I don't know if anyone else will have this problem, but I did get confused a couple of times reading this script. Maybe its because you jump around in time a lot, or it could be that there are a lot of 'Man' lines, and it's becoming unclear who is talking.
Apart from that, I think you have a good story here. I like how it started, there was a definite mood to the piece, and you can sense the ambiguity and emotion of the event. I'm interested to know how your going to film the jackrabbit scene and the horses, but I'm sure you have a way.
Overall, it seems like you have the story you want to tell here, it just seems confusing on the page. I want to see what other people think and I'll aim to give you more feedback in class.
In general, just to make this easier to read, I say stick with the character's names the entire time instead of things like "70" or "Youngest" - say "John Age #" - sorta hard to keep straight how many older young men and whatnot there are, ya know? Not knowing who exactly each of them are in the beginning will come across in the actual film because we'll be able to see it, but it doesn't work written down.
pg 5 - get rid of the 'um' in the Deputy's dialogue - makes it seem like he's lying, when this is really what he believes happened (and even if he is lying, you don't want the audience to be swayed - you want them to be debating it)
pg 5 - It's 1960 - are people really going to remember what happened enough and care enough to be protesting their release? Anyone that lived through it is just so old by now, I feel like they wouldn't bother.
pg 7 - Elderly John sitting there with only three letters - this is heartbreaking, it'll be awesome.
I really like how you guys are playing with and mixing genres and time periods here, I just think it's a really interesting structure and I'm excited to see it.
Hey Buddy, This is more or less what I talked to you about during the week... but I figured that I should post my comments on here too.
When you discussed doing the reporter angle, I was thinking more along the lines of we see a guy (who is the reporter) going from place to place, person to person and asking about the whole situation... but it looks like you went with more of the documentary like angle. I don't know if its because I went into the script with this whole picture in my head, or what... but I don't really like the whole talking heads setup.
The script gets really distracting with the ambiguous names and all (old man/ young man, 60 and 70, etc.)... you really need to have the character's names in the script so we can follow... I know you want to keep it kind of a whose who mystery until the end, but that is something we can do while we edit it. For the sake of just reading it, we need to know their names (or at least I did, cause I really didn't understand some of what was going on).
Also, the ending. At the end of the film, is it John who shot his dad? That was kind of the vibe I got... but maybe I read it wrong.
I liked the other characters v.o. during the shootout... really effective!
I don't feel like we get to really know who the brothers are... because so much time is spent on the other people being interviewed... you should cut a few of those out because all they do is restate what we already know (that they feel the brothers are guilty and should be punished).
I know this is the 1st draft... so a lot more could come out of this! I think you have a good idea with what you want... its just a matter of getting there!
I really like the way you chose to tell this story. It definitely left me with a bunch of conflicting emotions. There are a few things I was confused about though. First, I know others have said this but I wasn't always sure who was who. Are "Man" and "Crying Man" the same person? Who is the "Old Timer"? Using "John" and "Tommy" as well as other names might clear this up.
From what I read of the end, I thought John actually fired the first shot. Then the marshal killed his father. So John would actually be guilty. I'm not sure if that's right.
The voice overs during the actual scene of the shooting are a realllly good idea.
On pg 12 "Elderly John" says something about wanted to tell Tom to go home. Is Tom the crying man because I was under the impression Tom or Tommy was his brother. Then it says he dies in there. This was just a little confusing to me.
I like the 80's Sheriff. I don't know why but his dialogue really stands out. Actually, all the dialogue is really believable to me. I love where you are going with this. Other than being a little confused with the names, I think it is great!
I too had some confusion regarding the voice overs in the beginning, it may be easier to introduce the characters right away and go from there. you may want to give "man" and "old man" names. Though i do like the way you named the men in the jail "60" and "70", at least it gives us something not as vague as "man". I also found the script difficult to read at times, also probably because the script jumps around a lot.
1: i really like the opening, 2-3: i really like that we're jumping around from year to year. it keeps it interesting. 7: It's really confusing bc we don't know the names of ppl talking. I'd establish the characters right off bat and scratch the "youngest" and "oldest". and from the other comments i'm reading, i think it's best just to give all characters a name instead of a description. i like the idea of surprising the audience of who's who, but i would like to see it done visually and not by saying this man, who seems to be John. 15: i like the idea of the scene in slow motion. i like how in this scene everyone from previous scenes has a VO. This is a great idea!!! I'm glad to finally read your first draft, and can't wait to see what the next one looks like. This is really well done. Good job buddy!
