make it intriguing (another hard aspect). Like I say, I'm not good at it, but I'll use a personal example from "He was the Enemy" which you've read. First thing I asked myself was... "What is the challenge that my main character has to face?" - There's a couple in "He was the Enemy" but the main one is essentially the effects war can have on certain individuals. So after answering that question, I can construct the first part of my logline... "War takes it's toll on a soldier." BORING! that sort of logline makes producers and other screenwriters want to snore away.

Next question: "Why is he like that?" - Because he killed another soldier. Yeah, I can't really reveal that in the logline. It gives away the twist and it kinda ruins the fun. Never ruin the fun for your audience. So now I've got to think of the next best thing, that doesn't reveal the ending. Okay, so he risked his life to save a little girl. Now I have the second part to my logline...

"War takes toll on a soldier after he saves a little girl."

That logline will do, but it's not exactly great. I can make it better, easily. Irony plays a big part in most stories. There's typically an ironic aspect to most good stories. So what's ironic about "He was the enemy"? (that's your third question, btw...). That little girl turns out to be the daughter of an enemy soldier. He's essentially risked his life to save the enemy... Something that you don't typically see in a war situation... Irony. With that, I have my final logline, which I think does the job. It's intriguing enough to get by, but it's still not great.

"War takes it's toll on a soldier after he risks his life to save the enemy."

Try it and see if it works. If not, I apologize. I'm still learning how to properly give advice ;D

Also, have a look at this link. It's a bit old, but the author seems to know what he's on about.

[url] http://www.scriptologist.com/Magazine/Tips/Logline/logline.html [/url]

Hope this helps. If not, feel free to PM me.

An early Merry Christmas :)

Dan

Quoted from WillJonassen Awesome guys! Ha, I'm so new that it actually took real effort to find my own work on the site, this time.

In case you don't know, use the portal button, top of the page. It shows what's active.

i'll see if i can have a look later.

Quoted from danbotha Screenwriting is traditionally written in 'simple english' ... English that idiots can understand.

Hey Dan - this needs a little question mark to it, maybe?

Some people may prefer references along the lines of:

"A prose that is manifestation-oriented, i.e. focuses largely on what is audible and what is visible on screen."

Quoted from Forgive Hey Dan - this needs a little question mark to it, maybe?

Simon! Good to see you back on the boards. Not sure I follow you to be honest :)

Took a quick look at the script - it's not a script as such - more a short story.

This would never be produced in its current form considering its length, and you'd have to decide if that is something that you want to happen to your script. It is not budgetted correctly for a short.

I got thrown out of the story too many times, so ended up not knowing what the story was. For a short there is too much happening with too little clarity at the beginning.

Dan's right that your writing style could do with some adaptation.

http://www.shortoftheweek.com/

http://listverse.com/2008/09/06/15-great-short-films/

Quoted from danbotha Simon! Good to see you back on the boards. Not sure I follow you to be honest :)

Hey Dan - Hope you're keeping well.Statement of fact, to be honest, in that scripts aren't 'written for idiots'. Not to split hairs, but this isn't a direction you want to approach a script from. Scripts need to be understood by a wide range of people, but most who handle them are not going to be stupid. And your average script-writer is not stupid. Add to that the majority of people who will work or your script (dir, prod's etc) aren't going to be from a numb-nut populace, I wouldn't really gear myself toward a 'writing for idiots' angle.

Maybe stating that you're writing for idiots' is taking things a bit too far. Will, that's not the picture I wanted you to get. What I was trying to say, whether you're writing for Einstein or not, you have to make sure that everybody understands what you're trying to say. Not saying they're idiots, but you definitely don't want them coming across words they have to look up in the dictionary. What you have to remember is EVERYBODY involved in production need the script, not just Producers and Director's. Scripts aren't written for idiots, but they are written for everybody. That's my take on it. I would personally rather keep my writing relatively simple, others may not. It's purely opinion based.

Good to see Simon back in his normal spirit, though ;D

:D Either way an interesting point. From Dan's post about script-idiots (or scriptiots... which is a term I'm coining right now [i called it!]), so to speak, I did get a direct feeling of which parts he was referring to, knowing how my own friends, in life, might view it the same way.

