Silent scenes, as John’s example above shows, can prove to be extremely powerful and effective. But I have certain questions regarding them:

1. Can there be any conceptual motive for writing a silent scene? A motive other than the effect they produce..?

During the planning stage of directing a movie (I am just a handful of short films old), one does think of a particular camera style for the movie: whether it is a predominantly still camera, or whether the camera would be moving as if propelled by its own will; would it be always objective or turn subjective for a character; would there be a lens plot and so on..Whatever style one chooses, it is generally considered a good practice to introduce that style pretty early in the movie, so that it doesnt come across as a jerk - suddenly something - when it finally does occur.

Closer home, same thing can be said about voice overs as far as writing is concerned. If there is going to be voice over, generally we would bring it in pretty early (and modestly give it to ONE charcter), rather than floating it up out of nowhere in the middle of the film.

Now onto my other two questions:

1. Are silent scenes also a statement of style? Especially, since every natural sound is absent save a few aubile ones.

2. And if they are a style, would they too need to be ‘introduced’?

My hunch for this last question is a big NO, as repitition would mar the effect.

Thanks in advance for any help and insight

Ryan lessons in brevity: http://www.mofata.com

I hope nobody accuses me of surreptitious advertising, but I can once again only recommend “How Not to Write a Screenplay: 101 Common Mistakes Most Screenwriters Make” by Denny Martin Flinn. The guy hasn’t written anything worth a dime, but he has worked as a reader for years - and as such he offers a very interesting and new perspective on the art of screenwriting.

Why? Because basically by following his advice and pleasing the reader you strip down your screenplay to the very bottom of its content. When you find out that readers hate dialogue that has certain punchwords underlined (just like David Mamet does it), you automatically check your dialogue and polish it. When Flinn tells you to stay away from camera, acting and directing instructions you’ll find yourself concentrating on the story instead of the images. And when the book reveals that proposing a music track isn’t going to do you any good if the reader doesn’t know the song and doesn’t give a damned, you’ll see why thousands of bad screenplays have countless “SYMPATHY FOR THE DEVIL by the ROLLING STONES is heard” lines: because the action and the dialogue lack the emotion that song is supposed to trigger. The list goes on.

Like I said: many of the “No-no-nos” the author talks about are made by established, distinguished and even brilliant writers. Mamet underlines dialogue punchwords, Alan Ball LOVES to CAPITALIZE, hot shot Zach Helm refers to music tracks and the LOST authors squeeze snappy prose into a screenplay template instead of writing traditionally. As such these mistakes aren’t mistakes per se, but they’re tools an unexperienced screenwriter uses to distract from writing he secretly knows to be flawed.

Go get this book. It will help you, I’m sure.

Greetings (a day off today) - Jason

No worries on my name. Thanks for your perspective on this, I especially like how you truncated WELL DRESSED BEARDED MAN to “BEARDED MAN” who is “exceptionally well dressed.” I take your point and will definitely try to use it next time. Brevity is not my strong suit.

readers often meet characters named “WOMAN WITH FUNNY HAT” or “HOT BLACK BUSTY SUPERMODEL”. As you say - it’s okay when they have a single line, but once they become an essential part of a scene readability suffers significantly.

Try to look for the combination of short character names and precise, efficient character description. It makes things much easier - so instead of introducing your character like this:

••• Suddenly a WELL DRESSED BEARDED MAN enters the room.

WELL DRESSED BEARDED MAN So, what’s going on here?

JAMES Well, just talking about screenplays.

WELL DRESSED BEARDED MAN sits down.

WELL DRESSED BEARDED MAN Beer for all. •••

try another approach: short name + description + clear distinction of characters

••• Suddenly a BEARDED MAN (40s) enters the room. He’s exceptionally well dressed.

BEARDED MAN So, what’s going on here?

JAMES Well, just talking about screenplays.

The man sits down. To the barkeeper —

BEARDED MAN Beer for all. •••

Let some non-writer/reader analyse your scene. If he can determine who is who in the action - the professional reader will understand it as well. Don’t be afraid to simply abbreviate the GIRL WITH A PEARL EARRING to the ‘girl’ when giving her some action to do - only a lack of clarity can cause trouble, and that (again) is something that your first observing non-professional reader should be able to tell you.

Yes that helps, thanks so much. I appreciate the insight.

That one’s tricky. Opinions will vary. What I would probably do is introduce him as Well Dressed Bearded Man and then refer to him thereafter as Well Dressed (and that’s what I’d use as the character name). My reason for this is that it seems like this character is significant because of some thing he does that affects the story, but that you don’t really need for us to know the character (but if you do intend for us to invest, I might give him a name). My answer might also depend on how often the character recurs and the nature and significance of those recurrences. If he just recurs once, I’d probably call him Well Dressed and might include a reference that jogs the reader’s memory.

Another angle… If it’s a Keyser Soze (Usual Suspects) type character, I’d give him a name since part of the point is that there’s mysterious person named Keyser Soze.

Hope that contributes something…