 |
Current mood:  frustrated Category: Writing and Poetry
I entered the Slamdance Horror Screenplay Competition and, sadly, only made it to the quarter-finals. Too bad because this contest has a pretty serious prize: $10,000 and having your screenplay actually produced by Angel Baby Entertainment. As part of the package I bought I got coverage of one of my scripts ("coverage" is an industry analysis of your script). I was looking forward to it so I could find out what I did wrong so maybe next time I'd do better. The coverage wasn't at all what I thought it'd be and as a result I sent this email to John, the head of the competition, and the Angel Baby Entertainment: John,
Wow, that was fast. My coverage for Ghoul is already posted.
You said you wanted feedback to help improve the system so I'm going to respond to some of the coverage. I'm not arguing with the reader exactly -- everyone's entitled to their opinion -- but I think I see a few things that could be issues for the contest as a whole.
All quoted material below is from the coverage.
"While it has a technically novel approach to the subject of cannibalism the story doesn't work as horror melodrama and also has major problems as a drama." I'm aware of the distinction but it's intended as neither. The fact that the reader had this expectation is part of the issue I'll mention in a moment. By the way, it's also not an approach to the subject of cannibalism, novel or otherwise. It's about ghouls, supernatural creatures that are not zombies and not vampires and have a distinct mythos of their own.
"A note of advice for the writer: Loglines should not exceed one sentence. Industry decision makers are almost unanimous in the belief, rightly, or wrongly, that if a story cannot be encapsulated in one simple sentence it does not have the "high concept" necessary to recommend the treatment for further development." This is useful information. I didn't know how important that was. But not every movie could or should be high concept. Sometimes a movie is just an interesting story and that's all.
"Nor is it likely to be of much interest to either a horror, or drama, audience how James comes to be conflicted about turning into a ghoul. Supernatural creatures don't work as dramatic characters." Supernatural creatures don't work as dramatic characters? You mean like BLADE (Wesley Snipes/vampire), THE SIXTH SENSE (Bruce Willis/ghost), UNDERWORLD (Kate Beckinsdale/vampire), and too many DRACULA movies to mention?
Here's the problem. I can name examples like that off the top of my head because I'm a horror fan. I love the genre. And I think it's pretty clear from this and other comments that this reader does not. How can you possibly judge a screenplay contest in a genre you don't like? Certainly you can judge technical issue like does the script have a three act structure, etc. But obviously you'd make a poor judge of story quality since by definition you won't like any of them.
The reader makes many references to SILENCE OF THE LAMBS because he sees both that and GHOUL as "cannibal films" (GHOUL is not). For example: "Though "Lambs" runs 118 minutes it works because it is a suspense thriller, not a horror film depending on gore and mayhem. It is drama, not "Night Of The Living Dead" melodrama." That's great but what does that have to do with a *horror* screenplay contest? Is he saying the best way to win is to enter suspense thriller scripts and, what ever you do, don't send in horror? I think it's clear he wishes he was judging a suspense thriller screenplay competition.
His inexperience with the horror genre becomes even clearer here: "If this concept is to work, at all, it has to work as a horror film, obeying the rules of the genre, as any audience will expect. As a horror film "Ghoul" lacks impact; it's too much of the same old blood, gore and mayhem." Blood, gore and mayhem *are* the rules of the horror genre, as any fan of the genre will tell you! The fact that he doesn't see the contradictory nature of his statement shows he really hasn't seen very many horror movies.
"In supernatural horror films hero and heroine, as normal living people, can have sex, but not ghouls." Says who? He says that like he's stating a law of nature rather than his own personal preference. Movies are obviously very subjective and maybe horror fans who by thier nature like weird stuff, might like a scene like that. Tastes vary.
"Despite the policeman's over the top and presumptuous accusation, the openings is a good point of departure, but more for a film in which everyone at the restaurant turn into ghouls and ravage the city a la "28 Days Later" (2002). It's a good opening for an apocalyptic zombie/ghoul horror film." It would be if I wanted to follow that formula, but I didn't. I wanted to do something original.
"They just happen to enter a mortuary looking for food." Because they're ghouls which means they eat dead people. Isn't a mortuary a good place for them to look?
"The ending doesn't work. According to the logline Jack is supposed to be conflicted about becoming a ghoul. He certainly doesn't sound conflicted at the end, nor does Barbara." Right, because they've made their peace with it. They *changed* when they acheived their goal, like all good dramatic characters should.
"Supernatural characters aren't compatible with dramatic type characterizations and character relationships. Such characters must either be friends, or foes of the rest of society." Again, says who? He keeps trying to say that horror movies must be simple minded because he thinks the genre is simple minded. I feel that way about romantic comedies which is why I'd be a poor judge in a romantic comedy screenplay contest.
"It would make a better story if one of the two lovers—Barbara perhaps—perishes in the ghoul plague, which should have a realistically devastating effect on Jack who ultimately has somehow to survive. The irony becomes that as the ghoul epidemic quickly spreads the public are given ample justification for fear and terror though not from the person persecuted in the media." It might if this was a zombie movie, but it's not. A horror fan would recognize the distinction. This reader is clearly, again and again, not in my target demographic and definitely not qualified to judge a horror contest.
"The important thing is to concentrate on creepiness at the expense of too much blood, gore and mayhem." That would be exactly the wrong thing to do! It's a horror movie, not a suspense-thriller! But I think the point is made.
John, I want to make it clear that this isn't sour grapes. I'm not upset -- I'm trying to help. The idea of a horror script contest with decent prize money is very cool. But just like any romantic comedy made from a script I chose as judge of a romantic comedy script writing contest would be doomed to failure since I'm completely out of touch with the target audience, so a horror script chosen by judges who don't like horror movies will have pretty long odds against satisfying horror fans.
I think this may explain why (judging from what you told me and from the titles) you ended up with so many comedies in your semi-finalists. People who don't like horror do like horror parodies. Is that really what the contest set out to find?
If, and only if, you have any readers who are fans of the genre, I'd be very interested in having one of them provide coverage of Ghoul. I'm not saying they'd love it -- they might hate it -- but their objections would be very different ("not bloody enough!") from this reader's.
Sincerely,
Kelly Parks
3:29 AM
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|