Characters who are not yet important
If the first time a character appears in a screenplay, it is in a scene in which he does nothing — he is just a peripheral presence — should he be introduced at that point?
The specific scene I’m writing is a funeral. There are four characters in that scene that we haven’t met yet. In that scene they don’t really do or say anything notable; they are peripheral mourners. They will all become significant characters later on in the screenplay. Does convention dictate that I introduce them to the reader at that point? (When we meet them later on, we’re supposed to recognize them as having been present at the funeral.)
– Ed
New York City
Yes. If a character needs to be in a scene, you need to put him there. If you don’t, there’s every possibility he’ll get dropped out of the schedule when it comes time to shoot that scene. Screenplays are literary works, but they’re also instructions. Recipes of a sort. While it might be tempting to leave something out — “Of course they’ll remember that Balthazar is at the funeral!” — assumptions like this invite mistakes.
Ideally, the very first time we meet a character, his introduction should be meaningful, giving us some reason to remember who he is and keep us curious what he’ll do. But there are valid reasons why this might not happen, and crowded moments like funerals and weddings are one example.
So if you need to include a character in this way, remember that you’ll need to make your proper introduction later. For example, in the funeral scene, you might simply write…
- Among the mourners are JOHN BALTHAZAR (50) and his wispy daughter FIONA (21), who hover near the edge of the crowd. Closer to the action are two imposing men in sunglasses — ELAN and MAX, both 25. We’ll meet them all later, but for now, they’re merely paying their respects.
Later in the script, when we really need to meet one of them, we can do the proper setup…
- Glenn sits across the table from John Balthazar, who we saw briefly at the funeral. With broad shoulders and a piercing gaze, he has the look of a Viking forced to wear to a suit. He keeps his knife and fork clutched like weapons throughout the meal.
You don’t capitalize his name in this second introduction. Since it will be the first time he’s spoken, the dialogue should be enough to help the reader notice that someone new has joined the story.
Articles
December 22nd, 2007 at 7:44 pm
“With broad shoulders and a piercing gaze, he has the look of a Viking forced to wear to a suit. He keeps his knife and fork clutched like weapons throughout the meal.”
Man, I really need to work on my character introductions. The ones you write in your examples are ten times better than ones I have in my scripts.
December 23rd, 2007 at 3:34 am
Niiiiiiice. I’m going to put this link in my “List of Wonder” of all the handiest screenwriting articles if that’s okay with you, John? It’s kind of like a library of interesting posts and articles… Your montage article is already in there actually, it’s one of the articles I recommend the most to my script reading clients wanting to “brush up” on this technique.
BTW, you’ve probably answered this already somewhere on here (will look but got a roast in oven at the min!) but when you’ve got a mo, what are your thoughts on INTERCUT please?
December 23rd, 2007 at 7:33 am
I love the intro’s you wrote, John - but you use the dreaded “we” thing in your introductions that seems to enrage a significant percentage of script readers out there . . . I know you’ve spoken somewhat on the subject earlier, but can you possibly elaborate a bit more?
I always like using “we” simply because it has a literary tone to it and it’s also the simplest line between two points - I’ve come across more than a few pro’s who use it, the dreaded “we”, and I keep bumping into those who read who stamp their feet that it’s improper . . .
At least one script reader said that using “we” presumes intimacy with the reader . . . and I’m like, “and? Isn’t that was most good writing does?”
December 23rd, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Joshua,
I’m a reader at a big five agency, and a producer with one studio feature credit. Here’s the deal on using ‘we see’, etc.
Don’t do it.
Because saying ‘we see’ goes without saying. If you need to block or position characters in a set or a scene, or indicate how long they’re visible or whatever, just say it; you don’t ever need to direct the audience’s (or the reader’s) eye. Just write what’s happening on screen.
The way to write John’s example is as follows:
Glenn sits across the table from John Balthazar, who was at the funeral.
Or:
Glenn sits across the table from John Balthazar (he was at the funeral).
December 23rd, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Joshua,
Further to your remark about ‘presuming intimacy’, you probably read my comment about it here at Johnaugust.com.
The problem I see a lot is writers trying to cozy up to the reader or get chummy with little asides or quips in the description that are supposed to sound witty or clever. Or phrases that are intended to emphasize or indicate the gravity or impact of a dramatic beat in the story.
Like I read a script once where some characters arrived at a garbage dump or a sewer or some really stinky place, and the writer wrote in the description, “It’s times like these that we’re grateful Smell-O-Vision never caught on.”
