paved with good intentions

For years I've had this screenplay story about guards working for a client who turns out to be corrupt. In hindsight, maybe not the most earth-shattering innovation as a premise goes.

In 2001 it was read with actors at the Victory Cafe as part of Robert Graham's First Draft meetings. It went over well and I enjoyed the actors. It featured one young woman who had months before bailed out on one of my sort films.

There was to be another reading of a further draft at the same venue, but it was then after 9/11 had happened and I think that threw me off kilter. How I could get the date wrong for an event where actors were learning my lines I'll never get over.

Over the years, I've rewritten the script to open it up, which frankly does not always work. I've had any number of groups read it, the most outlandish feedback being a suggestion that zombies be outside the door. I have certainly thought about zombie guards, and that may be something to consider in the next leg. It's been a 100 page screenplay and also a radio drama, at least in written form. As to the political content of how to combat someone in authority, I don't know how it resolves.

By now I should know the drill (maybe a little too late). If you know someone has committed a crime, and your evidence isn't enough to impress police, first make your case to the legal department of the security company. Then when they rule that you may not under any circumstances shake up the life of the perpetrator, stick to anonymous e-mail. Even if questions are raised about who could possibly see security cameras but security guards. The only problem with that approach is that the legal department will recognize your arguments if they see the unofficial report.

So maybe I still haven't learned anything. Maybe the wrong way I do things, which gets me into trouble, still remains the correct way. If your company knows who the culprit is and there is no discussion with police because you don't want to jeopardize an account, then everybody looks bad.

One thing I can say is this - something I did right: keep the offender's name out of it. But let them know everybody in security knows and how they know. That way he might walk right up and try to fish for more answers. Then you have the icing on the proof cake. Though for various reasons you may not be able to get into details yet. I don't especially like being coy or cryptic but when I have to I can leave it at that. I think it's pretty reasonable to wish to see a felon face punishment, even if it means being a bit of a scapegoat yourself.