On the other hand, I did think, "Well, I wouldn't want to work with too many idiots," but I have had experience with people from wide ranging backgrounds, and would again, probably... many that are hard-working and well meaning, of course, but absolutely not writers. In fact, I think it would be understandable if such a person found mine over the top, or felt it a type of showboating, even if (from my point of view) it is about the search for the most descriptive seeming, visually specific, perfect word for the moment.

I did start with a belief, however, that I would want to elevate the minds of my crew, rather than coddle them. One of my grips, though, for example, as nice of a guy as he is, probably could not understand even half of this with a dictionary right in his hand. I described the thing based on yacht clubs and other fancy places, like Biltmore Estate, that I visited when I was a kid. A fore-court, for instance, possibly even culdesac or the term "gilding," are some things many people may not have ever been exposed to.
I just can't know.

In my defense, though, check out the first ten pages or so of Moonrise Kingdom. I felt confident once I saw Wes Anderson safely using very specific architectual terms that even I had to look up in my own Webster's. :) Yet, to be fair, he can. He is in full control from writing, direction, sound, and cutting it all together.

On budget... it's out of range in terms of sets, maybe, unless I pulled a few old strings, but surprisingly, the animated parts are not so much... being an animator myself, me and a few friends could actually churn out something passable, just maybe... just maybe... I wrote it with that hope in mind, at least, beyond it's really being just practice. What it essentially stands as, is the backstory/concept for a feature length in the works. Along with character bios, settings, beat lists, etc., I wanted to really nail down a feeling. I figure, it could be something for the extra section on a dvd one day, perhaps (wishful thinking), or an animatrix type of thing. Heck, even the basis for a graphic novel, or something. As true as your point is, absolutely, I did not want to close myself off to the possibilities of where this trip was taking me (in my head, i mean).

In other words, there is a lot meant to be going on and hinted at, with just as many questions hanging in the air as answered. Still, I'm sorry you were thrown out of the story by any part, at all. It's just a little nod to bad scary people, who hold way too much power while being totally secret about it.
The audience is just a fly on the wall buzzing in for a peek, then away.

That said, I had been reading a lot of H.P. Lovecraft when writing this... leading up to and during. His form of prose got stuck in me, for sure, bouncing around and being experimented with. Sicoll007, I think that may be a direct cause for your sense of it being a short story in many ways. Actually, I wrote the seed of this before even tackling my feature, and it did not change much after. I've since learned some lessons about shorts having been Assistant Director on two of them, and the storyboarder for a local challenge with other students. I'm an animator, actually, but find the writing angle crosses many boundaries. I'm taking a pass at some new work, now, in the coming weeks and months, with a strong focus on the lessons learned from this and my feature length, Lychanthrope, posted a few weeks ago. Those sites are going to be cool to look at, anyway. Ty!

Time and again, with my directing experience, I am seeing the visuals and storyboard setups very specifically as I write, but find others failing to see the same things while only getting feelings, generalizations, or missing the subtler points I'm intending in composition. As proud as I feel about the prose, itself, this is something I'll need to continue to challenge myself to adjust.

Thanks for stopping by again, guys!

Hey Will,

Gave this a read but I have to admit that it was quite an exhausting one.

I read back through the feedback and cannot disagree with previous posters.

You can write no doubt about it and that’s probably the major problem here with this one. You have a real nasty habit of overwriting and not getting to the nitty gritty of the story.

This makes the story boring I’m afraid to say. I like some visuals to set the scene but to waste two to three paragraphs on non-details like you have really harms the read.

You literally described every room which isn’t a problem in itself but it wasn’t necessary. What’s the saying that peeps like to throw around “Enter Late, Leave Early”

So what I’m saying is that you have about 5 pages of filler, scene descriptions that are way too long and filled with details that are completely irrelevant at the end of the day so it took me out of the story.

I’m not going to go into the story because other than drifting in and out throughout, I didn’t quite understand what was happening to be honest.

