Our Films / Our Scripts

[teddyleevin]

Issues:

-Bad writing. There is a lot of corny dialogue, and ideas that probably looked good on the page but weren't really thought through.
-Bad camerawork. A needlessly steady camera is better than a needlessly shaky one.
-Godawful props. If you can't get good props, write around it.
-Terrible, terrible acting. If you have to, run through twenty takes to get a good one.

How this can be fixed:

-Don't settle for a first-write script. Read over it and work out any kinks. It can be a boring and frustrating process, but if you meticulously pick over the details your audience won't be snickering.
-If you're going to move the camera around, at least make an attempt to keep it smooth. A good way to do this is to put your camera on the tripod, fold the legs together, and lift it just below the camera. The weight of the legs balances the camera, and also makes it heavier so whatever movement you make won't be so jerky (you're less likely to be tossed from a speeding cruiseliner than a speedboat).
-Like I said, either write around it or get better props.
-Takes! Do more takes.

Also, in "True Colors", during the interrogations, the interrogator tends to be off-center. I have no idea why this is; you see more of the bookshelf than the table, and this is an extremely easy thing to fix. So watch out for the compositions of your scenes. It's always a good idea to have actors stand in the area they'll be in most, and adjust it how you like.

On top of that, consider that you can always edit the coloring of a scene in post, assuming that you're using Final Cut. I use it to make scenes more naturally-colored, if they're under fluorescents, you can tint it yellowish and it won't look so harsh, or tint it blue to make it harsher.

Also, for god's sake, your movies do not have to be long. True Colors is almost 24 minutes, which is just absurd. I know the plots are all complex and whatnot but the audience doesn't want to wait that long. Cut things off, make it tight.

Edit: However, I am thrilled that you've actually made a movie.

OH THANK YOU! Finally, someone who can tell me all the problems. I only have excuses for True Colors. Mainly, because my "co-workers" didn't get retaking shots. They figured if we had it, we can move on. And, I did not want to act it in at all, let alone be the main character, I'm a terrible actor. But, I was forced to. Go figure.
But, I'm in fact using iMovie. I'm considering Final Cut, but itws quite expensive. I did hear that there is a cheaper version of Final Cut, is this worth it?

[Magic Hate Ball]

Finally, someone who can tell me all the problems. I only have excuses for True Colors. Mainly, because my "co-workers" didn't get retaking shots. They figured if we had it, we can move on. And, I did not want to act it in at all, let alone be the main character, I'm a terrible actor. But, I was forced to. Go figure.
But, I'm in fact using iMovie. I'm considering Final Cut, but itws quite expensive. I did hear that there is a cheaper version of Final Cut, is this worth it?

Haha, I know exactly how you feel.

If your "co-workers" don't get retakes, make them get retakes.

Here is a conversation I had with one of the people I was working with last spring (it's defenitely not a specific recreation of the event; I'm much more goodlooking here).

"Ok, let's retake that one."
"What do you mean, retake it?"
"I didn't like that take so we'll do it over."
"It's good enough."
"It's not good enough."
"Why are you freaking out, it's just a movie."
"No, it's just an easy A for you, it's a movie for me. Now sit back down so we can retake the shot."

Later, after the class had watched all the movies everyone had made:

"Man, ours was really good. The others sucked."
"Hey? And that's because we did retakes."

The other movies all sucked horribly, by the way.

Who did you play? If you were the detective, I want to slap you.

And Final Cut is very, very good, but not worth a thousand dollars or however much it is. Find someone who already has it and see if they'll let you use it. If you're in a high school film class you should be using Final Cut anyways.

[teddyleevin]

"Why are you freaking out, it's just a movie."
"No, it's just an easy A for you, it's a movie for me. Now sit back down so we can retake the shot."

That's exactly how it was. I treated it as more movie practice, they just wanted a good grade.

Who did you play? If you were the detective, I want to slap you.

Haha, I don't blame you. I can't act. But, we only had two males in the class (theater class), so I got stuck as him. Oh well.

Here's a recent script I wrote. I think it works much better than the movies, its just that I know I won't be able to execute it properly. Anyway, here it is.

[Magic Hate Ball]

That's exactly how it was. I treated it as more movie practice, they just wanted a good grade.

Here's a recent script I wrote. I think it works much better than the movies, its just that I know I won't be able to execute it properly.

The thing is, you can't let them get away with it. If you do, then they assume that they can walk all over you and start ignoring your directing.

I like the idea of your script, but I keep getting a sort of Tarantino vibe, and if you're going to try to emulate any one filmmaker, Tarantino isn't the one. You also need to work on your scriptwriting skills. Treat the reader of the script as your audience, and don't let the script get boring. On the other hand, don't write massive lengthy passages describing what's going on. Walk a careful balance between interesting descriptions and to-the-point statements.

Also, try different scenarios. You have grunting-man syndrome. You write hardass characters, and unless you have hardass actors it DOES NOT WORK. This is why your other movies put me off so. Write for the people who are acting, and you'll have a better movie. Since you can't do casting, and instead have the cast assembled for you, build off of that. If you have a gay guy and a straight girl, write a comedy where the girl is completely taken with the guy and refuses to believe that he's gay, as an example. If you have two stoners, write a hallucination thriller. Etc.

