top secret crucial screenwriting technique pros know that you likely dont

tipota said:
I hate direction written out like:

ROBERT:
(with a sad but strong and also
a bit restless voice but also hit by the
sudden realisation that what
he believed Kierkegaard meant
to mankind but not to Monica)
"Oh no!"
Click to expand...

That could only come from a european writer... I don't think US scriptwriters have even heard of Kierkegaard. Or if they did, they took the Hollywood Brain Wash to relieve them of that sort of useless knowledge.

And definitely no selfrespecting Hollywood bound actor would have and so the parenthetical would have been totally useless...
 
Ted Spencer said:
2) As assistant director, she (mis)directed a rehearsal of another scene from the film, adding line interpretations that were completely at odds with the story arc. Why? almost certainly because, as she proudly announced early on, she 'just crosses out stage directions'. Oy, oy...
Click to expand...

I can understand why an actor would do this, as you are trying to be in the moment and don't want to be influenced by a pre-ordained inflection. You want to play the emotions as they actually hit you. But an assistant director? That's just stupid. It's the director's job to 'direct' the actors towards whatever emotion he and/or the writer is after.
 
hmmm I think you might be missing the point because actors deliver in different ways. The arrogance in the wording of your post is astonishing
 
Hey I havent been here for a minute, this deserves further mention:

You need physical actions (including "looks", hand motions, body language, etc) in your script, they are one of your MAJOR TOOLS for creating subtext. The conventional knowledge to not "direct on the page", is SIMPLY WRONG. You certainly should not OVER direct on the page, but again, physical actions create subtext. the challenge is to do it unobtrusively by choosing actions that are clear and bold and necessary to the story and character. There are also "cheats", like for example writing "Joe is ---clearly---- not buying it" to describe a look, etc, but youll learn those as you study scripts.

I will repeat, the Chinatown script makes mention after mention of Gittes "flashing a smile" which plays against the dialog and creates the subtext that he is a cool cat.

Do not trust me on this. Go read great scripts, and look for them. They are tastefully and subtly applied and not overdone, but they are there. Screenwriting teacher Dan Decker calls them VEC's ("visualized emotional cues") and they are, sadly, mentioned (almost) nowhere else.

Its also called visual storytelling

nycineaste "shoots a sad look" at anyone who doesnt (want to) get this, as he disappears in a puff of smoke.

NYCINEASTE
Godspeed...



Excerpt from Thelma and Louise.

Look for them, they are right there.

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



Darryl is checking himself out in the hall mirror, and it's obvious he likes what he sees. He exudes over- confidence for reasons that never become apparent. He likes to think of himself as a real lady killer. He is making imperceptible adjustments to his over-moussed hair. Thelma watches approvingly. THELMA Hon. DARRYL What. THELMA (she decides not to tell him) Have a good day at work today. DARRYL Uh-huh. THELMA Hon? DARRYL What?! THELMA You want anything special for dinner? DARRYL No, Thelma, I don't give a **** what we have for dinner. I may not even make it home for dinner. You know how Fridays are. THELMA Funny how so many people wanna buy carpet on a Friday night. You'd almost think they's want to forget about it for the weekend. DARRYL Well then, it's a good thing you're not regional manager and I am. He's finally ready. He walks to the door and gives Thelma the most perfunctory kiss on the cheek. THELMA 'Bye, honey. I won't wait up. DARRYL See ya. Darryl leaves. We see his Corvette parked out front. As he closes the front door, Thelma leans against it. THELMA He's gonna ****. Thelma laughs to herself. She goes back into the kitchen and picks up the phone and dials it.
 
You have to tell a story and you can't do that and leave bits out. We don't need to know what the camera is doing, but we do need to know what the characters are doing. And that is what I think they mean by 'don't direct', they don't mean 'don't tell a story', but rather 'don't tell me where to put the lights and camera'. No one wants to read that **** anyway. Tell a story.
 
This is something that I've been thinking about a lot lately: when to break rules, when to not break them. The best advice I've gotten so far is: if you're going to break the rules, know that you're doing it and do it for a specific purpose, rather than just break them or do something random without knowing that you broke the rules. Picasso learned how to draw technically exceedingly well before he decided to experiment with abstraction. Jackson Pollock knew what he was doing when he was spilling paint onto a blank canvas unlike many artists who attempt to do the same. In my screenwriting class, we just read a very well known, critically acclaimed screenplay that broke a lot of basic screenwriting rules, but my professor pointed out that the guy was already an established writer by the time he wrote the screenplay and did not need to prove himself.
 
nycineaste: Good points. Finding that post made my morning useful. (Ed)
Click to expand...
+1
The arrogance in the wording of your post is astonishing
Click to expand...
Your opinion - and it may very well be true. But he took the time to offer advice. And it's the crazy nature of this forum that he might have 5 Oscars. Best simply say thank you & move on.
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
That could only come from a european writer... I don't think US scriptwriters have even heard of Kierkegaard. Or if they did, they took the Hollywood Brain Wash to relieve them of that sort of useless knowledge.

And definitely no selfrespecting Hollywood bound actor would have and so the parenthetical would have been totally useless...
Click to expand...

I hope you're kidding.
 
