LOGLINE: Ida Tarbell’s magazine series “The History of the Standard Oil Company,” not only changed the history of journalism but also the fate of Rockefeller’s empire, which was shaken by the powerful pen of its most implacable observer.
WRITER: Mark McDevitt
SCRIPT BIO: 8 votes on the 2015 black list.
STORY:
We first meet IDA when she's a kid. Her two brothers are terrified of the local bully, but not Ida, she punches him in the nose and he runs away!
See, this opening scene is a metaphor for Ida's life. She's not afraid to stand up to bullies.
That opening scene is also very on the nose - as are a lot of scenes in this script.
Being the main problem with this script - it's very OTN (On The Nose) and very over written.
Cut to some 35 years later when Ida is now a 43 year old successful career woman.
The Year is 1901. Things aren't easy for women - especially in the world of journalism. Sure, there's women writing Dear Aunty columns but very few women are actually doing investigative journalism.
But Ida is cut from a different cloth - that's for sure.
She gets a job at an up-and-coming magazine that does mostly fluff pieces about easily digestible topics.
Here, Ida talks her boss into letting her investigate the richest man in America - J D Rockefeller.
She believes that he is guilty of illegal trading practices in the world of oil.
Ida teams up with a co-worker and together they begin investigating the behemoth that is JD Rockefeller.
Their investigation soon turns up many foul practices, but what's she's lacking is the evidence to support her main claim - that J D Rockefeller used mafia-like coercion tactics.
The question becomes, will she get the evidence needed to 'prove her claims' - or will J D crush her and magazine she writes for?
INITIAL REACTION:
There's a lot of good going on here. There's some good writing. But there's also a lot that needs fixing.
Firstly, as I mentioned - most scenes are VERY ON THE NOSE.
What does that even mean? It's when it's VERY OBVIOUS what YOU the WRITER are trying to get across in that scene.
Film making and story telling is about subtly.
Take acting for example. If an actor delivers their lines in a way that is over the top, we won't believe their performance, because in real life, people don't speak in exaggerated ways - we speak naturally depending on the context in which the words are being spoken.
The same goes for writing. If a scene is written in a way that is VERY OBVIOUS that the writer is trying to make a point - then that point and that whole scene will come across as over the top and un-real.
There were plenty of scenes throughout this script where the subtext was louder than the main text.
That's On The Nose scene writing.
Then we have almost every single scene starting waaaaaaay too early.
This is another major problem with this script. Every scene starts with a character getting to their location. It also starts with introductory dialogue - characters introducing each other - having a little chat, then getting into why they're here.
We don't need that.
Start late, finish early.
You should start every scene mid-way through. Preferably with the two (or three or four) characters already in disagreement.
As soon as you have established the REASON for that scene to be in the film - END THE SCENE IMMEDIATELY.
Keep scenes short. You should never write a scene that's over 5 pages long. Preferably keep them to 2-3 pages maximum, but allow yourself a couple of 5 pages scenes. When a scene is running over 5 pages long, odds are that scene is over written.
CONCEPT:
This film falls at the first hurdle. This is not a film that will make money at the box office. Why? This story isn't big enough. A female journalist at the turn of the century takes on JD Rockefeller.
This is not to speak against the story itself - it's s very valid and worthwhile story to be told - but the concept - purely from a monetary point of view - isn't big enough to compel people to see this at the cinema.
Another huge problem on the concept front is - what happens to JD Rockefeller as a result of the investigative journalism. (SPOILER*** - nothing happens to him.) He is never convicted of any crime - and the impact this journalist has on his empire is akin to an ant biting an elephant.
There's no pay-off to the set up of the concept.
CONCEPT RATING: 5/10
CONCEPT TIP: Do the movie test before you write a script. Ask yourself if you would pay money to go and see the film you're about to write. Be as objective as possible. Imagine a friend pitching the idea to you as if you've never heard it before. What would your initial reaction be?
Do the demographic test. Who would go and see your film. Be honest. Is your idea niche? Or is it main stream? It's fine to write niche - but know that doing so means you're going against the main stream.
