What do people think about the use of inserts?

Isn't an insert just another bit of inapproriate direction by the writer (in the same category as "we see," "close on," "cut to," etc. )? Why should I tell the movie-maker to do an insert? I'd rather describe whatever it is without saying how to do it. In other words, I'm not writing a shooting script.

I've cut way down on wrylies, beats, and underlined words. I'd like to do away with inserts.

Thoughts?

Henry

It's no big deal.  If you want to show what's written on a note, write "The note says - [whatever it says]".  

You don't have to write INSERT NOTE or INSERT ANYTHING.

Like many things in screenwriting - it seems to depends on who you ask. Recently, I picked this up from TRILANE:

"INSERT is used to bring something very small into full frame, for example a letter, a newspaper ad, a sign, a box of chocolates. It is not used to insert quick shots into the action and also not for bigger objects like a television. An INSERT should be followed with a BACK TO SCENE unless a master scene heading or a secondary headings follows anyway."

I thought - WTF - I've seen several scripts with INSERT TV (maybe they were very small televisions .

TRLILANE'S thinking involved the - don't get in the way of the Director mantra. Essentially, the Director might want to film the shot with both your character and the television in it. My reaction was screw the Director - if INSERT TV was the most concise, clearest way to show something on television, then I'm good with it. Conversely, it is irrelevant to me if it is a small object. For example, I would rather have this:

Eldave sees a small digital clock on the table. It reads 4:00 A.M.  

Then this:

Eldave looks at the table and sees

INSERT DIGITAL CLOCK

It reads 4:00 A.M.

BACK TO SCENE

Long way of saying that IMO the use of insert should have nothing to do with size of the object or violating a Director's sensibilities and everything to do with whether or not it enhances the flow of the story.

I find a similar issue with POVs. I copied this from Simply Scripts advice related to shot headings.

Incorrect

INT. GOOBER'S SPORTS BAR - NIGHT
        
Cigarette smoke fills the room.  From Bobby's POV, we see
JULIA enter the bar.  Bobby pretends to stab himself with one
of his darts.

Correct

INT. GOOBER'S SPORTS BAR - NIGHT
        
Cigarette smoke fills the room.
                  
BOBBY'S POV
        
JULIA enters the bar.
                  
BACK TO SCENE
        
Bobby pretends to stab himself with one of his darts.

I didn't like the incorrect or correct version. Whether or not it is appropriate, I would have found this to be the easiest read:

INT. GOOBER'S SPORTS BAR - NIGHT
        
Cigarette smoke fills the room.  

JULIA enters. Bobby pretends to stab himself with one
of his darts.

Certainly someone will note that the last approach is inappropriate because the camera changed so the approach recommended by SS is correct. Where I'm lost is how, like as is the case with INSERTS, does the SS recommended approach not step on a Director's toes? Maybe the Director wants Julia and Bobby in the same shot when she enters. i.e., if Director prerogatives are the framework for when or when no to use INSERTS, why wouldn't that same standard apply to POVs? Guess I would like something simple like - if the characters are in the same physical location (like this bar)  - don't use POVs. If a character is looking at something in a different location - use POVs.

Anyway - that's my POV.

Eldave1: I have the same POV on POVs. I'm at the point of deleting them altogether (from my lone feature script) unless I have a definite idea about a scene and can think of no other way to get it across.

(Of course, I'm new to all of this. I may have  a different opinion later.)

Thanks for your well-thought-out comments.

Thanks for the shout out Stump - I'm learning with you

I use INSERTS. INSERT TV. INSERT PHONE.  I even use THROUGH WINDOW if somebody is looking from one room to another or from a room to outside.

Do whatever you like. There aren't any real rules. So long as your story runs good, it doesn't matter about little details like that. At most, they're going to irritate a writer that doesn't like using them.

Using POV is definitely a form of direction and really shuold be used sparingly or not at all.

The only time it really should come into play is when that POV vastly alters the effect...or "view".

For instance, "Creature POV" - when "we see" differently because the creatuer's POV is different or unique - a different color, etc.  Think of the Movie Predator or Pitch Black and how the Predator and Riddick see things differently. Or think about any of the 1,000 shark attack movies.  THis is how POV is most effectively used.

Or "Killer POV" - let's say the killer wears a mask with eye cutouts, 1 eye cutout, etc.

