Including the unknowable
I recently entered a screenwriting contest and got my wrists slapped for doing something that seemed logical to me. The first time I introduce a character, I do it like this:
- SMITH stares at the bleachers and sees his wife, NOREEN, and his two kids, MARK and SHEILA.
The evaluators commented that I had “written what we can’t possible know” — that Noreen is the wife and Mark and Sheila are the children. Is this true? Have I made a faux pas that would brand me as a total loser of a screenwriter?
– Sung
You’re not a total loser. You may have lost that particular screenwriting contest, so yes, you’re a total loser in terms of that competition, but in the grand scheme of things, you’re not irredeemably lost.
Assuming this is the first time we’ve met Smith or his family, you’ve written a pretty blah introduction. Yes, I’m hoping that it’s brevity for sake of example, but before you go any further, you may want to re-read How to Introduce a Character.
Are you back? Let’s continue.
Sometimes, honest-to-goodness professional screenwriters will include information that doesn’t seem exactly knowable. Matching up characters to their families is a good example. Yes, Smith could be looking to the bleachers and see a woman and two kids, who we only later find out are his family. But close your eyes and picture the scene. Imagine the shots. Any reasonable viewer is going to immediately grasp that the folks in the bleachers are his wife and kids, so it’s not a big cheat to include that in the scene description.
There are two kinds of “unknowable” information you can safely slip into your script.
Things that are inherently apparent on screen.
- The door is locked from the inside. (action reveals condition)
- Matt unlocks his bike. (presumed ownership)
- Sandra has a terrible head cold. (visible condition)
- He races down the aisles, looking for diapers. (presumed in context)
Details that add flavor, but don’t provide crucial information.
- He hasn’t slept in days, and hasn’t showered in weeks.
- It’s the nicest house on the street — at least from the curb.
- She collects enemies the way nerds collect comics.
Please don’t take this as an opportunity to load up your scripts with unfilmmable details. Screenwriting is largely an art of economy, so you need to always be looking for ways to say more with less, and to externalize internal motivations. The evaluators weren’t wrong. They were likely just over-applying a pretty good rule-of-thumb: a screenplay should include only those things the audience can see or hear.
Articles
December 10th, 2007 at 10:08 am
Like with any script, a quality plot and interesting characters will offset minor format problems or script “no-no’s” in a hurry. Offer up a boring 100 pages and the reader will find plenty about which to nitpick.
It’s like going to a fancy restaurant and getting a bad piece of meat (or eggplant for you vegans) - suddenly you find yourself questioning the quality of service and start complaining about the prices. Then you find your water glass to constantly be half-empty while everyone else’s is half-full.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:20 am
That’s interesting. Quite a lesson you’ve taught today. I really do believe that less is more.
December 10th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
John,
How can I thank you? By saying “thank you,” I suppose. A better way, I figure, is to rewrite a better screenplay, which is exactly what I’m doing with your great tips. Between your site and wordplayer.com, I feel as if I have more professional support than I deserve.
Your “How to introduce a character” page may be the most insightful bit of screenwriting advice I’ve gotten.
December 10th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. Film is primarily a visual medium. Apparently the readers at screenwriting competitions don’t know that. Most competitions are staffed with people who’ve read scripts until their eyes have melted. Sung, were they at all helpful with your structure or plot? Or were they just all proselytizing what they learned in screenwriting class?
December 10th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
I agree with Sean. The evaluator’s “written what we can’t possible knowâ€? note was lame. These are the kinds of amateur-hour notes that can make a new screenwriter pull his/her hair out.
If you had written:
SMITH recounts a story told to him by a guy he served with in Desert Storm as he stares at the bleachers and sees, NOREEN, who he met at the Jersey Shore while on leave 10 years ago in April, and his two kids, MARK, a promising gymnast, and SHEILA, who will one day develop a pretty serious coke habit.
THEN you would have “written what can’t be filmed.” The reader clearly doesn’t understand this.
On the other hand, could you have introduced SMITH in a more dynamic way? Absolutely. That should have been the reader’s note. The fact that it wasn’t raises questions about this contest.
And as usual, John’s advice is dead-on. Thank you kindly, sir.
Elliott
December 10th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
These tidbits are when this site is at it’s best, keep ‘em coming! Elliot’s comments were spot on as well.
December 10th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
the best character intro i ever read was cameron crowe’s intro to jerry maguire. all he wrote was, ‘the word millions appears often and easily in his conversations.’ completely encapsulates the character, at least at the beginning of the movie.
December 10th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Lame of the judges to nitpick like that. Good pointers from John.
I liked the “types” of unknowable info that’re “allowed” - articulating what people generally know as a rule of thumb but couldn’t explain if asked. And here’s it’s explained crisply.
December 10th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Hey Sean,
It was a contest that only wanted to see the first 20 pages of your script. Mine fell short for a number of reasons, and I think by and large, they’re right. But it’s like what John said — it seems like a case of over-application of their points than anything else.
