AND WE'RE HEADED FOR THE FIRST STRETCH: My preliminary guesses as to who will get Academy Award noms

The Golden Globe and SAG nominations have been released, which is the strongest indication of what films and actors are going to be nominated for Academy Awards. The Golden Globe gave even more impetus to Nine and Avatar, but just how well that will translate to Oscar nominations can’t be truly gauged until they open this week in L.A. SAG gave some leg up to Sandra Bullock (the Blind Side), Jeremy Renner (The Hurt Locker), Stanley Tucci (The Lovely Bones, he also got a Golden Globe nom) and Matt Damon (supporting for Invictus).

It should be noted that The Hurt Locker has reopened at the Vista in L.A. and the Road has reopened at the Nuart. Since …Locker is bound to get nominations as it is for picture, director and screenplay, the main beneficiary of this would be Jeremy Renner who is trying to get a best actor nomination. The Road just never really connected with the industry, so it’s hard to say whether this reopening will help it much. But it is being distributed by The Weinstein Company and one should never count them out. It should also be noted that this strategy was also tried for Bad Lieutenant and Bright Star, but I don’t think it’s going to help Nicholas Cage or the actors from Bright Star get noms.

Below is my present guess as to the nominations with ruminations. This list will change as movies open and buzz rises or dies.

Best Motion Picture

Avatar
District 9

The Hurt Locker

Inglourious Basterds

Julie & Julia

Nine

Precious

A Single Man

Up

Up in the Air

The doubtful ones right now are District 9 (since Avatar is also science fiction); Julie & Julia (which may get replaced by It’s Complicated); Nine (which may sink once it opens); Up (which may be done in by voters only putting it in the animation category, added to the fact that two other well received animated films opened, The Fantastic Mr. Fox and The Princess and the Frog, with The Princess… possibly pulling an upset and winning best animation). Some that may sneak in are The Messenger, A Serious Man, An Education, Star Trek (though the last is doubtful). Up in the Air is expected to win.

Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture

Emily Blunt, The Young Victoria

Helen Mirren, The Last Station

Carey Mulligan, An Education

Gabourey Sidibe, Precious

Meryl Streep, Julie and Julia

The most precarious here is Emily Blunt whose film is not opening with a lot of fanfare. This may mean that Marianne Cotillard may sneak in for Nine, even though she only has a supporting role. And of course, there's Sandra Bullock who is really gathering steam (she got a SAG nom). Meryl Streep is expected to win.

Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture

Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart

George Clooney, Up in the Air

Colin Firth, A Single Man

Morgan Freeman, Invictus

The fifth entry is the hardest to decide this year. But it should be among the following, Daniel Day-Lewis, Nine; Michael Stuhlbarg, A Serious Man; Matt Damon, The Informant!, with Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker possibly being the one if The Hurt Locker can work up a little more steam. It looks like Nicholas Cage is out of it.

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture

Marion Cotillard, Nine

Vera Farmiga, Up in the Air

Anna Kendrick, Up in the Air

Mo'Nique, Precious

Julianne Moore, A Single Man

If Marion Cotillard does get a best actress nomination, then Penelope Cruz could get in for Nine. Mo’Nique is suppose to walk away with it.

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role in a Motion Pictur

Woody Harrelson, The Messenger

Christian Mckay, Me and Orson Welles

Alfred Molina, An Education

Christopher Plummer, The Last Station

Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds

This is the expected list, but don’t be surprised in Alfred Molina or even Christian McKay are knocked out for Stanley Tucci, The Lovely Bones or Matt Damon, Invictus. Though this category often goes for a career award (which would mean Christopher Plummer), Christoph Waltz is suppose to walk away with it.

Best Animated Feature Film

Coraline
Fantastic Mr. Fox

Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs

The Princess and the Frog

Up

This pretty much seems to be the category. I still think The Princess and the Frog will win.

Best Director - Motion Picture

Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker

James Cameron, Avatar

Lee Daniels, Precious

Jason Reitman, Up in the Air

Quentin Tarantino, Inglourious Basterds

Since there are ten movies, this is a hard category to predict. Reitman is expected to win. Lee Daniels might get knocked out for, well, to be honest, I don’t know.

