Screenwriting tip - talking heads

Quite honestly, if someone submitted a script to me that said, "She fights, she wins," I would feel a certain laziness on the part of the writer. I know what all the "people in the know" say about keeping it Spartan, but as I said earlier, it still needs to be a good read. A writer has to be aware that what he/she has written will be changed but anything he/she can do to help give a visual representation of what he/she is trying to convey is a help. Certainly, you aren't trying to write a novel, but you are still trying to tell a story. Thomas Harris, as a novelist, has a very visual way of telling a story. As I read his stories, I could see how easily they could be adapted for the screen. It's just too bad, and I can't believe I'm about to say this, that Mamet (of all people) didn't do a better job of adaptation.

Boy, has this post wandered...:)
 
Charli said:
Kholi - which is great, really, let them map out the fight scene. SPEC writing
however is different. You may want to show a little move here or there to
reveal the skill level of your character. I don't necessarily mean to
choreograph the entire sequence, but enough to show certain "abilities."

I wrote a spec script (which lacked internal struggle but was great on extrernal
struggle) in which I sketched a few fight scenes. I got brownie points from
a professional writer (who rewrote a few fight scenes for "Shanghai West") who
said the action was crisp and streamline. The scenes helped with the pacing
of the story and with the storytelling - key here.

It really depends on the story, the SPEC story, whether you want to write:
She fights, wins; or, She charges, leaps into an arial bike-peddaling kick,
hits John square in the chest. Game over.

Depends on voice, style, but most of all, the need of the SPEC script.

Charli
Click to expand...

I agree with every point you hit on. I think I was just stating that as an idea on how some people write.

I like to do very mild choreography through verse, but I try to avoid going overboard.

It's cool to know that successful writers, though, don't need to divulge so much info in such sequences. I guess you really have to be on that success level yeah?
 
I would say Charlie's advice is pretty good. I have seen loads of movies where people look like they are forced to talk to each other because they are doing "nothing" else except talking. If you have fantastic actors, they usually are able to pull it off. howevever, considering that most of us are Indie-film-makers with small budgets, adding a secondary activity makes it easier on the new actors as well. They dont looked forced, or akwards.

As many here have said though, the menial activity could be made more interesting if it revealed character as well in the process. In my opinion, that is a must.

Sometimes, though, doing something is detrimental to the character. In my script, a character is basically a lazy good-for-nothing dude who would rather buy a cup of coffee than make one. Having him do something like cutting onions etc would be giving off the wrong message. He simply looks out a window while he is talking instead. (There is reason for why he looks out the window ofcourse)
 
Callaghan's
emoticon-14.gif
...


I think some wires are being crossed here that are causing unneeded confusion. I don't think everyone is disagreeing quite as much as is being represented in this thread. In other words...

There are three types of screenwriters around these here parts:

#1. Filmmakers Who Write
Those who are writing either a short or a 90 page script that they themselves are planning on making into either an ultra-low budget or a no budget indie.

#2. Screenwriters Who Write
Those who are writing a script intended for selling/optioning (spec); or that they already have (on some level) a deal already in place to complete (commissioned).

-and-

#3. Overly-Ambitious Bastards Who Write
Those of us (of which I am guilty) who are attempting to juggle both #1 & #2.

The way one approaches EVERY bloody aspect of the writing process is going to be dependent on if one is embarking on a #1 or a #2 type o' script. Obviously #1-ers are going to write in a more personal, descriptive, rules-be-damned style. While #2-ers have to conform on some level to that less-is-more, let-the-director-direct, formal structure that has been with us sense the late 1920's (and which ain't going away any time soon.)

Some of the posts I have read sound like they are referring to #1, and work in that context. Likewise for other posts, which make poy-fect sense in relation to #2

The two approaches are ♪Day & Night - Night & Day♪, baby.
 
Last edited:
CallaghanFilms said:
Callaghan's
emoticon-14.gif
...




#1. Filmmakers Who Write
Those who are writing either a short or a 90 page script that they themselves are planning on making into either an ultra-low budget or a no budget indie.

#2. Screenwriters Who Write
Those who are writing a script intended for selling/optioning (spec); or that they already have (on some level) a deal already in place to complete (commissioned).




The two approaches are ♪Day & Night - Night & Day♪, baby.
Click to expand...