Do the - already showing at the movies test - what are the ten top grossing films in the last month? How does your film fit into that profile?
FORM:
Form was okay. Fairly easy to read. It does use bold for its sluglines - which is a no-no.
It is also incredibly over written - it comes in at 121 pages - it could easily have been told in 90 pages and NO SCENE would have been cut.
FORM RATING: 6/10
FORM TIP: Learn to trim your scenes. When your screenplay comes in at 121 pages - that's just lazy writing. Think about the Start Late, Finish Early principle. Do you follow this or ignore it? The leaner your script - the faster your film will be. There won't be any of those long drawn out dull scenes.
STRUCTURE:
Structure was okay here. Except that Ida doesn't have a flaw. There's NOTHING holding her back from succeeding. To that end, I was always sure that she was going to succeed.
Everything she put her mind to she accomplished. When characters are TOO GOOD - the story becomes dull. Sure, she was up against some people who didn't like what she was doing, so she had EXTERNAL resistance - but there was NO INTERNAL resistance.
We engage with stories about people who have an internal issue that needs to be resolved. When a film has no inner journey - it's no longer a vicarious experience - it becomes spectacle. We're just watching stuff happen.
I watched Trumbo last night. While I enjoyed the film - it suffered from a bad case of lack of flaw. It also suffered from lack of conflict.
For the first half of the movie Trumbo doesn't have a flaw. He develops a flaw that starts to drive a wedge between him and his family - but that doesn't show up until after the midpoint of the film.
Interestingly - after the midpoint was when the film became interesting.
If your main character doesn't have an inner journey going on, odds are your film will suffer for it. As does Ida Tarbell.
CHARACTERS & DIALOGUE:
Characters were okay. None of them popped off the page. Mainly because their dialogue was just good - it wasn't great.
All the characters sounded like they were spoken by the same person.
Here you have an array of very different types of people - so there's room for some great variances in the way they speak - but if you removed the NAME from the dialogue - there's no way you could tell who was speaking from the WAY they're speaking.
We don't learn anything about Ida's personal life. We only see her at work - working on this case. It seems like her life outside the job doesn't actually exist. To that end it leaves her not feeling as 3D as she could be.
CHARACTERS & DIALOGUE RATING: 6/10
CHARACTERS & DIALOGUE TIP:
Ida's character would have popped way more if she had a flaw. If she had an inner journey. Rockefeller has a very clear flaw - but this isn't his story - it's Ida's. Ida's boss has a flaw - of sorts - he cheats on his wife - but that's not really explored. Ida's research buddy doesn't have a flaw.
Try to give each of your characters a flaw. especially your main character. Then use that flaw to write their inner journey.
VOICE:
Voice was okay - but again - it didn't pop. The over-writing and the OTN scenes were too much.
The lack of good form also detracted from the voice.
VOICE RATING: 6/10
VOICE TIP: I'm coming to realise that voice is a sum of all the parts of your script. If you're just okay at all the elements of a screenplay - odds are your voice will come across as 'just okay.'
If you excel across the board - odds are your voice will come across as more pronounced - your script will stay in the mind of the reader for days and hopefully weeks if not years to come.
PRODUCTION:
I would not put money into this.
It will not make money as it stands.
It is a powerful character piece that I can see will attract some A list talent.
If it does go into production it needs to fix the following --
1) Start Early Finish Late. Every scene needs to have this principle applied to it.
2) The OTN nature of the writing in each scene needs to be more subtle.
3) Ida needs a flaw. As do all the other characters.
4) We need to see more of Ida's personal life.
5) Conflict in every scene. Some scenes are conflict free - never have a scene where people are celebrating each other, or just plain agreeing with each other. It's dead screen time.
With those five main elements fixed this script will be on the way to becoming a decent script. As it stands it's lacking.
SUMMARY:
The concept is not strong enough to get bums on seats.
The execution - while good - is not good enough to prop up the weak concept.