Best Screenplay - Motion Picture - Original

Mark Boal, The Hurt Locker

Quentin Tarantino, Inglourious Basterds

Joel and Ethan Coen, A Serious Man

Harold P. Manning, Jesse Armstrong, Simon Blackwell, Armando Iannucci, Ian Martin, Tony

Roche, In the Loop

Scott Neustadter, Michael H. Weber, 500 days of summer

A tough category. Too many good, original screenplays. But In the Loop and 500 days could be knocked out for Pete Docter, Bob Petersen, Thomas McCarthy, Up; Alessandro Camon, Oren Moverman, The Messenger; and Nancy Meyers, It's Complicated (who is popular in L.A.). But if In the Loop can be nominated, it could win. Other than that, since the Hurt Locker won’t win best picture, but is the critics and cult favorite, it might win.

Best Screenplay - Motion Picture – Adapted

Neill Blomkamp and Terri Tatchell, District 9

Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner, Up in the Air

Nick Hornby, An Education

Geoffrey Fletcher, Precious

Tom Ford, David Scearce, A Single Man

I suppose Nine or Julie & Julia might get in here, but this sort of looks like the line up at this point.

This list is subject to change, of course.

STYLE OVER SUBSTANCE: Reviews of The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus and The Lovely Bones

Two films by incredible visual stylists have opened or are about to open. But though lately the prevailing wisdom is that in film visual is more important than anything else, both movies prove in many ways that being a visual stylist alone is not enough to create a satisfying work of art.

It would be almost impossible not to say that Terry Gilliam has a remarkable eye. His movies look incredible. He is an amazing visual stylist, but I have to be honest and shame the devil (played by Tom Waits in Gilliam’s latest project The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus, with the name of Mr. Nick, no lack of imagination there, is there) and say I’m not quite convinced he can tell a story as well as he needs to. In fact, again to be honest, I’m not even sure what the story was in this film; I was thoroughly confused from beginning to end and found myself spending most of my time just trying to figure out the plot created by screenwriters Charles McKeown and Mr. Gilliam himself. Christopher Plummer (next to the production design the main reason to see this film) plays some sort of wizard type person (Dr. Parnassus) who made some sort of deal with the devil (the aforesaid Waits) that gave him, Parnassus eternal life. Parnassus now travels in a wagon that doubles as a theater with a couple of assistants and his daughter, who though she doesn’t know it, may have to marry Mr. Nick if Paranassus doesn’t win some sort of bet that’s never clearly defined. Enter Heath Ledger for some reason, who somehow complicates that situation and who somehow resolves it. The theater piece that Parnassus produces (which for some unbelievable reason is ignored by people passing by) has a mirror as part of the set and if someone enters it, they enter the imaginarium which shows the person something about their life, though what that is isn’t always too clear. Ledger’s character comes along and revamps the piece and suddenly it’s a hit (though it’s unclear why since the show isn’t that significantly different). The best scenes are those that take place on the other side of the mirror. Though the psychology may be shallow (a drunk falls into a pit of empty bottles and enters a bar that blows up; shopping women enter a world of oversize shoes and hats), the art direction takes your breath away. Ledger died during the making of the film and three actors (Jude Law, Colin Farrell and Johnny Depp) take his place whenever his character enters the mirror. This could have made sense, but it never does. Just like the movie as a whole.

The Lovely Bones is also big on visuals, while being bigger on story telling which makes it the more satisfactory movie of the two. It’s narrated, like Sunset Boulevard, by someone who is dead, here a 13 year old girl, Susie, played marvelously by Saoirse Ronan. The story is then told in two plot lines, one concerning Susie and her adventures in a land of limbo, a breathtakingly exciting place of dazzling invention where everything changes second from second. It’s an Alice in Wonderland location filled with beautiful non sequitors and with more depth of psychology than the mirror world of Parnassus’s. The second plot revolves around Susie’s family and how they respond to the daughter’s death. This is also interesting, though not as interesting as the land of limbo. But as intriguing as the whole movie is, it doesn’t quite work since the two story lines never really come together. Occasionally Susie somehow connects with the real world, but not in any significant way. The screenplay, by Fran Walsh, Phillipa Boyens and Peter Jackson, who also directed, suggests that Susie has a character arc, that something happens that enables her to leave limbo and go on to what’s next, but it’s unclear what that something that happens could be. Susan Sarandon is a lot of fun as that staple of sit coms and 1970’s movies, the boozy, pill popping upper middle class pre-post-feminist woman who never learned how to wash clothes. Stanley Tucci is the rapist/murderer and he has his moments, but he does something with his voice that got on my nerves. In the end, it’s Ronan who holds the picture together.

