Andrew, I calls 'em as I sees 'em.  PERIOD.  I'm not ripping anyone a new one and it has nothing to do with that.  You seem to take delight in trying to rip me a new one again and again.

I really don't get it, and it's a bit irritating, to tell you the truth.

Thank you, Rick.  Thank you...

Quoted from Dreamscale Andrew, I calls 'em as I sees 'em.  PERIOD.  I'm not ripping anyone a new one and it has nothing to do with that.  You seem to take delight in trying to rip me a new one again and again. I really don't get it, and it's a bit irritating, to tell you the truth.

Come on, Jeff.

If you can dish it out, you should be prepared to take it.

This is hardly an attempt to rip you a new one, it's about challenging your POV, which you so utterly believe in, and yet it is often based on flimsy rationales.

Like you, I "calls 'em as I sees 'em".

Andrew

Quoted from Andrew I agree with Breanne regards the lines adding emotional resonance. Anyway, a script is a blueprint, and shouldn't the script try to convey as much emotion as possible. Subtle descriptions really help to do that.

I agree.  Film is rich.  Music, choice of shots, cinematography, editing, performances, constumes etc  all create a dramatic underscore.  A single frame can communicate so much to the audience.  And it is up to the writer to express that same level of energy and emotional resonance under the written word.

All of the greatest screenplays in history have been written this way.  It's nothing new, and goes as far back as CASABLANCA:

"JAN and ANNINA BRANDEL, a very young and attractive refugee
couple from Bulgaria, watch as the civilian passes. They've
been thrust by circumstances from a simple country life into
an unfamiliar and hectic world."

I do scratch my head when people call professional scripts "amateurly" written.  Don't they see the oxymoron?  And to basically imply that screenwriting has been wrong all along, since the beginning of film.

Andrew, I can definitely take it all.  I'm just questioning exactly what you're arguing with, here.

My POV is that scripts need not waste valuable space with unfilmable lines, poorly written, clunky prose, and amateur mistakes, like not CAPPING the initial intro of a character.

Is this what you're disagreeing with?

You are aware that this material is from 1973, right?  It's a simple modernization of a script from almost 40 years ago.

What am I missing here?  Please, do tell...  

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films It adds emotional resonance that will not make the final film. That's the point. Watch it, you'll see that the burning farm scene plays out as purely violent and creepy. There will be no nostalgic feeling coming from watching the house burn (if there is , it will only come from your memory of this thread). You can't portray an abstract thought about it being his grandfathers house without setting it up and certainly not when it is a scene about a deranged guy who has just killed his wife and kid. And not just deranged...but toxically insane.

I get the point you're making, and largely agree with it.

My comment was more about the general, than that specific example.

However, I do believe that WhyOne gave an interesting dimension when they referred to the set.

Regards that particular example, it does help convey a tone and also underlines your previous point about being a local, an insider, and this is a generational thing. The wife refers to why she came back to the town, and how it's people like David being the reason why.

If this is a spec script, that type of line really helps convey the emotional impact to those involved at the back end, even if the shooting script gets rid of such lines.

Bottom line, that type of prose - when not overused - is more interesting to read and helps create more passion than bog standard writing.

Andrew

Quoted from Dreamscale Andrew, I can definitely take it all.  I'm just questioning exactly what you're arguing with, here. My POV is that scripts need not waste valuable space with unfilmable lines, poorly written, clunky prose, and amateur mistakes, like not CAPPING the initial intro of a character. Is this what you're disagreeing with? You are aware that this material is from 1973, right?  It's a simple modernization of a script from almost 40 years ago. What am I missing here?  Please, do tell...

I'm glad you realise I am not trying to get you. This is a forum with many different opinions, and in trying to reach some form of consensus, our end should be that we're improved writers. That's the only reason I challenge. It's not about bickering on the 'net.

Yes, I know that the material is old. However, I am reading the script as a separate entity and disagree with your comments. The main reason being that "clunky prose" is a subjective POV, and yet, you are passing it around like your way is the only way. In response, why is it clunky? It didn't make me re-read, or question what was intended - it doesn't read weird, or poorly constructed. So, really, I am at a loss as to why it's "clunky".

Andrew

Quoted from Why One I agree.  Film is rich.  Music, choice of shots, cinematography, editing, performances, constumes etc  all create a dramatic underscore.  A single frame can communicate so much to the audience.  And it is up to the writer to express that same level of energy and emotional resonance under the written word. All of the greatest screenplays in history have been written this way.  It's nothing new, and goes as far back as CASABLANCA: "JAN and ANNINA BRANDEL, a very young and attractive refugee couple from Bulgaria, watch as the civilian passes. They've been thrust by circumstances from a simple country life into an unfamiliar and hectic world." I do scratch my head when people call professional scripts "amateurly" written.  Don't they see the oxymoron?  And to basically imply that screenwriting has been wrong all along, since the beginning of film.

Excellent example.

Totally agree. Ultimately, it's a case of eeking out every ounce of detail and emotion for everyone working on the film. It's not all about the director.

And that should start with the script. Time and again, I read produced screenplays that flout the "rules" that are bandied around as gospel.

