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.
Totally NOT taking anybody's side on this (Jeff, you and Pia just duke it out, okay?)
But re: the 107 page script. Just on page 2, the description reads: She is very thin, even for a ballerina. The skin on her chest stretches tautly over her sternum. Defined vertebrae run up her back, sinewy muscles contract as she moves. Her slender neck leads to her hair, contained in a ballerina's bun.
Very nicely done - not arguing that point at all. Could also be condensed to: Her hair is tied tight in a bun. She is very thin - even for a ballerina.
The axe I'm grinding? That I've had scripts with about the same level of picturesque description...and had them slammed as amateur (for that specific reason) and overwritten. So obviously, we outside the business have to deal with a different set of rules than established insiders. Which gets kinda frustrating.
Which doesn't make the movie (and very likely the script) any less wonderful...
Who is it that's doing the slamming?
The problem we have is that cultures develop on internet sites that aren't necessarily ones that reflect the real world of filmmaking.
Aronofsky pretty much filmed that sequence shot for shot. He obviously understood and agreed that it was important to show just how finely tuned her body was.
There's often a rush to "condense" things, but very often the things that people try to condense are important and the abridged version isn't the same as the original. Being thin is a character description, but it doesn't equate to what wwe have here where we are invited to pore over her body in detail.
Industry professionals would say you're judged on the same rules as every other professional and that separate rules for beginners are just make believe.
Certainly a gray area for scriptwriters is to what extent it's reasonable to suggest shots and visuals. Looking at it from the filmmaker's point of view -- if Joe Eszterhas tells you (indirectly) what images he thinks should be presented and how they should be presented, you will most likely take that into account. He may not be a director, but he's been on a lot of film sets, he's worked with a lot of big directors, and he probably has a good idea of how camera setups work.
The same cannot be said of, for example, any writer (that I'm aware of) on Simply. Some people have been through film school, some people have shot some indie shorts, and so on. Most people here just want to be writers. Writers write, they don't direct. Camera setups are the director's job. Directors, producers et al might be mildly interested in a seasoned veteran's opinion of where the camera should go, but there's no reason they should be interested in the opinion of a writer trying to break into the business.
It's for this same reason (partly) that one doesn't write anything that directs the actor. I dunno. I guess the point I'm trying to make is: of course the double standard exists, and it should. Writers who are "amateurs" by definition probably don't know much about directing. The more description one writes, the more directing one is doing. Writers who are "professional" will most likely have a more complete understanding of the filmmaking process, having been on sets, in preproduction meetings, et al, and therefore are more valuable sources of opinion for directing approaches.
Personally, if I'm looking at directing something, I read it once to get the gist of the story and then, on subsequent readings, ignore everything except dialogue and slugs. Who cares what the writer thinks about anything else?
Don't really agree with this, Chris.
Ultimately you can't really write a script without directing on the page because everything you type is essentially a shot.
If you describe a field that reaches out into the distance...you're saying it's a wide shot.
If you describe an eye looking through a key hole...you're implying an extreme close up.
Is not this really the very essence of visual storytelling and one of the key skills a screenwriter should have?
I'm bitching about the double standard whereby any one of us would be panned--and labeled an amateur--for doing the exact same thing. (Though I understand why it would be so, from an agent's point of view.)
Listen to what the people are telling you. If they are telling you not to do something because you can't - screw them. Imposing limitations "just because" doesn't buy anyone credence in my book. If they are telling you not to do something and they can back it up with why -- then evaluate their evidence and make your own decision on what you are willing to sacrifice. Be strong, write in your own voice (whatever that may be). Be unique and try to make the uniqueness acceptable to the masses rather than trying to blend in with the crowd. Being unique might not win you contests but it will get you noticed.
Let me try to make what I'm saying a bit clearer. If you provide a readable script to an agent with an excellent marketable story there's no way they'd pass up on it if you broke a few screenwriting rules. At the very worst they will ask you to rewrite the parts they think will cause a problem when they try to sell it. The key words here are readable and marketable.
In this case the agent is providing you with a direct reason why changes are needed in your script and the agent may indeed say cut down on the prose. As opposed to getting feedback from peer review when Joe Schmoe says you have to cut down on your prose because I don't like it, it's not the way I do it and I heard somewhere that professionals will think you're an amateur.
Of course there might be a grain of truth in what Joe Schmoe says but it's going to ultimately be your decision if and where you draw the line in the prose. Getting the same advice from an agent is a bit more black and white, you have a real reason to make the change.
Ultimately you can't really write a script without directing on the page because everything you type is essentially a shot...Is not this really the very essence of visual storytelling and one of the key skills a screenwriter should have?
Yessir; I agree completely. I was arguing only why extensive description is more acceptable to filmmakers in "pro" scripts than in "amateur" scripts, or why the double standard that Janet referred to exists...nothing further.
Do you think the double standard exists, or do you think it's just imaginary?
As far as I'm concerned it's not whether the script is pro or amateur that's the deciding factor...it's simply whether the description is warranted or not.
Pros are more often in control of their stories and they may decide that they need to clarify something or have a moments of intense description because it suits the mood and adds something the writer considers important.