BATTLES BOTH BIG AND SMALL: Reviews of The Messenger and Red Cliff

The Messenger starts out a bit bumpy as it introduces two soldiers, played by Ben Foster and Woody Harrelson, who seem to be solely defined by the fact that they are angry. Very angry. It seems to seep out of their bones. Add to that the deep misogyny of Harrelson’s character and I was a bit disheartened, fearful that that’s all I was in store for. But Foster’s character soon softens and becomes less angry as he comes into contact with heartbroken, grieving parents and especially after he comes into contact with the amazing Samantha Morton, a bit more Rubenesque than usual with some motherly, working class heft to her, an actress who can seem to do no wrong (England’s been producing a ton of these ladies lately, like Emily Mortimer, Emily Blunt, Emily Watson and Kelly McDonald, though I do think it would be nice if they got together first and came up with names that were easier to tell apart). The scenes of Foster and Harrelson breaking the news that a son, husband, relative has died while in the army, are heartbreaking and powerful. Steve Buscemi especially shines as a bitter father who screams in fury at the two soldiers, then later seeks them out to apologize. The whole movie, with a screenplay by Alessandro Camon and the director Oren Moverman, is heartbreaking and powerful. It does have some issues. Once Morton’s character disappears from the story and Foster and Harrelson are left alone to bond, the plot feels like it stops going anywhere and it’s a relief when both Buscemi and Morton return. There’s also a scene where Foster and Harrelson crash the wedding party of Foster’s ex-fiance and they make drunken fools of themselves; I didn’t know quite how I was supposed to feel and found myself squirming rather than emotionally involved. Foster’s character arc also seems a little unclear; he tells Morton he’s staying on (staying on to what; reenlisting or just staying on the detail with Harrelson—whichever one it is, it’s a bit unclear why he makes the choice). But all in all, this is a strong and touching story with a strong and touching screenplay by Alessandro Camon and director Oren Moverman.

Red Cliff, the latest John Woo opus, is magnificent, absolutely magnificent. Did I mention how magnificent it is? Well, if I didn’t, it’s magnificent. And marvelous. And wonderful. And splendid. It’s the sort of movie Roget’s Thesaurus was made for and it’s the best thing Woo’s done since he came to the U.S. where his over the top, ultra violent style counterpoised with extreme sentimentality didn’t seem to impress the studios and so he ended up doing hack work like Face Off and Mission: Impossible II. The only real drawback is that the Red Cliff I saw was only two hours and forty five minutes of the whole five hours and how I so want to see the whole complete work. As incredible as the film is, the version shown in the U.S. is a bit underwhelming when it comes to character, which is probably most of what was cut before it’s opening here, leaving only the intense and exhilarating battle scenes and the drama concerning how the enemies were going to defeat each other. The story, screenplay by John Woo, Khan Chan, Cheng Kuo and Heyu Sheng, details the conflict over the control of China during the Han Dynasty of the third century. And detail it Woo does. This is one of the few war movies in which every strategy, every move, every countermove, thrust and parry is clearly communicated. I knew exactly who was fighting whom, what was at stake and who was winning and why. And then there’s final conflict, in which whether a woman can seduce a man long enough for the wind to change is more suspenseful than any of the battle scenes. This is one of the finest movies of the year, perhaps the best directed, and it should not be missed. But to demonstrate the state of movies in the U.S., it should be noted that Red Cliff opened in L.A. not at the huge screen at Grauman’s Chinese nor at the Arclight Cinerama Dome. No, it opened at the smaller art house the Sunset V while Grauman’s opened Ninji Assasin, soon to be deemed a classic, I’m sure.

AND THEY'RE ROUNDING THE FIRST CORNER: New York Film Critics announce their winners

The New York Film Critics announced their awards yesterday. Though they don't influence the Oscars a great deal, they can add to the buzz and help voters remember possible nominees they may have forgotten. But it's hard to say that the NYFC will be doing much of that this year in the top categories (since it has now become somewhat clear, though still a little vague, that the picture, directing and acting awards are more or less decided), though there are a couple of possibilities in the other categories.