Andrew

Quoted from Andrew I get the point you're making, and largely agree with it. My comment was more about the general, than that specific example. However, I do believe that WhyOne gave an interesting dimension when they referred to the set. Regards that particular example, it does help convey a tone and also underlines your previous point about being a local, an insider, and this is a generational thing. The wife refers to why she came back to the town, and how it's people like David being the reason why. If this is a spec script, that type of line really helps convey the emotional impact to those involved at the back end, even if the shooting script gets rid of such lines. Bottom line, that type of prose - when not overused - is more interesting to read and helps create more passion than bog standard writing. Andrew

Yeah, I agree in general.

The danger for me is what happens when it's taken to extreme. In the burning farm example, the script has a double meaning/power. Not only is it horrifically violent, there is also the tragic element of the father who has destroyed all he loved.

That wouldn't come across in the film if you shot it as it was. It would just be one dimensional...a guy kills his wife and kid and stands watching his handiwork. There would be the shock and you'd be asking the dramatic question Why did he do it? But that human tragedy element won't come across.

The loss of his sanity prevents even any kind of performance from the actor to convey it.

You could try and play some nostalgic type music over the image...but that will then interfere with the dark, foreboding tone of the film. This is, after all, a THE SHIT'S ABOUT TO GO DOWN moment.

That's why that kind of writing is potentially dangerous. Literature can jump from one abstract concept to the next immediately and be understandable, film doesn't work in the same way. All ideas and emotions can be portrayed equally as effectively, but you've got to follow more of a specific structure IF you want to get a specific idea across.

There's also a key difference between the active act of reading (where you can pause and luxuriate over a line for as long as you want and follow a mood or line of thought indefinitely) and passive film, where it just carries on regardless.

Personally I'd probably want that element in the film, so I'd introduce it as a line of dialogue from the sheriff when he turns up. He could stand in front of the house as it burns and say something like: "Jesus, his grandfather built that house with his bare hands" then turn to Bill  and say "What happened, Bill?".

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films Yeah, I agree in general. The danger for me is what happens when it's taken to extreme. In the burning farm example, the script has a double meaning/power. Not only is it horrifically violent, there is also the tragic element of the father who has destroyed all he loved. That wouldn't come across in the film if you shot it as it was. It would just be one dimensional...a guy kills his wife and kid and stands watching his handiwork. There would be the shock and you'd be asking the dramatic question Why did he do it? But that human tragedy element won't come across. The loss of his sanity prevents even any kind of performance from the actor to convey it. You could try and play some nostalgic type music over the image...but that will then interfere with the dark, foreboding tone of the film. This is, after all, a THE SHIT'S ABOUT TO GO DOWN moment. That's why that kind of writing is potentially dangerous. Literature can jump from one abstract concept to the next immediately and be understandable, film doesn't work in the same way. All ideas and emotions can be portrayed equally as effectively, but you've got to follow more of a specific structure IF you want to get a specific idea across. There's also a key difference between the active act of reading (where you can pause and luxuriate over a line for as long as you want and follow a mood or line of thought indefinitely) and passive film, where it just carries on regardless. Personally I'd probably want that element in the film, so I'd introduce it as a line of dialogue from the sheriff when he turns up. He could stand in front of the house as it burns and say something like: "Jesus, his grandfather built that house with his bare hands" then turn to Bill  and say "What happened, Bill?".

Good suggestion with the dialogue. Would be a good remedy. In some examples, it might be forced to place dialogue in place of the description, and could jar the audience, so it's a difficult one to manage as a writer.

It's about finding a balance, because adhering blindly with what translates to the screen at spec stage can mean missing some of the emotional impact being communicated. Small details like this can be ironed out once all of the creative forces with the project agree with the best way to communicate the script's depth.

Agree with what you say, however, that a spec (or any script) needs to be aware of of the fact it's a visual medium, and there are inherent dangers in missing that point. Overkill of that type of "unfilmable" writing will create a difficult to replicate film - definitely agree.

Ultimately, we're on the same page with it all, by the sounds of it.

Andrew

I finished the script and yes it’s relatively dense for a screenplay. It was a slow read. And yes it’s fairly standard stuff. It has a few clichés I hate, like a gun that conveniently happens to be out of bullets. I immediately thought of what I believe to be a better way to handle the scene. And the ending is a cliché that’s been done to death.

All its issues aside, focusing entirely on the writing, I thought it was very well done. There’s a lot of great writing here and I certainly wouldn’t call this writing poor or amateurish. Not by a long shot.

Quoted from Why One Film is rich.  Music, choice of shots, cinematography, editing, performances, constumes etc  all create a dramatic underscore.  A single frame can communicate so much to the audience.  And it is up to the writer to express that same level of energy and emotional resonance under the written word. All of the greatest screenplays in history have been written this way.  It's nothing new, and goes as far back as CASABLANCA: "JAN and ANNINA BRANDEL, a very young and attractive refugee couple from Bulgaria, watch as the civilian passes. They've been thrust by circumstances from a simple country life into an unfamiliar and hectic world." I do scratch my head when people call professional scripts "amateurly" written.  Don't they see the oxymoron?  And to basically imply that screenwriting has been wrong all along, since the beginning of film.

I agree. With this and your earlier point about the “house built by his grandfather” description. These things add dimension to a script, provided the writer doesn’t get carried away. They’re the very types of things that make great scripts great.


Brea