From the logline which was also a strenuous read and needs some trimming, I read that this is some kind of back-story for a feature. That leads to me to believe that you won’t be reviewing this short but if you do, concentrate on characters and what is happening to them rather than their surroundings.

The unfortunate thing about this is the writing in itself isn’t bad but it’s so dull with setting out the scenes that it takes away all interest in the characters and that means the story as well.

Good luck and keep writing. :)

Steve

The eureka moment you just gave me is this: "it isn't wrong, but it isn't necessary." My first thought is, "but I like and want it to be very detailed about those things." I think like a director, and want it to be ready for story-boarding immediately, where those details being placed into frame will become more important. But even if it would be necessary at some later step like that, or if it ever might be, it's certainly true that it's not necessary at THIS step. You're just..... right. In a very technical way, you're just right.

Too much of the work here on SS, though, I have this one problem with to the contrary. I have to point out just one defense... so much feels entertaining and fast to read, which is meant for grabbing a producer, I get... but rarely have I come across anything that is ready to be story-boarded. I can't agree with that policy. Story-boarding is among the first steps that will happen to any script if picked up. They require a certain language and foreknowledge to be made useful and correct (I speak from my having been one on the animation side, and with just a few shorts)... and producers arrrre... just about worthless in any aspect of the creative process, in my experience. My producer.... MY producer, lost my g0dd@#ned flashlight in the woods not even thirty minutes into our first day's shooting, on our student film.... that has nothing to do with anything creative. I'm just sayin... my flashlight, man. My flashlight. We had a night shoot, that night, and guess who couldn't find anything in the dark, or read the shot lists? It's fine to dupe them in for a sale, but after that.... f  'em, pardon my french. They barely know what they are talking about, barring only the most effective ones. I've met a few producers who impress me, of course, but their heads are on entirely different planets, with totally different priorities. It's only natural. It's part of the dynamic of the business. I just look to have my work stand to be ready for the rest of the process, which is not at all about entertaining the reader in any way beyond what the narrative contains, like a novel is about entertaining, but about the very technical, mainly.

How do you sell the concept that the script seems muddled with technicalities, things meant for a storyboard and later parts of the process, if they do not feel entertained or are even confused by certain sections? Points that have to do with the composition in terms of available technologies, art direction, feeling, and creativity? Pull an old Hitchcock or even a Seth Rogan, and walk in there with concepts, storyboard thumbnails, etc., ready-made, or the script at least prepped for those things, and point out how it will save time (and therefor money in the budget), to have those things pre-addressed and/or not in need of much more tweaking to be perfected. Not just being a writer, but a self-sufficient filmmaker in one's own right. Hence, the specific direction and less focus on entertainment, here.

It's a technical document, not an entertainment one.

Take their walk down towards the temple, for example. I specifically describe the change in decor from fancy elegance, to a clinical and government feeling of decoration, to this ancient stone temple. I don't agree with just telling the audience that the government is directly involved with these people, but... couldn't they be? On some level? I'm not sure how else to drop such a subtle hint without making sure to include it in the set description. Putting it in dialogue or any other place is an absolute no-no, for sure. I find having a hint like that spoken as just too much "in your face" to the audience, too blunt and having no subtlety... that kind of background information being put into dialogue is almost like treating the audience as if they're dumb. So... where else could that be put?

They have a lot of treasure and relics = they're very rich and powerful enough to get the rarest most treasured things. Important. They're connected to the government, and we can tell that by simply looking around the screen. Important. They have access to things much more ancient with this underground temple than our own country actually is, and so something darkly suspicious is going on, obviously. Important. The egyptian motif inside of the temple connects it directly to ancient paganism and freemason-type conspiracy. Important. If any of it's filler, the only I can recognize as such, really, are in the very beginning during the party scene. Crookedowl's examples are good ones, but I note how they are in the beginning. I would say only two pages of this are genuine filler that I would feel comfortable re-writing.

Most of the professional screenplays I have had my hands on to read share this quality.... they get boring as hell after a while, are technical and bogged down, because they're for a crew of professional workers and not a mass audience of readers. Those drafts I am referring to, though, come at a later level. They're a few steps further in the process, closer to being shot. All said, I STILL jumped the gun quite a bit on this, and ended up in the wrong as a result. That's my defense, but also admitting to where I think you are correct in many ways.

