this is the second post in my series, The journey so far – in the previous post i outlined my approach to “going to market” with my screenplay Rain Dogs – NOT, you understand, as some sort of “how to”, but simply as a record of my journey – y’know, the unexamined life etcetera
this post will focus on the three EVALUATIONS i purchased from the Black List
but before that, i’ll “briefly” cover what’s happened since
facebook – i noted previously that i wasn’t on the facebook – that now has changed – despite my misgivings, i accepted the advice that, while it is a cesspool, there are parts that are less shitty than others – and so i’m dabbling about in it – a comment here – a re-post there ... attempting to establish a discrete presence, while trying to avoid it becoming a massive timesuck
producer/director – i had a video chat with the producer/director (and writer) who said those nice things about Rain Dogs – we discussed the script, the parlous state of Australia’s screen industry and what i should do next – in the end, it appears that the smart thing to do is, write something cheaper
this is not about abandoning Rain Dogs – it’s just the next step in the journey
thankfully, i’m not short of ideas and so i’m now in the process of sorting through half-a-dozen concepts to see which one will be the first cab off the rank
to clarify: there are no expectations between the writer/director/producer and myself – it was just a chat and i’m thankful for the time they chose to share with me
in-progress scripts – so what to do with the two in-progress scripts i have on the go? – i’d finished one to the point where i felt i could share it with a couple of people who had read Rain Dogs for me – the response was not what i’d hoped, but it’s probably something that i should have expected
i suspect i know how to fix it – but as it’s set on a futuristic island, and the other screenplay takes place in a unique, alien dimension, i think it best to leave both these screenplays to gestate … while i concentrate on a low-budget idea
impact – i’d learned about the Impact Australia program soon after the deadline passed – typical! – and so i made a note to keep an eye out for it next year
but then i learned of the Impact x Netflix program – and that the first genre was for large scale action-adventure films for all audiences
so, as i had something that fitted the description, i decided to roll the dice to see what happens
now there are some naysayers out there who claim that none of the previous Impact “winners” have been unproduced newbies – i don’t know if this is true, i haven’t bothered to search out the data – and these naysayers go on to say that, because of this, Impact’s claims of democratizing the process should be seen as a scam – which seems to me to be a bit of a stretch
even if it is true, that no unproduced writers’ scripts have been selected to date, it doesn’t automatically follow that Impact are being dodgy – it could simply mean that, to date, the material submitted by the unproduced newbies weren’t what they were looking for
besides, applying is free and it “only” took me a week to throw it all together, so why the hell not?! – a 0.5% chance of success (or whatever the numbers are) is still better than zero chance
click to download the PDF containing the three evaluations
REVIEW OF MY THE BLACK LIST EVALUATIONS
before i begin, it’s probably best if i try to define what i’m doing here
let me start by saying, i think that the Black List performs an incredibly valuable and necessary service – so this is not me attacking the Black List and having a whinge about my less-than-stellar scores
however, while working through the the three evaluations, i did become fascinated by the different “takes” of each of the readers
sure, the varying opinions can be confusing to a screenwriter, but that didn’t really concern me – it’s our job to figure out what’s right for our story [1]
what did concern me is that these varying opinions are also used (and i’m paraphrasing from the Black List’s FAQ) to identify high-quality scripts that the Black List can then promote to their industry membership (and) … also make targeted recommendations to individuals using an algorithm …
now, i have no idea how the algorithm sorts through the conflicting data to create these targeted recommendations, but i worry about any system that relies on subjective data, particularly systems with such small sample sizes (three, in my case)
again, this is not me attacking the readers who wrote the evaluations – they may well be the the best of the bunch as the Black List describes them – however … well, we’ll get into the details below
of course, i can’t help but wonder if there may be a better way of doing this – unfortunately, the only ideas that spring to mind would either add a lot of time and money to the process – or worse, potentially dilute the definition of a “great script” to the point where it’s effectively useless
so, without any answers and in the spirit of sharing my experience, the following is my review of the Black List evaluations for Rain Dogs – Rain Dogs is available to read at Script Revolution or you can contact me via the contact form.
