While having his last portrait painted, George Washington, shares his memories of facing his biggest enemy Charles Langlade, who also happens to be his friend.
STORY COMMENTS
THE LAND ABOVE presents as a dramatic historical character-driven journey that focuses on the iconic character of George Washington, his exploits, his regrets, and his rival with Langlade.
The character of George Washington is a legendary figure and any film that offers a new perspective of Washington has merit.
The story is driven more by Washington’s inner goal and conflict rather than by the external goal. In other words, the story seems to be more about a story of redemption, regret, and forgiveness. It’s a dying man’s memories but at the end one learns that …show more content…
However, Washington never really comes across as a unique, or interesting Washington with the exception of some of the present day scenes. The Young Washington just isn’t as compelling or interesting due to the structure in which he goes from one battle to the next. It’s a bit confusing to understand how he rivals Langlade one moment and becomes his ally the next.
On the other hand, the character of Langlade presents as a very intriguing and distinctive character. He’s complex. He’s sometimes seen as good and sometimes perceived as bad. He shares some interesting chemistry with Washington. He definitely stands out as a character.
However, continue to streamline the supporting characters (Captain Mackay, General Amherst, General Haviland, General Murry, Colonel Ethrington, etc.). As mentioned, Charlotte, the only truly developed female is very engaging. On the other hand, the story doesn’t develop Washington’s relationship with his wife or family.
As stated, some of the battle scenes end up blending together and the transition back to the present and then back to the past tends to interrupt the flow. For example, when the character of Pontiac is introduced, it almost feels like a new …show more content…
Make him the main protagonist as he paints Washington’s portrait. Perhaps Washington mentors him with some brief tale tales. In fact, set up the idea that Washington is known to tell tales that may or may not be true, but don’t put the focus on Washington or the flashbacks. His verbal tells (with some perhaps visual imagery) only should serve to provide subtext and insight connected to support Gilbert Stuart’s struggles.
There’s something very appealing about Gilbert and Charlotte and their relationship with Washington. Like in the film THE KING’S SPEECH, the story focused on the relationship between the King and his therapist who helped the King resolve his inner conflict to achieve his external goal: the speech. Washington could act as the “therapist” to the problems Gilbert and Charlotte face.
Another suggestion is to tell the life story of Langlade, who is less known in history.
Finally, in the current story, opening with an older Washington is fine, but the backstory needs to be more goal-focused, both with the external goal and the inner
STORY COMMENTS
THE LAND ABOVE presents as a dramatic historical character-driven journey that focuses on the iconic character of George Washington, his exploits, his regrets, and his rival with Langlade.
The character of George Washington is a legendary figure and any film that offers a new perspective of Washington has merit.
The story is driven more by Washington’s inner goal and conflict rather than by the external goal. In other words, the story seems to be more about a story of redemption, regret, and forgiveness. It’s a dying man’s memories but at the end one learns that …show more content…
However, Washington never really comes across as a unique, or interesting Washington with the exception of some of the present day scenes. The Young Washington just isn’t as compelling or interesting due to the structure in which he goes from one battle to the next. It’s a bit confusing to understand how he rivals Langlade one moment and becomes his ally the next.
On the other hand, the character of Langlade presents as a very intriguing and distinctive character. He’s complex. He’s sometimes seen as good and sometimes perceived as bad. He shares some interesting chemistry with Washington. He definitely stands out as a character.
However, continue to streamline the supporting characters (Captain Mackay, General Amherst, General Haviland, General Murry, Colonel Ethrington, etc.). As mentioned, Charlotte, the only truly developed female is very engaging. On the other hand, the story doesn’t develop Washington’s relationship with his wife or family.
As stated, some of the battle scenes end up blending together and the transition back to the present and then back to the past tends to interrupt the flow. For example, when the character of Pontiac is introduced, it almost feels like a new …show more content…
Make him the main protagonist as he paints Washington’s portrait. Perhaps Washington mentors him with some brief tale tales. In fact, set up the idea that Washington is known to tell tales that may or may not be true, but don’t put the focus on Washington or the flashbacks. His verbal tells (with some perhaps visual imagery) only should serve to provide subtext and insight connected to support Gilbert Stuart’s struggles.
There’s something very appealing about Gilbert and Charlotte and their relationship with Washington. Like in the film THE KING’S SPEECH, the story focused on the relationship between the King and his therapist who helped the King resolve his inner conflict to achieve his external goal: the speech. Washington could act as the “therapist” to the problems Gilbert and Charlotte face.
Another suggestion is to tell the life story of Langlade, who is less known in history.
Finally, in the current story, opening with an older Washington is fine, but the backstory needs to be more goal-focused, both with the external goal and the inner