I think these things become "rules" as such because the majority of pre-pro writers overdescribe in instances that don't warrant it...so you have a general outline to try and help the majority.
But at some point I think you need you need to dispense with them....or if not dispense with them, realise that they are at least just rules of thumb and not commandments never to be broken...
Completely agreed Rick. What I was trying to say above but I'm much more militant about it.
I do think the double standard exists - but I think it's one-sided. The industry doesn't have the double standard but those trying to break into the industry do.
I have to say from experience - I've had an insider (industry pro) complain about my level of description. And while I'm obviously biased towards my own scripts, I would argue that the description in question was necessary for setting the appropriate atmosphere, and was no more extensive than what I read in Black Swan.
So I do think the double standard exists as reality, on the industry side.
Again, I can even understand why that's the case. The pros read tons of scripts, slog through lots of scripts that aren't ready for prime time. So I'm sure that their tolerance level for color and descriptives is positively non-existent. You don't get to the point and fast - you're gone. OTHO, if they're reading a script from an established pro, the attitude is going to be totally different. They'll be interested in the subtleties, and attention to detail that makes the difference between good and great.
So is it understandable on a practical level? Yes. Is it fair? Nah....
I can understand what you're saying. I think the truth is what Michael said...if the reader is enjoying the script, these things don't stand out so much.
There is an increasing issue that scripts that read well (or quickly) are considered good scripts...which isn't necessarily the case and is resluting in a certain type of light and breezy film.
It's when the read starts to get cumbersome that you start to look for reasons why...and over description may play a part in that.
I've read thousands of pre-pro scripts over the years and to be truthful, I can count the features I've actually ENJOYED reading on the fingers of one hand. Pro scripts tend to eb enjoyable to read, even if at the end of them you don't think they're particularly brilliant.
Have you got a feature on here at the moment Janet? I've got a couple of hours spare to look over it, see if we can see any differences...
Writer/producer/director - I don't believe in pigeonholing yourself to just one. People who self-identify (and essentially lord over others) are either talentless amateurs, or massive as*holes who even the 'pros' don't want to have a beer with. Let's be fair.
This debate isn't really touching on the crux, which is that you need to be networking, being a part of making films, and concentrating on what your own scripts are about and why we should want to watch them.
A lot of this is pretty superfluous discussion, really.
I have not been participating, and I plan on staying on the sidelines, but I actually find it really interesting. It goes back to the old debate for me, is a script a blue print for a film, or is it a written story. It's obviously somewhere in between and needs to be able to do both things, grab the reader and provide a direction for a film. Whether it should be more 'blueprinty' or more like a traditional written story is something I find of interest. I'll just keep watching the discussion, but I am interested in it.
This debate isn't really touching on the crux, which is that you need to be networking, being a part of making films, and concentrating on what your own scripts are about and why we should want to watch them. A lot of this is pretty superfluous discussion, really.
I debated whether or not to get into this thread...
As usual Andrew you hit the nail on the button. No I'm not part of making films, but the last year, I 've started networking. I've changed my whole approach ...back to how I originally started writing my features.
side note:
There is no double standard in Hollywood. If you want to be a pro then write like one-- which means using everything in your arsenal to tell a compelling story. But in the end, what really tanks your script is this hard truth...your script just isn't good enough.
Blueprints are pretty variable, as are scripts-to-screen.
Now, VCR instructions? Not so variable.
Scripts-to-screen are all over the place due to a wide assortment of factors.
Director's gonna have his/her own vision. Producers are going to have budget consideration that determine locations and cast, both of which will have an impact from script-to-screen. Actors are going want to change every GD line and deliver it eight different ways, which is nothing compared to director David Fincher who will have them deliver it ninty-eight different ways. The DP is even going to have a say in how scenes are going to be shot. The location itself may force structural changes in the story. The editor is going to take the best take variant and monkey with other pick-ups and alternate deliveries to make the story geehaw for timing and pace. Every time you see the catch-all bin of "deleted scenes" not only is that potentially tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of screen minute dollars being ultimately wasted on the feature, but it is an indication of how much changes script-to-screen. The distributor (if you should be so lucky) actually has the right to change some things. The MPAA is going to balk at some stuff, ask for it to be deleted or changed, the director can often argue to keep some stuff but may very well be forced to acquiesce others. That's three changes right there. If you see "Director's Cut" or "Unrated Cut" those are variations. Once in awhile you'll hear directors talk of 'the fat cut" which are often three or four hours in length. What does that say about the writer's contribution to the overall "featured" product?
Ghost? You take a look at the formatting on this script, and tell me if you really think that any agent would've read past page one, if written by a simply scripter today.
Or argue with a straight face that The Klumps would've sold as a spec script....especially from a non-pro.
Ain't no-body here on SS that's arguing that there isn't room for improvement on their own work. At least, I hope not.
But a double standard? Yeah, there is. And it's due to the fact that a non-pro spec script has to shine brighter, when it's buried under the load of other scripts, all clamoring for the same attention. Pros don't have the same competition - they've already got that first foot in the door.
Pages: 
Author
Script Club XIV - Black Swan
Logged
