On the radio
I’m working on a script that includes a few scenes where characters talk on police radios, or on megaphones.
So my question is this:
How do you write that? I suppose it’s just a matter of picking a format and sticking to it throughout the script, but I thought I would fire this question across your desk in case you’ve already standardized how it might look. Currently I’m toying with something that might go along the lines of:
INT. POLICE CRUISER – NIGHT
The radio crackles with three call tones. Perry grabs the receiver.
PERRY
Go for Perry.
DISPATCH (ON RADIO)
(filtered)
Your mother’s calling 9-1-1 again, Perr. Says you’re grounded.
PERRY
Tell her I’m working. I’ve got a job, and I’m working. I’m already on patrol, Walter...and I’m 30.
DISPATCH (ON RADIO)
(filtered)
She’s threatening the Playstation.
PERRY
Tell her I’ll be right there.
He tosses the handset, floors it, and cranks up the siren and lights.
The other format I’m trying to crack is when someone picks up a megaphone to address a crowd of people. So far I have something like:
EXT. PERRY’S HOUSE – NIGHT
The squad car screeches up in front of the house. Perry’s mom opens the top floor window and extends the Playstation over the ledge.
Perry jumps out, holds up a megaphone.
PERRY
(filtered)
Don’t do it, mom. Go back inside, and keep the Playstation where I can see it.
PERRY’S MOM
You’re a rotten kid, Perry. Rotten to the core.
PERRY
(filtered)
I mean it. I’ll use force if I have to.
I’m not sure if you need the word “filtered” in parentheticals in both examples, and if I do, should I put it on each line, or just the first? With the radio lines, I’ve put “ON RADIO” next to the name, and on each line. Do I need to include it on more than one, or is the first sufficient?
– Scott Benton
Los Angeles
In both cases, I would drop the “(filtered)” tag on the second line of dialogue. We get it, and reminding us that it’s filtered is just getting in the way of the jokes.
While we’re on the topic, I’m a fan of how you used DISPATCH (ON RADIO) in the first example. I find myself doing that a lot in situations where the speaker is not physically present in the scene. In some cases, it indicates a character we’ll never really meet (perhaps your Dispatcher), or a character we do meet who happens to be on a speakerphone or similarly off-screen.
Putting the parenthetical as part of the character name helps reinforce that the person won’t be seen. That’s clarity for the reader and for 1st ADs when it comes time to write the shooting schedule.
Articles
December 5th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Hey as a new writer with a consider under my belt I guess I can say that the way you did it was cool.
I usually use PERSON(FILTERED) to cover radios, phones, etc. But PERSON(On RADIO); PERSON(ON PHONE); PERSON (IN MEGAPHONE) definitely works and will stand out.
You always want something to stand out especially in your formatting and exposition.
December 5th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Do you even need the filtered? If it’s a dispatch call or a person on the phone, a reader should know that a little static might be coming through. Or am I misinterpreting this altogether?
December 5th, 2008 at 11:50 am
I believe the “filtered” is to give the sound department a heads up on how to process the line. It would be pretty embarrassing if a character spoke into a walkie-talky and the response coming back was clear as crystal.
December 5th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
@ Christian H. — It’s less about standing out than about clarity of read. It gets your intention across clearly and that’s what you’re shooting for. Use your ideas and execution (by which I mean the way you unfold your story, not your format) to stand out. If those don’t catch someone’s attention, the formatting won’t (though distracting formatting should be avoided).
@Joe G. and Alexander — You don’t need the filtered, and no one’s going to be confused about how to execute it. I don’t like it and have never seen it, but I guess it’s fine (though I agree with John that once is enough). Another option is to use a parenthetical like PERRY (OVER MEGAPHONE), which can help make it easy for someone skimming the script to see what’s needed without affecting flow.
December 5th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Wouldn’t a simple (V.O.) be enough for the Dispatch? I definitely prefer the parenthetical for the megaphone, but in the dialogue, not with the character name. This gives you the flexibility of having him switch to a normal voice with a person next to him by using another parenthetical during the same bit of dialogue. In the end, if it’s not jarring and unclear, it shouldn’t matter all that much, should it?
December 5th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
I think (O.S.) would be better than (V.O.). V.O. says ‘narration’ to me.
December 5th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
@ Patrick (O.S.) says to me that someone is within hearing distance, but out of the frame. I agree with you on (V.0.) though. The more I think of it, Scott did it best with DISPATCH (ON RADIO) and with his parentheticals–although I would prefer (on megaphone) rather than the more technical (filtered). I don’t think it’s obnoxious to remind us that one of the characters is broadcasting with a megaphone.
December 6th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
I went back and changed scenes in three different scripts to this format. I just used (O.S.) for all radio/phone conversations. Thanks Scott for asking and thanks John for replying.
