The Art of film making without a Script?

BORAT had an actual screenplay which was written by 5 actual writers... which was used to improvise scenes with total strangers. The scripted material could contain a story, specific lines with specific wording that could be used as "call backs", and the Borat material to create the improvised scenes.

Though making a film without a script is an interesting experiment, there are a bunch of good reasons to have a script (budgeting, schedules, etc) and a script allows for more depth in your film - for instance, something like an "echo line" - a line of dialogue that is repeated through the film but changes meanings each time it is used. Or "nexus words" - words and phrases connected to the theme of your story that help explore theme and highlight theme throughout the film (for instrance - in MINORITY REPORT Agent Witwer is called an "observer" from the Justice Department rather than an "agent" because the scripts uses words having to do with sight which connects to the theme, and the story uses eyes throughout as well). With a screenplay you don't end up with a surface story - the first thing someone thinks of on set - but dialogue with multiple meanings and depth.

Remember when you had that argument and the next morning came up with that great response to something the other person said? Every line in a screenplay are those next-day responses. You've had a lifetime to come up with that perfect, great, line... and you put all of those lines in a script. Not the first thing that comes into your head, the *best* thing that comes into your head.

- Bill
 
I personally would never waste my time doing this but.... if you can do it.... go for it. If you are that good then I wonder what your work would be like with a real script and Script Supervisor?
 
wcmartell said:
BORAT had an actual screenplay which was written by 5 actual writers... which was used to improvise scenes with total strangers. The scripted material could contain a story, specific lines with specific wording that could be used as "call backs", and the Borat material to create the improvised scenes.

Though making a film without a script is an interesting experiment, there are a bunch of good reasons to have a script (budgeting, schedules, etc) and a script allows for more depth in your film - for instance, something like an "echo line" - a line of dialogue that is repeated through the film but changes meanings each time it is used. Or "nexus words" - words and phrases connected to the theme of your story that help explore theme and highlight theme throughout the film (for instrance - in MINORITY REPORT Agent Witwer is called an "observer" from the Justice Department rather than an "agent" because the scripts uses words having to do with sight which connects to the theme, and the story uses eyes throughout as well). With a screenplay you don't end up with a surface story - the first thing someone thinks of on set - but dialogue with multiple meanings and depth.

Remember when you had that argument and the next morning came up with that great response to something the other person said? Every line in a screenplay are those next-day responses. You've had a lifetime to come up with that perfect, great, line... and you put all of those lines in a script. Not the first thing that comes into your head, the *best* thing that comes into your head.

- Bill
Click to expand...

That was great! I totally agree. Really well put.

HKB -- agreed.
 
GregPorter said:
For the past while now I've been thinking more and more about this subject because it affects me greatly..

Basically, when I come up with an idea for a short film or some other sort of video where it involves actors.. I don't really write a script or screenplay for it.
Click to expand...

According to either the IMDB trivia, or from the 'making of/retrospective' on "A Clockwork Orange"(1971), it was stated that while Kubrick did have a script originally, eventually he ended up just having the actors read out of the short story, then 'work' that into a performance. (was this movie over budget???).

This sort of thing takes dedication on everyone's part, and further, even though no 'script', using the book as a direct source, allowed the actors to read what the director read, and then come up with performances.

Again, everyone has the dedication and time to do this, it may be great...

However, in my opinion, for the most part 'improv' presentations are usually lacking, and perhaps 'fun' for those participating, but not 'fun' for people watching.
Here fun is not being used as in 'light entertainment', but such films are often painful to watch because of poor performances, poor sequencing, poor production values, etc.
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
According to either the IMDB trivia, or from the 'making of/retrospective' on "A Clockwork Orange"(1971), it was stated that while Kubrick did have a script originally, eventually he ended up just having the actors read out of the short story, then 'work' that into a performance. (was this movie over budget???).

This sort of thing takes dedication on everyone's part, and further, even though no 'script', using the book as a direct source, allowed the actors to read what the director read, and then come up with performances.

Again, everyone has the dedication and time to do this, it may be great...

However, in my opinion, for the most part 'improv' presentations are usually lacking, and perhaps 'fun' for those participating, but not 'fun' for people watching.
Here fun is not being used as in 'light entertainment', but such films are often painful to watch because of poor performances, poor sequencing, poor production values, etc.
Click to expand...

If what you say is true about the making of clockwork orange (the film) then it really shows.

In my opinion the film was a complete and utter disappointment. It didnt capture the feeling, tone, or pacing of the novel (short story?)
 
Last edited:
Nathan.Buxton said:
If you what you is true about the making of clockwork orange (the film) then it really shows.

