Introducing off-screen characters
Ok, I have a question. Opening scene, no characters introduced yet and I’m
starting close on a pair of hands with a short dialogue over. We then widen
to the characters that are speaking.
Since all we see are hands, would you designate any of the dialogue as (O.S.) or is that just too much of a “duh” situation? If yes, would you designate both of the characters or just the one we see no part of? Example…
- INT. HOUSE - DAY
- A PAIR OF ROUGH HANDS open a fresh pack of cigarettes.
- CAIRO (O.S.)
- Can I get one of those?
- JULES (O.S.)
- Do I look like I like to share?
- JULES, 64 and confined to his bed, removes his oxygen tube and puts the unlit cigarette to his mouth. Blah, blah, blah, grabs a lighter, blah.
Share your wisdom, oh great one.
– Doug
New Orleans
The way you’re doing it is fine. I might be a bit more specific in the last line:
- As the hands lift a cigarette to the man’s lips, we REVEAL:
- JULES, 64 and confined to his bed. He pulls off his oxygen tube. Flicks open a lighter.
Articles
March 3rd, 2005 at 12:47 pm
I noticed you took his last two sentences and broke them up into shorter sentences. Did you do this based on your taste or are longer sentences really looked down on that much? I know sentence fragments are acceptable but I also write sentences that are rather long (sometimes two or three lines). Should I try to shorten these or write in a style that comes naturally? Also, when I read your description I saw each sentence as a separate shot. Was this your intention? Can sentence length be used to influence how the film will eventually be shot or am I reading too much into this?
March 3rd, 2005 at 1:51 pm
Honestly, the reason I broke them into seperate sentences is because both REVEAL and JULES would be in uppercase beside each other. It would look like you’re introducing a character named “REVEAL JULES.”
March 3rd, 2005 at 2:49 pm
It seems that the example still leaves the problem of introducing the character before you’ve introduced the character. If the scene is meant to give the reader an uneasy feeling and then reveal Jules dramatically, try this for what it’s worth (please forgive the formatting):
CAIRO’S VOICE (O.S.) Can I get one of those?
MAN’S VOICE (O.S.) Do I look like I like to share?
The man lifts a cigarette to his lips REVEALING the face of JULES, 64 and confined to his bed. He pulls off his oxygen tube. Flicks open a lighter.
March 3rd, 2005 at 3:20 pm
There isn’t one right way. As long as the reader stays interested and unconfused, any of these ways would work fine.
For my money, MAN’S VOICE and (O.S.) is a little redundant, but I’m sure if I looked back through my scripts I’d find that I’ve used it just that way.
March 3rd, 2005 at 3:26 pm
Joseph:
In terms of sentence fragments, it depends on the overall style of your script. Some screenwriters swear by ‘em, but I find myself using mostly complete sentences. If I do use them, it tends to be like the example above. The subject is omited because it’s exactly the same as the previous sentence, with a verb in the same tense.
As for sentence length, yeah, shorter is generally better than longer. Faulknerian sentences aren’t well suited to screenplays, where you’re trying to get the most impact out of the fewest words.
March 3rd, 2005 at 9:10 pm
What’s your take on the overuse of the word “we” in screenplays? Obviously you like it, as you have it in your example. Maybe I’m just nit-picky but I would find another way to say it. Who started it? What’s the earliest source of the use of “we” to designate the reader in a script? I see it in teleplays from the 60s but don’t have much earlier than that. Why is it such a popular suggestion? “We” is “I” or “me” (or even they if I want to think about whomever else might be reading the script). Do I really need the help identifying what I’m supposed to be seeing? In the end “we” aren’t doing anything except reading and visualizing. To me it’s as sacrosanct as putting in camera angles. What’s the deal?
March 4th, 2005 at 12:32 am
Hey, John, thanks for answering my question.
In response to Rob’s note about using ‘MAN’S VOICE’ or something similar prior to a reveal, I tend to stay clear of it unless it’s central to the plot (i.e., Deepthroat turns out to be Richard Nixon.) This makes it easier for those who have to break down and/or interpret your script to keep up with who’s speaking when, and which actors they need on set that day (Especially true in TV when schedules are short and they’re shooting a lot of pages per day. I’ve seen actors memorizing lines while sound is rolling because they didn’t realize VOICE THROUGH WALL meant them. I like them having time to make the most of the words. )
Plus, before my story is even bought, it has to be read by someone who looks at scripts all day. I prefer saving their mental energy for the larger reveals (Nixon/Deepthroat) rather than the smaller ones.
In other words, it’s case-by-case for me, depending on which serves the story and its telling best.
March 4th, 2005 at 10:14 am
Rob, regarding your comment on the use of “WE” in screenplays, I find that it’s a nit-picky thing that many of the old guard don’t like, but is used regularly today. I remember learning about screenwriting in classes, and reading some of the older books, and they would always mention never to use it.
But, honestly, who cares? It gets the same point across. I’ve read numerous scripts by A-list writers that use “WE” — episodes of ALIAS written by J.J. Abrams come to mind. As a development director, I get a lot of scripts using that type of language and it never bothers me (it’s the crappy stories that do). I would agree with John: get the most impact out of the fewest possible words. Using “WE” doesn’t change the impact of those words.
March 4th, 2005 at 12:54 pm
Rob:
I’m a user, and possible over-user of “we.” Here’s my rationalization — and I don’t pretend it’s any more than a rationalization.
The goal of a screenplay is to make the reader feel like he’s watching the movie in the theatre. An audience member wouldn’t have any awareness of camera angles or crane shots. All he knows is what he can see on screen, and hear. So to the degree we can communicate the experience without using CAMERA or ANGLE ONs, all the better.
To me, the “we” is the writer and the reader sitting next to each other in the auditorium. By including the reader in the pronoun, the writer makes the reader feel like he’s more immediately involved in the action.
My hunch is that “we” actually developed from the rise of writer-directors. Directors are very used to saying “we” when describing shots and scenes to the crew: “First, we see Robin up on the staircase, then we follow her down to the courtyard.” It’s natural that way of talking this would carry over into their screenplays.
March 4th, 2005 at 4:27 pm
There are two Rob’s on this board (”We” Rob and “MAN’S VOICE (O.S.)” Rob.) For the record, I’m “MAN’S VOICE Rob.”
It seems the issue with both subjects is “How do you make the read exciting for burned out readers who will labor through your prose in the middle of a busy Starbucks?” In Doug’s first example he starts the scene with “A PAIR OF ROUGH HANDS open a fresh pack of cigarettes.” He could just as easily start the scene with “JULES, 64 and confined to his bed, opens a fresh pack of cigarettes.” Once he’s made the artistic decision to direct the reader’s eye away from Jules’ face to his hands, he should see it through. Take us from the pack to the gruff disembodied voice and let us follow his wizened hands as he brings the cigarette to his lips and reveals the star playing him.
I’ve read a lot of screenplays where I see things like, “Luke’s father, DARTH VADER, 62, sits in a wingback chair with his back to the door. His labored mechanical breathing echoes ominiously around the metalic room. He turns around to reveal… !” Reveal what? The name and the description are part of the mystery. If done right, the reader should have to put down the latte and ask the question you want them to ask. Just as the audience would if you were telling it as a campfire story. “JULES (O.S.)” seems to put the reader ahead of the reveal. It also bifurcates the focus because both the hands and the name will cary equal weight in the mind’s eye of the reader as they make their first impression.
By the bye, these are the first two posts I’ve ever made on one of these sites. I’m a big fan of this site and I’m sure I’m blowing the ettiquite left and right with what I’m sure is an overly didactic tone so please forgive me until I get the hang of it. Thanks.
March 4th, 2005 at 4:32 pm
Welcome, Rob E. Post away, and never worry about didacticism.
March 4th, 2005 at 6:42 pm
If anyone is interested, The Bourne Supremacy script is a terrific example of using sentence fragments well. Scene after scene, a minimal amount of words illuminate complicated action and multiple locations with perfect clarity. I think you can find it on Simplyscripts.com.
March 4th, 2005 at 8:38 pm
Thanks for the input, Rob E. In the above example, I made the decision to use the character’s name based on the fact that I haven’t actually introduced him yet. I decided to let the reader’s question of “Who is Jules?” stand in for the question of “Who is speaking?”
And thank you too, Gary. I’ve been looking for the Bourne Supremacy script all week so I could see how they formatted the first chase sequence.
Great site, great people. Good writing all.
March 5th, 2005 at 6:02 pm
Thanks for the tip on sentence fragments, John. I find myself using them a bit more than I did in my first script which I don’t think had any.
Thanks for the link to Bourne Supremacy Gary. I’ll have to read it next week at work.