I like Lon's descriptions as well, but if I were to submit a script where I introduced my characters in such a fashion, I couldn't even begin to think about how many complaints I'd get for telling and not showing.

One might argue that Lon's descriptions are a little over the top in its novel-style, but the camera CAN actually pick up 90% of what he's describing.

First this one: SWEETIE MOMMA leans against the bike's sissy bar, a Farah Fawcett poster with Joan Jett attitude, poured into jean shorts and a bikini top.

All of that is filmable.

And in the other end of the spectrum:

A WOMAN browses the cheap end of the car lot.  Thrift store dress and handbag, but attractive without having to try, and her easy smile could light a darkened room.  This is CHARLENE DANIELS, "Charlie" to her friends.  But please -- no fiddle jokes.  She's heard them all.

The problem here might be the last two sentences. But I'd argue this can actually be conveyed in the actors countenance, demeanor and air about her. It might be a stretch, but even so, the rest of the description is perfectly filmable.

While Lon does write something that could be construed as "unfilmable" in the "Tough as nails" part or "so cool he doesn't have a pulse", these come after he's already described HOW he's cool or tough. As if it's a conclusion of the math that preceded it.

I get a mental image from Lon's characters. I know how the tough as nails cop is tough as nails. I think it's different than someone writing, say:

"Billy (30) is a courageous young man in a tweed jacket and stretch pants.". How is Billy Courageous? I have no sense of who Billy is.

That's definitely telling and not showing.

That's my take on it, anyway, but I think it's an interesting discussion.

For the description of the woman in the car lot, I knew that last line was borderline prose but I tacked it on because it solved a problem I had with the dialogue which came immediately after it.  

She introduces herself to the car dealer who quips, "Oh, like the fiddle player!  Well, by devil, you ain't gotta go down to Georgia for a better deal than what ol' Big Bill can swing ya!"

I just didn't want to have to write after that, "Charlie grimaces, because so many people have made that Charlie Daniels joke over the course of her life that it really, really irritates her whenever someone makes it again."  So, yeah, I know I'm telling with that last line of her descriptive and not showing, but I pay it off.  And, I don't have to explain it again later in the script when yet another person makes the joke.

As for the other descriptions I mentioned, that's just my "style," for lack of a better term.  No way would I ever say my way is the best way to go.  I'm a novice, too, ya know!

I think Mike is generally correct.

A line like "tough as nails" should be redundant in a script IMHO. Toughness is based purely on what he does in the script, not on appearance.

If a Policeman walks into a drug den and starts beating up huge muscle-bound men without even reading them their rights, then we know that he is physically tough and has a certain disregard for procedure within the space of a few seconds. There is no need for character description.

Of course the script that you are writing may require intricate descriptions of the minutiae of human behaviour. Perhaps you are writing an intensely psychological piece and have researched body language. A woman licking her lips during questioning may be a critical moment in the film. In that case you may need to describe tiny details that you wouldn't normally dream of in a script.

The example of bladerunner was a good one. The writer needs to plant the idea that some people are androids and some people aren't in our minds. He uses sweating to do this. The fat man working hard is cool and sweat free therefore he is an android. The cop sweats so he isn't (Or is he?). This requires a rather elaborate set up that mirrors the way it would need to be filmed.

A script should only bring attention to what is required to tell the particular story you are telling.

Quoted Text the description of the woman in the car lot, I knew that last line was borderline prose but I tacked it on because it solved a problem I had with the dialogue which came immediately after it.   She introduces herself to the car dealer who quips, "Oh, like the fiddle player!  Well, by devil, you ain't gotta go down to Georgia for a better deal than what ol' Big Bill can swing ya!" I just didn't want to have to write after that, "Charlie grimaces, because so many people have made that Charlie Daniels joke over the course of her life that it really, really irritates her whenever someone makes it again."  So, yeah, I know I'm telling with that last line of her descriptive and not showing, but I pay it off.  And, I don't have to explain it again later in the script when yet another person makes the joke.

Personally, I think this statement reveals the potential problems. You can't solve problems by sticking something in the description line. The audience simply doesn't see it. If the grimace isn't enough to show us that she's heard it before, you either find something that is or stick a line of dialogue in expressing her displeasure. Or you cut the line.

