What Cooperville Teaches Us About Taboo Storytelling [Podcast]
Meet Cooperville—the high-concept fever dream that rocketed into Kinolime’s Top 3 and left our roundtable happily bruised. In this episode, John, Kat, Jack, and Lee dissect a script that sprints from audacious premise to razor-sharp character work, with a villain—Mosquito Man—you’ll love to hate (and hate to understand). Expect craft gems on outside-in storytelling, distinct character voices, and why your movie is only as good as its antagonist. Come for the bold idea; stay for the boulders we hurl at the characters. Buckle up—this one shrinks the world and blows your mind.
Full Transcript: Kinolime Podcast Episode 15: What Cooperville Teaches Us About Taboo Storytelling
Participants:
John Schramm - Head of Development, Kinolime
Kat Street - Reader
Jack Jones - Reader
Lee Foundation - - Reader, Screenwriter
John (Host):
I feel like the script does a strong job of portraying how “God” might feel about being God to us—more twisted and diabolical in its own idea than we assume. If you really think about life as it is, the film captures how that force might see itself in relation to us and our human experience. That’s a fascinating topic we could debate for days… but we don’t have days.
Today we’re talking about one of our favorite scripts from this year’s competition, Cooperville. Let’s jump in. Based on the Zoom names, we’ve got Kat Street—say hello.
Kat:
Hello.
John:
We’ve also got Jack Jones, coming in from across the pond.
Jack:
Thanks for having me.
John:
Every time you speak you sound like you’re from London.
Jack:
Exactly. A mug of tea and everything.
John:
And we’ve got Lee Foundation. Lee, where are you based now?
Lee:
Dallas, Texas. I’m from St. Louis, moved here about 11–12 years ago. I’m a screenwriter—officially/professionally since last year—so it’s been exciting.
John:
Congrats! I love Dallas—got family in McKinney.
Lee:
McKinney’s cool.
The Premise
John:
Let’s talk premise. When this came in during submissions, it felt bold—reminded me of Weapons in a way. We need more premises like this. What stood out about the premise and the writing? Kat, start us off.
Kat:
I’ve known Andre since film school—over 20 years. This is a very “Andre” script. There’s a line most people don’t cross—he hops right over it: “Where’s that line? Let’s go.” I loved the premise because it’s an interesting social experiment. Then, when you get into the “why,” it gets much deeper. I love stories that break people down to reveal who they really are—that’s what Andre explores so well here.
John:
Didn’t know you had history with Andre—very cool.
Kat:
He was a year below me.
John:
Jack, your take on the premise?
Jack:
At first, I couldn’t picture it—the shrunken world, how it would pay off. But the writing is unrelenting—funny, terrifying, thrilling, a mystery—it moves through beats continuously. It’s an entertaining way to talk about wider societal issues in America.
John:
Lee?
Lee:
I love work that says something. This reveals a truth about being Black in this country—and in the world. The premise has momentum and doesn’t let up—relentless and unapologetic. That’s the human experience. And, to go out on a limb—I feel like it even portrays how God feels about being God to us: twisted, diabolical in its own idea. If you think about life as it is, the film captures that relationship to humanity.
John:
We could talk about that forever. Save it for Palm Springs or Death Valley.
(laughter)
Outside-In Storytelling
John:
I love great writing. You can build films inside-out (character first), or outside-in (premise first, then go internal). This is a classic outside-in piece: craziest premise imaginable, then build the world. These are some of the most satisfying scripts—the big hook that leads to character. Andre crushed it.
Let’s bring it to characters. How did the four protagonists land for you? Who did you latch onto? Lee, start us off.
Characters & Antagonist
Lee:
I’m a “villain makes the story” guy. Without an antagonist, nothing happens. Mosquito Man is fantastic—great motive, great monologues, the kind that break things down. I do that too—explain myself in detail. I loved Mosquito Man.
John:
Writers: your movie is only as good as your antagonist. You need the Joker for Batman—here you need Mosquito Man to counter our four leads. Kat?
Kat:
I connected with Garrett. There’s that moment at the end: “She was right.” I wanted to know what he meant. He’s not a fighter, but he’s pushed to defend himself. What gets a pacifist to start fighting? I’d love to see more exploration there. And yes—Mosquito Man is terrific.
John:
A little Lord of the Flies vibe—Piggy, right?
Kat:
Piggy!
John:
Jack, favorite character?
Jack:
Mosquito Man, hands down. The reveal that he’s Black—I did not see it coming. So smart. It reframes the themes through a sharper angle. Of the guys, I got strong attitudes—especially Garrett: smart, well-read on the issues, but by the end even he’s broken down by the world they’re trapped in.
Kat:
To “yes-and” John’s outside-in point: it’s high concept, but there’s beefy character work. You emotionally connect to Mosquito Man—you hate him, understand him, sometimes even empathize. The script makes you think about yourself and society. Is he… right? Great villains often have the right intentions but go about them the wrong way.
John:
Exactly—like Ed Harris in The Rock. He’s wrong in method, but you understand the grievance. Or Heath Ledger’s Joker—you understand the desire for chaos even if you reject it. Benson/Mosquito Man makes a compelling case, which elevates him beyond a stock villain. Writers: spend as much time on your antagonist as your hero. Everyone here can’t stop talking about Mosquito Man—that’s the signal.
Constructive Criticism
John:
We love Cooperville, but at Kinolime we always look for ways to elevate a story. What constructive notes would help push this even higher? Jack?
Jack:
I liked the detective thread—the “I have a hunch” energy. It grounds the piece in a genre lane. But I didn’t fully buy Thompson’s sudden leap to “people are being shrunken and put into jars.” We can take the leap with him, but give us more of his background—an old case that haunts him, something that plausibly leads him to conceive of that idea. It would solve two issues: his characterization and the logic jump.
John:
Fair. I bumped on that too. Kat?
Kat:
Sorry, Andre—he knows I love him. My main issue: the protagonists (the four) and the detectives aren’t fully fleshed out so we can deeply connect. Garrett comes closest; I see the opportunity there. With Thompson, I’d position him as the yin to Benson’s yang—maybe he was also bullied but chose another path. He understands the perpetrator because he could’ve become him. That makes his leaps feel earned.
With Benson, since I love him so much: I wondered how Black audiences might respond. I understand the psychology—bullied by a group, you escalate hatred. But does Benson like anyone? Does he sympathize with a bullied kid? Seed small moments of humanity so he isn’t purely diabolical—let us love and hate him.
Finally, the missing people arc: it’s a big societal issue—Black people going missing and not getting the same investigative attention. There are more opportunities to drive that home. The scene where Thompson visits the mother of a missing child—she says, “They don’t care about my daughter; they only care about white kids.” Let Thompson agree out loud. He’s holding back, but he could finally say, “I care about your kid.” A small coda to tie off that heartbreaking thread would land powerfully.
John:
Great notes. Lee?
Lee:
Some dialogue-level stuff. I’m a dialogue guy, and I had to learn to pull back. Here, the voices aren’t distinct enough, which ties to Kat’s point about characterization. When you write Black characters, dialect, cadence, and code-switching vary with background, education, neighborhood, etc. It’s hard to convey, but essential. Some characters read like the same person talking. Make the voices more distinct—still intelligent and articulate, but differentiated.
John:
Huge craft tip: distinct voices help readers track who’s who and deepen character quickly through cadence and word choice.
Lessons for Writers
John:
For the writers watching: what did you take from Cooperville into your own process? Lee?
Lee:
Be more descriptive when characters enter; I tend to “get to it,” but initial impression matters. And yes, distinct voices. I also loved Andre’s formatting trick: putting the character name and dialogue on the same line to signal overlapping speech—it communicates simultaneity without extra direction. I’m stealing that.
John:
Jack?
Jack:
While reading, I flipped to my own script and realized my descriptions were bloated. Andre’s brevity nails a character in a line. The action descriptions are entertaining. I cut my waffle.
John:
Kat?
Kat:
Andre’s relentlessness. I’m too kind to my characters. I want to put them up a tree and throw boulders, not pebbles. He’ll throw a building—or an elephant-sized cat. I want more of that energy.
Closing
John:
Thank you for joining us on the Kinolime Roundtable. Cooperville made the Top 3 in our last competition. We love this screenplay and can’t wait to see what we can do with it at Kinolime. Huge thanks to Andre for the script, and to Jack, Lee, and Kat for the insights.
To everyone tuning in—thanks for watching. Follow us on Instagram and YouTube for more great conversations and guests. See you next time.
All:
Thank you!
