On the present tense
One sentence in yesterday’s screencast drew a number of questions in the comments section:
Seated at a laptop computer, Phil is watching live video from a tiny camera in Mike’s headset.
First off, that’s not passive voice, as some readers suggested. Passive voice would reverse subject and object, so the clause would be…
...live video from a tiny camera in Mike’s headset is being watched by Phil.
…which is truly awful. Rather, “Phil is watching” is called present continuous, or present progressive. You can almost always substitute the simple present tense.
Seated at a laptop computer, Phil watches live video from a tiny camera in Mike’s headset.
And that’s fine.
But what I like about present progressive in this case is that it implies that he’s been doing this for a while, and that he’s not completing the action in this moment. Consider the difference between these two sentences:
Mary is cutting coupons.
Mary cuts coupons.
With the second one, you get the sense she might have put the scissors back in the drawer and moved on to something else. Or that her coupon-cutting is something she routinely does, perhaps as a character trait. (“Well, you know Mary. She cuts coupons.”)
Remember, screenwriting is about what is happening at exactly this moment. Traditional fiction is rarely written in this super-present tense, which may be why some readers find screenplays weird.1
For screenwriting, the most useful thing about the present progressive is that it’s interruptible:
Bob is scrubbing the ketchup out of his hair when he hears a SCREAM.
That’s handy.
Here’s the thing: No screenwriter is ever going to talk about the present progressive tense. It’s not a movie thing; it’s grammar esoterica. In fact, I had to look it up to make sure I was using the right term.
Rather, writers use the words and forms that best suit what they’re trying to do. In screenwriting, you’re always looking for the shortest, most elegant way to get the point across — which is usually the simplest. Focus on getting the words to flow together naturally, rather than proscriptive rules.
- Also worth noting: Many languages don’t have the same plethora of pseudo-tenses as English, or use them differently. A non-native speaker will find they don’t match up particularly well. Q: “Did she have dinner?” A: “She does.” ↩
Articles
April 6th, 2009 at 10:59 am
One thing I have noticed is that after writing so much in the present tense, it becomes difficult to step out of it and write seriously in the past tense. It’s possible, but it just feels very awkward. Granted, starting out writing present tense fir the first time is even more awkward.
So I can certainly see why many readers, especially new ones, find it difficult. It’s something that takes time to get used to.
April 6th, 2009 at 11:01 am
I’m irrationally annoyed by the present progressive except when entirely necessary–like in the interrupted action example given above. No good reason at all, it just bothers me, and I try to avoid it when I can.
April 6th, 2009 at 11:41 am
Good explanation of the nuances.
Not completely related, but frankly I wish more non-screenwriters would “keep it simple, stupid.” When I get a headache from rereading a sentences four times and STILL can’t understand what it means, it’s no longer good literature, it’s just a pain in my @$$.
April 6th, 2009 at 11:55 am
Thanks for talking about something that we beginners need to think seriously about — the nuances of the choices we make when writing for the screen. I’m only a beginner at screenwriting, but I’m relatively experienced at teaching English, and so I admire the distinction you are making.
Notice, for example, that in my last sentence I very naturally used simple present alongside present progressive — the distinctions do come naturally to native speakers and hearers. And because we notice the difference, the writer needs to know that there is a difference.
So, thanks again for being clear and deliberate as well as correct. Good lesson!
April 6th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
I use that progressive thing the same way… it’s that fine difference between what a character is doing and what he does. I also use it when actions take a considerable amount of time – as in: John fires a shot; but: Jon is flying his plane across the Atlantic. No idea if it’s grammatically correct but it feels right, don’t it?
April 6th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
I was never a die hard fan of the simple-present-tense-only school of screenwriting. Nothing wrong with the occasional present-progressive or past tense, right? Or if you’re really feeling literary, throw in a subjunctive!
“John casts a dubious look, if only he weren’t stuck at these dreadful family reunions.”
