Intercutting
Following up on an earlier question: Maybe I’m foolish for asking this.
For location changes I have been using scene headings, so that in a phone conversation I will have:
- INT. MARIA’S KITCHEN - NIGHT
- Maria paces the room, phone glued to her ear.
- MARIA
- I can’t believe you’d do that!
- INT. SEAN’S KITCHEN - NIGHT
- SEAN
- Do what?
- INT. MARIA’S KITCHEN - NIGHT
- MARIA
- That!
Is it correct to assume that by using slug lines, I could avoid the scene headings? If I were to do it that way, would I use a slug line that is essentially identical to my scene headings but without the “INT.â€? or “EXT.”?
– Brock
This type of scene happens all the time. Think about 24. If you put in a new slugline every time you changed speakers on a phone call, the script would be 180 pages.
Behold, the magic that is “INTERCUT.” Instead of your second “INT. MARIA’S KITCHEN”, just have a slug that says INTERCUT or INTERCUT MARIA / SEAN. Then you don’t have to keep doing the location sluglines. They’re really in one scene, even though it’s split between two places. It’s much easier for the reader to follow.
Your scene would end up looking like this:
- INT. MARIA’S KITCHEN - NIGHT
- Maria paces the room, phone glued to her ear.
- MARIA
- I can’t believe you’d do that!
- INT. SEAN’S KITCHEN - NIGHT
- SEAN
- Do what?
- INTERCUT MARIA/SEAN
- MARIA
- Mention my genital warts at a cocktail party!
- SEAN
- The guy was a doctor!
- MARIA
- He was a Ph. D! In philosophy!
- SEAN
- Rhetoric, actually.
- MARIA
- What’s the difference!
- SEAN
- There’s overlap, but rhetoric is a pretty narrow specialty.
- Maria SLAMS DOWN the phone. We stay on her side of the scene. A beat, then she lets loose with a long-delayed, primal SCREAM.
- The dog looks up at her with big, droopy eyes.
- CUT TO:
- EXT. SOMEWHERE ELSE - DAY
- Next scene…
April 8th, 2005 at 3:12 pm
Hilarious scene. I almost peed.
April 8th, 2005 at 5:52 pm
Kinda on the same topic, is “Cut To” officially extinct from spec scripts?
April 8th, 2005 at 6:41 pm
Gary:
No, I think CUT TO will always have its uses.
http://johnaugust.com/archives/2003/using-cut-to
April 8th, 2005 at 10:47 pm
Instruction wise, i seriously think INTERCUT: has got to be the most useful trick ever invented by “visually” aware writers! Best slugline in my mind, it’s even more important than all EXT. or INT. spared.
April 9th, 2005 at 10:01 am
John, not according to a certain producer at a certain studio on a hill who scolded me for using them in my transitions the other day
April 9th, 2005 at 1:41 pm
Well, certain producers can kiss my ass. There’s times when a CUT TO makes it read a lot better. You certainly don’t need one after every scene
You can forward my opinion to him/her.
April 10th, 2005 at 1:54 pm
That’s exactly what I told him…on the inside. On the outside, I nodded meekly and promised never to use CUT TO again.
April 10th, 2005 at 9:36 pm
John’s right, producer’s wrong.
April 11th, 2005 at 7:25 am
Thanks John… That helps tremendously and thankfully knocks about 3 pages off of a 121 page comedy script (yes, I’ve been reading the archives).
April 14th, 2005 at 8:20 am
Gary, on the outside, producers are always right! Very true. Remember, it’s the insides that matters most (at least if you want to keep your sanity).
April 14th, 2005 at 9:27 pm
I’m really not one to bash people in the industry anyways. I’ve found the higher you climb the Hollywood food chain the smarter the execs get. I’ve gotten practical, insightful notes from even the pompous a-holes….except this one time, and I would be worried he might stumble upon this post if I thought he could actually read, but this one exec/producer (with a couple decent credits mind you) suggested my mystery killer should turn out to be a…deer. Not an alien deer, not a human dressed as a deer…just a smart deer going around killing hunters in the snow with a machette.
April 15th, 2005 at 7:47 am
wow - killer deer! That’s GENIUS! Mind if I borrow it?
BTW - spam precaution - why do I always get ‘oxlips’?
April 15th, 2005 at 8:21 am
That’s more of a metaphysical question.
April 17th, 2005 at 5:00 pm
If you can explain to me how a deer uses a machette, Anonymous, the idea is yours free and clear
April 18th, 2005 at 9:28 am
Well Gary, I’d think he’d have the machette attached to his antlers. He’d then swing and doff his head in the general direction of the victim - thus slicing them asunder! Sound like a good plan to you? Anon
April 18th, 2005 at 10:35 am
He’s out for revenge…He’s out for justice…He’s…Killer Deer with machette antlers!
Sounds good, Anonymous. I think John might be interested in going partners with you on this one *)
May 2nd, 2005 at 11:42 am
Well, as a card-carrying vegetarian, I’m all for the story!
May 27th, 2005 at 1:58 pm
What would you use as a transition if you weren’t using CUT TO? I think, as John pointed out, the script would be crazy long, if you had slugs for every time you changed locale.
I think CUT TO: works, especially if you are switching between groups in the same scene.
May 27th, 2005 at 2:03 pm
slug= scene heading, sorry.
March 20th, 2008 at 1:25 am
thanks so much! i have the exact same problem. i am writing my script for my dear professor who did not even taught us how to use it when having telephone conversation. this was such a huge help. thank you so much.