I just read another page on the site — “When characters have multiple names”. I have the same situation, as the main character is referred to by his last name by his co-workers (SMITH) while his wife refers to him by his first name (JOHN), i.e.,
SMITH Get over here.
JOHNSON Yes sir, Mr. Smith!
SMITH What’s going on?
NOREEN Not much, John, just watching some TV.
So is my solution to have the character heading as JOHN SMITH every time? Looks goofy, but I’d take goofy over confused any day.
I know this is off-topic from the original post, but I didn’t want to comment on the “When characters have multiple names” post, as that hasn’t been commented in over a year. Hope this is OK.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
I would argue that, “SMITH stares at the bleachers and sees his wife, NOREEN, and his two kids, MARK and SHEILA,” is a actually a very good and appropriate description.
From an actor’s viewpoint (here I go again), that gives me a lot of direction. While the audience might not know our relationship, it would definitely affect the choices I make as to how we interact — which absolutely can be captured on film. Unless you’re trying to misdirect their actual relationship. why not offer a general, “his wife,” “married and still in love,” or, “his battle-axe spouse,” to imply the overall physical/emotional relationship rather than bog your script down with micro-direction?
December 11th, 2007 at 6:09 am
Whether folks feel the script comments lean toward “lame,” I’d say they’re honest and a lot nicer than many professional readers might be with constructive criticism. I agree with the comment, too, there’s no way to know that information on-screen.
Besides, the writer DOES tell us the characters are important in another, quite reasonable, way: the characters Smith sees on the beach have names. We know they’re important people in Smith’s world, not incidental background fodder. Soon after this introduction, we’ll likely see them interact; interaction DEFINITELY tells us who they are to each other.
December 11th, 2007 at 7:59 am
I agree with John that the intro is a bit of a cheat, and one I see so much when I critique people’s scripts that I have a quick legalese description for it:
“Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence.”
As long as your script isn’t full of ‘tells,’ I wouldn’t worry about it.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:03 am
Sung, it is your prerogative to learn or not learn from comments by a screenwriting contest evaluator. I’m glad you’ve posted here because it seems you’ve had better input from the other writers out there than you could get from a contest. Yes, you may have written the unknowable in a very minor degree, but this just reminds me of the very reasons I stopped entering screenplay contests year ago. It was a waste of my time. And money. I decided to write for pleasure and to write the way I wanted to. I do try to be as clear as possible in as few words as possible, unless the story dictates otherwise.
No more contests for me. Thank bloody God!
December 11th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
See, this is something I’ve always had trouble with. “Written what we can’t possibly know?” But…you’re telling them. You’re giving them the information that they didn’t have two minutes prior. Now they can possibly know. I think all you have to do is have follow-up interactions to really show these characters as a family.
What’s confusing to me is if these pieces of information are pieces of information we can’t know, that’s almost like saying every new character you introduce has to start off as “MAN” or “WOMAN.” But you don’t do that. You give your protagonist a name right away, and then allow his actions or words to give him character. It sounds like these judges didn’t give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe that has something to do with the “first 20 pages” rule.
Worrying about these rules is dumb. I’m majoring in writing. I go to workshops. I take classes. No, this doesn’t make me an expert in any way. But I’ve noticed that other students constantly critique the way their peers use the format. You can’t use “we”; don’t put “CUT TO’s.” When it comes time to read their scripts, they’re crap. They may LOOK nice, but…they’re crap. And every script I read and enjoy ignores these formalities. I mean, read “The Departed.” Completely unorthodox, yet the guy went home with an Oscar last year. So I say: You’ve learned the rules. Now go break them. It’s liberating and it’ll force you to actually consider more important aspects like, oh, I don’t know — the story, maybe.
December 12th, 2007 at 5:43 am
It’s certainly filmable, the question you have to ask yourself is: How much of the emotional impact comes from knowing they are his wife and kids?
If it’s a lot, you probably want to introduce them earlier. If it’s not so important you might be able to get away with having them ‘formally’ introduced later.
Quick thouoght: You can establish them as wife kids in about 10 seconds by showing them on the drive out.
@Brendan Sure story is important, but the story isn’t going to get heard if no-one can make it through your script. Considering the amount of time you spend writing a spec, why risk having it rejected for formatting?
December 15th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
simon, Obviously I don’t mean write characters in lowercase for shits and giggles or write “INTERIOR” instead of “INT.” I should have been more clear on that point. I just mean for specific cases like this, it’s totally stupid.
Even still, I do think story trumps all. You do have to look professional, i.e. know your grammar and basic formatting. But I think the better your story the more likely readers will be willing to overlook formatting issues. If you have great characters living in a great world carrying a great plot, I say push the boundaries a little more and put yourself in more control rather than letting the format control you.
Basically, to me, picture-perfect formatting comes second. I do a few drafts and pay attention to the characters and stories and make sure they are exactly as I want them before I go back and “copy edit” everything else. It bogs me down too much to worry about that during the “creative” process.
Then again, I rarely know what I’m talking about.