All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
I used to follow the “rules.” Like so many others, I didn’t understand the techniques or how to properly use them. I knew pros used them but I bought into that old canard that pros can break the rules because they’re pros and amateurs can’t because they’re amateurs. But I wanted to write like a pro.
I hear you. We've all been there.
I used to follow the "rules". When you read it in a book that you paid for and you hear second-hand information on the net, you can't help but believe it to be the gospel of "how Hollywood operates". But no-one really knew. After all, none of us had industry experience or were connected enough to know any better. We were all just a bunch of writers bumping into one another in a dark room, with no-one really knowing where the door was.
But as the internet exploded with blogging and forum gossip becoming mega, some of the industry pros started to spill their sh!t onto the world-wide-web. Industry insiders and pro writers started to lurk around forums. And that's when first-time scripts sales started getting leaked and passed around like candy. It was only when I became privy to such scripts did I realize what BS all those "rules" were.
The way I see it, it depends on whether you want to be a scholar of the craft, or a paid writer knee deep in the game. You said it best with: "If you want to be a pro, you've got to write like one." In my opinion, studying scripts that have broken writers in and figuring out what makes them tick is the best way to advance your craft to a level where you can compete in the game.
I gotta say that I really get a kick out of some of these posts, and the back and forth. It?s pretty funny, to say the least.
But. one thing it does show is that there are a bunch of writers in here that are passionate about their writing, and what they believe. That?s always a good thing. These are opinions (for the most part), and opinions are not incorrect. Poor writing, incorrect formatting, bad grammar and punctuation are not opinions?they are what they are.
One thing I find so amusing, is how several people in here have this belief that an ?understood good writer?, or professional writer can do no wrong. Or that everything these individuals do has some deeper meaning, and because of that, not only is it OK, but it?s actually strong writing, just because they are who they are, or the script is supposedly a great script, etc. I just don?t get it.
For instance, ?the writer is deliberately using the close up to invite the reader/viewer into the main characters world. To put you in the position of the central character and to encourage you to empathize with him. The repetition of the Close Up also works as a way of emphasizing the repetitiveness of the characters life.?
I find this to be laughable. An example of reading way too much into a couple of lines that aren?t even saying or doing much of anything. No one would feel any different if it was written differently, without CU?s.
Also, ?The fact he's used it three times is the thing. If he only had the one (cu on books) it would be irrelevant, but he's using it as a motif.?
So, all of a sudden, 3 times is the magic number? What if it was used twice? Four times? C?mon?rubbish?complete rubbish.
I don?t think it?s an issue of a writer writing cinematically or visually?or even thinking in these terms. All screenwriters should think and write in a cinematic and visual way. If a writer can?t see the scene in his head, he shouldn?t be writing it until he has the details and the like figured out. There is no reason to use camera directions and we see and we hear. As Mr. Giles correctly stated, it?s pointless, silly, and lazy writing.
Everyone can write however they want to. Pro writers can literally write however they want to, because the readers and decision makers they?re dealing with aren?t the same ones us lowlifes have to try and get by.
I?m not talking about ?rules? here either. I?m talking about writing as solidly as possible, as clearly as possible, and as visual as possible. I?m talking about what makes sense and what doesn?t, and why.
OK, let the frenzy begin?
The three times thing is a film rule in general.
It goes with the "Once is a mistake, twice is stupid, three times is a rule".
You use it in editing as well. If you use an unusual technique to cut the film, then usually you'll be told to do it at least three times in the film as this makes it a motif. If you do it just once the audience interprets it as a mistake.
Same principle here. The fact that he's doing it repeatdely tells me that he's got something in mind.
You can of course do something more than three times.
And I disagree that the CU aren't doing anything. they are extremely specific. Two of them are of the same thing (self help books) the third is seeing pills for depression. We know everything about the character from those three shots. He's depressed, but he is trying everything to get better, plus by showing them as close up they invite us to share the experience initimately.
As for the CU's, again, it goes without saying that thaty will be CU's, as otherwise, we wound't be able to see the titles on the books or the label on the pills. By stating that they're self help books, we realize that we'll be able to see that.
The only thing I would add is that people seem to forget that when writing a spec script you are not writing a film. You are applying for a job, hopefully the job of re-writing your spec to be produced, but probably not. The vast majority of specs are never filmed, if you are lucky you will get an option, but what you should be doing is hoping that your writing interested someone enough for them to offer you a job.
This idea that we are writing films is quite far from the truth.
Think about your readers, they certainly are not film-makers. The chances your spec will ever get seen by anybody who is remotely connected with the world of film-making is slim. Why would you include camera angles? Your readers are admin staff and students being paid $50 by an agency to read your script, they are gonna make notes and form an opinion that will decide whether your script gets read by anybody else. Again 99.99% of the time it will not.
