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.
So, been on this site for awhile, have read a ton of screen writing articles, etc. and I constantly come across the old platitude akin to:
Writer's write - let the Director decide this or that. Or let the Actor decide this or that.
I've never quite understood why we are at the bottom of the food chain.
I've had three shorts filmed, one feature in option, blah blah blah and noted that apparently:
Directors don't just direct - they write. Actors don't just act - they write. At least in my experience, they had no qualms about changing the writing, deleting scenes, adding scenes, etc, etc.. Why are their roles so sacrosanct and we ain't shit?
How dare a writer writer include a camera direction? How dare a writer include a parenthetical stating how they see a line being delivered. But Directors and Actors have free reign to say how a script is written. They don't just direct or act - they write.
Every time I hear - that's the Director's job - my gut instinct is - well, fok em.
Ha, made me laugh. I'm with you in the revolt, Dave.
I especially love when Director's give themselves 'Writer' credits when they change a word or two, without running it by us, of course. And there it is on the IMDb!
I also live in the land of reality. They are the ones making the film. As soon as we sign, seems they can do what they like.
The only thing you can do is write it as you envisage it and hope for the best.
Ha, made me laugh. I'm with you in the revolt, Dave.
I especially love when Director's give themselves 'Writer' credits when they change a word or two, without running it by us, of course. And there it is on the IMDb!
I also live in the land of reality. They are the ones making the film. As soon as we sign, seems they can do what they like.
The only thing you can do is write it as you envisage it and hope for the best.
Yes - we still have "hope"
I remember reading an article how actors hate emotional instruction in parentheticals. Something akin to they don't want to be told how to do their job by the screenwriter. Conversely, they seem to have no problem doing the writer's job by changing lines or inventing their own.
About emotional instructions, the typical advice is “show, don’t tell” meaning the writer is expected to avoid saying (surprised) and instead give far more specific direction such as (raises eyebrows). The former seems to be putting more faith in the actor.
I try to restrict wrylies to when the straight text doesn’t seem to convey what I’m actually trying to convey. Don’t know any actors, so don’t know what counts as obvious for subtext.
About emotional instructions, the typical advice is “show, don’t tell” meaning the writer is expected to avoid saying (surprised) and instead give far more specific direction such as (raises eyebrows). The former seems to be putting more faith in the actor.
I try to restrict wrylies to when the straight text doesn’t seem to convey what I’m actually trying to convey. Don’t know any actors, so don’t know what counts as obvious for subtext.
I'm just using that (parenthetical) micro example ti support a macro complaint. But following up your premise - yeah - that's what folks say - my point being - here's the deal actor dude - I won't write that you should raise your effing eyebrows if you agree not to change my effing words.
Speaking of 'emotional instructions' I wrote this in my tournament entry:
She’s the most beautiful girl he’s ever laid eyes on. Deliberately. I knew it might be criticised etc.
Sure enough, Warren responded with: I don’t think this aside adds much as there is no way for us to know that.
Warren, of all people ( Crazy In Love).
In my opinion the line, though you could argue ' technically unfilmable' is filmable if a good actor takes in that info. We've all been in that love at first sight moment. I wanted to create mood/romance, vibe, for that first moment he sees her, and it was also an instruction to the actor without writing a specific wrylie e.g. (besotted). That wrylie may have worked but imho it was not enough, and I wanted a broader brushstroke.
Too much info conveyed in the written word? Hmm, I think it works. It's all about balance I suppose and not laying instruction on too thick, but more conveying the emotional component of a scene and 'inside the character'.
This is why I suggest every writer should try to film something that they have written. Even if just with a cell phone. It will give a a LOT better understanding of how a film comes together and how it goes from script to film. It ain't as easy as most writers think.
Speaking of 'emotional instructions' I wrote this in my tournament entry:
She’s the most beautiful girl he’s ever laid eyes on. Deliberately. I knew it might be criticised etc.
Sure enough, Warren responded with: I don’t think this aside adds much as there is no way for us to know that.
Warren, of all people ( Crazy In Love).
