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.
In a couple of threads recently I’ve noticed this No Camera Direction mantra. Where did it come from?
Scripts in play now are crammed with camera direction. Camera movement or technical direction is now part of your story. People use it in a variety of ways. Sometimes it is used to compress and other times it used to create at tone or feel to a piece.
This is from the first page of a script called The Beaver.
--- INT. WALTER’S BEDROOM - DAY
WALTER, mid 40’s, vacant, lies in bed fully dressed in a suit and tie.
The voice we hear belongs to THE BEAVER. He has a crisp English accent.
THE BEAVER (V.O.) This is a picture of Walter Black, a hopelessly depressed individual.He wants you to know he’s tried everything.
BEGIN MONTAGE:
CLOSE ON a shelf of SELF HELP TITLES. Walter pulls down DUMPING DEPRESSION.
CLOSE ON a medicine cabinet full of prescriptions. Walter pops some pills.
WALTER CHANTS and pounds as part of a drum circle. WALTER SOBS on a park bench. WALTER HITS himself with a belt but refuses to show emotion. WALTER POPS more pills. WALTER READS from THE RAINBOW INSIDE. WALTER LAYS on a couch, speaking to his therapist. WALTER STARES into a hypnotist’s pocketwatch. WALTER POPS a whole handful of pills.
CUT TO:
CLOSE ON a night stand where a copy of SIX STEPS TO A NEW YOU lies open. In bed beside it, Walter sleeps.
THE BEAVER (V.O.) (CONT'D) But, mostly what he does is sleep. ---
The script was written by Kyle Killen, a twenty-eight year old who lives in Arizona. He has no produced credits. And the entire script is sculpted like this. It’s the most extreme example I could find and it just happens to be the script that topped the Black List as the most talked about screenplay of 2008. It's also probably going to be directed by Jodie Foster and star Jim Carrey.
So, stop telling people what they can and cannot do as far as camera direction or technical direction just because you don’t know how to don’t want to use it. It’s unfair to writers trying to find their stories when they’re met with these universal proclamations which have nothing to do with reality.
There's a vast difference between what you put up there and people who write "The camera dollies with our character down a long corridor" or something like that. You shouldn't be telling the director how to direct his film unless you absolutely can't avoid it.
I don't know about you but I identify CLOSE ON as a camera direction. If it were old school he would have said CU.
How about these examples from the same script. He's calling every one of these shots and directing angles.
--
ANGLE ON The Beaver. Walter’s not even in the shot.
or
CLOSE ON both their faces as they fall into what almost look like identical pensive trances. They each begin to tap their chins with their index fingers.
THE BEAVER (V.O.) This is a picture of Walter Black, a hopelessly depressed individual.
Slowly match pull backs on both until The Beaver becomes visible in Walter’s frame.
or
INT. OFFICE - MORNING
A wide shot shows rows of cubes. No one’s here yet. There’s a small card in the center of each desk.
CLOSE ON a single desk. The card is the same therapeutic caution card Walter gave to Meredith and Porter.
NEW ANGLE inside of a pair of cubes, the card in the center of the desks.
NEW ANGLE inside of an office. The same situation.
or
As he disappears from frame we’re left looking into Porter’s empty room until the camera pulls back and the hole becomes just a pinprick of light in the wall.
From what I can tell (like I said before) the passages you are listing are when it's ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.
Regardless, I don't think it's a good idea for anyone to litter their screenplays with camera directions (and most anyone will tell you that), and just because one guy (with a pretty mediocre script -yes, I've read it) managed to get away with it (because you seem to be under the impression he does it a lot), I wouldn't advise everyone to.
So, stop telling people what they can and cannot do as far as camera direction or technical direction just because you don’t know how to don’t want to use it. It’s unfair to writers trying to find their stories when they’re met with these universal proclamations which have nothing to do with reality.
I don't really get the attitude either. You seem to be under the impression that everyone here is acting out-of-line. We're all just trying to offer up advice based on what we know.
So, basically everyone should follow your lead versus someone who is successful and working? Right.
I'm just saying that giving anyone a hard and fast rule about what they can and cannot do is wrong. It reflects how you want to write and not how they rest of the world writes. You have every right to give your opinion about camera angles but in the last few threads that I read it became a group session of bashing. This is wrong! Don't! Save yourself!
So, basically everyone should follow your lead versus someone who is successful and working? Right.
I'm just saying that giving anyone a hard and fast rule about what they can and cannot do is wrong. It reflects how you want to write and not how they rest of the world writes. You have every right to give your opinion about camera angles but in the last few threads that I read it became a group session of bashing. This is wrong! Don't! Save yourself!
It's ridiculous.
By all means, write your script however you see fit. I've put in my two cents (and I'm sure others will too), but in the end, it comes down to your personal style. And if that style includes putting in a bunch of camera shots/angles, go for it. If you make it, let us know.
So, basically everyone should follow your lead versus someone who is successful and working? Right.
The books that I've read say to leave the camera angles out. In regards to what you say, above, I have no idea who you are, so your statement doesn't carry any weight.
Don't think I'm being snide with this; I honestly have no idea who you are.
Lakewood, professionals can afford to make mistakes. Amateurs can't.
I personally don't use camera angles, as I hate reading them in scripts. In my opinion, they interrupt the flow of the script. Plus most of the stuff you wrote can be written without the use of camera shots.
This; "CLOSE ON a medicine cabinet full of prescriptions" could easily be this; "A medicine cabinet full of prescriptions".
I also tend to read scripts from a director's POV, and I can't tell you how much I hate reading how to direct scripts. The writer is the writer, not the director. Unless the director is an idiot, he's going to use a close up shot for the medicine cabinet full of prescriptions.
I agree that camera directions should not be included in spec scripts, especially when they're written by inexprienced writers. Just no reason for them, IMO. As Toby just said, they totally take the reader out of the read, and become very annoying when found in abundance.
To take this a step further, I think it's quite obvious that most recent movies have a great amount of CLOSE UP shots, just about everytime there is a conversation between people. Does it matter to the story whether or not the director decides to use a CU or a wide angle shot? No, of course it doesn't. Should a spec writer include such direction in his script? No, of course not.
Now, I do agree that there are times when there really isn't any other way to do it, and it may be something important to the story, like a reveal of some kind, based on a ariel view shot, or a pan, or whatever. But these examples should be few and far between.
Writers should stick to writing, and leave the direction up to the director...same goes with over description of clothing and set decoration.
I'm being kind of serious though. A lot of directors have no trouble going in and switching things around without the slightest hint of consultation. That's all well and good when you've got a check in hand, but when you're essentially giving your script up for nothing, it's kind of frustrating.
Of course, this is kind of along the lines of my "Hollywood vs. everything else" theory, where things are not so universally cut and dry, or "textbook", so to speak.
^^ Some things will always need to be changed though, due to filming restrictions, budget, actors etc. However, I think if director's change a significant amount of the script, then it can be pretty crappy.
I'm lucky enough that I co-wrote the short script I plan on filming, so I was able to change whatever needed to be changed.
I have written CLOSE UP:, and EXTREME CLOSE UP:, in some of the stuff I've done lately,but truly that is because I am writing for myself, or for the people here to share in what I am seeing. I do not really expect to become a professional writer. However, my example is based on my not expecting to be a professional. For those wishing to become a professional, and they come to a site such as this, I think it would behoove them to listen to the writers here who have been produced. They are here to share what they know.
A person can write a script anyway they wish. That much is true. However, from all the articles I see by people in the industry, there are ways that will get you in and ways that won't. I don't believe the good folks here, both students of the art and those who are produced already, would be giving bad advice just to mold you into a paradigm of their choosing.
OK, check this out and tell me what you guys think...
Lakewood’s example
A wide shot shows rows of cubes. No one’s here yet. There’s a small card in the center of each desk.
CLOSE ON a single desk. The card is the same therapeutic caution card Walter gave to Meredith and Porter.
NEW ANGLE inside of a pair of cubes, the card in the center of the desks.
NEW ANGLE inside of an office. The same situation.
My reworking of Lakewood’s example
Rows of empty cubes. A small card sits on each desk, inside the cubes. It’s the same therapeutic card Walter gave Meredith and Porter.
It’s the same thing in each cube, and on every desk.
So, here I’ve cut the passage down from 9 lines to 4 lines. I’ve said the same things, for the most part, and didn’t need to use any camera directions. I think it goes without saying that, for us to be able to read and recognize the card, it will have to be shot as a CLOSE UP. I don’t see any reason to use camera directions in this passage.
As he disappears from frame we’re left looking into Porter’s empty room until the camera pulls back and the hole becomes just a pinprick of light in the wall.
And then the lights go out.
FADE TO BLACK.
This example is a set up shot that is meant to be visually impressive. Does it work? Can’t be sure, but it sounds cool. But is it something that a spec writer should be including in his script? I don’t think so. Would this “story” be any different without this passage? I highly doubt it.
^^ Some things will always need to be changed though, due to filming restrictions, budget, actors etc. However, I think if director's change a significant amount of the script, then it can be pretty crappy.
I was referring to the latter part. The former is damn near unavoidable. Everything in moderation.
Whether you write with camera directions or not has nothing to do with your script getting read or sold. Personally, I do not use them -- scripts with no camera directions are easier to read -- but that does not mean that it is wrong to write them.
I cannot remember who said the following (paraphrased) statement, but he/she is 100% correct: "Camera angles or no Camera angles. It doesn't matter, just WRITE WELL"
I agree with him.