THE EVALUATIONS
the three PDFs i received from the Black List have been copied and re-laid out into one document so that the evaluations can be read side by side (kind of)
if you’re a Black List member (screenwriter and/or industry professional) you can also view all three evaluations on the site [password required]
i’ll work through the document making comments across all three evaluations as i go – the evaluations will be identified as #1, #2 and #3
the ratings – the Overall Rating ranges from “5” to “7” – as you can see, there are a few outliers amongst the other ratings – for example #1 gives Character a “3” (lowest of the three) and Setting a “9” (highest of the three) – while #3 gives Premise a “9” and Plot an “8” (both highest of the three) and Dialogue a “4” (the lowest of the three)
this variation between the evaluations is a little “noisier” than i expected … but then, what was i expecting?
Era – #1: Present, #2: Present Day, #3: Contemporary … no issues here
Locations – #1 provides a short list, including the words: rural Australia, forests, waterfall – this provides a pretty accurate description of the setting
however #2 and #3 simply note: Australia – which seems a bit … vague
i know, i know, the “rural aspect” of the story is covered off in the loglines, but i wonder, do other Black List evaluations simply refer to “U.S.A.” when covering a story set in the States?
Budget – now this confused me – #1: Blockbuster, #2: Low, #3: Medium
i’ve already noted at the end of the previous The journey so far post, that i found the designation “blockbuster” to be over egging it a bit – writing at the time, that i’d seen sequences in streaming series that were more blockbustery than my little movie
but then #2 went the other way, designated the movie as “low budget” – which seems to be too far at the other end of the spectrum
reading through the rest of #2’s evaluation, i got the impression that the “low budget” designation was more about what they thought i should be doing, rather than what was on the page … but that’s not how it’s meant to work, is it?
i guess #3 has it about right
Genre – all more-or-less fine – if i had to nitpick, and why not? i’d say #1: doesn’t mention “sci-fi” (a minor thing), #2: doesn’t mention “monsters” (okay, not so minor), and #3: doesn’t mention “family” (also, not so minor)
i’m curious about #3’s inclusion of “disaster films”, as it may give the impression that there’s more wholesale destruction than the screenplay delivers … well, at least until the last ten minutes or so
Logline – this also surprised me – i’d assumed the logline would simply be a cut and paste of the line i’d provided … but, no
#1: did use my logline, but tweaked it to underline the monster’s invisibility – i thought my original line did the job just fine, but no matter
#2: wrote their own logline which neglected a number of elements i considered important, such as the nature of the “family”, the invisibility of the monsters and the fact that only the daughter can see them
#3: communicates a little more than #2, by mentioning the father “trying to connect with his daughter” – but then muddies things by describing him as “tech savvy” – an attribute of his character that doesn’t really play into the story
okay – that’s the simple stuff sorted through
now, in the next three sections (Strengths, Weaknesses and Prospects), the readers go into some detail about what, in their opinion, worked, didn’t work and (i’m guessing) what needs to be done for the current screenplay to become something that is actually made
as you can see, there’s a bit to get through – particularly with #1’s detailed notes, which are almost twice as long as #2 or #3 – i have no way of knowing whether the differences in word count is due to the individual readers’ style/approach, or if the increased workload brought on by the pandemic meant that #2 and #3 just didn’t have the time to go into anymore detail
of course i won’t spend time repeating all the nice things that were said (you can read them yourself and they are all true and correct!) – instead i’ll just note what i believe to be issues with their reading of the script and ask some (rhetorical) questions when i don’t understand what the readers are trying to say
… fully understanding that, in most cases, it’s just one subjective opinion up against another
strengths
#1 says the daughter, Casey’s use of a garden rake to “lock” a door is smart – well, not really – the rake is hanging by the door for just that reason – her father, Dan’s praise at her quick thinking is only due to him not being familiar with her world
#1 also sees a mystery where there was none intended (why did Dan and Mo separate?) and misses one that is hinted at (who is Tracey?) – however, within the context of story, neither are major issues
i intentionally gave the characters vague, messy backstories to give their interactions the texture of reality – “I fought with your father in the Clone Wars” – while trying to avoid overly-explicit “hollywood” arcs for the characters – these tend not to sit well with Aussie audiences, particularly when they’re watching Australian stories
#2’s line: generally engaging read that succeeds in gradually earning the interest of the reader … the expression, “damned with faint praise”, comes to mind – and this is in the “strengths” section!
