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.
okay so I just read an article about polishing one's script - the number two items was windows and orphans (basically the same just one refers to dialogue and the other action.) It basically said besides passive writing (of which I have been guilty and working on changing it) it's the top turnoff to a professional reader.
I try to read scripts everyday - currently reading chinatown - many consider the best script ever. Windows and orphans all over the place. (yes it's the original "spec" script - not shooting or transposed.) i.e on two consecutive pages 16 orphans and 8 windows. (May be reversed I always forget which is which.)
So, what do you guys think of widows and orphans.
Also I've been given the advice many times to 1) never use adhjcetives in a script 2) expresses emotions through actions - I.e. head down instead of sad. and 3) no exposition in action lines or dialogue - Chinatown and about every other good script I've read is full or these.
So what do you guys think?
Figured we needed a goos topic to get this place rolling again - been kinda dead.
Orphans are an issue, simply because they are a line waster, assuming the cause of the orphan is overwriting in some form.
Orphans in dialogue are a different beast, really, as what peeps say (in dialogue) is simply what you want them to say - as in there aren't any "mistakes" in dialogue, so you may end up with some dialogue orphans.
I remember reading the script for Black Swan, and I was just appalled at the number of orphans, and if I recall correctly, the version of the script that I read (it was actually a group read here on SS) had an extra 20 pages due to wasted lines with an orphan that didn't need to be there.
For me, it's simply an editing function, as in eveyr time I see an orphan, it draws me to reread the line/passage and 99% of the time, it is very simple to do away with the orphan, without taking a single thing away from the read.
With 50 give or take lines to work with on each page, just think what happens to your feature script of 100 pages when you have 2 orphans on every page. You have an extra 4 pages in your script. Do the simple math with 3, 4, 5 orphans per page - your script gets bloated and runs longer than it needs to.
There is always something wrong if you didn't write a line as efficiently and clearly as possible.
On my second run-through of a script, I always examine each orphan to see if there was a crisper/shorter way to write that line and therefore avoid it. I would guess about 90% of the time I am able to get rid of the orphan by writing the line better.
So, I think I am sync with Jeff here for the most part.
I would side with Jeff and Dave, as well. The thing about orphans, they don't bother me but if you can get rid of them and shorten your script that little, extra bit, why not do it?
That said, if you have a line worded perfectly and it ends in an orphan, don't make it clunky to remove the orphan.
Had scripts, short and feature length, read and reviewed by a variety of producers, directors, readers etc... orphans have never come up... life's short, so are orphans, crack on.
Basically the way I felt about them. Then I kept reading more and more "the rules" - Then when you read great scripts they don't follow them.
Of corse as you guys pointed out - orphans do serve a purpose - they force you to look at your work and be more concise if possible;e. Seems in the action line it's a lot more possible to remove them then loosing a character's "voice" in dialogue.
I went back in the script I just finished last week and was able to remove all but one orphan and I actually think it read better.
Interesting thing is that Chinatown is 128 pages in original form - probably because of all the orphans - If we try to even get 128 pages read - well - you know that story.
Going back to the original OP, I think it’s probably best to go with what you see the pros doing whilst taking into account how established they already are and if they have any other roles with that particular project, like being the director for example which can mean they have more power to bend the rules for example.
However I think the main thing is readability, and how well you’re able to tell a good story.
For example people get their nickers in a twist about unfilmables, but that’s just silly. Yes you don’t want to go overboard, but if it helps the reader, who could be the actor playing that role for example, better understand what is going on, then I see no harm in that, and neither do many of the pros from what I can tell.
Forgive my ignorance but can someone explain "orphans" to me. I'm guilty of over writing, is this the same thing?
Thanks
O
Usually, yeah, it's related to overwriting. When you write a line of prose (or dialogue, to some people) and it goes onto the next line by one word, that's an orphan.
Not over-writing per se. Just means when you a single word leak over to the next line.
Crazy thing is that I've had people tell me this on dialogue. If you have an orphan in your dialogue, don't mess with it, unless you have a better line of dialogue to replace it.