There is a good idea in here, I think, where money can drive you to act in ways that's not you, where it can take your humanity even when you're trying to just get what's yours and do what you thought was right. The problem is, the structure to this story is messy, the characters are inconsistent, some of them. The setup is bland and doesn't make me really care because a lot of the important context to try and make me care, isn't compelling.
Opening scene for owner, the dialogue is so expository, and doesn't feel natural, i felt like they were speaking in a way to tell me, the viewer context i needed to know, felt unmotivated. His financial assistant has presumably arrived way earlier to his house, and you're telling me they wait till they're sparring to talk business? No.
I don't really care about any of the characters. The Ukrainian guy, yeah, he is sending money back to his daughter, very kind and all that. We don't see his daughter, their relationship, what happens if she doesn't get the money? Is she living a poor life back home, how is life for her, what does the father - daughter relationship feel like, show me so I can care. Too much time is needlessly spent setting up characters with all this context about inheritance, warehouse robberies(no payoff there btw), a renovation to a barn...a renovation to a barn...who cares? I don't. Why would I care about the owner and his inheritance? The film is filled with too much needless backstory and not enough essential context. Who is the main character? What's their goal? What's at stake if they don't achiever their goal, and why, why do those stakes matter? Why, to this character, are those stakes so bad on an emotional level? Without that, I just don't care, because I'm not being shown why I should care. All these characters aren't going to get paid (side note,
Will, I don't know if you're reading this, but if you are, I watched a lecture you did in Ravensbourne Uni back in 2015 and you mentioned that you had difficulty with different types of feedback from the BBC on your scripts, from producers, directors, script editors. They were all experiencing a different script than you intended it to be, that's what it sounds like. I've heard about this so often, and I really don't know what this film is about nor who it's about, and that is mainly because you're not writing in compelling conflict, and it goes back to what I mentioned above, lack of essential context.
The great thing about compelling conflict is, it delivers essential context in an engaging, organic, and compelling way that can make me care, engage me and tell me who the main character is, what's at stake, what their goal is to overcome the stakes and why those stakes matter to the main character...and I just didn't care about anyone in this film.
Because this film lacks that, I never felt the film launched, who I was meant to care about, what's at stake, that is why it's confusing and different people may experience a different movie, just like you experienced from producers, directors etc. The home owner, the guy who is going to lose his inheritance, he has more compelling stakes than the builders, because he loses something, the builders' status quo really doesn't change, they got their money half way through.
That's why this film is so confusing, who is the main character? The one with the most essential context, and the home owner has more compelling stakes. This is why, Will, when people read your scripts, they all give you different notes, you essential context isn't specific to one character. I don't think you intended the home owner to be the main character and yet at points he feels like it. If the builders stop and do nothing, stop pursuing their goal, they don't get paid, and they don't get paid if they keep working, then there's a goal switch? To steal the money.
The other reason this film is very confusing is, at the 43min mark there is a goal change. The first goal launched early on, to renovate the barns, very un-compelling and if they don't come in on time they'll be fined, who cares? It's just not grabbing me on any level. It's also not a goal to overcome any steaks that are setup, it's implied that will not be payed, but again, who cares, and it does feel like the film has sort of launched because the owner makes a big deal about it being done and being done on time, he's very passionate about finishing it on time, understandably, so he seems more driven than anyone else, so he seems like the main character. Then, when the money isn't coming to them, they switch goals, to get the money, this isn't an escalation because when the builders escalate back by beating up the owner, the goal does not continue (to renovate the barns) and during the beating they steal his money, because they already got the money in the bag outside the owner's room, goal achieved, pretty much, for most of the characters (not Bob, so is he the main character? But then the Ukrainian need to help his daughter, maybe he's supposed to be? So confusing), they achieved their goal, story over...but the film continues, so now we're in a new story. It's now about covering up a death, then it's about killing each other, nothing to do with the money, but because the nephew tried to have his way with the woman, then it's a cat and mouse game with Jim and the Ukrainian and the woman, it's so meandering. What is this film about, there is no consistency in relation to the plot.
This is bad structure. Again, Will, this is why, by my understanding, other people, when they read your scripts, they all gave you different notes, your structure is confusing (multiple goals, some to prevent stakes and some not), confused at times as to who the main character is, and your characters don't feel real but are there to serve your plot, forced exposition etc.
The card thing, where the person with the worst cards takes the rap for the owner's death feels so forced that everyone will play along. This is where you're forcing your characters for the sake of the plot. I don't believe for a second they'd all do this, after watching Jim beat the man to death, or so they think at the time, that he's dead. These characters have become puppets to serve the plot and have stopped being real people, in my opinion.
They all help bury the owner alive.
2 scenes earlier, some were arguing that they should take him to A&E and now they're all helping to bury him? Nothing has changed to change their actions, choices like that. Again, plot forcing characters to do things they wouldn't do, they feel like puppets. Now we're back to the goal of covering up the murder, all these goal switches are what is confusing the viewer. This is multi story film, with different goals, reasons, stakes...and, as Ridley Scott once said, "if your film is about more than one thing, it's about nothing at all."
