[…] We did 30 Days of Screenplays in 2013 and you can access each of those posts and discussions …read more […]

So, yeah, PROPS to Dakota for the skinny on this. For me, personally, of the first four days of scripts, this was the toughest for me. Odd, in that it's so slim a script and the way the "words on the page" were, it was an easy eye-flowing-downward read. But......... Honestly, a couple things became clear for me reading this, which I'm spinning into LESSONS for my writer-self --- first, I didn't care about ANY of these characters. Not a one. Kinda sorta wanted to, but it would've been forced. Like "just pick one already" forced. Can't explain exactly why.... Maybe I need more than the physical descriptions. (I don't really care about hair and eye color, unless it honestly matters or unless it's dyed and/or constantly changing, which then says something about that character.) Maybe it's I didn't see their goal as big enough. Maybe I didn't "buy in" to how they went about initially meeting their goal, so then I was reading with my arms crossed. I don't know... What I do know is I need to care. Or relate. Or sympathize with. Or cheer for. Or cheer against. Something. Anything. I just didn't get "there" with this script/story. Second, while the choice the writer made for how to physically place words on the page didn't bother me (too much) -- it certainly flowed and drew my eyes down each page -- I felt like I was stuck in some third grade, early reader novel book. Every sentence felt the same, with similar rhythms and pattern and subject-verb structure. Sorta, how shall I say, monotonous?? For me, that's alright for a while, but oh, my goodness, page upon page upon page and I was exhausted. And bored. Didn't matter even that the story could've been considered interesting and exciting and moving and packed with great visuals, which at times, this surely was --- which is the POSITIVE about this script/story. It was just a struggle for me to trudge through these pages. Sorry!!!! I realize it was clearly a gutsy creative choice on the screenwriter's part and that's COOL! Like I'm all for rules --- knowing, sure, but also bending and breaking them. I don't know where this fits exactly. I'd say perhaps I'm more of a traditionalist, but then again, there are other scripts, like ALIEN, or WALL-E, which have a similar on-the-page look/style, but which I had way more fun diving into and swimming around in. Again: sorry!!! Anyway --- still good takeaways and reminders when I approach my own pages. Sometimes a DON'T DO THAT is just as important as REMEMBER TO DO THIS.

Thanks, Joni, for your feedback and honest reaction to the script. A few things. First, this one of those movies that people either love or hate, which probably explains why it has a 5.3 rating on IMDB. Thus there is certainly no shame in not resonating with it. To that end, there is a huge lesson per your comments: A script needs to provide a point of emotional connection to at least some of the character in order for it to succeed with a reader. Fans of Spring Breakers may argue that kind of one of the points of this story: The four women and one male leads are not your typical sympathetic Protagonists, here cut in some sort of antihero mode. But there is a risk: If a reader doesn't connect with the persona or goal of the antihero, what is to get them motivated emotionally to enjoy the read? Perhaps the circumstances of the plot. But it is a harder road to travel, that is for sure. Re the writing style: Korine's habit of breaking up each line into its own paragraph is not all that unusual with contemporary scripts, particularly in the action genre where that approach is done in part to use each paragraph to indicate a specific camera shot, one way a writer can 'direct' the action without using directing lingo. Speaking to your point, Joni, what Korine does do that is somewhat different is really strip down the description in a simplistic fashion. Most screenwriters, even when using the 1-line per paragraph approach will abide by the maxim: active verbs, vivid descriptors, trying to create as visual an image as possible. Korine goes in something of a different direction, taking the minimalism of one line per paragraph approach to the next step: the scene description ITSELF also minimalist. This could be part of Korine's vision for the storytelling process. It could derive from him being a writer-director, and didn't feel the need to get all flowery with description because he knew what he was going to shoot for each shot. Whatever the rationale, again that is a harder path to take in terms of appealing to a script reader. You mention Wall-E and Alien (the Hill & Giler draft), scripts which have a 'haiku-style' approach, similar to Spring Breakers, but substantially different in that they DO use a more, for purposes of this discussion, MAXIMALIST approach to language. Bottom line, there are any number of ways to approach screenplay style. All the more reason to read as many scripts as we can, to expose us to a variety of styles, test out our own, and develop our own voice. Did I get that right, Joni: You have read all four scripts in the challenge so far? If so, a special gust of creative juju for you. WHOOSH! Trust me, after reading all or as many of these scripts in a compressed time frame, you will have a deeper sense of screenwriting that you will even know in any conscious way, as some of this 'stuff' will have settled into your subconscious self. Keep on reading!