The Hurt Locker once again won best picture and director, but I still contend that the Oscar voters will go for the less in your face Up In The Air, since it's topical and not as heavy as the last couple of winners, Slumdog Millionaire and No Country for Old Men. Best pictures genres often run in cycles and I think something a tad lighter is due to take home the gold. George Clooney won the NYFC acting award (for two movies, The Fantastic Mr. Fox and Up in the Air), but it still looks like a Jeff Bridges career achievement year. Meryl Street, Christoph Waltz and Mo'Nique won the others, which will probably mirror the Academy Awards.

The two areas where NYFC might be of help to potential nominees is that In the Loop (perhaps the best writing of the year) won for best screenplay and since there are ten nominees for screenplay at the Oscars (original and adapted), this may very well help remind the voters. It was also runner up for the Los Angeles Film Critics award. Also to be noted is the win of The White Ribbon for cinematography in both the NYFC and LAFCA, which may help translate to Oscar noms (assuming it will be eligible; I've been told it's going to open the last day of the year and unless it's played for a week in either LA or New York, it shouldn't be eligible for anything but foreign language film).

I was also excited to see that the NYFC awarded Of Time and the City, Terence Davies wonderful portrait of his home city, Liverpool, through found footage, best non-fiction film (no longer always called documentary because too many people are expanding what the term documentary means). Also Summer Hours, the beautiful French film, won best foreign film for both NYFC and LAFCA, but since it's not the French foreign language film entry (The Prophet is), that won't make any difference.

Today, the Golden Globes were announced, but I have to talk to my best friend Jerry first before commenting on that. Also, Wed. or Thurs. I'll start listing what I think are going to be the nominees, unless I suddenly find myself with time on my hands and do it earlier.

THE SUSPENSE MOUNTS: Critics start sounding in on Awards 2009

The second installment of the movie awards season begins with a bunch of critic's awards. The least important, at least in regards to which films in the U.S. will receive awards, not in overall significance, are the European Film Awards. The main names to take note of here is Haneke's The White Ribbon which won three awards and Jacques Audiard's The Prophet which won two. The White Ribbon is Germany's entry in the foreign film category and The Prophet is France's. However, the vagaries of the foreign film selection at the Oscars is so much it's own thing that this may not mean anything except to give these films some extra buzz and give people a reason to complain about the foreign film voting system if neither one is nominated.

Next is the AFI selection of the top ten best films of the year. These are “Coraline,” “The Hangover,” “The Hurt Locker,” “The Messenger,” “Precious,” “A Serious Man,” “A Single Man,” “Sugar,” “Up” and “Up in the Air.” This is a more egalitarian list that one will probably see come Oscar nominations. It is doubtful that Caroline, The Hangover or Sugar will make the Oscar cut (Caroline will only be nominated in animation; The Hangover too lowbrow, Sugar too indie--i.e., most Oscar voters probably haven't heard of it, much less seen it). This does give energy to nominations for The Hurt Locker, Up in the Air, Precious and Up. The others are possibilities, but still not a lot of buzz. The main movie missing here is Inglorious Basterds, a real surprise.

Then there are the Broadcast Film Critics Award nominations that came out. They have more nominations in each category than the Oscars. My overall analysis is that this helps continue the buzz with Inglorious Basterds and Up in the Air and now also gives buzz for Avatar and Nine, both of which did very well in the various categories. However, I wouldn't doubt that the BFCA best picture nominations will be close to the Oscars, with the exception of District 9 which didn't make the Critics Circle, but still has a strong chance. It also has a listing of actors that may also be close to the Oscars (though the Critics here nominated six per category and the Academy only has five). And I still think Julie & Julia will get in.

This leaves what may be the most significant indicator of what is going to be nominated and what isn't, the LA. Film Critics. Though they are critics and not voters and voters have a habit of not listening that closely to the critics, these ones live in L.A. and probably help with the buzz on certain films. The L.A. Film Critics gave a leg up to The Hurt Locker, awarding it picture and director. The Hurt Locker is probably going to be nominated at the Oscars for those categories, but I still suspect Up in the Air is going to win (and here came in second).