December 6th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Are exec/producer types really anal about having some standard formatting? As far as I’m concerned just use common sense. I never worry too much about formatting weird scenes because I just work out the simplest, most concise way (it’s not that difficult to figure out) and do it. I’ve always used PERSON(ON PHONE) for characters speaking from the other end of a phone or radio or whatever. That was, to me, just the most obvious way of doing it. However, I suppose getting other people’s ideas on it can’t hurt. John, I do find the blog interesting and sometimes helpful but it seems like so much of this advice is just obvious common sense. Also, you lied to me. You told me The Nines would have a release in Vancouver. I feel betrayed and cheated. I feel like I can’t trust anything you say anymore. I’m hurting, John. In my heart.
December 7th, 2008 at 2:11 am
I have been using a somewhat different technique in a script I’ve been writing…
INT. MAIN CONTROL ROOM – UN CAMP
Cicily is sitting at a bank of monitors. She adjusts a headset she is wearing while Joel stands behind her quietly observing.
CICILY(into microphone)Are there any change in the readings? RAJ (O.S.)(over headset)Radiation levels are the same. Atmosphere, temperature, everything’s normal.
I did it this way because it immediately lets the reader know that Raj is not on screen. I also wanted to let the reader know that Cicily is not talking to Joel, but into the microphone to Raj. Does this seem like it would be acceptable?
December 7th, 2008 at 2:16 am
Okay, that message looked fine in preview, but when I submitted, it obviously wasn’t. Let’s try that again…
INT. MAIN CONTROL ROOM – UN CAMP
Cicily is sitting at a bank of monitors. She adjusts a headset she is wearing while Joel stands behind her quietly observing.
CICILY
(into microphone)
Are there any changes in the readings?
RAJ (O.S.)
(over headset)
Radiation levels are the same. Atmosphere, temperature, everything’s normal.
December 7th, 2008 at 11:46 am
@ Tim W. – Don’t you think saying that (over headset) is enough to let the reader know that the person is not on the screen? Especially if it’s right there with their name. That pops out at people. I’d say putting (O.S.) is a little redundant. A little superfluous. A little unnecessary.
December 7th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
I don’t know. I struggled a bit with how to write it. What do others think?
By the way, Farley, I got the joke. Very funny.
December 8th, 2008 at 7:57 am
I’d definitely leave it the way you had it originally. It’s unique and explanatory.
December 9th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Tim W,
Here’s my two cents:
Use O.S. for when a character is in the room but not in the frame. Delete the (into microphone) parenthetical — it’s redundant and a little confusing. Either explain in your action line that she’s speaking into that headset she’s adjusting, or say (into headset) instead so that I don’t have to think through the fact that she’s speaking into the “headset” microphone. i.e. don’t make your reader think. People in Hollywood don’t have time for that (more about that later).
Go with RAJ (OVER HEADSET) — i.e. a parenthetical next to the character name in all caps. The parenthetical you used gets the info across, but someone doing a fast read (any agent, exec or producer reading your script as part of their weekend read, during which they are reading a stack of other scripts/books) will miss it. The kind of parenthetical you used is often (but not exclusively) used to convey info about how the line is read, e.g. that it’s read “softly” (bad example, but you get the point). The all caps parenthetical is traditionally used to convey from where the line is spoken, as in V.O. (which suggests that it’s narration) and O.S. (which suggests that the character is off-screen but in the room. Of course, people do all kinds of things in practice. I personally like to vary it in a way that is consistent with text book usage. So JOHN (OVER MEGAPHONE) or NEWS REPORTER (ON TV SCREEN) tells you where the line’s being spoken from just like O.S. and V.O. do, so I do it that way.
I first saw it done after reading another writer’s produced screenplay for a film I much admire and realizing why it worked for me as the reader. In general, I recommend produced scripts as a great place to get ideas. If you see it and it makes for a clear read, then it’s probably a useful technique. (Btw, I don’t know if you’re just starting out, but when I was, I’d read or hear all the time that as a beginner I couldn’t take the kind of license that the professionals take. Not so. Could someone be annoyed because they don’t like your parentheticals. Yeah, I guess, but I’ve never heard of someone not meeting with a writer because they didn’t like the way they did their parentheticals. If you see something in a pro’s script that makes for a better read, feel free to use it. Just make sure the technique really works so that you look like a good writer, which is really your goal).
P.S Another idea that I picked up from another writer, which I sometimes use when a character is speaking on the phone and we don’t see them (for example, when I’m intercutting between characters and for some reason it matters that we’re hearing but not seeing one of the characters) is to say JOHN’S VOICE (OVER). I use this instead of JOHN (V.O.) because it says that we’re hearing the character’s voice but that it’s not narration. I prefer this to JOHN (ON PHONE) because as much as I like the all caps parenthetical for things like people talking on megaphones or people talking on a TV Screen, I think it can be over-used. And since phone conversations often occur in scripts, this is an easy way for me to not run the risk of over use.
December 9th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Every time I see the QANDA tag, I think “Qantas?” and then have to puzzle it out for a few seconds before I remember that it’s “Q and A.”
Every single time!
December 10th, 2008 at 4:38 am
I always thought it was a panda from Qatar.