SCRIPTSHARK

Type of Material: Screenplay Title: WOODPECKER HILL

Number of Pages: 117 Author: dleonetti

Submitted By: TriggerStreet Circa: 1930s

Submitted To: ScriptShark Location: Colorado

Analyst: Genre: Drama/True Story

LOG LINE: A 21-year old man with the mind of a child faces execution for two murders he didn’t commit.

	Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor	Budget
Idea		X
Story Line			X		High
Characterization		X			Medium
Dialogue			X		Low	X
Production Value		X

THE SHARK GRID:

MECHANICS	Excellent	Solid	Needs Work	Re-Think	N/A
Action lines clearly and concisely manifest visual action and literal context.		X
Scenes avoid the problem of continuing beyond optimal length.			X
Spelling, grammar, and proofreading.		X
Page count.		X
The script’s physical presentation.		X
Dialogue.			X
The script effectively manifests a compelling theme and adheres to it throughout the story.		X

CHARACTER	Excellent	Solid	Needs Work	Re-Think	N/A
The protagonist clearly manifests both internal and external goals.			X
The protagonist has consistent opposition to his/her goals.			X
The protagonist is sympathetic and/or engages our emotional investment.		X
The protagonist clearly changes / has an arc.			X
The supporting characters are unique and add value to the story.			X
All of the characters are authentic to their backgrounds.			X
The script has an effective antagonistic force, direct or indirect.			X

STRUCTURE:	Excellent	Solid	Needs Work	Re-Think	N/A
The script has a strong structural foundation that serves the story, classic three-act structure or otherwise.			X
Plots and subplots work together.			X
The set-up is concise, and effective.			X
The story has well-designed reversals.			X
Transitions are effective and appropriate to the story.			X
Every scene has relevance.			X
The story includes an effective dramatic climax / payoff.		X
The setup is resolved effectively.		X
A catalytic situation drives the plot.			X
Dramatic conflict and tension build across scenes, throughout the plot.			X

MARKET VALUE	Excellent	Solid	Needs Work	Re-Think	N/A
Originality / freshness.		X
The story has a clearly defined target audience.		X
The story clearly has mass audience (universal) appeal.			X
The story includes a conceptual “hook” that could potentially be used to effectively market the film.		X

PRODUCTION VALUE	Excellent	Solid	Needs Work	Re-Think	N/A
The lead character is castable / has star appeal.			X
The visual arena of the script is stimulating.		X
The project has International appeal.			X

COMMENTS:

WOODPECKER HILL is a script with a promising premise, but several scattered rough patches. Though this reader had never heard of the case before, a quick Google search confirmed that this sad tale is indeed based on real life. Joe Arriday was a 21 year-old man with the mind of a child who was convicted of murdering two teenage girls with an axe in 1936. The sentence was death and despite having an IQ of 46, Joe was executed in 1939. Even if he had been the true perpetrator, the execution would have been barbaric. As it turns out, there is compelling reason to believe that Joe was wrongly-convicted. Not only should he have been found not guilty on the basis of mental defect, he should have been found not guilty altogether. The case has become a rallying cry for anti-death penalty advocates and it’s easy to see why. As miscarriages of justice often make for compelling drama, it’s easy to see what attracted the writer to this premise.

The premise is solid. If the writer had an opportunity to pitch someone in the business the logline for this script, odds are they’d at least be interested enough to say, “Send me the script.” In the Triggerstreet reviews, this reader often cautions that period pieces are a hard sell, but it’s a different story with a premise like this. This is a relatively low budget film, with most of the costs going to create period sets and costumes. It might even be possible for this film to be done as an indie, rather than relying on a studio. If that’s the case, then the most important thing the writer can do is target producers, actors and directors who are likely to passionately believe in the message behind the material. This is a movie about larger issues than just a particular character’s dilemma – and despite the setting – those issues are still relevant today.

