Stressing out.

Robbie Comeau

Robbie Comeau

Como's back. back again
Hey guys, here's my problem.

So far, i have written about 5 scenes. And i haven't even gotten to the conflict yet. I did a rehearsal with my self, read all of my script that o have so far, and I'm at roughly 3:21 (without the 10 second credits).....I'm worried I'm going to get at the 8 minute mark when I'm done shooting and editing my video, kinda like Stale blood. Now i can easily trim down Stale Blood (http://blip.tv/file/442748?filename=ComeauProductions-StaleBlood406.mov for those who haven't seen it)

But this is a little harder, as there's more dialog. What are your methods to get your video in on the right time? What can i do in the writing and planning process?

Thanks!
 
Have your dialogue be funny so that you can direct your actors to deliver it real fast and then the movie will play as snappy and funny.
 
Read through your dialogue again. How much of that dialogue really pushes your story forward? Be honest with yourself. If it doesn't push the story forward, cut it. Say more with less.
 
George Bernard Shaw once wrote "If I had more time, I'd write a shorter letter."

Brevity > Most other things (including cherry pies, though it's a close one).
 
Way too early to stress out yet. When writing the script... don't allow yourself to go over six pages. It's that easy.

Run it by a few people that you trust and they can probably narrow it down even further.

Cut the fluff! Leave only what drives the story forward.

Good luck,

Mike
 
In a short film (really any film), you need to start with the conflict. Do not ramp up to it. It's okay if the first words out of someone's mouth are right in the heat of the moment.
 
Chris Messineo said:
In a short film (really any film), you need to start with the conflict. Do not ramp up to it. It's okay if the first words out of someone's mouth are right in the heat of the moment.
Click to expand...
Although I do agree with this 100% I also believe that you can build up to it. It's not out of the question.

Nothing wrong with starting in the thick of it though, as long as the viewer isn't left confused.

Mike
 
Boil it down to the basics of a scene. Figure out what are you trying to convey in that scene and than just get right to it. Its the nature of a short. You don't really have the time to build up something so you have to thrust your audience right into it.

For example, if one of your character is going to reveal that he or she is dying to someone and the purpose of the scene is to show how the other person reacts, you can have a scene that slowly builds to the reveal or you can just come right out and say it and have a short scene where the two react to it.

Just boiling it down to what is the purpose of the scene is what I find works best.
 
if your script is literally ALL dialogue ... you might be able to give yourself 5.5-6 pages, but definitely give your words some room to breathe.

if you have paragraphs blocks of description/action, cut it down to 4 pages. For reference ... IN PIECES was 3.25 pages, and ended up being 4:39, and that was ALOT of dialogue.

5 scenes without getting the conflict? I would agree, you need to just start over. I would say nine times outta ten, if i write a 6 page script, it's usually an 8 minute or longer film.

Start working with a smaller concept.
 
Since it sounds like you are fairly new to screenplay writing, I would recommend you read as many scripts as you can get your hands on. I think (short of actually writing) that is one of the best ways to learn what works and what doesn't.
 
It's old advice, but I wish more filmmakers would follow it--get into your scene late and leave early. A 5-6 minute short should be all bone and sinew--no fat. If you haven't grabbed people by the balls in the first 30-45 seconds, you will lose your audience. Some filmmakers think of a great ending or twist--maybe 30 seconds, and everything else is a lead-up. You can't expect people to bide their time waiting for something that *might* be delivered. In the first 45 seconds I better have the setup and a burning desire to know what happens next.

How about an opening scene where you see a distraught guy shielding his face, a woman is yelling, a large book hits him in the head, he's running out of the house, the woman yells--"don't think I won't tell your wife everything!"

Bam. In 15 seconds you know the main character's been cheating on his wife, and has an angry mistress who may try to reveal the affair to his wife. What's he going to do? What's the woman going to do?

Just an example, but think about setting up an interesting situation that you can unfold and lead to a resolution. Yes, you'll be building toward the resolution, but without the setup, you're relying on people to watch in the hope it might turn out interesting. The setup can be a mystery--it doesn't have to be loaded with a lot of exposition. As in, WTF just happened?--is that a rat riding in the back seat? I gotta watch and see what this is about.

