Describing my character's first appearance has always been one of my weak spots.   I was wondering if people would be interested in adding a character or two, describing him/her and thus create a laundry list of assorted characters.

Example:

EXT.  FARM - DAY

JOHN BOONE, 40's, a rugged-built man's man, chops wood with a two-edged axe.

I agree, it's a crucial moment in a script.

If done properly, you can absolutely conjure the character into life before they've even started, and then their actions will hopefully reinforce that initial impression. Or maybe you want to give the wrong first impression, so that your audience will be surprised when he / her turns out to be different? Either way, I think a strong introduction of a (primary) character is vital. You're introducing them to the reader, after all.

As I've quoted before, one of my favourite initial character descriptions comes from Children of Men.

A man enters the coffee shop, making his way through the people: THEO FARON (55). Detached, unkempt, scruffy beard, glasses. Theo is a veteran of hopelessness. He gave up before the world did.

And a couple from my own scripts:

- Standing directly in front of the doorway is DOUGLAS HAINES. 60, greying hair, heavily built, wearing a crumpled suit. The Prime Minister -- for now.

- Charlie spins round. Walking slowly up the path is MARIA, 19, wearing fashionable clothes and a smile, as pretty and friendly as ever.

I know some people think all of that is unnecessary, distracting information, but I think the opportunity to properly introduce a character is one you should seize. Don't give a life history, and (pet peeve here) don't describe every single item of clothing unless you feel it reveals something about them - eg. in my examples the crumpled suit, or the fashionable clothes on Maria both hopefully hint at something about their wider characters, whereas if I'd said "DOUGLAS HAINES, 60, greying hair, heavily built, wearing a grey suit, white shirt, black shoes, and tie", or "MARIA, 19, wearing a green dress with a belt around the middle, leggings and pumps", that doesn't give you anything. It's all aboout the carefully-chosen, evocative adjective, really.

Anyway, digression over...

Just try to capture them in a brush-stroke, and then reinforce (or deliberately conflict) this first impression through their actions.

At least, that's what I think.

I'll chuck in some of my examples:

ROB MULLIGAN. No, Rob Mulligan the 'player'. 21, been there, done that. Perfectly coiffured hair. Wears his jumpsuit like the Fonz wore his jacket.

LIZZIE, late 20s, wears all the right features, yet they’re somehow not put together properly.

EMILY, early 20s, gorgeous to the discerning eye. She lisps and carries around the years of torment with a nervous shake.

Quoted from screenrider Describing my character's first appearance ... JOHN BOONE, 40's, a rugged-built man's man, chops wood with a two-edged axe.

You have got two types of characters to consider, S.R. -- that is, your leads and your supporting.

I am of the opinion that every character needs at least a little something to distinguish them, even if it is only a single word, such as short, or Asian, or a cop, or whatever.  Often, this is enough.  What you have above it fine.

For a lead, you need a little more.  Your script will have a tone, and your lead characters need to fit seamlessly into the world you have created.

As much as a full paragraph is justified to introduce a lead, but probably not much more, and what you have above is not adequate for a leading role.

You need to give the actors a little something to work with, and in the rare instance of introducing leads, I do not even mind a little "unfilmable" action, if it is done right -- acknowledging that yes, of course, it can also be done quite wrong.

All of that is IMO, of course.

Some of mine:

Riding shotgun is DANI MORROWS (early 30s).  Gentle, thoughtful, the kind of pretty which doesn't require make up.

SGT. "IRON MIKE" HONIGS (45) browses a pulp novel.  So low key you'd wonder if he had a pulse, but piss him off, you'd best be in another zip code.

His name is JOE LANGE (38), honest, hard working -- a good man.

Dani's FATHER stands in her doorway.  A once handsome, healthy man gone to alcoholic seed -- a life with potential sidetracked an unwelcome pregnancy and an unwanted marriage.



Ideally, you're supposed to give us more the character's essence than what he/she looks like in detail (unless it's a detail which comes into play in the course of your story).  Give us an idea of who they are, not if they brush their teeth up and down or in circles.  You get the point.

A lot of these are really good. I read a lot of those in scripts. Trouble is, what the character does later in the script more often than not do not fit their initial descriptions...

