A review of a Historical Western script for Talentville member Andy Froemke. This one was one of, if not THE, top script at Talentville in 2014. Feel free to visit Andy’s website. He’s got a rip reel for The Lowrie Gang on his scripts page, and a few others.
And, in case you’re wondering, I did indeed quote an Eagles song lyric for the title of my review. It seemed to fit.
Review of The Lowrie Gang
Written by Andy Froemke
The love story of Rhoda Strong and Henry Berry Lowrie, the Native American Robin Hood–a charismatic leader whose band of outlaws become folk heroes when they stand up to the Klan after the Civil War.
Reviewed by Geoff Morton (posted Aug 05, 2014)
(Screenplay | Action, Western, 119 Pages)
Brought the White Man’s Burden Down, Brought the White Man’s Reign
Hi Andy.
A little late to the party with this one… you’ve already gotten script of the month with it, so clearly you’ve got a solid script already. I hope I can add something worthwhile to the mix, even at this point.
Please excuse the obviousness of the use of my template. I’m writing this on a laptop in a cabin on the lake in the middle of nowhere, using my mobile as a hotspot, so this review’s been a little bit harder to write than it would be in my control center.
CONCEPT
You can talk about a number of things here – the strength of the concept, the strength of the application of said concept (not the same thing… a strong concept is done no favours if what you’ve written doesn’t live up to it).
On the surface, The Lowrie Gang seems to be a package assembled from some very familiar parts – the Robin Hood tale, the white man’s abuse of America’s aboriginals and blacks. But, it doesn’t wallow in its familiarity; instead it uses those elements as a strong foundation to let us in to a family’s rather heartbreaking tale of cultural abuse and vicitimization, set against the backdrop of the Civil War and the fallout of it.
Did it live up to the “promise of the premise”?
Mostly. There were some structural issues, I thought, that held the story back in this regard. I’ll try to get into more depth later, but my feeling is that by pushing the “four years later” as deep into the story as you have, and by getting so late to the part where Henry Berry forms his Robin Hood-esque gang, you denied us the pleasure of seeing the gang operating at full steam before everything fell apart. I’ll come back to this later.
Is the concept derivative or original?
I’ve never seen this particular movie before, but the component parts are familiar. Till now, I’d never heard of the Lowrie family (I’m from Canada, so we’ve got our own native heroes and legends). The setting is one that’s been mined a lot, old west, civil war era… but that doesn’t really matter. The heart of the story is not on a “gang” at all, but rather a family, and as it’s a beating heart, it takes what’s familiar and just helps us move past that so that we can focus on what matters.
If it’s a familiar concept, does it put its own spin on things? Does it subvert expectations set up by said concept or does it deliver exactly what you’d expect?
The ending is not one that you didn’t necessarily not expect, but rather was one that felt inevitable, and you were hoping it wouldn’t go there. As this, from what I understand, is based on a true story, there was no guarantee of a happy ending… so when it all fell apart at the end, it carried with it a real feeling of verisimilitude. Kudos to you for not shying away from that.
STORY
Did you just read a story or a collection of scenes? Big difference. While I don’t want to get into what constitutes a story (that’s a pretty hefty exploration in and of itself), did you just read 120 pages of a character’s journey? Or was it just a bunch of things happening to them?
By and large, it was a strong story. I’d imagine it’s a tricky thing, basing a script on a series of real events, mining an actual screenplay out of it, but keeping true to what happened.
Unfortunately, my feeling is that the dragging out of the pre-four years later jump undermined a lot of the story’s strength. I think that Allen’s death came far too late. I really think that if he’d died earlier, and if Henry Berry had started his gang by about page 25, and if you’d spent a little more time with them building up their local reputation and interacting with the community more, building up that trust… I think it’d have been stronger as a story. Save the Cat talks about the fun and games section, usually a major chunk of the second act’s first half, where we get to see the premise in action at it’s most undiluted – in this case, it would have been the Lowrie Gang Robin Hooding. Yes, things are bound to fall apart, and the story’s going to change direction, but I think by cutting short on that aspect, you gutted a part of the story that really could have tied it together.
What was there also tended to feel a little episodic. Maybe this is because it’s based on real life.
Take the first chunk of the story. Henry Berry narrowly avoids King. Then he gets captured and brought to the fort. Then he meets George. Then they both escape. Then …
I’m not even sure what to suggest alternatively to this. I just found this part of the story a little episodic, in that they were a bunch of things happening, but they never really felt like they were dramatically building. I suppose the fact that King wanted to break Henry Berry but didn’t get the chance to started them off on their mutual animosity, so that’s something. I don’t know. It’s hard to put my finger on this one.