I see some filmmakers that use the bricklayer approach. I'll start with nothing and keep adding a brick until everyone can see what I'm building. I think that's a mistake--for any film.
 
And to follow up Barry's comment. If you really want ratchet that film up a few more notches, figure out an unexpected reason why that man is being attacked by the woman who is threatening to tell his wife.

That is a great opening scene, and we fully expect that he is cheating on his wife and she is threatening to tell her... but what if it turns out be something else completely (of course it needs to be something equally as intense/full of conflict as him cheating, not just that he's thinking of going to Disneyland without her :) )
 
Great point Larry. Maybe the woman turns out to be an accountant at his company and they're in on some scam together his wife doesn't know about. Maybe a quick shot of the thrown book--an accounting text--foreshadows that later development.
 
StefanHaynes said:
George Bernard Shaw once wrote "If I had more time, I'd write a shorter letter."

Brevity > Most other things (including cherry pies, though it's a close one).
Click to expand...
One of my favorite quotes. Hate to nitpick, but I believe it actually comes from Pascal. "I made this letter longer because I lacked the time to make it short."

Barry_S said:
It's old advice, but I wish more filmmakers would follow it--get into your scene late and leave early. A 5-6 minute short should be all bone and sinew--no fat. If you haven't grabbed people by the balls in the first 30-45 seconds, you will lose your audience. Some filmmakers think of a great ending or twist--maybe 30 seconds, and everything else is a lead-up. You can't expect people to bide their time waiting for something that *might* be delivered. In the first 45 seconds I better have the setup and a burning desire to know what happens next.

...I see some filmmakers that use the bricklayer approach. I'll start with nothing and keep adding a brick until everyone can see what I'm building. I think that's a mistake--for any film.
Click to expand...
That is great advice Barry. I needed to hear that stated so clearly. Something I gotta work on... :thumbsup:
 
So, there are really two approaches here:

1) Listen to Barry. Take a look at your final conflict. Craft your short around that final scene (there can still be a beginning, middle and end). Some exposition/dialogue might be replaced with time-efficient visuals. I think Spielberg does this a lot: ie, a trophy case full of real estate awards to communicate that the hero has a long career in real estate; lengthy debate about what killed Chrissy is reduced to a typewriter and, "SHARK ATTACK"; or,

2) Ignore Barry. Then, you could use montage techniques that television commercials use. Quick shot-pov-reaction to communicate snippets of information. You're still reducing dialogue, but you get to keep every historical event... albeit only the 'punchline' of each event.

If you have to keep all of the dialogue, then yeah, try Tarantino's technique of fast delivery.

But, Barry's great summary should be considered.

(is it permitted to link away from site?... one screenwriter's reference has articles on entering scenes late: www.wordplayer.com from some guys who wrote a couple small movies :smile: )
 
Last edited:
TheComo said:
Thanks all!

What is tarentinos trick?
Click to expand...

I think that artofsuntzu is referring to how Tarantino usually has his actors deliver their dialogue very quickly and with lightning-fast repartee. It's pretty stylized as I know very few people who actually talk like this. But if the script suits the style and the actors can pull it off it works well.

The problem with this type of delivery (as with any stylized kind) is that if it fails it will be really stilted and annoying. It'll come off as the film trying to be a lot cooler/smarter than it actually it. I think a lot of writer/directors who go for this stlye feel that all they need to do to write dialogue is come up with a lot of witty comebacks. As a punchline at the end of the scene those are great, but filling up an entire script with them usually doesn't work out. Films like Miller's Crossing would be an exception.

I'll stop the hijack here, hope the explanation helps.
 
My advice, write the story you want to write. Get all of your ideas out on paper even if it is 30 pages. Then when you read back through it it will become very obvious what is necessary and what isn't. You can keep the gold and toss away the rest. Also if you really love some of the stuff in the beginning before the conflict, maybe there are ways you can work it in later. Or save it for another film.
 
Yup, davide nailed it. Fast-pace as a style, not so much a trick.

Look at the first page of Pulp Fiction and you'll see how Tarantino instructed his actors to read. "... Their dialogue is to be said in a rapid-pace HIS GIRL FRIDAY fashion... "
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top