I was approached by someone last week on email saying that he wanted to ask me to shoot a short film for him so he can submit it into The Lot competition I had mentioned earlier. So I was of course happy to hear there's finally someone with a script. I gave him my number and he called me to have a chat.
First Impression after the chat: DODGY. This guy mentioned nothing, and said nothing. Just said he had a script and he has the cast ready to shoot. I probed a bit more, he said nothing more except it is for The Lot competition.
Now The Lot competition is for directors who self-direct, edit and produce their short 5 minute films. This guy is asking me to DIRECT, SHOOT and EDIT his script but HE gets to enter it into the Competition????
It doesn't end there. I get the script from him and when I opened it up in Word, this is what I see:
A LIFE FOR A LIFE
By
*******#####
(To the guy from me, BKK: I took out your name from my post to protect the innocent)
FADE IN:
INT. OLD BAILEY’S NO. 1 COURT
Ruth Ellis appeared in the dock in a smart black two piece suit and white blouse, her hair re-dyed to her preferred platinum blonde in Holloway with the special permission of Dr. Charity Taylor, the Governor. Not how you imagine how a downtrodden woman looks like.
MR. CHRISTMAS HUMPHREY
Mrs. Ellis, when you fired that revolver at close range into the body of David Blakely what did you intend to do?
RUTH ELLIS
It was obvious that when I shot him I intended to kill him.
Mr. Melford Stevenson, Ruth Ellis’ attorney, made a legal submission to the Court regarding the provocation made by the prosecutors.
MR. MELFORD STEVENSON
The fact stands out like a beacon that this young man became an absolute necessity to this young woman. However brutally he behaved, and however much he spent of her money on various entertainments of his own, and however much he consorted with other people, he ultimately came back to her, and always she forgave him. She found herself in something like an emotional prison guarded by this young man, from which there seemed to be no escape.
This was ruled out by Mr. Justice Havers.
MR. JUSTICE HAVERS
There is insufficient material. Even upon a view of the evidence most favorable to the accused, to support a verdict of manslaughter on the grounds of provocation.
The juries were then brought back into Court. Mr. Melford Stevenson looked on all of them.
MR. MELFORD STEVENSON
In view of the ruling which Your Lordship has just pronounced I cannot now with propriety address the jury at all, because it would be impossible for me to do so with inviting them to disregard your Lordship’s ruling.
Mr. Christmas Humphrey stood up adjusting his silk blue tie.
MR. CHRISTMAS HUMPHRIES
I will not make any final statement, Your Honor.
The Judge then summed up. After reviewing the evidences for the prosecution.
MR. JUDGE HAVERS
You will remember that when Mr. Stevenson made his opening statement to you, he told you that he was going to invite you to reduce this charge of killing from murder to manslaughter on the grounds of provocation, if there is not sufficient material, even upon a view of the evidence most favorable to the accused, that a reasonable person could be driven by transport of passion and loss of control to use violence and a continuance of violence, it is the duty of a judge, as a matter of law, to direct the jury that the evidence does not support a verdict of manslaughter. I have been constrained to rule in this case that there is not sufficient material to reduce this killing from murder to manslaughter on the grounds of provocation.
Mr. Judge Havers then turned to Ruth Ellis who appeared to be extremely calm.
MR. JUDGE HAVERS
It is therefore not open to you to bring in a verdict of manslaughter on the grounds of provocation.
Mr. Judge Havers now referring to the evidence for the defense.
MR. JUDGE HAVERS
(taking off his glasses)
This court is not a court of morals, this is a criminal court and you should not allow your judgment to be swayed or your minds to be prejudiced in the least degree against the accused because according to her own admission she had committed adultery, or because she was having two persons at different times as lovers. Dismiss those matters wholly from your minds. But I am bound to tell you this that even if you accept every word of Mrs. Ellis’ evidence there does not seem to be anything in it which establishes any sort of defense to the charge of murder.
The juries then retired and not surprisingly found Ruth guilty after deliberating for only 23 minutes. It was hard to see how any other verdict was possible.
Mr. Justice Havers had no alternative but to sentence her to death. The black cap was placed on his head. She remained silent and stood impassive as he then read the sentence.
MR. JUSTICE HAVERS
The sentence of the court upon you is that you be taken hence to a lawful prison, and thence to a place of execution, and that you there be hanged by the neck until you be dead.
Ruth Ellis was asked if she wished to say anything. She replied in a soft tone.
RUTH ELLIS
Thank you
Unlike many people who have just heard their death sentence, Ruth did not faint or become hysterical but Ruth smiled faintly at her family; mother, father, brother Granville and sister Muriel who were weeping quietly at the back of the court building and then she walked briskly, high heels clicking, down the stairs to the cells.
INT. HOLLOWAY PRISON SUITE NO. 9656 DAY
Victor Mischon went to see her in the condemned cell at 11.15am on a Tuesday morning.