[teddyleevin]

The thing is, you can't let them get away with it. If you do, then they assume that they can walk all over you and start ignoring your directing.

I like the idea of your script, but I keep getting a sort of Tarantino vibe, and if you're going to try to emulate any one filmmaker, Tarantino isn't the one. You also need to work on your scriptwriting skills. Treat the reader of the script as your audience, and don't let the script get boring. On the other hand, don't write massive lengthy passages describing what's going on. Walk a careful balance between interesting descriptions and to-the-point statements.

Also, try different scenarios. You have grunting-man syndrome. You write hardass characters, and unless you have hardass actors it DOES NOT WORK. This is why your other movies put me off so. Write for the people who are acting, and you'll have a better movie. Since you can't do casting, and instead have the cast assembled for you, build off of that. If you have a gay guy and a straight girl, write a comedy where the girl is completely taken with the guy and refuses to believe that he's gay, as an example. If you have two stoners, write a hallucination thriller. Etc.

Thanks again for all the criticism. I have other things I'm messing with. I'm 30 pages into a sketch comedy film and I have a cast that can pull it off. And, its sketch comedy, so it doesn't need to go on forever. I can cut sketches with no consequences to the rest of the film. My friend (the other half of Grymmer Brilloway) and I want to do a prequel to Big Kills in Little Italy. And, we've definately gotten much more serious about it and have worked out much of the kinks from the first one.

[Magic Hate Ball]

Thanks again for all the criticism. I have other things I'm messing with. I'm 30 pages into a sketch comedy film and I have a cast that can pull it off. And, its sketch comedy, so it doesn't need to go on forever. I can cut sketches with no consequences to the rest of the film. My friend (the other half of Grymmer Brilloway) and I want to do a prequel to Big Kills in Little Italy. And, we've definately gotten much more serious about it and have worked out much of the kinks from the first one.

Oh, good. Sketch comedy is always a good way to work on humor skills.

You are:
-A student filmmaker with a shoestring budget.
-Fairly clever.

You are not:
-Quentin Tarantino, Martin Scorsese, Jean-Luc Godard, etc., etc.

Just keep that in mind and you won't despair when your actors can't pull off a bank heist scene shot in the school cafeteria.

[Cinesimilitude]

You are:
-A student filmmaker with a shoestring budget.
-Fairly clever.

You are not:
-Quentin Tarantino, Martin Scorsese, Jean-Luc Godard, etc., etc.

Just keep that in mind and you won't despair when your actors can't pull off a bank heist scene shot in the school cafeteria.

Trust him on that one. Writing adult parts for high school students is never a good idea.

[Len]

dthmnky: sent you some feedback on your script, hope it helps.

FSimeoni: I'd very much like to read your script, please send it over.

Magic Hate Ball: Great criticism, stuff like this definitely makes this thread worthwhile.

I've one script finished myself, but it's unfortunately in finnish, so I ended up writing a kind of really detailed synopsis/abridged script in english for people to comment on. If people want to read it, pm me or mention something in this thread and I'll send it over. It's kind of a homage to Michael Mann (yeah, sounds tragic, doesn't it?), and to be honest, I'm surprisingly happy with large parts of it.

[Magic Hate Ball]

Good news! I rewrote Sweet Violets.

It's right here.

Also, a note on stage props: they work on-stage because the audience expects it and they're very far away, and they don't work on-screen for the exact opposite reason.

[Awesome Welles]

As I said earlier, anyone please feel free to send me their scripts, as long as it is in English!

Len, I've sent you my script, thanks.

I'm reading your script now, Magic Hate Ball.

[Awesome Welles]

Magic Hate Ball - Script - Sweet Violets

An improvement on your last draft, I've detailed notes below. What I would advise is to leave it alone for a couple of weeks and then look at it with fresh eyes. In the mean time read scripts and rewatch movies you've seen a hundred times, make notes of the dialogue and how the scenes are constructed, maybe even write some of it, see how it looks on the page. Then go to your script and see what happens!

SHEILA
Don't do anything stupid!

DOLORES
Ok, mom.

SHEILA
Bye, Dolly!

DOLORES
Bye, mom.

Lose these (italic only) lines of dialogue, I think it'll tighten things up and we can get into act 2 much quicker.

Andrew is dead, laid out spread-eagle on the floor. CLOSE-UPS on the details; a cup of water, the bag of pills, Andrew's hand, his open, staring eyes, his white, dead face.

You can't just tell us Andrew is dead, show us. The reader is immersed in the story, a visual play, to suddenly tell us like in a novel where we are being told the story that's fine, but with film we are finding out the story ourselves rather than being told by a narrator. We need to see it and come to our own conclusions.

SISTER
Hello? What? Oh.

She waves the phone at Olivia.

SISTER
It's for you.

Olivia takes the phone.

Why not just have Olivia pick up the phone? I don't feel this adds tension it just seems like an annoying delay to the inevitable. If you want to create tension think about what your characters have to lose?

Dolores grabs Olivia and pulls her in, scanning the neighborhood before slamming the door.