You say that you pay it off, but how does Charlene react? Her reaction is what we see so it HAS to be the thing that gives us the information you have hidden in the description.

Either way, the description becomes redundant.

This is why people mention Show not Tell all the time, it's very easy for screenwriters to slip into bad habits whereby they are leaving valubale information off the screen just because they think they've got it down in black and white on the page.

Screenwriting "rules" can always be broken, but they are there to stop you making fundamental mistakes.

This, for me, is splitting hairs.  No offense, not lashing out at you or anything.  But I abide by the "show, don't tell" rule religiously -- the ONLY exception being my character descriptions, in which I allow myself a little room to be prosaic.  But even then it's not a lot, as you can see from the examples I posted.  I don't think they're so prosaic as to be unacceptable.  

Sure, we all know screenplays are basically just blueprints, for all intents and purposes.  But that doesn't mean they have to read like stereo instructions.  We're writing movies, here, not doing data entry.  Screenplays need to grab the reader's interest; they have to be good reads.  

So if I'm sticking to the rules of screenplay format and structure in every way I possibly can otherwise, I don't see the harm in a touch of prose here or there -- and I do mean only here or there -- if it's not intrusive or detrimental to the read.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films I think Mike is generally correct. A line like "tough as nails" should be redundant in a script IMHO. Toughness is based purely on what he does in the script, not on appearance. If a Policeman walks into a drug den and starts beating up huge muscle-bound men without even reading them their rights, then we know that he is physically tough and has a certain disregard for procedure within the space of a few seconds. There is no need for character description. Of course the script that you are writing may require intricate descriptions of the minutiae of human behaviour. Perhaps you are writing an intensely psychological piece and have researched body language. A woman licking her lips during questioning may be a critical moment in the film. In that case you may need to describe tiny details that you wouldn't normally dream of in a script. The example of bladerunner was a good one. The writer needs to plant the idea that some people are androids and some people aren't in our minds. He uses sweating to do this. The fat man working hard is cool and sweat free therefore he is an android. The cop sweats so he isn't (Or is he?). This requires a rather elaborate set up that mirrors the way it would need to be filmed. A script should only bring attention to what is required to tell the particular story you are telling.

But one can look tough and when describing someone as tough as nails, the implicature, to me, would be that he LOOKS tough as nails. I doubt anyone would picture a timid looking guy who only ACTS toughs as nails.

No offense taken. Similarly I'm not trying to offend you.

From my point of view as a Director/Producer I see things from the other side of things as well. As I said in my last post I think you are treading into uncertain territory if you include things in the description line that are important for the audience to know.

As regards the example you gave, if you want people to know that she gets annoyed because people say the same thing all the time you HAVE to have it on screen. There is no other way. You can make it a running gag, and show people saying it over and over again or you can show her reacting badly to it the first time, but you can't just leave it in the description line if you want the audience to see it in the final film.

I don't think that is splitting hairs, it's just a physical reality.

A certain style is fine and you are right, you want it to read well, but the balance is fine and it's very easy to lose important information if you are not careful. I see it all the time in scripts I get sent. One comedy that was incredibly well written, stands out in my mind. I laughed out loud on about 12 occassions which is very rare for me. Unfortunately all the funny moments were in the description. Not one would have made it into the film without changes.

That is the potential downfall.

For me a lot of your descriptions are on the edge if you like.

The one where he is" tough as nails and not afraid to say it" for instance. For me that would be going too far. He either says he is tough in dialogue or he doesn't. If he says it, why does it need to be in the description? If he doesn't, the line is redundant. Indeed, if he does say it, it actually would hint to me that he isn't as tough as he cracks on, but that is another matter.

Prose is one thing. Hiding information is another. In the biker instance you are using it as a set up for a pay off that happens on screen and you can't do that, because the set up has to be visible to the audience.

As I say, that is not a question of style it's just a question of necessity.

Rick.

Quoted Text But one can look tough and when describing someone as tough as nails, the implicature, to me, would be that he LOOKS tough as nails. I doubt anyone would picture a timid looking guy who only ACTS toughs as nails.

Let me clarify. I don't think there is a problem with character description per se. Describing someone as tough-looking is acceptable IMO. Although it begs the question in what way, you can look tough in a variety of ways.

