Creeped Out

F

Forsooth

Member
Sorry I haven't started a thread for my script. Shameless self promotion is not my bag. I hope everyone enjoys my script as well as all the entries. This was a fabulous idea and I hope there will be others.

Feel free to critique my work as much as you like. I appreciate any feedback.

Michael
 
Wow. Twenty views and no replies. I seem to be one of the few threads with no responses at all. Did I not get the memo to not enter? :violin:

Actually, I think my script works well for both Scriptfest and Timefest.

It doesn't really have zombies in it though... oh, wait, there's this one scene where this THING rises up out of a ditch and grabs this girl's ankle -- very entertaining...
 
Just got to your script. Sorry. Reading as fast as I can.

You're right that the script works well for both fests. I like the tone of the piece, and you definitely grabbed my attention and held it with the repetition of the 7:09 on the clock and the repetition of "It's almost ten after." In fact through the whole script you use repetition very well, which can be a powerful tool.

At the end of the script I have to admit that I'm not sure what happened. It kind of has a David Lynch feel to it. For my tastes I could have done with a little more explination, but that is just my tastes.
 
I'm also a little unclear as to what exactly happened in the end. I couldn't tell if she was dreaming parts of this or not. It was an intriguing read though.

I have to say that reading "The Girl" grew tiresome for me at times. Maybe referring to her as "she" on occasion might help.
 
Thanks, guys, I appreciate your comments. And the good news is, you GET what I was going after -- I really want the audience to interpret rather than me explain. Early drafts grew boring at the end, explaining everything.

Thanks very much for reading.

Michael
 
Forsooth said:
Thanks, guys, I appreciate your comments. And the good news is, you GET what I was going after -- I really want the audience to interpret rather than me explain. Early drafts grew boring at the end, explaining everything.

Thanks very much for reading.

Michael
Click to expand...
Cool. I tend to like stories like that. It gives the audience something to do as apposed to spoon feeding them everything.

Cheers,

Mike
 
Well, I suppose I could tell you that the girl murdered the guy in the kitchen when she stabbed. He's lying on the kitchen floor with a knife in his chest. Blood all over the place. The water in the kitchen sink is running. I could tell you that. But you'd probably find that boring. That's a spoonful.
 
I guess I don't find that so much a spoonful of information as a complete non sequitur, given that's there's no kitchen and no stabbing in the script. :)

I think this is a very well-written script, with great descriptions (your opening scene description, for example, is so good that the reader can almost forget that you missed having a scene header on it ;) ), but personally, I'm not a huge fan of stories that leave me completely in the dark as to what the hell just happened. But that's just me.

Also, if I can be completely nit-picky just for a second, if she's on a two-lane road and she's just pulled over to the shoulder, shouldn't her right turn-signal be blinking? (Assuming it's blinking because she signaled that she was pulling over, and not for some other reason that I missed. :) )
 
I appreciate your comments. The kitchen scene and what led up to it were omitted in the competition draft; I only commented on it here because someone asked for a "spoonful" of additional info. Personally I like the final draft as entered because I believe it is more provocative as is. What happens to her is whatever you think.

As to the turn signal -- that was on purpose. The implication is that she is about to get back on the road. There I go explaining again...

Thank you for reading it and taking the time to post your comments.

Michael
 
I must say that this is not my type of story. Formatting, descriptions, and atmosphere wise the script was strong. My problem was that I had no clue what happened or what was going on. I assumed the guy died at 7:09 and the girl was re-living alot of that or suffering from it. I would have never guessed she killed him.

I know that you want people to think up their own ideas but I think things like motivation or actions that drive the story need to be shown. To me, the script was just a series of events that were not tied to anything. Kind of like a dream sequence with nothing to tie it together to give it any sense or purpose. Not everything has to be the same 'Act 1' followed by 'Act 2' followed by 'Act 3' structure but I would like to see some framework there to give the reader an idea of what the film-maker was trying to achieve.

I like to get a film-makers prespective on a concept as opposed to just me sitting there trying to make sense of what I saw in addition to what the meaning was.
 
mjjason said:
I must say that this is not my type of story. Formatting, descriptions, and atmosphere wise the script was strong. My problem was that I had no clue what happened or what was going on. I assumed the guy died at 7:09 and the girl was re-living alot of that or suffering from it. I would have never guessed she killed him.

I know that you want people to think up their own ideas but I think things like motivation or actions that drive the story need to be shown. To me, the script was just a series of events that were not tied to anything. Kind of like a dream sequence with nothing to tie it together to give it any sense or purpose. Not everything has to be the same 'Act 1' followed by 'Act 2' followed by 'Act 3' structure but I would like to see some framework there to give the reader an idea of what the film-maker was trying to achieve.

I like to get a film-makers prespective on a concept as opposed to just me sitting there trying to make sense of what I saw in addition to what the meaning was.
Click to expand...

Are you the same MJJASON who lauded Twin Peaks in this post? Kidding aside, I realize that just because you dig one piece of surrealism, doesn’t mean you have to like it all, so perhaps this piece just didn’t “do it” for you. But you know, Lynch doesn’t explain his work either, no artist should. Have you seen Mulholland Drive or Inland Empire? Talk about framework…framework for what? I’d be dollars to jelly donuts; it’s up to the viewer. In my opinion, and not to say that I think this script it flawless, but as a filmmaker and primarily, an editor, pieces like this are really a treat to read. I notice you refer to "what I just saw" and not "what I just read", ol' Carl Spackler has a word for that…transcendent.