Great thread guys, good to hear from you, SR!

Yeah, I'm guessing a few of us have this type of prob - I know I just sort of put: age, hair colour, build and height - maybe that explains why some readers fiind some of my characters similair.

But my new scripts I've changed my writing style and using more flair, more oomph! Well, trying...
A character in my POW horror is the Nazi commandant. He's introduced like this:

'Colonel OTTO KAULBARTSCH... he's about forty, a paid up Nazi - haughty, ruthless.'

I love some of the examples put forward by the SS crew - some nice visual stuff there

Cheers stevie

Quoted from screenrider Describing my character's first appearance has always been one of my weak spots.   I was wondering if people would be interested in adding a character or two, describing him/her and thus create a laundry list of assorted characters. Example: EXT.  FARM - DAY JOHN BOONE, 40's, a rugged-built man's man, chops wood with a two-edged axe.

Crap, he's back. Now my PM box is gonna start blowing up again.

I've never described characters unless its absolutely essential to know their physical traits because it pertains to story. I often just say "SANDY, 26, sits alone at a table."

Nobody's ever complained about that in my scripts. After all, if writing for the screen, how do we know who will be casted? It's not like the producers run around and try to find an actor similar to how you described them, unless it pertains to story.

Just my humble opinion.

Quoted from Lon Dani's FATHER stands in her doorway.  A once handsome, healthy man gone to alcoholic seed -- a life with potential sidetracked an unwelcome pregnancy and an unwanted marriage.

Sorry Lon, I would absolutely put your script down if I read that. You just told us his whole life story, whereas the audience only sees a scruffy man in a doorway.


Let the battle of unfilmables... Begin!

James

I'm with James, I don't describe characters unless I have to because it is crucial to the script.  

My own personal favourite description from all of my scripts...

BIRDIE (don’t ask), a cross between Yul Brenner and Liza Minelli during her Cabaret days

Quoted from jwent6688 Crap, he's back. Now my PM box is gonna start blowing up again. I've never described characters unless its absolutely essential to know their physical traits because it pertains to story. I often just say "SANDY, 26, sits alone at a table." Nobody's ever complained about that in my scripts. After all, if writing for the screen, how do we know who will be casted? It's not like the producers run around and try to find an actor similar to how you described them, unless it pertains to story. Just my humble opinion. Sorry Lon, I would absolutely put your script down if I read that. You just told us his whole life story, whereas the audience only sees a scruffy man in a doorway. Let the battle of unfilmables... Begin! James

I'm not so experienced, but I have to agree. The point here in your argument is:

Its relevance.

Because in the January OWC thread, I was mentioning a parody of Voldemort, I've got Harry Potter on my mind and Harry's scar for instance, is important. It has everything to do with the story; so, in short, if it's relevant, then it's good. You just need to understand whether or not it matters. It might even be a good starting point for a writer. Asking, "Why did I imagine it this way? Does it matter? How so?" Good writing stuff.

Sandra

Quoted from jwent6688 After all, if writing for the screen, how do we know who will be casted? It's not like the producers run around and try to find an actor similar to how you described them, unless it pertains to story.

Yes, I'll have to agree here as well... especially when it comes to my Pro and Antag in my features I try to keep the descriptions general but interesting.

If you're not writing for the screen, then do it your way.  but...

I've never seen the need to put the color of their eyes, hair, HT, WT, ect... because in the end, they'll decide who gets the role... not the writer unless you're famous.  And even that isn't a gimmie.

Welcome back Screenrider... I thought you died and went to heaven.

Ghost

Quoted from dogglebe No parodies.  It's a rule. Phil

Sorry everyone. We're just seriously doing some "thread crossing" which also happens to mean we're crossing other lines as well.

No parodies allowed in this 2011 January's OWC. I think. Am I right? Wrong thread though.

Sandra

Just learned recently with my production partners for Finders Keepers that the character descriptions is quite important. They are not screenwriters and somehow they seem to be looking at things a little differently than I'm used to. To them the character intros were very important along with the characters actually acting the way they were introduced.