Hey Brian, So the voice over I thought was good in the beginning I like that idea but it kind of jumped right into another voice over that didn’t really have anything to do with the first one. Not sure if that really works. Then you’re characters end up not having names but numbers. I would just make up names for them. Just for the script readers. Now there’s old timer as well, again names would be much much easier to read and make this less confusing. I’m not sure how many characters there are. Also if elderly john is the “old voice” from the beginning we need to have him have a very very distinct voice otherwise people will forget since the V.O. was in the very beginning. I think throughout the dialogue is good. Its realistic but it does get confusing. I think you just need to make sure all your characters have names. Otherwise good start.
Good script, I liked how it jumped around. The jumping reminded me of that show Archer, which I think adds to the suspense of the whole film. I do agree with what Erica said though, I would just use the same names throughout the screenplay.
Also, I think at the end, you should have both brothers shoot the deputy. This is because if it was only one brother who shot the deputy why wouldn't he just tell the judge that he was the sole shooter and try and get his brother off? It made me not like him as much at the end.
Dude, I have to say I definitely felt the mood and reacted emotionally by the end. You have wonderful atmosphere going here.
I completely disagree with Ian. With adding a reporter, you'd have to create a new character to justify it (or at least a real quick exposition). You really don't have time for that, and honestly nobody would care. Think of Citizen Kane. The reporter was arbitrary, the story was the most important thing. As an audience we can suspend our disbelief that somebody is doing a doc and that's that. Nobody is going to be like, "Wait.... Who is filming this! WHAT?!" Seriously, it works without one.
This brings me to the talking heads. LOVE. IT. I feel as if I'm piecing together the story through these points of view and then I get to actually see what they are talking about and my excitement is ramped up. It's great.
Solid 1st draft, but alas there are problems.
Without going incredibly nit picky I'll highlight my biggest ones.
1 - You really need to give the character names, even if they are never spoken. This will help your script readers and your production over all. It will get super confusing going from Old Man to Elderly Man to Young Man to Elderly Older Old Timer, etc. Haha. But seriously, when you're auditioning, imagine how confusing this will be. Give them names.
2 - There are a few moments in the action where I was confused. I know when you are writing it YOU know what's going on but we don't. Look at it with an objective perspective or get somebody else to go through every beat and make notes. There are many moments where I had trouble.
3 - I could see and appreciate where you were going with the protestors but Erica has a valid point. Who would care after all that time? Now maybe you can give insight into this, but again, it takes time. Cut the fat. I didn't need this part. The poetic impact of this is that time has taken them and that they are mostly forgotten. As far as anybody is concerned they are only legends and word of mouth stories now. Maybe a few people can be outraged, but I don't know how you would do this.
4 - I think of some more to bring up in class
Finally, there was a ton of stuff I loved (rich dialogue, effective VO's, Time and Place Contrast), but as most of these scripts I'm reading: you definitely have your work cut out for you. Horses, Locations, Gunshots, Oh My! Follow your dream man, just be prepared.
I agree that the names should be listed throughout the script. The ambiguoity made it harder to read since I lost my self here and there. Had to go back to make sure I was thinking of the right character.
There's a lot of jumping through time which also makes it a bit confusing. While the distinction between 1918 and 1960 should be obvious, it's going to be tough to separate 60, 70 and 80 from one another. I would say be careful with how you reveal it on screen. Dealing with so many time frames can be a bit much to take in.
Overall though, a solid piece. I can visualize most of it, but the things I mentioned made it hard to see clearly.
Quick note. Go through and edit for misspelled words. Erik isn't the strongest speller.
Pg 3- Don't call them 60 or 70. Just call em the powers brothers at those ages. We all know it's them. I know this is a bit at trying to be elusive, but I don't think it's that big of a wow.
Pg 4 - Old Timer, Youngest, Older Man - you should have more specific characters with real names so they feel like real people, not just caricatures....and...its confusingz
Pg 7 - So I'm 7 pages in and I'm not entirely sure what your story is yet. I know it's about these two brothers...and some mystery, but i guess id ont know what the mystery is and i dont know why i should care at this point.
There's something here, but I'm not sure what it is. Right now it's just sorta convoluted. I think you could benefit from writing a draft that is just a straight narrative to get the real story out. I like where it's going and I like the structure, but I think there needs to be a bit more structure within the unstructured...if that makes any sense at all
I will be going over most of these notes with you in a little bit, but just to put them in writing for a future reference, here we go.