I really am not trying to sound mean or be mean at all. I just think that constructive, to the point feedback is needed in this case. I was in a writers group with professionals for over 3 years (I'm still an amateur) and I got this sort of feedback week in and week out on my short scripts. I know what it's like and i know how valuable it is.
Opening scene for owner, the dialogue is so expository, and doesn't feel natural, i felt like they were speaking in a way to tell me, the viewer context i needed to know, felt unmotivated. His financial assistant has presumably arrived way earlier to his house, and you're telling me they wait till they're sparring to talk business? No.
I don't really care about any of the characters. The Ukrainian guy, yeah, he is sending money back to his daughter, very kind and all that. We don't see his daughter, their relationship, what happens if she doesn't get the money? Is she living a poor life back home, how is life for her, what does the father - daughter relationship feel like, show me so I can care. Too much time is needlessly spent setting up characters with all this context about inheritance, warehouse robberies(no payoff there btw), a renovation to a barn...a renovation to a barn...who cares? I don't. Why would I care about the owner and his inheritance? The film is filled with too much needless backstory and not enough essential context. Who is the main character? What's their goal? What's at stake if they don't achiever their goal, and why, why do those stakes matter? Why, to this character, are those stakes so bad on an emotional level? Without that, I just don't care, because I'm not being shown why I should care. All these characters aren't going to get paid (side note,
Will, I don't know if you're reading this, but if you are, I watched a lecture you did in Ravensbourne Uni back in 2015 and you mentioned that you had difficulty with different types of feedback from the BBC on your scripts, from producers, directors, script editors. They were all experiencing a different script than you intended it to be, that's what it sounds like. I've heard about this so often, and I really don't know what this film is about nor who it's about, and that is mainly because you're not writing in compelling conflict, and it goes back to what I mentioned above, lack of essential context.
The great thing about compelling conflict is, it delivers essential context in an engaging, organic, and compelling way that can make me care, engage me and tell me who the main character is, what's at stake, what their goal is to overcome the stakes and why those stakes matter to the main character...and I just didn't care about anyone in this film.
Because this film lacks that, I never felt the film launched, who I was meant to care about, what's at stake, that is why it's confusing and different people may experience a different movie, just like you experienced from producers, directors etc. The home owner, the guy who is going to lose his inheritance, he has more compelling stakes than the builders, because he loses something, the builders' status quo really doesn't change, they got their money half way through.
That's why this film is so confusing, who is the main character? The one with the most essential context, and the home owner has more compelling stakes. This is why, Will, when people read your scripts, they all give you different notes, you essential context isn't specific to one character. I don't think you intended the home owner to be the main character and yet at points he feels like it. If the builders stop and do nothing, stop pursuing their goal, they don't get paid, and they don't get paid if they keep working, then there's a goal switch? To steal the money.
The other reason this film is very confusing is, at the 43min mark there is a goal change. The first goal launched early on, to renovate the barns, very un-compelling and if they don't come in on time they'll be fined, who cares? It's just not grabbing me on any level. It's also not a goal to overcome any steaks that are setup, it's implied that will not be payed, but again, who cares, and it does feel like the film has sort of launched because the owner makes a big deal about it being done and being done on time, he's very passionate about finishing it on time, understandably, so he seems more driven than anyone else, so he seems like the main character. Then, when the money isn't coming to them, they switch goals, to get the money, this isn't an escalation because when the builders escalate back by beating up the owner, the goal does not continue (to renovate the barns) and during the beating they steal his money, because they already got the money in the bag outside the owner's room, goal achieved, pretty much, for most of the characters (not Bob, so is he the main character? But then the Ukrainian need to help his daughter, maybe he's supposed to be? So confusing), they achieved their goal, story over...but the film continues, so now we're in a new story. It's now about covering up a death, then it's about killing each other, nothing to do with the money, but because the nephew tried to have his way with the woman, then it's a cat and mouse game with Jim and the Ukrainian and the woman, it's so meandering. What is this film about, there is no consistency in relation to the plot.
This is bad structure. Again, Will, this is why, by my understanding, other people, when they read your scripts, they all gave you different notes, your structure is confusing (multiple goals, some to prevent stakes and some not), confused at times as to who the main character is, and your characters don't feel real but are there to serve your plot, forced exposition etc.
The card thing, where the person with the worst cards takes the rap for the owner's death feels so forced that everyone will play along. This is where you're forcing your characters for the sake of the plot. I don't believe for a second they'd all do this, after watching Jim beat the man to death, or so they think at the time, that he's dead. These characters have become puppets to serve the plot and have stopped being real people, in my opinion.
They all help bury the owner alive.
2 scenes earlier, some were arguing that they should take him to A&E and now they're all helping to bury him? Nothing has changed to change their actions, choices like that. Again, plot forcing characters to do things they wouldn't do, they feel like puppets. Now we're back to the goal of covering up the murder, all these goal switches are what is confusing the viewer. This is multi story film, with different goals, reasons, stakes...and, as Ridley Scott once said, "if your film is about more than one thing, it's about nothing at all."
I really am not trying to sound mean or be mean at all. I just think that constructive, to the point feedback is needed in this case. I was in a writers group with professionals for over 3 years (I'm still an amateur) and I got this sort of feedback week in and week out on my short scripts. I know what it's like and i know how valuable it is.