Having said all that, the script needs work in several areas. Though there is structural, character and pacing weaknesses, they can all be distilled into essentially the same note: this script needs a stronger central focus. There are simply too many characters stuffed into this script and it’s a little overwhelming. There’s no singular point of view. At times, it feels like Ireland is being set up as the central character – and if so, the writer’s instincts are probably correct. The problem is that he disappears for some decent stretches in the story, and it feels like a lot more could be done with his dynamic with Joe. Ireland feels like the most natural way into this story, considering the script seems dead-set on confronting the legal issues head on. Put him at the center and filter nearly everything through his eyes. Treat him like Matthew McConaughey in A Time To Kill, or Gregory Peck in To Kill a Mockingbird. (The Green Mile might also be a fair comparison, as it deals with a death row inmate with a low IQ. There, Michael Clarke Duncan’s character fills much the same role as Joe does here, but the film revolves mostly around the prison guard played by Tom Hanks.)

The first thing this reader would throw out is the framing sequence. While it sets up the exposition before the flashback, this reader doubts if the script gains much by introducing old Roy Montgomery. The story needs to get off to a faster start. Case in point – it takes until p. 42 to get to Joe’s confession. That’s the first major miscarriage of justice, so it should happen sooner in the script, probably by the end of the first act. This means it should end up in the range of p. 25-30. This reader’s suggestion: start the story with Ireland arriving at the school for defectives. That sets up Joe’s history, and then possibly go from there to one of the earlier scenes with Joe. After that, go straight to the murder. Considering where the story goes, it’s probably not necessary to set up Riley, his daughters or even Aguilar before the killings. Think of them as the side dishes. Joe, Ireland and the legal drama is the main dish. Focus there. The two girls should be dead before p. 10.

With that pacing in mind, it’s not unreasonable to expect the script to spend the rest of Act One building up to Joe’s clearly inaccurate confession. With only so much space for these reviews, this reader will leave the particulars up to the writer, but make sure each scene is critical to advancing either the investigation or the eventual trial, even if Ireland or Joe isn’t directly in the scene. (For instance, the short scene with Horne and Taylor on p. 27-28 should most definitely survive the editor’s knife, as should most of Frank’s interrogation.) After Joe’s confession, it makes sense to swiftly move on to two critical scenes – the diagnosis of his IQ at 46, and Frank’s confession where he implicates Joe. Joe’s arraignment should happen very early in Act Two.

This next segment of the script probably was the one that held this reader’s interest the most. This is where the utter insanity of putting Joe on trial really comes to light. Joe is so mentally unfit to stand trial that even if the audience believed he was the killer, they’d like consider this trial a travesty. As insane as it seems, scene after scene keeps sending the script to its inevitable unsettling ending. Ireland vows to get Joe a fair trial, but the court proceedings seem anything but “fair.” Best of all, the script doesn’t draw out the trial. It’s perhaps the one segment of the film that makes its point efficiently and then moves on. The prison segments were often heart-breaking to read, in part because of how innocent and helpless Joe seems. However, the fact that Best and Montgomery don’t appear in their youthful forms until p. 64-65 is another good argument against using old Montgomery in the wrap-arounds. It’s not his story. If the story began with Joe arriving in prison, then this reader might have bought Montgomery as the defacto narrator.

This reader feels like the latter half of the film would have worked better for him if the first half had been more focused. The second half of the script certainly seems to flow better than the first. However, it’s important to get the story off on the wrong foot. Particularly on the first read, this reader was so overwhelmed by all the characters and the choppy flow that it took a while to figure out who to pay attention to. The second half works because there are two main threads: Ireland’s ultimately futile efforts to stop Joe’s execution, and Joe’s time in prison. It feels like there could have been more depth to Best deciding to take Joe home with him for Christmas. Even if that happened in real life, it doesn’t feel like Best is developed enough that this reader believes a warden would break such a major rule.

This reader is loathe to suggest too much tinkering to the second half. It feels like the story just needs to get off on the right foot. Make it easy for the audience to get into the story, and they’ll probably be willing to follow you all the way to the end.