A cop who is tough looking will look different to a UFC fighter who is tough looking.

Tough as nails would be acceptable. The line and not afraid to say it goes too far IMO.

I'm just making the point that if it is important that your charcater IS tough as nails then you need to show it on screen.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films Let me clarify. I don't think there is a problem with character description per se. Describing someone as tough-looking is acceptable IMO. Although it begs the question in what way, you can look tough in a variety of ways. A cop who is tough looking will look different to a UFC fighter who is tough looking. Tough as nails would be acceptable. The line and not afraid to say it goes too far IMO. I'm just making the point that if it is important that your charcater IS tough as nails then you need to show it on screen.

You're right. I agree with that.

I've been told not to get too specific on your character description because you pigeonhole your character to a specific actor/actress.  If you;ve ever been through the audition process, which I found to be like nails on a chalkboard, you know what I mean.  

I've also never been great at description, which was why people felt I should go into script writing versus novel writing, so the two line description usually works for me.  I might put a trait or clothing style in the description to clue theactors in to what I'm looking for the character to do or so the reader might get a boost in understanding the character, while not boring them with information they don't need right now.  

Decadence -- no offense taken or implied, at all.  I totally understand what you're saying, so we're cool.

As for how I do my thing, I'm obviously no master screenwriter, so I won't declare my way as the be-all, end-all approach to character descriptions.  Hell, I wouldn't do that even if I were.

Lon, you've given some excellent examples of short but sweet character descriptions.

I just finished coming back from "Ocean's Thirteen."  Wow!  The characters were played to the hilt in this film.

And what a cast!  Al Pacino, Mat Damon, Berni Mac, Elliott Gould...  The star studded cast was fun, but I think it was the concept that drew these names in the first place.

What I'm wondering is: Was this script written with Joe, age 40, slightly overweight?

Did these characters spring from the imagination of the director, or the actors themselves?

Or, were they written into the script from the beginning?  Or later?

Pacino's pink tie?  Bernie's reflective glasses?  Ellen Barkin?  She was amazing.  The simple act of climbing stairs with one hand dainty in the air held my curiosity. And then, as she plays like a wrestler's side kick, acting on the side, pulling more interest than the lead shot, I thought to myself, "This is fun and engaging to watch."  

Some of the film was magnificently over the top, but it was all in fun; the mood was meant to be light, but still, we had the "real" meaning of thriller which I hadn't quite grasped before.

Thrillers thrill.  They don't necessarily have to be gory.  It's the heightened suspense which distinguishes them from (for instance) a murder mystery.  There's always this "high" in the level of suspense.  (*not to be confused with action) Thrillers don't need to be moving about.  It may simply be a clock ticking away and suspense within a single room.

It's that level of expectation; not knowing what's next in a chain kind of reaction with quite a bit of fast pace that I think qualifies as thriller.

It may be that the expectation we have from certain characters help to deliver the goods within the context of the film in question.

For instance, if we expect a character to behave a certain way, but they don't; everything is then thrown for a loop.  Then we have intrigue.  Why?  Character growth?  Degradation?  What caused this to happen?

Still, it doesn't make it any easier for the writer.  We're told not to inhibit or even sabotage the script by doing too much with character; yet character is everything.

It probably comes down to the execution with which character is delivered into the script.  It isn't just a matter of writing style, but a matter of the individual script's needs.

I'm thinking right now about American Beauty.  "The Man" of the house is riding in the back seat of the car... Well, what does that say?

The writer didn't have to say a word of narrative describing this guy's self respect and esteem issues.  When he was put in the back seat of the vehicle, that said it all.  And not only was he in the back, but asleep too.  Well, not just the character, but the situation is being taken for all it's worth.

I don't think there are any easy answers.  Just like the question of "backstory."  If it's done, it needs to be done well or not at all.  Mess with it too much and if you don't know what you're doing, you might as well put your script through the shredder.

Sandra







I noted on the board, that this was classed as a comedic thriller, which is interesting because as I begin to pay more attention to genres and mood, I realize how important it is for us to determine, what genre we are writing.

Scripts I think are bought and sold by audience expectation.  You go to a Steven King film--you expect a certain experience; likewise, if you've invested in Robin Williams, you know what his trademarks are even though the genre itself might sway.

