I was very pleased with the editor's report because he/she really understood the work and my intentions. Not only that, but the suggestions made to improve aspects of the script were well thought-through and very helpful. One thing I wanted to mention specifically: the editor understood (without prompting) that Michael X was not the protagonist. This may seem like a small thing but if I had a pound for every time a reader, used to reading linear structured screenplays, had made the mistake of confusing the protagonist with the subject matter, I'd be a very rich man! I've worked hard to develop the Rachael (protagonist) character within the framework of a double-narrative and structurally, Michael acts as a mentor antagonist to her. So because the editor understood this, his analysis was of much greater value than others' I've had in the course of the script's development. Other aspects of his/her analysis that stood out include the suggestion I build on the Natalie/Desiree juxtaposition. I've begun this work in this draft and there's scope to take it further. Also, the suggestion I make some of the flashback sequences a little more goal-oriented. I can do this, it's a good idea, and the editor's right to point out it tends to be one of the issues with biopics generally. In fact, most of the ideas for improvement I do agree with and will act on. I resisted putting Michael up on the stand in the trial for 2 main reasons 1) I wanted to retain an element of enigma about him right up till the end. For me, this allows the audience greater scope to come to their own conclusions about the man. I didn't want to lay my own views on too thick. I actually think he didn't do it (the murders) but he probably knew about it and, but for his depressive state at that point in his life, could probably have stopped it. I agree that If I build up a bit more of a picture of his life in Arima (through the Parmassar witness) this will come across more. He's actually quite Kurtz-like in Trinidad. It's like a big part of him died when he left London so he's like an empty shell compared to the man he used to be. But there is scope in the scene where Rachael finally confronts Michael (in the van) to get more of his POV on the murders. I'm toying with the idea of him actually saying 'I wasn't there' and this having both a literal and metaphorical meaning. 2) He actually wasn't allowed to take the stand in the real trial and this was part of the state's refusal to allow any evidence that would contradict their star witness (in reality there were two, Parmassar and Abbott and I merged them). Thanks once again, it's been very helpful and I'm really looking forward to further honing the script. William Dingli (14/02/14)