Are there subplots? Do the subplots work? Do they build the larger story or distract from it?
There was a pretty good cauldron of subplots going on here.
Henry Berry rescuing George, George joining the team and sticking around (and ending up being the only one to escape) – though to be honest, that seemed to be the extent of that. He usually felt like the voice of reason (maybe why he stayed alive) but he rarely felt like he was more than just there.
King and his rampage, first as Confederate commander, and then switching gears into proto-Klan mode (I never really thought about this… that the extremists in the South never really went away… they just hid and took their activities under the bedsheets), and then finding “respectability” as sheriff. I make mention of this in my notes – the stuff with King never really felt “resolved” even temporarily, before the story went away for four years, so I had a hard time with King not harassing the Lowrie family between then and the pickup in the present.
R.T. and Rhoda, his interest. Given that R.T. is the historian who’s in a position to set the world straight, I think this one has room to get beefed up a bit. Not sure how, but it just feels that he should be a little more important, but not as a player, as he’s more of the witness. Maybe if he had a larger choice to make somewhere – like a threat upon his life if he didn’t print the lie about what was going on. Would that be too much of a fabrication in a based on a true story? Probably. But if you look at the mentality at the time, was there any great risk to him printing the truth? I don’t know. Just thinking out loud.
Did the script have an A-Story, B-Story and C-Story?
- A-Story – the physical action of the story – the quest
The story veered back and forth between which party was most actively trying to accomplish something. It opened with the Lowrie family largely wanting to be left alone and take care of its own, with King coming in and collecting slaves for the fort. Then the active quest switched around when Henry Berry went into Robin Hood mode to fight back against King… but then King struck back and Henry Berry went back into a more defensive mode before dying altogether. - B-Story – the central relationship of the story –
I’d say the central relationship, the one with the most emotional impact, would be the animosity between Henry Berry and King. King’s the driving force of the story, and Henry Berry the strongest reactor. That sets them both up as polar opposites – and King has the worst impact on Henry Berry as well. The Henry Berry at the beginning of the story couldn’t have executed the schoolteacher the way that he did after years of fighting against King. - C-Story – the hero’s inner growth
There’s both inner growth and devolution here. In some senses, Henry Berry grew from a nature-loving lad who just wanted to enjoy life, to the leader of his family and his ragtag group of Robin Hoods. But at the same time, the choices he had to make left him a colder and harder soul by the end. Executing the schoolteacher spy is the most obvious example of this. I’m sure his younger self wouldn’t have done this. - Do the A-, B- and C-Stories feed into one another?
They all feed quite well into one another. King drives the physical action of the story, the A-story, but his impact on the B-Story, his relentless attacking of the Lowries, ends up having a pretty devastating impact on the C-story as well. They all felt very largely in sync with each other, aside from my structural issues leading up to the four year gap.
Leaps of Logic – Suspension of Disbelief –
Given that we go into the story knowing that it’s largely based on true events, that credibility is largely laid down. But the story never strays from credulity anyways. We’re largely familiar with the plight of the aboriginals and the blacks back in those days, and the story as presented never delivers any “Huh, that doesn’t feel right!” moments. So, the story’s very grounded in reality, and feels very credible. And, as I mentioned earlier, the inevitability of the ending, sad as it is, helps ground the story greatly as well.
GSU
- Goals – they drive stories forward. Were there concrete goals in the story? Did the protagonist have one? The antagonist? Were they in conflict?
The goals of the antagonist drove the story, and King was implacable. There was no reasoning with him, no driving him a way. Even though the civil war ended, he still found an outlet for his rage through the Klan and their bedsheets and anonymous terror and murder. His goals prompted the goal of survival on the part of the Lowrie family, who, without him, would have been content to enjoy the forests and the world around them. - Stakes – were there stakes? Were there consequences to all parties if the goals were not attained?
High stakes – genocide, really. And state sanctioned genocide, as King had the government on his side, first as the representative of the south, and then by taking over as “The law”. - Urgency – were there ticking clocks? Deadlines that goals had to be attained (urgently)?
Urgency is a mixed bag. The time jump was a bucket of cold water on the urgency. It felt urgent at first. King was in the area, and Allen had just been killed. And then… we’re moving ahead four years, and Henry Berry’s got a kid. I’m afraid this killed the urgency. Now, granted, you had King picking up where he left off, taking his attack on Henry Berry when the time picked up again, but it begged the question of “Why wasn’t he doing this over the previous four years?”
I think you’re going to need to answer that question, either as an answer in dialogue, or more satisfyingly, as a part of the story, if you don’t want that niggling question lodged in peoples’ minds.