Ah, Scott!! Man, you nailed it with the MINIMALIST, MAXIMALIST thing! I knew there was something more (er, less???) about this style that rather grated on me, but as soon as you wrote that, BAM! That's it. Minimalist scene description. Yes, yes. Or for my taste -- no, no. She succeeded with it, and it's fine it didn't work for me... Here's another way I can say what I fumbled around trying to say..... when I read something, especially a script, I WANT to read every word. Like .. for fear that if I don't, I'll miss something, or miss out on something. I don't mean flowery language, or purple prose --- yuck. I mean terse, impactful, every word so carefully chosen that if I skip something, I DO run the risk of sitting up at some point and saying WAIT! What'd I miss? Forcing me to retrace and not be lazy... Does that make sense?? So that's my goal as a reader, and I failed with SPRING BREAKERS ... like I know I skipped stuff because I wasn't learning anything new or I never really had that fear of missing anything. With only 70 pages, it bummed me out I felt that way, but alas... Anywho......... As to your question: yes and no. Yes, I've read all the scripts so far, but no, not just this week. The first three I'd read before this challenge. I LOVE this GITS site for a bevy of reasons, one of which is the fabulous script postings! I go bonkers, especially at Oscars time, reading one after another. To me, it's "school". This week, I re-read TWWB and watched it again --- love! Re-read about half of PRISONERS and just a bit of JANE EYRE. I've already read DALLAS BUYERS CLUB but will likely peruse again in case I feel compelled to chime in... and then days 6 and 7 will be new scripts to me. It's funny, but I've tried a BUNCH of different "30 days of _________" challenges, like planks challenge, no sugar, journaling, Daniel's Fast, etc. Some I just suck at. I guess I did complete a 21-day Daniel's Fast .. twice. Planks? Bombed out inside 5 days. Most recently, I lasted from last October until the start of April with "no beer" -- a toughie for me, I cannot lie. But this?? I love this!! Feels like one I can (and SHOULD) complete. Thanks for the nudge. And the juju.... Okay, back to my script.......

I have some questions. I cannot read the spring breakers of the 2014 series as I have a 3 year long journey to become an adult yet, so i read the dead poets society instead. I felt touched by it. It also made me cry but again, fascination! For the next couple of hours after reading I couldn’t get my thoughts out of it. I wanted to watch the mvi so badly but I dont yet have it in my hands (download takes so long!).Yes, I did love the movie, but the resolution seemed unfair to me (seems like I am the only one, looking at the user reviews in imdb) so a question strucks me,Why does sad endings impress the audience, no matter endings when some kind of unknown hope arises or is in a way incomplete feels perfect, but an ending like this- keating closing the door. Does a satisfactory end (not too happy perfect ending) loses over tragic ending? Could the ending of the dead poets society be different in a better way? I did like the end but these questions trouble me.

I personally found this movie extraordinarily offensive. The female characters were all reduced to body parts and 'cuteness'. The males were power-fantasies with guns and money and drugs and partying. The women were only briefly raised from object status when they picked up guns. I'm not surprised this movie did well. It preys on humanity's worst impulses. I haven't seen the movie though so I don't know if Korine intended something beyond what's on the page.