Here's the gist of the story, by the way...

This group, the Illuminati if you will (for lack of a better title), is coming to the end of an era for themselves, and in need of new leadership. They have selected this young guy, Darwin, who is meant to be very special and powerful in many ways, but also meek and a bit of a puppet. I was hoping to show that through his being nervous and Donna treating him in a very boyish way, and through the conversations where he is withdrawn into himself and not liking to be touched. In life, I would see him as being a very quiet recluse, but these people see him as perfect for being used. They have a very warped point of view on the world, the value of human life, and their own power. They think it's for the good, and don't care who gets hurt, or how. My intention was for the shock to be that their power is literal, and connected to true dark forces when Darwin is physically taken to Hell and given commands from a demon, then sent back. Pattison is sort of the figurehead, Darwin is the true voice of the dark forces, or the conduit for them, and Donna's role is to take care of him, only, as sort of a maternal figure who is bound to him.

The feature would be set in modern times or the near future, after their plans have long developed from this beginning we see here. So, the focus really did become very much about where they come from, their values, and nature. Boredom... is not the reaction I was hoping for, of course, but win some - lose some. It was meant to reach out to fans of conspiracy theories, and so on, or who have ever read occult stuff about groups like the rosicrutions, allister crowley, the key of solomon, etc..,

In many ways, too, the first whole half is meant to have a slow pace that continues to leave the audience wondering, "where are we going, here?" if only to increase the impact of when he actually explodes into Hell just before the end, all of a sudden. Leading up to that, though, some long held shots and much that is meant to distract. I can see many parts that need changing for the reasons you've mentioned, or the ones Crookedowl pointed out, actually, and lines like those, but it still needs to have that 1:1 page to screen pace, slow build up to an explosion of sudden violence in the end. I guess.... it's a fine line and a tough debate.

I found imagining the setting so fun, actually, I could not have predicted such a reaction, but this is a natural perspective, I think, and there are reading tastes to consider, too.

In conclusion, I think if I have that warning voice in the back of my head wondering why I am getting so far ahead, I should rethink in the future... and when I don't have a concrete set to work with, there really seems to be a lot of reasons starting to become apparent when it comes to "getting real," and working with what I have to work with. To get to the point, and STAY to the point, in other words.

Lesson learned, and a very honest/specific critique that I really appreciate, too.

Thanks Steve!

Hey Will,

You best listen to everything that's been said already. :)

I'd like to say that you do have talent, this is some solid writing. Very detailed and somehow bare. But sad news is, that it is overwritten like everyone has mentioned. Just look back through your whole script and think, "Do I really need this sentence here? Would the story make sense without it?".

Some good visuals but I didn't really understand the point of the story. Was this the start of a feature? If so, a pretty good first few pages. A goal or some character development would've benefited the read though.  But if this is a short, I'm afraid it needs a lot of work. There isn't really a story here, we just see a bunch of scenes pieced together so the reader isn't really satisfied when the script ends. Do we really care what's just happened? Do we care about the characters we know nothing about?

This needs a good rewrite/expansion, Will. But you really do show talent, no doubt you could write a better script if you wanted to. :)

Oh, and I do want to, good sir... thanks!

Yes, check out some of my other responses for further detail on the specifics, but this is actually the back-story/premise of a feature. I wrote it to basically expand on some of the character bios that I have come up with, so far. Not meant to be made, except maybe as an extra to a feature... or just not meant to be made. Lots of fun, though.

The whole concept had been a little up in the air with too many directions it could go, and I thought that (as an exercise) this could help nail down some of the world it is to be set in. It doesn't have many of the things you mentioned, really, because those things are still being created in many ways. I'll say, it did help point the way. By asking your exact question, actually, "Why do I care what just happened?" it's helped me in a creative way to start building a new universe from this seed that has been planted. It's just the seed, though. The feature would be in the present or near-future, so that is why it is basically very bare of narrative or meaning. I just wanted the "feel" of the people in it, and not much more. Really... they're just bad people with a lot of power, and the next question it leaves is, "what are they up to now?" So, there's the kind of thing the feature is meant to address and expand upon. Here, we're just swooping in to witness a few minutes of these people's lives, and that's it. After all, there are some shorts that have their own narratives, and some shorts that just take little snapshots... and some shorts that are just for the heck of it. :)

Thanks for the recognition of the positive parts, and for sure, I am going through a serious exploration of what sorts of things can work better for it thanks to all of the helpful points made by the group. Glad you checked it out, and appreciate the validation!

