Screenwriting : Locke? Derek? by Jeffrey Gold

"Locke" was a virtuoso piece of lyrical screenwriting. Could it have been green-lit in the USA? Possibly -- but the studios usually want to see more "names" on screen than one masterful UK actor, to help them sell it into multiple markets. My 2 cents.

@LIndaAnn Still, I don't think this would have gotten past the readers. Something like that has to be "an inside job."

Jeffrey, "Locke" had a production budget of under $2 million (though it looked like it cost $250-$1,000). Director Steven Knight was also the writer. Knight did something right -- he got his film made.

I agree with Owen. Finally, someone wrote a script good enough to be a STAGE PLAY. My highest compliments to Steven Knight.

Owen, posting a link for you; "Locke" -- to read script -- http://gointothestory.blcklst.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Locke.pdf So few can write this well: be lyrical yet economical. Excellent touch with the kids watching the soccer game -- the "dark horse" player wins; kids recorded it; they'll replay the drama of the match for their father. (Enjoyed the film; would love to see it live on a STAGE!)

The Locke script is brilliant, read it before I saw the film last year, very gripping for a single hander with a guy driving in a car and making a few phone calls.

Anthony, I agree! Brilliant script! But a $1.5 million budget for "Locke" kind of boggles the mind. Maybe Tom Hardy's fee was $500,000 ...?

Lisa: "Locke" starts in a parking lot; rest of the film is set inside 1 car. Ivan Locke speaks to others on a cellphone; no other actors are seen. That's why I said the $1.5 mill production budget seemed "generous." I know actors love to act -- esp if only ONE actor is seen on camera for 90 mins. LOL!!

@LindaAnn Finally, someone wrote a script good enough to be a STAGE PLAY?

I still haven't gotten around to watching it, but it's on my list. That said, were the references to the film's budget also including its marketing? Indie flicks that don't cater for the masses may opt to self-advertise or even self-distribute, and that would require a hell of a lot of money (at least double what it cost to make a film of this scale). The other thing is that, considering the amount of driving, safety must have been paramount and permits for busy areas aren't cheap; even if loads of locations weren't used and the actual filming was done on the quick, were all other vehicles driven by stuntment on £150 a day, or are they actual passing vehicles? It's tough to say where the money goes on a film like this because everyone assumes that it can be made for less and nobody seems to want to accpt the fact that if someone spend a year (or more) of his/her life trying to get this project off the ground, that individual's going to want to be paid for that year - and we're not talking minimum wage! Now bear in mind that it's very unlikely only the one person was behind this film the whole time... you'll be looking at at least two producers who will want anything from £50k each upwards per annum, and this could have taken a few years to get off the ground... then there are all those other expenses that may have mounted up. What viewers who think they're savvy to the industry also don't get is that professional productions require certain labour laws to be upheld - and where the hell is a crew going to find a toilet and a warm cafe in the middle of a motorway at 1 AM? So, do you stick close by the facilities or hire a food truck and a couple of porta-toilets? Anyone endeavour to guess how much they cost per day? And for what it's worth, Steven Knight has been around for YEARS and is incredibly well respected in the British industry. I remember reading his novel, Alphabet City (if, indeed, he's the same bloke), some 15-20 years ago and thinking, "Great talent!" Personally, I love to see a film of that.

"You wont ever see Cruise doing that!"--that's what I would call a "dismissive" comment, Owen. It was very negative with zero support. (Might be true, who knows, but zero support for the statement--just Owen's opinion stated flatly.) Lisa didn't say anything dismissive about anybody. Just because somebody posts a comment going in a somewhat different direction than yours does not mean they are attacking you or your opinion. You pounced all over Lisa for an imagined slight--in fact, she was responding to the person who said "it's mind-boggling", not you. Please give online posters more benefit of the doubt, since we cannot make eye contact with one another. A discussion is where people express different points of view. You can express your own without making a personal attack on somebody else, or belittling them. Why not give Stage 32 posters the deference you want to give to the Locke actor as to motives? JMHO !!!! Live and let live.

Just so people are clear: I thoroughly enjoyed LOCKE and am enjoying DEREK. Both very unique pieces. Then there's Norway's Slow TV. There are some really interesting choices/forms being developed outside the States. I do not, however, believe that LOCKE or DEREK could get past competition judges or script readers—no matter how lyrical the writing (as someone claimed). Now that these pieces are successful, sure, everybody can assert what brilliant screenplays they are...but would they have recognized the work before the fact? I'm not convinced that is the case. (The King's Speech took ten years to get made, and so have a host of other great films. The problem is we don't know the qualifications of readers; many are interns who are assigned to cull the deluge of scripts. What are their qualifications to read scripts when it takes ten years or more to really learn how to write one?)

C. D-Broughton wrote: The other thing is that, considering the amount of driving, safety must have been paramount and permits for busy areas aren't cheap; even if loads of locations weren't used and the actual filming was done on the quick, were all other vehicles driven by stuntment on £150 a day, or are they actual passing vehicles? Reply to C.D. B: I doubt there was any driving -- anymore than "Gravity" was filmed "in space." Tom Hardy is behind the wheel --- they probably used a set. The illusions of a car being driven outdoors were added later.

Like I wrote, LindaAnn: I haven't seen it - I just heard that it was about some bloke driving from one end of the country to the other and how his life unfolds during the night via a set of telephone calls (NOTE: people really shouldn't speak on their damn mobiles whilst driving!). And where Gravity wasn't actually filmed in space, it did cost a hell of a lot more to make than India's real life successful space mission.

Yes, I know you had not seen it -- and Ivan Locke is not using a mobile phone. They gave him a hands-free device. Actually, if a viewer went in expecting a film about car chases and stuntman and fancy driving that person would be misled. Clever comment about the space mission. Thanks!!

Just a quick comment about Locke, you should read about the making of it online. They didn't use a set, they filmed out on the roads and always at night. It took between one and two weeks to shoot it, back to back days. I believe (but could be very wrong) that his car was on a rig that drove around the roads. Thanks for the link to the script as well, I had been looking for that for ages when the move first came out :-)

Trevor, that makes sense (that they were outdoors at night) but his car must have been on a rig. You never see LOCKE next to another car; he never swerves fast nor moves the steering wheel to change lanes; he never stops for a stoplight. A RIG was probably used.