I used to avoid unproduced scripts littered with 'we see' and camera angles, but now I really don't care. If you got a great story, then you got a great story and it will be noticed eventually.
Julio, I understand where you're coming from, but I do not agree with you.
I doubt a spec script coming in from a no name writer that is loaded with camera direction adn we see and we ehar would be read by any professional. It would be tossed out early on, as it would most likely read very amateurish.
Obvioulsy, these are just my feelings, adn I could be very wrong...I doubt it though.
I doubt a spec script coming in from a no name writer that is loaded with camera direction adn we see and we ehar would be read by any professional. It would be tossed out early on, as it would most likely read very amateurish.
Let's say that among the hundred or maybe thousand scripts they get, it's obvious that those kind of details help to get your script rejected.
I guess the point is that it's such an easy thing to leave out, I don't know why it's even up for discussion.
Like I said before, if you find yourself trapped in a situation where you absolutely have to explain what the camera is doing, then do it. If not, what's the point, really? If odds are (and they are, as you can cite any number of sources) you're not going to impress them with your knowledge of camera angles, just leave it out.
I doubt a spec script coming in from a no name writer that is loaded with camera direction adn we see and we ehar would be read by any professional. It would be tossed out early on, as it would most likely read very amateurish.
Depends on which side of the fence you're talking about. Hollywood, your script would most likely be submitted by an agent who read it and deemed it professional enough.
On a smaller, more independent level it's anybody's guess, but my experience is that those things don't amount to a whole lot positively or negatively.
In regards to what you say, above, I have no idea who you are, so your statement doesn't carry any weight.
Maybe I am Shelton! Or maybe I used to work for one of the two monolith agencies in Los Angeles (not the Death Star -- the other one). Maybe I'm pathological liar. Maybe I'm a drinker. Maybe I'm a pathological drinker...wait that is Shelton.
I thought I had pulled the perfect script. Twenty-something guy with no credits writes the script he wants to write and pulls it off. Go Kyle. But you gloomy guses fall back on the amateur v. pro thing as if someone is going to shoot you if you try to climb the fence.
And what's the rewriting of the script to "make it better". It's written in a certain, styled in a certain way because the technique is part of the story. If you can't see that then go have a gin fizz and a deep think.
I'm just saying you've got a bunch of blank pages and you can do anything you want. Anything. If you want to use camera direction it's not going to stop your script from getting read. What will stop your script from getting read is churning out something mediocre. Tons and tons of scripts are written and their worst sin is that they're average. If you limit yourself in the techniques you can use then you're already one step closer to average.
Maybe I am Shelton! Or maybe I used to work for one of the two monolith agencies in Los Angeles (not the Death Star -- the other one). Maybe I'm pathological liar. Maybe I'm a drinker. Maybe I'm a pathological drinker...wait that is Shelton.
I thought I had pulled the perfect script. Twenty-something guy with no credits writes the script he wants to write and pulls it off. Go Kyle. But you gloomy guses fall back on the amateur v. pro thing as if someone is going to shoot you if you try to climb the fence.
And what's the rewriting of the script to "make it better". It's written in a certain, styled in a certain way because the technique is part of the story. If you can't see that then go have a gin fizz and a deep think.
I'm just saying you've got a bunch of blank pages and you can do anything you want. Anything. If you want to use camera direction it's not going to stop your script from getting read. What will stop your script from getting read is churning out something mediocre. Tons and tons of scripts are written and their worst sin is that they're average. If you limit yourself in the techniques you can use then you're already one step closer to average.
I know who you are.
But I have to disagree. If someone is using camera directions and they clearly don't know what they are doing, they will lose a read. I would definitely stop reading.
So, if you're going to use camera directions you should know what you are doing. You should actually be prepared and able to shoot it, if you had the means.
Lakewood, professionals can afford to make mistakes. Amateurs can't.
Since THE BEAVER is a black list script, I wouldn't say the writer is a pro. Maybe used a pen name, who knows. Most of the black list scripts I read didn't have this kind of camera work in them.
What you can glean from THE BEAVER is that if you write a good story, they'll read it without giving camera shots a second thought. But even getting as far as THE BEAVER did doesn't mean you'll get produced. I liked THE BEAVER.
Hm, I would say this is an interesting topic, but no, it really isn't. The boards must be really, really slow for a conversation like this to get so much attention. I've read the screenwriting books as well. Those books say for a spec to writ it as cleanly as possible and to avoid directing the script. That's fine. That's what the writers say.
Here's my thought. It's your script. Write it however the hell you want to. Seriously, are we arguing about camera directions? Let's talk about something worthwhile like character development. You know, it's the singular most overlooked topic and instead of developing awesome characters, we're fretting over whether or not we should write CLOSE UP on medicine cabinet.
One thing I've said over and over again is that when it comes to script format, it's the easiest thing in the world. That's from writing a good slug all the way down to wrylies and camera directions. You can reformat a script in an hour, and that's feature length. If you have to clean up camera directions (should you be inclined to do so), then allow two.
How long does it take to write a good story with solid hooks, strong characters, a compelling story, and an unforgettable ending? Anyone? Anyone? A hell of a lot longer than an hour, that's how long. You're in here fussing about the easiest part of the process, so I assume you have a completed script and you're just polishing it up then, right?
If not, then write the thing first, and format it later. I'm not picky on format when I read. I don't care. I've some pretty crappily formatted scripts that had a damn good story. Write your story first and do it however makes you happy. Until you've sold it, it's your script, so why are you listening to to how everyone else does it.
Of course, if you're really into directing every detail of your story...write a novel. You'll have the control you desire.
Seriously, are we arguing about camera directions? Let's talk about something worthwhile like character development. You know, it's the singular most overlooked topic and instead of developing awesome characters, we're fretting over whether or not we should write CLOSE UP on medicine cabinet.
Gotta agree with that one. Plenty of amatuer scripts at SS have suffered a quick format nazi execution without an apparent read to see if life actually existed.
Since THE BEAVER is a black list script, I wouldn't say the writer is a pro. Maybe used a pen name, who knows. Most of the black list scripts I read didn't have this kind of camera work in them.
I write to offer this from the Hollywood Reporter "Killen is one of those spec-writer rags-to-riches stories -- a 30ish USC grad whose writing career until now has consisted of writing for small literary magazines."
I would agree that this is the most extreme use of camera and editing work in the entire Black List. But the technique is part of the story. And just out of curiosity I did a random five scripts sample in the Black List with How to Be Good, How To Guide For Saving the World, I Killed Buddy Cloy, I'm with Cancer, Inferno - A Linda Lovelace Story and only I'm with Cancer lacks scripted camera movement.
Scripted camera is the norm. You expect it in a script. You can use it or not. The fact that the bulk of you are so inflexible leads me to believe you won't. Welcome to 1992.
George - you want to talk character? Start a thread and I'll be there.
I write to offer this from the Hollywood Reporter "Killen is one of those spec-writer rags-to-riches stories -- a 30ish USC grad whose writing career until now has consisted of writing for small literary magazines."
I would agree that this is the most extreme use of camera and editing work in the entire Black List. But the technique is part of the story. And just out of curiosity I did a random five scripts sample in the Black List with How to Be Good, How To Guide For Saving the World, I Killed Buddy Cloy, I'm with Cancer, Inferno - A Linda Lovelace Story and only I'm with Cancer lacks scripted camera movement.
Scripted camera is the norm. You expect it in a script. You can use it or not. The fact that the bulk of you are so inflexible leads me to believe you won't. Welcome to 1992.
George - you want to talk character? Start a thread and I'll be there.
I went back and Googled the guy, good for him.
I also checked on my list favorites, ROUNDTABLE, CODE NAME VEIL, FRESHLY POPPED, THE ORANGES, and yes, some camera, but in any of them it didn't feel like they hindered the story at all, but made it better, from a script point of view. And maybe that's the point. If someone reads the story and right out of the gate they're hung up on rules, they'll miss it. Screenwriting road rage.
I think what you bring up is legitimate. If you have a point to make with a shot, take the chance and write it that way. And from the point of view of the readers, too much is too much, especially in a mediocre story.
My rags will turn into riches when they're buried with me.
I agree with Baltis. This thread should be closed. Everyone expressed his point of view and all this gets pointless.
Guys do what you want to do. You want to indicates use of camera. Ok do it. We all here to take or give advices. The question has been debated.
The most important in a script is the STORY. The rest is lacemaking. Some guy sold his script with camera indications. Why not? Good for him. I know French people who sold English script without any concern of grammar problems or syntax. It's all a matter of luck. That's all. If your script is read by a professional and if he tells you critics about it (if they are concrete, once again it's all depends of your point of view) listen to him. A second guy will tell you the same thing. And a third... Don't get stuck in your thing. Try to progress through the others. That's what I do as a non English born writer. And it works.
Michel, I have no idea why you think a thread should be closed, there is always room for more additions to any discussions.
One of the many excellent articles from Mystery Man on film, this guy if you do not read him is a bit of a screenplay nut, he writes for Script magazine under the title of Mystery Man but he is very likely someone who has a key role within the industry somewhere. This is what he had to say on writing camera angles.
Quoted Text
Okay, let’s just clear the air of so much bad thinking about action lines. I don’t know how or why this happened, but a lot of newbies seem to think that a scene is comprised of 1) a Master Scene Heading (such as INT. MYSTERY MAN’S KITCHEN – NIGHT) and 2) they should just add some action lines to describe the room, the characters, write a bunch of dialogue, (and quite a few more action lines to describe even the slightest gestures of characters, which we call incidental actions), and 3) move on to the next scene and repeat this process for 120 pages.
