Response to decadencefilms

Just to clarify.

"A lot of people's introduction to screenwriting naturally comes from the likes of Mcklee and Syd Field. Both of these (and most other screenwriting "gurus") suggest that people write cinematically. "

Robert Mckeey has argued the art over the craft. In fact his book is not a how to do writers manuel, but what to understand about story structure.

A screenplay by trade is a blue print for the movies, but by nature is a literary work, like the novellas and novals.

The only difference is the formatting the amount of white space on the page. That's it.

Martin has it right. The reader is not getting paid to find well written prose. He is getting paid to find great stories for the studios.

" Daniel Day Lewis cannot act like he is unaware of the bullet appraoching and at the same time convey that he is. It's impossible. A paradox."

What do mean? I am not sure I see an unexperience writer fall into this trap.

"No DOP can light the film in such a way as to convey the idea that this man is about to be hit by two bullets." A bullet travelling through the air does not require special lighting.

However a fireball falling from the sky toward a specific object can be light to convey the event before it happens.

"Film is about what you see and hear, nothing more. So what are the advantages of writing in such a way? What are the disadvantages?" Because good writing is about invoking sense memory. If the writer makes us believe he understands the picture he paints the director will comprehand.

"I think that is a good point about Hollywood directors. Maybe they prefer less specific scripts." On the contrary, a well written script is always specific. Some writers will choose to use few words.

"The vast majority of people will experience the film by watching it. A script is made to be filmed. All that lovely description and turn of phrase will disappear in filming (unless you stick it in narration or dialogue or action)." No it won't. The picture of the script is on screen, however the director takes creative licence to what the most important part of the picture is the most important.

"A screenplay by trade is a blue print for the movies, but by nature is a literary work, like the novellas and novals.

The only difference is the formatting the amount of white space on the page. That's it."

Completely untrue. That is the whole point of what I am saying. A film script is not a literary form, it is the first process in the construction of a film.

It is a verbal representation of an audio/visual medium.


Here is an excerpt from Hemingway's For whom the Bell Tolls:
(I chose a book at random from my study).


"Now that his rage was gone he was excited by this storm as he always was by all storms. In a blizzard, a gale, a sudden line squall, a tropical storm, or a summer thunder shower in the mountains there was an excitement that came to him from no other thing. It was like the excitement of battle except that it was clean. There is a wind that blows through battle but that was a hot wind; hot and dry as your mouth; and it blew heavily; hot and dirtily; and it rose and died away with the fortunes of the day. He knew that wind well."

That is prose. A literary form. You can't just put writing like that in courier 12 and space it out to turn it into a film script. You have to think of visual ways to get that same thought process across. Or choose some images and have a narrator or have the same ideas put across through dialogue or action.


"Martin has it right. The reader is not getting paid to find well written prose. He is getting paid to find great stories for the studios."


The studios want one thing above all, marketable scripts that once made into a film will return a profit beyond the rates of returns that they could get by investing it in anything else. At no point have I disagreed with anyone about Martin's original point that studios won't buy something that contains character descriptions.

My point is merely that screenwriting in its truest sense does not require them. The characters in a film can only be built by what they say and do and not by the way you describe them in the description.

What I have been trying to do in the thread is widen the discussion from the initial point in order to explain the reasons why things are the way they are.

Why is this a feature of Hollywood writing? Why do some people maintain that it is bad screenwriting?

The question; How do you sell a script to Hollywood? is very different to How do you write the best script?

Writers who use literary techniques all the time are going to quickly lose control of their ability to tell a visual story. Everything in a script should be very specific. What do you want the audience to know and when? How do you get that across to an audience?

Using literary techniques means that the director has to either re-write the script or cut the unfilmmable parts out. That's a fact. An indisputable fact.

"No DOP can light the film in such a way as to convey the idea that this man is about to be hit by two bullets." A bullet travelling through the air does not require special lighting.

However a fireball falling from the sky toward a specific object can be light to convey the event before it happens. "

???? If you want a bullet travelling through the air in your script, write that there is a bullet travelling through the air. If you want the ground to light up, write it in the script. If you want to see a comet approaching from space, write it in the script. When and where you want the audience to know it is happening.