First of all, not entirely sure what the story is. I know it's based off of the true story of the two brothers but I think it should be just that: based off of, not the reenactment of. I don't see a conflict or anything that makes me care about the characters at all. I can easily visualize each of your interviewees, however, I have not emotional connection to them.
Also, as everyone is saying, give the characters names! It will really help when breaking down the script and casting and will help with most of the confusion. Example Other Young Man and Old Timer. You describe their age in the action when you first introduce them, not by calling them Old Man or Youngest.
A period piece, or well several periods. This means costumes, hair, makeup, set design, props, vehicles, weapons, etc all need to match the periods here. So we go as far back as 1918 and then as recent at 1980, correct?
I am not too sure what we span so many decades and still find people who care about this legend. Unless they are remembering the event like in the UK with Guy Fawkes Day.
Quite a few typos in there. Most are words that should be one but are split in two. I'd take Chris' suggestion and scan through to fix those.
I agree with Erica about the Sheriff saying "um". Drop that.
This story can be interesting because it is very much a he said she said. But if you want it to be classified in the Western genre it needs more of the Western elements. LIke a white hat and a black hat character. And a Lawman and and Outlaw. We have those characters but they don't interact like they would in a Western. Also, some of the locations seem a little random. So we follow the brothers to Mexico, but then we just leave them there? Is that where their adventure ends?
This project is very big for a short film. You have a jail, a desert, a cabin, a church, a sheriff's station, a cemetery, and a shootout. That is a lot of ground to be covered for each period and will take some major preproduction.
We can talk about it more after class if you like.
So we've talked about this some in person, and like I've said i think you're onto something cool here. It's an intriguing mash-up of some western action and this sorta-documentary thing you got going on and I think as long as you can really get some believable "interviews" and capture the tone that's already pretty strong in your script it'll be really cool.
That being said, and as I skimmed through the comments above me (yeah yeah I'm late technically but if it counts for anything I'm running on an all nighter due to other classes right now haha) there's a few specific things that I think you know you need to hone in with your writer for the next draft.
Names. Or more specific titles. I've read it twice and I was still getting a bit lost here and there.
I think Chris touched on this, but you got to hone in on one aspect of this script you got here to 100% define what the story is. We jump back and forth between a couple really good "mini" stories (the actual event, the men being released from jail) but not a single one is the definite focus. Or, maybe cause of this unique style you simply do want it to be an open-ended sorta thing? That could be a tough sell, though.
That's about as specific as I got for you right now bud, I'm really just looking ahead to the next draft cause this is a really good start. Get it done fast though, dude!!!
Good ideas here I see a lot of work on art direction in your future. Anyways, to the script!
Scanning through the posts, it seems like a lot of people were having trouble following the time jumps. I understood what you were trying to do (I think) but there's got to be a better way to do it. Perhaps it will make more sense on screen than in script format. But I've read through it twice now and I don't feel like I have a solid foundation of understanding what happened.
I like how you are trying to sum up this guy's life by skipping around to important parts of it and then going back to fill in the puzzle pieces. It's hard to write a non-linear story like this and I think you probably have the idea of what you want to say but it's not coming through as I think you want it to.
Hit me up in class if you'd like me to elaborate on that, haha. Not sure if what I just wrote makes sense.
i like the story, i kept wanting to read which is good, i didnt get bored, but a few things- i was REALLY confused a lot of the time reading it, especially with all the jumping around in time, maybe it will make more sense when its done visually but as a script it is confusing. Not only is all the different time frames confusing but it is going to be really hard to shoot and get across what year each scene is taking place unless of course you put the date on the screen before each scene, but i dont think that would look good. As a suggestion i would just keep to strictly 3 time settings: 1918, 1960 (when they get out) and towards the end of John's life (1980) i think having only three VERY distinct time frames would help clear up some confusion secondly, maybe introducing characters early with names, instead of just descriptive titles like "man" and "young man" would help the reader understand the script more and not get confused. You wouldn't have to use names in the dialogue, when it is shot we will be able to tell who is who but just for script purposes assigning a name earlier to characters will help us understand better. Finally i would like the scene where they get caught in mexico to be a little more climatic, i was just kind of bored and that should be a very exciting scene, maybe the fathers friend, since he isnt so bright, accidentely gives them away, or someone they trust rats them out to the police, anything to make it more exciting and agonizing that they got caught.
Hey buddy,
ReplyDeleteI don't know if anyone else will have this problem, but I did get confused a couple of times reading this script. Maybe its because you jump around in time a lot, or it could be that there are a lot of 'Man' lines, and it's becoming unclear who is talking.
