Writing what can’t be shot
I was wondering what your thoughts are about occasionally adding exposition into action lines, when it can’t be explicitly shown on screen.
For example:
- The room bursts out in laughter, which quickly turns into applause. A few EXECS standing at the back of the room smile to each other, and nod their heads in amusement. The publishing wunderkind, #29 on Forbes’ Top 30 under 30, has done it again! The pleased crowd begins to disperse.
Since this information isn’t actually going to be shown to the audience in the scene, is it bad form to add it in? Or is it helpful in giving the reader a quick sense of the character and making the action lines a little less dry?
– Isaac Aptaker
Your specific example probably wouldn’t be to my taste. Once you have the people in the room smile, laugh, applaud and nod, it’s hard to justify another line to underscore the point again.
But in general, yes. Used judiciously, these for-the-reader-only snippets are fine. I often find myself using them when introducing an important character for the first time.
From Charlie and the Chocolate Factory:
- Mother Bucket is an ever-exhausted woman in her late 30’s, run ragged from taking care of Charlie and the four invalid grandparents. Many nights, she’s too tired to worry, and too worried to sleep.
From Barbarella:
- FINNEA (29) comes up to Barbarella at the podium, and hugs her in a sisterly but somewhat obvious manner, as if trying to share her spotlight.
- While Barbarella could be compared to the wildflowers she paints — joyful, open and a bit scattered — Finnea is like a cultivated rose. She’s very beautiful but very focused. And one suspects there are thorns to protect her.
Nothing in these descriptions is directly cinematic, but it gives the reader (and the director, and the actor) a much better idea of the intention. Just make sure that you’re never confusing these blips of exposition with real character work. Movies are about what characters do and say, not who they were before the story started.
Articles
April 12th, 2006 at 6:23 am
I like Isaac’s example. I think too many scripts are written in flat, dull descriptive language. I like to add a little humour into my scripts.
April 12th, 2006 at 7:14 am
There is no excuse for a flat, dull, descriptive screenplay. That being said, I don’t think Isaac’s example deviates much from the aforementioned. Where is the humor in his example? (No offence, Issac. I’m sure in context, it’s hilarious…)
I’m a total advocate for writing the entire script in tone. If you’re writing a thriller, adding lines of desc. that don’t show up on screen but envelope the reader in the terrifyingly tense world you’ve created is essential. Likewise with comedy, drama.
Unless you’re John August (I’m not, although I’d very much like to take my dog swimming) our scripts are as much a pitch document as a cinematic blueprint. Make it engaging! The first screenwriting rule I was taught was to only write what you can SEE and HEAR. This is an excellent rule in the basics, but once I became more competent, was certainly more restrictive than productive. There is an absolute necessity to write more than we SEE and HEAR (at least in the draft you’re shopping). Two people can write exactly the same story with exactly the same dialogue, but the scribe who takes the time to weave the tonal atmosphere througout the entire script is the one who’s hard work will be read with responsive eyes.
April 12th, 2006 at 7:44 am
I think there’s a clear difference between Issac’s example and John’s. Issac’s example of “The publishing wunderkind, #29 on Forbes’ Top 30 under 30, has done it again!” doesn’t really give any real detail to the character. Maybe if he quickly described how his face shows how tired he is from working late to finish the job would work better. I dunno I’m a just wannabe.
April 12th, 2006 at 8:13 am
My take and comments on Isaac’s bit, FWIW:
The crowd bursts into laughter, then applause, then starts to disperse. At the back of the room two EXECS exchange smiles and nod approvingly: the publishing wunderkind, #29 on Forbes’ Top 30 under 30, has done it again!
NOTES:
‘pleased crowd’ — we know that from the applause; ‘a few EXECS’ — don’t be vague if you can help it, it reads wishy-washy; ‘nod their heads in amusement’ — kinda weird term, IMHO; So why not have one of the EXECS sotto voce his approval to his buddy: “… Mr Forbes-Top-Thirty-Under-Thirty does it again!”