In my opinion the line, though you could argue ' technically unfilmable' is filmable if a good actor takes in that info. We've all been in that love at first sight moment. I wanted to create mood/romance, vibe, for that first moment he sees her, and it was also an instruction to the actor without writing a specific wrylie e.g. (besotted). That wrylie may have worked but imho it was not enough, and I wanted a broader brushstroke.
Too much info conveyed in the written word? Hmm, I think it works. It's all about balance I suppose and not laying instruction on too thick, but more conveying the emotional component of a scene and 'inside the character'.
I've said it many times that I love a good unfilmable or aside if it adds to the read, I still don't believe that does. There is just no way that info is aiding a visual or translating to the screen, in my opinion, which isn't always right.
I've used something like "he's clearly never struggled for a meal" that directly relates to the visual of someone being fat, but it's still an aside or unfilmable.
I also don't understand how your quoted line is an emotional instruction, no mater what the actor does, there is no way for the audience to know she's the most beautiful girl he's ever laid eyes on. I also think this is the kind of moment you want to write the way you want it seen, what is actually happening to show this?
I have explained this very use of asides and unfilmables in this WT, I think in a response to something Rick said.
EDIT: I just read Crazy in Love again, I think I use 2 or 3 asides, all directly relate to the visual, so I'm not sure what the comparison was?
Well, you're absolutely entitled to your opinion, Warren. We just differ on that specific example. Imh, an actor reads that line he knows what the character is feeling and it should colour his tone and delivery, and it ideally will come across in the way he interacts with the other character.
Btw, sometimes things get lost via online communication. In no way do I, did I, feel slighted by your comment.
Opinions will always vary no matter what we write. OWCs are a testament to that. I wholeheartedly agree with the 'in'it' line btw, that was definitely a minor blunder in tone.
Well, you're absolutely entitled to your opinion, Warren. We just differ on that specific example. Imh, an actor reads that line he knows what the character is feeling and it should colour his tone and delivery, and it ideally will come across in the way he interacts with the other character.
Btw, sometimes things get lost via online communication. In no way do I, did I, feel slighted by your comment.
Opinions will always vary no matter what we write. OWCs are a testament to that. I wholeheartedly agree with the 'in'it' line btw, that was definitely a minor blunder in tone.
Anyway, enough about me.
I like the discussion, that's what it's all about.
Quoted Text
Charlie sits in front of a doe-eyed brunette woman, STELLA, 29. She’s the most beautiful girl he’s ever laid eyes on.
Charlie and Stella just stare at one another. Charlie drums his fingers on the table nervously.
This is the line in question, and the surrounding lines. There is literally no indication of what Charlie is doing or how this being the most beautiful girl he's ever seen is impacting him. The next line is they "just stare at one another". You are asking a lot of the actor and giving him nothing.
We will definitely disagree here, but the reason I'm going further into it is because I think people sometimes think I'll just point anything and everything out in a script, that's just not true. I honestly feel this aside adds nothing and it has no visual to bounce off.
We don't have to agree, but I hope people understand what I mean.
- clearly could be a better.With more time and review it would have been. It should indicate Charlie's POV really then flit back and forth, cause really if Stella's staring it's only cause she's waiting for him to do his stuff, turn on the charm, give her the big sell.
Something like: Charlie, captivated by Stella, can't take his eyes off her. Or: For a moment he's struck dumb by her beauty, can't find the words...
I love this script, below. So many asides, verging on irritating to some I'm sure:
500 Days Of Summer
And in walks this girl. Summer. We’ve met her by now but Tom hasn’t. This is the first time. His eyes go wide and from that moment on, he can’t take them off her.
The style and format works for me and it translated to film very well.
Reading a screenplay compared to a novel can sometimes be a pretty dry and dull affair. How great is it then when we read a screenplay and it gives us the same feeling of escape a novel can. That's down to the material but also the skill of the writer to inject flourishes/asides, tricks, emotion by whatever means, long as it's not overdone (too novelistic).
- clearly could be a better.With more time and review it would have been. It should indicate Charlie's POV really then flit back and forth, cause really if Stella's staring it's only cause she's waiting for him to do his stuff, turn on the charm, give her the big sell.