OVERALL RATING 5.5/10
LOGLINE: A lone American paratrooper, stranded behind enemy lines hours before D-Day, is tasked with delivering intelligence critical to the outcome of the war and compelled to fulfill a promise to protect the young son of a murdered ally.
WRITER: Zach Dean
SCRIPT BIO: 8 votes on the 2015 black list
STORY:
We meet Lowry Scott at the tender age of 13. He's sitting beside his mother in a hospital bed. She's just been beaten to a pulp by her husband. Literally to the verge of death.
Oh, the year is 1921 - when you could beat the living hell out of your wife and no police would come and do anything about it.
Back at home, Lowry's father challenges him - he says, unless you stop me, I'm going to kill your mother.
Later that day Lowry does something about it - he shoots his father in the head with his father's service weapon. Thing is, his father actually wanted him to do it.
Then Lowry runs away from home.
That's possibly one of the best opening hook scenes I've ever read.
It sets up the hero in such an incredible way. Especially now that we're going to watch the adult version of this character go on a killing spree - single handedly - behind German lines.
It lends an authenticity to his character.
Nailed it.
On to the story proper...
Lowry is now CAPTAIN SCOTT - (30s). He's the leader of a regiment of para-troopers who have an incredibly important mission.
They're to be the very first allied soldiers to jump into German occupied France - near Normandy.
Their mission is to get a MAP from the French resistance that has all the german artillery positions precisely plotted. Their locations are not just guessed, they've been painstakingly measured and plotted over many years.
This map is of up-most importance - having it will save thousands of lives and could possibly be the deciding factor in whether or not the D day invasion will be successful or not.
Scott and his men suit up and are flown into occupied France two nights before the invasion. But as their glider floats down silently to their LZ - a german antiaircraft shell cuts their aircraft in half.
Scott is sucked out of the aircraft - but he manages to get his parachute to deploy in time.
He soon discovers he's the only soldier to survive the crash. He is alive, alone, surrounded on all fronts by the ENTIRE French occupying German army.
The question becomes - will he be able to complete his mission in time and help win the war..?
INITIAL REACTION:
This is a really well written script. It's a great story that works really well for the screen. But I can see why it's only got 8 votes and not 44 votes.
There's no inner journey for Scott. He doesn't seem to be fighting any inner demons. If they'd developed the character further you could have a story akin to Saving Private Ryan here. But where it stands it feels like they've green-lit the first decent draft of the script.
Not to say this draft won't work - but when you have something really good - why not push it that one step further and create something incredible - like Saving Private Ryan.
CONCEPT:
The concept here is really good. It's a WW2 film - but it's an action WW2 film. There is a clear goal with clear stakes and a ticking clock. That drives the story forward at all times. Often WW2 films seem to think that so long as you're focusing on the relationship between two characters while this crazy war is going on around them that will be enough to fuel a story.
It's not.
I love that this is a story about one guy. When you have a story about several guys in a war it can be very difficult for that to work as a film. TV show - no problem, as TV is the world of ensemble. Film, you should try to keep focused to one main character.
This is also a story I've never heard before about WW2 - and I've read a lot of history books on the matter.
CONCEPT RATING: 8/10
CONCEPT TIP: If you're searching for a good WW2 story to write - setting it just prior to D-day is a great idea. There is an automatic ticking clock - the invasion is happening on the 6th of June. Your hero must do X before that time or D day could fail. There are several pre-D-day stories that haven't been told yet. Start reading your history books for great ideas.
FORM:
Form here was messy.
CAPS LOCK WAS USED FOR ENTIRE PAGES AT A TIME.
The idea behind CAPS is to use it very sparingly so that when you have an ITEM or an OBJECT that is important to the storyline - you put it in CAPS so the reader knows it is something to keep in mind. Odds are that GUN or that MACHETE or that DOLL will somehow be used in the story later on.
Underlining is used to highlight an event that is important to the reader.
Never use bold.
So while this script was well written and easy to follow - the form was allllll over the place.
FORM RATING: 5/10
FORM TIP: Read -- How Not To Write A Screenplay.