Wrong.
How did they get so far away from the core principles of screenwriting? Were they mislead? I don’t know. Even by the very low standards described above, some newbies can’t even get that right and they fill their action lines with what we call unfilmmables – sentences in action lines that are not visual, such as backstories of characters, author’s intrusions, inner thoughts, questions to the reader, etc.
Now, what do we know about action lines? With Trottier’s Screenwriter's Bible, we know that we ARE meant to describe the setting, characters, or actions of those characters, but these sentences must be very lean and mean. We write only what we see on the screen and only the most essential elements using the most minimal words. We have to provide a framework of visuals that tell the story so the reader (and audience) can put two & two together and visualize what's happening on the screen. Action paragraphs should be 4 lines or fewer. You typically write one paragraph per beat of action, and they should be important actions. I loved what Trottier said about incidental actions: “If your character raises her cup of coffee to her lips, that’s not important enough to describe… unless there’s poison in the cup.”
Hehehe...
Always, always err on the side of brevity.
Now let’s take it to the next level. The only way you can truly excel at writing cinematic stories (on a par with or surpassing the pros) is to elevate your craft to a level where you can (without using camera angles) WRITE THE SHOTS.
Bwaaah! You’re SO wrong, Mystery Man! Yes, I can hear you balking already and screaming at your monitors that, dammit, man, you can’t describe the shots because it’s up to the director to decide how that scene will be filmed and thus, all you can do is just tell the story – what happens to what character and then move on to the next scene.
So, Giles, am I correct in assuming that you are saying you agree that camera directions, asides, and the like should not be written in spec scripts? If that's where you're going, I'm with you 100%.
Was that quote all from "Mystery Man" or was some of it your commentary on his comments? I was a bit confused.
So, Giles, am I correct in assuming that you are saying you agree that camera directions, asides, and the like should not be written in spec scripts? If that's where you're going, I'm with you 100%.
Was that quote all from "Mystery Man" or was some of it your commentary on his comments? I was a bit confused.
No, I was just quoting an article I think does very good job on the subject, I do tend to agree with him however. He is essentially saying that yes, we should be writing camera angles into our scripts but not actually naming camera angles. We should be writing cinematically and visually and should be able to describe the shots as we want them to appear on screen without actually using any technical film-making terms in our script. I do agree with that, the man makes a lot of sense.
Wow, thanks Gary, that was a very useful link. It's sort of simple but cool at the same time. I will see if i can try some of the technique in my current script.
Then we are in agreement, Giles. It's not difficult to write visually, cinematrically, etc., and not using camera directions. When this is done effectively, the read is much stronger...and downright better.
I think alot of it has to do with how mcuh it's happening, and whether or not it occurrs early on, and continues.
Then we are in agreement, Giles. It's not difficult to write visually, cinematrically, etc., and not using camera directions. When this is done effectively, the read is much stronger...and downright better.
I think alot of it has to do with how mcuh it's happening, and whether or not it occurrs early on, and continues.
The post has new life!
There are times when you have to go WIDER, then WIDER STILL, and then STILL WIDER. Your focus is on one item, tight, then you don't understand until you go with a wider shot, then you still only get part of the picture, but suspense builds, and you have to go wider for the full shot. Now you get it. Now you get the whole picture. There could be no other way to write it in a screenplay. ANGLE ON, yes, not needed, but TIGHT ON, or WIDER, yes, absolutely. ON JEFF as he bangs the phuck out of his keyboard. WIDER, he's in jail. WIDER STILL, it's a jail in his own house.
ON JEFF as he bangs the phuck out of his keyboard. WIDER, he's in jail. WIDER STILL, it's a jail in his own house.
JEFF, a face full of concentration as he bangs the fuck out of his keyboard.
The BARS on the window, The Heavy STEEL DOOR of a jail cell. Jeff looks up at the window for a moment and thinks.
From outside the window looks just like any other cell window, only this isn't no ordinary prison, Jeff's cell is just a room in an otherwise normal suburban home.
Kids play in the street outside, next door someone is hanging clothes on a line. The sound of Jeff HITTING THE KEYS can still be heard over the more usual sounds of suburbia.
Or something like that anyway, the point is you do not need to write WIDER or any camera angles at all. The idea is to write how the film looks in your head and trying to get that on the page in such a way that it is clear to the director what you had in mind but without telling him his job.
Haha! Yes, I do seem to live in a jail in my own house...scary, but true.
Yeah, "TIGHT ON" or "WIDER", or even a less intrusive, "pull back to reveal" at times defintely does work and maybe even helps or strengthens the script itself, and the read as a whole. But for some reason, these "camera directions" feel much less intrusive than others, that have been discussed here.
I'm not disagreeing with you, Clorox. For me, it's how it's done, how it's incorporated into the script, and hopefully, how well if flows into the read itself.
But in the original example from Lake, I think what I put together in a minute or so, said the same thing, took up less than half the space, and was much less intrusive.
Just MO, of course, and we know what's that worth.
Yes, Giles! I agree. Alot of camera direction is actually something that is assumed or "known" by a director, or even the readers. If it's written in such a way that it makes sense, and is visual, then you're golden.
What you're not getting Dream is that the technical components in that script are part of the story. The way the scripted is styled is just as important as any of the character relationships in that script.
Bert referenced the scriptshadow blog and if you check out the highest rated script on the site, Everything Must Go, you have an opening scene that is a series of CLOSE ONs. It could have been written without them but it's part of the story. It's conscious BEAT, BEAT, BEAT.
What you're not getting Dream is that the technical components in that script are part of the story. The way the scripted is styled is just as important as any of the character relationships in that script.
Bert referenced the scriptshadow blog and if you check out the highest rated script on the site, Everything Must Go, you have an opening scene that is a series of CLOSE ONs. It could have been written without them but it's part of the story. It's conscious BEAT, BEAT, BEAT.
Reading that first page though Lakewood there is not a single CLOSE ON that actually needs to be there, the script would lose nothing by removing them and the beat's would still work exactly the same way. They are pointless and thus should not be there.
Yeah I read the first page of that script, and if I was writing it I wouldn't put any of the camera directions in there.
I can't believe we are still arguing about this! I suppose it is important though. Some readers say if they see camera directions in there, they don't read much further. Others say they don't care. Hmm.
Lake, based on your example, you obviously only incuded a few lines...a few passages. based on that, I or no one else would have a clue about how or why those camera angles are so important, because, in the example, they're just not.
I do understand how they can be important , and how they can work. But, I also know that there ways around using them that usally work just as well if not better.
There are instances where a camera shot or direction is needed. While I haven't seen the script for Apocolypse Now, I'm willing to bet it opens with BIRD'S EYE SHOT OF MARTIN SHEEHAN LYING IN BED...or something like.
If there's no other way to show what you want to show, then go for it. Just remember that, should your script get produced, the director will throw out most of your shots anyway.
There are instances where a camera shot or direction is needed. While I haven't seen the script for Apocolypse Now, I'm willing to bet it opens with BIRD'S EYE SHOT OF MARTIN SHEEHAN LYING IN BED...or something like.
If there's no other way to show what you want to show, then go for it. Just remember that, should your script get produced, the director will throw out most of your shots anyway.
Phil
That's assuming the writer saw it that way. They may have just written that a guy was lying on a bed. The director may have seen that shot the way it was finally done.
JEFF, a face full of concentration as he bangs the fuck out of his keyboard.
The BARS on the window, The Heavy STEEL DOOR of a jail cell. Jeff looks up at the window for a moment and thinks.
From outside the window looks just like any other cell window, only this isn't no ordinary prison, Jeff's cell is just a room in an otherwise normal suburban home.
Kids play in the street outside, next door someone is hanging clothes on a line. The sound of Jeff HITTING THE KEYS can still be heard over the more usual sounds of suburbia.
PULLING BACK through the clouds, a JET ROARS by, but we can still hear that fucking keyboard, and Jeff yelling something about format and camera directions.
AND BACK, past the moon, still that keyboard is taking a beating and GARBLE about ANGLE ON.
The keyboard is taking a cosmic beating, 'cause now we're way the fuck back, RIPPING PAST THE RINGS OF SATURN, and those little ice crystals smacking into the camera with each SMACK on that keyboard.
NOW ZOOMING past Pluto, which is now just an asteroid according to science, but we don't fucking care, 'cause the keyboard is still being wailed on.
FASTER AND FASTER WE PULL OUT, the cosmic swirl of the Milky Way, and that CLACK of the keyboard is deafening! Alpha Centari, galaxy after galaxy RIPS PAST, CLACK, CLACK, CLACK,..until...
WE STOP.
BEFORE US is a marble. A fucking marble, with our Universe inside. But more incredible than that...the typing has stopped. And all we hear is a little boy sobbing.
JEFF, a face full of concentration as he bangs the fuck out of his keyboard.
The BARS on the window, The Heavy STEEL DOOR of a jail cell. Jeff looks up at the window for a moment and thinks.
From outside the window looks just like any other cell window, only this isn't no ordinary prison, Jeff's cell is just a room in an otherwise normal suburban home.
Kids play in the street outside, next door someone is hanging clothes on a line. The sound of Jeff HITTING THE KEYS can still be heard over the more usual sounds of suburbia.
Or something like that anyway, the point is you do not need to write WIDER or any camera angles at all. The idea is to write how the film looks in your head and trying to get that on the page in such a way that it is clear to the director what you had in mind but without telling him his job.
Actaully cloroxmartini's WIDER... WIDER STILL is stronger in this context.
