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.
I can see how it could be invasive, but no ones breaking any rule that I know of using it. People, may use it incorrectly, but learn as we go
BLB
Commodus: But the Emperor Claudius knew that they were up to something. He knew they were busy little bees. And one night he sat down with one of them and he looked at her and he said, "Tell me what you have been doing, busy little bee..."
My main problem with (beat) - you lose a line to it. For me, ... works well. Though, that can be overused, too...
XL - nice touch regarding replacing (beat) with an (emotional reaction.) You wanna keep those light too, of course. But when it's needed, at least it's the more colorful option...
Wonk, Really don't know if it was a nice touch or not? One directs, the other offers the actor or director an opportunity to do their thing.
I'm neither an actor or a director. And as a scriptwriter, I just got here, so I don't know what I don't know. Heck, I'm still trying to get one lousy three page episode written.
John
Wait a minute. I am an ACTOR...I starred in an infomercial about a laser putter. It had a $1M budget.
PGA Craig Stadler got paid and I didn't even get the ham sandwich they promised me.
NELDA (V.O.) Shouldn't have mentioned his nasty drawers (beat) Now he’ll want me to wash them.
Or without beat...
NELDA (V.O.) Shouldn't have mentioned his nasty drawers (grimaces) Now he’ll want me to wash them.
One allows the actor to practice his/her craft while the other directs.
I don't think you need a beat or a grimace. I think the meaning is inferred well enough. Actors practice their lines every which way. I think you should avoid telling them how to deliver lines as much as possible.
I don't think you need a beat or a grimace. I think the meaning is inferred well enough. Actors practice their lines every which way. You should avoid telling them how to deliver lines as much as possible.
I agree with Breanne here.
"(grimaces)" is actually an "action wrylie", and IMO, these should be written as action lines. Otherwise, one could write their actions by using multiple action wrylies, over and over again, and no one wants to see that.
I am far from against using BEAT in dialogue, but only when there is moire than a slight pause (...) and it's necessary for the feel and meaning of the dialogue - and that doesn't occur very often, or at least, shouldn't.
I think you should avoid telling them how to deliver lines as much as possible.
I'm with Breanne on this one. Us screenwriters need to allow the actors some space to breathe if you like. They need to be able to put their own personal touch to the screenplay, rather than just doing everything the way we say they must.
By all means, use (beat). I think that replacing it with an action, yes, gives our audience a good idea of what sort of character we're dealing with, but at the same time an actor may have a different interpretation of certain bits of dialogue. If they aren't allowed to explore their characters by themselves, what's the point of having actors in the first place?
How do readers feel about beats? I suspect on a spec screenplay the director, producer, and secured locations are going to sweep away many of the fine nuances of beats and such on multiple rewrites.
Readers want a show. Directors and producers want brass tacks. They have similar & related but different needs.
I think the reason (beat) was introduced to screenwriting was because of the director. In the production of a screenplay or even a stageplay timing is important.
During a production, I can see a director needing to communicate to his actor that he needs a (beat) at this particular spot - for any number of reasons.
In a spec script, story is important. You'll have a hard time convincing me that (beat) has any story significance - ever.