Hey all.

So I know it's incredibly discouraged to use any kind of camera direction in a script, especially a spec. However, are there any exceptions? Say for example, it would help make a certain scene standout and help the reader get the picture you're trying to paint?

For example:

Say you have a protagonist who's trying to get back on the dating scene, but is a little too drunk and screws up big time. I'm trying to show him sitting at a booth with a girl and going on a drunken rant about an ex.

In my head, I see the scene as we're close up on him to begin, then we slowly pan towards the girl. Then we pan back to him, then we slowly pan back towards girl...only this time, it's a different girl. And this would happen maybe 2 or 3 more times. All the while, he would be going on this rant.


Would that be an instance where I could get away with it? Or is there another way to get that kind of scene across without camera directions?

Nope.



If you want a scene to be shot a specific way then you should secure the location, the actors, the equipment, and shoot it yourself.

For a spec script you have no idea what location, actors, and equipment some director/producer is going to secure.

Between a hundred different directors, the same scene in any given screenplay can be shot a bazillion different ways with those three variables involved, especially with the location.

It's not that screenwriter camera suggestions aren't welcome it's just that they will invariably be discarded due to practical situations, therefore they just slow down the read of the screenplay's fundamental story thus = trash.

Makes sense. Thanks.

Back to the drawing board.

Jim

There are no rules for these things, just what is accepted as standard at the current time.

John August and Craig Maizin did a section on the so called 'rules' on a recent episode of Scriptnotes, ep 186 I think.

This is one of the rules discussed and their view was that you could use Camera Direction in a spec IF you felt it was the best way to convey what you were trying to achieve.

On a personal note, I've never used one.

Worth a listen to the podcast though as they are two very sucessful screenwriters and talk a lot of sense... their banter is funny too.

Anthony

Jim, is it meant to show that time is passing? Seems more like a montage effect.

Quoted from stevie Jim, is it meant to show that time is passing? Seems more like a montage effect.

Yes, sounds like a montage you're after.

No reason for using things like, "the camera pans..." or the like.  Comes off completely amateur.

I ran into this same problem with a script of mine. Problem is, being found footage/pseudo-documentary/Cinéma vérité, the camera is literally a character in the story.

I learned the hard way that camera directions are a big no-no no matter what. I got around this dilemma by writing each scene traditionally, in master shot format (like you [should  ] see in every spec script) and mentioning the camera sparingly, if at all. But I refrained from writing "the camera pans" or "the camera zooms/dollies/steadicams in/out." I treated the camera as a character and not as a camera, per se. Am I making sense?  

It sounds like you're writing a traditional narrative. Maybe write it in master format, but write it in such a way that it can only be shot in the way you have in mind. For example, describe something that you'd never see in a master shot, something you'd only see in a closeup -- without actually telling us it's a closeup. That way, the director will think it was his idea.  

Hope I helped.

^That's a good way to look at it. Thank you.

Anthony, I will have to be on the lookout for that podcast.

Ahh, yes, a montage is close to what I was going for. And I guess it could work. However, I'm coming up blank as to how I would make it clear that my protagonist is basically going off on the same drunk rant to all these girls.

Could I do something like this?

JOHN
Blah blah blahbitty blah blah...

The girl stares blankly,  feigning amusement.

JOHN
...Blah blah blah blah blahbitty...

It's now a DIFFERENT GIRL looking back at John. Same look on her face as the previous girl.

JOHN
....blahbitty blah blah blah...

John seems to be getting more passionate as he goes on. YET ANOTHER GIRL checks her watch.


^Could something similar to that get the same effect?

Quoted from AnthonyCawood Jim There are no rules for these things, just what is accepted as standard at the current time. John August and Craig Maizin did a section on the so called 'rules' on a recent episode of Scriptnotes, ep 186 I think. This is one of the rules discussed and their view was that you could use Camera Direction in a spec IF you felt it was the best way to convey what you were trying to achieve. On a personal note, I've never used one. Worth a listen to the podcast though as they are two very sucessful screenwriters and talk a lot of sense... their banter is funny too. Anthony

Oh, great podcast. Entertaining and useful. Good to see someone bring it up here, I was planning to post a thread of it a while back.

And I agree. If it's really necessary to get your vision across on that scene or if a camera shot is the best way to paint it in a script -- then why not? If the director won't do it that way, it'll be scrapped. However it might not be and it might be what makes the scene clearer than trying to desperately put it into words avoiding writing the shot. As long as it's apparent that the camera direction is there for a good reason and camera direction is used sparingly overall, where's the problem?

In the situation you brought out above I think a pull back to reveal would work better than a pan. Or perhaps just the word reveal in the action line would work without needing another camera direction line.

As a montage and with the reveal moment being present maybe this?

Quoted Text MONTAGE GUY And her narcissistic behavior wasn't... was... -- uh -- wasn't the worst. She put the milk on the top shelf -- in the fridge... - Reveal a GIRL staring blankly, feigning amusement. GUY ..Blah blah blah.. - Reveal a DIFFERENT GIRL staring back at Guy with the same look. GUY ..Blah blah blah.. - Guy is heated, spit flying from his mouth as he continues his rant. Reveal YET ANOTHER GIRL checking her watch. END MONTAGE

^Bingo. Love that. Thank you, sir.

I was actually researching this and came across the "montage vs. Series of shots" debate. Seems to me that most define montage as something that shows us various different locations over a longer period of time, where as a series of shots is usually showing events that happen in one location over a shorter period of time (compared to a montage).

So I'm guessing series of shots is the way I'd go?

Also, I saw someone bring up going into the scene like so:

"A SERIES OF SHOTS showing Henry's attempts to date, INTERCUT with scenes where we hear him talking to his date."

INTERCUT would also work well.

Code INT. PENTHOUSE BEDROOM - DAY Morning light illuminates HENRY, 30s, varsity playboy, approaching rock bottom of a mental health breakdown in bed with a woman. HENRY And her narcissistic behavior wasn't... INTERCUT GIRLS BLOND GIRL in bed with blank stare at Henry, feigning amusement. HENRY was... -- uh -- wasn't the worst. COCOA GIRL in bed with cool indifference to Henry, waits for rapture. HENRY She put the milk on the top shelf -- in the fridge... RED HEAD MILF in bed takes selfie with Henry, duck lips. HENRY When it obviously goes in the fridge door. SUICIDE GIRL in bed fires up a fatty, offers to-- HENRY Forget it. This is pointless. Henry retrieves a revolver from the covers, shoots girl in head. Floor splats with blood. Dog ambles over, sniffs, laps twice before Henry scolds him.

^haha awesome.

I am working on a script that has a tiny bit of camera work.  

Usually it's a giant no-no.  Leave it to the director and the camera man.  It's my understanding that the ONLY time that you should do it is if it's vital to the scene.  I read a few ideas above and they are both awesome.

Don't do pans or normal stuff.  The director and camera person know how to break down a typical script.  If it's an odd shot, for ex, a God's eye view to show the character as tiny b/c you are writing a scene in which the protagonist feels like they are useless and it's key to the scene, then I'd say go for it.

I'd only do it if it's KEY to the scene and you feel that the director needs to know this.  If they don't need to know it, drop it.