In my opinion the film was a complete and utter disappointment. It didnt capture the feeling, tone, or pacing of the novel (short story?)
Click to expand...

That could be because of Kubrick... I never did read the original source book. But I have read the original "Traumnovelle" which was the basis for his final film, "Eyes Wide Shut"(1999), and I think it should have been done as a period piece, set in around 1910 or so... (even though Schnitzler published it in 1925, it 'feels' more from an
older age...).

As a 'modernized' and shifted in place piece, it feels wrong...
 
The source material was A Clockwork Orange, a novel by Anthony Burgess.

If you haven't read it, I'm puzzled as to how you arrive at the conclusion that that film didn't capture its feeling, pacing, or tone.
 
Sad Max said:
The source material was A Clockwork Orange, a novel by Anthony Burgess.

If you haven't read it, I'm puzzled as to how you arrive at the conclusion that that film didn't capture its feeling, pacing, or tone.
Click to expand...

I was commenting on another poster's response that the movie did not match their expections having read the book.

I indicated that in the case of Kubrick's last film, "Eyes Wide Shut"(1999), and having read the original source material for that film, namely Arthur Schnitzler's "Traumnovelle", that the movie did not meet 'my' expectations. I also suggested that I think it would have been better as a 'period piece' rather than a modernized and relocated adaptation.

In this latter case, it is a matter of how I read and interpreted the source, vs. how Kubrick read, interpreted, and adapted the source.
 
It's always been curious to watch these films made "improvised" with "no script", and yet have perfectly done matching angles and cut aways. There's obviously someone on set writing everyone's lines down, and making notes of what's in so-and-so's hands from this part to the next, etc.

It's not that there's no script, it's that the script is being written while the camera is rolling. That's fine if you have a huge budget and talented and patient actors and crew. But it doesn't save any time or aggravation, and things could be moved along more quickly if time was spent before filming figuring these things out and writing them down into a script.

Nothing in a script is set in stone anyway, and there's always the option of improvising from the script, and using what's written as a fallback if the actor's improvising is crap.
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
I was commenting on another poster's response that the movie did not match their expections having read the book.

I indicated that in the case of Kubrick's last film, "Eyes Wide Shut"(1999), and having read the original source material for that film, namely Arthur Schnitzler's "Traumnovelle", that the movie did not meet 'my' expectations. I also suggested that I think it would have been better as a 'period piece' rather than a modernized and relocated adaptation.

In this latter case, it is a matter of how I read and interpreted the source, vs. how Kubrick read, interpreted, and adapted the source.
Click to expand...

You know, I think I somehow conflated your post with Nathan's. Sorry about that.
 
Altman, Fellini, Jarmusch, and many other great filmmakers have made films from a blueprint of a script or no script altogether. It's not a bad habit, just a different method. I say just do what moves and inspires you.
 
jwing said:
Altman, Fellini, Jarmusch, and many other great filmmakers have made films from a blueprint of a script or no script altogether. It's not a bad habit, just a different method. I say just do what moves and inspires you.
Click to expand...

I absolutely understand, dig, and stand by that, BUT (of course), I have been doing a little retrospective of Altman's flicks off of NetFlix and I disagree. From what he's has said on several of the commentaries to his movies is that, since he early on at least, had studio financing, he always went into production with a very polished script. I mean for pete's sake, the script for "Mash" was written by Ring Lardner Jr, who won an Oscar for the effort. Now, what Altman says is that once he goes into production, he doesn't pay much attention to the script. Since he works (worked) so efficiently and with relatively limited budgets, I find it hard to believe that he deviated much from the core story structures of his scripts, or shooting schedules. I think that his improvisation, his on set creativity was in his work with the actors, and their development of their characters. What it seems to me what he did, was have a script, develop a strict shooting schedule, then based on that, went in and "Got creative" with the story. I think that he shot, not from the hip, but from a very pragmatic understanding of the script, and a great trust for the great actors he was able to work with. I think that he knew the script to the "Nth" degree and was competent enough to us it as a spring board to something greater. I believe that to think that you could pull off what Robert Altman was able to pull off, with out a script, is pretty pretentious.
I also suggest, for an obscure Altman flick, check out "Three Woman". It blew me away.

I am not able to really competently discuss the films of Fellini. I dig 8 1/2 and La Strada, but I just know that we live in different worlds, and I look forward to studying his films more.

I am a big Jarmusch fan, but am surprised that you say he does not use a carefully crafted script. I can see him also, not paying attention much to a script one he is in production, but it seems to me to get the projects his does off the ground, there would have to be more than just a "Blue Print".
 