Not sure about this topic though. There are valid reason writers are told to not include camera directions. If you don't know what you're doing: chaos. But in the TIGHT ON example, I gotta say the directions can not only be useful, but downright strong.
There are some good arguments on both sides. There are very few absolutes and like Lakewood says, Camera Directions are part of the writers tool group and should be used if they would add to the story.
I would say that in his example the Close On's help to set the scene. They are being used for a specific thematic purpose; To signpost the characters inner life, the fact that he's using medication and is reading all kinds of self help books.
If you take them out of that script the emphasis intended might be missed. Rather than being a small, tightly defined portrait of this mans character, the scene might become a typical opening and the information would get passed over in a wide.
The only thing that I absolutely abhor in scripts is unflimmables, but I've made that point before and I won't go back to those dark days.
Screenplays are a blue print for films and you should try to make your intentions specific and clear. The writer here is showing you that he's thought about what each image means and is condensing the world into these tight spaces which mirrors the character of the man on screen. He's putting you as the reader/viewer into the mindset of his character.
I haven't read the entire thread- only Lakewood's kick off, but I agree within a certain context, that context being skillful application and knowledge thereof.
It comes down to story and character and skill and a whole lot else beside any one thing when we're talking about screenwriting.
I've taken a look at a version of the Benjamin Button script and it's crammed with paragraphs we're I'd actually have to count the lines that are together. Certainly, a lot more than a finger width of 3-4 lines- so that blows the theory of white space on the page out of the water. (Although it's still a good idea I think if you're trying to get read).
So if you believe your camera directions "serve" your script. Camera direct away I guess. I certainly wouldn't pass on a good story just because it had camera directions, but that's just me. I'm sure there are others who would.
It is a treasure-trove for good, fresh unproduced scripts that are attracting attention.
Camera angles? Pfft. Who gives a rat's butt?
Read freshly minted and sold scripts. See what is selling. Use that format.
It is that simple and that hard.
Damn good website. A shame more people did not notice it.
I knew about his site. Also knew he got band from a website where all the latest and hottest scripts get put up because he posted them openly online. H
There are some good arguments on both sides. There are very few absolutes and like Lakewood says, Camera Directions are part of the writers tool group and should be used if they would add to the story.
I would say that in his example the Close On's help to set the scene. They are being used for a specific thematic purpose; To signpost the characters inner life, the fact that he's using medication and is reading all kinds of self help books.
If you take them out of that script the emphasis intended might be missed. Rather than being a small, tightly defined portrait of this mans character, the scene might become a typical opening and the information would get passed over in a wide.
Actually, a bunch of INSERTS could be used or the items for closeup could be capitalized. The emphasis remains the same...
There are some good arguments on both sides. There are very few absolutes and like Lakewood says, Camera Directions are part of the writers tool group and should be used if they would add to the story.
if they would add to the story are the operative words here. If you have a scene where a character waits at a bus stop (where nothing significant happens), you shouldn't write that it's a long shot of Bob at a bus stop... or a bird's eye view of Bob standing at a bus stop. OTOH, describing a bus pass in Bob's hand, from Bob's point of view invites you into Bob's head for a moment. Of course, there should be a reason why he's looking at it.
I would say that in his example the Close On's help to set the scene. They are being used for a specific thematic purpose; To signpost the characters inner life, the fact that he's using medication and is reading all kinds of self help books.
I disagree with the CLOSE UP on the books. By describing them as self-help books, you don't need to give the shot. It's automatically assumed that it will be a CLOSE UP. Otherwise, how would you show what kind of books they are.
Here's another example of a shot that's automatic:
FADE IN ON:
The North American continent. The sky is cloud-free and brilliantly clear. The coastlines are sharp, as if drawn by a very fine pen.
From this, it's safe to assume that it's a long shot from space. There's no reason to mention 'from space we see...'
Phil, you reinforce a very valid point that I've tried to make several times. There are things that are assumed, or are just common sense, both in screenwriting and communication of any kind. If you give the title of a book, or the words on a card, than it has to be assumed that in order to see what they say, it will be a CU shot. Just common sense to me.
Now, on the other hand, in your example, is there really any reason for the line, “The coastlines are sharp, as if drawn by a very fine pen.”? I’d say definitely not. Especially the “, as if drawn by a very fine pen.” part.
Maybe the pen reference wasn't the best but, hey, it was off the top of my head. The point is that I indirectly gave a camera direction that flows with the story.
Phil, you reinforce a very valid point that I've tried to make several times. There are things that are assumed, or are just common sense, both in screenwriting and communication of any kind. If you give the title of a book, or the words on a card, than it has to be assumed that in order to see what they say, it will be a CU shot. Just common sense to me.
And that is exactly what Mystery Man means in his article, if you say that the clock shows it is 2.30pm then there is an assumption that the clock will be shown. It is up to the director to finally decide whether it is or not but if it is important he probably will. But there is no need whatsoever to describe exactly how that clock is to be filmed. Writing the shots without directing the film is another skill to be learned as a screenwriter, and I really cannot think of any example of where a spec script would benefit from having a camera angle included within the action.
Of course many scripts are not spec scripts, many scripts that are available to read on SS are actually final drafts, often written in conjunction or even by the director and are much more of a shooting script and can be excused for containing direction. They after all are written to be filmed, a spec script is written to be read, two very different things altogether.
I really cannot think of any example of where a spec script would benefit from having a camera angle included within the action.
I can. But it’s admittedly not an easy thing to explain. Maybe that’s why you seldom see it explained. All I can say is that a good script has timing and pitch elements and sometimes it’s necessary to make the script work properly.
It’s a hard thing to qualify and I’m no good at explaining it but sometimes writing strictly by the “rules” just won’t produce the desired effect. Sometimes direction or an aside enhances a scene not just with meter but it sort of pitches the story as you go. It makes the read more enjoyable and sells the script.
I would also like to point out that it simply shouldn’t bother a reader to see these terms in and of themselves in a script. They shouldn’t take a reader out of the story. Not anymore than knowing a camera shot actors when you watch a movie at the theater.
Pro writers don’t break the “rules” because they can. They break them because they don’t acknowledge their existence. Their writing isn’t arbitrary. Pro writers understand the usefulness of these techniques. So do I. If people want to think I can’t write because I include a camera direction occasionally, all I can say is I’m in good company.
I would also like to point out that it simply shouldn’t bother a reader to see these terms in and of themselves in a script. They shouldn’t take a reader out of the story. Not anymore than knowing a camera shot actors when you watch a movie at the theater.
I'm usually annoyed when I see people complain that things like 'We see' takes them out of the story. Maybe someone should tell them they're not reading a novel, but something that an audience will actually see.
I'm usually annoyed when I see people complain that things like 'We see' takes them out of the story. Maybe someone should tell them they're not reading a novel, but something that an audience will actually see.
Mainly because it is pointless and a waste of time. You are supposed to just describe the scene, write what is happening. So...
We see Olivia cross the street, she walks to the other side and we watch her disappear into a store.
or
Olivia crosses the street, she walks to the other side and disappears into a store.
There is no need whatsoever to say "we see" it is pointless, it is plainly obvious we will see it because you have written it. Silly, lazy writing, reserved only for geniuses who are making their own movie or for writers who have already landed the job, been paid and don't give a stuff what people think of their lazy writing.
I would put camera angles into this very same segment.
if they would add to the story are the operative words here. If you have a scene where a character waits at a bus stop (where nothing significant happens), you shouldn't write that it's a long shot of Bob at a bus stop... or a bird's eye view of Bob standing at a bus stop. OTOH, describing a bus pass in Bob's hand, from Bob's point of view invites you into Bob's head for a moment. Of course, there should be a reason why he's looking at it.
I disagree with the CLOSE UP on the books. By describing them as self-help books, you don't need to give the shot. It's automatically assumed that it will be a CLOSE UP. Otherwise, how would you show what kind of books they are.
Here's another example of a shot that's automatic:
FADE IN ON:
The North American continent. The sky is cloud-free and brilliantly clear. The coastlines are sharp, as if drawn by a very fine pen.
From this, it's safe to assume that it's a long shot from space. There's no reason to mention 'from space we see...'
Phil
I don't want to waste too much time on this because it is such a small point.
However:
1. If nothing significant happens at the bus stop, the bus stop should probably be cut from the script.
2. IF the writer is showing us the stop from a bird eye point of view, we know instantly that the shot is not insignificant. It has a far deeper meaning to the writer. It is part of some theme or story he is trying to get across (maybe later in the script/film) we find out that something has been watching the charcaters from above the whole time or he is deliberately trying to signpost to the audience that he wants us to look down on his characters and judge them).
A lot of script writers don't think visually. For me it's a bonus if people are thinking in filmic terms. You don't have to use it as a Director, but at the same time if what they are doing is going to work, you would stick with it.
In the example Lakewood posted, 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 empathise with him. The repetiton of the Close Up also works as a way of emphasising the repetitiveness of the characters life.
For me, it works, because it makes what he is trying to get across clearer. It shows he's thinking cinemtaically and I understand what he is trying to tell me completely. Although you are right in what you are saying about assumptions of CU on the titles, e CU itself tells us that the writer considers this information critical to the character and the story and it tells us he sees it framed the way he framed the other shots. It's a uniform and regular world we are in.
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.
I also have to echo George's point that these kind of conversations seem to go on forever and happen frequently when they aren't very important. All that matters is that the script is clear and unambiguous and tells a great story with great characters.
Actually, a bunch of INSERTS could be used or the items for closeup could be capitalized. The emphasis remains the same...
