Henry's Review

Hey Henry, thank you so much for reviewing my script. My goal with reviews is to open them up as discussions. Not that the project is a hot spot so much, however if it ever picks up momentum its nice to know that there is a log of discussion about the project.

I also appreciate your interest in Caliban because I've kinda put it behind me recently with working so heavily on The Tales of Carnigan and Yul series. Its nice to get a new pair of eyes on it, especially from someone who hand picked it to look at.

Now to my retort/explanation to some of your comments in your review.

I'm glad the flashbacks/forwards translated in the script. I think visually in the film they'll only work stronger. My biggest concern has always been trying to translate a visual I know would work from my head to the page. Especially in something as stylized as Caliban. The more I think about it the more I believe putting Caliban on the site was a mistake. That's partly why I have moved on to other projects. So much I want out of Caliban relies on unconventional story telling techniques that don't really work well for pitching a first time script. Haha...

You noted that the script was "clearly meant to be a fast paced suspenseful film" - I think this would be our strongest area of misunderstanding which leads to much of the contention between what Caliban is and what you'd like it to be. It's partly my fault in that I do have it under the Thriller category on the site. However in the creative notes I posted the following:

"This sometimes surreal dark comedy analyzes the morbid curiosity for human misery. Employing elements of thrillers, action movies and horror to advance this character drama best compared to Natural Born Killers. Contains homage to Oldboy, 21 Grams and Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. A killer soundtrack recommendation and sparing direction help to further illustrate Caliban's stylized tone."

Its really a social commentary piece likened best to NBK as I say above (oddly enough a movie I don't like... perhaps because I'm arrogant enough to think I can do it better). Its a character drama with thriller aspects. Seven or Silence of the Lambs mixed with 21 Grams and Oldboy. Seven and Silence of the Lambs are considered thrillers and have fast paced moments but aren't fast paced. I hate "fast paced" films... the pace is determined scene by scene based on the givens... some scenes have a stronger sense of urgency and thus are more high adrenaline scenes.

And your review in many respects points Caliban in the direction you want to see it. And as two writers reviewing each other's work, especially if inspired by the work, that can often happen. "Overall, though, you did a good job of connecting all the loose ends, and in retrospect, most of what's in there works." With much of your review that goes in the direction of changes as you see it, I'll not comment too much and say creative differences merely separate us.

However I will address my reasoning for the character qualities you brought up.

Bearing - You took issue with his narrative arch stating that "By introducing him by way of his violence, it's going to be a natural response to pigeonhole him as the "violent bad guy" from jump." I'm okay with him being labeled that because I don't see his arch being about him going from being a killer to... a killer. I see it as a quest to find himself and more importantly a quest to find passion in his life. Being a cold blooded killer is his given, not his journey. He attempted to kill his own father at the age of five. The arch you'd impose on him does not suit his purpose in the story, it also changes all the givens in his character. It would be a larger, longer arch for sure but not a greater one.
The arch of MacBeth for example... he begins the play a violent man and ends the play a violent man... its his given, he's a warrior who cuts a man "from the nave to the chops." But his journey isn't one of becoming a violent killer but a descent into madness to the point of being numb. Take it in reverse order for Bearing... from numb nothingness to artistic expression (albeit disturbing expression). That's a glorious and rich subtle arch, that I believe to be one of the most interesting in the script. Which brings us to Candice...

The second character you have taken issue with. This part is fun because some people hate her character and others LOVE her. I myself obviously love her... I love all my characters... as a writer we have to. Candice is a character that I'd love people to debate over. And first and foremost I cut out the most boring cliched topic that's usually dealt with: "Is she going to leave him?" Hopefully there is no question to her devotion to Lewis. The duality of her being all loving and viscous as hell gives many people pause. They are character traits not often accepted in female characters... but in the case of male ones they aren't ever called into question. Look at Drive, any role Mel Gibson has ever played... The loving Barbarian.

Its funny because I use a similar duality in a character in CandY named Janus, who is a loving father and bloodthirsty warlord all in the same man. Everyone who's read the script even if they didn't like it, LOVE Janus and all point out the fascinating quality of these oxymoron qualities. Put very similar qualities in a woman and:

"She comes off the page as being this foil that is used one way in once scene, and another way in another, based on what the story needs. Of course, every character is always (hopefully) what the scene needs. It just shouldn't be so obvious. She's 100% accepting of Lewis' disfigurement, so she's got "hottie with a heart of gold" locked down. She was the initial agressor, so she's got "confident modern gal" in the bag. She's a tough-as-nails asskicker. Etc. Etc."

When you say Candice is used one way in one scene and another in the next scene, I call creating a three dimensional character. She doesn't react to all the situations the same. She's a damaged person seeking love, just like all the characters (really just like almost everyone).

Mostly I take opposition to you saying: "I think too many of the characters lack individuality." You mention Bearing, Candice and Lewis - The three main characters. All of which you describe very differently and have different gripes about. You also say you'd like to see more of Turnin and Luther... meaning they were individuals enough to make mention. That's five characters... and you say the others are like caricatures and go on to describe them. It seems to me they all have their own identity and individuality, so you'll have to give me a little more explanation in what you mean by "lack individuality." That was the only comment in the review that even as an opinion seemed without grounds.

What are side characters in great movies? They have a little bit of humanity in them that an actor and director flesh out. They are often caricatures even (Think any Coen Bros, Tarentino or Scorsese film). The fact that you want to see more of Turnin just means he's a very successful supporting character. The fact that they are "almost real" means its a complete success. A screenplay is an unfinished art-form. An actor (even a single scene character) who seems "almost real" is ten times more inspired to flesh it out then being told everything up front.

Often times you read a scene and assume a mistake because it isn't how you'd envision it. "Lewis' appearance on the show, for instance, screams phoniness." The phoniness is intentional... everything involving the Lynn's show is phony and Lewis attempts to say profound things and keeps getting roped in by her. Its a scene of cat and mouse with the backdrop of phoniness.

"A lot of this will come out as people read it." I'm not sure what you mean by this either...

Anyhow, long reply... perhaps we can talk more about it. I really appreciate you taking a look at Caliban and look forward to continuing the discourse.