Totally the truth my brother. #1'ers can write however ever they want, they can have a character talking about love while jerking off a chimpanzee with one hand and having a samurai sword fight with the other. The only person the filmmaker has to impress is themselves or maybe their crew.

#2'ers don't have the luxury. They have to conform to industry guidelines while at the same time sound fresh, original, and engaging. And sadly, despite what some people here think, superfluous stage directions, scripted words that instruct actors to perform menial actions that neither reveal character nor drive the story are not part of accepted industry guidelines. Ignore them at your peril. You better have something pretty tasty up your sleave if you gonna start flaunting the rules.

I'm Not saying writing superfluous stage directions will kill a script, but to recommend it as something to "spice up" your story or worse yet, that doing so somehow transforms a talking heads scene to a visual storytelling experience is flat out wrong.

Again, if it's your own self produced movie, do whatever the hell you want. Write it in Reginald Santori's blood on a piece of cardboard. It won't matter.
 
If your stage directions reveal character you shouldn't have anything to worry about. And if you need menial actions to mask poor dialogue, your script needs more work.
 
Isaac_Brody said:
If your stage directions reveal character you shouldn't have anything to worry about. And if you need menial actions to mask poor dialogue, your script needs more work.
Click to expand...
Isaac speaks wisely.
Those are words to live by...er write by, sure.
 
Isaac_Brody said:
If your stage directions reveal character you shouldn't have anything to worry about. And if you need menial actions to mask poor dialogue, your script needs more work.
Click to expand...

Hear that folks? He's the moderator, he knows these things. Moderators are like gods, except more powerful.

Seriously, lots of people have lined up behind some misinformation. Hopefully this will settle it once and for all.

If someone came into the hvx forum and started advising people to always shoot slightly out of focus to create a filmlook i think some one call them on it pretty quickly.
 
Eh, being a mod doesn't make me a better writer. I just don't think my characters should be churning butter to mask their boring dialogue.

Well, speaking of churning butter, anyone seen Arnold's Schwarzanegger's Commando? At one point a couple of goons are standing around. One of them is rubbing a large bow knife over his wrist. The goon says something like, "Rubbing this knife over my wrist feels like cutting warm butter." It's a stupid wtf scene. I remember seeing it as a kid and thinking what's wrong with this guy? It was random, and the movie could've done without that scene. Well it could've done without a lot of scenes. :)

I just think script actions should be motivated, otherwise you're cutting warm butter.
 
Two sides to every coin. Some got what I wished to convey, some did not.
To those who did, may you sketch/shoot a better story.

Charli
 
Charli said:
My advice is to keep away from scenes with two Talking Heads and engage your actors in a menial activity. It will make the scene more realistic and meaninful.
Charli
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying, I just disagree with having the action be menial. I think it should be meaningful and motivated. Maybe the motivation is for realism, to give the story context and texture. I think the goal is to show and not tell, which has been rehashed several times in this thread. Your character should motivate the action.
 
Isaac, if the end result is less talking heads and more action with dialogue,
I'm for it just the same. Thanks for the discussion, Isaac.

Charli
 
Great discussion...when we're talking about the same thing. I think this thread has been dragged in directions far from the spirit in which it was offered.

Couple things. I don't remember anyone suggesting it was a good solution to mask bad dialogue with some sort of "wtf?" action. Not what Charli was saying.

There is a difference between "menial" and "meaningless." Someone chopping wood is engaged in a menial activity. Does that mean it's meaningless in the story? Maybe maybe not. But this might be contributing to peoples' misinterpretation of what was offered. I.e. Flossing is a menial activity with a shedload of meaning.

No one is saying the actions the characters take should be unmotivated, untruthful, or meaningless. At the very least, it should give context. But I think everyone is saying the same thing, albeit with a different approach. We are all agreeing that the actions should move story forward, reveal character, etc. Now that it's been written for the umpteenth time, can we move forward? Both the Julia Roberts examples were attempts to show what was intended. I think the one about flossing is a great example and the Commando example is a bad one. Why? Because, like you said Isaac, it seemed forced. What should we take from this then? See everyone's posts above about story, motivation, etc.

If a character would not make breakfast and just look out the window, fine. That is your character. This advice was a good suggestion, a tool so that your film isn't just two people talking. It's another layer given to your scene to accomplish the things everyone is talking about. If your scene would be hampered by adding something other than just two characters talking, guess what...have em just talking. It isn't about "injecting fat." It's about getting as much bang for your buck out of all your action, dialogue, etc. Having things work on many levels because we all know how quickly 90-120 pages gets used up.