And to those who think it's up to the production team to decide what the characters should be like....well, like I said they are part of the production team and to them it was VERY important how they were introduced.   You never know in this business is all I can say.  :)








Yul Brynner...  :)

Quoted from Grandma Bear Just learned recently with my production partners for Finders Keepers that the character descriptions is quite important. They are not screenwriters and somehow they seem to be looking at things a little differently than I'm used to. To them the character intros were very important along with the characters actually acting the way they were introduced. And to those who think it's up to the production team to decide what the characters should be like....well, like I said they are part of the production team and to them it was VERY important how they were introduced.   You never know in this business is all I can say.  :) Yul Brynner...  :)

It's true. Black + White = Gray/Grey

Like mentioned before:

They're important to the extent of their relevance.

I imagine that Joe Pizza Delivery Guy who rings six times and kicks the bottom of the door once is important if he's been shown to do this as a kid in the opening scene ringing the door of his best friend.

So, ring, ring, ring, ring, ring, ring, kick and whatever his descriptors are give us that subtle hammer on the head that this guy is important. And, a little weird.

The more weight we give to descriptors, we should be implying, that this guy or gal is somewhat important. Likewise, if we want to "slowly" introduce a character, and create that, well, "slow reveal", then it's good storytelling to introduce sparingly and not hit anyone over the head. This is like in those old movies where you see just a guy's feet. Of course, as the writer, you're only going to introduce "the feet" with a hint. An aside, or something, but you're not going to give it all away.

Sandra

Quoted from ghost and_ghostie gal Welcome back Screenrider... I thought you died and went to heaven. Ghost

Not yet, Ghost.  

Hold off on the autopsy, Ray.

Check your inbox, James.

Thanks, SS crew, for all the feedback.

I tend to agree with Pia here.

A script is fundamentally a document to inspire the reader and to provide a blueprint from which to film a piece of art. It's not just the play toy of producers/anyone who wants the bare essentials, but the script must work as a foundation for all the other filmmaking units to base their decisions (wardrobe, for example) and while this is filtered through the directors vision, the writing should be sufficient to aid that vision, not restrict it with limits. Padlocking ourselves to a set of nonsensical rules is not only the antithesis of inspiration but also a brake on fleshing out a character from the start.

All the good produced scripts I read intro characters with something a little novel-like. Something that strikes at the very heart of the character.

I like Johnnyboy's description from Children of Men.

It hints nicely at a back story, gives enough info for casting and is exactly in line with the tone of the story.

It even gives performance and blocking hints...we get the impression of how he moves and how he would speak. He's detached, so he would avoid body contact as best he can in a crowded room, scurry through gaps etc whereas a more confidnet man might brush past people.

Somewhat ironic then that the part is eventually played by Clive Owen...tall, handsome, confident, regularly used in high end advertising for fragrances/prestige cars, Clive Owen...which of course reveals other "real world" considerations of the filmmaking process.

What you are looking for is Clarity and Tone. Best to keep it in the here and now as well...as James alluded to. When the audience sees him for the first time he is what he is...you can't convey his back story straight away, just the type of person he is at this moment and the situation he is presently in.

Just to add another voice to the debate, a new blog entry on ScriptShadow has this to say about this topic:

Quoted from Scriptshadow NO CHARACTER DESCRIPTION – This one kills me, however I acknowledge that some pros are guilty of this as well, so it’s not always a guarantee that you’re dealing with an amateur. Here’s how I look at it. Your characters are your everything. They’re the lifeblood of your movie. If we don’t know what they look like, how are we supposed to connect with them? Here’s a description for you: “Gene, 40, takes in the world behind a pair of steely gray eyes. He always looks at you for a little too long, as if he’s sizing you up for some later experiment.” Here’s another: “Gene, 40, short and stocky.” Try and convince me that the reader doesn’t get more out of the first description. Obviously, you’re going to give shorter descriptions for less important players, but an attempt should always be made to bring characters to life when they’re first described.

Quoted from Andrew Just to add another voice to the debate, a new blog entry on ScriptShadow has this to say about this topic:

Interesting post Andrew.

Can't honestly say that I think a description helps to connect you with the character though...I think that really comes about by what they are trying to achieve and what they are up against....but I can see his point.