Something like: Charlie, captivated by Stella, can't take his eyes off her. Or: For a moment he's struck dumb by her beauty, can't find the words...
I love this script, below. So many asides, verging on irritating to some I'm sure:
500 Days Of Summer
And in walks this girl. Summer. We’ve met her by now but Tom hasn’t. This is the first time. His eyes go wide and from that moment on, he can’t take them off her.
The style and format works for me and it translated to film very well.
Reading a screenplay compared to a novel can sometimes be a pretty dry and dull affair. How great is it then when we read a screenplay and it gives us the same feeling of escape a novel can. That's down to the material but also the skill of the writer to inject flourishes/asides, tricks, emotion by whatever means, long as it's not overdone (too novelistic).
On the quoted txt from 500 days of summer, I'm completely fine with that, the aside bounces off the visual. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Not sure how it relates to what I'm saying though in terms of your line.
I also completely agree with the last paragraph, but the line in question doesn't do that, for me at least. It doesn't add emotion, you're telling us something that you have not shown us in any way.
Anyway... going round in circles now. We agree to disagree on this one. But be warned writer, if you put a pointless aside (IMO) in a script for an OWC or WT I will pounce :p
...originally had several large chunks of introspection. I revised as best I could or totally removed because i wanted to bypass what I knew would be the usual suspects.
I really don't care as much for the version that appears here now.
Most times I can write just to the point and plan to in the future, just not so much this one. I'll probably put the stuff back in if I decide to post it elsewhere.
The director is the main man... simple as that. If he's shit, so will your film be. A good director will make the best out of anything bad. He will be able to come up with creative solutions to unsolvable problems.
But... that's on set.
When writing a script we really shoud throw in some direction, even using camera shots if it helps serve the story. Definitely direct actors... because we're not really directing anybody, we're just giving a better indication of what our character is doing for the reader. We write for readers... I don't mean pro readers, although we write for them too... we write for anyone that happens to be reading, so we make it good for them. A director or an actor are free to change whatever later on if what we've written doesn't work as well on set as it does in one's imagination.
Frank made a good point. The only reason that 'rule' is there is to prevent new writers from overdoing it. It should only be done if it serves the story. If you can find a better way of doing it then do so. Sometimes parentheses can serve as an extra tool for conveying information quickly and not just to underline something. They're not necessarily about direction.
Outside of feedback on here, I think I've only had a Producer comment on any of the subjects touched on once (wrylies). Much of what we're talking about is not direct experience, at least not for me.
Ultimately, every filmmaker is different, so trying to find some sort of one size fits all formula is never going to work.
One may hate asides, one may love the spice they CAN add, one may be okay with wrylies, one may be an ex actor and hate them.
Outside of feedback on here, I think I've only had a Producer comment on any of the subjects touched on once (wrylies). Much of what we're talking about is not direct experience, at least not for me.
Feedback here and on every other writing site and blog on the planet. That's my point. I'd love to never here it again and instead here whether or not what the writer did works read wise and story wise - not role wise.
If I had a dollar for every time I read something akin to "that's the director's job" - I could fund my own film.
The director is the main man... simple as that. If he's shit, so will your film be. A good director will make the best out of anything bad. He will be able to come up with creative solutions to unsolvable problems.
But... that's on set.
When writing a script we really shoud throw in some direction, even using camera shots if it helps serve the story. Definitely direct actors... because we're not really directing anybody, we're just giving a better indication of what our character is doing for the reader. We write for readers... I don't mean pro readers, although we write for them too... we write for anyone that happens to be reading, so we make it good for them. A director or an actor are free to change whatever later on if what we've written doesn't work as well on set as it does in one's imagination.
Frank made a good point. The only reason that 'rule' is there is to prevent new writers from overdoing it. It should only be done if it serves the story. If you can find a better way of doing it then do so. Sometimes parentheses can serve as an extra tool for conveying information quickly and not just to underline something. They're not necessarily about direction.