On Altman and improv... Alan Rudolph says, "Altman was an innovator. His films might seem casual, but intentionally so. They were behavioral in appearance, but carefully crafted with ideas, and strong on consequence. Having served as a screenwriter for Bob, I can personally attest to his rigorous attention to writing. He just didn't want the result to seem written."

What actors *do* is make the written word seems spontaneous. The acting term for this is "illusion of the first time" - when you are doing take 13 of the line, it has to seem like it's coming off the top of your head - that you are responding to the other actor or the situation... not saying a line that is written in the script. Many films seem improvised when they are not. They are just well written.

- Bill
 
David G. Smith said:
I absolutely understand, dig, and stand by that, BUT (of course), I have been doing a little retrospective of Altman's flicks off of NetFlix and I disagree. From what he's has said on several of the commentaries to his movies is that, since he early on at least, had studio financing, he always went into production with a very polished script. I mean for pete's sake, the script for "Mash" was written by Ring Lardner Jr, who won an Oscar for the effort. Now, what Altman says is that once he goes into production, he doesn't pay much attention to the script. Since he works (worked) so efficiently and with relatively limited budgets, I find it hard to believe that he deviated much from the core story structures of his scripts, or shooting schedules. I think that his improvisation, his on set creativity was in his work with the actors, and their development of their characters. What it seems to me what he did, was have a script, develop a strict shooting schedule, then based on that, went in and "Got creative" with the story. I think that he shot, not from the hip, but from a very pragmatic understanding of the script, and a great trust for the great actors he was able to work with. I think that he knew the script to the "Nth" degree and was competent enough to us it as a spring board to something greater. I believe that to think that you could pull off what Robert Altman was able to pull off, with out a script, is pretty pretentious.
I also suggest, for an obscure Altman flick, check out "Three Woman". It blew me away.

I am not able to really competently discuss the films of Fellini. I dig 8 1/2 and La Strada, but I just know that we live in different worlds, and I look forward to studying his films more.

I am a big Jarmusch fan, but am surprised that you say he does not use a carefully crafted script. I can see him also, not paying attention much to a script one he is in production, but it seems to me to get the projects his does off the ground, there would have to be more than just a "Blue Print".
Click to expand...

I am not as much an expert on Altman's process, but yeah, I think I was indeed referring to his approach with the actors of letting things flow. But I do know that with Fellini, he actually would tell the actors right before filming what the scene was about, and would let them make up dialogue--the crew too, apparently. He didn't treat all films this way, but he was known to let movies sort of write themselves organically as they went along.

I read a couple of interviews with Jarmusch where he actually said that for some of his films, he would write a 20-30 page script, and come up with the actual plan for the scene and the dialogue the night before filming or during. On his recent film Limits of Control, he said that he basically had a blueprint, but would even let not only the acting but also the cinematography flow organically.

Director Mike Leigh actually once said that he also avoids scripts, and just goes in with a rough idea of the story, and lets his creative team make it all happen on the spot. I remember him saying something like how people don't paint a painting from a script, or take a photo from a script, or write a song from a script, etc., so why must movies conform to having a script? Why can't they just be made on the spot with the same kind of inspiration?

Of course, the important thing to note here is that these guys can afford to have that kind of approach. They have that kind of freedom to experiment. It is definitely harder when you're on a tight budget and schedule. My main point is just that it is definitely not a bad habit.

As for me, I like something in between. Unless I had an amazing team and tons of money, I would hate to go into production without a script, or at least a relatively substantial one. I just think it's interesting and great that there are directors who disregard this notion simply because they can.
 
jwing said:
I am not as much an expert on Altman's process, but yeah, I think I was indeed referring to his approach with the actors of letting things flow. But I do know that with Fellini, he actually would tell the actors right before filming what the scene was about, and would let them make up dialogue--the crew too, apparently. He didn't treat all films this way, but he was known to let movies sort of write themselves organically as they went along.

I read a couple of interviews with Jarmusch where he actually said that for some of his films, he would write a 20-30 page script, and come up with the actual plan for the scene and the dialogue the night before filming or during. On his recent film Limits of Control, he said that he basically had a blueprint, but would even let not only the acting but also the cinematography flow organically.

Director Mike Leigh actually once said that he also avoids scripts, and just goes in with a rough idea of the story, and lets his creative team make it all happen on the spot. I remember him saying something like how people don't paint a painting from a script, or take a photo from a script, or write a song from a script, etc., so why must movies conform to having a script? Why can't they just be made on the spot with the same kind of inspiration?

Of course, the important thing to note here is that these guys can afford to have that kind of approach. They have that kind of freedom to experiment. It is definitely harder when you're on a tight budget and schedule. My main point is just that it is definitely not a bad habit.