I don't think so. Capitalizing the items doesn't get across the visual imagery that he is so keen to project. He's using deliberate visual language to frame the world of his character. Capitalization can only give an emphasis on what the item is, not on it's visual reference.
But anyway, the point remains that it is clear what is happening in the scene and it is clear what the writer wants us to understand from it, so there really is no problem.
Mainly because it is pointless and a waste of time. You are supposed to just describe the scene, write what is happening. So...
We see Olivia cross the street, she walks to the other side and we watch her disappear into a store.
or
Olivia crosses the street, she walks to the other side and disappears into a store.
There is no need whatsoever to say "we see" it is pointless, it is plainly obvious we will see it because you have written it. Silly, lazy writing, reserved only for geniuses who are making their own movie or for writers who have already landed the job, been paid and don't give a stuff what people think of their lazy writing.
I would put camera angles into this very same segment.
I generally agree with what you say about we see. It's rarely needed. It doesn't bother me though. The two lines above read pretty much the same, it's an identical story, so it's irrelevant. The script doesn't make it to the screen. All that matters is whether it would work as a piece of cinema.
Sometimes WE is the easiest and fastest way to get across what you want and in that instance you should use it.
Let's say you're writing a horror. Let's say we are in a hotel corridor, the corridor turns at the end and hideous sounds can be heard from round that corner.
A simple: "We move down the corridor" could be very effective and it is difficult to think of something as immediate that works as well.
"We float beneath the wings of a plane", another one that is harder to convey without the We.
As regards camera angles, I don't agree. You're writing films, why wouldn't you be able to dip in and use camera angles where and when you wanted? I'd personally much rather that a writer was thinking cinematically than filling the script with literary devices, something that I see an awful lot.
Screenwriting is an audio/visual medium, not a literary one. Words are only used to convey abstract ideas as images and sounds. You can use camera angles like novelists can use literary devices like repetition and alliteration.
The only thing is to use them to add to the story.
Look at Hitchcocks the Birds. It opens with A birds eye view. It's genius. It takes a classic well known shot and turns it on it's head by making it into an actual bird's eye view.
In Psycho there is a famous sequence where the main character looks up towards the house. We then see her from a high angle point of view shot so that it looks as though the house itself is looking at her. This was written in the script. Just two shots.
It reads quite dryly, but it's one of the all time classic shots and has been copied in pretty much every major horror/thriller ever since.
You have that ability as screewnriters to be able to use camera angles in that way.
Decadence, Why One, great posts (welcome Why One).
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.
Eventually I realized that following the “rules” gets you nowhere. Whoever it is that’s supposed to punish you for not following them won’t help you even if you do follow them.
So I reevaluated my position. I read pro scripts trying to get a deeper understanding of how and why these techniques are used. Once I began to understand them, I never looked back. No one will hold it against you for using them in a way that works. But that’s how it is with any technique.
Looking back, I’m embarrassed by my adherence to the “rules.” I think I showed a basic lack of understanding of what screenplays even are. It was a humbling experience for me. But perhaps it’s a lesson that simply must be learned the hard way. If you want to be a pro, you’ve got to write like one. If you don’t like the way pros write, you owe it to yourself to look at the possibility that you are the one who’s wrong.
Mainly because it is pointless and a waste of time. You are supposed to just describe the scene, write what is happening. So...
We see Olivia cross the street, she walks to the other side and we watch her disappear into a store.
or
Olivia crosses the street, she walks to the other side and disappears into a store.
There is no need whatsoever to say "we see" it is pointless, it is plainly obvious we will see it because you have written it. Silly, lazy writing, reserved only for geniuses who are making their own movie or for writers who have already landed the job, been paid and don't give a stuff what people think of their lazy writing.
I would put camera angles into this very same segment.
I don't know who deleted my previous response to you but I'll repeat.
That's not true. There are times in a script when "we" serves a necessary function.
Quoted Text
Screenwriting is an audio/visual medium, not a literary one. Words are only used to convey abstract ideas as images and sounds.
I don't think so. Capitalizing the items doesn't get across the visual imagery that he is so keen to project. He's using deliberate visual language to frame the world of his character. Capitalization can only give an emphasis on what the item is, not on it's visual reference.
But anyway, the point remains that it is clear what is happening in the scene and it is clear what the writer wants us to understand from it, so there really is no problem.
When you capitalize you let the director know that this is important and worthy of a closeup.
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.
Personally, I think it's down to personal style. As long as the writer is communicating in a vivid and visual way, it doesn't matter if he or she chooses to use camera angles or not.
I don't consider it to be lazy writing. Besides, who has the authority to say it is?
There are a number of Oscar and WGA Award winning and nominated screenplays of great movies that have camera angles and other "we" derivatives written in them. They are solid screenplays written by solid writers that know their craft. Does the fact they use camera angles when they could've avoided them mean they are lazy writers? Does it mean that their critically acclaimed screenplays are weak and that the writer could take a leaf from our books about what constitutes to good screenwriting?
No. Because, in my opinion, the use of camera angles and "we" derivatives does not constitute to the quality of a screenplay. The pro writers know that. That's why they don't fret over it. The way I see it, if avoiding camera angles constitutes to good writing then you can be damned sure that the pro screenwriters that care about their craft will avoid it. The reality is that it's a non-issue. It's not seeing the forest because you are too busy focussing on the tree.
Some forests offer a wonderful, meandering path, meaning an enjoyable walk. But other forests are too thick with trees, making for a difficult and unpleasant walk. Cut down a few trees in that overpopulated forest, and you've got exactly the same, enjoyable walk.
Jammin', I stated exactly that same thing. These are all opinions. Opinions are not incorrect, by definition alone.
But, as a few of us have pointed out, omitting camera directions and we see, we hear, etc, merely "cleans up" the read. It takes out unneccessary words, saves space and read time.
The "salty" adjective "lazy" is an opinion that Mr. Giles threw out, and I merely seconded that opinion.
And a few others point out that writing longer prose to do what "we" or the very rare camera angle could doesn't equal a "clean read".
I'm not one for camera directions per say because there are other less "prosey" techniques that can be used like INSERT. Unfortunately alot of newbies aren't sufficiently aware of these(which are like programming syntax). But at other times, when the writer knows what she's doing, camera instructions are strong as in cloroxmartini's example some pages ago.
Point is "clean read" is also an opinion. Write an engaging story and you are golden.
True...it could be a beautiful, big, old Sequoia, and I'm not for cuting those beauties down. But if the forest is already properly "forested", no reason to keep planting thousands of trees.
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.
I don't know the story of The Beaver writer. But I do know the story of a few of the writers that have sold a script. And theirs usually start with querying a rep.
In my opinion, having contacts means buckus without a decent script. Having contacts just means that you know someone that will be willing to read your script. But you can usually get a read through a decent query letter.
True, you can get through with a decent query letter, but the point of this discussion is whether or not this Beaver writer would have gotten past the gatekeepers of the industry with the way his script is written. Of course, write like the pros, but these people know people who will read whatever they write. Us lowlifes who don't know anyone have to play the game of the readers to be seen. You can write what you want, but barring the rules of screenwriting, there are the rules of the readers that we have to contend with.
I appreciate what you are saying. But I do speculate about the ligitimacy of readers and their rules, and how that really affects writers like us. I can't say anything with certainty since I don't know any readers.
But what I would ask is, how do think readers fit into the overall query-to-sale game?
Because when I query a rep, it is usually the rep that directly reads my script. Readers come into play later on when the script gets circulated around town by a rep. And, from what I know, every spec going through the Hollywood system gets coverage. So The Beaver would have had to go through readers.
I just found this set of guidelines written by Don Bledsoe over at Script Nurse. Don is a working professional and has been for decades:
Quoted Text
General Rules
There are ONLY TWO TOOLS to work with in a screenplay:
• ACTION that is seen on the screen • DIALOGUE that characters say
ACTION DESCRIPTION TIPS
DON'T DIRECT or ACT — Directors don't like to be told how to shoot a scene. Besides, a good director might do it better than you suggest. Actors don't like to be told how to act. So don't tell them how in your script either.
KILL THE CAMERA — Remove all references to camera movement and angles. Eliminate any "we see" or "we hear" references because we don't see or hear. Write the action the audience will see on the screen or the words the actors will say. The simplicity of screenwriting is what makes it so hard to do.
USE STRONG LANGUAGE — "Fred is running around crazily" is weak compared to "Fred runs, flailing his arms frantically." Look for any descriptions that talk about "is" or "being." It's weak. Make it colorful! Use simple, colorful, visual language.
Is your story too long? Or does it seem to wander aimlessly? Does it lack impact?
Let's thin it out without gutting it! Try this:
Strike every "well," "now," "listen," "oh," etc. that you find in your dialogue. Get to it. Cut to the chase. Cut out the unnecessary clutter in what they say. You can always put it back in if the producer wants it. ACTORS HATE TO BE TOLD HOW TO ACT ... and producers hate reading about it.
Look for unnecessary parentheticals (instructions to the actor in parentheses in the dialogue). Hack them out. Use them ONLY when there's no other way to indicate that a particular line is directed to a specific character out of several in the same scene ... or if it cannot be done by carefully selecting the words for a character. Parentheticals are like speed bumps in a script. Avoid them entirely if possible.
Review the action descriptions. ANY "is" or "being" stuff needs to be re-written.
