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.
The revolution is already here, you just need to work the system. The writer can put in every camera angle and tell every actor how to act in every scene. It’s the old show and tell - you just show them, what you don’t do is tell them.
If you are working directly with an independent director/producer on a project, they don’t care how you write the script at that point. You can write it in Morse code if you wanted to, as long as they understand what is going on in the scene and are on the same page (pun intended). They work so closely with you anyway, they know it inside out.
The advice, writers write and directors direct (as well as writers write and actors act) is mainly aimed at unknowns sending spec scripts to competitions and production companies. It is commonly used gauge for how amateur the writer appears to be, not necessarily true of course but it is a perception.
This is because professional screenwriter use various ways to secretly insert camera angles into their screenplays. What they do is simply describe the action in such a way that it can only be done from a certain camera angle but without describing the angle. For instance - in one screenplay (JONAH HEX), the action in one particular scene is described thus:
Stiff, pale FINGERS, grimy nails, slightly curled into an aborted clutch, leaving knuckle-wide trenches the mud..
As you can see here, this scene cannot be done without a close up of his fingers in the mud. The writers (Mark Neveldine & Brian Taylor) have therefore sneaked in a few camera angles without actually saying so.
If a spec script uses the above, the script reader will be more impressed than:
EXTREME CLOSE-UP – MAN’S FINGERS PULL BACK to reveal etc.
They are also less likely to be taken out of the story, which is the key thing to avoid in all scripts. Anytime the reader leaves the story, the more likely it is you will lose them.
It a similar story with directing the actors. Professionals usually write the action which lays out what the actor does without being intrusive. For example: DECK CADET (bored) I hate mopping floors.
Well, you don’t really need to add the (bored) there at all and the dialogue is exposition. Imagine if you were an actor reading that? It really is an intrusive method. So how about an intro to the cadet that lays it all out in a way the actor will appreciate like this:
A DECK CADET mops the floor. Since the birth of civilization someone has been mopping, and till humanity’s dying day, there will be someone pushing a mop. – This is from the pilot script for the TV show The Expanse. Now this is an unfilmable but is there any doubt how the actor is going to act for the entire scene after reading that line? Plus, it’s a far more interesting read than a (bored) cadet and doesn’t take me out of the story.
So writers, my advice for you is to tell the director how to direct, tell the cinematographer how to light the scene, tell the actor how to act and even the sound guy what sounds to use; tell everyone how to do everything, but do it by being a writer. Put it all in the story.
This is a great post. I've historically been on the conservative side of this discussion. Camera angles, "we sees," unfilmables, etc. have tended to rub me the wrong way not so much because they break "the rules" but because they often come off as shitty, hacky writing that is usually indicative of other, non-"rules"-related issues and can be remedied with a subtler, less distracting approach that doesn't involve any writerly faux pas.
That said, I've softened my stance over the years somewhat, although my personal preference remains more or less conservative. There are definitely some writers out there (please note my word choice) that can make this stuff work for them. Plus at the end of the day, this is all words on paper. If someone (a director, actor, etc.) doesn't like something as written, they can change it, no harm no foul. No sense writing on eggshells as it were.
I break a lot of rules in my scripts. Rules that seem to only get applied by other writers. I writes asides, the kind like Mark referenced above. I capitalize certain words and sounds for emphasis. I put my title on my title page in 18 point non Courier font sometimes. I might even say “we see” now and then.
I’ve had some short films produced, I’m acting as an executive producer on a web series, and I have some other projects in the pipeline, and the only people who have ever had issues with some of those rule breakers are certain other writers on this board. Directors absolutely do not care for the most part about unfilmables, for example. They just ignore them, or in some cases they find them useful in providing color and tone around a script. If you look at a Vince Gilligan written episode of “Breaking Bad” for example, he absolutely just obliterates every writing rule in the book. Some of the “Lost” episodes I found were just filled with dozens of expletives in the action blocks.
I think formatting rules still apply, but since I write with Final Draft I never have to worry about that. And I think some of the other rules still might have applicability to new writers, if only to get them to focus more on story and tone and characters rather than trying to be Vince Gilligan right out of the gate.
But I’ll Be honest here — when I look at reviews of my stuff here, I ignore all the stuff that has to with those rules. “You shouldn’t have underline that word in the dialogue” or “your use of wrylies is overdone.” As the Dude once famously proclaimed, “That’s just like your opinion, man”.
Some of my scripts:
Bounty (TV Pilot) -- Top 1% of discoverable screenplays on Coverfly I'll Be Seeing You (short) - OWC winner The Gambler (short) - OWC winner Skip (short) - filmed Country Road 12 (short) - filmed The Family Man (short) - filmed The Journeyers (feature) - optioned
I've seen a big trend in so many movies where the writer and director are the same person now. In fact more movies I see have that scenario than don't.
I've been learning that in the spec version of your script, asides are forgiven if they enhance the emotion and delight the reader, just as long as you've shown the action first. Then when it comes to shooting script time, the fat gets cut. You've got to hook the reader and give them the emotional bang needed for it to get a second look. So those little asides can help. But of course the story should be the number one puller...
As for all of this shit treatment of writers, I totally agree and I always remind myself that hey if it wasn't for my idea and execution of that idea there would be no friggin movie. Writers don't need to just write. And yes, if you do go ahead and film one of your scripts, then you can use that as leverage for more input on the filming process.
And if you sell it out right, then make sure it's for a bunch of cash.... so it's a little easier to let go ...lol
I do understand that in general scripts get changed and it has nothing to do with egos, but more to do with the nature of making movies. The guy that changed my script (with permission) sent me a copy of the new version, then changed a ton of stuff in his version. So when you film your own script you will be making changes left right and center for it to work on the screen anyways. As I'm sure film makers on here would have experienced..
"Turn that off, our friend has just been killed in a fatal sunlight accident!"....