OLIVIA
Watch it! This is a nice jacket.

Dolores opens the sliding door to the kitchen. Olivia smooths her jacket off.

OLIVIA
I got it at Gottschalks. You like it? It was-

Much, much better, natural and not dull. A huge improvement.

DOLORES
It's no joke!

Don't put emphasis on words, it's like directing actors which they hate, they'll only turn around and say they want to put emphasis on the word 'no' instead, if you leave it alone it's usually evident which word needs emphasis.

Olivia looks annoyed, and goes to Andrew's body. She kicks it.

OLIVIA
Come on, Andrew, get up.

Andrew doesn't move.

OLIVIA
(under her breath)
Stupid druggies.

She leans down over his face.

OLIVIA
Andrew! It's not funny.

She grabs his hand to pull him up, and shouts at the feel of his cold skin.

A couple of points, Olivia kicking Andrew is much better it more visual and better than superfluous dialogue.

"Stupid Druggies" This seems like an opportunity missed. Perhaps this could be said in cold vented frustration towards Dolores, maybe she blames Dolores for A's death? However if you are going to get into it you are going to have to commit at least one to two minutes [pages] to this.

By the by, I don't know if people know this but in the world of screenwriting it is generally accepted that one page of script equals one minute of screen time.

DOLORES
(hysterically)
Because then they'll find out he overdosed on drugs and then they'll find out he overdosed on my drugs and then they'll find out I'm a drug dealer and then they'll send me to jail!

When Leone was shooting A Fistful of Dollars, there is a scene in which Clint Eastwood explains to the boy why he killed a load of bandits to save his life. The dialogue was a long passage in which he explains that it's the same thing that happened to him and he didn't want the boy to grow up without anyone like he did. It was far too long and accentuated the point unnecessarily. Eastwood turned to Leone and said, how about if I just say "Because once there was a boy like you".

Basically all you ever need is both the first and last line or either of them: "Because I don't want to go to jail!" Try to avoid using wrylies* also.

*wrylies: known as this because the parentheses below the characters name most often contains 'wryly', in order to explain that the dialogue is the opposite of what is actually said. It's another case of directing actors and usually the dialogue doesn't need the additional instruction.

DOLORES
Olivia? OLIVIA?

Inside the downstairs bathroom, Olivia is vomiting.

DOLORES
Olivia!

The viewer has just been transported to and from the bathroom, this is a bit much, try to direct the viewer a little softer. I.e. use: Olivia can be hear vomiting o.s.

Or break it up by having a new scene heading and showing us her vomiting?

DOLORES
(O.S., muffled)
WE HAVE TO PUT THE BODY IN MY CLOSET!

Firstly avoid caps, see reasons above. Secondly in order to create tension, we must refer back to the inventor of this, D. W. Griffith. Griffith realised that by cutting to and from two obstacles the audience would understand that one had the effect on the other, i.e. the people in the house and the advancing soldiers. So the case here would be Dolores in the house scrambling to get the body in the closet - cut - Sheila in the car - the body up the stairs - Sheila at the front door - the body falls out of their hands - Sheila entering calling out to be met at the door - the girls scrambling back up the stairs - Sheila coming to find them - the girls at the door -Sheila around the corner - the girls going in, narrowly escaping Sheila eyes - Sheila at the bedroom door - the body thrown under the bed.

Of course this is only one line descriptions and there are a lot of cross cuts, but I hope you see that tension would mount with extra filler and clever cutting.

Ok, I'm writing as I read along and I can see you have done a bit of cross cutting, but in order for this to work (using Griffith's model) you need to accelerate, the cuts becoming shorter and shorter as the tension builds. The problem with your cross cutting is that they aren't really crossed as they seem to be occuring within the same space - you're not identifying different spaces in your scene headings. As an example see my first two cross cuts as explained above with scene headings, I'll just use simple one liners rather than write out the whole descriptive text:

INT. - HOUSE - NIGHT

Dolores scrambles to get the body up the stairs.

EXT. - CAR - NIGHT

Sheila and Ricky drive down the road towards Sheila's house.

INT. - HOUSE - NIGHT

Andrew's body slips out of Dolores and Olivia's hands.

EXT. HOUSE - NIGHT

Ricky drops Sheila off at the house and he speeds away. Sheila walks up to the house cursing.

INT. - HOUSE - NIGHT

Dolores and Olivia get the body to the top of the stairs.

EXT. - HOUSE - NIGHT

Sheila stands at the front door turning her key in the lock.

INT. - HOUSE - NIGHT

Dolores and Olivia get the body around the corner away from view of the front door.

It's hard to get an impression of the acceleration here as I have only used one liners to describe the action, but I would advise that you know, spatially, the set up of the house, in the last description I had the stairs opposite the front door, so when Sheila comes in she has the chance of seeing the body, but they get it round the corner, set that up early so the audience has that anticipation of what will happen in that spatial spot.

Lastly I would make a few dialogue touches on the last Lotto bit and that's it.

