Wrylies - Print Topic

Posted by: Murphy (Guest), February 11th, 2008, 5:05pm

Hi Folks, Got a question about format and would appreciate any opinions. Before I get the standard answer I just want to say I understand the point about established scriptwriters being able to break the rules that we need to follow and all that. And this is not going to be a "If they can do it then why can't we?" question.

But I was reading Michael Clayton last night and was really taken by the scene near the beginning where they are playing poker. The way it was written is different to what i have read on here and I do not recall being told we could not format a script this way in any of my books. The reason why I raise it is because it seems to work really well, It helps the action on the page flow and I really cannot see anything wrong with it. So wondered what others would say If say I wrote a script that used some of the same formatting. Or is this a case of rules for the sake of rules because logically I cannot see why this would be frowned upon.

I am of course talking about the action that is written in Parenthesis.

Quoted Text

                        PLAYER #2
                   (Dominican dude)
          I go like that.  Check.

PLAYER #3 has a bad toupee and a plumber’s flashroll--

                PLAYER #3/PLUMBER
                (peeling off twenties)
          Half the pot. Two hundred.

PLAYER #4, a Chinese landlord -- already pushing his cards away -- he’s folding --

                      DEALER
               (back to Michael)
          Two hundred to you.

MICHAEL shakes his head.  He’s out.  PLAYER #2 right behind him.  THE DEALER starts gathering cards for the next hand.

                     PLUMBER
         You don’t remember me, huh?
               (toMichael as he rakes
                in the pot--)
         We played a couple times that lamp place.
         On Bowery.  That guy’s showroom.  All the
         lamps and shit?

                    MICHAEL
         Galaxy.

                    PLUMBER
         That’s it.  You had a restaurant you
         opened, right?  On Franklin?  Cause
         my old partner bid that job, the
         plumbing.  You don’t remember me?

                    MICHAEL
         I remember.

                    PLUMBER
         I lost a lot of weight since then.

                    MICHAEL
         You bought some hair.

                    PLUMBER
         Yeah, with your money.

MICHAEL just posts his blind. Tune him out.

                    PLUMBER
         So your bar, what happened?  Just had
         to be in show biz, right?

                    PLAYER #2
        Shit, man...
                (getting cranky)
        I want to listen to Larry King, I’ll go
        home and put the fuckingTV on.

                    PLUMBER
             (just ignoring him)
        Cause that was a good location.

                    MICHAEL
        Yeah, that’s what my partner kept
        telling me.

Posted by: sniper, February 11th, 2008, 5:09pm; Reply: 1

Hey Murph,

I sometimes use the wrylies for action and if they're kept to a minimum then there really shouldn't be too big a problem with them. Just keep in mind that it has to look good when scanning the pages. If they're too bulky and too many then it becomes an eye sore and you don't want that.

Posted by: Murphy (Guest), February 11th, 2008, 5:50pm; Reply: 2

Cheers Sniper. "wrylies" is that the name for them?

It gets confusing sometimes what you can and cannot do in scripts and would of though that would be a no no round here. Good stuff.

Posted by: Tierney, February 11th, 2008, 7:05pm; Reply: 3

Parenthetical action is pretty common especially in set bound scenes like this one. You gain too many pages for the action of the scene if you keep breaking CHARACTER - DIALOGUE - ACTION just to get someone to toss a chip or turn a page.

Posted by: BPeterson, February 20th, 2008, 9:15pm; Reply: 4

If you use wrylies too much, actors hate it. Small actions are usually not a big deal but don't get into the habit of writing how every line should be delivered.

Too many wrylies is also a little ugly to look at if you're trying to sell a spec. Like most tools, use them sparsely and your script can benefit nicely.

Posted by: BPeterson, February 20th, 2008, 9:19pm; Reply: 5

an example of what I said above would be:

                    PLAYER #2
        s***, man...
                (getting cranky)
        I want to listen to Larry King, I’ll go
        home and put the fuckingTV on.

if you read the dialogue, it's obvious he's not happy. The "getting cranky" part is just a little unnecessary.

Posted by: Murphy (Guest), February 20th, 2008, 9:21pm; Reply: 6

Cheers Folks, I am starting to use them in my current projects, not trying to use them too much however requires a degree of discipline.

Posted by: mattman2900, January 11th, 2011, 8:18pm; Reply: 7

Hey Murphy,

I figured I'd give insight from me a writer and actor (though I'm sure I'm not only one) but for me as the writer - I write Parenthetical actions in the in early drafts and then when I'm done I read over the script pick which ones are absolutely necessary vs which ones can be moved vs which ones are not necessary. More times than not for me they either can be moved or are not needed because the dialogue already gives the actor how to play the scene.

I usually keep one words emotions like "Laughs" or Laughing/chuckles, etc in the wrylies, but I tend not to include that many "pauses" or beats b/c as actors - it can mess up the timing, especially if we feel the way the scene is written doesn't match the "pause" location or playing it differently, etc.

I do however write faster than I can look back and notice oddities. Occasionally I'll find "Pause" or "Laughs" in the action by itself - I was taught this is acceptable but never really found out from actors if it's preferred or it doesn't matter. No actor as said anything about it.

As an actor - majority of the actors I know HATE them with a capital F. I for one do not mind them as long it's not the entire script or if helps in anyway. Here I think it's okay, but like BPeterson said, not always as necessary as one might think.

Posted by: Felipe, December 2nd, 2011, 5:47pm; Reply: 8

As most people mentioned, they are acceptable when used sparsely and only when they are needed to clarify the way a scene plays.

The one thing/suggestion I have to add is that when I am producing/directing my own scripts, i take them out of the shooting script to allow the actors to interpret the scene. This is really a win/win situation because they could come up with something more interesting and if they don't, I can direct them from my original idea and they'll think I just came up with it on the spot and am a genius. =D

I know this thread hasn't been touched in ages, but I just wanted to share that idea with you guys.

Posted by: dogglebe (Guest), December 2nd, 2011, 9:05pm; Reply: 9

There's been several discussion threads regarding wrylies. Everyone seems to have a different opinion of them, though most feel the less you use them, the better.

Phil

Posted by: Lon, December 3rd, 2011, 11:54pm; Reply: 10

My understanding of wrylies is that they should be used sparingly, and only to imply subtext to spoken dialogue. Not to direct action, even if only incidental.

Again, just my understanding.

Posted by: Baltis. (Guest), December 4th, 2011, 4:01am; Reply: 11

Use them to indicate, not direct... Use them sparringly.

Woman
(on phone)
Hello

Not

Woman
(on phone, eating pop corn)
Hello.

Posted by: Eoin, December 4th, 2011, 2:26pm; Reply: 12

If you feel you need to use wrylies, go back to your action description and see if it can be rewritten to make it clearer. If your wrylies are giving directions that can already be gleaned from your action description, then they are not necessary. Directors and actors generally know how to read a script. Only in cases where something is ambigious or unclear should they used.