William

I’m going into this blindsided as is my preference, apologies in advance if I repeat what has been said.

Page by page notes.

Intriguing intro, some might say a tad over descriptive but it effectively sets the mood and gives proceedings an air of mystery.

By page 4 its clear that you can write well and are setting up what looks like a fascinating story, I particularly like the glimpse of the formal party presumably turning into an orgy of some sort.

However, it’s also clear you need to trim back the writing…a lot. Look to describing only the essential details in as few words as possible. I appreciate that you want to tell us everything since you obviously know the scene and got it visualised to a meticulous level in your head but we don’t need all this information. Paint the picture, cover the necessities to set the scene up and move along.

“The size and quality of the colonial era manor’s hidden
museum provides some hint that the building shelters a large

and well-guarded underground complex deep beneath the earth.”

- Just one prime example of many right here. All this speculative, extraneous detail is unfilmmable and cannot be conveyed on screen so don’t include it. Use the precious space on the page to write about what we can actually perceive. I’m not adverse to the occasional aside to spice up the read, add some flavour but not three lines worth, it’s a waste

“Darwin bends to kneel before dark figure.”

- Put in “the” between “before” and “dark figure” who I presume is the Priest, right?

“Beyond the range of human hearing, in a forgotten language,
this prince of legions exclaims a series forceful commands.”

- Put in “of” between “series” and “foreceful”
“He sinks into a dark, creeping, and permanent depression.”

- Doesn’t read well, again it’s a more internal description than a physical, outward emotional depiction. The adjectives “dark”, “creeping” and “permanent” cannot be detected on screen.

How about rewriting it as “He slumps/sinks in the seat, stares at the ground morosely” Not perfect I know but at least it describes more vividly the action of Darwin, giving the reader an idea of what they are supposed to be seeing.



This is obviously part of something much bigger and that’s cool but it probably shouldn’t be in the shorts section as it’s more of a work-in-progress. Or perhaps you’ve got it finished and this is just a teaser. Either way, it’s a very interesting premise set-up and I do want to know more…but only if you reconcile with yourself that you’ll have to sacrifice the page long descriptions of the surroundings and get things progressing at a faster pace. I’m not one that needs action action action, I like a slow burning story but if it’s a slow burner because of being bogged down by odious novelistic writing then that’s problematic.

Like I said above you appear to be a strong writer, some really nice phrasing in here, a wide, rich range of vocabulary, fastidious attention to detail but you gotta ask yourself, is it suited to screenwriting? If you read any pro script or any on here by a decent writer you’ll know what I’m talking about.

Unless you have done it already, perhaps write the treatment before continuing the screenplay. That way you can get all the detail/plot points/characters/locations you want down on paper, in your own words, and then translate/edit it into a script version.

I’m always intrigued by secret societies; illuminati, free masons, knights templar, etc so the story, at least the beginning that I’ve read here, appeals to me. I’m digging the occultist element too with Darwin’s trip to hell.

I’d love to read more but tighten this bad boy by at least 50%, man.

Best of luck with it.

Col.

I'm so sorry to have taken this long Colkurtz, but my life has truly been filled up with emergencies.

That said, in fact, your points and specific details are quite original in their critique. You even caught a typo I had never noticed before.

I won't expound such a lengthy response as I'm infamous for, or will try not to, as most of my explanations regarding narrative and character development can be found in my other posts.

To give a background, though, my experience with film (and especially animation) lies primarily with story-boarding, assistant directing, and directing. I threw out this short simply to conceptualize the seed of a larger idea, sell it to some of my fellow students, and also give myself a reason to further practice my personal skills in animation; of course, looking mainly at the scene in hell with the demon, for that. It's playful fun, and not coming from the point of view of a writer looking to sell the strictest format, but a director looking to capture an overall mood. It's a piece of concept-art, almost.

