Most of Mamet's movies come from his excellent plays. All he had to do was adapt them into a screenplay.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films I've read the Courier and 2 fast 2 furious. They are good at writing fast moving, adolescent drivel. The kind of stuff that Hollywood loves. What do you want me to say? That they are geniuses?

Thing is this:

There's no use in arguing what's a good script or film and what isn't, because it all comes down to taste, which is everyone's own.

There's only the stuff that's produced in Hollywood (or anywhere for that matter) that makes money. If it makes money, it earned its right to exist. It's evolution, it's simple. You might not like it but that's the way it works.

Then there's writers. If you wanna earn a living with writing, you have to write scripts that make money. Depending how filthily rich you want to become, you decide how commercially succesful your scripts have to be.

If you are a writer that has lots of principles, opinions, taste, whatever you call it: That in itself is no problem. If you are lucky, you are on par with what the studio's want. If you're not, however, you may have to make a concession or two. You may not like it, but to earn a living, you probably have no choice.

Quoted from ABennettWriter Most of Mamet's movies come from his excellent plays. All he had to do was adapt them into a screenplay.

'All he had to do'  

Quoted Text There's no use in arguing what's a good script or film and what isn't, because it all comes down to taste, which is everyone's own.

Yes, you are quite correct. The only reason I brought Mamet into it was to point out that it isn't just screenwriter gurus and teachers who hold that you shouldn't use unfilmmables, but it descended into a bit of a subjective rant.

Anyway, lets leave Haas, Gilroy and Mamet out of it. Each one currently has at least one film in production, so they are all examples of people whose script-writing is acceptable to professional producers.

Haas is worth checking out as an example of a writer who can write pacey, exciting scripts. More geared towards sensation seeking type films. If you have a concept that is like that, a high powered action flick, then check him out by all means.


Mamet is quite a laborious read, but he is excellent at creating deep characters using dialogue and subtext. His films are excellent blueprints for shooting a film straight off the bat. All the important information is on the page and on the screen.

Gilroy is somewhere between the two.

The thing is this:

This is simpyscripts, it's not a professional forum. There are some people here who I don't think are very far from being as adept as Hollywood screenwriters. There are a lot more who are still developing.

In my opinion, the vast majority of writers work would be improved far more if they stuck to the rules to start with. Staying away from unfilmmables means they will learn what it takes to create a successful film using images and sound.

That is all. Once you can write an exciting script within the rules, you can then quite easily adapt that script to make it a more exciting read, without losing anything from the film.

The problem is if people look at professional scripts, see them bend the rules at some points and then think they can write the whole script like that. They will end up with literary stories masquerading as scripts.

Quoted Text Juno marching down various street, pumping her arms like a jogger and chugging intermittently from the huge carton of juice. We watch her breathlessly navigate suburbia, clearly on a mission

That's fine IMO (obviously it's fine, it was well received). Clearly on a mission qualifies the very specific visuals that she has created. She's pumping her arms, chugging juice.

The danger is if a novice writer leaves the crucial visual info out and just puts: "Marching down the street, clearly on a mission. "

There is no visual reference to what she is doing. You get a sense of what is going on as a reader, but the director has to create the script himself and introduce visual images to make it ready to film.

The other point is that film is not solely the domain of hollywood. You don't have to be paid millions to be a filmmaker. There are festivals the world over for independent filmmakers. You can have your own website, your own TV channel these days.

The advice I'm giving is for people on SS who may well want to create their own films. I don't necessarily see that they are in any way less important than Hollywood ones. I've read scripts on here that had more to say than many Hollywood films. It's also for the people who are just starting and aren't necessarily at the level where they feel they are able to make their points as successfully as they like in films.

Let me use this excerpt from Tierney to demonstrate the problems you can create for yourself if you try and bend the rules to your own liking.

Quoted Text There are several ways to tell the audience that Bob is a butcher.

Here is Tierney's way:

Quoted Text Blood under his fingernails, BOB turns the steering wheel and guides his car down Langdon Road.  It?s where the rent boys walk. A butcher by trade, he watches from behind the safety of the windshield glass as they show their haunches and lean muscles for his benefit.

--

Below his his analysis of what he is trying to get across:

Quoted Text He?s got blood under his nails and he?s cruising for boys.  I call him a butcher.  The reader makes the assumption one way or another about what kind of butcher.  I layered in something else ? I made sure in my description to put Bob behind glass like a butcher in a supermarket.  And which side of the glass are the boys on?  Are they the meat for sell or are they salesmen with the product?  Where is the balance of power?  Will the reader get that?  Hopefully, on some level. Do I have Bob in a smock?  Talking about meat?  Nope.  Maybe in the next scene I?ll have him at work cutting some pork tenderloin.  Maybe not. I?ve got time to show the reader that Bob really is a butcher.  I know what I?m doing.  I can layer and refer and build.   I just have to make sure that everything I promise about a character (or a plotline) I fulfill by the time I get to fade out.

You read the script then listen to Tierney talk about it and you think it's a decent script, with good depth and layers.

Then you take your camera out, film it exactly the way it is written and what do you get?

A guy with bloody hands on a steering wheel, looking at young boys. The audience connects the blood with the boys and thinks "Here is a killer looking for his next victim" That is all. There is no mention of butcher anywhere in the film. All the layers have been stripped away because he never incorporated the image of a butcher in the script.

What is happening is that he is using a LITERARY DEVICE to implant the WORD butcher in the READERS mind. The READER, then armed with that IDEA interprets the script in a certain way. All the layers are there.

Unfortunately FILM is A VISUAL/AUDIO medium. To plant the seed of the BUTCHER for a cinematic audience you have to put it on the screen. No ifs or buts, questions of styles can change that. It is a matter of universal certainty.

Your first shot is of the BUTCHER hacking away at meat. That is the only way you can implement the LITERARY IDEA of the butcher into a VIEWERS mind. Then when you see him in the car, looking at the kids all the layers that he tried to implement suddenly come flooding back.

That is the difference between being a good WRITER and a good SCREENWRITER.

By putting unfilmmables in the description you run the risk of leaving important information off the screen.

This is so silly.  If sticking to some narrow conception of filmable is helping your writing then great but what has it done for you lately?  

And I think you missed the point.  You don't get everything at once.  That's my argument.  If you don't understand how to build then you're never going to get someone to turn past page three.  One of the things with screenplays on this site is that they lack the connective tissue that makes them into page turners.  They go from point A to B because the writer makes them.  A lot of it is because thematic stuff and imagery falls to close to "unflimable" for their comfort.

And of course I put the idea of the guy being a butcher in their heads.  Yes, a literary device! Why wouldn't I?  In this case I used a the word butcher -- it's a job, it's a hobby.  I want to make them wonder.  Yep, just the reader.  And why?  Because it's going to dictate the feeling of the scene.  The lighting, the choice of camera and the way the actor behaves behind the wheel.  It all starts with word choice and ends up on screen.  

And I'm a great screenwriter, by the way.

I believe Tierney is a professional working screenwriter. In other words gets paid to write and out there in LA no less.

I could be wrong, but I seem to remember her being on strike not long ago.

Fine. Then let's see an example of her work.

That way we can see how her style of writing works within her genre and see for ourselves how and if it translates well to the big screen.

Isn't that what this site is about? Helping people to write better scripts?

Quoted Text That's my argument.  If you don't understand how to build then you're never going to get someone to turn past page three.  One of the things with screenplays on this site is that they lack the connective tissue that makes them into page turners.  They go from point A to B because the writer makes them.  A lot of it is because thematic stuff and imagery falls to close to "unflimable" for their comfort.

I'd agree with most of that. I just think that the thematic stuff and imagery has to be on screen. In the butcher example you are attempting to make a thematic link between looking through a car window at some kids and meat in a display case.

The way you'd do that is to set a point of reference. So, for instance, you see him preparing the display case and then see the man's reflection in the glass.

When you see him in the next scene looking at the kids you have a similar shot, where his face is reflecting in the glass.

That cinematically makes the thematic connection between the two images in the audiences mind.

I honestly don't understand why you would do it in a literary sense, so then it has to be adapted for use on the screen? What benefit does it have?

It just seems to create an extra process in the conversion of the printed page to the finished product. It doesn't make it read any better, it just means it needs to be altered by the Director.

Enlighten us.

Wow, this thread really took off again. No time to read through every post but I will add a couple of points:

- Art = Subjective so it seems this debate will never end
- The examples I posted are from two of the hottest unproduced spec screenplays in Hollywood last year. Both made it onto the blacklist, voted for by the biggest agencies and production companies.
- Juno certainly has examples of what some people (Phil) would call unfilmables, see Juno's introduction. The fact that it's backed up in dialogue is irrelevant to the issue. Nobody's arguing that it shouldn't be backed up in dialogue

Martin the instigator is back.  Hi, Martin.

And I appeared to have really annoyed Decadence.  Enlighten you?  Sorry, for writing for a living.  I didn't bring it up.  I wouldn't have.  

All I can say is that no one I know writes like what Decadence seems to demand.  That's pretty much it. Many of the scripts on this site are written for an audience of readers who have a limited film vocabulary.  Every detail cataloged.  Emotions are written like physical ticks.  Every physical thing imaginable is described.  It's all very obvious but it doesn't flow.

The writer is taking on every job.  In my real life I know I can trust my actors and my dp and every other skilled person on set to take care of my words.  I know how to chose words that will tell a dozen people what I want them to do.  Sometimes they're literary words and sometimes they're camera words.  But I know how to use the palette.

I can say that Julia is the saddest person ever and it's a like a cloud is always over her head.  And what's going to happen is that the wardrobe is going to put her in muted colors, makeup is going to decide on a look for her and the actress is going to shuffle through scenes.  She's going to be lit in a certain way and shot in a certain way.  It's like magic.  You say one little thing and it ends up on the screen.

And poor Bob behind the glass?  You don't get why I'm doing it.  That's fine.  But if I were to write that script there would be a lot of Bob separated from the world behind glass.  It would be thematic and a motif and  maybe not obvious but I know my director and dp would understand it.  And the person watching the movie would always find Bob a little offputting because he's one step removed.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films ON THE RIGHT -- THE EQUIKROM JET. Slick and aggressive. Silver and green. ANOTHER WORRIED ENTOURAGE gathered at the ramp, watching RICHARD "SICK DICK" GARSIK rushing forward into noman's- land. GARSIK the buccaneer CEO. A corporate carnivore in his prime. Hypervisionary. Hypereffective. Hyperactive. Meaningless guff. Again we don't know who he is, he has not been introduced by anyone on the screen. The writer is trying to establish him as the greedy bad guy but has failed to include ONE SINGLE ACTION that demonstrates this on camera. Hypervisionary How do I show this? I'd have to have a separate montage showing him creating great plans or have someone say it IE "Go get him Dick. You're Sick Dick, Hypervisionary, corporate cannibal" blah blah "You'll kill this guy". Either that or scratch it. I as the Director again have to completely re-write the script to stick with the writers intention. I already know that this guy can't carry a script. He's got no concept of filmmaking.

I find it really funny that you can say that Tony Gilroy cannot carry a script, and has no concept of filmmaking. I think that is a pretty amazing thing to say.

So the example is from Duplicity, the character above is being played by Paul Giamatti, as actor who I am sure you will agree has a little acting experience. Do you not think that Paul Giamatti when asked to can portray a character that is perceived as hypervisionary would be able to pull it off? Especially as like Tierney says he would have the entire wardrobe, make-up and props department to help out, along with the extra's and other cast members playing their part in showing us their characters perception of Richard Garsick, not to mention the directing and editing.

I think you seriously underestimate an actors ability to take small clues and visual aids from a script and turn it into a convincing performance. If you have a character drinking milkshake, you just say he is drinking milkshake. You don't write a long description of which hand he holds the straw in and how hard he sucks. So I fail to see how character description can be any different, say someone's  a mean sonofabitch and the actor will play someone who looks, walks and talks like a mean sonofabitch, the audience does not need a flashback of him pulling legs of chickens when he was 5 years old in order to know that. They will get that from the actors performance and the dialogue that you as the writer would of course write for a mean sonofabitch.

The dialogue of course needs to confirm the initial perception you have given the reader of the script, i.e. you say someone is a hypervisionary then you had better make sure he is one through your dialogue and his course of actions throughout the movie. But there is nothing wrong with making it clear to the director right from the start who this guy is. The Audience will get this from watching the movie, they will get the visual clues that the actors performance will give them. But somebody reading your script will not have these visual clues so I cannot see how telling them upfront is not a good thing at all.

Well clearly I'm mistaken in saying he has no concept of filmmaking. I'm already on record as saying that he is a very accomplished director.

I stand by what i said before though, I think he is a poor writer. Maybe now, at 52 years of age, he has finally written something  excellent. We'll see when it's out won't we?

Give's us all a little extra incentive to go and see it at any rate!

My whole point on this thread has been to warn people of what can happen if you include character descriptions like these and then don't follow it through with either dialogue and action.

Nothing you have said contradicts that.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films My whole point on this thread has been to warn people of what can happen if you include character descriptions like these and then don't follow it through with either dialogue and action. Nothing you have said contradicts that.

That's fair enough, but you gave the impression that it needed to be done at the same time or immediately after. I don't think that is the case, as long as the character is that person you have described him as then there is no problem.

The biggest issue with new writers (and course I am very much in this camp) is that we would more likely to introduce a character as a mean sonofabitch but then completely fail to develop the character enough and make sure his actions and words throughout the rest of the movie are those of a mean sonofabitch.

I am currently starting work on a short and I have decided as an experiment to try and write it in the style of a pro screenplay, i.e. use short character descriptions as above, if "we see" is suitable then I will use it etc.. etc.. If nothing else it would be interesting for me to see what feedback I get and if it makes my writing any better.

*Of course I still need a decent story to tell, that never changes!

Quoted from Tierney Every detail cataloged.  Emotions are written like physical ticks.  Every physical thing imaginable is described.  It's all very obvious but it doesn't flow.

That's exactly the kind of thing I was geting at in my original post. The sad thing is when people actually enourage this kind of writing.

Quoted from Tierney I can say that Julia is the saddest person ever and it's a like a cloud is always over her head.  And what's going to happen is that the wardrobe is going to put her in muted colors, makeup is going to decide on a look for her and the actress is going to shuffle through scenes.  She's going to be lit in a certain way and shot in a certain way.  It's like magic.  You say one little thing and it ends up on the screen.

Exactly.

I work in videogames so I get to see the scenes I write animated and built into the game.

If I write directions like "shrugs" or "wrinkles nose" or "scratches head" I'll have animators coming to me and asking why. Sure, they can infer certain things from the actions and dialogue in the script and they're usually pretty close, but why should they have to infer and interpret. Screenwriting is about clarity, so why not throw in an emotion or two as shorthand. You make the character's reaction absolutely clear to the reader while giving the actor and director the license to convey that emotion however they see fit. They're going to do that anyway, so why not give them a clear emotional direction, rather than have the actor wondering how exactly they wrinkle their nose in anger.

This is an interesting thread. I always found it very hard to figure out what good directions in a script should look like, but especially Tierneys example is clarifying. It occurred to me that, as with other situations in life, it's about control and fear of losing it.

When you write, it's a very unsatisfying idea to give your script to someone else, and then someone else, and lots of someone elses who will take over control and decide how to execute your ideas. I've caught myself many times thinking 'I'll just do it myself, so I know it will be done right'. Which is the road to stress and anger.

In writing a script, you have to accept the fact that your lines will be interpreted by other people who might have a totally different idea of how to frame it, film it, act it, or who may even want to change the actual line. But you have to accept it, otherwise you will probably never achieve anything. And it might just be an improvement