I'm all for discussion and debate. Hell, we can even all have 100 different opinions on something and still be able to play poker with each other afterwards without the drama. However, I don't think it's fair to portray someone else's opinion in a light and spirit other than the one it was given in. (No one said: "Hey, check this out. If your dialogue sucks, no worries bro! Just make em play patty cake on a slip-n-slide! See how tricky that is? High Five!"). Whatever. As always, I love each and every one of you.

Besties,
Mischief
 
Does anyone else feel like writing a short film where characters are engaged in such menial activities as cowmilking, moving a pane of glass across a busy intersection, or self mutilation with a polo mallet? :evil:

I'm just kidding. I love you all like a fat kid loves chocolate. :)
 
Cine - you totally, on every level, get exactly the "spirit" of what I posted. My hats
off to you, bro. Thanks for the discussion everyone, I hope we at least are
contemplating more interesting scenes to film, if nothing else.

Charli
 
I don't know about the spirit of the advice offered--I only know what the explicit advice was--the post specifically cited a scene which Julia Roberts plays with a deck a cards while engaging in a talking heads scene. This was offered as an example of how to write/make a talking heads scene more interesting and meaningful.

This is simply bad advice. However, had this exact same advice been posted in a the director's forum, it'd be fine. But screenplays? Nope. Sorry. Do not pass go. Not good. Incorrectomundo. Don't it, don't think about it, don't dream about it. Every sentence should either reveal character or advance the story. It's just that simple folks.
 
I think we all know where you had stood, Brian. You must follow your heart
and as always, welcomed to speak your mind.

I come to these boards as a screenwriter. My first spec script, "Keys of Caesar" made
the quarter finals of the Austin Film Festivals, as did my second spec script, "Left
Field." The significance of this is that most first scripts never get anywhere. It's
not until the 9th script that a screenwriter even has the chance of selling anything.

I have aspirations to sell my third script. I may not be the best writer in the world,
but when it comes to the craft of screenwriting, I may have taken a few steps ahead
of the crowd here, why I decided to post this little bit of advice. When it comes
to filmmaking, directing, producing, all I have is three psa's under my belt.

Much to learn, much to understand.

At the end of the day, Brian, you and I are on opposite sides of the coin. May
we allow others to take what advice they will take, with whatever spirit or
intent that advice was given, and call it a day.

Thanks everyone, once again, for such a brilliant discussion.

Charli
 
Guess Susannah Grant and Richard Lagravenese thought about it, dreamt about it, passed go, and then did it. The card scene is actually written into the screenplay...and it's a nice little detail that adds something to the scene.

Here's the point: We're saying the same thing. "Every sentence should reveal character or advance the story" and/or do a lot of other things. Nothing should be superfluous. Now, there are going to be different writers having different perceptions on what is pertinent and what is not. I don't have a problem debating/discussing these details. That's interesting to me and I always like hearing other peoples' thoughts. I do, however, have a problem when someone's opinion/advice is misrepresented and then picked apart ad infinitum. We're missing the forest for the trees here. And as always, I love you all.
 
Charli said:
Talking Heads - this is where you have two people pretty much doing nothing but
talking. As a screenwriter I try to avoid this as much as possible.

Let's examine a scene from Erin Brockovich. Julia Roberts is in a scene with the
next door neighbor. They're just talking, but she's playing with a deck of cards.
She is engaged in an activity which makes her appear in "action." It's a simple
scene which flows rather smoothly.

If you have two people talking in the kitchen, one should make coffee, or even
spilt peas. If your scene is in the garage or outside, have one character work on
the engine of a car. A character can be painting their nails, fine tuning their guitar,
preparing a bbq, working on a website, ANYTHING.

My advice is to keep away from scenes with two Talking Heads and engage
your actors in a menial activity. It will make the scene more realistic and meaninful.

Charli
Click to expand...

Cinemischief, I misrepresented Nothing. I took nothing out of context. Here's the original post. If anyone is misrepresenting something it's you and others who are now talking about the post's "spirit". What does that mean? Its hidden meaning? Does it have a secret code imbedded? will it say something different if I hold a mirror up to it? The post says what it says.

Charli, I'm sure you're a talented writer but I don't care if you're a Nicholl fellow or just signed a 3 picture deal with Paramount. It's irrelevant. Bad advice is bad advice.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top