April 12th, 2006 at 8:57 am
My case is really similar to Josh’s. As I started, everyone told me: “don’t write any literary description, you’re writing no novel”…
Lately I’ve changed a bit: I think we writers have just one chance to seduce our readers… can’t waste it!
April 12th, 2006 at 9:14 am
I’ve been fighting myself over this lately, too. Great, informative post.
April 12th, 2006 at 9:37 am
There’s one for the quote database.
April 12th, 2006 at 9:38 am
The difference between Isaac’s and John’s examples is: Isaac’s aside provides exposition, while John’s provides tone and character. Isaac’s example feels like a ham-handed way of revealing backstory.
Like: “Douglas enters the room and sees Karen, lookings as beautiful as the day she won Miss Corn Husker 1963.”
April 12th, 2006 at 11:04 am
There is nothing but what actors can do in front of a camera.
April 12th, 2006 at 11:18 am
Oliver –
That’s not really true. A lot of what happens in movies has nothing to do with actors. The screenwriter is responsible for writing all the moments of the movie, including the car chases, the beautiful panoramas, and the clever monkeys who lock the villain out of his Hummer.
April 12th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
“Movies are about what characters do and say, not who they were before the story started.”
I don’t buy that, John. Most characters do and say, because of who they were before the story started, for most stories start before the movie starts. It is in what they do and say that we piece together who they are, from who they first were, based on our initial preception of them. Deciphering these character mysteries is instrumental in many of the great dramas.
Though, you may just mean that the character must become (including revealing who he was) by doing and saying?
As to writing what can’t be shot? Everything can be shot. John’s two examples were shot. Not tangibly, but translationally. All the departments, and the actors, took the descriptions and subtext and applied them to their take on that scene.
And most execs should be reading with an understanding of what the different departments will be doing with the script. If it translates to a good visual or dramatic point to them, you have just scored points.
But, as John pointed out, this only works when used with a light and fine tuned hand. If it wanders, so too will the exec.
Good examples, John.
April 12th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
It’s not just about livening up dull description. Engaging the reader is certainly important, but this exposition can also be shown explicitly on the screen, in the way the actor subtly portrays the character. It’s just a matter of how much guidance you want to give the actors or director- how much influence you hope to have. And these character descriptions aren’t just about “who they were before the story started;” they’re about who they are right now, at this moment in the story.
April 12th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
Couldn’t you just put the “#29 on Forbes” bit in as a line of dialogue that one of the exec’s says while they’re all standing around, applauding?
April 12th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
Those crazy damn monkeys.
April 12th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
“Many nights, she’s too tired to worry, and too worried to sleep.”
Boy! Imagine the on-set ‘artistic differences’ that would have erupted had Leonard Nimmoy been given this role! I bet you are glad Helena Bonham Carter was cast instead.
April 12th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
Even though none of the examples directly showed this, little bits of exposition or carefully chosen words can convey things like music that don’t read well on paper. For example, you would never write “Scary music here”, because the music is included in the final film to subliminally influence the emotions of the audience; if you draw attention to the music in the script, you’re blowing the effect. The written equivalent to film scores, then, would probably be descriptive adjectives or adverbs. So, if you were to write “He glared at the husband menacingly”, you are not only giving guidance to the actor, but also inferring tense or foreshadowing music.
April 12th, 2006 at 9:12 pm
What is this screenwriting crap?! Can’t we talk about MySpace and strange incidents at the Koo Koo Roo Chicken some more?
April 13th, 2006 at 7:32 am
I think a key question is, if you were reading that script, would Issac’’s line of description make you pause? Stop for a moment and go, what is that? If it breaks flow, I think it’s bad. If you can gloss over it and keep going, even if it’s a bit flowery or not exactly what can be seen/heard, then I think it’s ok.
It’s a fine line, but I think that’s what makes a good screenwriter - the ability to engagingly describe in the moment while keeping it mostly “on the screen.”
April 13th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
I still believe the old saying “Show, don’t tell”. I think there are more creative ways to get the point across aside from relying on descriptive exposition. Anything to get the reader to form the image in his head is better than saying it outright… maybe there’s a way to describe the way he’s dressed to distinguish him from the other average people in the room– or maybe as E.D. mentioned, the guy is so cocky because he’s #29 he says something to that effect.
