How to incorperate camera movement into the script?

S

Snapper123

Well-known member
Hey ya'll, when I try to write scripts, it's problematic for me because with my films, I see so many factors at one time (camera movement, music, focal length, general depth of field, actor movement, dialogue, lighting) that turning it into something more like a book is extremely tough, and with scripts, it's hard to chunk everything together; it seems like you almost have to have one script for dialogue, one script for camera direction, one script for the general movement, ect ect, or else the details overflow and it becomes very boring. But when you're trying to pitch your script, it's neither good to leave out details in the sense that you don't know anything about filmmaking, but you also don't want to make it overflowed or boring - nor do you want to send 5 different scripts each with a different purpose.

So what do you do? Do you try to write a visual short story (aka the style of the Harry Potter books) as the sypnopsis, letting it play out with many perspective details, and using that as your pitch? Or do you do it the traditional way, scripting out dialogue and adding detail notes before and after the actor's lines in a very technical way? I mean really, scripts as I know them are best suited for theater plays, they hardly work for me when trying to put a film on paper. And really, I'm a very detailed guy, when I see a shot, I visualize general focal lengths, apertures, lighting, position, actor movement, camera movement, music, picture style, ect ect. And honestly, I really would like to put that detail in a script, but I really don't know how.
 
If you are writing a story you will direct yourself, you can write it anyway you want to. If however you are writing for a director or producer, or maybe you just want to sell a short script, DO NOT add any camera directions. You write the short story as VISUALLY as possible to put the entire story inside someone's head. That's when you know you've done it right when they can see it in their mind.

I don't ever use camera direction other than "we pull back to reveal" - I think that's about it.
 
I think you're asking two separate questions that aren't really related. As to putting camera "movement" into the script, you can certainly PUSH IN on and CLOSE ON various persons and objects if it's necessary to the plot. (E.g. a green handled letter opener is sitting on a desk and it's important that people know that a green handled letter opener is sitting on a desk). This "movement" will probably be ignored, but for clarity's sake you can certainly put it in there. However if you're not penning the shooting script then this should be used sparingly.

As to a prose-like narrative flow in your scripts, I think that's essential. You can go on for ten minutes about how the flowers in the frame look and how the character feels about the flowers if you want to, but usually brevity is best in the screenplay format because it helps time-per-page estimates. I would say a good average would be 30% of the page taken up by narrative description and slug lines and 70% dialog. Obviously there are going to be variations (when a scene is just getting going it will probably have more narrative description and once it's in full swing it will probably be dialog heavy), but I think if you keep to this average it will help you pear down your scritps.

As an aside I think it's worth noting that animation scripts actually do require that the writer put down each and every shot. In animation (and comics) the writer is kind of like the writer and the 1st AD. When doing episodic dramas or films, though, you do not have the job of framing the thing -- that's what the director is hired for, just as the actor is hired to deliver the lines so that putting "(angrily and with severe contention)" before an actor's line is in poor taste unless the behavior isn't dictated by the circumstances -- in which case I'd still say that somewhere in the script the character wasn't fleshed out enough - framing each shot for the director is just pointless and unprofessional.

A screenplay writer is only writing the STORY, that's it. The mechanics should be left to technicians putting the script on film.

Maybe what you really want to do is write and direct your own films. If so, welcome to DVXUSER. ;)

GL
 
Charli said:
If you are writing a story you will direct yourself, you can write it anyway you want to.
Click to expand...

Right, but if that script is also the one the actors get, too much 'black' can be really cumbersome. A script I co/rewrote a while back was done like this at the insistence of the director/initial writer, and it was an eyesore. Unfortunately the actors must read all that crap, page after cumulative page of it, because essential information will sometimes be in there. But wading through it all to find out if and where those important bits might (or more often might not) be was a huge PITA for the actors, which included me...

If however you are writing for a director or producer, or maybe you just want to sell a short script, DO NOT add any camera directions...

...I don't ever use camera direction other than "we pull back to reveal" - I think that's about it.
Click to expand...

I agree, along with any other camera or technical notes (edits, etc.), without which *an essential* visual concept or intention would be *absolutely, positively unclear or misleading*. Otherwise, yes, leave that up to the director, DOP etc.

The same script I referenced above was also chock-a-block with maddeningly detailed descriptions of these things, which also included ridiculously detailed descriptions of actors' arm/leg/head movements during fight scenes etc., etc., etc. Oy vey...

It sounds to me like the best solution for Snapper123 is to have two scripts; a 'clean' one, like Charli and I are describing, and a 'shooting script' where any tech information is added, which is generally used only by the crew. Along with optional (but recommended) shot lists and storyboards (also for crew use only), that should pretty much satisfy his requirements.

Lastly (as Charli says), if it's a script to be shown to others for their production considerations (aka a 'spec' script), the 'clean' version is the only one that should *ever* be submitted. Specs with more than the minimum of technical info have a tendency to get 'fast-tracked'...into the trash.
 
Last edited:
I wrote an article on another forum, briefly addressing this topic. It was part of a series of articles I'm writing there about effective writing, and the first three parts used heavy Inception references, partially as a joke and partially because Inception has a s..tload of filmmaking advice disguised as character dialogue. <grin>

As a side-note before I copy-paste the article, I never use any camera reference, never mention the audience (by saying "we see," "we hear" etc.), never use CLOSE ON or PUSH IN. I think all of that distracts the reader and reminds him/her that they're just reading a script. I like for the reader to see the story, and to do so I challenge myself to write visually. If there isn't a way to say it without using out-of-story references to the camera, audience or anything else, then I just won't say it at all.

Here's the article (slightly incoherent):

------------------------------------------

“We create the world of the dream and the subject fills it with their subconscious.”
- Arthur, from Inception

So, taking that from a filmmaker-to-audience perspective and adapting it to a screenwriter-to-reader perspective, my thoughts accordingly…

People have mentioned elsewhere the rule of screenwriting wherein the writer is told not to “direct from the script.”

I disagree.

What is the script but directions for how to create a film?

A writer must think visually, in close-ups and long shots, low angle, high angle, inserts, master shots, pans, tilts, dolly shots. If we’re not thinking of these things, we’re writing accidentally. Which is a bad thing.

A Very Bad Thing.

The problem comes not when a writer conveys how the story should be told on film, but when he conveys it poorly.

I’ll give you two examples, one good, one bad, of how writers can communicate their story visually.

(Note, the bad version will contain several different ways that writers try to communicate shots - consistency is not to be sought here. <grin>)

BAD VERSION.

INT. BANQUET HALL - NIGHT

JEREMY enters through a service door in the back. CLOSE UP of his eyes, scanning the room. We hear the sound of laughter as he looks around.

A wide shot of the gathered crowd, sitting in groups at their tables, eating meals they picked from the buffet line in the center of the room.

CLOSE ON: Jeremy spots her and scowls.

The camera follows Jeremy as he walks over to CASSANDRA’s table.

LOW-ANGLE: Cassandra laughs giddily with her friends. We see Jeremy standing behind her.

A close-up of his hand, suddenly holding a gun at his side.
He raises the gun.

CLOSE UP: He puts the barrel against the back of her head. We hear the hammer being pulled back.

JEREMY
Bam!

She screams as we cut to-

-a wide shot of the startled crowd. Jeremy laughs uproariously.

JEREMY
Just kidding!

THE END.

That is directing from the script. It’s clunky, hard to read, and pulls the reader out of the story as they try to imagine the shots that the inceptor, I mean! ...writer... is putting in their head.

And now for the good version.

INT. BANQUET HALL - NIGHT

JEREMY enters through a service door in the back. His dark eyes. They scan the room, not distracted by the laughter or the excitement.

The gathered crowd, dining together at their separate tables. A group of groups. Each focused on their own conversations and their own meals. The buffet line in the center of the room needs replenished.

Jeremy spots her, and scowls.

He strides to her table, head low, his gait is quick.

CASSANDRA laughs and sips her wine. Jeremy towers behind her.

His hand. Holding a gun at his side.

He raises the gun…

...and pushes it against the back of her head. The cocking of the hammer.

A savage cry makes Cassandra scream.

A Korean in high-class chef garb karate kicks Jeremy in a particularly hurtful place.

Jeremy falls to the ground, clutching himself and groaning in pain.

JEREMY
It was just a joke!

KOREAN CHEF
Not funny!

THE END.

See the difference? While the second version is certainly not perfect, it reads much smoothly..er. <grin> And most importantly, you’re telling the story and allowing the reader to feel as though the shots themselves are their own idea. It’s done! Inception CAN be accomplished!
 
Minor Slugs

Minor Slugs

If you really have to,

A MINOR SLUG is a way to put the camera in a new area- can be used for a closeup. I wouldnt write in dollys or pans.

-------------------------------------------------------------

example:

INT. WAREHOUSE- MIDNIGHT

AT THE WINDOW

Glass shatters as Johnny Two Guns leaps into the room,

HIS GUNS

Blaze BRATATATATATATAT

AT THE DOORWAY

two thugs scramble for cover.

JOHNNY

covered in sweat, reloads.

JOHNNY
Stand and fight you f*ckers!


​

Look at the Inglorious Basterds screenplay for examples. Is that any better than this, tho?:


-------------------------------------------------------------

Glass shatters as Johnny Two Guns crashes through the window, guns blazing BRATTATATAT.
Two thugs scramble for cover, as Johnny reloads, dripping sweat.

-----------------

so yeah dont overdo it. The example was exagerated to make a point, again check out inglorious basterds.
 
Last edited:
right...just capitlaize the NOUNS you want the CAMERA to focus on and the DIRECTOR will do the rest.
 
zaarc said:
right...just capitlaize the NOUNS you want the CAMERA to focus on and the DIRECTOR will do the rest.
Click to expand...

This drives me nuts, personally. I don't think CAPITALIZING random words instead of writing "CLOSE ON" fools anyone. Don't try to be the director unless, you know, you're the director.
 
All-capping words is intended to make them easy to pick out of the script. It's easier for the prop department to inadvertently miss the need for a bottlecap than for a BOTTLECAP, for example.

That's pretty much the entire reason as I understand it, whether it's props or other (presumably) crucial notes. It does make a casual read of the script a bit more cumbersome, but most readers get used to it I think. Unless it's excessive, which it often is : )
 
I agree that if you're directing the film yourself, write it however you want. You can always divide it into different production drafts for actors and crew later to weed out redundancies and tedium.

If you're not directing the film, don't pretend you are on the script. There are times when it's appropriate to say "we focus in to reveal..." in the action for suspense or revelatory reasons, but overload a story with that sort of stuff and the reader is taken right out of it.

EDIT: But, y'know, even "we focus in to reveal..." is unnecessary if we can write "As they move to leave, we realize that Samantha was standing in the doorway the entire time and heard everything" or whatever. It very subtly suggests a rack focus without infringing on the director's territory. There's always a way to get away with things, you'll just have to bang your head against the desk until you find something that works and isn't intrusive.
 
Last edited:
If youre a screen writer. Concentrate on writing great scripts - dont try to direct them.
 
Noel Evans said:
If youre a screen writer. Concentrate on writing great scripts - dont try to direct them.
Click to expand...

Well, I think the assumption is that if a screenwriter was using this particular forum (there are many other forums that do a great job of concentrating just on screenwriting), he or she is probably very likely interested in directing it themselves.
 
zaarc said:
right...just capitlaize the NOUNS you want the CAMERA to focus on and the DIRECTOR will do the rest.
Click to expand...


not really.

a minor slug is a specific spot on the location for example:

INT. CONVENIENCE STORE

AT THE CASH REGISTER

or...

AT THE SLURPY MACHINE

but you can use them for closeups or even the passage of time because they represent moving the camera to a new place.

Inglorious Basterds page 108.

http://www.script-o-rama.com/snazzy/dircut.html
 
vcassel said:
Well, I think the assumption is that if a screenwriter was using this particular forum (there are many other forums that do a great job of concentrating just on screenwriting), he or she is probably very likely interested in directing it themselves.
Click to expand...

Even so, I still think its better to concentrate on writing a great script - then when done you can direct it, write in your shot notes etc.

Also please note - the OP was asking for opinions. This is mine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top