Genre
- Did the story fit comfortably in a specific genre? Did it straddle more than one? How well did it fulfill the genre requirements of each? (was the horror truly scary? was the comedy funny?) Were there genre elements that could have been in the story that would have strengthened it?
Western genre, clearly. Period piece. Tragedy, definitely.
One element that could have been stronger, with different structural choices, would have been had you killed Allen sooner, had Henry Berry be the outlaw Robin Hood sooner, and spent more time with the gang doing their rogue routine, it would have made the tragedy of the last half of the story even stronger.
Because we never got that “fun”, where we got to just experience the group being badasses and doing their thing, we never got the full contrast where things went to hell after. Things were almost always hell, and because of that, we never got that bright spot to make the hell even darker.
So I guess that’s part of tragedy – the story delivers on the tragic elements, but they could be stronger by giving us some more time with their opposite. The sense of “We’d taken control of our destinies, and we never felt more in charge. We felt like things could only keep getting better… how wrong we were”.
CHARACTER
Were the characters interesting?
The characters were good. Some were stronger than others, and some of this clearly by necessity. Henry Berry was the most nuanced and had the clearest shift in his character’s through-line. From easygoing nature lover to father to bandit to tragic end, he ran the gamut, and it never felt false.
King, on the other hand, wasn’t nuanced. But he wasn’t meant to be. He was a force of nature, malevolence incarnate. Was there room to take him deeper? Maybe. Would it have helped? I don’t know. Ralph Fiennes in Schindler’s List, it’s been a while, but I remember he really came alive when he tried resisting his murderous urges, and when he backslid, it was doubly despairing and a relief at the same time. King – is there room for anything more intricate than racist thug all the way through?
George, he didn’t really feel like more than just… there. He was a good man, and he was a survivor. He was rescued, and then he stuck by Henry Berry with unwavering loyalty. In that, he felt a little stock – the loyal to the end friend. Maybe if you introduced a few doubts in him through the story, and introduced an element where he was always on the verge of running, but never did… that might make him a little more interesting, and could tie in with the fact that he keeps surviving. But, would that be true to the real George? Maybe not. So I’m just spitballing here.
Rhoda – she seemed more intriguing when she was the seductress. After she hooked up with Henry Berry, she largely turned into just the loyal mate. There was the hint of a chemistry between her and R.T., and I think there’s an opportunity for you there. If the seductress she was at the beginning was such a part of her being, how did it feel being bottled up to be the loyal wife? Maybe there’s room for some inner conflict on her part – maybe part of her welcomes R.T.’s chase, and encourages it, even if she fights it at the same time. Not to turn this into a soap opera, but if you’re looking for possibilities…
R.T. – I think you have more opportunity here. I present a few possibilities in my notes. I think playing up his ambition a bit more, and making him a little more sneaky – using more psychology to try and worm the truth out of people to get his story. Like I said, I mention a few of these in my notes.
Were the characters distinct from each other, each one staking out some distinct philosophical ground, usually in some degree of opposition to each other, and taking actions sprung from said stance?
This was largely handled quite well. Some characters were more sensible than others. Loyalty was strong, and largely common between them all. Some characters were quicker to anger than others. Like the conflict between Henry Berry and Stephen, who was more militant in his approach than Henry Berry’s. Was there room for more? Sure, there always is. But this was handled well.
STRUCTURE
Did the story feel like it followed classic structure? First quarter, setup, devoted to laying down the rules and establishing the world, the characters and situation? Second and third quarters, development, devoted to running all of those oppositional characters against each other, exhausting their dramatic possibilities, leading inexorably to your third act – resolution. Have the setups been resolved properly?
My biggest problem with this is the structure, and the overlong nature of what feels like the first act. Since the concept put forth by your story’s description is of them being Robin Hoods, to have Henry Berry saying “The way we survive… is if we all get fed”… that feels like a first act closer. That feels like a declarative statement that changes the energy of the story – “We’ve been kicked around and pushed down… now we’re pushing back” – which should conceivably mark the shift from first act to second act. But it comes at page 50, almost the midpoint. Which means that either you’ve got an incredibly long first act, or you’re shortchanging that aspect of the story, which is them taking a stand and evening the odds.
I think you spent too much time with Allen and all the conflict surrounding that. Honestly, if this were mine, I’d look at killing Allen by page 10-12, wrapping up that timeline, and having Henry Berry’s declarative statement on about page 27-29. Give us a LOT more time with them, building up their bandit relationship with the starving freedmen. Have them go from just The Lowrie Gang to Local Heroes. Let us see them in action, time and again, as their legend grows. And then have it crashing down to earth when King gets his act in gear.