As for me, I like something in between. Unless I had an amazing team and tons of money, I would hate to go into production without a script, or at least a relatively substantial one. I just think it's interesting and great that there are directors who disregard this notion simply because they can.
Click to expand...

You know, I did forget about Mike Leigh. Yeah, he has used his method to great effect, I like his films. I am a huge Jarmusch fan also. I also have to give props to my favorite film, "Apocalypse Now". Coppola went off into the jungle with a John Milious script that was abandoned early on, and, made up a story as he went along. In the end, he came up with a masterpiece.

I just think that going into a project thinking that you are another Mike Leigh, Fredrico Fellini, Jim Jarmusch, Robert Altman or Francis Ford Coppola, and can improvise your way to a good film is very pretentious, and wrought with the possibility of failure. I think that it is good to look at the films of the above filmmakers, and note that a strong narrative line is not a hallmark of their work. They most definitely make films that put character and emotion above narrative. If this is also the kind of films that you want to make, then emulating their methods would be a good thing. If you are seeking a strong narrative line in your films, maybe the working methods of more controlled, script based filmmakers would be in order.

I am also not saying that a novice filmmaker should not attempt to make films this way. Just saying, all things being equal, it is better to have a script. What is most evident on this board is that the technology of making a film is virtually within the means of almost every one. It is also evident on this board that just mastering the the technology of making a film is not always enough to make a good film. That being said, the best way to find out if what you are thinking about will work is to go out and try it. If you have a camera, a place to shoot, some actors and an idea... then what the f*ck are your waiting for... make a f*cking movie!! If that one does not work.... make a f*cking other one, and so on, and so on!!!
 
David G. Smith said:
I just think that going into a project thinking that you are another Mike Leigh, Fredrico Fellini, Jim Jarmusch, Robert Altman or Francis Ford Coppola, and can improvise your way to a good film is very pretentious, and wrought with the possibility of failure.
Click to expand...

Well, who did they think they were when they first started doing it? Who cares? I say, if you feel like an approach is the right way for a project, if your intuition leads you in that direction and you have a team that is up for the challenge, then why not? So what if it seems pretentious? Just because we admire and emulate the methods of the masters doesn't mean that we are assuming that we are them.

For the record, a lot of critics and moviegoers alike have called all of those filmmakers pretentious anyway. Heh. So be it.
 
jwing said:
Well, who did they think they were when they first started doing it? Who cares? I say, if you feel like an approach is the right way for a project, if your intuition leads you in that direction and you have a team that is up for the challenge, then why not? So what if it seems pretentious? Just because we admire and emulate the methods of the masters doesn't mean that we are assuming that we are them.

For the record, a lot of critics and moviegoers alike have called all of those filmmakers pretentious anyway. Heh. So be it.
Click to expand...


First off... I don't believe in 'beginner's intuition'...

Second... which of these film makers made films, and which such films, 'without a script'.
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
First off... I don't believe in 'beginner's intuition'...

Second... which of these film makers made films, and which such films, 'without a script'.
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting that people throw scripts out the window. I'm not calling it "beginner's intuition." I'm just saying, that if you have an idea, but it's not fully fleshed out, and you have a cast and crew that would like to explore it in a different way, why limit yourself?

And while some of these directors may have filmed without a script, I'm not sure which precise ones, but what I mean is that there was more of a storyline in a basic form, but the dialogue and exact actions were kind of made up as they went along. As far as I know, La Dolce Vita and 8 1/2 were made this way, among others, and as for Jarmusch, I've read a lot of interviews where he talked about his films and they would have a blueprint type script and just make up the dialogue and even shots sometimes the night before or the day of shooting. Again, this is not to say that these directors disregard scripts, but that they might have a method of using a mere skeletal form of a script and add the rest during production. Mike Leigh said in an interview that they created the script for Happy Go Lucky on the fly during production (granted, the film didn't look very appealing to me, but I'm just saying it was his approach).

I just think that it's easy for people to get stuck onto the idea that there is a right way of making art. Sure, there are rules, and they are best broken only when one already knows the rules, but there is nothing wrong with finding other ways to make art, film included.
 
jwing said:
I just think that it's easy for people to get stuck onto the idea that there is a right way of making art. Sure, there are rules, and they are best broken only when one already knows the rules, but there is nothing wrong with finding other ways to make art, film included.
Click to expand...

Yes, I can very much agree with that. There is absolutely no "Right Way" to anything creative. I also think that the inverse of the "No Script" apporach, that is, having a detailed script, and not allowing any creative changes during production, is probably not the correct approach for most filmmakers either. A mid ground, of being prepared, while also being flexible and using the talents of your actors and other collaborators sounds very good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top