[Magic Hate Ball]

Magic Hate Ball - Script - Sweet Violets

An improvement on your last draft, I've detailed notes below. What I would advise is to leave it alone for a couple of weeks and then look at it with fresh eyes. In the mean time read scripts and rewatch movies you've seen a hundred times, make notes of the dialogue and how the scenes are constructed, maybe even write some of it, see how it looks on the page. Then go to your script and see what happens!

This works well because I'm going on a two week vacation to Seattle this Monday. Of course, I left Sweet Violets behind for almost nine months before coming back to it and realizing what crap it was (the old version, and it was), so I'll probably come back, be aghast at the horrors of my own creation, and rewrite from scratch. Again.

SHEILA
Don't do anything stupid!

DOLORES
Ok, mom.

SHEILA
Bye, Dolly!

DOLORES
Bye, mom.

Lose these (italic only) lines of dialogue, I think it'll tighten things up and we can get into act 2 much quicker.

The idea here is that I'm trying to make it seems as though it seems as if Dolores cares for her mother, but underneath it doesn't. If I left it at "Don't do anything stupid", and then her smile fades, it might seem as if that's what causes her to frown, when really she's just relieved that her mother is out of the house and driving off. Maybe just cut the last "Bye, mom".

Andrew is dead, laid out spread-eagle on the floor. CLOSE-UPS on the details; a cup of water, the bag of pills, Andrew's hand, his open, staring eyes, his white, dead face.

You can't just tell us Andrew is dead, show us. The reader is immersed in the story, a visual play, to suddenly tell us like in a novel where we are being told the story that's fine, but with film we are finding out the story ourselves rather than being told by a narrator. We need to see it and come to our own conclusions.

Andrew is laid out spread-eagle on the floor. CLOSE-UPS of the details: a cup of water, the bag of pills, Andrew's hand, his open, staring eyes, and his white, dead face.

How's that? I'm not sure if I should have a reaction from Dolores before cutting to Olivia's house. Either the audience is in shock before being tossed to Olivia, or the shock is somewhat transferred to Dolores. I like the idea of having really strong cuts around Andrew's body and then suddenly cutting across the neighborhood (or wherever Olivia's house is, preferably down the street).

SISTER
Hello? What? Oh.

She waves the phone at Olivia.

SISTER
It's for you.

Olivia takes the phone.

Why not just have Olivia pick up the phone? I don't feel this adds tension it just seems like an annoying delay to the inevitable. If you want to create tension think about what your characters have to lose?

It actually wasn't after I wrote this that I realised that I'd practically recreated the beginning of the scene in A Clockwork Orange where the old man is in his wheelchair and Darth Vader (not the voice actor, thankfully) answers the door to find Alex slumped against it. You get something similar here; horror has just happened and now we're in the happy home of Olivia and SISTER.

This is also an interesting scene to watch (read) again after you've seen (read) the movie. In the end, even though it's obvious that Dolores is going to go to jail, it's implied that Olivia will go, too (she can't not). So going through this scene again I get a feeling of "No don't answer it!"

Here's how I've redone it:

OLIVIA and her older SISTER are sitting on twin chairs absorbed in their magazines. A small radio plays tinny pop music. The phone on the table between them rings. Olivia's hand drifts towards it, but Olivia's sister picks it up first.

SISTER

Hello? Oh.

She waves the phone at Olivia, who takes the phone.

Olivia

Hello? Oh, hi, Dolores. What? Oh, sure, I'll be right over. Why are-

Dolores hangs up on Olivia, who looks into the phone, aggravated at being hung up on.

Dolores grabs Olivia and pulls her in, scanning the neighborhood before slamming the door.

OLIVIA
Watch it! This is a nice jacket.

Dolores opens the sliding door to the kitchen. Olivia smooths her jacket off.

OLIVIA
I got it at Gottschalks. You like it? It was-

Much, much better, natural and not dull. A huge improvement.

Oh, good. I like the image in my head of Olivia dusting off her jacket while turning around and suddenly being confronted with Andrew's body.

DOLORES
It's no joke!

Don't put emphasis on words, it's like directing actors which they hate, they'll only turn around and say they want to put emphasis on the word 'no' instead, if you leave it alone it's usually evident which word needs emphasis.

Ok, I'll keep that in mind.

Olivia looks annoyed, and goes to Andrew's body. She kicks it.

OLIVIA
Come on, Andrew, get up.

Andrew doesn't move.

OLIVIA
(under her breath)
Stupid druggies.

She leans down over his face.

OLIVIA
Andrew! It's not funny.

She grabs his hand to pull him up, and shouts at the feel of his cold skin.

A couple of points, Olivia kicking Andrew is much better it more visual and better than superfluous dialogue.

"Stupid Druggies" This seems like an opportunity missed. Perhaps this could be said in cold vented frustration towards Dolores, maybe she blames Dolores for A's death? However if you are going to get into it you are going to have to commit at least one to two minutes [pages] to this.

By the by, I don't know if people know this but in the world of screenwriting it is generally accepted that one page of script equals one minute of screen time.

Oh, god, I really don't want them to have another argument, the movie's already 14 pages long.

How's this:

Olivia looks annoyed, and goes to Andrew's body. She kicks it as she says:

OLIVIA

Come on, Andrew, get up.