I’d also give us more of a temporary resolution when it comes to King and Allen. Give us a concrete reason why King left Henry Berry alone for four to five years, and why he suddenly had a hankering to take him down when the story picks up. For me, it made little sense why Henry Berry got those years to raise his family without King attacking him. He’s already taken out the father, why didn’t he finish it?
Really, the leadup and resolution surrounding Allen’s death should feel like a mini-movie in and of itself, and it should end on a status quo, a reason why things remain unchanged for four-five years. And, I think you need to provide a compelling reason as to why the status quo changed after that time period. Why did King suddenly get active again with regards to Henry Berry?
I think that’s a major issue that needs to be addressed.
Otherwise, without getting into really minute detail, the story felt largely soundly structured. Your use of R.T. snuck up on us, giving us someone who got the final word and stood as witness to what happened. I think there might have been more opportunity to provide him with a bit of a story as well, as I mentioned earlier, some kind of choice, contrasting the truth vs the lies/legends/myths surrounding that time and place. This’d obviously have to come parallel to the main story, and structured appropriately, but I think the potential’s there.
Did the third act tie everything up?
Sure did. Left very few alive, so few loose ends there. And R.T.’s closing monologue establishes what it all meant and how it impacted the world at large. Given, though, that the story ends on his monologue, might it not work to open it as well? Maybe talking about the myths, the legends and the truths/lies surrounding the Lowries? Or maybe something more metaphorical? Is there anything in aboriginal legends that might serve as an opening statement? “They say blah blah blah etc”. Just a thought for you.
I also think that the end of the civil war felt a little offscreen. Unless I wasn’t paying attention, it felt like it was just mentioned as having happened offscreen. I think it might pack a little bit more punch if you had R.T. monologuing an article covering the end of the civil war, and maybe expounding on what a time of peace and prosperity it was for everyone…
Except that the story is going to put a lie to that.
Maybe that’s a potential worth exploring – if R.T. has been reporting the party line, the prevailing lies about what’s going on in the world, maybe not even knowing it’s crap, then his closing lines, where he unveils the truth about the Lowries and what the aboriginals and blacks suffered, that might give a ton of context to the voiceover at the closing of the story and might give you his arc.
DIALOGUE
Do the characters speak with unique voices, not just with affectations and speech patterns, but do they speak from a worldview specific to them?
The dialogue was good. There was some distinction between the character voices. Some more high-falutin verbiage given to some of the wealthier southerners, which was good. Some characters were more distinct than others, like Stephen was typically pretty militant. Henry Berry’s dialogue style tended to change throughout the story, from more easygoing at the beginning to harsher the further King pushed him. So, this was very well done. There might have been more room for some of the other characters to grow more distinctive.
I gave you some thoughts on dialogue throughout my notes. I think I have a few notes on R.T. and some of the possibilities you have with him. If they help, great.
Was the dialogue overly on the nose, each person just saying what was on their mind.
There was some well done subtext through the story, not overly obvious. I don’t recall any egregiously on the nose dialogue, or affectedly obvious subtext, which means to me that it was rolled pretty well into the dialogue.
Were conversations crisp or flabby? Did they bounce from thing to thing or did they overstay their welcome, going round and round until the scene ended?
The dialogue was largely impressive in this respect. Some of the lines could have been pruned a bit, but by and large the dialogue was to the point and effective. Never going on for too long, and never really leaving me feel “arrggh get on with it!”
I make a few notes here and there, that some of the dialogue feels a little “writerly”. I’d be on the look out for that. I don’t know what the education levels were back in those days for people of Lowrie’s stature, but it largely felt a little too educated for me, a little too “today”. I don’t know if you can dial it back without dumbing it down, but it might be worth a look.
WRITING STYLE
Did the writing style suit the material?
The first page largely felt like poetry. And I mean that in the best sense. It was bare descriptive writing at its best. As the page ended, the lines got longer and it got a little more standard. But even then, it felt like it belonged in the old west.
Were action moments quick and zippy, appropriate to an action scene? Were dramatic moments slower, lengthier?
Largely good. Sometimes there were dramatic moments that could have been stretched out a little bit, not indulgently, but for very specific effect. I’ve given notes on at least a few of those.
Was it evocative, helping you as the reader feel the scene, or did it just describe?
Very well written. No complaints.
How smoothly did the script read in general and how well were the actions described?
A very smooth read. Probably one of the smoother. You can feel the work that’s gone into this, the polish and care to lean it out. Either that, or you’re just a very lean writer by nature. But, by and large, this was a joy to read (except for the ending, and that was a subject matter issue, not a writing issue).
