Vegetable Soup - Rewrite

[btstacks]

Hey everyone,

I have a rewrite of my short film that I'd love to get some feedback on. I'm deciding on taking a chance and entering it in a contest, so your opinions would mean a lot.

I put it in the feature script folder because I'm not sure many people check the short film folder since I only got one reply on my first draft. Or, maybe it's just not interesting enough for replies, I don't know. But if you could take a few minutes I would appreciate it.

Thanks,

BT

Attachments:

[joea]

I'll try to read this today, Brett!

[joea]

I haven't forgotten about this Brett. I'm on page 11 and have written a bunch of notes. But I'm so close to finishing a draft of my own I can taste it and am powering through to try and finish it, hopefully tonight.

If all goes well, I'll have a thoughtful, in-depth post up sometime tomorrow. I'm thinking more along some broad issues thematic issues this time as opposed to last time, when I started out trying to write a short post and ended up just giving you my off the cuff thoughts.

[joea]

Ok, then. I've finally got around to finishing this and doing a bit of reading on some of the science you're dealing with here.

First of all, I'm not going to get too much into the technical and formatting stuff but one thing you're definitely doing here is overusing parentheticals or "wrylies." Especially egregious are examples when characters are said to be whispering and then, sure enough, there's a "whispering" parenthetical wrylie under their name. Those notations are simply not necessary. I didn't take specific notes but I didn't see a single one that couldn't have either been communicated some other way or wasn't otherwise implied by the situation and the dialogue. Cut them.

I only mention it because everything I've read indicates that parentheticals are a big turnoff to readers and something of an indicator that you're dealing with a novice. For myself, I only use them when it's otherwise unclear who the character is addressing. For instance, a commander giving orders to several different men simultaneously.

The second thing I'll address is something I touched on in the last draft: the overall tone, which is basically pitched at the level of a funeral dirge. For lack of a better word, it's oppressing. I applaud your decision to take on a tough subject but even a movie like Schindler's List is replete with small and welcome moments of humor. I get that you've tried to add a few bits (the "Lukester") but most of them don't really work. There's an overtly staged, almost soap opera intensity about this that only very rarely works (see: the end sequence of Big Fish).

Which gets me to this: Luke just isn't all that interesting. From a "story" perspective, I think this is the biggest issue here. Luke exists almost entirely in voiceover, and the fact of the matter is that when you get right down to it, almost nothing he says is interesting. He's a "normal" guy, I get that. He doesn't have to be an albino concert violinist from Bulgaria who immigrated to the United States on a boat he made out human bones to be your main character, but if we're going to sit there with his voiceover as our main companion he has to be, well, interesting. Other than being irresponsible, what are his views about things? What does he care and think about, other than feeling bad for his kids and his wife? He never even gives a perspective on his own condition. What was his profession? His life goals? There is no sense of his previous life, which I have to think would be an obsession for anyone trapped like he's trapped. Which dickhole co-worker was he planning to get revenge on but now can't? Did this person come visit him and whisper something infuriating in his ear?

Luke doesn't seem to have much in the way of observations or opinions, and still acts like he's making nice, when the truth probably is that if you were in a coma (or a vegetative state -- more on this later), your default mode would probably be blunt and brutal honesty, especially in the confessional setting that most voiceovers take on. Like the cranky old man who goes to the grocery store in his slippers, you'd be beyond caring. Unbelievable frustration would set in.

My own grandfather slowly lost his mind thanks to a series of strokes and was eventually confined to a nursing home. In those moments when he snapped back in, his emotional state wasn't sorrow, or loss, it was anger. He was mad at everyone for confining him, conspiratorial about wanting to escape, but mostly just humiliated at his condition, an emotion he processed outward into blind fury.

There's nothing of that here.

The next issue is somewhat more philosophical, and gets to the fact that you're awfully vague about the scientific issues at play here. Have you really done your homework about the differences between a persistent vegetative state, a permanent vegetative state, a minimally conscious state and a coma? I'll admit to only spending half an hour or so on Wikipedia browsing through some of the (incredibly dense) articles but I honestly couldn't find anything that matched the description of the condition Luke is supposedly in.

For him to be able to be able to think clearly while unconscious, he would have to have a limited amount of brain damage. But if you look at Terry Schiavo's brain scans, to use one example, you can see why they call it a "vegetative" state. People in this condition are often -- strictly speaking -- conscious. They can respond to stimuli, have distinct sleep/wake cycles and the like. Sometimes they wake from a coma to be in this state. But the fact of the matter is that often their brains are too far damaged to work in the manner you're suggesting that Luke's work.

Luke seems to be much more like someone in a coma. That is to say, mentally fine, but cut off from his physicality. Strictly speaking, though, people in a coma are said not to be able to hear or understand anything that goes on around them, which of course is a storytelling issue.

I get that you want to tell a story, not present a science project. But you have to give people some confidence that you're on solid scientific ground here. And the fact of the matter is, the nature of your story plays more into people thinking critically about the scientific issues at play than they would normally. Part of the reason for this is that the moral and political issue of euthanasia is very much wrapped up in the specific definitions and conditions of the people in these different states.

I mean, this is me personally, do I want to be kept alive I was essentially a brain dead vegetable being kept alive by a feeding tube? No. But what if mentally I was intact, only I was in a coma and, if I woke up, I would essentially be fine? That's a whole different story... and it's why in my opinion you have to be more overt with a scientific discussion on what Luke's condition really is. It's too center stage to be vague about and just hope people won't notice that it's not really consistent scientifically (see: Warp Drive).

And it's not like it has to be dry either. Perhaps Dr. Ming uses Luke as a test case to show his interns and students, and has therefore recited Luke's medical history so many times Luke has memorized it. Sometimes Ming tells a joke (always the same one) and sometimes he doesn't. Luke recitation of this could be an opportunity for humor.

Ok -- this post is getting pretty long now -- but I have to address the ending (SPOILER ALERT, FOR THOSE WHO HAVEN'T READ THIS YET!). I've thought it over for a while now and while I get where you're trying to go with it, it strikes me as all wrong.

This is a story of a Luke's journey going from immaturity to maturity, a journey towards death. Luke learns that hanging on to a legal definition of life is selfish, and that sometimes to show your love you have to let go. That is a meaningful story that I think is worth telling.

But by having Luke wake up, you completely violate that story, in my view. His journey is nullified. In fact, what it actually does is justify his previous/selfish desire to be kept alive.

I mean, that's what having him wake up means -- that he was right to want to stay alive.

(And not to browbeat, but this is another issue I have with the science as it's presented. Patients in a vegetative state are generally just taken off their feeding tubes and therefore usually die of dehydration. The notion of a "button" more aptly describes someone on life support or artificial respiration, which unless I missed it isn't a part of Luke condition).

You want the sacrifices and moral choices your characters make to count for something. Having Luke wake up amounts to a version of the "it was all a dream" ending, and I generally feel that those endings are a copout.

I realize this whole thing might come off as harsh and unnecessary, but you've made a sincere effort and I want to be straight and honest with you. I trust you understand I would not have spent the last hour and half or so writing this if I didn't there was a lot of good in here, much of which I described in my previous post. I am of course only one person with one opinion. I hope others will read and comment also.

Joe

[btstacks]

Thx Joe,

I appreciate you taking the time to read my story. Your points are well taken and much appreciated. I should point out that I am a fraud of a writer. This story was pretty much based on a real situation between my wife and I at our lawyer's office. I wrote this on a challenge for a short contest but more importantly to convince myself that my feelings about ending my life, if in a vegestative state, were selfish and unjustified. I am still undecided. Which makes my story a fraud. I haven't matured, even though I believe deep down that I'm just being scared to give up on life. Oh to be brave!!!

That is why I left the ending as I did. I put in the part about reflexive actions to create the idea that maybe he didn't really come back to consciousness, but had one final look at his family, mainly his daughter. But really it was to say that no one really knows what could happen. When my wife finished the story she said, "I knew you were going to do that!"

I did read up on the different states of vegetations, comas, etc... and you're right, nothing really fit his situation. It was more to just tell a story. But then again, the research doesn't really say much either way about all the possible states people really experience. (It was fascinating reading though).

I was just trying to create a short for a (20 page under) contest and not get too much into a big storyline. Even though a professional writer friend thinks I should expand the story into more of a feature, I think I'm going to shelve it and continue working on other projects.

Again, thanks for your insight and taking the time to read it.

Brett

[joea]

There's nothing fraudulent about trying to work out your issues in writing. Many of the greatest works of art ever created sprang from that very motivation.

It's funny, you know, but I had a definite sense that this story sprang from life. I didn't mention it, for fearing of guessing wrong (knowing from your other posts you were/are a lawyer, I had assumed you were the lawyer in the story), but it very much had that feel to it.

I'm not sure I would urge you to expand it into a feature. A main character confined to a bed and unable to see or react physically with anyone would be an extremely challenging protagonist. Passive characters -- especially passive main characters -- are the enemy of all writers and especially novices (I speak for myself here also).

People always say to writers: "write what you know", but I'm honestly not sure that is always good advice. I think what it tends to do is create writers whose main characters are people just like them, and I say with all good humor and solidarity that most writers are incredibly boring people. We're reactors, observers. We live in our heads.

A protagonist, on the other hand, has to do things, make decisions. Be active. I read somewhere that generally speaking, if you're dealing with a big name actor, the "notes" from that actor will almost always amount to pleas to make his character sexier and more active. Not too many writers are personally familiar with being sexy or more active.

I agree that generally people write better -- and perhaps most important -- are not as prone to leaping toward cliche if you write from some aspect of personal experience, and I think that self discovery and self reflection are a "you must be this tall to ride" aspect of being creative, but it shouldn't come at the expense of observation. I say this as a general thing I believe, not as an accusation of you or anything like that. I spent years in college in creative writing courses, and looking back on it we were all doing this, myself included. When I think back on it, I laugh, that I do not cringe.

One thing your story reminded me of that I forgot to mention is a quote that apparently comes from The Lion in Winter but I heard on The West Wing. A summary of the scene on a Web site put it this way:

"I turned it on." Toby tells the President, "just as they got to the scene when Richard, Geoffrey and John were locked in the dungeon and Henry was coming down to execute them. Richard tells his brothers not to cower but to take it like men and Geoffrey says, 'You fool! As if it matters how a man falls down.' And Richard says, 'When the fall's all that's left, it matters a great deal.'"