Yep - as is the case with most rules. To beat a dead horse, I have no problem with someone saying this aside, or parenthetical, or camera direction, etc. etc. hurts the read because .....
And that because has something to with clarity, tone, pace - etc. etc.
I hate it when the because is - that's the Director's job.
Write however you please, but as Pia mentioned, I think all writers should pick up the camera at some point in their careers and see what it’s like for themselves. You think directors write badly? Not much different than writers who’ve only sat behind a keyboard giving camera angles. Especially when you’re not on the actual set or have seen the location in person.
I use parentheticals sparingly. If the context of the story explains how to emote, I can see actors looking at that and being like “duh, captain obvious. Thanks for the tip”
Assume that your script is heading to the hands of a pro team. They don’t need your extra input and it can only serve to make you look a bit silly. My two cents.
Here's some irony - I was attracted to this thread about writers because the words writers and directors should be plural, not possessive... (0:
IMO I'm afraid your revolution will fail, Dave. We are increasingly moving toward visual and audio mediums. Directors and actors need not script every word. More actors than ever are writing material for themselves. I fear we're coming to a day where the script will be obsolete - concept, as conveyed visually, will be King, and the script will be ad-libbed.
Our only prayer comes from an article I read where millennials are reporting that they feel "overwhelmed"... with too many choices. Too much variety. Too much to consume and too much pressure to consume it quickly. I'm hoping that leads to a rejection of ubiquitous content and thus brings about the revolution you seek... we shall see. But I'm not that hopeful...
Directors don't just direct - they write. Actors don't just act - they write. At least in my experience, they had no qualms about changing the writing, deleting scenes, adding scenes, etc, etc.. Why are their roles so sacrosanct and we ain't shit?
Added to that indignity... how many times have I read a movie review containing a line reminiscent of "director so-and-so and his/her actors do what they can, but are ultimately unable to overcome the problems inherent on the screenplay level."
Quoted from Dustin
When writing a script we really shoud throw in some direction, even using camera shots if it helps serve the story. Definitely direct actors... because we're not really directing anybody, we're just giving a better indication of what our character is doing for the reader. We write for readers... I don't mean pro readers, although we write for them too... we write for anyone that happens to be reading, so we make it good for them. A director or an actor are free to change whatever later on if what we've written doesn't work as well on set as it does in one's imagination.
Exactly. I've always thought this was the only way to approach it.
Here's some irony - I was attracted to this thread about writers because the words writers and directors should be plural, not possessive... (0:
IMO I'm afraid your revolution will fail, Dave. We are increasingly moving toward visual and audio mediums. Directors and actors need not script every word. More actors than ever are writing material for themselves. I fear we're coming to a day where the script will be obsolete - concept, as conveyed visually, will be King, and the script will be ad-libbed.
Our only prayer comes from an article I read where millennials are reporting that they feel "overwhelmed"... with too many choices. Too much variety. Too much to consume and too much pressure to consume it quickly. I'm hoping that leads to a rejection of ubiquitous content and thus brings about the revolution you seek... we shall see. But I'm not that hopeful...
Added to that indignity... how many times have I read a movie review containing a line reminiscent of "director so-and-so and his/her actors do what they can, but are ultimately unable to overcome the problems inherent on the screenplay level."
Exactly. I've always thought this was the only way to approach it.
You're asking for a revolution that already exists.
If your concern is to see your story realised exactly as you write it you do one of two things:
1. Write a novel. 2. Film it yourself.
In the professional world pressure may be exerted to change it even then.
Which is where Independent film comes in and you can do whatever you like...Self publishing, or self distribution.
Scripts to film change for all sorts of reasons: Logistical (scene doesn't work in the location you have to work in) , psychological (actors losing the ability to connect truthfully with the words as written after multiple takes) financial (need to cut scenes), mechanical (failure of equipment etc) artistic (trying to tease out a deeper meaning from the written word, different interpretations, or improvisation for more natural dialogue).
Filmmaking is an order of magnitude more difficult than writing. You're usually limited to a set time, a set budget and a set of circumstances. You usually get one shot to get it right and there's a million things that can go wrong at any moment.