Apart from that, I think you have a good story here. I like how it started, there was a definite mood to the piece, and you can sense the ambiguity and emotion of the event. I'm interested to know how your going to film the jackrabbit scene and the horses, but I'm sure you have a way.
Overall, it seems like you have the story you want to tell here, it just seems confusing on the page. I want to see what other people think and I'll aim to give you more feedback in class.
Good job bud, talk to you later.
In general, just to make this easier to read, I say stick with the character's names the entire time instead of things like "70" or "Youngest" - say "John Age #" - sorta hard to keep straight how many older young men and whatnot there are, ya know? Not knowing who exactly each of them are in the beginning will come across in the actual film because we'll be able to see it, but it doesn't work written down.
ReplyDeletepg 5 - get rid of the 'um' in the Deputy's dialogue - makes it seem like he's lying, when this is really what he believes happened (and even if he is lying, you don't want the audience to be swayed - you want them to be debating it)
pg 5 - It's 1960 - are people really going to remember what happened enough and care enough to be protesting their release? Anyone that lived through it is just so old by now, I feel like they wouldn't bother.
pg 7 - Elderly John sitting there with only three letters - this is heartbreaking, it'll be awesome.
I really like how you guys are playing with and mixing genres and time periods here, I just think it's a really interesting structure and I'm excited to see it.
Hey Buddy,
ReplyDeleteThis is more or less what I talked to you about during the week... but I figured that I should post my comments on here too.
When you discussed doing the reporter angle, I was thinking more along the lines of we see a guy (who is the reporter) going from place to place, person to person and asking about the whole situation... but it looks like you went with more of the documentary like angle. I don't know if its because I went into the script with this whole picture in my head, or what... but I don't really like the whole talking heads setup.
The script gets really distracting with the ambiguous names and all (old man/ young man, 60 and 70, etc.)... you really need to have the character's names in the script so we can follow... I know you want to keep it kind of a whose who mystery until the end, but that is something we can do while we edit it. For the sake of just reading it, we need to know their names (or at least I did, cause I really didn't understand some of what was going on).
Also, the ending. At the end of the film, is it John who shot his dad? That was kind of the vibe I got... but maybe I read it wrong.
I liked the other characters v.o. during the shootout... really effective!
I don't feel like we get to really know who the brothers are... because so much time is spent on the other people being interviewed... you should cut a few of those out because all they do is restate what we already know (that they feel the brothers are guilty and should be punished).
I know this is the 1st draft... so a lot more could come out of this! I think you have a good idea with what you want... its just a matter of getting there!
Brian,
ReplyDeleteI really like the way you chose to tell this story. It definitely left me with a bunch of conflicting emotions. There are a few things I was confused about though. First, I know others have said this but I wasn't always sure who was who. Are "Man" and "Crying Man" the same person? Who is the "Old Timer"? Using "John" and "Tommy" as well as other names might clear this up.
From what I read of the end, I thought John actually fired the first shot. Then the marshal killed his father. So John would actually be guilty. I'm not sure if that's right.
The voice overs during the actual scene of the shooting are a realllly good idea.
On pg 12 "Elderly John" says something about wanted to tell Tom to go home. Is Tom the crying man because I was under the impression Tom or Tommy was his brother. Then it says he dies in there. This was just a little confusing to me.
I like the 80's Sheriff. I don't know why but his dialogue really stands out. Actually, all the dialogue is really believable to me. I love where you are going with this. Other than being a little confused with the names, I think it is great!
-Danielle
Hey brian,
ReplyDeleteI too had some confusion regarding the voice overs in the beginning, it may be easier to introduce the characters right away and go from there. you may want to give "man" and "old man" names. Though i do like the way you named the men in the jail "60" and "70", at least it gives us something not as vague as "man". I also found the script difficult to read at times, also probably because the script jumps around a lot.
Hey Brian,
ReplyDelete1: i really like the opening,
2-3: i really like that we're jumping around from year to year. it keeps it interesting.
7: It's really confusing bc we don't know the names of ppl talking. I'd establish the characters right off bat and scratch the "youngest" and "oldest". and from the other comments i'm reading, i think it's best just to give all characters a name instead of a description. i like the idea of surprising the audience of who's who, but i would like to see it done visually and not by saying this man, who seems to be John.
15: i like the idea of the scene in slow motion. i like how in this scene everyone from previous scenes has a VO. This is a great idea!!!
I'm glad to finally read your first draft, and can't wait to see what the next one looks like. This is really well done. Good job buddy!
Hey Brian,
ReplyDeleteSo the voice over I thought was good in the beginning I like that idea but it kind of jumped right into another voice over that didn’t really have anything to do with the first one. Not sure if that really works. Then you’re characters end up not having names but numbers. I would just make up names for them. Just for the script readers. Now there’s old timer as well, again names would be much much easier to read and make this less confusing. I’m not sure how many characters there are. Also if elderly john is the “old voice” from the beginning we need to have him have a very very distinct voice otherwise people will forget since the V.O. was in the very beginning. I think throughout the dialogue is good. Its realistic but it does get confusing. I think you just need to make sure all your characters have names. Otherwise good start.
Good script, I liked how it jumped around. The jumping reminded me of that show Archer, which I think adds to the suspense of the whole film. I do agree with what Erica said though, I would just use the same names throughout the screenplay.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I think at the end, you should have both brothers shoot the deputy. This is because if it was only one brother who shot the deputy why wouldn't he just tell the judge that he was the sole shooter and try and get his brother off? It made me not like him as much at the end.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBrian,
ReplyDeleteDude, I have to say I definitely felt the mood and reacted emotionally by the end. You have wonderful atmosphere going here.
I completely disagree with Ian. With adding a reporter, you'd have to create a new character to justify it (or at least a real quick exposition). You really don't have time for that, and honestly nobody would care. Think of Citizen Kane. The reporter was arbitrary, the story was the most important thing. As an audience we can suspend our disbelief that somebody is doing a doc and that's that. Nobody is going to be like, "Wait.... Who is filming this! WHAT?!" Seriously, it works without one.
This brings me to the talking heads. LOVE. IT. I feel as if I'm piecing together the story through these points of view and then I get to actually see what they are talking about and my excitement is ramped up. It's great.
Solid 1st draft, but alas there are problems.
Without going incredibly nit picky I'll highlight my biggest ones.
1 - You really need to give the character names, even if they are never spoken. This will help your script readers and your production over all. It will get super confusing going from Old Man to Elderly Man to Young Man to Elderly Older Old Timer, etc. Haha. But seriously, when you're auditioning, imagine how confusing this will be. Give them names.
2 - There are a few moments in the action where I was confused. I know when you are writing it YOU know what's going on but we don't. Look at it with an objective perspective or get somebody else to go through every beat and make notes. There are many moments where I had trouble.
3 - I could see and appreciate where you were going with the protestors but Erica has a valid point. Who would care after all that time? Now maybe you can give insight into this, but again, it takes time. Cut the fat. I didn't need this part. The poetic impact of this is that time has taken them and that they are mostly forgotten. As far as anybody is concerned they are only legends and word of mouth stories now. Maybe a few people can be outraged, but I don't know how you would do this.
4 - I think of some more to bring up in class
Finally, there was a ton of stuff I loved (rich dialogue, effective VO's, Time and Place Contrast), but as most of these scripts I'm reading: you definitely have your work cut out for you. Horses, Locations, Gunshots, Oh My! Follow your dream man, just be prepared.
I agree that the names should be listed throughout the script. The ambiguoity made it harder to read since I lost my self here and there. Had to go back to make sure I was thinking of the right character.
ReplyDeleteThere's a lot of jumping through time which also makes it a bit confusing. While the distinction between 1918 and 1960 should be obvious, it's going to be tough to separate 60, 70 and 80 from one another. I would say be careful with how you reveal it on screen. Dealing with so many time frames can be a bit much to take in.
Overall though, a solid piece. I can visualize most of it, but the things I mentioned made it hard to see clearly.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteQuick note. Go through and edit for misspelled words. Erik isn't the strongest speller.
ReplyDeletePg 3- Don't call them 60 or 70. Just call em the powers brothers at those ages. We all know it's them. I know this is a bit at trying to be elusive, but I don't think it's that big of a wow.
Pg 4 - Old Timer, Youngest, Older Man - you should have more specific characters with real names so they feel like real people, not just caricatures....and...its confusingz
Pg 7 - So I'm 7 pages in and I'm not entirely sure what your story is yet. I know it's about these two brothers...and some mystery, but i guess id ont know what the mystery is and i dont know why i should care at this point.
There's something here, but I'm not sure what it is. Right now it's just sorta convoluted. I think you could benefit from writing a draft that is just a straight narrative to get the real story out. I like where it's going and I like the structure, but I think there needs to be a bit more structure within the unstructured...if that makes any sense at all
I will be going over most of these notes with you in a little bit, but just to put them in writing for a future reference, here we go.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, not entirely sure what the story is. I know it's based off of the true story of the two brothers but I think it should be just that: based off of, not the reenactment of. I don't see a conflict or anything that makes me care about the characters at all. I can easily visualize each of your interviewees, however, I have not emotional connection to them.