Personally I don't bother with them in my own writing for two reasons:

1. I don't like to kid myself that I've created an interesting character by creating a wonderful description of him. I often see scripts (pro and non-pro) where there are these wonderful descriptions, but then the character doesn't act in the same way.

2. Having a very specific idea of what a character is like can be limiting. Actors can bring out all sorts of subtleties that you weren't expecting and I like to be open-minded about portrayals. Sometimes an actor brings something really unusual to a role...maybe even the exact opposite of how you imagined it...I think having a rigid idea of the character on the page could prevent that.


But that's taking into account that I make my own stuff.

Definitley seems to be the best way to go for a pure writer.

I think character descriptions in the script itself aren't that important. I think they can be nice, first and foremost. Sometimes helpful in giving an idea of the character. Not always though. Not sure I'd even say often. I usually don't give too much unless they have a really specific look.

In any case, I think you should have character descriptions available, if not in the script, in some other form. I've been asked to write them on two separate occasions for casting.

To put it simply, there  is no established screenwriting rule when it comes to character description. In some of my scripts, where their appearance and impressions matter, I include them; in others, I don't. If it's there at all, it should always be brief, no more than a line or a line-and-a-half long.

If a charactersistic is essential to the story, do mention it. This is why I lean more towards concise descriptions -- if there are to be descriptions at all -- than "richer" ones, not because I can't write them, but because when "that" character -- the one who absolutely NEEDS those green eyes, or those scarred cheeks -- pops up, it won't stand out immediately. The girl with the green eyes could easily be overshadowed from the get-go by the dude with the brown eyes who only has one scene. It would become evident later on that the green-eyed girl was the more important character by the end, but at the same time you created a trivial first impression of her to the reader, perhaps without meaning to, by richly describing your supporting character.

That being said, I do like the example from ScriptShadow, but I think it's one that would hurt a sensible actor's ego -- telling them how to act or whatnot.

--Julio

Quoted from jwent6688 Sorry Lon, I would absolutely put your script down if I read that. You just told us his whole life story, whereas the audience only sees a scruffy man in a doorway.

Interesting, and I hadn't thought about that.  That particular character is only shown  three times in the script via flashback, is seen very briefly, and has very little dialogue, so I included that bit of description for the "actor's" sake.

Given this fact, do you think that would be an allowable exception to the general rule of character description?  I've seen this done many times in pro scripts -- but I'm not a pro (yet) and haven't earned the freedom to ignore basic rules, so, I'm genuinely curious.  Is it reasonably acceptable, or should I ditch it?

Quoted from Lon Is it reasonably acceptable, or should I ditch it?

You guys are treading dangerously close to "depends on who you ask" territory.

Trust your guts -- not the internet -- where you can find 50 examples of anything.

If you think it works, then it works.  Until that guy with the $$ says to change it.

@Lon,

I thought that was a bit long for somebody who we only meet a couple of times. But, I also don't like the Scriptshadow example that Andrew posted. Too long for me too. even if its a main character. But, as Bert said, that's MY opinion.

I always feel the story needs to happen fast as possible without dwindling on describing things that don't matter. If I were to sit on a couch for three hours on a rainy day, I like to read a novel and admire the writing.

A always picture a screenplay stuffed in a mile high stack of others on some agents, producers, directors desk. They read maybe the first ten. If your first ten pages are all setting up visuals, I think it could turn someone off.

Again, just my humble opinion. Like Bert, write how you want. I've seen everything I don't like in pro-scripts before. And, I'm not a pro.

James

My script THE FAME opens with a character intro:

A wiry, red-haired Englishman exits a black limo parked in front of a luxury hotel.

I know eventually I'll have to get rid of "Englishman" because that's "telling", but I love the line as is :)  

some examples I've used in my own scripts

ROBBIE REED (30s). A pretentious smart ass with the sleaze of a used car salesman

PAUL REED (30s). If bottled up insecurities was a commodity, Paul would be plush. Lucky for him he’s been blessed with an honest face, undeniable wit and a big heart.

Robbie and his pugnacious wife LINDA (late 20s). Linda shamelessly wears a gigantic fur coat with matching hat. She’s walking dynamite which Robbie can only dream of keeping up with.