They Burn by Nathan Hill - Short, Thriller, Crime - North Carolina, 1979. Detective Randall Horton interrogates a sadistic captured cult leader to find the whereabouts of his followers. What follows is an intense game of wits with tensions rising and time running out.  11 pages - pdf, format 8)

Quite a few errors in this one which leads me to believe you didn't proofread before sending it in. Perhaps it's a first draft and you just want to know whether the story works. I think it does, but some of the dialogue needs work. Particularly the reporter when talking about the fire, but the main two characters as well.

I don't understand though why the detective says that he doesn't mind killing women and children (re: the followers), yet he really just wants to save them. Also, why would the Perp care about he killing them, if they were going to burn for the Lord anyway?

This one needs some work, mate.

Hey Dustin, yeah I really should've proofread it. I was going through a 'surge' I had a bit of a writer's block so I wanted to get it done and dusted. I'll take a look through this one, thanks again, mate, if you have any scripts you want reviewing, I'll be there.

I'd put them on the clock right away, as in have the detective and sergeant outside the interrogation room talking about how there's upwards of twenty people missing and Hubert knows where they are.  

And make it personal. Maybe the detective tries to bargain at first and Hubert is only willing to talk if the detective answers some questions about his own life. And these questions get very personal, the inquiries so incisive, that they start getting in the detective's head... so the balance of power shifts. A back and forth, battle of wills type scenario is way more interesting than just having the cop beat the crap out of him for answers.  

Maybe even have Hubert reveal towards the end that one of the missing people is the detectives own daughter or wife... and that finally sends him into a frenzy...

That sounds very good, Zero! I should've definetely made the leder more threatening so to speak. Thanks for the feedback man!

Nathan,

This plays out very A - B.  Detective beats a lead out of a suspect but the accomplices die before he can arrest them.  Detective then gets the satisfaction of watching suspect sentenced to death.  

It goes right where you’d expect it to without much of a payoff.  Do we know enough about these two characters to take much satisfaction from either Hubert’s death sentence or Randal’s victory?  We only know of Hubert’s crimes from what Randal tells us.  I think ideas like this are stronger if we see the crimes or meet the victims/families.  Without that we’re left disconnected from the crime and its consequences to really care about seeing justice.

Not sure you need all the parenthesis here.  Most of it can be implied through the dialogue or characters’ actions.  Try cutting it out (unless the dialogue loses it’s meaning i.e. sarcasm, whisper etc.) see if it really makes much of a difference to the scene -- usually it won’t.  I’ll hazard a guess most (decent) actors would ignore it and play the character how they see fit.

Not to put you off -- I like this kind of story and it might be more a matter of preference that this missed the mark for me.  If crime as a genre is your thing there’s a lot of good books out there that give you a great insight into police interviews, language and procedures etc.  If you haven't already perhaps check out David Simon’s ‘Homicide’ -- a little dated but still a great read.

Best of luck with it,

Steve

Nathan,

Some notes.

I know that this is NC in 1974, but beating a prisoner in order to get info seems too easy.  Can you make the detective more clever?  Can he somehow trick the info from the prisoner?  Can he make a deal?  Brutality may turn off the audience.  

That said, the work is solid.  You probably need to scrub the dialogue a bit more.  I like it, but I think it can be a little better.  Also, seeing the prisoner condemned might be too kind to him.  Perhaps keeping him alive but in some kind of personal hell would be more appropriate?  In any case, nice job.

Best
Richard

Hey guys thanks for all the help, going to probably tackle a criminal thriller short one more time as I'm starting to notice the flaws in my own script here! Honestly though I appreciate all the hlep that's been given so far, I sent in a dark comedy which should be up soon but I'm going to start up on a crime thriller soon enough when I feel I've got the knowledge to tackle the subject!

So, I have some good news for this one. It's been picked up by a man who is making a student film. Hopefully production pulls through.

I'll keep updating.

Hey, Nathan:

Maybe crisper if Horton was already in the room (interview in progress) when you open the story.  You would save the space of having him enter and maybe use it to show someone watching through a one-sided mirror or something. I think this would help because this:

Quoted Text DET. RANDALL HORTON (CONT’D) Lemmings. Evidence has you pinned for the murders of ten young girls aged between sixteen and twenty, hmm? Also the murder of a middle-aged man, all of these spanning between years nineteen-sixty-eight and nineteen-seventy-four, I’d like to ask you a few questions

Is way too on the nose. It's dialogue that would never happen other than the need to give us the details. Bot the Detective and Lemmings know the details. I know you have to introduce them - put cramming them all into the Detective's dialogue make's it seemed forced. You could have a couple of cops viewing the interview through the mirror where one - familiar with the case - explains to another - not so familiar - the details of the crime. Then cut back to the interview.

Another example is here:

Quoted Text DET. RANDALL HORTON I see but... Does Jesus agree with your acts of sex. Your lust? See, we had a former member of your ‘army’ come to us saying she ran away because she was a ‘Special’ one, one locked in your house, used for sexual pleasure only...

Because you are cramming in the back story in the dialogue it sounds unnatural.  The guys behind the mirror could help in this regard. For example:

DET. RANDALL HORTON
I see but... Does Jesus agree with
your acts of sex. Your depraved lust?

LEMMINGS
I have committed no such sins.

DET. RANDALL HORTON
What about Jennifer Mason?

Then cut to the behind the mirror to the two other cops where one asks - who is she - and the other cop provides the background detail - then back to your interrogation.

HUBERT LEMMINGS
A lost soul. Her only purpose is to
deface my reputation as a savior of
the devoted, Sir. She probably
couldn’t fathom the importance of
our mission of God. She left and
tried to bring us down but again...
We arise.

It could be that the crime details are not important - but if they are - you have to get them into the story in a more natural way.

You also are using dialogue for exposition purposes that would much better be handled with action, IMO. For example:

Quoted Text DET. RANDALL HORTON We, the police have evidence, photographs of you... You burning previously said male in an undisclosed area as he is strapped to a table. You are a man of God correct, Hubert? HUBERT LEMMINGS (With a smile) Ah yes, I am a man of God, Detective, I am.

Again - a cop wouldn't say "we have evidence...

" Have Horton slide the picture of the burnt man across the table towards Lemmings - and say something like "your handiwork."

Then an uncaring physical reaction from Hubert - an uncaring shrug or something. Then the line from Horton - "Yet you claim to me a man of God?

It's more natural to interweave the physical information with the narrative information rather than communicating everything through the dialogue, IMO.  I think that is a problem throughout.

Just my thoughts. I liked your story and many parts were well written - it was just too obvious when you needed to introduce details that it was done in an unnatural way. Hope this helps.

Hey Dave, thanks for the help. I like the ideas you have for the script. I do agree that I should show more than not tell but I was sort of plowing through the story, a redraft with all this would've perfected it but I'll have to see what this producer thinks, haha. Thanks for the help.

My pleasure - best of luck