"" Daniel Day Lewis cannot act like he is unaware of the bullet appraoching and at the same time convey that he is. It's impossible. A paradox.""

"What do mean? I am not sure I see an unexperience writer fall into this trap. "

Consider this:

"STAFF SARGEANT JOHN TYREE -- who is in his mid-20’s, who has a shaved head beneath his GREEN BERET, and who is completely unaware that two bullets are seconds away from entering him."

This is the example that Tierney posted.Read the whole example. Do you see how the phrase "unaware that two bullets etc" is redundant? He tells us he is about to be shot in the narration.

In the script the reader becomes aware of it before it happens on screen (ie before the viewer will find out). It creates literary suspense that cannot be incorporated into the film without changing the script.

It's a very obvious point and one that I can't stress enough, because it  can change the whole meaning of films.

Why write stories that have to be changed? Surely as a screenwriter you want to keep the final vision as close to your original intention as possible?

In this actual example it is almost immaterial because the time between the two is very small and it doesn't affect the central dramatic question (who shot him and why?). It's a redundancy rather than a flaw in the drama. He's is qualifying the fact that the central character is unaware he is about to be shot. (Ie so the opening shot is not of a man pleading for his life).

My fear is that inexperienced writers read things like that in professional scripts and use techniques like that continuously.

A man who is completely unaware of something can only do what he is currently doing whether that is reading a book or whatever else. An actor can only act either that he is unaware of something or act that he is aware of it. If you as the screenwriter want people who watch the film to know something that the charcaters don't, you have to show it on the screen.


A writer can write this:

EXT. Restaurant. Day

John Smith sits sipping a coffee, completely unaware that in two hours he will be dead.

It looks like a script, but it isn't. Its prose. It's unfilmmable. You can start a short story like that and it will create suspense becasue we instantly wonder what is going to happen to him. But film it and all you see is a guy drinking a beverage.

To make it a script you would either need a narrator telling us what is going to happen or create a new scene showing that John Smith is under some threat and then show that he is unaware of it.

Do you see?
                              

"Film is about what you see and hear, nothing more. So what are the advantages of writing in such a way? What are the disadvantages?" Because good writing is about invoking sense memory. If the writer makes us believe he understands the picture he paints the director will comprehand.


There is a difference between screenwriting and writing literature that you just aren't grasping. See the above example of Hemingway. Very evocative, but unfilmmable in it's present form.

The original point of the thread is this: Can you sell a script that contains florid character descriptions? Yes, you can.

My point. These kind of descriptions can make it more likely to sell as it reads better and therefore gets better coverage. The problem is you will often find that the resulting films are not actually that good. For reasons I've expressed throughout the thread.


Derek Haas uses literary techniques to make sure non-filmmakers (Ie studio producers, who tend to be businessmen) understand exactly what he is doing. But it doesn't make the script any better. As he admits himself on the same thread that anotherwriter used to try and disprove what I was saying.

This is what John Turman said on the same thread as Haas saying a good story trumps everything (which I have always maintained and agreed with!): John Turmans filmography can be viewed here  

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0877273/

"Lots of successful writers set a tone and do their best imitation of Shane Black by telling the reader what the character is thinking or stuff about the tone, or other things that have no place in a screenplay. It works for some, it works better if used sparingly. It involves the reader and makes a document that is hard to read easier. But my personal bias is that I hate it. I think it's terrible writing. It's deceptive, it implores the reader and offers up things that the movie can't possibly deliver on. Things the filmmakers can't possibly film.

"She's beautiful, she looks like the prom queen who wouldn't give you the time of day, but her eyes show she's had a lot of pain in her life -- "

I agree with David Mamet that this is utter horseshit. It can't be filmed. It's a plea to the script reader, as he says. (read his new book on the business, it's a bit depressing, but it's accurate)

The only elements that a screenplay should concern itself with are few:
•     Things you can point the camera at (characters, things, eg. the subject of the shot)
•     Things someone can do (action, description)
•     Things someone can say (dialogue)

That is it. So I wouldn't worry about rules of thumb as much as I'd think about that when writing description. Tell the story. Realize what your tools are. The rest is window dressing. I'm not saying don't ever put that pleading tonal stuff in there, I've certainly done it. The people reading yourr script seem to need some of it and it's become acceptable. But realize it's horseshit, it's not drama, do it sparingly.""



"The vast majority of people will experience the film by watching it. A script is made to be filmed. All that lovely description and turn of phrase will disappear in filming (unless you stick it in narration or dialogue or action)." No it won't. The picture of the script is on screen, however the director takes creative licence to what the most important part of the picture is the most important."


Yes it will. See what Turman says. It is unavoidable. Film is about what you can see and hear. Nothing more.

The only way it can make it into a film is if the script is completely altered. IE someone takes your literary story and spends time to convert it into an actual script.

For some reason I cannot quote you. It's either the network or my computer that has the problem. I will try to quote you the old fashion way.

****
"Writers who use literary techniques all the time are going to quickly lose control of their ability to tell a visual story. Everything in a script should be very specific. What do you want the audience to know and when? How do you get that across to an audience?"
****

I will have to disagree with you. I have never found this to be true in the scripts I read and the scripts I wrote. Maybe in theory it sounds like one would lose control, but in my expreience (again with the scripts I read) the writer has always managed to visualize the story if he understood the world his characters lived in.

****
"Using literary techniques means that the director has to either re-write the script or cut the unfilmmable parts out. That's a fact. An indisputable fact."
****

*laughs* I am a director by trade and the only time I ever needed to rewrite a script was when; the story structure had problems, the characters were shallow, the ending was not strong enough, or when the dalogue was bad.

I can tell you no director worth his salt is going to rewrite prose for the sake of cutting down expressive dialogue. Unless and I do stress the word "unless", he/she can tell the story in fewer pages.  Of course if a script is 400 pages long, we will go back to the writer and tell him to cut it down. Not because for visual aspect of the telling but because the writer clearly has not focused on the story that pushes the telling along.

Also, I understand that the media I am working in is about getting as much information as possible with as much white space on the script as possible, yet I'll never conflate the notion to mean I will treat my scripts purely as a craft, and not as a work of literary art. IMO the artform is there, it is just expressed in a different mechanic than the novella or novel.

Maybe what you define to be literary art is different from my defination of art but make no mistake that a great writer will see the script as his own artistic voice.

It is for this reason to write a great screenplay is a lot harder than it is to write a good novel for the reasons we both mentioned.

****
???? "If you want a bullet travelling through the air in your script, write that there is a bullet travelling through the air. If you want the ground to light up, write it in the script. If you want to see a comet approaching from space ..."
****

This is a play on semantics that is not contrary to the art of writing a screenplay. Why does it matter how something is said when the obviousness of what is happening in the scene is enough to tell me the director what I need to know?

****
"Completely untrue. That is the whole point of what I am saying. A film script is not a literary form, it is the first process in the construction of a film."
****

I think  you are being miopic to what makes good film writing. Like Martin said, it's about story more than it is about style.

I will agree this much that if the writer can express his full vision with as few words as possible, then he should, but I will never go so far as to say this is a rule of thumb.

I will respond the rest of your reply later.

Oh, Eric11, I admire your bravery and hope you have a lot of stamina.

I laughed at the mention of John Turman as a writing guru.  His father is legendary producer Lawrence Turman which I'm sure had nothing to do with John's credits.  But anyways, he's talking about direct-speak writing which is  -- "Tom takes off his jacket. Oh crap! He's going to fight John."  You get it in TV and action films a lot.  It's common and accepted so it's not like you're going out on a limb if you want to write like that.  The money people like it because it's an easy read.

Which cycles back to what this thread started out with -- write like you want to be produced.  It's gotten a little sideways about what Decadence can direct and whatnot which I don't think matters to most people on this board.  The members of the community write really commercial scripts and they want to be produced.  

If you want to sell your zombies and cannibals to Sony you have to learn to write like what Hollywood reads and buys.  They buy stuff chockful of great language, descriptions, embedded commentary and other unfilmables because they are buying a  script that has to appeal to actors, directors, marketing people and executives.  A script is not just a blueprint for production it's also a sales pitch and a marketing tool and a hook for getting the best talent attached.  The fact that a single line isn't filmable doesn't matter (I know, I know, but it doesn't) as long as the screenplay as a whole is obvious (like pretty much every example offered in this thread) and and everything sorts itself out in the end.  

And Eric, myopia is great word for not understanding how a screenplay works as whole.  "Myopic Director" is my new favorite oxymoron.

It's not a question of style. It is a simple black and white equation of what is filmmable and what is not.

You are a director. Tell me the shots that you would use to shoot this:


"She's beautiful, she looks like the prom queen who wouldn't give you the time of day, but her eyes show she's had a lot of pain in her life -- "


People keep avoiding the incontrovertible truth that film is a visual/audio medium and everything must be seen or heard.

The only way to film the above is to change the script. That is a stone cold fact and I really don't know why people keep skirting the issue.

"But anyways, he's talking about direct-speak writing which is  -- "Tom takes off his jacket. Oh cr**! He's going to fight John."  You get it in TV and action films a lot.  It's common and accepted so it's not like you're going out on a limb if you want to write like that.  The money people like it because it's an easy read."

You can't have your cake and eat it. You mention professionals do it one way but then when evidence from other professionals is pointed out, you pretend that they don't count.

No-one has ever said that it doesn't sell. I've explained at length the reasons it does sell, and the reasons why it often makes for less effective films.

Adding unfilmmables at the end of a script to make it easier to read is fine.  Any writer in the world should be able to dress a script up to make it read better. Adjectives are not hard to come by. My concern is only with novice writers who are trying to get better at writing scripts and those that want develop a deeper understanding of their art and craft.

"The members of the community write really commercial scripts and they want to be produced.  

"If you want to sell your zombies and cannibals to Sony you have to learn to write like what Hollywood reads and buys.  They buy stuff chockful of great language, descriptions, embedded commentary and other unfilmables because they are buying a  script that has to appeal to actors, directors, marketing people and executives.  A script is not just a blueprint for production it's also a sales pitch and a marketing tool and a hook for getting the best talent attached.  The fact that a single line isn't filmable doesn't matter (I know, I know, but it doesn't) as long as the screenplay as a whole is obvious (like pretty much every example offered in this thread) and and everything sorts itself out in the end.  "

Single lines are fine. The problem is that if novices don't develop a proper visual sense, they will never write anything that even approaches a sellable script.

As for using it as a sales pitch, a hook for talent etc. This is certainly the case, but It would have to be proven that there is a link between an actor liking the unfilmmables and taking the job, rather than being impressed by the quality of the dialogue and the actual story.

I personally have never heard a single actor wax lyrical about some character description.

At least you accept that some things are unfilmmable now.

"And Eric, myopia is great word for not understanding how a screenplay works as whole.  "Myopic Director" is my new favorite oxymoron."

It's not even an oxymoron. : )

>>At least you accept that some things are unfilmmable now.

I think what I said was a single line uninformed by the whole couldn't be filmed.  Y'know, myopia.

There's really no point in pursuing this, is there?  DF is always going to be right and his taste and limitations= quality writing.  It's one man against the majority of Hollywood.  Me, I got my money on the house.

Quoted from Tierney Oh, Eric11, I admire your bravery and hope you have a lot of stamina. I laughed at the mention of John Turman as a writing guru.  His father is legendary producer Lawrence Turman which I'm sure had nothing to do with John's credits.  But anyways, he's talking about direct-speak writing which is  -- "Tom takes off his jacket. Oh crap! He's going to fight John."  You get it in TV and action films a lot.  It's common and accepted so it's not like you're going out on a limb if you want to write like that.  The money people like it because it's an easy read. Which cycles back to what this thread started out with -- write like you want to be produced.  It's gotten a little sideways about what Decadence can direct and whatnot which I don't think matters to most people on this board.  The members of the community write really commercial scripts and they want to be produced.   If you want to sell your zombies and cannibals to Sony you have to learn to write like what Hollywood reads and buys.  They buy stuff chockful of great language, descriptions, embedded commentary and other unfilmables because they are buying a  script that has to appeal to actors, directors, marketing people and executives.  A script is not just a blueprint for production it's also a sales pitch and a marketing tool and a hook for getting the best talent attached.  The fact that a single line isn't filmable doesn't matter (I know, I know, but it doesn't) as long as the screenplay as a whole is obvious (like pretty much every example offered in this thread) and and everything sorts itself out in the end.   And Eric, myopia is great word for not understanding how a screenplay works as whole.  "Myopic Director" is my new favorite oxymoron.

Thanks, I will try to add to this conversation but I am not sure if I have the stamina to go 15 rounds. I agree with a lot what you said about the industry. My experience is with the indi world not so much the studio's. However I think the object of both industries is to make great movies.

BTW nice to meet you.

****
It's not a question of style. It is a simple black and white equation of what is filmmable and what is not.
****
I hate to sound like the antagonist here because I respect what you have to say, but I don't agree with you at all. I have not read two scripts that followed a typical convention. They come in all sort's of style's composition, length and prose.

Because no one writes the same, screenwriting is an art more than it is a craft, one cannot put a cap on art.

****
You are a director. Tell me the shots that you would use to shoot this:


"She's beautiful, she looks like the prom queen who wouldn't give you the time of day, but her eyes show she's had a lot of pain in her life -- "
****

Okay, this discription requires two shots. One is a wide shot to introduce the character in her environment. The other is a close up of her face to show us where the eyes are looking.

That's it.


****
People keep avoiding the incontrovertible truth that film is a visual/audio medium and everything must be seen or heard.
****

Filmmaking is a visual audio medium yes. Screenwriting is about utilizing your imagination for that medium. There is a certain language that we use to help the director see his movie but we don't tell him this is how you are going to make your movie. A director well take a script and tell us his version of the story but his interpretations are subjective.  

I believe a great director can make a bad script look good, but a bad director can/will make a good script look bad.

****
The only way to film the above is to change the script. That is a stone cold fact and I really don't know why people keep skirting the issue.
****

Well maybe to you it's a fact because you can't see how it can be done on film. That's okay, some scripts are intended for a particular director.

FYI if I was ever given the chance (I know I never will) I would hate to direct a Quintin Tarantino script. I would hate it because his style is offensive to me. But I love his movies and he does an awesome job directing his own screenplays.  

It's not a question of style. It is a simple black and white equation of what is filmmable and what is not.
****
I hate to sound like the antagonist here because I respect what you have to say, but I don't agree with you at all. I have not read two scripts that followed a typical convention. They come in all sort's of style's composition, length and prose.

*****

We're arguing two different points here. I'm not saying that there is a certain style of writing that everyone should adopt. That would be impossible even if that was what I wanted.

My problem is with unfilmmables, passages of description that cannot be filmed.

*****
"She's beautiful, she looks like the prom queen who wouldn't give you the time of day, but her eyes show she's had a lot of pain in her life -- "
****

Okay, this discription requires two shots. One is a wide shot to introduce the character in her environment. The other is a close up of her face to show us where the eyes are looking.

That's it.

****

This illustrates my point precisley and I'm glad that someone has finally had the decency to try and attempt the impossible.

The film you have just directed just shows a beautiful girl in a wide shot. Then it comes close to show her looking a bit upset.

Thats all the audience will pick up upon. .

"she looks like the prom queen who wouldn't give you the time of day". That is a thought that cannot be relayed to the audience with just a wide shot. This is what I mean by unfilmmables

All anyone will get is that she is good looking. That's it. (Even that of course is subjective).

When we go in close we'll see that she is a little sad. What we won't see is that the pain has existed for a long time. The audience will assume that something bad has just happened to her and wonder what that is.

If you want the audience to know she has suffered pain all her life we have to be told in dialogue or see it on screen through action. There are no alternatives.

Ultimately this segment of film is just this:

A beautiful girl. She looks sad.

Now I'm not suggesting that this is how you should write, what I'm saying is that very often people write very dull, cliched stuff then dress it up to make it read in a more interesting fashion. Ultimately that stylistic writing just boils down to the short passage above. Two shots, one of a nice looking girl and one showing us she's a bit sad. None of the history or character suggested by the writer will make it into the final film. (without an extensive re-write).

The big problem with writing in this way is not that it won't sell, it is that it encourages bad characterisation. People describe their characters in ways that are interesting to read, but untranslatable to film. You frequently end up with 2 dimensional characters and a flat story. It will read better than my example above and is therefore easier to sell, but it is the same film.

It's fine if professionals do it (though mistakes occur) because in their experience it helps their Producers understand it more easily. The danger is, as I have said, that people who are just starting out write exclusively in this fashion as I believe it prevents people from learning the ability to think visually.

"Filmmaking is a visual audio medium yes. Screenwriting is about utilizing your imagination for that medium."

Of course. But whatever you want to get across will either have to audible or visiblel. Those are the limitations imposed by the medium of the screen, not by myself. There is no limit to what you can put on the screen, there is no limit to the number of ideas, but you have to hear them or see them.


Now, everyone is free to write how they want, but the point is that ultimately writing this way may help to get you sales, but it isn't going to improve the film in any way. On the contrary it can seriously damage them by encouraging writers to put crucial plot information in the description when it should be on screen.

Films play on a screen with speakers. Those are the limitations imposed by this particular medium. Anything to be understood by the audience must either be seen or heard.  These are not my rules they are simply a physical reality. Physical reality can be ignored by some people forever (Some people still believe the world is flat) but it's still the case.

Anyway, enough.

For me it is the single biggest flaw that I come across in screenwriting. It tends to be at the root of problems with character development, plot structure etc because it encourages people to cut corners rather than organically creating everything piece by piece. I see it happen in the conversion of professional scripts to film and especially in the work of people starting out.

And it upsets me because it is a very obvious problem that can be avoided simply by remembering that people are going to be watching it.

For me the crucial point is this. We know that a good story trumps everything, that is the one thing that every script needs. But which way of writing encourages writers to write in the most interesting way?

Take away a lot of the unfilmmable window dressing in a lot of scripts and you are usually left with what everyone complains about. The lifeless cookie cutter film. It is action and dramatic conflict, character development etc that are important and really give a script style. How the author deals with situations and the themes and undercurrents that he deals with. Not unfilmmable descriptions.

****
The film you have just directed just shows a beautiful girl in a wide shot. Then it comes close to show her looking a bit upset.

Thats all the audience will pick up upon. ...All anyone will get is that she is good looking. That's it. (Even that of course is subjective).

When we go in close we'll see that she is a little sad. What we won't see is that the pain has existed for a long time. The audience will assume that something bad has just happened to her and wonder what that is.
****

That is true, the audience will immediately pick up upon the obvious but acting is more than just emotions. It's about behaviour. Let's go back to the example you posted.

"She's beautiful, she looks like the prom queen who wouldn't give you the time of day, but her eyes show she's had a lot of pain in her life -- "

The writer could have said, "but her eyes show melancholey"- and the DP in me would have understood exactly what the writer wanted in this shot, but the actor in me would have desired more.

What I neglected to mention before was that the prose above was actually a direction for the actor, not the director.

An actress reading this script would be getting important insight into the mind of the character.

"who looks like a prom queen who wouldn't give you the time of day". That says to an actor, this woman is vain.

"...but her eyes show she's had a lot of pain in her life --"

All of a sudden this woman has layers. She appears vain to conceal the fact she is completely insecure

Now that I understand this characterization about the character. I am going to behave in a certain way that will portray the state of mind of this character.

The director starts off with the wide shot.

We see the character enter the room. In the wide shot we notice the character's attire and what she is doing. We see her behaviour which tells us, the woman could be Tyra banks but her body language shows that she is insecure.

If the writer had said, her eyes show sadness instead of giving us a little history. Then the actor will think to herself I am going to play this sad, "I don't know why I am sad but I am going to be sad anyways" - however that may not be what the scene is calling for.

Thus with the insight into the mind of the character all of a sudden the actor will say to herself. I am not going to play this "upset" I am going to play this scene insecurely. I am going to behave as if the next man who looks at me sideways, will have me running for the doors.

Believe it or not the audience will pick up on this behaviour even if they don't yet understand why.

I will finish the sequence in a close up shot to inject a feeling of sympathy for the woman in the crowed.

We the audience no longer see a woman who is just upset. We see a woman with a history. Here eyes do say it all.

The best example I can give you is the scene in Casablanca when Iisa is listening to the song "As time goes by" the expression on her face shows a woman who is longing for her lover and it is obvious that she doesn't expect to ever see him again.

Yes at first they appear sad, but we immediately understand that it isn't sadness she feels it is longing... And when we see people look like they are longing for something we know they have a history.


****
If you want the audience to know she has suffered pain all her life we have to be told in dialogue or see it on screen through action. There are no alternatives.
****

To say it in her dialogue is exposition. To say it in the action doesn't have to be said on script, it can be expressed purely through the behaviour of the actor.

If the writer wants the reader to know something about the characters past, he will insert a flashback if not, it is not worth mentioning it in the script.

****
It's fine if professionals do it (though mistakes occur) because in their experience it helps their Producers understand it more easily. The danger is, as I have said, that people who are just starting out write exclusively in this fashion as I believe it prevents people from learning the ability to think visually.
****

Thinking visually doesn't come over night. It comes by learning story structure and practicing writing creatively within the guidelines.

BTW I am not disagreeing with some of the points you made. They are all valid points, but I guess I want to establish that writing should be about story telling not about making rules that inhibit authentic creativity.

****
Now, everyone is free to write how they want, but the point is that ultimately writing this way may help to get you sales, but it isn't going to improve the film in any way. On the contrary it can seriously damage them by encouraging writers to put crucial plot information in the description when it should be on screen.

****


I don't see any reason why the writer would not wish to include something vital to the plot. Bad writing stems from not understanding story structure not about prose on a page.

****
Films play on a screen with speakers. Those are the limitations imposed by this particular medium. Anything to be understood by the audience must either be seen or heard.  These are not my rules they are simply a physical reality. Physical reality can be ignored by some people forever (Some people still believe the world is flat) but it's still the case.
****

The only reality the writer need be concern with is making sure he has a story worth telling in his 120 page script. The rest are simply details.

****
Anyway, enough.

For me it is the single biggest flaw that I come across in screenwriting. It tends to be at the root of problems with character development, plot structure etc because it encourages people to cut corners rather than organically creating everything piece by piece. I see it happen in the conversion of professional scripts to film and especially in the work of people starting out.
****

Like I said before you are entitled to think that way and I respect you for it. At the very least you defend your position very well. It has been great talking to you about this subject.

For me the single biggest flaw in screenwriting are writers who don't understand story structure. Bad story structure will kill a movie, but too much prose, who gives a s***t?



  

"Believe it or not the audience will pick up on this behaviour even if they don't yet understand why.

I will finish the sequence in a close up shot to inject a feeling of sympathy for the woman in the crowed.

We the audience no longer see a woman who is just upset. We see a woman with a history. Here eyes do say it all.

The best example I can give you is the scene in Casablanca when Iisa is listening to the song "As time goes by" the expression on her face shows a woman who is longing for her lover and it is obvious that she doesn't expect to ever see him again.

Yes at first they appear sad, but we immediately understand that it isn't sadness she feels it is longing... And when we see people look like they are longing for something we know they have a history."


Your explanation is very convincing and it's certainly something to bear in mind.

Personally I'm very wary of the idea that the audience will pick up on such subtle details as a whole. I've spent a lot of time watching and discussing the reaction of the audience to my own films and others and despite having huge respect for the ability of actors feel that the cinematic context of things tends to override the internal emotion of actors when portrayed on screen.

It's been established since the days of Eisenstein that people will watch the same clips in different orders and take different things from the same performance if you change the context.

IE  show a cat stuck up a tree, then show a neutral shot of a womans face and they respond that the woman is worried. Show the cat at the bottom of the tree and show exactly the same image of the woman and they say she's relieved.

It's like that Triple Distilled Smirnoff advert where her husband tells her he doesn't love her anymore and she starts crying. They then cut out the "don't" and "anymore", so that it is just I love you and when she cries it appears that she is crying in happiness.

Only a tiny fraction of the audience will pick up on the actual emotion being portrayed.

Context is King Imo. If this scene is in the middle of a film it will be qualified by what went before it.


I'd say the Casablanca example is a bit different. How much of the history do we take from the song? If the song wasn't such an old, wistful and clearly romantic one, what would the audience take from the scene?


""who looks like a prom queen who wouldn't give you the time of day". That says to an actor, this woman is vain.

"...but her eyes show she's had a lot of pain in her life --"

All of a sudden this woman has layers. She appears vain to conceal the fact she is completely insecure"

That's an intersting interpretation of the script, but I can't help but feel it's an attempt to find order out of the chaos so to speak.

Why choose insecurity? Her pain could also have caused her to become strong and steadfast. Or a million other different things.

The audience is only going to get a grasp on her character when we see her react to something specific or see her behaving in a very specific fashion. E.G she avoids boys at all costs which may suggest shyness or even that she has been sexually abused or whatever, depending on the severity of her reaction.  

Anyway. This thread could go round in circles forever.

I think Rick might be overlooking, or downplaying the interpretation aspect of collaborative filmmaking. That is to say the tone. Mood. Atmosphere. Sometimes simply describing what can be physically seen isn't sufficient to translate the vision in your head.

If the writer can evoke the right tone for the reader by using what's per definition unfilmables then that's okay if they go to HOW something is filmed. How a situation plays out. How tense it is etc.

Like Anotherwriter says the words on the page starts the scene in your head. It draws you in and you KNOW exactly what they mean.

It's not that I'm overlooking anything, it's just that the issue touches on lots of different aspects of filmmaking. So many in fact, that we're all arguing slightly different points or at least degrees of points.

There is a sliding scale of what adds to a film in terms of tone etc as you say and what becomes deceptive.

The problem is I kind of rode into the thread like a bull into a China shop and got everyones backs up, when really I was only trying to expand the thread from the original point ( that producers won't throw your script away for breaking the rules)and present alternative views about the reasons people say it and why it isn't like that in reality.


As everyone on this thread knows, there are no hard and fast rules about screenwriting. I do maintain that novice writers should learn the rules; You can keep what works for you and reject what doesn't, but without starting with them you generally develop huge problems.

That's the experience I get from a lot of unsolicited scripts that are sent to me anyway.

Also, the thread keeps coming back to examples of professional writers. Professional writers are not my sole concern here. My real concern is for the writers who are not fully in control of their discipline yet and may, in attempting to imitate professional styles, jump the gun so to speak.


Ultimately these kind of techniques are a staple of Hollywood writing and they will help to sell the script.

I'm just not sure that it is a good thing. Like I say, I think everyone should read Mamets book Bambi vs Godzilla and see what he says about this style of writing and the impact it has had on the quality of Hollywood films.

Just taking the two examples of writing that Another Writer has produced. They are very stylishly written. Fast, exciting. But look beneath the words, what is actually happening?

One is a scene where a bomb is about to go off. It is the same scene I have seen in perhaps a 100+ Hollywood movies.

The other is a scene where the boss is moaning at his employee. It's almost identical to Beverly Hills Cop, the technique is used in True Lies, its even been parodied in Naked Gun it's that much of a cliche.

This is why a lot of people say this style of writing is deceptive. It dresses up action that everyone has seen a million times before and makes it seem fresh and exciting.

Now the actual films that have been used as examples may be great films,or not, it's irrelevant. (The writer may deliberately setting up a cliche to subvert it, on the other hand lots of films ARE made that are riddled with cliches). My point is that it is easy for both writers and producers to fall into the trap that something that reads well will make an interesting film.

In both writing and film you can dress things up to make them more exciting.

In the bomb example, you can have crane shots flying in to within an inch of the actors face to catch a bead of sweat trickling from his face. You can layer on sound, hear a clock ticking ever more loudly, have a red light flashing round the room. Fast editing to stimulate the senses, but when the lights go off, people leave the cinema and the film is forgotten because there was nothing interesting about the story underneath it all.

This is what Hollwood has become. A series of stimulations rather than an attempt at creating intelligent, truthful stories that create debate or fulfill people.

Hollywood has fallen into an almost endless cycle of remakes and cliche. They are even remaking films that are still warm off the press. Many commentators consider this style of writing to be largely responsible for that. Myself included. It deceives readers who are bored of reading scripts and it deceives Producers whose intelligence doesn't necessarily extend to understanding story.

The other side of it is this:

Hollywood is not the only route that a filmmaker can go. You don't even need a distribution deal to sell a million films in these days of the internet. Look at Documentaries like Out Foxed or the Ewan Mgregor narrated Faster which has sold millions. I've just returned from Cannes with an offer for my latest film.

There are other routes than Hollywood and there are different styles of writing. Which stlye of writing helps you to write the type of film you want to make?

The only thing I am concerned about is that people understand the issues behind all these type of debates and understand why things are like they are, so that they then can make an informed choice about the way that they write and what they write.