Writing unspoken things
In an effort to be less on-the-nose with my dialog, I sometimes avoid the dialog all together.
My overly dramatic example:
I don’t want to make Sarah ask how. I want her face to convey the message. Have you ever put in directions for the actors like this? If so, how do you format it?
– Matt R
You can do this. I’ve seen established screenwriters do essentially the same things in their scripts. But the fact that I’ve never felt the need to do it leads me to suggest alternatives to face-writing.
The first option is the gerundic dot-dot-dot:
In this case, it reads just as well without the gerund. Some writers do a double-dash:
Another choice is to stay in Tim’s dialog block and do it with a parenthetical:
And don’t discount the option of just omitting it:
There’s no right way — but that’s not to say it’s unimportant. These little choices are what form your style, and developing a narrative voice is a crucial part of your career as a writer.
When we think of a Tarantino movie, we remember his dialogue. But the experience of reading his scripts is different. They’re incredibly spare but specific. Other writers — David Koepp comes to mind — write in dense blocks packed with detail. And the scripts for Lost are known for their profanity. Every writer would handle the same basic scene differently. Figuring out how you would do it is an important part of becoming a screenwriter, so always challenge yourself to find the way that feels best.
17 Responses to “Writing unspoken things”
Leave a Reply
RSS feed for comments on this article.
Get a Gravatar. They're free and work on lots of different sites.
July 2nd, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Hm. I’m trying to do this with a scene right now and it’s tough. It’s even harder when you’re trying to write one character having “secret reactions,” i.e. his friend is pissing him off but he’s too passive to say anything, but we know he’s upset. My biggest concern is always how much I can get away with not saying (to the reader or the audience). This post kind of makes me think I should spell at least half of it out.
July 2nd, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Ron Bass just throws dialogue into the action. Like:
DIALOGUE: Tim: We have to fix this.
ACTION: Sure, but how?
DIALOGUE: Tim: We go back to the beginning.
July 2nd, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Wow. Ron Bass’ way is really ugly. I guess you have to write a couple Oscar winning screenplays to get away with something like that.
July 2nd, 2008 at 7:10 pm
I think what Nick was trying to do was…
TIM We have to fix this.
Sure, but how?
TIM We go back to the beginning.
July 2nd, 2008 at 7:20 pm
“Every writer would handle the same basic scene differently.”
That could be an interesting experiment. In acting classes, you sometimes are given a “scene” that’s just dialog, and it’s up to the students to play the dialog however they want, in any context they want. The same thing could with screenwriting: Everyone given the same dialog, maybe even the same details about the characters and the same context, and just see what everyone comes up with style-wise. It wouldn’t be competitive, of course, but an interesting way to see how others would tackle the same problem.
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:31 pm
@John:
Thanks! That’s exactly what I meant.
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:32 am
I’m glad you brought this up, John, as well as clear and simple solutions to deal with it. I have a love/hate relationship with these kind of unspoken elements. When used correctly, they inform so much about the character, the conflict, the backstory. But when used poorly…
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:52 am
None of the suggested solutions really seem to get the original intent across.
Why not…
TIM: It’s up to us to fix this.
(Sarah gives a quizzical look)
TIM: We go back to where it all began.
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:39 am
TIM: It’s up to us to fix this. Sarah stops in her tracks. Puts down the device and looks at Tim. Her incredulous eyes drill into him through strands of wet hair. Her look says it all - what the fuck are you talking about, Timmy?! He knows what she’s thinking. Puts his hand on her shoulder, trying to instill comfort. But the tremble in voice betrays his fear… TIM: …We go back to where it all began. Back…to earth. I LOVE THESE SCENE CHALLENGES!!
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:42 am
@Johnny, That’s hilarious. I can’t tell if you’re joking or serious, but I love “She stops in her tracks.” and “Her look says it all - what the fuck are you talking about, Timmy?!”
@Mike, The “quizzical look” is accurate but it feels flat to me. I think John’s last option captures the original intent perfectly (or, who knows what the original intent was, but it gets us where we need to go in the most immediate way possible. Unless her reaction is super important (as in Johnny’s hilarious example), I wouldn’t bother to explain the look on her face. Seems the point of the exchange is to just get us “Back to where it all began” (maybe that’s the original intent).
July 3rd, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Mike, why the parenthetical?
Sarah is confounded.
July 3rd, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Whoops, don’t know where those boxes came from!
July 3rd, 2008 at 2:25 pm
I’m not really familiar with formatting standards, I was just giving an example of potential wording. I’m still not sold on the original examples, they don’t really get across what’s in the original which is…
Line Facial reaction Line
It almost seems like there’s some fear of describing a reaction. Why not use “Sarah nods” or “Sarah squints” or “Sarah looks up” if that’s what the scene needs and that’s the simplest way to describe the action?
July 3rd, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Sarah nods or gives a quizzical look, looks up ect. Sure, this is the simplest way to describe the action — if the writer has very firm ideas about how the actors should do the scene and wants to communicate it to them via the script. It’s directing, basically.
But by writing unspoken things (as John calls it) the writer exhibits a lighter touch. For instance “Before Sarah can ask –” indicates to both actors how the dialogue is supposed to play without going into detail about what, exactly, they should be doing (what sort of faces they should be making). It leaves the interpretation up to them.
July 4th, 2008 at 6:26 am
Line Facial Reaction Line
No need to be slavishly devoted to that way of executing the scene just because it was the writer’s first thought (and arguably not the best solution, even in the writer’s estimation). Focusing on the Goal of the Scene is how you get to the best solution. Showing us her facial reaction is not the goal of this scene so no need to stick to that.
July 6th, 2008 at 11:19 am
How about:
It’s up to us to fix this. (off Sara’s doubt) We go back to where it all began.
I like the way Ron Bass handled it though.
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:38 pm
If you’re writing for a tv show, then you can tell actors to “squint” and such. However, as a spec script or a movie in general, let the actors do their thing.