I'm behind on my reading. Just got done with Spring Breakers. I was excited to read the script because I thought the trailers looked like a complete joke -- especially James Franco looking like a clown. With that said, I think the screenplay is utter crap; it seems to be a second thought or a simple formality for the purpose of filming. I agree with Joni. The characters have no depth. I found myself losing track of who was who except for Faith with the dreadfully obvious name. Even with her religious involvement, she didn't stand out much from the others. There seem to be missing a strong dramatic need. So they want to go to "Spring Break." Fine. Whatever. But the script seems devoid of reason for the reader to care at all what anyone wants. They're all pretty flat. The changes they endure are so superficial. Faith wants to go home after they get arrested. Wimp. There could have been some dramatic attention drummed up from her religious perspective. That's even hinted when her fellow Bible studiers hope she prays at Spring Break. Waste. Cotty was almost indistinguishable from Candy and The Other One. See what I mean? They are so void of personality, their names are inconsequential. Maybe the screenplay was just a second thought for the director who knew what he wanted to film. I guess I'll have to see if there are some deeper meanings. I doubt this is going to be the feminist film some people think it is just because it passes the Bechdel test.

@Sabina and heathen_god: As noted earlier, this is one of those movies people either really loved or really hated. Not surprised when anyone falls into the latter category. To give you a bit of a smile, go here to see a Funny Or Die send-up of the movie. Hopefully that will cleanse your mental palette as you move onto other scripts!

Alice, a smart decision opting for Dead Poets Society over Spring Breakers. Re "sad endings": DPS has three parts to its "sad" resolution. (1) The suicide of Neil. (2) The break-up of the current group of DPS members. (3) The firing of John Keating. Neil's death is truly tragic and the key part of the story's 'morality tale,' how stifling one's own individual's personal and creative aspirations is not a fruitful choice. Here that decision is made by the father who realizes too later, after his son's death, how wrong he was. But as a viewer of the movie, we may extrapolate the message for ourselves individually. Have we identified our unique aspiration, vision, talent, and pursued it? We owe it to ourselves to at least TRY to go that route or else we will be committing a symbolic form of 'suicide' over the course of a life spent ignoring that which we are, in some sense, called to do. Obviously that doesn't mean we necessarily need to throw away everything in order to pursue the creative arts which are competitive, difficult to make money in, etc. But we can find some balance between a job that pays the bills and an avocation that allows us room to explore what truly excites us aesthetically. And who knows? Perhaps that passion, combined with years of practice and study, along with our talent, can lead to something financially rewarding. Re the break-up of the DPS group: In an authoritarian environment like that prep school, especially within an era (the 50s and early 60s) in which uniformity was perceived to be something of a 'good' societal value, this result was almost inevitable. However, this again dovetails into the 'morality tale' aspect of the story. For that final scene wherein SOME of the students (not all) stand atop their desks and salute Keating suggests those individuals will move on into their adult lives with a more enlightened and empowered sense of Self. Re Keating's firing: Again - 'morality tale'. It's sad, yes. In fact, the whole ending is sad. But also on a deeper level, there is a TRUTH that (hopefully) transcends the tragic nature of immediate circumstances, something about the INDIVIDUAL over AUTHORITY, that viewers will take away more of a determination to 'Follow their bliss' as Joseph Campbell would say. You might check out my interview with Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber who adapted John Green's book "The Fault in Our Stars". Talk about sad! I specifically asked them why people are compelled to see sad movies. The entire interview will go live today at 4PM EDT. You can see their answer then. I would just say this: Sometimes in life, sad and tragic things happen. How do we get through them? Well, stories can help. If we experience a fictional or even real life story which is sad, our vicarious experience of it enables us to feel sad, then absorb those feelings, and somehow live with them. So on a fundamental level, sad stories help to PREPARE us for and INTERPRET the sad events in our own lives. The same goes with scary stories, horror stories, violent stories, farcical stories. They can not only entertain, but inform us about life in general. I hope some of that makes sense, Alice. If you'd like to discuss further, feel free to email me.

Saw it. I'm ready to move on. Thanks, Scott.