Instead of, *kick*. "Come on, Andrew, get up", which is too segmented I agree with you.

DOLORES
(hysterically)
Because then they'll find out he overdosed on drugs and then they'll find out he overdosed on my drugs and then they'll find out I'm a drug dealer and then they'll send me to jail!

When Leone was shooting A Fistful of Dollars, there is a scene in which Clint Eastwood explains to the boy why he killed a load of bandits to save his life. The dialogue was a long passage in which he explains that it's the same thing that happened to him and he didn't want the boy to grow up without anyone like he did. It was far too long and accentuated the point unnecessarily. Eastwood turned to Leone and said, how about if I just say "Because once there was a boy like you".

Basically all you ever need is both the first and last line or either of them: "Because I don't want to go to jail!" Try to avoid using wrylies* also.

*wrylies: known as this because the parentheses below the characters name most often contains 'wryly', in order to explain that the dialogue is the opposite of what is actually said. It's another case of directing actors and usually the dialogue doesn't need the additional instruction.

That's a good suggestion. I'd like to cut down on the wailing teenagers.

Also, if it was just "Hysterical" and not "Hysterically" would that be acceptable?

DOLORES
Olivia? OLIVIA?

Inside the downstairs bathroom, Olivia is vomiting.

DOLORES
Olivia!

The viewer has just been transported to and from the bathroom, this is a bit much, try to direct the viewer a little softer. I.e. use: Olivia can be hear vomiting o.s.

Or break it up by having a new scene heading and showing us her vomiting?

DOLORES
(O.S., muffled)
WE HAVE TO PUT THE BODY IN MY CLOSET!

Firstly avoid caps, see reasons above. Secondly in order to create tension, we must refer back to the inventor of this, D. W. Griffith. Griffith realised that by cutting to and from two obstacles the audience would understand that one had the effect on the other, i.e. the people in the house and the advancing soldiers. So the case here would be Dolores in the house scrambling to get the body in the closet - cut - Sheila in the car - the body up the stairs - Sheila at the front door - the body falls out of their hands - Sheila entering calling out to be met at the door - the girls scrambling back up the stairs - Sheila coming to find them - the girls at the door -Sheila around the corner - the girls going in, narrowly escaping Sheila eyes - Sheila at the bedroom door - the body thrown under the bed.

Of course this is only one line descriptions and there are a lot of cross cuts, but I hope you see that tension would mount with extra filler and clever cutting.

Ok, I'm writing as I read along and I can see you have done a bit of cross cutting, but in order for this to work (using Griffith's model) you need to accelerate, the cuts becoming shorter and shorter as the tension builds. The problem with your cross cutting is that they aren't really crossed as they seem to be occuring within the same space - you're not identifying different spaces in your scene headings. As an example see my first two cross cuts as explained above with scene headings, I'll just use simple one liners rather than write out the whole descriptive text:

INT. - HOUSE - NIGHT

Dolores scrambles to get the body up the stairs.

EXT. - CAR - NIGHT

Sheila and Ricky drive down the road towards Sheila's house.

INT. - HOUSE - NIGHT

Andrew's body slips out of Dolores and Olivia's hands.

EXT. HOUSE - NIGHT

Ricky drops Sheila off at the house and he speeds away. Sheila walks up to the house cursing.

INT. - HOUSE - NIGHT

Dolores and Olivia get the body to the top of the stairs.

EXT. - HOUSE - NIGHT

Sheila stands at the front door turning her key in the lock.

INT. - HOUSE - NIGHT

Dolores and Olivia get the body around the corner away from view of the front door.

It's hard to get an impression of the acceleration here as I have only used one liners to describe the action, but I would advise that you know, spatially, the set up of the house, in the last description I had the stairs opposite the front door, so when Sheila comes in she has the chance of seeing the body, but they get it round the corner, set that up early so the audience has that anticipation of what will happen in that spatial spot.

Lastly I would make a few dialogue touches on the last Lotto bit and that's it.

So, a new scene heading every time it's a different location? Ok, I get it. New scene headings aren't necessarily new scenes.

I really don't want to start crosscutting between the girls and Sheila until I really have to. On top of that, I really hate that kind of crosscutting (dragging the body up the stairs opening the door dragging it into the room coming into the downstairs hallway) because I've seen it far too many times in kid's movies and it's a really terrible thing to do. It's manipulative and shallow. I want to keep the audience with Dolores and Olivia because they're the main characters, and since they don't know how long they've got, why should the audience? The arrival of Sheila is shown as soon as Dolores know (coming into the driveway), and then again when they know (shouting in the downstairs hallway).

The crosscutting is used during the bathroom scene because I wanted to keep both characters in the picture, and also dizzy the audience just a bit.

Actually, wait, no, the crosscutting was because I didn't want to cut back to Dolores after the violent zoom-in on the clock (I have to stop watching Ingmar Bergman films). So we cut from that to Olivia in the bathroom, with Dolores banging on the door.

Also, I'm going to go create a map of the house, or what it would ideally be. It seems you're confused. When I see the house I'll actually be shooting it, I'll rewrite parts of the script around it, but for now, I'll just work on the house I have in mind.