Lines like this have a cutesy, buddy-buddy quality that turns readers off. And of course, the script with the Smell-O-Vision line is one of the two or three worst pieces of s*** I’ve ever read.
December 23rd, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Joshua,
Good writing doesn’t ‘presume’ intimacy, it EARNS it, without ever having to pander or buddy-up to, or leave ‘messages’ to the reader.
December 23rd, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Can you consider the suggestion of Adrian Paul (Duncan Macleod, Highlander Series) as Captain Marvel in the Shazam! movie?
The dude is old now, but quite looks like him…
Gret blog by the way
K.
December 24th, 2007 at 3:22 am
What does “forced to wear to a suit” mean? Is someone suing him?
I keed, I keed.
December 24th, 2007 at 5:58 am
Joshua — I’m not the pro here, but I say if you like it, use it. Every writer seems to advise that above all else you want your script to look clean and feel like confident storytelling. What better way to achieve this then to write in the way you feel most comfortable. Maybe just avoid overdoing it?
I have to go and check what John said about this before. Now I see how you get people coming back to this site, August.
December 24th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Anonymousy,
I was speaking of a different kinda of writing intimacy, but I get what you’re saying about the stepping out of the story kind of intimacy - I myself don’t care for that either . . . but that being said, I wouldn’t say that it automatically means Shane Black is a shitty writer or his script sucks becuz that’s what he does . . . it’s simply a technique I don’t care for . . . you know?
And I guess that’s what kinda frosts me - the fact that John uses “we see” and uses it well, doesn’t that automatically negate any and all argument you have for any other writer not to use it?
Are you saying the samples John used are bad? Because I think they do exactly what they’re supposed to do in terms of delivering information and setting us up for later . . . they don’t strike me as bad writing, I guess I’m saying, and you’re telling me they need to be rewritten because they don’t work, so . . . why should I take your advice over the advice of someone who’s succeeded very well at the craft I’m working at?
If it’s right when John does it, or Aaron Ball or the Cohens (or for that matter, Shane Black) then why wouldn’t it be right for me? You can say, “well, they’re established, etc” but there was a point when they were not, and I highly doubt they wrote differently then than now (I’d have to go back and reread GO, but I’m pretty sure . . .)
As an aside, my last hired gig, one I worked on closely with a director (who was also one of the producers), I did drafts and drafts and I’m very proud of the result (finished before the strike, may I add) . . . near the end during rewrites, the director wanted to add a description which included a “we see” ect . . . I rewrote it without it, got the note from him again to put it in exactly as he wished (with a “we see”) and I explained my reluctance to use that specific wording, and I also added I’ve heard from a number of pro readers (not you, I don’t know you, I know others) who don’t care for it.
The director chuckled, looked at me and said, “Listen to me, you’re not writing to make readers happy . . . you’re writing to make producers, actors and directors happy . . . those other guys who pick about this word or that, they don’t make movies, they don’t finance movies, if they’re worried about something like “we see” then they don’t know what they’re talking about.”
That’s what he said, dude . . . for better or worse . . .
I don’t share that as a slam on people who read for studios or agencies, not at all (I have friends who read for prodco’s here in nyc) I share it so you know that there is a disconnect somewhere - and I say that as someone who wants to bridge between the two, you know?
Because, as a reader myself, I see nothing wrong with the samples John put forward, you know?
I know you’re not just a reader but also producer (I’m taking you at your word on all of that, actually, tho’ I’m curious, how can you work for an agency and also produce studio movies, isn’t that a conflict of interest?) but you must admit opinions are varied, right? A few producers I know just want action lines to be as clear as possible, and “we see” is a way of making it so that it’s not a mistake . . . and it’s used in TV writing a lot, too . . .
So I’m not responding to be argumentative, I’m sure as a reader you have to wade through a lot of bad scripts written by people with bad writing habits . . . but I honestly don’t know that “we see” is the problem, and I don’t see how it could be, especially as John has shown us above.
December 24th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
BTW,
Anonymousy, I forgot to add, I generally don’t use WE SEE unless I’m specifically directed to do so. But I love John’s writing (among others) and he uses it a lot.
December 24th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
I love how a “reader” is telling John August, the writer, how to properly write. Steve Zaillian doesn’t go to reader blogs and tell you how to read, does he?
December 26th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Joshua/Anon…I think the point is that an established writer like John August or Shane Black can use first-person we or witty asides, it is a right they have earned by having hit movies and well regarded scripts. My take is that if something will allow a reader to label you as an amatuer and throw you in the ‘PASS’ pile why do it? Sure it might not hurt you with many readers, but it will with some…so why do it!