Im restating my case because its so important, and sadly, never explained in most screenwriting texts:

You must provide, in the script, clear visual indications of what the current emotional state of the character is. You do this unobtrusively, and in ways that are clear and bold (visual storytelling). The conventional wisdom to not include indications of the emotional state with which the dialog is delivered, is simply wrong. Granted, you do not do this in parenthicals. You do it with physical, visual clues that are indications of emotion.


These can include "looks"-- "Lisa's face reads shock". "Joe is clearly unimpressed", body language, "Tom fold shis arms in disagreement", etc. You ARE, really, directing the actors on the page, although you dont call it that. People will call it that when you do it wrong (parenthicals) or overdo it or simply do it poorly. If done correctly noone will call it that, it will be called screenwriting.

(ironically, one trick is to use the word "clearly". By saying "Joe is clearly miffed" you are stating that his current emotional state can be read on his face and in his body language).


DO NOT TRUST ME ON THIS. Read great scripts. They are right there in plain view.. They are vital, if you remove them, then the actor does not know the current emotional state of teh character, and will have difficulty interpreting and delivering the lines.

Contrast between physical actions and dialogue is a powerful tool for creating subtext:

"Joe slams the door behind Bill as Bill leaves"

Joe: Thanks, Bill.

Using descriptive verbs is another tool (there are many)

Lisa SAUNTERS past....eyes on the boys eyeing her...

Lisa STROLLS past, head up, confident. She shoots the boys a "don't mess with me" look.....

You MUST " direct the actors" on the page, although again, we wont call it that (itll be our secret so the screenwriting gurus dont get mad)-- well call it characterization, visual storytelling, stage business, whatever... etc.


have fun
 
Last edited:
Let me continue my treatise, for I am arguing that these visual indications of emotion ARE THE PRIMARY SCREENWRITING TOOL, ABOVE DIALOG. They should pop up probably every 3 or so lines of dialog, and sometimes, you might find them in great screenplays for EVERY LINE OF DIALOG in certain sections (ive seen sections of thelma and lousie where there on every line in certain scenes- go see for yourself). Dont overdo it, but again, they are your primary visual storytelling tool.


if you do not use them, then you are FORCING YOURSELF TO HAVE THE DIALOG ALWAYS DELIVER THE EMOTION AND THOughts OF THE CHARACTER. You are forcing yourself to write "on the nose" dialog.

NOt knowing about this tool is one of the BIGGEST IMPEDIMENTS to learning to wirte dialog, since again, when you a re leanirng, you are trying to communicate with the dialog while having everyone tell you to use "subtext" and never have anyone say what they mean ( a crappy way to explain subtext). You do not, primarily communicate with the dialog. You communicate, primarily, with THIS TOOL ( well call it a VEC for now). THis FREES the dialog from carrying weight that it is NOT MEANT TO, since we are writing movies and not plays This tool is what CREATES the OPPORTUNITY FOR SUBTEXT TO EMERGE.

Example:

You can write:

Jack shoots Ron a dissapproving look.

Jack: Nice work, Ron.

get it? we just did "sarcasm" (a form of subtext), and without using a parenthecal.

or:

Lisa keeps her eyes on the ground.

Lisa: Totally. I sent the memo.

here we just did "lying" (another form of subtext)

now, if you DONT use this most crucial of tools (dan decker calls it a "VEC": VISUAL EMOTIONAL CUE), then you are forcing yourself to have the dialog communictae the emotion, which forces you to write more on the nose.

Jack: You know, Ron, I'm really pissed off at you!

or:

Lisa: Um, er, yeah, I um, sent the memo.


can you dig it

I knew that you could

AND OH YEAH;

dont learn this from me and this post, learn it from reading great scripts, and continually building up your "lexicon" of these. They can be something as small as someone "flashing a grin" or as broad as someone keeping their back turned while talking or punching someone out. These are your tools for telling the story visually FIRST,-- the dialog is important but its --secondary-- to this tool.
 
Last edited:
Jack shoots Ron a dissapproving look.
Click to expand...

That's not directing on the page, though. That's not stage direction. That's standard script-writing -- showing, not telling. That's story, not direction, and as a writer, you tell the story. You're not telling anyone how to act, or telling the director how to shoot the scene. You're saying what the character does. That's not only allowed, it's necessary. It's what you as the writer are there to do.

No one ever said that you have only the dialogue to convey emotion. I think you are taking the idea way too far.
 
Well hey, if that's standard scriptwriting and everyone knew about it, then good for them. Took me five years to figure out, and I have the same standard big fat library of screenwriting books on my shelf as everyone else, and I'm pretty sure I read them darn thorougly.

Glad everyone knows about this
 
Personally I think the 'don't direct on the page' line is ludicrous actor twaddle. The screenplay IS the film, the screen play IS the characters - so it should all be there for the taking. It should guide and shape every aspect of the story production - laying out the character's actions and emotions isn't controlling or overstepping the bounds of the writer's role, it's their damn job. Everyone else's job is to bring that script to life. If compromises or adjustments are needed to make things work for a particular production and particular actors, that's fine. But those compromises and adjustments should always be in service of the screenplay, in service of the story - not in spite of it IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top