Get good thesaurus and synonym dictionaries and use them. The verb "is" implies a state of being that cannot be photographed. Only action can be put on the screen. Anyone who is thinking ... knows about ... wants to be ... looks like — kill 'em and re-write 'em. Action description doesn't have to be perfect English. This isn't a novel. It DOES have to be colorful and descriptive so the reader can "see" what you want seen on the screen. Kill ALL of the camera references. DIRECTORS HATE TO BE TOLD HOW TO DIRECT ... and producers hate to read about it.
Strike any reference to ANYTHING not seen on the screen, like reminding the reader that "so-and-so was the same guy who..." you get the idea. If it can't be seen — CUT IT OUT!
Eliminate CUT TO: in your script. It's already implied when you show a new scene heading anyway.
By now, you should have thinned things out a LOT. Good. You're down to meat and potatoes, if you're lucky. You've probably concluded by now that the action descriptions aren't quite getting it. Now the real fun begins.
Try this: SIMPLE, COLORFUL language in your descriptions. Cars don't just "pull up at the curb" ... they also gasp, lurch, grind, shudder, gurgle, clatter and expire at the curb. Get a GOOD thesaurus — USE IT! Also, eliminate big words not commonly used in everyday speech unless it's part of a character's persona.
Think in master scenes. It's okay to write the interior and exterior scenes at one location as one scene. Use a separate action description paragraph to signal a separate shot without explicitly saying so, to let the reader know we went outside, if you started with INT. BAR - NIGHT. It's a LOT easier to read that way.
There it all is in black and white. I still want to write CLOSE UP:, when I see it, but I no longer write ANGLE ON:. Still have to work on that. I have been trying to remove CUT TO: from my scripts, but still find it difficult, and I love the way 'we see' and 'we hear' reads myself, but maybe I should start finding ways to write around it.
Does that mean don't put : INT.JOHN'S HOUSE - DAY? When else would you have that situation? I like what he said about putting internal and external scens in one location, and just mentioning it in the action - that's a pretty handy tip.
Does that mean don't put : INT.JOHN'S HOUSE - DAY? When else would you have that situation? I like what he said about putting internal and external scens in one location, and just mentioning it in the action - that's a pretty handy tip.
IT might sound easier, but it's not. It's always better to have your scenes viable and stand out to your eye and the readers eye. That reader could be a friend, family member or, if luck would be on your side, a producer/agent/director/actor...
INT. SIMPLY SCRIPTS, HOME PAGE - NIGHT
always looks and reads better than
SIMPLY SCRIPTS, HOME PAGE
In your script. Well, in many writers eyes that is.
True, you can get through with a decent query letter, but the point of this discussion is whether or not this Beaver writer would have gotten past the gatekeepers of the industry with the way his script is written. Of course, write like the pros, but these people know people who will read whatever they write. Us lowlifes who don't know anyone have to play the game of the readers to be seen. You can write what you want, but barring the rules of screenwriting, there are the rules of the readers that we have to contend with.
Hmmm. I just don't buy this different world thing that people keep going on about. It's simply not true. There is only one world, the world of the Film Industry. Everybody has access to the very top level of Producers. You can meet them or their reps at the major film markets.
I had a nice chat with Tessa Ross at Cannes. Tessa is the woman behind Slumdog Millionaire, she's head of FilmFour and has recently been mentioned in Time's 100 list as one of the most influential people in the world. She's the only Film Producer on the list (I disagree with this, but that's not the point).
She said that although they prioritise applications from known literary agents, they WILL read all proposals that are sent to them. She bought the rights to Slumdog after reading the novel it was based on.
You're only making things difficult for yourselves if you keep believing that you are somehow outside the loop. An acquaintance of mine has just get set up with a writing gig on a fairly major feature. He's only ever written shorts. He arranged a few meetings, pitched a few ideas and based on the strength of those ideas got the gig. It's that simple.
These companies care about two things:
1. Money. Does this project have a chance of making the money invested back? Is it something they can market, that they have experience in, does it have a long term future?
2. Is it any good? Some companies are looking for different, more powerful and unique stories, particualry the European contingent. They are not necessarily looking for the next Star Wars, but the next Shane Meadows, or Lars van Trier etc Films that garner critical acclaim and give them prestige. Obviously they want a return on the investment as well, but both the money invested and the expected returns will be less.
Now, all that aside, the issue being discussed is purely about format. We have seen many, many examples of scripts being picked up that do not follow the exact format that so many guru's and blogs tell us is the only way to write.
It is because they are good and the Producers believe they will make good films that audiences will pay to watch. These issues that everyone is prevaricating about just aren't that important.
The first thing an actor does when he gets the script is to cross out all the lines that tell him how to act. Why? Because it limits his ability to make creative choices. It's the very first thing they do. That's their job and you are attempting to do it for them. Maybe, technically, you shouldn't do it. It's pointless for a start.
However it will not stop the Producer from thinking that this script is economically viable. If it fits in with their market, if it's good, if it's not too execution dependent, they will probably fund it. They WANT to make your film, that's what they do. They make money from films.
Anyone with a very strong idea for a story with a recognisable demographic has a chance to sell it. Anybody. You do have to get out there though. You have to meet people, you have to pitch ideas you have to establish relationships. But the good news is that the film markets are designed to do exactly that. Everybody who is anybody in the world of film is there from the Far East to Hollywood.
Worry about your story and your characters far more than any of this stuff. Make sure your story is exciting and high stakes and your characters memorable.
My script “Tormentor” broke these rules. It had “we sees” and even underscored passages. I’ve written two features for a Hollywood development company and both had occasional “we sees,” transition notations, and underscoring. In one case, I was specifically told to notate some transitions to “make it look like a pro script.” I’ve had my work seen by numerous Hollywood professionals and no one has once said anything about my breaking any format rules.
“Gatekeepers” with hang-ups regarding their personal format pet peeves are a case of readers wanting a good read instead of a screenplay. People who don’t understand why occasional camera directions are okay in a script are people who misunderstand the very definition of a screenplay.
Parentheticals are not there for the actors alone. They’re a device that helps picture the story. They can sometimes help keep the story moving along, beats intact, without upsetting the meter of the story. If an actor has a better way of doing it than what I’ve written, then good. That will just make a better picture. Because that’s what this whole thing is about; making a good picture. And the screenwriter is only one person in that process.
Saying screenplays are just action and dialogue is a very simplistic way of looking at it. There’s meter and structure and characterization through the action and dialogue. Just a bunch of bland ”he does this” or “he does that” actions with intermittent on the nose dialogue will get you nowhere.
Screenplays need to be cinematic, not just visual. There’s a difference. When you go to the theater, you’re well aware that what you’re seeing and hearing (yes you do see and hear at a movie) is a camera having shot actors. You know you’re sitting in a chair at a theater. Yet you still suspend disbelief. Why? Because it’s an indulgence. And if it’s a good movie, it’s a delightful indulgence. A script should read like a movie. The reader should be able to picture the film in his or her mind. And not just that, they should see it (yes see it) as a movie unfolding on the big screen.
Honestly I find it perplexing that a writer would open a script with “FADE IN:” and then tell himself, “From here on, I can’t use anymore cinematic language until the very end when I write ‘FADE OUT.’”
Write a good script. No. Write a great script. If you write a great script, you have a chance and all the readers in Hollywood who have hang-ups over “rules” can’t stop you. If you don’t write a great script, all the readers in Hollywood can’t help you.
My script “Tormentor” broke these rules. It had “we sees” and even underscored passages. I’ve written two features for a Hollywood development company and both had occasional “we sees,” transition notations, and underscoring. In one case, I was specifically told to notate some transitions to “make it look like a pro script.” I’ve had my work seen by numerous Hollywood professionals and no one has once said anything about my breaking any format rules.
“Gatekeepers” with hang-ups regarding their personal format pet peeves are a case of readers wanting a good read instead of a screenplay. People who don’t understand why occasional camera directions are okay in a script are people who misunderstand the very definition of a screenplay.
Parentheticals are not there for the actors alone. They’re a device that helps picture the story. They can sometimes help keep the story moving along, beats intact, without upsetting the meter of the story. If an actor has a better way of doing it than what I’ve written, then good. That will just make a better picture. Because that’s what this whole thing is about; making a good picture. And the screenwriter is only one person in that process.
Saying screenplays are just action and dialogue is a very simplistic way of looking at it. There’s meter and structure and characterization through the action and dialogue. Just a bunch of bland ”he does this” or “he does that” actions with intermittent on the nose dialogue will get you nowhere.
Screenplays need to be cinematic, not just visual. There’s a difference. When you go to the theater, you’re well aware that what you’re seeing and hearing (yes you do see and hear at a movie) is a camera having shot actors. You know you’re sitting in a chair at a theater. Yet you still suspend disbelief. Why? Because it’s an indulgence. And if it’s a good movie, it’s a delightful indulgence. A script should read like a movie. The reader should be able to picture the film in his or her mind. And not just that, they should see it (yes see it) as a movie unfolding on the big screen.
Honestly I find it perplexing that a writer would open a script with “FADE IN:” and then tell himself, “From here on, I can’t use anymore cinematic language until the very end when I write ‘FADE OUT.’”
Write a good script. No. Write a great script. If you write a great script, you have a chance and all the readers in Hollywood who have hang-ups over “rules” can’t stop you. If you don’t write a great script, all the readers in Hollywood can’t help you.
Breanne
Your words here should be posted on the refrigerator door if anyone feels they are drifting away from what's important.
As I had mentioned in a different thread awhile back- a script is a tool as much as it is supposed to be a good story.
Indeed, your question: How could anyone write FADE IN: and then cease to use any cinematic tools for the entirety of a script until FADE OUT at the end is warranted.