It's still utterly illuminating (no pun intended, or maybe so), to hear your detailed points. I'm stubborn about some of the earlier ones, though, in previous critiques.

I'll let all in on a little secret regarding one line pointed out before, as an apt rebuttal... "It is warm among the welcoming crowd..." Pg 2.

That's actually a line about design snuck cleverly among prose. Not to toot my own toot-hole, but here's why: In design, the word "warm" is a reference to color elements. Hues come in cool or warm types; and this is where writers differentiate in training from the rest of their crew, yet should understand how the crew is trained and thinks.

A solid set-designer and/or DP should instantly know that the entire scene will be set in warm, yellowish lighting, perhaps with added fuzziness or what have you, and with walls and decor to match. So, it IS something seen directly on screen, by design, and only masked that way for sheer entertainment's sake. It also describes the basic action of the extras in the scene, and their overall demeanor, all in one sentence at the exact same time. I could try sentence by sentence to describe all of those little details, the light, the wall color, etc., and even do it in short snippets, but have instead summed all of those things up in a single word, "warm," and with a note of beauty to the language, because it would take even more sentences to do otherwise given my mental image. And, it's done with trust that my designers have been to class and will formulate their own beautifully realized pictures, themselves.

It's all about trust. Trust the training of your crew, and they will trust your direction in kind. Trust the actors to be able to improvise "chatting" when it's totally unimportant what is said, as another example... especially if that moment may be silent, and them only waving their hands and moving their lips in the background - but it's not known yet whether vocalization will be given or necessary in the rainy environment until it can be tested with the boom mics. I'm just explaining my general thought-process and method, you see...

By this point of defense, I mean it's been my thinking along the way that my usage of prose has been a matter of trying to do exactly as you said, and use lines as I've described to cover massive on-screen concepts in short order.

I understand that some words, like "fore-court" and others, may throw some readers out of the story, too... but that's also what google and Webster's dictionary are for. Over-written has been a repeated critique, but I couldn't disagree more, and if anything, find this style ten times more efficient by slipping double-meant design elements into the prose, and utilizing broadly descriptive words that might capture the entire screen feeling, such as fore-court, with its aristocratic air. I feel such a thing should lead to the perfect scene, set design, and performance from my actors.

By setting the bar high, the entire crew is challenged to rise to it, which improves the spirit of an entire project. Again, I say this as a person with some Directing and Assistant Directing experience on shorts, one of which has won 1st in VFX in the Tampa Film Festival, called "Mobius," (that profile picture was actually taken on-set) which I began as storyboard artist for (made that winning scene, in fact, of the moon splitting in half), and came to be promoted to Assistant Director by the time of its shooting.


That's a general response, but in all of your own points, Col? I have to say, you really nailed me.

Every one of those lines you specifically mentioned I am forced to call a mistake, myself. As I said, I like to slip in lines with double-meanings for both the emotional and the on-screen screen (even if subtle) descriptions, and sometimes really walk the line with them. When I think about it, every part you quoted (and probably any more that fall under the same category) may actually cross that line. To the line about the underground museum, for example, I have to totally agree. It is literally just a nod to H.P. Lovecraft in its presentation, and gives nothing to the crew except a feeling and reminder of the tone... but as it is, certainly wasteful under the circumstances in its catering to my own personal interests, only.

I only wish to point out that, as part of a style of direction that communicates to an entire crew, sometimes solely to one department or another (and in a world where the lines between film and animation are now extremely blurred), it's been my way and idea of efficiency to combine design elements with multiple meanings into single words or lines. They sometimes look like prose, or sadly go over the heads of those readers not belonging to that specific part of the crew, but they're still markedly efficient in their usage. Out of curiosity (and with respect to where you and other's critiques have been undeniably correct), does such a practice truly fall into a category of right and wrong, with this? With marketability... sure. With creativity? I just don't know...