STRUCTURE:
Structure was okay here. We had the ordinary world where Scott and his men are in England waiting to be deployed. Then he goes to Germany and he attempts his mission.
Thing is - that's all outer journey stuff.
Here - there was no inner journey going on. With no inner journey there's no inciting incident.
I can imagine someone trying to argue that when his glider got shot down that's the inciting incident - as it's an unexpected event that sets the story in motion.
But no - that's not what defines an inciting incident.
Scott's a soldier - he's going to war - having his plane blown apart is just part of his every day existence.
An inciting incident TESTS the hero's FLAW.
Now - here - it doesn't seem like Scott actually has a flaw. There's no personality trait holding him back from being who he needs to be.
IF (by way of example ) Scott was not the leader of the paratroopers - but he was the oldest by 15 years - and his commanding officer was 10 years younger than him - and this was the case because of his inability to follow orders - or work together with his fellow soldiers - THEN WE HAVE A FLAW.
Then the inner journey of this story could have been about Scott learning to WORK WITH OTHERS. When he gets into Germany he is forced to work with the French resistance or he will surely die.
There we have a great inner journey.
When you have a clear inner journey - you then have a clear structure.
Until you have that - you just have stuff happening. Which is what we have here.
CHARACTERS & DIALOGUE:
Characters are well developed. The dialogue just passes muster.
Dialogue is really a bit of a let down. When you have a great story as this is - but the dialogue is just so-so - it feels like the writer isn't trying hard enough.
Characters are better developed than the dialogue here - but again - it feels like as soon as the writer got the characters into a good place - he stopped developing them. If he'd developed them just one step more - they could have all really popped off the page.
CHARACTERS & DIALOGUE RATING: 6/10
CHARACTERS & DIALOGUE TIP: Once you've got your characters and dialogue into a good place. Pat yourself on the back. Celebrate that mile stone. Then do another pass. Push them even further. Make them REALLY explode off the page.
VOICE:
Voice was okay here. Wasn't exceptional - but the script was really cleanly written and easy to follow.
The messy writing in the FORM of this script held the voice back. As did the lack of inner journey for the Hero.
PRODUCTION:
I wouldn't put money into this until there was a clear inner journey established.
There is also a MAJOR POV problem late in the second act.
We leave Scott for about 10 minutes and focus on one of the French resistance fighters.
That's bad writing. Always tell your story (in a film) through the eyes of your hero.
ALWAYS.
You can cut away from your hero for brief moments when telling the antagonist's storyline - but if you're not doing that - then STAY WITH YOUR HERO.
Watch MY WEEK WITH MARILYN - you will see the best execution of POV in a film ever.
We meet Marilyn Monroe through the EYES of the main character. In fact EVERY SCENE is seen through his eyes. Even when the scene doesn't necessarily involve him as a pivotal contributor to the discussion taking place. We still see that discussion through our hero's eyes.
As this film is period - and war - the budget will be at least 30 mill - could easily get up to 50 million.
When you're dropping that much coin on a film - you want to be really sure of the story.
SUMMARY:
A really great story that is 70% of the way to being developed into an exceptional story.
OVERALL RATING 7/10
LOGLINE: A mistreated elderly Inuit (Eskimo) woman is forced out of her village to survive alone on the savage arctic tundra.
SCRIPT BIO: 9 votes on the 2015 blacklist.
WRITER: Michael Lee Barlin
STORY:
Set in the arctic region within a community of Inuits (Eskimos).
We start the story some 80 odd years ago - when ISHA is a five year old girl. She witnesses her 80 year old grandmother banished from their community for being old.
She walks out of their camp into the frozen wilderness to die alone. The idea behind this bizarre ritual is that those that are no longer an active contributing member of the Inuit society must sacrifice themselves for the good of the others.
Food is scare - as you can imagine, living on a glacier. I don't know if this tradition extends to the males of the Inuit tribe.
We jump to 80 years later, when Isha is her self in her 80s. She has a bad case of arthritis and has great difficulties performing her chores.