OVERALL/OTHER
All in all, a very well written script on a subject matter that has the potential to not be very popular. As a chapter of American history that’s not on everyone’s list of things they’d love to revisit, you’re showing a lot of guts and drive running with this story.
I’d love to see this get made. I think there’s room for a lot of improvement, and I hope my notes here have given you some food for thought.
Best of luck with it, and you know where to reach me if you ever want clarification or a sounding board.
Page by Page Script Notes…
PAGE 14:
Think you need a transition scene here. Maybe the journey between Rhoda’s and the fort. It just feels jarring to jump between them. A transition’d let you work in some emotionality or something.
Maybe end with the for ton the horizon and King saying Welcome Home, Boys.
PAGE 16:
I’d stretch this moment out a bit. The look on King’s face. The growing rage and the sense that he’s going to be challenged in a battle of wills.
Let it simmer, and then explode. Right now it feels too matter of fact and it doesn’t really carry the emotional weight it should.
PAGE 17:
Might want to give us a quick description. Wood? Length? Size compared to the others?
PAGE 18:
Evasive answer. You could follow up with a line about the heart separating a man from the grave – as in, even if it’s your duty, fighting without heart can get you killed.
PAGE 24:
Think you have the opportunity to play with this. “Didn’t care for the accommodations”. Something more ironic, less direct. Accommodations may be a bit anachronistic, but it gets the point across. Just a thought.
PAGE 29:
Having reached 37 and the four year time jump, I’m having a little trouble reconciling the status quo established for the next four years. Leaving off with King as you have, I’m not feeling that Henry Berry would be able to raise his family unmolested. Maybe I’m missing something
PAGE 41:
Feels like we need another “inciting incident” here. Why, after 4-5 years, is King all of a sudden arresting Henry? I think you need something, either an event that sets it off, or an indication that he’s been looking for Henry all this time. But as it stands now, unless Henry’s been in hiding, I can’t see why King hasn’t moved on him sooner.
PAGE 43:
‘Break that spirit in you’ feels a little “written”. Why not ‘I am gonna break you’ instead. You break horses, right? Feels appropriate for the era.
PAGE 48:
The use of “win” feels like the wrong thing to say. Nothing else about what he’s saying g makes it sound like a game, but the word “win” dos.
“The only way we live is if they die”, on the other hand, gives you a more even contrast and sets the stakes more clearly.
PAGE 49:
Structurally this feels like something that should have ended act 1 – 20 pages earlier. It’s a change in energy that feels like an act break. But not the midpoint of the story. I wonder if you could trim some from what comes before this?
PAGE 53:
Her saying ‘payin’ em back’ reduces the power of the word revenge later. If she says “it was justice” and he questions it, and she says for killing his pa and brother, then his remark about revenge becomes a thematic statement. Her justice versus his revenge.
With her saying payback, there’s no real thematic difference and she’s just made his point.
PAGE 54:
The use of ‘sound’ twice in RT’s dialogue feels redundant. If you changed the first one to “by all accounts”, then he sound more like a newsman who’s done some research.
—
Given that Robin Hood is a British story, you might want to draw more attention to the difference in story worlds. “You make him sound like The Wild West’s Robin Hood”. This would also contrast with RT’s being from New York. He’d see this area as a different world as well.
—
This might work better as a series of questions. And shorter.
You’ve never heard of Robin Hood? English story? Hides from the evil sheriff in the forest? Local hero? Robs from the rich? Gives to the poor?
If he’s a good reporter, he’d know how to frame it to prompt it out of her. By appealing to her sense of local patriotism.
Problem is, we know the story. So a long winded explanation for her drags for us. The trick is to find the right shorthand that feels like a movie explanation – just long enough to cover the bases and imply the whole story without getting bogged down in detail.
PAGE 73:
Alerted to our presence feels a tad “written”. What about a simple “he already knew we were here”?
PAGE 76:
Might be a good opportunity for RT to phrase everything as “for the story”. Even if he is personally invested, what if he were to reply “my readers are going to want to know…” So everything becomes subtext and much more interesting.
PAGE 77:
You have Henry listing everything the community gives back to them. Better, I think, for him to list everything they give to and do for the community. It would help show his rationalization as to why the community will be there for them.
PAGE 115:
The death of Stephen – I think you have the opportunity to expand this a bit. Tie it thematically into how he lived, and maybe contrast it against how the others die.
Did they shoot him from behind? Did they step up in front of him? Did Stephen fight back? Was it just resignation on his part that the game was up? Did he have a chance to respond?
This is our chance to say goodbye to these characters. Why not open it up a bit?
– See more at: http://www.talentville.com/showreviews/user/4571#sthash.itmepODi.dpuf