The trouble isn't in using the tools; rather, it's how they're used.
I like your description of the "front lines workers" as gatekeepers.
When you read enough scripts, or anything for that matter, you know a little something about the quality of the read even if some things aren't spot on "industry standard" as some claim.
As Pia always says, "Write a kick ass story!" That's the mantra to keep in mind, even as we yet again, discuss formatting.
I just found this set of guidelines written by Don Bledsoe over at Script Nurse. Don is a working professional and has been for decades:
There it all is in black and white. I still want to write CLOSE UP:, when I see it, but I no longer write ANGLE ON:. Still have to work on that. I have been trying to remove CUT TO: from my scripts, but still find it difficult, and I love the way 'we see' and 'we hear' reads myself, but maybe I should start finding ways to write around it.
BTW. I just looked this guy up. He's got one recognised credit: As a make up artist on John Carpenters Assault on Precinct 13 in 1976. He's 60 years old.
He has apparently written several features, one of which has been optioned to a small production company called Clipper Films, who frankly, look more than a bit shit.
This is the problem with so many of these guru's. They just regurgitate what they've read in other screenwriting books, they don't actually have a clue about what's really going on.
He had a solid career as an actor, but he has hardly demonstrated that his word is gospel when it comes to screenwriting.
The trouble isn't in using the tools; rather, it's how they're used.
Sandra,
I think this speaks to the very core of this issue. The problem isn’t that amateurs can’t use these techniques and pros can. The issue is knowing how to use these techniques. If a writer doesn’t know how, then they may be better off not using them just yet. It’s understandable that a reader might get annoyed at a writer who uses them when they’re obviously doing it arbitrarily and don’t really know what they’re doing.
However all writers need to eventually start using at least some of these techniques at some point. It’s very doubtful a writer will sell a script until they at least reach a point where they know how to use them.
But yes, I think you struck the main issue. It’s about know-how.
This is the problem with so many of these guru's. They just regurgitate what they've read in other screenwriting books, they don't actually have a clue about what's really going on.
They have to give you something for your money.
In entertainment, people often have to "reinvent" themselves. Services like Script Nurse allow people to make a living in Hollywood. The “rules” give them a slew of readymade advice to obfuscate the fact that they probably can’t really help you sell your script.
I think this speaks to the very core of this issue. The problem isn’t that amateurs can’t use these techniques and pros can. The issue is knowing how to use these techniques. If a writer doesn’t know how, then they may be better off not using them just yet. It’s understandable that a reader might get annoyed at a writer who uses them when they’re obviously doing it arbitrarily and don’t really know what they’re doing.
However all writers need to eventually start using at least some of these techniques at some point. It’s very doubtful a writer will sell a script until they at least reach a point where they know how to use them.
But yes, I think you struck the main issue. It’s about know-how.
They have to give you something for your money.
In entertainment, people often have to "reinvent" themselves. Services like Script Nurse allow people to make a living in Hollywood. The “rules” give them a slew of readymade advice to obfuscate the fact that they probably can’t really help you sell your script.
Breanne and decadence - you have articulated something that I have been festering on for a while; all of this pontification for a "we see", or a slight variation on "rules" is ultimately bull****. The one and only thing that ever matters is the story.
A script may abide by the "rules", but you can only polish a turd so much.
Don Bledsoe doesn't charge a dime for anything on his site, nor does he have a fee for his script contest. I find it amazing to see the man trashed like this with nothing more than a search of his name on IMDB. I'm pretty certain that someone read his scripts to him over those many years, and he just parroted back what they said, so he couldn't possibly have learned anything about what makes a good script in that time. I've looked around the site for awhile. Don's a good fellow and openly claims NOT to be the final authority on script writing, yet he's willing to help when he can, and provides a place for folks to meet, share and learn. You folks amaze me. Wow. Just wow.
Don Bledsoe DB: I discovered people needed help getting their scripts properly formatted, so I decided to offer a low-cost formatting service to aspiring writers
I took this to mean he charged something. If this isn’t true and he doesn’t charge, then I apologize. What does he mean when he says he offers a low-cost formatting service? Why didn’t he just say free formatting service instead of low-cost?
I find it amazing to see the man trashed like this with nothing more than a search of his name on IMDB.
I don’t think I trashed him. I made general comments on services that charge money to evaluate people’s scripts. At the time I made those comments, I thought he charged because of the above statement. But again, if you say he doesn’t charge, then I apologize to both Don and to you.
I’d never heard of Script Nurse before you mentioned it. I do think he gives some bad advice in the article you cited but that’s just my opinion. No one has to agree.
This is why I seldom even say anything around here anymore. It seems like I can’t say anything without offending someone. So I’ll just say I’m sorry and move on. Please accept my apology. I’m sorry I offended you.
Don Bledsoe doesn't charge a dime for anything on his site, nor does he have a fee for his script contest. I find it amazing to see the man trashed like this with nothing more than a search of his name on IMDB. I'm pretty certain that someone read his scripts to him over those many years, and he just parroted back what they said, so he couldn't possibly have learned anything about what makes a good script in that time. I've looked around the site for awhile. Don's a good fellow and openly claims NOT to be the final authority on script writing, yet he's willing to help when he can, and provides a place for folks to meet, share and learn. You folks amaze me. Wow. Just wow.
Don't take it to heart my good man. I apologize if I've caused any offence, I can see how my post could seem arrogant. It's just that these type of things always come up.
Someone sees that a script has been sold and has been highly rated and is confused that it is written in a way that differs from the way each and every one of these guru's tells us to write.
Clearly, the fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter to anyone who really counts whether or not you use camera angles or we sees. For reasons I explained earlier. The actual evidence shows this clearly.
Then someone shows us a blog or a webpage from a known guru telling us in "black and white" that there is absolutely only one way to write. It's not true however you break it down. As I say, the evidence shows this to be the case.
The problem is that a lot of novice writers write in a way that is very literary, they don't write scripts at all. So you have to tell them certain rules just to get them to write scripts and not short story/novella hybrids. But these rules, once you know what you are doing, are not incontrovertible.
Anyway, I apologize again if I caused any offence. I'm sure the guy is doing his best to help.
OK guys. Thanks. I didn't mean to present it as from a guru, either. Don is just a fellow who has many years of experience 'in the business', and is trying to help out those of us who don't know diddly about what we're doing. Much like this site. I just felt the harshness thrown at him was undo 'snobbery', but I can see now that it wasn't. Sorry I snapped like that. I find it happening more and more as I get older.
To step in here and say one last thing... Independent film producers and Agents will no doubt take a look at a badly formatted screenplay or a "Wrongly" formatted screenplay. Hell, some might even buy them. But if you dropped a screenplay on the desk of a major studio who wanted to pay 100,000 "Standard" to 1 million for your script... They'd probably chuckle a bit then tell you that your script was in Iowa.
At the end of the day it's all about story, though. If you have a good story and someone "willing" to read it there is no reason why your movie couldn't get made. Independent film guys all the way up to Hollwood suits are looking for the next big thing. Anyone can write it... You just have to push it, make yourself known and go out there and try to get it on the radar.
Me, I have tons of scripts that are truly, really, really new. Really good and close to my chest. I've talked to people about making them and get e-mails regularly about a great deal of them to this day. Right now I'm happy with my band and doing what I'm doing. I know one day soon, though... When time presents itself I'll have enough varied work to really impress someone with enough intelligence to read through them.
A security blanket that I'm not banking on, I suppose. "ha" Anyways, take care guys. Write what and how you want. Get it down on paper 1st and then think about the aftermath. Nothing's gonna get sold without it being written and believe me... If you are writing as a director someone will tell you exactly where you went wrong and you can fix it.
At the end of the day it's all about story, though. If you have a good story and someone "willing" to read it there is no reason why your movie couldn't get made.
Why did it need 125 replies to get to that point? It was very simple from the start: it's all about story That's all. I can bear it.
To step in here and say one last thing... Independent film producers and Agents will no doubt take a look at a badly formatted screenplay or a "Wrongly" formatted screenplay. Hell, some might even buy them. But if you dropped a screenplay on the desk of a major studio who wanted to pay 100,000 "Standard" to 1 million for your script... They'd probably chuckle a bit then tell you that your script was in Iowa.
At the end of the day it's all about story, though. If you have a good story and someone "willing" to read it there is no reason why your movie couldn't get made. Independent film guys all the way up to Hollwood suits are looking for the next big thing. Anyone can write it... You just have to push it, make yourself known and go out there and try to get it on the radar.
Me, I have tons of scripts that are truly, really, really new. Really good and close to my chest. I've talked to people about making them and get e-mails regularly about a great deal of them to this day. Right now I'm happy with my band and doing what I'm doing. I know one day soon, though... When time presents itself I'll have enough varied work to really impress someone with enough intelligence to read through them.
A security blanket that I'm not banking on, I suppose. "ha" Anyways, take care guys. Write what and how you want. Get it down on paper 1st and then think about the aftermath. Nothing's gonna get sold without it being written and believe me... If you are writing as a director someone will tell you exactly where you went wrong and you can fix it.
Be careful with that. They're only new up to the point someone releases something similar. Strike whilst the iron is hot and all that.
My script “Tormentor” broke these rules. It had “we sees” and even underscored passages. I’ve written two features for a Hollywood development company and both had occasional “we sees,” transition notations, and underscoring. In one case, I was specifically told to notate some transitions to “make it look like a pro script.” I’ve had my work seen by numerous Hollywood professionals and no one has once said anything about my breaking any format rules.