A talented filmmaker will also often option a script not because they think the script is perfect, but that they think the script has potential..if they can find a way to get it right. The thing they love most about a script might only be a tiny part of the actual script..a theme, an idea etc
The best way in my experience so far is a good relationship with the director. Preferably for them to be involved with you in some of the development. When you, the director and sometimes a third party - be that producer or editor - can hammer things out everyone’s vision can be respected.
This doesn’t seem uncommon here in the UK. Hollywood not so much perhaps.. Your product is far more often handed to the director as a tool for them to play with. I think this leads to more fuck ups than not - but that’s guess work. Proper collaboration is the best way - if you’re not a writer/director.
You're asking for a revolution that already exists.
If your concern is to see your story realised exactly as you write it you do one of two things:
1. Write a novel. 2. Film it yourself.
In the professional world pressure may be exerted to change it even then.
Which is where Independent film comes in and you can do whatever you like...Self publishing, or self distribution.
Scripts to film change for all sorts of reasons: Logistical (scene doesn't work in the location you have to work in) , psychological (actors losing the ability to connect truthfully with the words as written after multiple takes) financial (need to cut scenes), mechanical (failure of equipment etc) artistic (trying to tease out a deeper meaning from the written word, different interpretations, or improvisation for more natural dialogue).
Filmmaking is an order of magnitude more difficult than writing. You're usually limited to a set time, a set budget and a set of circumstances. You usually get one shot to get it right and there's a million things that can go wrong at any moment.
A talented filmmaker will also often option a script not because they think the script is perfect, but that they think the script has potential..if they can find a way to get it right. The thing they love most about a script might only be a tiny part of the actual script..a theme, an idea etc
Agree 100%. If I was smarter, I would have put it just like that!
The best way in my experience so far is a good relationship with the director. Preferably for them to be involved with you in some of the development. When you, the director and sometimes a third party - be that producer or editor - can hammer things out everyone’s vision can be respected.
If the director is worth their salt, they couldn't care less what the writer thinks.
You're asking for a revolution that already exists.
If your concern is to see your story realised exactly as you write it you do one of two things:
1. Write a novel. 2. Film it yourself.
That was not my concern. I have no issue with Directors or Actors changing what is written in the script. I expect that changes will almost always happen and I expect in most instances it will happen for the better or at least be born of necessity (e.g., budget constraints, etc.).
My rant was against the general paradigm that writer's should not do anything that might be construed to step on the director's or actor's toes, whether that be a camera placement, parenthetical or other convention.
That was not my concern. I have no issue with Directors or Actors changing what is written in the script. I expect that changes will almost always happen and I expect in most instances it will happen for the better or at least be born of necessity (e.g., budget constraints, etc.).
My rant was against the general paradigm that writer's should not do anything that might be construed to step on the director's or actor's toes, whether that be a camera placement, parenthetical or other convention.
Okay, so I misunderstood you, too. And I agree for the most part with Rick, I think you're asking for something that already exists. I think there is a difference between writing visually, and directing on the page. If you're going to direct - with a ton of SMASH CUTs and camera angles, then yes, I don't think anyone would disagree that you are stepping on the eventual director's toes, and you should just go out and film it yourself...
If you're writing visually - for instance, for me, I don't just describe the action, I write what I see in my mind's eye, and if that includes a relevant color blouse or drapes or a particular way that we see a character, because it's imbued in the narrative - then so be it.
Okay, so I misunderstood you, too. And I agree for the most part with Rick, I think you're asking for something that already exists. I think there is a difference between writing visually, and directing on the page. If you're going to direct - with a ton of SMASH CUTs and camera angles, then yes, I don't think anyone would disagree that you are stepping on the eventual director's toes, and you should just go out and film it yourself...
If you're writing visually - for instance, for me, I don't just describe the action, I write what I see in my mind's eye, and if that includes a relevant color blouse or drapes or a particular way that we see a character, because it's imbued in the narrative - then so be it.