[Magic Hate Ball]

Floor maps:

FLOOR ONE

FLOOR TWO

SHEILA'S BEDROOM

Obviously, there are some mistakes and differences in the floors but this is the general layout. The idea I had in mind defied logic, I think. Up the stairs was a long hallway, and all the rooms were on the left. On the bottom floor the bathroom was on the left immediately after the turn in the hallway. The rest of the house was mostly the same. So, my original version of the house had a wide bottom floor with a long top floor that extended way out over the backyard. As cool as a house like that would be, it's not feasible. Hell, the house I came up with here is only in my imagination. And still not very logical.

"Where's the bathroom?"
"All the way down at the end of the hallway. All the way. Just keep going."

It would win the "Creepiest house at night" award with that upstairs hallway (no bannister, just a wall, the stairs are narrow and the ceiling's high, like being in a crevasse).

The idea of the second story of a house abandoning the first floor and sticking out over the backyard is oddly appealing.

Edit!

The script has been updated again.

God, I hope this is the last time.

[Awesome Welles]

The idea here is that I'm trying to make it seems as though it seems as if Dolores cares for her mother, but underneath it doesn't. If I left it at "Don't do anything stupid", and then her smile fades, it might seem as if that's what causes her to frown, when really she's just relieved that her mother is out of the house and driving off. Maybe just cut the last "Bye, mom".

I thought this might be the case but wasn't sure, if you want to do this, you're going to make your script longer again. If you want to invoke that emotion in Dolores you've got to emphasize it in the description, the way she hold her look etc.

Andrew is laid out spread-eagle on the floor. CLOSE-UPS of the details: a cup of water, the bag of pills, Andrew's hand, his open, staring eyes, and his white, dead face.

How's that? I'm not sure if I should have a reaction from Dolores before cutting to Olivia's house. Either the audience is in shock before being tossed to Olivia, or the shock is somewhat transferred to Dolores. I like the idea of having really strong cuts around Andrew's body and then suddenly cutting across the neighborhood (or wherever Olivia's house is, preferably down the street).

I don't know if the audience is really going to care to be honest, we don't know Andrew what kind of guy he is etc. we just accept that he is a device in the story, and that's fine, your focus in this story is Dolores, to make more of it means making the script longer, for this kind of story you want it under ten minutes in my opinion.

This is also an interesting scene to watch (read) again after you've seen (read) the movie. In the end, even though it's obvious that Dolores is going to go to jail, it's implied that Olivia will go, too (she can't not). So going through this scene again I get a feeling of "No don't answer it!"

It didn't come off like that to me, when in the movie do we get the impression either will be caught? The end implies nothing, we know there is a great risk, but it is very ambiguous and nothing is forced on the audience. Just digging. Best kept that way in my opinion.

Oh, god, I really don't want them to have another argument, the movie's already 14 pages long.

I agree with what you wrote, leave th whole thing out.

Also, if it was just "Hysterical" and not "Hysterically" would that be acceptable?

The dialogue should speak for itself, look through some scripts and see how many parentheticals pop up.

New scene headings aren't necessarily new scenes.

No just change in location.

I want to keep the audience with Dolores and Olivia because they're the main characters, and since they don't know how long they've got, why should the audience? The arrival of Sheila is shown as soon as Dolores know (coming into the driveway), and then again when they know (shouting in the downstairs hallway).

It'll be much harder to play the tension this way, but I respect and understand your judgement very well.

(I have to stop watching Ingmar Bergman films)

Watch more and more! The reason Bergman is such a great writer is because he hides his exposition so well. He basically tells the audience everything they need to know with the audience never in the slightest feeling spoon fed, this is because his dialogue and characters are so good.

[Magic Hate Ball]

The idea here is that I'm trying to make it seems as though it seems as if Dolores cares for her mother, but underneath it doesn't. If I left it at "Don't do anything stupid", and then her smile fades, it might seem as if that's what causes her to frown, when really she's just relieved that her mother is out of the house and driving off. Maybe just cut the last "Bye, mom".

I thought this might be the case but wasn't sure, if you want to do this, you're going to make your script longer again. If you want to invoke that emotion in Dolores you've got to emphasize it in the description, the way she hold her look etc.

Assuming the actors do their job, it would be implied, although it would be subtle, I suppose. Which is a good thing, you don't want every facet of a character's personality to be blaring at the audience.

Andrew is laid out spread-eagle on the floor. CLOSE-UPS of the details: a cup of water, the bag of pills, Andrew's hand, his open, staring eyes, and his white, dead face.

How's that? I'm not sure if I should have a reaction from Dolores before cutting to Olivia's house. Either the audience is in shock before being tossed to Olivia, or the shock is somewhat transferred to Dolores. I like the idea of having really strong cuts around Andrew's body and then suddenly cutting across the neighborhood (or wherever Olivia's house is, preferably down the street).

I don't know if the audience is really going to care to be honest, we don't know Andrew what kind of guy he is etc. we just accept that he is a device in the story, and that's fine, your focus in this story is Dolores, to make more of it means making the script longer, for this kind of story you want it under ten minutes in my opinion.

Well, assuming that the audience is in any sort of shock. Which I hope they would be. Also, make more of what?