Either way, “the publishing wunderkind, #29 on Forbes’ Top 30 under 30, has done it again” sounds like a Dennis Miller reference. As soon as I see a word like “wunderkind” in what should be colloquial description, even if it’s to be taken humorously, I shut off my brain.
April 13th, 2006 at 8:53 pm
John, RE:
“FINNEA (29) comes up to Barbarella at the podium”
I’m not at all familiar with your script for this, but I’m assuming there’s a reason you nailed FINNEA at 29 and not ‘late twenties’??
April 14th, 2006 at 6:48 am
Just noticed your “subtle” website, Scriptweaver. That’s too damn funny.
April 14th, 2006 at 1:13 pm
This is one of those things I find so funny. I’ve actually had arguments with readers, etc. over this. I’m a firm believer in adding description if it enhances the read. The first line of buyers ARE readers, and making their journey that much more fun/enjoyable can’t hurt. Besides, pick up any number of scripts that have sold in the last 2-3 (Killing on Carnival Row, Fed-X, Things WE Lost in the Fire) years and I promise there will be extra descriptions that you’ll enjoy.
And come on, the “show don’t tell” thing only goes so far. If we all stick to these rules, things never change. And I love that even in little ways, we’re changing the rules.
April 14th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
No offense - but people write the strangest things. It’s English. It’s a complete sentence. Yet I have no idea what it means. (This is ref. to the last sentence of the prev. comment).
April 14th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
If she’s too tired to worry, how can she be too worried to sleep?
My little logical monkey brain would be so busy trying to parse that one, I’d lose the thread of your narrative for the next three pages.
April 14th, 2006 at 5:23 pm
John, I hated all of your movies.
April 14th, 2006 at 6:17 pm
I’m more worried by all the unnecessary words in the paragraph - smoother and faster is better here, people.
“The room bursts out in laughter, which quickly turns into applause. A few EXECS standing at the back of the room smile to each other, and nod their heads in amusement.”
When you’ve finished streamlining should be more like:
“The room bursts into laughter, then into applause. A few EXECS at the back of the room smile, nodding their heads in amusement.”
I do a pass like this on every script, taking out anything at all possible while still retaining the gist of the action I’d like to see.
April 15th, 2006 at 5:55 am
I think you can have both - the non-filmable bits, and that which the characters do and say, that which is shown.
The trick is, you only get one shot at the non-filmable… when you’re introducing a character. Give yourself up to two extra lines to flesh out who this person is. But only two lines if they’re a major character. Otherwise one line, or just a few words. Then get back to writing only that which can be shown on screen or heard through the speakers.
After all - this is a screenplay, not a novel.
April 15th, 2006 at 10:32 pm
Just remember, make sure you don’t accidentally put something in the action lines that should be in the dialogue.
I made that mistake on my first flick and had to edit around it. I learnt the hard way.
April 15th, 2006 at 11:37 pm
isaac
what you need is a visual tag. one exec can tap the cover of a forbes (insert: cover of forbes with text ‘publishing wunderkind john smith breaks in’)
without some visual cue like this your passage is exactly the kind of thing readers gripe about (all the time). it relies on exposition (or backstory) that can’t be acted or filmed, and therefore will not serve the audience’s need to know what’s going on beneath the surface.
however, that said, i love non-verbal writing (and think it’s essential). like: john smith strides into the room and immediately assumes control. his suit is perfect, his hair is perfect, his posture is that of an athlete — he’s the kind of guy that gets something done before six a.m. and every other exec in the room cringes and he sizes them up with a single sweep of his laser eyes.
you can’t look at someone and know they get stuff done early in the morning, but you can guess that they do. you can’t, however, look at someone and know they placed on the forbes list (especially at #29 of 30). just doesn’t have much zing - and can’t be acted (or for that matter, directed). (also, your excerpt is just difficult - it doesn’t read well). my example could be executed by any actor worth their salt - and it flows pretty good - the reader gets what you’re talking about.
by all means write non-verbal, with implied exposition, but make it apply more directly to the shot you’re working. give your actor something they can easily visualize, that will instantly help them understand where you’re coming from. i believe my example does that better than yours. when this scene is shot the actor will portray a guy that’s balls to the wall. and the audience will get that. ask the audience whether the john smith character gets stuff done before six a.m. and they’ll think you’re a weirdo. ask them if john smith is the kind of guy that delivers and they will say ‘yes, he sure as hell is - you could tell the moment he walked into that room and all those other execs were afraid of him’. badabing badaboom
April 17th, 2006 at 9:18 am
Johnny — no offense taken. You’re slow on the uptake. Some would say “retarded”. I understand.
April 18th, 2006 at 5:37 am
You’re going for clarity first of all. Don’t let the reader get lost.
After that you’re going for entertainment. People HATE to read script after script. Give them some fun.
Lastly, you’re never going to please eveyone. I disagree with half of the advice that’s been posted here and I expect half of the people who read this will disagree with me.
There are no absolutes, only guidelines.
April 18th, 2006 at 10:56 am
Off topic. Sorry, but had to say that I saw you on My Date With Drew. What a great guy you must be to go along with someting like that. If you’re not a great guy, please ignore this post.
April 18th, 2006 at 11:19 am
Oh My God! I am so glad I found your blog. Loved Big Fish
Ajay
April 19th, 2006 at 5:27 am
Minimizing exposition was one of the most difficult tasks I had to go through in the editing process. For me, I fell in love with a lot of it. But from what I’ve read, exposition needs to be kept at a minimum (cleverly woven into dialogue, or left to the reader’s imagination through carefully planted snippets). Once I went through my most recent spec and trimmed it of exposition, it went from 127 pages to 116, without losing much in the process. It was a learning experience, to be sure.
I recently read a good example of this in the script for the recent “The Chronicles of Narnia� film. It was a very ‘vertical’ read (consisting of mostly dialogue). This seems to be the preferred industry standard these days. For myself, I’ll just have to leave all exposition to my future short stories and novels – screenplays must be lean-n-mean.
April 19th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
I think people are mixing up screen directions with exposition… Just make sure you don’t use big words like ‘wunderkind’ or a certain someone will plunge his head into ice to stop his brain from steaming!
April 19th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
ex·po·si·tion (ksp-zshn) n.
The part of a play that provides the background information needed to understand the characters and the action.
For my friend Johnny.
April 21st, 2006 at 12:03 pm
Vertical reads are the preferred industry standard these days? Says who?
April 21st, 2006 at 12:58 pm
It’s funny… when I started writing my first spec, I remember being worried that I wouldn’t have enough to fill 120 pages. In the end, I found that actually the exact reverse occurred — I now have too much, how do I get it below 120?! As I found out, much of the lengthiness to my script was in unnecessary exposition. Once I trimmed that down, removed all extraneous phrasings or descriptions without losing any of the story’s impact, I had it made. I’m more proud of my 116 pages than I ever was of the 127 before the edit. Now we’ll see if I can sell the sucker!
It’s a fun, maddening, intoxicating process — hats off to those who can successfully parlay it into a career. Maybe someday, I’ll be lucky enough to join their ranks.
Best Regards (Good Weekend to All), ~Devin
October 19th, 2006 at 7:33 pm
Steven Bray - hurray! The best reply of the bunch.
Don’t know how many of these people have read a Shane Black sript. HE TALKS TO THE READER! ACTUALLY TELLS THEM HOW GOOD THE NEXT SEQUENCE IS GOING TO BE!
I can’t stomach the way he writes, BUT HE SELLS SCREENPLAYS! There are always ecxeptions to the so-called Rules - if your story is hot enough you can break them all.
October 31st, 2006 at 12:33 am
For-the-reader-snippets are part of the fun of reading screenplays. The good ones, that is.
April 17th, 2007 at 12:22 am
—— Quote:
Robot Porter says:
April 14th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
If she’s too tired to worry, how can she be too worried to sleep?
She can’t be. It should be, “She’s too tired to worry, yet too tired to sleep.”
April 19th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Why **ck around? Just say she’s too worried to sleep.