But the Critics really gave a leg up to Jeff Bridges for best actor for Crazy Heart. Colin Firth, who was the favorite to win the Oscar (and who came in runner up here), may now lose out to Bridges in a combination performance of his career combined with a career type award, more often given to male actors than female actors (the only thing that might have helped more is if Bridges had gotten an honorary Oscar the year before). This really is too bad for Firth, a fine actor who doesn't make many films that get Oscar buzz and this may be his only chance. But Bridges has been nominated four times with no wins.

Best actress went to the more than deserving Yolande Moreau (who may get my award for best actress) for Seraphine. This probably won't translate into Oscar buzz since like Sugar, this is a film that most voters probably haven't even heard of. Carey Mulligan came in second, which helps her with a nomination (after the National Board of Review Award), but I'm gong out on a limb right now and agree with Jerry, my best friend in Chicago, who thinks that the Academy will decide it's been long enough since Meryl Streep's last win and give her her third Oscar for Julie & Julia.

Supporting awards when to Christoph Waltz and Mo'Nique, both of whom right now are expected to win the Oscars. Runners up went to Anna Kendricks, and I'm now convinced she is a strong contender for an Oscar Nomination for Up in the Air, and Peter Capaldi for In the Loop, though like other deserving artists, was in a movie most of the voters probably haven't even heard of, so there goes his chances.

Also note that Fantastic Mr. Fox beat out Up for animation, though I still have a feeling that the Princess and the Frog is going to take home the Oscar. Just a feeling.

Also noteworthy is that The White Ribbon's name showed up for the LA Film Critics. This probably doesn't mean anything. Jerry said that The White Ribbon won't open in L.A until December 30th, less than a week before the end of the year. I don't know what this means when it comes to qualifying for Oscars since movies are suppose to play a week in LA or New York (though not necessarily for a nom in foreign language category).

Another note: I read in the LA Times that people who vote for best picture nominations often don't put down a full list of names (this year, ten), but often only put down one or two, which can skew the nominations. I would think this would skew the noms toward more tent pole, studio films since those are the ones more people see, but that's not the way it works it seems.

Next to come, New York Film Critics and The Golden Globes.

FEEDBACK FEEDBACK: yet even more thoughts on giving notes and feedback on screenplays Part III

I thought I would end this discussion on feedback with one last observation. During the discussion in one of the internet groups, I said that in the end, as the writer, it is best if you know exactly what you are trying to do and what goals you are trying to achieve. If you do, then you will be able to figure out which pieces of feedback are helpful and which are not. If you don’t know what you are trying to do, then you might find yourself just taking anybody’s criticism and applying it to your work, ending up with somewhat of a mishmash of a screenplay.

My screenplays tend to break the rules and are often dark and edgy. I know my screenplays aren’t for everybody, but for a small, even art house type audience. As a result, I often get very polar opposite responses. Because of this, I really need to know what I’m striving for and what I’m trying to achieve in order to know which pieces of feedback to apply.

Below are two pieces of feedback I received on the same screenplay from a website called Triggerstreet (a place one goes to upload one’s screenplay and in exchange for giving feedback on other screenplays, other writers will read yours). As you can tell, the two disagreed on the quality. Because of this, I really need to know what I’m going after in order to be able to tell who to listen to and when, and what sections of the feedback to ignore.

For example, in the negative feedback, it’s obvious the person doesn’t like reactive characters and has problems with the subject matter. I know there is nothing I can do to please this reader in these areas (I do know I need to change some names). The second one gave me some food for thought when it comes to the ending. He made me wonder if I really said all I need to say about my character.

1. A Waste I'm going to try to stay away from being mean about Welcome To L.A. but, it may be difficult.

I'm going to start with the mechanics. Several spelling and grammatical errors. The naming of characters was very bothersome and quite frankly confusing. Music Kid 1, Music Kid 2, Music Kid 3, Neighbor 1, Neighbor 2, Cigarette Guy 1, Cigarette Guy 2, Three Way Guy 1, Three Way Guy 2, Street Guy, Guy in Shorts... there are more.
Characters with semi major speaking roles should probably be named. If not, then the characters need to have some differences to them. I felt like any of these people could have been interchanged with anyone else. I have nothing to attach to them or even envision in my head.

The name dropping in this felt very out of place. Colin Farrell, Edward Furlong...etc. I have to quote Mystery Science Theater here, "I hate it when they show good movies during bad ones." The constant watching of good movies just does not fit what so ever. If he's watching a movie, then just have him watching a generic movie. No specifics and no name drops. What goes on in the scenes of those movies specified doesn't even have anything to do with what's going on in the story.

Also, the dialogue was just awful. The lead character seems to be a whiny stuttering kid and when he speaks it's extremely difficult to read. This would be a general example of how the character speaks. " I, I don't really think that that it's a big deal. I'm just, just scared, you know? It's a ne...ne...new place." It usually takes me about an hour to an hour and a half to read a 100 page screenplay. This took me 3 hours because it was so frustrating to get through the dialogue. And I really felt I had to "get through" it as oppose to enjoy it.
Going through 100+ pages of that gets very old very fast. So to offer some constructive criticism, don't write in the stutter. Write it in the action, not the dialogue. Unless it's a very specific word that needs to be emphasized in the stutter. I'd leave it in the action (stutters) and leave it to the actor to stutter as they see fit.

Moving on to concept. It's a porno. It really felt like the concept was just to have a lot of homosexual sex scenes linked in a vague way.

Story. Bad. Again, the idea was all about sex. Whether it be two men having sex, a man masturbating, a man watching men masturbating, it doesn't matter... because that's all it was. The attempt of having a murder spree going on may have made the overall story better, but it was such a small part. Someone dies... no one important, someone else dies, again no one important, finally some other person dies... not important. These were really just used to link more sex scenes in. Had the story been about a struggling writer who moves to L.A. but finds himself caught up in a murder spree, then I might have been more interested. But it wasn't. The murders were even written off as just something that happens. No big deal. Who was it who was the killer? Just some guy, literally. And there ends the most interesting part of the story. No resolve and no importance. The struggling writer portion could have been more interesting, but again it took a back seat to a homosexual sex fest.

Plain and simple... there was no reason for all the sex. The entire story suffered because of it. Had there been perhaps one or two sex scenes, then fine, you can take the more important aspects of the story (the more connectible aspects) and make it a decent suspense flick. As is, there was no suspense, no sense of urgency or importance.

Structure was lacking as well. Nothing stood out to me as being grossly wrong but I do have some issues. First being the end being the beginning, then going back one week. I found it unnecessary. Same goes for the titles of chapters.

OVERALL on a star rating, I give a zero. I'm not trying to be mean, but it was truly a struggle to read. I honestly don't know how someone would spend their time writing this and feel good about it afterwards. Only marketable as a porno. Sadly, porno's don't need writers or scripts.

Now with all of this said, I am going to try to find some bright spots. Because I think it is unfair to just bash a script. The very general story idea of a writer from Chicago coming to L.A. is fine. Then adding the murder aspect makes it more intriguing. Having him trying to battle with his work and for his life seems like a decent idea. Run with it. But try to stay away from so much sex. It's just not needed. A scene or two is fine, but not 80% of the screenplay. Also, Adam and Nick as characters weren't the worst. They stood out as being the only characters with any potential for depth.

I think there is a lot of room for improvements with Welcome To L.A. but I can only say what I think about it as is. Bottom line, this was a very drawn out gay porno.

2. Welcome to LA – Notes I really enjoyed reading this script. You have enormous talent Howard. The writing, dialogue and character are seamless in this script.

I got half way through the script and realized there wasn’t a lot happening plot wise but I didn’t care because each scene was so well crafted and written and the world you created was so interesting and beautifully drawn.

It seems to me this script (and genre) is more about texture and tone than plot.

I sense you’re a big fan of the Coen brothers. Who write their scripts for themselves and no one else.

So I really don’t know what kind of notes I have for you. Perhaps some of the scenes with the ‘people of LA’ could be trimmed and tightened a little and you could, perhaps, give Adam a little more plot to deal with. (A real love interest or writing opportunity…)

The one question I had at the end was – now that Adam is accepted in LA what will become of him? Will be become another self serving LA guy? His whole character arc seemed to be about being accepted. Now that he is, what does he think of it? Will be want to turn his back on LA? Will be allow himself to be used by everyone who has a script in LA (it seems he will).

I don’t know that I’ve read another script on this site where I had so little to say. This genre isn’t really my thing and as such, I’m not familiar with all the ‘rules’.

All I can say is, it was a real page turner for me. I’m not sure how marketable this script is but it’s definitely a great writing sample.

Well done!