Okay, so I misunderstood you, too. And I agree for the most part with Rick, I think you're asking for something that already exists. I think there is a difference between writing visually, and directing on the page. If you're going to direct - with a ton of SMASH CUTs and camera angles, then yes, I don't think anyone would disagree that you are stepping on the eventual director's toes, and you should just go out and film it yourself...
If you're writing visually - for instance, for me, I don't just describe the action, I write what I see in my mind's eye, and if that includes a relevant color blouse or drapes or a particular way that we see a character, because it's imbued in the narrative - then so be it.
AJR
It's a style choice. If you're good enough to carry a camera angle or two, then do it. I have to admit to having done this myself very, very rarely in a screenplay. I write for an animation company and it's a requiremnt that I use camera shots in the script. Those are written in a different format to a screenplay... more like a corporate video script layout. However, parenthesis is one tool I utilise quite a lot in a screenplay. They can be used to convey mood, to underline something, or even as a quick action line. I love them.
The above link is a script I wrote recently for an actor friend... although he didn't want this in the end as it was too violent. Anyway, it's only 5 pages, but if you skip to the end you'll see I've used a camera shot... and I think it works.
The only people that I've ever known get hung up on stuff like that are other writers - usually because they do it different.
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.
For more of my scripts, stories, produced movies and the ocassional blog, check out my new website. CLICK
That was not my concern. I have no issue with Directors or Actors changing what is written in the script. I expect that changes will almost always happen and I expect in most instances it will happen for the better or at least be born of necessity (e.g., budget constraints, etc.).
My rant was against the general paradigm that writer's should not do anything that might be construed to step on the director's or actor's toes, whether that be a camera placement, parenthetical or other convention.
Ok, well in that case, I largely agree.
I think there are times when it's hard/next to impossible to portray what you really want to portray without using Camera directions.
For instance in one script I really wanted to make it clear that I saw the whole scene taking place in one shot.
I'm the same with "We sees" and "We hears" as well. Sometimes it is the best way IMO.
Actors directions are a little different...they generally hate being given road maps telling them what they should feel at a certain point. It often leads to bad acting where they are forced to "represent" a certain emotion at a given time, rather than organically going with the flow and feeling what they feel as the scene plays out.
You see that a lot in cheap horror films where the actors are trying to display intense fear on demand, and it often feels awkward. It seems like bad acting, but it's really bad writing because they are being forced to hit emotions to a timescale.
I've started using more prose in my writing simply as a way of telling the Production department, actors, Cinematographers etc what I want without having to explain it all.
They read it, get their own ideas..which are the ideas I planted..and everyone is already on the same page.
Writers will say it's overwritten, but it saves time later because the crew instantly get what I'm going for without long explanations.
Case in point: The Hyper Epics comic which visually was exactly like I pictured. That was because I described it fully. Screenwriters will always say it's overwritten, but I only care about getting the visuals across to the creative team. I respect writers opinion on the story, but they often don't get the need for the info for the collaborative team .
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.
Great post, Mark. Loved the last paragraph in particular.
I think there are times when it's hard/next to impossible to portray what you really want to portray without using Camera directions.
For instance in one script I really wanted to make it clear that I saw the whole scene taking place in one shot.
I'm the same with "We sees" and "We hears" as well. Sometimes it is the best way IMO.
Actors directions are a little different...they generally hate being given road maps telling them what they should feel at a certain point. It often leads to bad acting where they are forced to "represent" a certain emotion at a given time, rather than organically going with the flow and feeling what they feel as the scene plays out.
You see that a lot in cheap horror films where the actors are trying to display intense fear on demand, and it often feels awkward. It seems like bad acting, but it's really bad writing because they are being forced to hit emotions to a timescale.
The above link is a script I wrote recently for an actor friend... although he didn't want this in the end as it was too violent. Anyway, it's only 5 pages, but if you skip to the end you'll see I've used a camera shot... and I think it works.
The only people that I've ever known get hung up on stuff like that are other writers - usually because they do it different.
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!"....
Pages: 
Author
Writer's write - Director's ---
Logged
Ha, made me laugh. I'm with you in the revolt, Dave.
Locked Board