She is soon banished from the tribe.
A ritual is held, where the others of the tribe give thanks for Isha's sacrifice.
Thing is, this is a forced sacrifice - Isha doesn't want to die yet. She doesn't want to walk out into the frozen nothing.
There's something very fake about the tribe's 'praise' they have for Isha as she walks out onto the frozen glacier to fend for herself.
Out in the frozen tundra, Isha soon meets TATO a 14 year old boy from a different tribe. They don't speak each other's dialects, so communication is back to basics.
Tato has come forth from his tribe, alone, to hunt down a polar bear. If he can do this by himself and bring it back to his tribe he will have proven himself to be a man.
The question from here becomes - will Isha survive - and what will become of Tato?
Which is the first problem for this script --
INITIAL REACTION:
I really liked the logline - at first I thought it could be interesting - it's different. I've never seen a story about a traditional 80 year old Inuit woman.
But then, in the back of my mind I knew that the goal in the logline was open ended - and my fear came true as I read the script.
There is no goal.
Or rather - there is no closed ended goal.
There is no -- we have to get to X before Y happens or we're dead. That's a closed ended goal. There's a focus - get to X.
There's a ticking clock - before Y happens.
There's stakes - or we're dead. The stakes are the character's lives.
But here - the goal is an open ended goal - survive.
When a story has an open ended goal - it will wander. It will be unfocused. It might look like things are happening, and those things that are happening can keep the audiecene engaged - for a time. Usually no more than 20 minutes.
20 minutes seems to be the maximum amount of time we'll watch a film that doesn't have a goal, before we get restless. Our attention starts to wander.
On this note - I was watching THE LAZARUS EFFECT last night - A Jason Blume horror film. I normally love Jason Blume's horrors - but this one failed to keep me engaged - again - because there was no closed ended goal.
The characters were trying to medically 're-animate' animals. That's a goal, sure, but there's real stakes and there's no ticking clock. So essentially we were just watching characters 'doing stuff' with no foreseeable end in sight.
Enough of The Lazerus Effect - let's deconstruct FINAL JOURNEY
CONCEPT:
There's no doubting the kernel of the concept here is unique. It's soooooo different, that when you read it, it makes you think twice about it.
Before I read this logline I read three others. I can honestly not even remember what the other three were they were so dull and generic. I think one was about a cop that has to investigate a -- and that's when I stopped reading.
How many stories have we seen about a cop investigating... it's been done to death.
Unless the cop is half human, half banana, I'm not interested. I'd watch a movie about a half human, half banana cop investigating... something. But that's my point - to inject something fresh into that genre you need to go waaaaay out into left field to stand out.
The problem with the concept of Final Journey - is the execution. It's about an 80 year old woman wandering out into the frozen wilderness to die.
It's really passive.
If the story had been more active. If Isha was going out to rescue someone, or their tribe had been attacked and she was trying to get to the next village to warn them about the attackers coming to attack them - then there's a goal, there's a ticking clock.
The story would have been way more engaging.
So while I like the idea of a story told about an elderly Inuit woman - this execution doesn't go far enough to make it engaging.
CORE CONCEPT RATING 9/10
EXECUTION OF THAT CONCEPT 5/10
CONCEPT TIP: I think you know what this tip will be --
-- when you lock on a great kernel concept - don't run with the very first execution of that base idea.
So, the base idea here that's great is - an 80 year old Inuit surviving alone in the arctic. When you have that - then take your idea further - write down 5 - 10 possible executions of that base idea.
Then do a rough 1 page outline for the top 3 or 4 of those ideas and see which one works the best for you -- keeping in mind - GOAL, TICKING CLOCK and STAKES.
FORM:
Form here was okay.
There's very little dialogue. When you have a screenplay that's 90% descriptions - it can make it a very slow read.
Michael spaces his descriptions well, and keeps his sentences to two lines maximum most of the time.
His writing style is a little too flowery for me. Focusing in on the really small details that you don't really need in a script.
