I was very inspired by Terrance Winter's screenplay for 'The Wolf of Wall Street', particularly at how he makes this horrible and despicable character in Jordan Belfort (the film's main and title character) likable and relatable. He does this by making him funny but also human, eventually having a fall from the top and learning from his actions, I wanted to do this for my screenplay because our two leads in Martin Shkreli and Jordan Belfort are very similar, they are both greedy businessman who only care about profits and not the people they are badly affecting, therefore I used techniques which Winter used in his screenplay in my own to draw the parallels. I was also inspired by Winter's screenplay because he makes Jordan Belfort talk directly into the camera multiple times, breaking the 4th wall in doing so. I wanted to us this in my screenplay because its a great way of giving the audience information without it coming against as exposition but it's a good way of getting into the character's head of what they are thinking about the situation they are in. Finally, I liked how Winter described the mise-en-scene in each scene in 'The Wolf of Wall Street', he described how the setting looked and how each of the characters are dressed, but I liked how he would give specific examples of products in the screenplay, for example ‘Jordan gets out of a '85 Datsun'. I liked and used this in my own screenplay because it creates a more vivid image for the reader and also establishes the time period, although as my takes place only last year (2015) this isn't important to me as it was to 'The Wolf of Wall Street' as this takes place over 3 different time periods, most taking place in the 1980's.
Looking back and reflecting on my screenplay, I could have edited down the boardroom scene as this is the longest scene in the screenplay with the most dialogue also. I wanted this is scene long with quite a bit of dialog because this is the scene with the most satire and comedy in but also because we have 2 conflicting ideologies attacking each other over a point which they disagree on, which should make for a compelling scene and the 2 differences in ideologies is a recurring motif in dramas. However, I could have edited this scene down because it is long meaning we could lose people's interest in the film due to being bored by an overlong scene, which would be even worse for us as this is the only the start of the screenplay/ film. Furthermore to make my screenplay even better, I could have reduced the dialog in the boardroom to ensure that people's interest remained throughout the whole scene which may not have been the case if I kept it's long running time. Another improvement I could have made to my screenplay is my description of the settings the characters are in. Throughout my script I focused a lot on the characters and their actions in response to their surroundings (particularly the boardroom and Africa scenes) however I feel as though I could've created a much clearer idea of their surroundings which would allow the reader to truly 'feel' the setting. However, I do feel as though I used particular aspects of the misè-en-scene within my script to create symbolism and connection to my intended genre, and I did describe the settings the characters are in at the start of each scene, which certainly creates an image for the reader. One example of symbolism I used in the screenplay was with James in the boardroom scene, as I wrote that the only light in the room was coming from behind him. The symbolism I intended for this is that he is the only on in that room who isn't a dark and sinster character, that he is literally the only one in the light and that hes morals and ideology is the correct one and not Martin's despite the whole room worshiping and agreeing with him.
Another success I had with this screenplay was making Martin Shkreli somewhat likable, at least as likable considering his actions which are inexcusable and morally wrong. I made him likable by making him funny, charming and charismatic when speaking, but also making an argument that what he did was correct and put an argument forward for it, although I personally disagree with it. I needed to make him likable or else the audience wouldn't care what what Martin said or did meaning they wouldnt be completely invested in the film. Another success I had with my screenplay is my description of key props in the screenplay. For example, I give specific examples of what Martin Schalki is wearing in the film's opening scene, an example being 'There’s a close up of his 18k yellow gold Rolex Oyster watch, which has been freshly polished today to look even more grander'. I did this to create a more vivid image for the reader but also to comment on how materialist rich powerful people are by them wearing expensive, luxurious clothes, and therefore have a juxtaposition when describing the poorer people in the screenplay later on who don't have this luxury. In fact, the film's opening scene is to introduce Martin to the audience and immediately show them how narcissistic and materialistic he is, a key idea I was trying to make about Martin and his other rich colleagues. Overall I feel my screenplay would have benefited from an extended development of the wider narrative through the expansion of the dialogue and scenes. Despite this I feel that my screenplay is compelling and satisfies the requirements of my target audience and of the genre as well as telling a good story.