It didn't come off like that to me, when in the movie do we get the impression either will be caught? The end implies nothing, we know there is a great risk, but it is very ambiguous and nothing is forced on the audience. Just digging. Best kept that way in my opinion.

I agree with what you wrote, leave th whole thing out.

The dialogue should speak for itself, look through some scripts and see how many parentheticals pop up.

But surely the actors need some sort of direction. Like Ricky's line, "But the important thing is I won it". The italics are necessary because otherwise the line might come across wrong. I suppose that's my job as a director, though, to collaborate with the screenwriter (myself) and convey the the line to the actor. If I left out the italics the actor might say it, "But the important thing is I won it", as if the important thing would be that he won it, not that HE HIMSELF won it, that it happening to him is a spectacular event, instead of the flat "I won it". "I won it."

Also, how could it end any other way? They're digging, holy crap there's a body there, let's test it WHOOPS IT'S ANDREW what's he doing your backyard I don't know well off to jail with you.

It'll be much harder to play the tension this way, but I respect and understand your judgement very well.

I figured it would be, but I don't want to assault the audience. I really, really hate that kind of crosscutting.

Watch more and more! The reason Bergman is such a great writer is because he hides his exposition so well. He basically tells the audience everything they need to know with the audience never in the slightest feeling spoon fed, this is because his dialogue and characters are so good.

It was sort of a half-joke. He uses fast zooms like that a lot, which I really like. Dollies are good, but zooms have their place. I've used two zooms that I can think of, the zoom in towards the tree (a very 70s "The Graduate" kind of zoom), and the fast zoom in on the clock, which I would acheive by zooming on on the clock and then filming as I zoom out, and speeding it up in post. Not only would it be more accurate (I'd rather zoom out of a location and do it backwards), but there would be the additional detail of the clock running the wrong direction.

[teddyleevin]

I thought this most recent rewrite fixed all the minor problems from the one previous. I like the scrip and you fixed the minor problems that FSimeoni mentioned. The only things I didn't think were necessary were these two parts.

SHEILA
Dolores?

DOLORES
(without looking up)
Yeah?

SHEILA
Look at me.

Dolores looks up.

SHEILA
I want you to promise me, Dolores, that while I'm away you won't screw around.

DOLORES
Ok.

SHEILA
I want you to promise me, Dolores.

DOLORES
I promise.

This line shortly after is fine.

SHEILA
Don't do anything stupid!

The passage before was 7 lines that made it much too obvious that something bad would happen. The "Don't do anything stupid" line is fine. And, even that line could become less obvious.

The other line I found was a tad unnecessary.

SHEILA
(in a happy, flute-y voice)
Off on my da-ate with Rick-ky. I'll be back by nine.

It wasn't something someone in real life would say. It needs to be less obvious. You don't even need to say Ricky's name. Dolores already knows this information so it just seemed a bit unnatural. And, please, remove the hyphens and extra letters from "date" and "Ricky", it made me cringe and I didn't even see how to say those words in that manner. It was awkward and not something you needed to tell the actor.

Other than that I thought the script was very enjoyable and I loved the ending. I could definately see that ending and it worked very well. Good work!

[Magic Hate Ball]

The other line I found was a tad unnecessary.

That whole scene is meant to be Sheila and Dolores being mother and daughter. "You look great, mom", is the one honest thing she says to Sheila, and the only time you actually see her being compassionate (elsewhere she's either sneaky, slutty, or crazy). I didn't actually think of "Don't do anything stupid" as being a precognative line when I put it in.

SHEILA
(in a happy, flute-y voice)
Off on my da-ate with Rick-ky. I'll be back by nine.

It wasn't something someone in real life would say. It needs to be less obvious. You don't even need to say Ricky's name. Dolores already knows this information so it just seemed a bit unnatural. And, please, remove the hyphens and extra letters from "date" and "Ricky", it made me cringe and I didn't even see how to say those words in that manner. It was awkward and not something you needed to tell the actor.

Other than that I thought the script was very enjoyable and I loved the ending. I could definately see that ending and it worked very well. Good work!

The basic idea behind that line is that she's singing it. Off being a high note, on being a low one, my being one note higher than off, and then descending to "ate", which is the same note as "on", and then the same downward scale for "with rick-ky". One two-three four five-six sev-en. Almost gloating; it doesn't matter that Dolores already knows it, Sheila's just so happy that she can't help herself. Plus, it tells us what the hell she's doing. Going on a date with Ricky. We don't know who Ricky is, but we know she's going on a date with him, and she's happy about it.

Since I'm so unsure about cutting this out I'll leave it in so that when I do film the movie I'll at least have the scene in it so that if I change my mind I can cut it out.

[teddyleevin]

Alright, I think you need to describe it a bit more, then. I got what you meant from your last post, but in the script itself it was unclear.

[Awesome Welles]

Assuming the actors do their job, it would be implied, although it would be subtle, I suppose. Which is a good thing, you don't want every facet of a character's personality to be blaring at the audience.

If you're writing for yourself this is ok, but in Hollywood or anywhere else Actors won't want to be told in a script, they can be told by the director but not the script. The writer is the lowest of the low.