Look at the guidelines these people are given, quite often they are given a copy of the "screenwriter's bible" as their education into what a script should look like. They are taught to mark down camera angles, we see's, bad writing etc...
Talking about pro writers is a red herring, they are actually writing scripts that are designed to be read by film-makers. The majority of us are not. There is a huge difference here.
Like any C.V. you tailor it for your reader, you include words and phrases that will appeal more to the company who you have submitted it to. In my humble opinion, when sending specs to agencies for reads you would be foolish to ignore this. Once your spec has been optioned, a director found and you have a list of notes and re-writes to work on then fine, you can do what you want and break all the rules.
I am not saying this is right, but I am saying it does not matter whether it is right or wrong, if there is a chance your script will get no further because of the way you have written it then why do it?
First round, just like in job applications, people are not looking for the best scripts, they are looking at throwing 90% of them in the bin. Why give them a reason?
As for the CU's, again, it goes without saying that thaty will be CU's, as otherwise, we wound't be able to see the titles on the books or the label on the pills. By stating that they're self help books, we realize that we'll be able to see that.
Isn't that right?
Maybe. Maybe I'm reading too much into it like you suggested ( I personally try and make everything in my own writing meaningful, so I tend to extend that view to other peoples work) but it just seems very specific to me that he wants our focus on those items alone.
By having the Cu it seems to me that it separates the action from the main character and makes it something that we experience it as well. Without specifying that it's a close up we could interpret it as a shot that invloves the main character in some way (OTS, or MCU of the character that pans to the pills so we can read them).
Do you see how he bookmarks the montage with them?
He opens the sequence with a close up telling us this guy has got depression and he's reading a book to sort it out. We then see a whole series of shots showing him trying to sort it out. then we are back to a CU of a new book. It is a mirror of itself. we're back where we started.
His use of visual language mirrors the action.
In any event, I think my interpretation works and has some merit so at worst his camera direction is something to think about.
Having said that, I think it's also good to be able to write without using camera angles like you say. That would seem to be a particularly good way of keeping your vision of the film intact as well. You write it so that it suggests shots so the director thinks he's coming up with it, but really it's all in your writing.
I really wouldn't spend any time worrying about it is all. A studio would not turn down a script that they thought they could turn into a sellable film that would double their investment just because it had a few camera angles in it and similarily a smaller filmmaker would not turn down an interesting script that they thought could open doors for them because of it. It just wouldn't happen.
Yeah, I hear what you're saying. I guess I don't read much into scripts. I don't think I need to...or should. Most of the content that I appreciate is pretty simple, and is what it is.
I think the bigger issue here, though, isn't that really talented writers are doing this, because they have real reason to, it's beginning writers, who don't have the talent and expertise, that are trying to copy this. They usually fail badly, and it's these instances that really take me out of a read. That's why I always point it out and recommend not doing it.
That was actually discussed in the thread to one of the mockumentaries I wrote. The camera was, in fact, a character as the other characters interacted with it.
You are forgetting that the thread began with the example of a SOLD SPEC by an unknown...
Now that's an interesting topic. Let's think about how an unknown got his script sold. Let's start with what we know. First, we know that readers have guidelines they adhere to when judging a script, and they probably would have kicked Mr. Killen's draft right out. So how did it sell?
Well, let's look at who Kyle Killen is. He wrote this on Tryst.com:
As for a biography - the nutshell version - I'm a twenty-eight year old graduate of the University of Southern California Cinema Television Program pursuing both screenwriting and fiction. Johnson's March was my first publication. I presently live in Tucson, AZ with my girlfriend.
Ah... He's a graduate of USC's cinema television program. How do you spell contacts? He's twenty-eight meaning he's been out of school for probably 6 years by now along with all of his classmates. It's probable that Mr. Killen knows someone within the industry who is or knows a producer. This person told some friends about the script and friends read friends' stuff. The script is probably very good, and the inside-ness on the industry is likely what sold it. An article said Steve Carrell was in line for it once, and who knows, maybe some A-List talent helped to give it some buzz as well.
I would also like to point out that Kyle Killen regularly writes a good deal of other stuff. Googling him brought up all kinds of stuff. So you have someone with no production credits here, but I don't think that's the whole story.
This is all speculation, but while screenwriter's books may not be written by over-successful screenwriters, guides to what readers look for are often written by readers.
I agree George. This guy knows lots of folks that need to be known. It's not like he's sending in Query Letters blind to any ProdCo or Agent who's accepting unsoliceted submissions. I'm sure he also has an agent.
Pages: 
Author
Camera and Technical Direction
Logged
Locked Board