BTW, my interpretation is different than yours and the authors, but hey, that’s the thing about art, it has no obligation to reveal anything. In fact, its only obligation is to be true to itself, as hokey at that sounds.

For anyone who can’t derive a story from the script, “You Don’t Mess with the Zohan” opens June 6th. I promise you, it leaves nothing to the imagination.
 
CarlSpackler said:
Are you the same MJJASON who lauded Twin Peaks in this post? Kidding aside, I realize that just because you dig one piece of surrealism, doesn’t mean you have to like it all, so perhaps this piece just didn’t “do it” for you.
Click to expand...
Same guy. Not all surrealistic art works for me. I love Salvador Dali, he is my favorite artist, but not all his pieces work. Maybe I didn't explain what I was trying to say all that well. In the other script I commented on the writer had a surreal bar but there was a purpose to the bar. The bar and the oddities of the script had a purpose to emphasize the writers point. I didn't find that here.

Not saying that the other script is better than this one its just that I was able to form a clearer picture of what the writer wanted to say in the other script where as this one it was hidden. In some sense I would say missing as some key points were not there. I have nothing against existential work that requires more of the reader or viewer to understand but when there are hundreds of assumptions that can be made about a story than I find that hurts the story rather than helps it. I feel that any art should be an extension of the artist; what their views are and their take on things. When something is open ended than it is left to the reader to formulate a point which makes the work fractured and weakens its effect. A hundred people may have a hundred different interpretations of a story which makes it difficult for people to discuss.

Anyway I am rambling, I don't want to come across as overly criticizing the script. I think writing wise this script is strong but it just wasn't for me from a conceptual standpoint.
 
For all of its obscurity, this one felt effortless and I never felt like the author was trying to hard to make the script too difficult or superficially deep, so to speak. There's too much forced wierdness out there for my tastes, whereas I know there's something deeper to what the author wrote than what's merely on the page. I knew I was seeing fragments of a grander picture, and I was trusted to fill in the blanks. For me, it works and it's rare. Too many of the other scripts are, IMHO, are just too contrived to be taken seriously.
 
The thing I liked most about this script was the descriptions. Your prose is excellent, Michael. For example, "The sky is crystal clear. So many stars." I'm not sure if it's considered proper to inject screenplay descriptions with speech-like commentary like that, but it works beautifully.

I like the storytelling. Lynch definitely came to mind (I just watched Mullholland Drive for the first time tonight, so forgive me if I implode mid-sentence). The jump cuts back and forth in time worked for me.

I almost feel like this piece rides the fence between surrealism and plain non-linear storytelling. The scenes never quite became abstract or inscrutable enough for me to let go of my logical inclinations to make perfect sense of it all. Maybe this is what you were going for, but I would like to see you go over the edge more instead of hang of the cliff of reason.

I felt you had one too many direct references to the clock and time. I think it's creepier if you have less blatant close ups of time pieces and kind of just sprinkled them throughout in the background, out of focus, in reflections. This is probably easier to do on screen than in writ.

Overall, good job. You're a very talented writer.
 
I appreciate everyone’s comments. David Lynch? Rarefied air, that. THANKS!

I obviously believe it proper to use prose in a screenplay this way. Way back yonder in the ‘40’s, ‘50’s, ‘60’s, shooting scripts were written with camera angles – POV’s, TWO SHOTS, ESTABLISHING SHOTS, CLOSE-UPS – all kinds of angle devices writers inserted to impart a “look” for the scene. Read one of those scripts today, pretty rough going. IMHO, reading one of those takes more time unraveling the script’s vernacular rather than “seeing” how the thing should look on screen.

Everything I’ve read about writing today’s screenplay, especially spec scripts, is that they should read like a novel in screenplay format. I also think contemporary writers do it out of self defense and self preservation; writing this way guides the director and DP into seeing it the way the writer does without resorting to camera placement in the middle of stage direction, thus helping to preserve the writer’s original work, and making the script more pleasant to read. Given the amount of collaboration on a movie, even a small short, self defense on the part of the writer who isn’t directing his own work is de rigueur. Back in the day my “so many stars” description might have looked like this: “SLUG LINE GIRL’S POV – NIGHT clear sky filled with stars.” Not very evocative.

Thanks again to all who have taken the time to read my entry.

Michael
 
Forsooth, a very intriguing, well-composed script! Your staccato screenplay shorthand is impressive. I do agree with some of the other commenters that the story could have been just a tad more clear. I found myself stopping to reread previous scenes in hopes of finding a narrative pattern that might clue me into whether these 7:09 events were part of a dream/hallucination, a literally recurring "Groundhog Day" scenario, a reverse "Memento" chronology (the "broken center stripe runs backward beneath us" description suggested a car driving in reverse), or just fractal surrealism. Ultimately, I wasn't able to decipher your intent, so the experience for me was a bit frustrating. I do hope you produce this script for the Timefest. This piece has an arresting sense of mystery and menace. And I hope you'll consider restoring the kitchen scene. That's not a plea for a spoon-fed resolution, just a request for a few more clues.
 
Last edited:
First you make me cry with the David Lynch comments. Now you make me laugh with the kitchen scene comments. I've run the full gamut of emotions over this.

Ever since finishing this script I've thought the short it would yield would make a nice calling card film. Perhaps I'll shoot both versions then see how it plays. Or wait, we'll release the 2 Disc DVD Special Collector's Signature Edition, personally approved by the director. It will have the Esoterica Version AND the All Blow'd Up Version. Now I'm starting to understand how Hollywood thinks. I like this :>)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top