The last Harry Potter invested itself entirely into the character of Doloris Umbridge, which came across as "fun" to watch, whereas in the book, she was definitely evil, but I couldn't say she was "fun" to read.

Harry's excursion into himself however, was pretty much non existent.

I think that the choice made was a good one.  It has a wider appeal to a larger audience including little kids who can have some fun laughing when Fred and George pull their prank and fireworks explodes during a test.  Kind of Disneyish--the evil character getting payment.

Again though, who makes these character decisions?

I really feel confused here.

You know, what I'm really thinking is that there aren't really rules.  I think that's too narrow of a way to think.  Instead, it's all dependent upon the script itself and where the focus is.

I think we just need to study a lot, and then make our decisions based upon the internalization which comes from experience.

In my last piece, my characters were quite versatile, I didn't have a lot of description, (in fact, not enough) however, if

Whoops.  Don't go for a coffee in the middle of a post.

...however, once the decision is made for the focus of the piece, I think the writer can make concentrated choices; these are then worked on from that single perspective.

A narrowed focus is probably the least cluttered and best unless one is extremely skilled.

So hard though.  If you've got several good characters and you have to cut screen time--like in the case of Harry Potter--it's never easy to do.

Sandra

LYDIA LYNCH, a real estate broker, vaults down the sidewalk, she's got a hell of a
stride.

MEG ALTMAN, thirtyish, struggles to keep up with her, she's tall, wafer-thin, pale as a ghost.

SARAH, a nine year old girl

EVAN, a sour-looking man

No movement for a moment, then the driver's door opens and a MAN climbs out. He wears dark clothes.

JUNIOR is much smaller, very high-strung, dresses like a homey, very street, but can't hide the fact that the street is Park Avenue.

A POLICE LIEUTENANT shivers in his trench coat: this is DEKKER. Black. Tough. Not only eats nails for breakfast, but likes them.

A lone figure...dressed casually in a bomber jacket and jeans. T-shirt with a slight tear near the shoulder. Cigar. Three-day stubble. A .44 Ruger Blackhawk, the biggest gun ever made, perches in his hand like an old friend. SERGEANT JACK SLATER is in a bad mood tonight.

RAND PELTZER walks through a crowd. An American businessman. He wears a tasteful grey suit. He's thin, with distinguished good looks and thick brown hair. He's 56 years old.

...a GOVERNMENT INSPECTOR, observing...but his uniform indicates substantial rank, as does the eagle-crested baton, no longer than a ruler, that he clutches in one gloved hand.

JIM STREET, he looks more skateboarder than cop, indomitably cheerful, he makes everything look easy. The other is POKER, an ambitious, preppy type from the South.

Among them is HONDO, one gifted SWAT Cop. With years of experience, he's road worn and stronger than spring steel. The guy you want on your side.

Seventeen-year-old Marty McFly looks up from his issue of Rolling
Stone.

Professor Emmett Brown hissed, his white head bent over what looked to
Marty like a solar cell. At 65, he was considered the town eccentric,
an inventor who's inventions didn't always work the way they were
supposed to. Professor Brown was tall -- though his posture had grown
more hunched with age -- and had a mane of shaggy white hair that was
almost always unruly and uncombed.

NICK CURRAN is 42.  Trim, good-looking, a nice suit; a face urban, edged, shadowed.  GUS MORAN is 64.  Crew-cut, silver beard, a suit rumpled and shiny, a hat out of the 50's, a face worn and ruined the face of a backwoods philosopher.

It's like a convention in here.  LT. PHIL WALKER, in his 50's, silver-haired, the homicide guys; JIM HARRIGAN, late 40's, puffy, affable;  SAM ANDREWS, 30's, black.  A CORONER'S MAN is working the bed.

CATHERINE TRAMELL is 30 years old.  She has long blonde hair and a refined, classically beautiful face.  She is not knockout gorgeous like Roxy; there is a smoky kind of sensuousness about her.

DECKARD is standing near the noodle bar waiting for a seat.  He's in his thirties, wiry, athletic, rumpled, used, unshaven.

...a WOMAN rises. As the band plays on, this extraordinary, beautiful woman, in a simple white dress, moves down the aisle. She moves wonderfully. The dress clings to her body in the heat.