whether it’s poor writing, dull characters or boring action, it’s hard to say what #2’s issue is – i mean, shit goes sideways on page 10, so i don’t know what … maybe i’ll learn more under “weaknesses”
#3 lists three movies as potential “touchpoints” – i admit, i hadn’t considered any of them while i was writing the script
Attack the Block, which i’m very fond of, is, despite being about a young street gang in a London council estate, a pretty good comparison as far as tone etcetera – i’m embarrassed that i didn’t see the “link” earlier
i’ve only seen The Wind recently, and this is one is little more of a stretch – sure, there’s the rural isolation and the unexplained menace … but my screenplay is way less poetic or dreamlike – that said, i did keep thinking of Weir’s Picnic at Hanging Rock while writing Rain Dogs – not sure why
it’s been a while since i saw Feast – i think i picked it up at the video store back in the day because Jason Mewes was in it and i wanted to see what he could do when he was out from under Silent Bob’s shadow – the answer: die horribly
of the three movies, Feast is the one i struggle with as touchpoint for Rain Dogs – it is brutal, nasty and flashy as fuck – a fun time, sure, if you’re in the mood for a bloody horror-comedy – but it’s nothing like my screenplay … unless, it’s the amount of cussing that links the two together
weaknesses
#1’s critique of the philosophical discussion on page 43 would be understandable if this wasn’t the first time the two characters had a chance to sit and talk (in relative safety) since the movie started
i mean, i hate those scenes where characters have heart-to-hearts in the middle of firefight (or whatever) as much as the next person, so this comment caught me by surprise
particularly because the purpose of the discussion wasn’t to get philosophical, or even to setup a payoff
the discussion was designed to show why the father is so freaked out (besides the obvious) – while also establishing the scope of the danger they are in – i don’t know why #1 missed all this – the writing may be the problem, sure, but then …
#1 is right about Mo’s Chinese ancestors not playing into her choices – not on the surface – but they are very much a part of who she is – the line points to the bullshit she’s had to deal with most of her life, and so hints at why she presents such a combative front to the world
the logic holes #1 refers to, aren’t – they are simply things that are left unexplained, because the characters don’t have the answers – i was particularly surprised by the question, why Australia? – why the hell not?
the nightmare on page 82 is cool, and i look forward to discussing it with a director – but i see no reason to get into the details when this is something that will be designed by the FX people under the director’s direction – i’m flattered that #1 wants more details, but for now, “cool” will have to be enough
#1’s questions regarding who can hear the monsters’ “thoughts”, what various characters can and can’t see at various times, and how they learn about the bigger picture is, i believe, all covered in the screenplay
by saying that, i don’t mean i get into the (meta)physics of it all, but there is a cause and effect thing going on – that said, i will review the screenplay with #1’s concerns in mind
#1 asks, why do they look sick? – which is answered both before this scene and a few pages later: they look sick because they spent the best part of a day in a garage filled with petrol (gas) fumes
who is Sasha to them? – she is mentioned by Casey as someone who owns horses who are friendly with her horse – and later, Dan mentions her as someone who has fuel – and then later again, when they go to Sasha’s farm in search of said fuel, Mo is relieved when she believes Sasha has escaped – in short, Sasha is a neighbour and a friend
#1 also asks for clarity re Mo saying, “I don’t think we can do it tonight” – but then Mo goes on to explain why they should not attempt to drive out that night – so …
#1’s questions about the fence and the fruit bowl are both answered in the script – the fence reinforces their car’s windscreen – and the fruit bowl delays the monster, allowing them to spring their trap (almost)
nor do i see a need to clarify Mo’s “trick” when she attempts to play dead – by this stage the audience has seen a number of people killed by the monsters, so Mo’s desperate attempt to imitate these victims and appear “dead” isn’t hard to understand … the question is: will it work?
unlike #1, who described the action scenes as: very well executed & choreographed for the most part, successfully tense & frightening; they’re also varied in setting & situation, never redundant – #2 claims the action scenes are: a bit jumbled – #2 then agrees with #1 by claiming that part of the reason for this is that: the creatures’ invisibility powers are unclear
as i noted above, i believe, it’s all covered in the screenplay – i suspect the real issue around the monsters’ invisibility, is that the reader and the audience has to learn the “rules” along with the characters – and that these “rules” are constantly being tweaked as the characters learn new things – there is no definitive checklist that they or the reader can refer to – the audience will need to pay some attention
but, for the sake of argument, let’s assume for the moment that the “rules” (such as they are) haven’t been communicated properly – even if true, i’m struggling to find an action scene where this supposed lack of clarity actually hurts the scene
[sure there will be arguments online regarding the supposed “invisibility rules”, but who cares whether or not Sam would be invisible if Frodo, while wearing the One Ring, picks him up and carries him?]