Or how about when someone is hiding somehwere and we see things from their perspective - under a bed, behind bushes, through a slotted fence.

Let's say you have someone hiking on a steep mountain trail, and we see what it looks like as they look down...or up.  Or if they fall and catch themselves on a ledge and you want to show the intensity by showing what they see as they hold on for dear life and their legs are dangling below them.

POV is always going to be a Director's choice when it comes to filming, meaning you really never need any in a Spec script, but, when done correctly and sparingly, it can definitely add some flair, but be careful, as it's also very easy to screw this up.

Every single time you choose to use POV, make sure that what follows is 100% what we're seeing through/from that POV.

And, remember, you'll always have to return to scene when the view is over.

As for inserts, IMO, use an insert any time you feel you need to for ease of read and clarification.  As for TV inserts, "ON TV SCREEN" works just fine, while notes or the like would require an actual insert, as you wouldn't be able to read what it says unless it's big enough, and that's what inserts are really all about.

Make sense?

"Make sense?"

Yes, helpful, well-explained.

Quoted from Dreamscale Using POV is definitely a form of direction and really shuold be used sparingly or not at all. The only time it really should come into play is when that POV vastly alters the effect...or "view". For instance, "Creature POV" - when "we see" differently because the creatuer's POV is different or unique - a different color, etc.  Think of the Movie Predator or Pitch Black and how the Predator and Riddick see things differently. Or think about any of the 1,000 shark attack movies.  THis is how POV is most effectively used. Or "Killer POV" - let's say the killer wears a mask with eye cutouts, 1 eye cutout, etc. Or how about when someone is hiding somehwere and we see things from their perspective - under a bed, behind bushes, through a slotted fence. Let's say you have someone hiking on a steep mountain trail, and we see what it looks like as they look down...or up.  Or if they fall and catch themselves on a ledge and you want to show the intensity by showing what they see as they hold on for dear life and their legs are dangling below them. POV is always going to be a Director's choice when it comes to filming, meaning you really never need any in a Spec script, but, when done correctly and sparingly, it can definitely add some flair, but be careful, as it's also very easy to screw this up. Every single time you choose to use POV, make sure that what follows is 100% what we're seeing through/from that POV. And, remember, you'll always have to return to scene when the view is over. As for inserts, IMO, use an insert any time you feel you need to for ease of read and clarification.  As for TV inserts, "ON TV SCREEN" works just fine, while notes or the like would require an actual insert, as you wouldn't be able to read what it says unless it's big enough, and that's what inserts are really all about. Make sense?

Thanks - Yes, it does. Question: I'v seen several scripts - where at least to me - it seems that the POV is essentially replaced with a secondary screen heading. e.g.,

Here is a recommended sample from the BLACKLIST

In this scene, screenwriter Ted Tally (presumably) chooses to bury the POV shot within scene description. The way I learned it is to write the POV as a Secondary Slugline:

INT. HOTEL ROOM – DAY

CLARICE’S P.O.V. — MOVING

As she first sees, sitting on the edge of the bed – a FEMALE HOSTAGE.

But there’s no need to write it with director’s lingo:

INT. HOTEL ROOM – DAY

Clarice moving, spots a FIGURE on the edge of a bed –

A FEMALE HOSTAGE

Black, late 20’s, gagged, hands behind her back.

Then SWIVELING, Clarice spots –

A MALE SUSPECT

By the window, startled, a rifle in his hands –


So, this expert basically recommended replacing the POV with secondary scene headings. To a layman like me, it seems that all that he really did was change the lingo. i.e., the scene headings basically moved the camera in the same manner that POV would have. Could have it just been written like:

INT. HOTEL ROOM – DAY

Clarice moving, spots a FEMALE HOSTAGE, black, late 20s, gagged with her hands behind her back on the edge of a bed. He swivels and sees a MALE SUSPECT, with a rifle in his hand by the window.

You know, I think the flu has gotten the better of me - I am definitely over thinking this - probably time for a nap?

Dave, in your example, there's really no need for a POV, as the "view" from Clarice is no different than the view of the camera that we'd see anyways.

In this example, it's simply trying to direct the shot, and unproduced Spec writers have no reason to do this...or try to.

Ted Tally is a super sucessful writer and can write things any way he so chooses...but...it's merely a style being utilizd in your example, which some will love and others will simply say is wasting lines.

thanks much