“Gatekeepers” with hang-ups regarding their personal format pet peeves are a case of readers wanting a good read instead of a screenplay. People who don’t understand why occasional camera directions are okay in a script are people who misunderstand the very definition of a screenplay.
Parentheticals are not there for the actors alone. They’re a device that helps picture the story. They can sometimes help keep the story moving along, beats intact, without upsetting the meter of the story. If an actor has a better way of doing it than what I’ve written, then good. That will just make a better picture. Because that’s what this whole thing is about; making a good picture. And the screenwriter is only one person in that process.
Saying screenplays are just action and dialogue is a very simplistic way of looking at it. There’s meter and structure and characterization through the action and dialogue. Just a bunch of bland ”he does this” or “he does that” actions with intermittent on the nose dialogue will get you nowhere.
Screenplays need to be cinematic, not just visual. There’s a difference. When you go to the theater, you’re well aware that what you’re seeing and hearing (yes you do see and hear at a movie) is a camera having shot actors. You know you’re sitting in a chair at a theater. Yet you still suspend disbelief. Why? Because it’s an indulgence. And if it’s a good movie, it’s a delightful indulgence. A script should read like a movie. The reader should be able to picture the film in his or her mind. And not just that, they should see it (yes see it) as a movie unfolding on the big screen.
Honestly I find it perplexing that a writer would open a script with “FADE IN:” and then tell himself, “From here on, I can’t use anymore cinematic language until the very end when I write ‘FADE OUT.’”
Write a good script. No. Write a great script. If you write a great script, you have a chance and all the readers in Hollywood who have hang-ups over “rules” can’t stop you. If you don’t write a great script, all the readers in Hollywood can’t help you.
Awesome post, Bre. This is pretty much what I've been hearing from other writers ahead of the curve.
I try my best to give good advice but it’s admittedly very difficult. Things change so rapidly in this business. Art and business have always had a rocky marriage and there’s a lot of money at stake. That’s a recipe for a lot of broken dreams.
It’s true there are directors who will flip out when they see a “we see” and say something like, “Who does this bitch think she is, telling me how to direct a film?!!” I know I’m not telling him how to direct a picture. I’m just trying to write a script in the clearest, most cinematic way possible.
There are those in Hollywood who legitimately want to make great films. Then there are those who, if you let them, will strain every bit of joy from writing and leave you with nothing.
Ultimately it depends on where your script goes. One producer or studio will want it one way and another will want it another.
I’m always leery of handing out advice. I don’t want to mislead anyone. About all one can do is just write a great script. It’s the only thing you can know with certainty they want. If someone opens it up and it just flows and everything just seems right; if it’s a great story and they believe they can get somewhere with it, they’ll work with you. It’s all you can really do.
There are those in Hollywood who legitimately want to make great films. Then there are those who, if you let them, will strain every bit of joy from writing and leave you with nothing.
Not just Hollywood, but everytwhere around the world. I've been experienced with third zone directors on French TV. Everyone thinks he's f******* Orson Welles.
About all one can do is just write a great script. It’s the only thing you can know with certainty they want. If someone opens it up and it just flows and everything just seems right; if it’s a great story and they believe they can get somewhere with it, they’ll work with you. It’s all you can really do.
It's a matter of chance too. Being at the right place at the right moment. Being there, in SimplyScript, is a good thing too. Even if English is not your first language. One more proff that it's only about a good story. I know what I'm talking about, believe me.
I�m always leery of handing out advice. I don�t want to mislead anyone. About all one can do is just write a great script. It�s the only thing you can know with certainty they want. If someone opens it up and it just flows and everything just seems right; if it�s a great story and they believe they can get somewhere with it, they�ll work with you. It�s all you can really do.
Now you all know I'm a beginner, I have done major studying in the last few months to a year on how to write, however i think adding camera direction in a script is completely OK, as long as it's not all decked out in them. I write with camera direction (Partly because since my goal is to be a director, I naturally add the camera direction) So I think it's completely fine.I have read many many many movie scripts LITTERED with camera direction. So does it count you out in Hollywood? I don't think so, since those made it into Hollywood. The story does matter, but formatting matters too, IMO.
Isle 10- A series I'm currently writing with my friend Adam and it will go into production soon. Think The Office meets 10 Items or Less.
This is the problem with so many of these guru's. They just regurgitate what they've read in other screenwriting books, they don't actually have a clue about what's really going on.
He had a solid career as an actor, but he has hardly demonstrated that his word is gospel when it comes to screenwriting.
Been thinking about this, and the other comments that effectively dismiss the "Guru's" because they have not had very much of their own writing turned into movies. I get the point, on some level it makes sense, after all, Blake Snyder - writer of Blank Check and little else. It maybe worth pointing out that Blake Snyder has also had lots of things optioned, though some might say they cannot of been that great.
Some names for you...
Alex Ferguson Arsene Wenger Jose Mourinho
They will mean nothing to most people outside of Europe but these guys are the three most successful Managers (coaches) in the history of the English Football Premier League, in the case of Alex Ferguson he is arguably the greatest manager in the history of English football.
Guess what they have in common? Neither of them were very good players, Jose Mourinho was not even a capable player and yet today he is the highest paid person in the world of football earning $26 Million a year.
I bet there are examples in American sports too, and not just sport, look at the worlds best business "Guru's", these are men and women who coach and train some of the richest businessmen in the world and yet they are themselves "failed" businesspeople.
Are teachers "failed" professionals? Surely they must be? If they were any good they would be history professors, business owners, authors etc.. Why should any student listen to someone who has "failed"?
The fact is that some people just make great teachers than they do professionals, it does not mean however that they know any less. I was catching up on some Pilar Alessandra podcasts this week and on one her guest was Zach Helm, now this is a guy who is carving out a pretty respectable career for himself since selling the first spec he wrote. He is someone who uses her services now, that's right, a real screenwriter with movies under his belt still learning from Pliar who? the woman who has not had anything filmed. He must get something out of it, you gotta think that students of Syd Field and Blake Snyder also get something out of it.
How do you judge a good teacher? Is it on their work or is it on their students work? Because lots of professionals seem to hold these "guru's" in very high regard.
Of course none of this means that you should listen to these people, nor does it mean that you will learn anything from these people. I am only writing this because I feel that the excuse that these guys are hardly a good source of information purely because they are not brilliant screenwriters themselves is incredibly disingenuous and more than a little unfair, they obviously are very good teachers. If people want to dismiss them then fair enough but at least come up with a better reason why.
Funny football (of any sort) has been brought up, because I was just thinking the same thing. It wasn't that long ago I was reading about how some of the top coaches in the history of American Professional Football have never even set foot on a pro field as a player. Exactly what Murphy was saying.
Sniper, and others I'm sure, there is no such thing as real or fake football, just preferred football.
Been thinking about this, and the other comments that effectively dismiss the "Guru's" because they have not had very much of their own writing turned into movies. I get the point, on some level it makes sense, after all, Blake Snyder - writer of Blank Check and little else. It maybe worth pointing out that Blake Snyder has also had lots of things optioned, though some might say they cannot of been that great.
Some names for you...
Alex Ferguson Arsene Wenger Jose Mourinho
They will mean nothing to most people outside of Europe but these guys are the three most successful Managers (coaches) in the history of the English Football Premier League, in the case of Alex Ferguson he is arguably the greatest manager in the history of English football.
Guess what they have in common? Neither of them were very good players, Jose Mourinho was not even a capable player and yet today he is the highest paid person in the world of football earning $26 Million a year.
I bet there are examples in American sports too, and not just sport, look at the worlds best business "Guru's", these are men and women who coach and train some of the richest businessmen in the world and yet they are themselves "failed" businesspeople.
Are teachers "failed" professionals? Surely they must be? If they were any good they would be history professors, business owners, authors etc.. Why should any student listen to someone who has "failed"?
The fact is that some people just make great teachers than they do professionals, it does not mean however that they know any less. I was catching up on some Pilar Alessandra podcasts this week and on one her guest was Zach Helm, now this is a guy who is carving out a pretty respectable career for himself since selling the first spec he wrote. He is someone who uses her services now, that's right, a real screenwriter with movies under his belt still learning from Pliar who? the woman who has not had anything filmed. He must get something out of it, you gotta think that students of Syd Field and Blake Snyder also get something out of it.
How do you judge a good teacher? Is it on their work or is it on their students work? Because lots of professionals seem to hold these "guru's" in very high regard.
Of course none of this means that you should listen to these people, nor does it mean that you will learn anything from these people. I am only writing this because I feel that the excuse that these guys are hardly a good source of information purely because they are not brilliant screenwriters themselves is incredibly disingenuous and more than a little unfair, they obviously are very good teachers. If people want to dismiss them then fair enough but at least come up with a better reason why.
It's ironic that you call me out for being "disingenuous". The truth is that almost everyday a writer comes on here and on sites like this and posts a script that has been bought and asks the same question about camera angles, we sees and all these other things.
The evidence shows clearly that you can do these things, most of the scripts that are sold contain these type of things.
So who exactly is being disingenuous? The person who is pointing out a clear contradiction, or the one who is charging people for knowledge that the evidence shows to be untrue?
The screenwriting guru's have their uses and some of them are good teachers, I've never said they weren't, but this idea that you can't use camera angles and such is palpably untrue.
On a theoretical level, I agree with mostly everything each of them says, but the fact is that scripts are sold all the time that go against these rules that they all say are set in stone.
Pages: 
Author
Camera and Technical Direction
Logged
Locked Board