RUTH ELLIS
How kind of you to come. I wanted Mr. Simmons to know certain facts which I think may have some bearing on my will.
VICTOR MISCHON
Tell me about the gun, Ruth. Where did you get it from?
RUTH ELLIS
I am now completely composed. I know that I’m going to die, and I’m ready to do so. You won’t hear anything from me that says I didn’t kill David. I did kill him. And whatever the circumstances you as a lawyer will appreciate that it’s a life for a life. Isn’t that just?
Victor Mischon was so struck by these words and her calm demeanor that he never forgot them. However, she did reveal some more details of the case against a promise from Mr. Mischon that he would not try and use them to save her.
RUTH ELLIS
I was drinking with a man over the weekend and I told him that if I had a gun I would shoot David.
Victor Mischon was listening intently as Ruth elaborate much more about this unnamed man that offered her the gun.
RUTH ELLIS
(continuing)
He had a gun and took me to Epping Forest to show me how to use it. He then drove me to Hampstead and told me to go and shoot him.
Even though Ruth did not name this mysterious male acquaintance of hers, but Victor Mischon was assured that it was Desmond Cussen, the notorious second lover of Ruth.
INT. HOME OFFICE. DAY
Sir Frank Newsam, the Permanent Secretary, is seen writing a letter on his desk.
SIR FRANK NEWSAM (V.O.)
This uncorroborated statement by the prisoner does not add any material to the information before the Secretary of State when he decided not to interfere. The discrepancy between the officer’s report and Mr. Mischon statement is interesting and illuminating.
EXT. HOLLOWAY PRISON EVENING
Ruth had her last meeting with her parents and brother, Granville Nielson, on the Tuesday afternoon. Reporters were all over the place just to get a glimpse of them.
REPORTER
(squeezing out from the crowd)
How is your sister, Mr. Nielson?
GRANVILLE NIELSON
She seemed absolutely calm and unafraid of what was going to happen to her.
INT. GRANVILLE’S HOUSE DAY
TITLE OVER:
GRANVILLE’S HOUSE
In Hemel Hempstead, north of London, at Granville’s house, Ruth’s mother prayed in a bedroom, as her husband Arthur played softly on his cello. Elizabeth, the youngest of the family, quietly sobbed her heart out as Muriel ran from room to room, crying, "No! No! No!"
EXT. HOLLOWAY PRISON DAY
TITLE OVER:
JULY 13, 1956
Among the crowd outside the prison, Ruth’s oldest brother, Julian, was standing, listening as a street musician played Bach’s ‘Be though with me when I die’. Inside, Ruth was preparing for the last moments of her life. She was given a large tot of brandy and then knelt in prayer before a crucifix on the cell wall, as the prison chaplain served her with communion.
Thirty seconds before 9am on Wednesday, the official hangman, Albert Pierrepoint, entered the condemned cell. Quickly and without fuss, he escorted Ruth out of her room and next door to the execution room. Here, she may well have noticed the Maltese Cross on the wall, placed there at the request of Mrs. Styllou Christofi, who had been hanged here on December 13th, 1954.
Pierrepoint was an expert in his trade, having hung more than four hundred men and women over a 25-year period. Ruth, her wrists strapped behind her back and her ankles shackled, was placed over the gallows trapdoor. The hangman then placed a white hood over her head, securing the hood with a noose. He tightened the rope around her neck, adjusting the rope’s suspension point about one inch in front of her lower left jaw. He pulled a lever, the doors opened with a bang, and in less than ten seconds after entering the execution chamber, Ruth Ellis was dead.
FADE OUT:
THE END
OK did you read ALL of it?? I didn't myself because if you just skim through it, you'll start to realise it is an almost impossible task to shoot. Why? As they say in Real Estate: LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION. Not easy. And in Prison?
Mana ada prison setting
di Brunei except the real thing?? Can you get approval to go in? Build one I hear you say - build a mock one? If you have the dough, spend it on something more
worthwhile, not on a second rate (maybe even 3rd rate) film script.
It STILL doesn't end there. When I spoke to the guy, he didn't particularly sound like he has an EXTREMELY good command of English and yet somehow in the script, writes like he took English class from Shakespeare himself (or any other English writer you fancy). Now I am not saying people cannot write better than they speak, I'm just saying there's too much a gap in this instance to be believable. I have been working in an institution where I grade papers for over 9 years and I know almost every trick in the book on how people go about copying written work. In this day in age, it is the Internet that enables it to be so much easier. So I
Google parts of his script, and VERBATIM, word for word, listed around ten websites with
exactly the same sentences. You know what that is? PLAGIARISM. And I dislike plagiarisers with a passion!
Try it yourself: click on some section of the script and highlight a paragraph, copy it and then go to
Google and paste on the search bar and you'll see what I mean.
And the film title A Life for a Life is from a Made for TV movie in the UK in 1999.
Tsk Tsk, very naughty..
Now go sit in the corner like this guy here:
