Not used superfluously of course but:

If a character is relenting and the shot demands time and attention of the action, is it alright to capitalize his "yielding" or "softening"?

I'm thinking in very simple terms of extra time for the shot, but a director might use this as an additional point of reference to call for other effects.

I know that over doing the capitalizations can be as unruly as the overuse of exclamation marks.

Also, there's the idea that:  If it's made plain already within the context, then do we really need to use capitals as a crutch?  I'm kind of weighing it both ways though and from the point that it's spec-- so it's different again.  With a working script though, it's obvious that these kinds of grabbers also often prolong attention.

A two second shot, might be amplified to 10 seconds because the writer was able to convincingly show the importance.

Boy, it sure would be nice to talk to a director.  That would be a really nice dream on simplyscripts... Some philanthropic director who would come and do a conference with us on his critical discernments.

It's not a director you want to talk to -- it's an actor.  An actor is going to be the one who turns the two seconds into ten.  Or is going to give you ten seconds worth of meaning in a single shot. And capitalizing an emotion is the equivalent of jabbing an actor with a stick.

If you know the shot is crucial then there is a pretty good chance that your talent is going to know it too.  If you have doubts add lines to make it clear that this moment is a turning point for the character.  You're trying to tell the best story possible and not the most condensed story possible.

Quoted from Tierney It's not a director you want to talk to -- it's an actor.  An actor is going to be the one who turns the two seconds into ten.  Or is going to give you ten seconds worth of meaning in a single shot. And capitalizing an emotion is the equivalent of jabbing an actor with a stick.

Art Carney spent five minutes peeling an orange in The Honeymooners after Jackie Gleason forgot he had to finish a scene.

If you want to show a character 'thinking' you could show time by having his eyes wanders to things in the room that mat affect his decision.

If you wanting John to think about whether he he should go camping or to the beach, you could have him sitting in the family room.  
He looks at a photo on the wall of the family outside a tent.  

His eyes turn to a pamphlet of Miami Beach.  

Looking up, he sees the mounted deer head on the wall above him.  

His eyes return to the pamphlet (damn that's a hot chick on the pamphlet).  

A news report on the television talks about a family camping being attacked by a bear.

John picks up the pamphlet, smiling



Phil

Thank you for your comments.  It helps me a lot to get other people's impressions.

Reactionary moment are really important whether they're a snap in time or a prolonged action.  Dealing with them-- especially if we're deliberately changing the pace of things is an interesting subject because we can alter the flow of action by making a slow scene have a fast reactionary shot or a fast scene have a slow reactionary shot.  Or, if we want it to just slide along, we don't change anything.

When you mentioned the scene with Art Carney peeling the orange, it made me think about how many situations were drawn out time-wise in older shows.  It's still done today, but now I think that scenes are much more clipped.  I don't think it's good or bad, it's just different.

**

When I was a very little girl, I used to drag my mother into watch THE COW JUMP OVER THE MOON on the Friendly Giant.  Anyone who grew up in Vancouver and watched kids' shows in the 60s will remember it.  I'm thankful that that cow jumped nice and slowly to give me enough time to go and get Mom so she could watch for the umpteenth time.

It makes me think twice about my consideration of "line space" when I'm prone to jampacking action.