So far, this
blog has analysed a number of movies. All of them started life as a script, and
over many months, they were slowly developed into films with the help of casts
and crews of varying sizes, who refined the writer’s vision and transformed it
into something which could be shown on a screen.
However, for
every script that gets made into a movie, dozens remain unproduced. A large
number of unproduced scripts can be found on sites such as http://www.simplyscripts.com/ and they
can be just as valuable to trainee screenwriters as anything that has made it
to the cinema. Today, we will be looking at The Microwaved Cat, a script which
can either by accessed via SimplyScripts, or through following the link below.
Who Wrote It?
Vincent Cailly
How Long is it?
The script
is 82 pages long.
What’s it About?
Patrick
Gambetta is a man who specialises in filing frivolous lawsuits against any
business that can generate injury. His Litigious ways have become a focal point
of New Jersey’s local elections. One of the candidates comes up with a novel
plan to discredit him. He books Gambetta into a family hotel ran by Dave
Grinder. Grinder wants to replace his hotel with a larger one, so he has to do
everything he can to prevent himself from getting sued. Therefore, he hires an
actress, Lawrence Dansley, to be part of a scheme to keep Gambetta under
control. However, as Gambetta spends time in the hotel, he and Dansley begin to
fall in love.
5 Screenwriting Lessons from the
Microwaved Cat(The Following May Contain Spoiler)
Don’t Spend Too Much Time “Laying Pipe” – In his book “Save The Cat”, the screenwriter Blake Snyder
coined the term “Laying Pipe” to describe the set-up that occurs during a
movie’s first act. If it manages to be simple and effective, then it will engage
the audience and encourage them to keep to keep reading the script. However, if
it is done badly, it can be confusing and boring. In the case of The Microwaved
Cat, the amount of time spent “Laying Pipe” is a serious problem. The scenes at
the beginning featuring the two candidates for governor are mostly unnecessary,
as the subplot vanishes when Gambetta books into Grinder’s hotel and sets off
the main story. The highlight of this opening sequence is a scene where a
political advisor explains to schoolchildren why frivolous lawsuits represent
such a problem and why they should be stopped (The script gets its provocative title
from the example of a frivolous lawsuit used in the explanation, which depicts
a woman cooking her cat in a microwave and blaming the people who manufactured
it). It is funny, unique, and sets up the story in a way that the rest of the
opening sequence doesn’t.
Another problem is the fact that we
see little of Gambetta during the first act. In fact, the focus is largely on
Grinder as he tries to prepare for Gambetta’s arrival. However, Grinder is the
script’s antagonist, and, by focusing on him at Gambetta’s expense, it makes Gambetta
seem less developed and less sympathetic. When you have a protagonist engaged
in morally questionable activities in a generally upbeat romantic comedy, you
have to try and get the audience on their side as quickly as possible.
Therefore, an antihero like Gambetta should be front and centre at the
beginning, so that the audience may begin to develop an interest in him.
Scripts Depend on Vivid Descriptions – One of the strongest points of this script is the
vivid description. This is particularly apparent at the midpoint of the script,
when Gambetta and Lawrence go to a fundraiser held by Grinder and his employees.
At one point, Gambetta enrols himself as a volunteer in a high-risk magic act.
The sequence is written in short, simple sentences full of ellipsis. This ensures
that it is tense and engaging, and the relief when Gambetta avoids injury can
easily be felt by the reader.
The descriptions of the characters are
pretty vague. When Gambetta is introduced, only his age is given. We know
nothing about his physical appearance, and this makes it harder to envisage him
as a character. However, on several occasions, minor characters such as the
Hotel Bartender have their clothing and hairstyle described in elaborate
detail. This ensures that they are more memorable than the protagonists, which
is always a serious problem. At the very least, the main characters should be
depicted just as vividly, if not more so, than the supporting cast.
Don’t Push Jokes Too Far – One of the major themes of the story is the fact that
danger is everywhere and the risks of accident are always high. This is
illustrated in a running gag that occurs during the second act, as Grinder
takes every possible step to prevent Gambetta suing him. One method he uses to
keep Gambetta happy is placing stickers over almost every item in Gambetta’s
room, warning against misuse and preventing people like Gambetta from looking for
ways to sue over any potential injury the product may cause. Some of these,
such as a sticker on a bible saying that “This is a work of fiction: Please do
not take it seriously” are clever and funny, but the joke stretches for too
long, As a result, it loses a lot of its impact as the script progresses.
Make Sure We Know Who to Root For – Gambetta is a very interesting idea for a protagonist in
what is essentially a lightweight romantic comedy. However, at the start of the
story, he is far too unpleasant to be appealing. He lives off the proceeds of
unnecessary lawsuits have destroyed hundreds of lives, and appears to feel no
remorse for his actions. Eventually, when he is dining with Lawrence, Gambetta
reveals a sympathetic back story – His sister was severely injured as a result
of a freak accident in a shopping mall. This gives us insight into why Gambetta
is so keen to expose unsafe practises, but up to this point, he hasn’t seemed
like a very altruistic character, so that revelation is hard to buy. If Gambetta
had shown moments of compassion earlier in the script, for example donating
money to his poorer victims, then he would have been a more appealing
protagonist, and the revelations about him would have not felt like a
transparent attempt to make us realise that Gambetta is supposed to be the
protagonist and not the antagonist.
Conversely, the antagonist, Grinder,
is a bit too developed. He has a very strong motive which is developed from the
outset (He wants to break away from his father’s business and develop his own
vision) and a lot of focus is placed on his attempts to stop Gambetta from
getting himself injured. However, he is designed to be an unsympathetic
character, trying to stop Gambetta’s behaviour for entirely selfish reasons,
and often behaving in highly unethical ways. In one scene, he essentially tortures
Lawrence by sticking wax strips to her eyebrows and ripping them off. In spite
of this, Grinder is the most prominent character in the first act, and this
means that readers are likely to regard him as the protagonist instead of
Gambetta. Given that the audience are supposed to sympathise with Gambetta and
not Grinder, this is a big problem.
Don't Rush the Climax – The first act finishes with Gambetta’s arrival on Page 32, whilst
the second act ends with Lawrence and Gambetta realising each other’s secrets
on page 65. It takes another four pages of set-up to reach the courtroom climax
between Gambetta and Grinder. Conventional wisdom states that the first and
third acts should each last about a quarter of the script’s length, and the
second act should last half. The fact that the second and third acts are shorter
than they should be damages the story significantly, as it ensures that
Gambetta and Lawrence’s character development is rushed.
Furthermore, Gambetta is a very
passive character in the climax, with his lawyer doing the talking for him. Whilst
Lawrence demonstrates that she has as she admits her love for Gambetta,
Gambetta remains a static character. His decision to drop his lawsuit is presented
as a major change, but he still gets what he wants (Lawrence’s hand in
marriage) without having to assess his beliefs or realise how wrong his actions
have been. As a result, the potential to give Gambetta a strong and interesting
character arc goes unfulfilled.
Verdict
This script has several positive
features. Some of the jokes are genuinely funny, and the story is unique and
interesting. However, it is very rushed, with too much focus on the set-up at
the expense of the other two acts. The characters, Gambetta in particular, are
underdeveloped and not likeable enough to be engaging. This feels a bit like a
first draft that, with a few big changes, could easily be turned into an enjoyable
Hollywood comedy.
No comments:
Post a Comment