December 26th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
You’re missing the point, Lippy . . . John or Shane or whomever is established NOW got there using techniques and using them well . . . correct?
But your basic argument is that once a writer makes enough money, they can be as amateurish as that want . . . I disagree, I don’t think that they are being amateurish, actually.
I’m not arguing that a writer trying to establish themselves should DO something amateurish, not at all . . . I think one should act as professionally as possible (see John’s post on professionalism) . . . my argument is that the use of “we see”, used by John (who used to be a reader, I believe) and others IS NOT amateurish but for some reason has gotten that unfortunate tag . . . and I’ve yet to hear an argument of substance of why it is . . .
As I mentioned earlier, John’s use of it in this very post counter-acts any argument that “we see” is bad writing amateurish itself, as that John is neither a bad writer nor an amateur and the fact he’s established himself to do what he wants doesn’t, in my mind, mean he’s immediately going to stop being professional. Far from it, in fact, it’s the opposite.
December 26th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Um. Josh, I think the point you’re making is that they’re doing it the ‘right’ way. Which, as far as I can tell, is not too often and being in the middle of a really good script. The reason readers say not to do it, is because they read thousands of not good scripts full of ‘we’s and ‘you’s. And so that is one of many signs to them that it’s ‘bad.’ Hopefully, they won’t stop at one instance of it, but they might. That said, if you’re supremely confident you’re doing it well, do it. If not, the best suggestion is to not do it, or at least refrain from doing it. They might be saying something else, but that’s all I take from it.
December 26th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Also, thanks for this post. I had an opening scene with a cricket match, and the main comment I got was that I named too many people too quickly. Tips and tricks like these should help.
Thanks.
December 26th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Bad scripts have dialogue.
Does that mean we should all stop using dialogue?
Bad scripts have characters in them.
Does that mean all scripts with characters in them are bad?
Bad scripts have, therein, many uses of the word “the”.
Does that mean those of us not yet established should avoid the word “the”?
Good scripts also have words, characters and dialogues, just like the bad ones do.
I’m hijacking the thread and for that I apologize - after this, I’ll refrain and let others discuss at will.
The point is, someone wrote in to ask John a question about the proper way to write a character description. John complied, supplied a sample using “we see.”
I asked John about it, bearing in mind a post earlier on the subject. A reader / producer responded which not only rewrote John’s sample, but advised us all “Never do it”.
If good scripts use “we see”, ergo “we see” then is not indicative of bad or amateurish writer, by dint of logic, right?
December 26th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
I think the whole discussion is a little trivial. I’m willing to bet that on the one side we have frustration with the perceived gate keepers of the industry, and on the other we have frustration with miles of shitty scripts and pandering gimmicks.
In these examples John is using “we” to convey critical information not readily apparent from mere description. The writer could say “Use medium shots here, lingering on the faces of JOHN and ELAN so that the audience will remember them later in the diner scene”. Which is probably how you’d shoot it, but that’s directing from the page.
I think “we” is a very natural way of writing. Not intimate, exactly, more like the writer is the guy in the room. Talking like they might in a pitch session. That can be hamfisted, but it can sell a moment without a lot of stilted language.
If its the way to convey a certain feeling, or is simply the more economical way to write a moment, use “we”. Say everything you need to say, and no more.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:41 am
Hello everyone!
I’m new to the johnaugust.com comments board, but would like to put up a link to my review of ‘The Nines’ that I wrote for a website:
http://www.hecklerspray.com/movie-review-the-nines/200711388.php
Some feedback would be great.
Thanks,
Dave
December 29th, 2007 at 7:52 am
Hello,
Sorry, I know this is not the place but I can’t find a “contact” link. Is there any chance that you can put the script for “god” online? And maybe even the film itself?
Thanks!
December 29th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
I think that sometimes people miss the point, which is: write how ever the hell you want! If a script is gold then it is no matter how you write it! Writing isn’t a precise science or exact art like filing a tax return or baking a pie!
December 31st, 2007 at 10:15 am
Hi John, I’m a long time reader (who in the passed has had questions answered by you). I just wanted to, on this New Year’s Eve, say thanks for another great year’s reading on your site. It is always interesting and oftentimes very educational. I appreciate the effort it must take to maintain blogging and so I thought I’d be the first on your blog to wish you a Happy New Year.
Here’s to 2008, a year when the strike should no doubt end. Just for that it’s worth celebrating the New Year with a little more spirit, I think.
All the best.
Sláinte.