There's a joke in (Golden Era Hollywood) about this:

"Did you hear about the Polish Actress?"
"No"
"She went out with a screenwriter"

Well, assuming that the audience is in any sort of shock. Which I hope they would be. Also, make more of what?

Can't remember lost in the mix of quotes somewhere, I'll let you know if I remember.

But surely the actors need some sort of direction. Like Ricky's line, "But the important thing is I won it". The italics are necessary because otherwise the line might come across wrong. I suppose that's my job as a director, though, to collaborate with the screenwriter (myself) and convey the the line to the actor. If I left out the italics the actor might say it, "But the important thing is I won it", as if the important thing would be that he won it, not that HE HIMSELF won it, that it happening to him is a spectacular event, instead of the flat "I won it". "I won it."

See above.

Also, how could it end any other way? They're digging, holy crap there's a body there, let's test it WHOOPS IT'S ANDREW what's he doing your backyard I don't know well off to jail with you.

There is a strong emphasis that they will get caught but then there is the implication that the body would have dissolved with the lime or whatever it was that he was buried with. But maybe it is less hopeful than I had first thought...

It was sort of a half-joke. He uses fast zooms like that a lot, which I really like. Dollies are good, but zooms have their place. I've used two zooms that I can think of, the zoom in towards the tree (a very 70s "The Graduate" kind of zoom), and the fast zoom in on the clock, which I would acheive by zooming on on the clock and then filming as I zoom out, and speeding it up in post. Not only would it be more accurate (I'd rather zoom out of a location and do it backwards), but there would be the additional detail of the clock running the wrong direction.

You should try and separate the director in you from the writer in you, otherwise the director in you might become to concerned with the shots than the story?

The basic idea behind that line is that she's singing it.

I got that fine. Similar line in As Good as it Gets. It works well. People more often than not speak in half words, singing, twirls and expressions rather than full, complete sentences.

[exte]

Can this be its own thread now?

[davebert]

I appreciate having the two together--filmmaking's a collaborative process, and from the sounds of it many people here are attempting to be total package writer/directors... plus activity on one side makes up for a lull on the other (for example, more script talk obfuscates the fact that no filmmaker's stuff has been posted for a while).

So yeah, keep 'em together!

[exte]

Anyone care to share their NLE setups?

[chaddoli]

My new film, titled "Thousand Honeymoons," is available for download. It was shot on 35mm in Prague, Czech Republic.

Enjoy.

[Awesome Welles]

I always feel that bad news first works better so you can walk away having heard the good stuff last.

Here goes: The cting was not very good at all. Of course this is very difficult without dialogue to convey as much emotion as possible with only body movement and the suggestion of the eyes, mouth without verging on high theatricality. Another problem related to this was you kept your distance from the actors. Without any closeups it is difficult to engage with the actors faces and therefore emotions. You may have been keeping your distance for a metaphoric or psychological reason but I didn't feel this was the case.

Evidence of this can be seen in the scene in which the prostitute is thrown down by her pimp and then her tubby man is there to stop him, they have sex, we see it coming, that's not a bad thing, the problem is that you avoid a great moment of intense emotion here, you don't have to be explicit or coy, just show that they are enjoying eachother's physicality then fade or dissolve to them dressing. You could alternatively use an ellipsis, following thrown clothes to their feet, gazing into the distance and panning back to see the clothes being put back on and we resume as normal (just a suggestion).

The music whilst beautiful, especially Werckmesiter Harmonies (which I saw last night, weird) is not especially fitting in my opinion. I just didn't feel that it gelled well with what you were trying to show.

The shaky camera didn't really work for me, I felt that the subject matter and the tone you seemed to be trying to evoke needed much more still frames, lingering shots, more contemplative. Some scenes were poorly edited (see good stuff for this point).

On to the good stuff. The photography was gorgeous. The colours of the early scenes going from bright yellows to the more earthy nature and finally to the restrained colours of the eatery were very well observed and fit well with the change of mood.

The opening scenes of the prostitute walking with her many suitors was well executed with her walking the length of the road rather than the same spatial setting over and over, however this didn't come off as well as it could have due to poor editing. The thought behind it was good though. My only problem with it was is it realistic? but given your restrictions, money etc. I thought it was good.

I thought the pace of the film was pretty good, with better editing would have been much better.

I liked your ending and the turn of events I thought it was dealt with well but if the body of the work had given us a little more it would have been even more powerful.

I am sorry this couldn't be more positive but you have made a gorgeous looking film and I've made nothing, so kudos.

[chaddoli]

Thanks for the response. Obviously I do not agree with some of your criticisms (I do not think the editing was bad, I am happy with the tone and music, I like the use of handheld vs. steadycam). But I definitely agree with others such as the awkwardness of the sex scene and some of the acting. The film also has story problems in general.

As to the acting, none of the actors spoke a word of English. I am not excusing myself but one can't deny how much more difficult this makes things. I became aware early on that my actress was not so into delving deep into the character but I'm sure part of it was the language barrier. But I know I could have done better with them. I am only 20 years old and have a lot more to learn about directing actors.

PS: In case you didn't realize, this guy played the pimp: