The first part of my screenplay Kismet, can I get some feedback on this?

A

A_Beginner

New member
I am writing this screenplay about a depressed, suicidal actor and a young woman dying of cancer meeting and staying at the same cabin during a winter snow storm. I attached the first half to this post and could use someone's thoughts of it. This is a story I plan to direct and fund myself. Thanks for any help anyone can offer.

View attachment Kismet PDF.pdf
 
I hope you take my remarks in a spirit in which they were intended. I read the first page, and 3/4 of the second page, and stopped. If this is unacceptable to you, please disregard the rest - you can stop reading now.

Background: I've worked at one of the three big talent agencies in town, and in the course of my work, at one point I headed the story department. In other words, I've read a metric ton of screenplays and gave coverage. As with anything, if you do it long enough, you develop a skill set - I can pretty much tell within a page or two whether a script is worth reading further. So, if a script shows potential, I would read on, sometimes to the end - the script might, or might not be "good" in the end, but it had enough potential to push on. However, many scripts would throw up red flags immediately, sometimes even within the first paragraph, and at that point, you read on only if you were obligated to because you had to write coverage - otherwise, you'd discard it. That's the background to why I read less than 2 pages of this screenplay.

You intend to finance and direct yourself. Therefore I will not say anything about stylistic issues, clarity, formatting etc. - it's irrelevant.

You start out with a dream sequence. Immediate red flag - unless there's some very, very good reason to start with a dream sequence, already I'm 90% inclined to throw in the towel. Good reason: amazing sequence - in some way - at least ONE of the following - again, just ONE... (1)fantastic imagery, or (2)very powerful mood, or (3)the dream sequence is a sharp strong introduction to something very powerful. *Examples* for point (3) of such a powerful transition - just *examples* I've made up on the spot: coming out of the dream sequence we cut to a character actually dying on an operating table; we cut to a character coming to and we realize that he's hanging in a dungeon on chains suspended from the ceiling, his body showing signs of extensive torture; or cut to a dog and we realize the dog is having a human-like dream. Again, those are just examples - but that would've been enough to keep me reading, somewhat reluctantly, but reading. The point is - there better be something stunning here, otherwise a dream sequence is a sign of very bad things to come. In this case, there is not enough of a reason: (1)the imagery by itself is not strong enough; (2) the mood is not strong/interesting enough - so that doesn't come to rescue; and (3) final hope - transition... there is none - we just cut to the guy waking up and that's it... then another scene not tying in with the dream sequence. Since neither (1), (2), nor (3) are present, the dream sequence here is a "lights flashing, alarm ringing" warning "Serious Trouble Ahead".

Second page - we immediately cut to a conversation between the two characters. It's a disaster. Problem #1 - extremely "on the nose" - this is a conversation that is so flat footed, that there is literally no interest in it, except as conveying information in the most boring way; not only is the delivery boring, but people don't talk like that realistically - people talk around issues, or in some other way that's not as flat footed; obviously these characters must have been talking for a long time about their conflict, otherwise they wouldn't be at the stage of divorce papers... and if so, how realistic is it that they'd say things like they do here - f.ex. "you and I have grown apart and you know it" - that's something that would have been said way, way back when they first started having serious quarrels - by the time it's suitcase-packing and divorce-papers signing, you don't suddenly say "you and I have grown apart", as if conveying new info - zero realism and doesn't feel real to an audience. Problem #2: very obvious and artless exposition in dialogue - how realistic is it that at this stage they'd be saying stuff that's clearly designed to talk to the AUDIENCE not each other, like "It's why I cheated" - seriously, she's telling him that NOW? As she's half way out the door? Sorry, the audience comes to glean information for itself, as it is exchanged between characters, frequently obliquely, and does not appreciate when they realize that the writer is addressing him/herself directly to the audience since the dialogue is completely unrealistic between real-life characters. Problem #3: cliche upon a cliche - "suitcase packing", really? Divorce lawyer? Those are the signs of a marriage disintegrating? No more artful way to show the death of a marriage? Sorry - not willing to go on reading stuff that is going to suffer from such faults throughout - because if they're present within the first two pages, there is no hope that suddenly the writing picks up by 3 classes. Hence, pass.

Advice: think of interesting situations or imagery to immediately hook the reader/viewer from the first paragraph - note, interesting to a stranger, not just to you; or, think of an interesting way to show ordinary situations - again, you're hooking the audience, something they have not seen done this interesting way. Start like that - and don't stop until "The End". Good luck!
 
OC's above comments are pretty spot-on for me as well, particularly as it pertains to the dialogue on the second page. Sometimes I find the best way to bring a reader in to a scene like this is by substitution. Instead of the on-the-nose "you need to sign the divorce papers" discussion, make it about something else entirely, but that relates thematically. As OC said, you're feeding us information rather than allowing us to discover it ourselves. Never tell us "this is how it was," but let us see for ourselves "how it is."
 
Okay, let's talk about the 'divorce papers' scene a little bit.

First off, how many times does Bridget need to say Michael's name? Seems very redundant.

If it were me, I'd leave mention of the lawyer out of it.

BRIDGET
I expect those papers signed by this afternoon Michael.

We know they're legal documents -- what other papers do people need to have signed? So all we need to know from there is what kind of legal documents they are.

Michael looks down and frowns briefly.

MICHAEL
Don’t you think we should talk about this Bridget? I mean -

Since Bridget ended her sentence with Michael's name, it seems hokey for Michael to do the same. Maybe, "Come on, Bridget. Don't you think we should talk about this?"

BRIDGET
-- NO Michael we DON’T.

What does "we DON'T" refer back to? It would be logical if Michael had said, "We need to talk about this, Bridget." And that would actually be a stronger statement from him. As his dialogue is written, though, the appropriate response would be "I DON'T", or maybe "we SHOULDN'T" -- but not "we DON'T".

BRIDGET
You and I have grown apart and you KNOW it.
It’s why I cheated. What we had is
just - gone now. I’m sorry Michael
but this is best for us.

As others have said, too much spoon-fed info. I think the suitcase, the mention of legal papers, and Bridget's statement that they don't need to talk are plenty to let us know what's happening. A lot will be said by their expressions, the tone of their voices, and their body language. So maybe this should just be "I'm sorry, Michael, but this is the best for us." Or maybe "I'm sorry, Michael. But there's nothing left for us to talk about." Or even just "I'm sorry, Michael."

Bridget grabs her suitcase off the counter.

BRIDGET
Have a good day Michael.

Seriously? She's packed up and leaving him, after having cheated on him, and refuses to even discuss it -- and yet she's telling him to 'Have a good day'??? That seems almost comedic. I think she's said enough. Just have her make her exit.

Bridget walks past Michael and Michael looks carelessly onward.

How does someone 'look carelessly'? I assume you mean that he doesn't really care, but his dialogue implies that he cares enough to want to talk about it. So I'm confused.

He hears the front door slam.

We can't really see him hear anything. We can only see actions and reactions. Maybe "He winces as the door slams shut behind her."

Remember to visualize what your characters are doing. Incorporate that into your scene in order to eliminate as much dialogue as you can. Don't put it in dialogue if you can put it in action.

A good writing exercise is to try to write the scene with absolutely no dialogue at all. See if you can convey to the audience everything they really need to know without either character saying a word. Like this, for example:

Michael walks in and sees his wife BRIDGET (39), closing up a suitcase. Michael stands beside her at the counter and
stares at her.

Bridget takes an envelope from her purse. From the envelope she extracts some papers and angrily slams them on the table.
She slams a pen down beside them. Michael looks down at the papers. They are legal papers. At the top they read
"JOINT PETITION FOR SIMPLIFIED DIVORCE".

Michael sighs heavily, a look of immense sadness on his face.

As Bridget picks up her suitcase, Michael takes hold of her arm. She stops for a moment. Michael looks into her eyes and
gently touches her face -- but her cold expression never changes. She pulls free from his grip and walks out of the kitchen.

Michael winces as the front door slams. He slowly collapses into a chair at the table and puts his head in his hands.

Now if it's important to the story that the audience know that Bridget cheated, then that can be brought out in dialogue later. For now, what more does the audience need to know?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top