FORM RATING 6/10
FORM TIP:
When writing a description based screenplay such as this - think of your reader. Most readers are extremely time poor. Don't give them ANY EXCUSE to skim read.
While you may think that this opus of a script that you've been slaving away on for the last 18 months will be given the same amount of dedication when it comes to the read - the sad fact is most readers will try to devour your script in under 60 minutes.
If the screen writing is really good and the story is also great - then they'll slow down and give it a better read - but if your writing is too dense, and the story isn't moving fast enough, they'll start to skim read.
To avoid that - keep your description as lean as possible.
STRUCTURE:
Structure here was okay. If there had been a goal established earlier on, then it could have been better. And also there was no flaw for Isha.
So there was no 'journey of change' for her to go through.
As far as we can see at the start of the film there's no real lesson that Isha needs to learn to live a better life.
Without a goal, without stakes, without a ticking clock of some sort and without a flaw - structure can only ever be a series of events that happen one after the other.
The above mentioned screen writing devices are what give your story its structure. Without - your story will meander. As is the case here.
STRUCTURE RATING: 5/10
STRUCTURE TIP: Use the screen writing devices to give your story a sense of structure. If a character doesn't have a lesson they need to learn, odds are your story will be unfocused. It might seem, on the surface, that loads of 'things' are happening - but if those things aren't directly affecting the 'inner journey' of your character - odds are the audience won't engage with the emotional aspect of the story.
CHARACTERS AND DIALOGUE:
Dialogue is very fleeting here. As said, it's 95% script. When we do get dialogue it reads like cardboard - despite the writer saying twice at the start of the film that dialogue is to be spoken in natural Inuit dialects. - He then writes it in dry, dull english.
Michael also tells the reader that there will be no subtitles.
That's a huge no-no. The writer doesn't get to decide if there are subtitles in a film or not - that's a producer's decision. Fine, if you're writing AND producing - but that's not the case here.
In fact, it's arrogant to put that kind of a statement at the start of a script - it's also very rookie. It shows that you don't understand how a film is made.
Characters here are also very flat. Not too mention that there are about 80 characters (only a slight exaggeration) introduced, all with names that we're never going to remember.
If you have a large amount of characters, only introduce those that are relevant to the story.
At the start, we are introduced to Isha's extended family - but only a few are of any importance to the story. All the other names we get are just confusing.
CHARACTERS AND DIALOGUE RATING: 5/10
CHARACTERS AND DIALOGUE TIP: Only introduce characters that are relevant to the story. Make sure their names are distinctly different enough that the first time reader can tell them apart.
When writing dialogue with a dialect - write in the dialect - don't just say that they're to be spoken with a dialect, then leave it up to the reader to imagine a dialect we've never heard before.
Create the texture of the world you want the reader to experience.
VOICE:
Voice here was okay. The writing was nice. Slow and a little dense, but to that end, it was different to a lot of other scripts I've read recently.
Different can go a long way to defining your voice.
VOICE RATING: 6.5/10
VOICE TIP: No matter how you choose to execute your story - be confident in your choice. You can tell by the writing style and choices, when a writer isn't sure of the way they're writing their story.
The writing here, while not necessarily my thing - is written with a distinct confidence. That confidence shines through in his voice.
PRODUCTION:
I can see this being made. As it is. Without goals, stakes or urgency.
It'll probably attract good talent to the title role.
A-listers love a challenge. They love making a film that breaks the rules. They love playing 'character pieces' - which this film attempts to be.
You know why they love doing that? Because no matter if the film makes money or not - they get paid.
Plus they get to do something that can be seen as 'real acting'. Something that all good actors covet.
I doubt this film would make any real money. If the budget was kept below 5 million - which is totally possible - it would make its money back - not much more.
But who would play Isha? How many big name 80 year old female actresses are there out there that look Inuit?
I guess Ben Kingsley played Ghandi, so why couldn't Streep play the lead here? Ah, the magic of cinema.
I wouldn't put money into this.
SUMMARY:
Great core concept poorly executed.
OVERALL RATING: 6/10
