oddsnends4

Hand

(A Fraser Campbell review of a Paul Ashdown script).

�Hand� reminded me of the pie outlet above Sweeny Todds head trimming barber shop and Tom and Jerry. Throw in a dead marriage, a dock worker who is short on success, a sinister boy with a football and you have the ingredients of a black comedy. It borrows shades from the traditional horror clich�s and a cartoony, violence is repeatedly inflicted upon the two main characters; Linda and Frank. This is the bulk of the screenplay, with other factors conspiring to create a bleak comic look at the nutters who potentially worm their way through this strand of suburbia.

We are introduced to Frank as a murmuring dockyard worker. The car drawing up to him and saying �see you tomorrow, Frank� is, I feel, purely a device used to introduce the character�s name. Do we need to know his name? We don�t know his wife�s name, but I this quick conversation is an effective way of communicating this information. I would tip a slight preference to �Have a good night, Frank...� - it�s ironic as he�s about to have the worst night of his life.

The rain stopping as he�s about to get into the house points to the forthcoming humorous aspect of the script, as well as suggesting nothing goes right for Frank - even things out of his control. The Neighbour is introduced in a straight forward, simple manor. It is obviously essential to establish this character early on, considering his unfolding role in the drama.

The script hasn�t got a dramatic hook, something to reel the audience in and give them a taste of what is to come. I think this works quite well as events take a completely unexpected twist.
A gentle beginning eases the viewer in to what is initially a grim family portrait that morphs into a morbid tale. Cracking into it�s gory gear, after establishing initial themes about lack of success, our daily drone through life.

It unfolds Frank has a dead marriage. This image is constructed by the unemotional conversation and the couple being a distance apart on the settee. The content of the talking is mundane, unemotional and obligatory. Stale and filled with blanks. The dialogue clearly brushes on the success of others, the office building outside the co-op, therefore the failure of Frank. It is worded in a realistic manor, with the occasional umms that punctuate any conversation. All his dreams of success are battered while youngsters easily overtake him on the road to success. His wife resents him for it.

Once the establishing has been established, the script could take many directions. These two people could explore the issues of relationships grinding to a halt or the monotony of a working life, dead end job etc. Or they could engage in a series of elaborate, almost surreal, selection of stunts designed to put them through as much agony and pain as possible. A strangely sinister sequence of events, where the dialogue consists of �Aaagh!�. This is a refreshing route, and an unsuspected turn.

The trigger of this frantic sequence starts with a knock at the door. We can see the directors side of the brain of the writer is in evidence the way the door opening is written. It is worded in a way to indirectly suggest camera angles, which is acceptable. My only slight criticism in the wording is that �FRANK opens his front door and looks out there is no-one there� might be adapted slightly to �FRANK opens his front door and looks out, there seems to be no-one there� or �he can�t see anyone there�. This is more of a technical thing as someone actually is there. It�s a minor point. All in all, I think the part has comic potential and it�s good.

Now the turning point of the film. The discovery of the hand, lying in the garden. This would be the logical point for Frank to throw the football over the fence, but clearly, a severed human hand is likely to attract more attention than a piece of inflated plastic.

The next bit works quite well. The hand on the spatula (a reasonable assumption it�s picked up from the kitchen) and comical and confused conversation ensues. It ends with a wonderful humorous moment of a severed hand rolling around on a new, creme rug.

The phone being cut off is an important narrative event as obviously a cry for help would lead the story in a different, less dramatic and gory, conclusion. Severed leg in the bath is the last element before the pain.

So to the main sequence, the heart of the script. The rapid fire images of pain that are inflicted. From the bathroom Frank and his cistern lid, nice gag with the door. Typical of what�s to follow. Pain, plenty of pain that would be enjoyed by the viewer and reader alike.

There may be a slight bit of trouble with the gap between the two cries of pain. He crushes his fingers under the lid, then screams, bangs his head on it then screams again. I haven�t been in that situation but my vague physics brain suspects that he might crush his fingers and hit his chin at around the same time. I�m not sure whether he would have time to cry with pain before the velocity followed through. Although the script does say momentarily, so it could happen in the instant before his head is thrown forward.

Linda being armed with a toilet brush is a beautifully crafted image. The comedy is comparable to a Python sketch where someone fights a dragon armed with a copy of the guardian. Both are completely inadequate for the foe and slightly ridiculous. The slapstick continues. Tripping over her helpless husband�s legs and recrushing his fingers.

The next scene, scene 14 is effectively slotted in. It�s used to multistrand the narrative a little, cut away from the injury action and keep us in touch with the Neighbours. It also, briefly establishes that they are cooking and an ironic moment of dialogue as they think that Frank and Linda are weird.

The bathroom sees the agony continue, with an amusing, well crafted series of events. How to turn on a tap if you can�t use your hands, how to transport it (on the second attempt) without dropping it on your trousers. Then, how not to pour it over your wife. Followed by an amusing head to head collision.

Frank is indestructible! The banister isn�t and the torment continues. After a brief conversation which might be poking fun at the convention of the horror film genre. People always go into dead ends, constantly going up flights of stairs to rooftops when the only way of escape is below them. Now an elaborate pulley system has been assembled in the kitchen.

More pain for Frank as his wife grabs his hand. More amusement for the audience, more blood, more things hitting Linda. More pain, more laughs. The cellar door is introduced and could be the source of much tension, with Frank�s glaring eyes fixed upon it. Another moment of tension as the doorbell rings. More hand trouble means Linda is faced with opening it. Feebly waving the knife out, again, like the toilet brush encounter has comedy mileage. Her slashing at nothing and if something was in the vicinity, the movements would be inadequate to harm any opponent. Even the little boy just jumps back.

The resolution is dawned in an effective way. With the plate of human parts causing a realisation that these Neighbours have weird sense of food. They are attacked by a spade and the meaning is cemented by the image of a freezer containing assorted human parts. It�s tied in with the ball conversation, that reveals it as a plan. The cellar being the link between the two houses.

There might be an easier way of murdering your neighbour, but it wouldn�t have been so much fun. The ending the programme is appropriate as it obviously loops around to the start. The saga continues - dinner will be served.

My only criticisms are on a nit picking scale. A couple of question marks are missing and �role� should be �roll� on page 5 when the hand rolls around on the rug. I can�t identify any major faults or need for restructuring. The layout is fine. It�s in courier, clear, precise and is exactly in line with what is required. All the page numbers are correct and set procedure has been followed and respected.

All in all I think Mr Ashdown comes out of writing this with a lot of credit. It combined the right balance of action and doesn�t consist of reams of dialogue. It is well structured, intriguing and funny piece of writing. I think so anyway, but what was that about nobody knowing anything?