Also, as everyone is saying, give the characters names! It will really help when breaking down the script and casting and will help with most of the confusion. Example Other Young Man and Old Timer. You describe their age in the action when you first introduce them, not by calling them Old Man or Youngest.
A period piece, or well several periods. This means costumes, hair, makeup, set design, props, vehicles, weapons, etc all need to match the periods here. So we go as far back as 1918 and then as recent at 1980, correct?
I am not too sure what we span so many decades and still find people who care about this legend. Unless they are remembering the event like in the UK with Guy Fawkes Day.
Quite a few typos in there. Most are words that should be one but are split in two. I'd take Chris' suggestion and scan through to fix those.
I agree with Erica about the Sheriff saying "um". Drop that.
This story can be interesting because it is very much a he said she said. But if you want it to be classified in the Western genre it needs more of the Western elements. LIke a white hat and a black hat character. And a Lawman and and Outlaw. We have those characters but they don't interact like they would in a Western. Also, some of the locations seem a little random. So we follow the brothers to Mexico, but then we just leave them there? Is that where their adventure ends?
This project is very big for a short film. You have a jail, a desert, a cabin, a church, a sheriff's station, a cemetery, and a shootout. That is a lot of ground to be covered for each period and will take some major preproduction.
We can talk about it more after class if you like.
B-ryeeeeeeee
ReplyDeleteSo we've talked about this some in person, and like I've said i think you're onto something cool here. It's an intriguing mash-up of some western action and this sorta-documentary thing you got going on and I think as long as you can really get some believable "interviews" and capture the tone that's already pretty strong in your script it'll be really cool.
That being said, and as I skimmed through the comments above me (yeah yeah I'm late technically but if it counts for anything I'm running on an all nighter due to other classes right now haha) there's a few specific things that I think you know you need to hone in with your writer for the next draft.
Names. Or more specific titles. I've read it twice and I was still getting a bit lost here and there.
I think Chris touched on this, but you got to hone in on one aspect of this script you got here to 100% define what the story is. We jump back and forth between a couple really good "mini" stories (the actual event, the men being released from jail) but not a single one is the definite focus. Or, maybe cause of this unique style you simply do want it to be an open-ended sorta thing? That could be a tough sell, though.
That's about as specific as I got for you right now bud, I'm really just looking ahead to the next draft cause this is a really good start. Get it done fast though, dude!!!
Hey Brian,
ReplyDeleteGood ideas here I see a lot of work on art direction in your future. Anyways, to the script!
Scanning through the posts, it seems like a lot of people were having trouble following the time jumps. I understood what you were trying to do (I think) but there's got to be a better way to do it. Perhaps it will make more sense on screen than in script format. But I've read through it twice now and I don't feel like I have a solid foundation of understanding what happened.
I like how you are trying to sum up this guy's life by skipping around to important parts of it and then going back to fill in the puzzle pieces. It's hard to write a non-linear story like this and I think you probably have the idea of what you want to say but it's not coming through as I think you want it to.
Hit me up in class if you'd like me to elaborate on that, haha. Not sure if what I just wrote makes sense.
i like the story, i kept wanting to read which is good, i didnt get bored, but a few things-
ReplyDeletei was REALLY confused a lot of the time reading it, especially with all the jumping around in time, maybe it will make more sense when its done visually but as a script it is confusing. Not only is all the different time frames confusing but it is going to be really hard to shoot and get across what year each scene is taking place unless of course you put the date on the screen before each scene, but i dont think that would look good. As a suggestion i would just keep to strictly 3 time settings: 1918, 1960 (when they get out) and towards the end of John's life (1980) i think having only three VERY distinct time frames would help clear up some confusion
secondly, maybe introducing characters early with names, instead of just descriptive titles like "man" and "young man" would help the reader understand the script more and not get confused. You wouldn't have to use names in the dialogue, when it is shot we will be able to tell who is who but just for script purposes assigning a name earlier to characters will help us understand better.
Finally i would like the scene where they get caught in mexico to be a little more climatic, i was just kind of bored and that should be a very exciting scene, maybe the fathers friend, since he isnt so bright, accidentely gives them away, or someone they trust rats them out to the police, anything to make it more exciting and agonizing that they got caught.