I like your edits. I like them a lot, in fact. I do come from a school of thought, though, where "ly" adverbs are considered a no-no for scripts, at least in my training where some experienced actors can get genuinely insulted by such adverbs, but I happen to break that rule plenty, myself. Morosely.

Unfortunately, as I've browsed this site, I've not seen a single writer who matches the style of a Scorese or a Wes Anderson, who use incredibly novelistic speech and defend it to the letter, but again, they are directors as well as writers (or really, considered "auteurs") even though they are my heroes and the best examples of my goals with this style. Even the most applauded, here, have simply not even been close to my taste or sense of quality. That's another reason why I have been gone so long, too.    

So, I really, really appreciate you, particularly, because your attention to detail gives a new and focused direction, and it will help my continuing practice now that I can bring this stuff back into my life again, finally.

Will,

You're an interesting character.  

You defend your choice to overwrite, yet pride yourself on choosing a word such as, "warm" for its many succinct insinuations.

I too think your script is overwritten, but there's no need to beat a dead horse.

A few notes as I go:

• Pg. 1  Darwin carries himself in a "staunch demeanor" yet he "nervously smoothes his suit".  These descriptions contradict each other.
  
• Pg. 2  You provide a slug line of "INT. THE PIT - NIGHT", yet you don't describe the room the group is in.  Then the group moves to "an elegant sitting room" yet you don't provide a new slug line.  Then the group moves into a "large room" and yet again you don't provide a new slug line.  Your previous comments say that a script is a technical document, so wouldn't you want to know how many different rooms you will need for your shoot?
  
• Pg. 2  An example of overwriting is when you describe the "serving staff".  Wouldn't the word, "servants", describe the same thing?
  
• Pg. 2  When the crowd claps you say, "A few among the crowd with hands free clap their genuine friendship and support."  Why do only a few of them have their hands free?  Are the rest of them tied up?  Do they have bowling balls in their hands and they're unable to clap?  I'm pretty sure they have sparkling flutes of champagne in their hands, but I don't know for sure.
  
• Pg. 3  Who is the younger man at Bill's side?  Is it Darwin?  Why not just say it's Darwin?  Again an example of overwriting.  You could just say, "Bill waves his hand at Darwin" instead of, "Bill waves his hand at the younger man by his side".  I'm no rocket surgeon but I think it sounds better when I use the name, Darwin.
  
• Pg. 3  You don't need to say that Bill's smile is "respectfully genuine".  Let the actor figure out how to smile.  
  
• Pg. 4  Now they're in a den, and yet again, no slug line.
  
• Pg. 5  What are, "remodeled seeming chambers."?  There's a better way to describe this.
  
• Pg. 5  What is a "modest archway"?  Modest is a relative term.  The Arch De Triumph is modest compared to the Gateway Arch.  Use a better word to describe the arch.
  
• Pg. 5  What's the difference between a "finely calibrated chemical mist" and a "fine mist"?
  
• Pg. 5  If the stone is "hand carved", I'm pretty sure I know the method they used to carve it.  They used their hands, hence, "hand carved".  Perhaps you meant "no known style".
  
• Pg. 6  What are "strange torches"?  What makes them strange?  Are they burning a different color?  Is the torch made of candy?  Are the flames burning upside down?  Strange can mean a lot of different things.
  
• Pg. 6  How does the "ancient way" differ from the "modern way" of wrapping someone in an animal skin loincloth?
  
• Pg. 6  This place sure does have a lot of archways.
  
• Pg. 6  The Alter room should be Throne room.  There's no alter in the room, but there is a throne.
  
• Pg. 7  Is the skeletal figure the Priest?  It's confusing the way you have that written.
  
• Pg. 7  You write, "the ceremony begins among the present witnesses."  Um...yeah.  That's redundant, superfluous, and unnecessary.  Of course the ceremony begins among the people who are there.
  
• Pg. 7  Arches in Hell too?  I sure hope you're going for some sort of symbolism with all these arches.
  
• Pg. 7  If Baal speaks, "Beyond the range of human hearing,", how do we know he's speaking,  "in a forgotten language,"?  We can't hear him.
  

Jordan