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.