![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
Alters screenplay
I don't have MPD / DID, but I've had two close friends with DID and have known several others.
I'm currently working on a screenplay which I'm hoping will cast multiplicity in a favorable light, and would love to get some input.
The log line: A college student with multiple personalities must make a choice between the boy she loves and the alters who've kept her safe since childhood.
Although there's no explicit sex or violence, I've tried to be very straightforward, so there may be some triggers.
The screenplay can be downloaded it at www.fileden.com/files/2006/11/5/350846/Alters.pdf
Comments can be directed to dianneordi at excite dot com. Use "Alters" as the subject.
Thank you!
Dianne.
no subject
Good bye!
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
Please, don't do the multiple community any 'favors'. You're harming it with writing like that.
-Muses Anonymous
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
*Fades off into the distance running around hysterically repeating above line*
Fail!
...
no subject
The bit about "in a favorable light" is particularly amusing. I suppose it meant the story was supposed to evoke pity for the poor victims.
Rob
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
Anyway, if you can post the screenplay online or email it (non-download, of course!) we'd give it a read. Email's gremlynna at gmail dot com.
Joey
(no subject)
Inside Family
Re: Inside Family
Re: Inside Family
no subject
P.S. Off to REREAD the script and see if either I or any of the other members of this group can be of some positive criticism assistance since we too are writers.
(no subject)
no subject
no subject
Reading it as an experience of a mental illness, it could be considered a decent depiction, if you are documenting the 'classic' MPD/DID model, and attempting to convey the classic MPD to classic functionality, ie. multiple girl goes from disfunctionality as a group (and they are dysfunctional, even if they are superficially ‘succeeding’.) to a hetro-normative state of functionality. The implication is that the group has intergrated, the sort of 'guardian angel' effect, where they are beneficently watching over Heather while she is married to the boy of her dreams. And to be frank, that is incredibly unrealistic, and probably where the criticism is (partly) coming from. Part of the problem is, of course, is that the classic models, both of depicting multiplicity and depicting recovery, functionality etc, are not helpful for multiples, as a rule. There are people who have experiences along the lines of Heather, but I would ask, why must THAT particular experience be the one written about and shown to a (largely non-multiple) audience?
Part of my initial reaction was to the word 'alters'. Alter as in alter-ego, as in a 'mask' or a 'face', which most plural groups find offensive (us included, to be honest. Calling Tahl my alter ego is...lol. Try calling your lover, your sibling an ‘alter’ to their face, and see how uncomfortable the word is). This perception is backed up by the characters themselves: Zoe, the vivacious one, Heather, the sensative, quiet core, B.J, the innocent...it all sort of contributes to a feeling of them as facades. Also, all the old stereotypes are there. The protector, the child (who is bluntly indicated to be a trauma split, 'to preserve Heather's innocence’), the 'core' who is somehow deprived because of the others, etc. Also, all of the members in the group are female, which is extremely rare, and adds to the feeling of inauthenticity.
So you have several of the biggest stereotypes there: all same sex, the childhood abuse, the 'roles' of the others around a damaged 'core', the notion of splintering etc. Again, I would say that yes, this does and can happen. BUT, is this the story that should be told? I think personally that a writer has responsibility for WHAT stories are told, because those stories affect the popular perception of the subject. Heather's (and it is Heather's situation, in this screenplay, not Heather and her group, or the System' situation) is repeated over and over again in fiction, when it isn't the reality for many multi groups (from my experience, at least). Just as the immature gay couple battling valiantly against society, contracting AIDs/getting beaten to death by skinheads and then having one or both of them die, forever to pine for their lost love sometimes CAN happen, it is not the story that can speak for the vast majority of the queer community. How can that saccharine 'romance' benefit the older lesbian couple campaigning for the right to marry and have a child under law, or the gay teenager, stranded in the country, without family support, who still has to do with his hormones? What kind of culture are these texts promoting?
This is what I feel you should be asking with Heather, and 'Alters' in general. What, and who's, story are you telling? And is that story the one that needs to be told? Is it ethical to continue promoting these notions of what multiplicity is, while bending a plural character to the normative standard of 'boy meets girl, boy and girl get married, they live happily ever after (with or without 'alters'). You have said yourself, this text is fundamentally a romance. Well, romance as a genre is problematic in and of itself. When you try and bend minorities to fit the romantic scaffold, you usually end up with a patronising element. That is what I think has happened in this story. And that patronising problem > drama > cookie-cutter solution is what gets everyone here up in arms.
part 2
Re: part 2
(no subject)
Re: part 2
Re: part 2
Re: part 2
Re: part 2
Re: part 2
clearer? (no integration)
Re: clearer? (no integration)
no subject
I want the hour of my life that it took to read that, back. I'm sure that entering the film industry, I'll have this problem a lot, so I realize I must get used to that.
Reading this, I know I can get through a pile of steaming cliches without getting pissed, so thank you for that.
But again, there are a lot of cliches in this that needed to be broken with a work that's supposed to help convey multiplicity.. not enforce the idea society has about it.
Delete it and start over, is my advice. Step away from cliches, stop saying that people who have "others" sharing their bodies are "claming to have alters".. and stop with the trauma based splits. Media has covered that to death and I would honestly like to see a piece that shows healthy multiplicity in a permanent, realistic and positive light.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
Better opening?
Re: Better opening?
Re: Better opening?
Re: Better opening?
Re: Better opening?
no subject
Still, why do they always have to integrate? I'm not really a multiple myself, but I can see why this would offend one(s?), and the word 'alters' was a bad choice. 'Plurally Inclined', as suggested above, would be a much better option.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
I agree with practically everyone else that the Julie plotline was... uh... confusing at best. I can see it working in some format - having Julie be in denial about being part of the system or whatever - but as it stands it seems completely impossible that she and Heather could possibly be unaware of it. the sudden "Tyler was really in love with Heather after all" seems a bit nonsensical and tacked on, too. If he's going to turn out to be in love with her, possibly it needs a bit more... development earlier on? and a happy ending for Julie that's not "she learns to put Heather's needs before her own" would be nice too! I felt bad for her.
so yeah. needs some work basically, but that's writing for you and as a first draft I honestly do not think that this was OMG IRREDEEMABLE. definitely a better portrayal than we usually get round here from the "I have written a book about MPD!" types.
~Jasmine
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
Re: Constructive Criticism
Re: Constructive Criticism
Re: Constructive Criticism
no subject
As for the Julie subplot, that was a bit confusing at first, but we quickly figured it out :). I thought it was kind of interesting.
And we totally didn't read the ending as being "omg integration!!!". It was made pretty clear that the others are still around. *shrug*
Last but not least, thank you for portraying self-harm in a neutral light. The host and one of the others used to self-harm, and yes, it is a coping mechanism. Not a healthy one, not by far, but sometimes, it is better than not doing it.
- Malak
(no subject)
(no subject)
The 'yes that was me' post!
Re: The 'yes that was me' post!
(no subject)
Begin Monty Python routine
Link about MPD vers DID
Re: Link about MPD vers DID
Re: Link about MPD vers DID
from the link
Is MUCH MUCH more in the link we posted before this.
Re: from the link