#2 then goes on to suggest that there should be less action scenes to keep the budget down … advice i would’ve thought would be more at home in the “prospects” section
i get #2’s reasoning, but it’s not the screenplay i wanted to write
i don’t understand #2’s note to establish Dan’s relationship to Casey earlier and more explicitly – is the relationship the fact that he’s her biological father? – that’s stated on page 1 – does the audience need to know this from the outset? – no
or is the relationship #2 is worried about, the fact that they are more-or-less strangers to each other? – well the scene on page 1 has him standing outside, drinking, as a storm ranges – while she sits inside with her back to him, inventing a fantasy world … i would’ve thought that was enough
but just in case it isn’t, the scene that follows (pages 4-7) makes it even more clearer-er that he is a stranger in his daughter’s life – and sure, it’s not exactly clear why, but it doesn’t need to be – so why clutter things up?
for some reason, #2 believes that the Mo being introduced on page 18 is too late and is jarring
i don’t agree – the audience needed this time to get settled with Dan and Casey – and then, when they’re trapped, with no place go, the script CUTs to Mo – the audience then has about five pages to get know Mo while also learning more about the situation both beyond and in the mountains …
i’m not saying Rain Dogs is Star Wars: A New Hope, but Han didn’t show up until page 50! … but to be fair, that screenplay is 155 pages long
#3 seems to have a different take on the screenplay to #1 and, to a lesser extent, #2, by suggesting there’s too much information and a bit of redundancy with dialogue and action – an example would’ve been useful – as would a couple of examples of this “on-the-nose” dialogue they refer to
but let’s assume there are some redundancies – as i understand it, professional writers often put stuff down on the page knowing that it will be cut or reduced to (say) a glance, but they do it anyway because they want the scene to be clear … which to me, makes a lot of sense
now it’s quite possible that i’ve applied this bit of craft poorly, but i’d rather my intention to be clear than misconstrued or missed entirely (see above for examples)
i agree with #3 that, Sometimes jewellery or wardrobe explains more about the characters than them spewing their biography – but that must include the caveat that the reader/audience understands the context which makes these wardrobe decisions so telling
as to: them spewing their biography – i’m guessing the reader meant, the writer spewing their biography, because none of the character’s introduce themselves
as to the actual character introductions – Dan’s intro is two lines, Mo’s is three – both editorialise, but, I would argue, tell us more about the characters than any costume choices i could make – while still leaving ample room for the actors to pursue their craft
#3 writes, uneven pacing needs to distilled and character moments (and dialogue and action) can be consolidate to reduce redundancy – once again, examples would be welcome – i’m not trying to be a smart arse here, i’m genuinely trying to figure out where the redundant repetition is, or which bits can be consolidated to tighten up the screenplay
and then there’s the note, character moments can unfold during action – sure, some scenes are just characters reacting, the survival instinct kicking in, but there are just as many where the characters’ decisions reveal something about themselves
as an example of character moments can unfold during action, #3 writes: such as a character who has a fear of heights might have to endure a foot chase on a rooftop or cliff ledge … i’m not sure what i’m being told here, as this example is virtually duplicated in the screenplay
in the script, Mo worries about Casey standing on the roof of her car – later, Mo struggles to climb down from an upstairs window, despite a fire raging behind her – and finally, Mo finds herself dangling over a black abyss, with the fate of her daughter and the universe in her hands …
prospects
#1 begins claiming that despite there being, enough character development set up to create full arcs for each of them, that the script fails to capitalise on this and so the ending falls flat – this does not appear to be an issue that concerns the other two readers
the claim that the characters’ arcs “fail”, seems to be, once gain, something that was missed
Dan goes from seeing his daughter as a virtual stranger, to someone who is happy, despite his aches and pains, to have Casey use him as a mattress – and the same is true of Casey, who chooses to crash with Dan, despite her two mums being available – Mo, too, has an arc, relinquishing her need to protect Casey and passing the responsibility on to Dan
#1 again asks for more details regarding the monsters’ mythology – not happening – and then asks what Dan wanted from reuniting with his daughter
Dan “wanted” nothing – he was doing Mo a favour when she was called away to Jill’s mother’s “death bed” and her go-to babysitter (her mother, Helen) was unavailable – if it weren’t for the monsters, it’s quite possible that Dan would’ve finished babysitting Casey after a few days and left … no closer to her than when he arrived
the “blubbering” and “scared and selfish” exchange, harsh as it is, was not, to my mind, a step along the way to their reconciliation – it was their reconciliation – their first truly open and honest interaction
skipping the selfless hero suggestion (see “use him as a mattress” above) – i’m not sure where #1 pulled the idea of Mo’s obsession with eco-protection – sure, she has a “make polluters pay” sticker on the back of her car, but it’s partially obscured by soot from the exhaust (irony!) – i’m sure Mo does lean left and green, as do all decent human beings ;) – but there’s no need to bring our Earth-bound politics into it, when the fate of the entire universe is at stake
and then #1 is back worrying about Dan, Mo and Jill etcetera and what does it all mean – as i suggested earlier, this relationship was never intended to be “a thing” – it’s just a depiction of a modern family and a fairly basic piece of character design – all i wanted was an estranged Father, a Child and a Mother who wouldn’t be trying to get the band back together and so distract us from the father-child dynamic, or from the two adults’ different approaches to parenting … i was just trying to keep things simple
despite all these issues, #1 finishes the “prospects” section, which has read up until this point as more like a continuation of the “weaknesses” section, on a positive note, imaging moviegoers being frightened and excited by this summer blockbuster
#2’s “prospects” boil down to: once i have the best version of the screenplay, i should focus on genre production companies who will need to employ a visionary director and a strong ensemble cast that will (hopefully) create a movie that will stand out, which will then (hopefully) lead to some meetings, representation and work … ummm … sure, okay … thanks for the advice
#3 begins by referencing Feast again (which i still don’t understand) and Tremors which, like Attack the Block, is something i should’ve twigged to way before i read the title in their evaluation – particularly as Tremors is a bit of a sentimental favourite in our household – so, good call!
i’m surprised that no mention was made of A Quiet Place and Bird Box – both these movies came out while i was working on Rain Dogs and i worried that my script would be seen as trying to cash-in on this two-picture trend
#3 then writes, there’s nothing wrong with buying a ticket to a roller-coaster: that’s the foundation of cinema – which struck me as a little patronising, but then all was forgiven when they went on to call it, a high-octane thrill ride, which is very well done, with nuanced characters
unfortunately the rest of #3’s notes just offers advice like: less is more, and sometimes the quietest moments are also the loudest, and tightening the script, and strengthening the dialogue by reducing its “on-the-nose” style …
all of which doesn’t really give me much to work with – particularly when i believe i’ve either already done these things – or when i don’t know what #3 means when they say things like, the dialogue’s “on-the-nose” style – compared to #2, who wrote, the dialogue ... feels organic – maybe #3 just has an issue with Mo’s constant swearing … she does say “fuck” quiet a lot
in closing
so there you have it – three Black List evaluations of my screenplay … and my stumbling attempts at trying to make sense of them – the process has been useful (to me at least)
again, the intent here was not to disparage or call into question what the Black List does
and nor was it to attack the readers – frankly, i don’t think i could do what they do – particularly with the situation in the States being what it is … and we think we’ve got it bad here in Oz!
as to how the Black List (and studios and production companies etcetera and so on) could improve upon their current systems … well, that is the question
i doubt if any software-based “solution” will cut it – which leaves us with people
aside from perhaps tightening up the guidelines around what is required and how the evaluations should be structured – my only idea on how to improve the evaluations is: throw more people at it
multiple people should read each screenplay … i’m thinking, FOUR – three independent readers begin with a cold read of the screenplay – they prepare their evaluations, which then goes to a fourth person who reads them before reading the screenplay – it is this fourth person who then writes the evaluation, the one that will be used by the Black List’s algorithms etcetera and viewed by their industry members – the screenplay’s writer would have access to all four evaluations
you can see why it won’t be popular: more people + more time = more money
thankfully, it’s not my (immediate) problem – i got a cheap horror-thriller to write!
till next time, thanks for your attention
[1] i’m of the opinion that the screenwriter must accept and embrace sole responsibility for their screenplay – particularly in the case of a spec script, where the writer is the only expert on the story they’re telling