April 6th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
I think it was Trottier in THE SCREENWRITER’S BIBLE who identified (incorrectly, as you point out) the use of “is” as passive in screenwriting …
As a result, I tend to avoid using “is” when I can, simply because I know many a reader who identify “is” as passive.
April 6th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
You said:
But what I like about present progressive in this case is that it implies that he’s been doing this for a while, and that he’s not completing the action in this moment.
How would the audience know if he has been doing it for awhile? That’s why you say watches instead of watching.
April 6th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
4 Fraser wrote: “And because we notice the difference, the writer needs to know that there is a difference.”
I agree. On the one hand, you want to write so that you communicate naturally, and not in a “writerly” falsetto – but the scientist in me can’t intentionally leave anything un-understood.
8 GabbaGoo:
The audience would know that the person has been cutting coupons for a while (or whatever) from any number of cues that may appear on-screen, from the pile of coupons next to them to the actors bored slouch and sighs of ennui. (Or not.)
The director and actors get those cues from the screenplay; if it includes them without stopping to explicitly explain action that was never shown or discussed on-screen, that would be very economic – which is the goal, right?
If you can communicate “as she has been listlessly doing all day” with just a twist of conjugation, that seems pretty efficient to me.
@ John: More than the present progressive in general, its use specifically regarding “passive” actions is what gets me: I chew over “He sits” versus “He is sitting” or “He is seated” or “Seated at …” more than almost any other grammar in my screenwriting. I worry that “He sits” makes it sound like he will sit on-screen, but “He is sitting” sounds boring and takes up more words than it should.
You touch on that in your video; any more direct/explicit advice for such cases, or is it something you haven’t thought about or given much importance?
April 6th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
I love the present progressive!
My mother tongue is French and French hasn’t got the present progressive but a rather clunky way to express the same thing, where we say “elle est en train de manger”, losely translated as “she is in the middle of eating”.
When I moved to England and switched to English as my first language, I was surprised at the small number of tenses in English (there are many more tenses in French) but at the same time amazed at the usefulness of present progressive.
April 6th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
@ Thomas: Agreed, though I would argue it’s not irrational – “is watching” might not be passive, but “watches” is still more active. I’m not sure that the former really conveys the idea that Phil has been there for a while – a half-eaten burrito and open bottle of Tums shows that better than “is” does, in my view.
@ Mani: That’s why “he leans back” or “she shifts in her seat” might work better. They indicate that the character is already seated and has been in the seat since before the scene began.
April 6th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Thank god (or God, your choice) you had to look up present progressive. I was about to think you were that rare freak of nature who’s both talented and stores away arcana (which is probably not a word, but I mean “arcane details”, especially details of grammar). I personally can’t even tell you the difference between an adjective and an adverb (except one has an ly at the end). I know nothing about grammar since, after second grade, I promptly forgot. I do know how to use it though, thank god.
@ Gobba Goo, okay so maybe you wouldn’t know from that line alone that she’s been doing it “awhile” but you’d know it was an ongoing action — i.e. one that began before this scene began. It’s subtle and even the other construction could imply this, but this version does a slightly better job.
@ Joshua James, really? I’m surprised someone managed to write a book that was presumably edited without anyone realizing that “is” isn’t passive voice. So, are you saying that you’ve had experiences where readers that matter have thought something you wrote was in passive voice and had a problem with it? I’ve never gotten a note on grammar, have you?
April 6th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Sadly, screenwriting forums are littered with mongoloids who shriek about passive writing at the drop of a hat. Whether there’s passive writing on display or not. This post needs to be pasted in every screenwriting forum online in order to stop this twattery.
April 6th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
I think there’s a distinction to be made between using the “Passive Voice,” and using “Passive Verbs,” which sometimes become confused with one another mostly because they both use the word “passive,” but these are entirely different subjects altogether.
While Passive Voice is where an object is being done to by your subject (“The car was driven by Samuel,” as opposed to the Active Voice version, “Samuel drove the car”), there are also weaker verbs and stronger verbs you can employ to wake up your writing, and often it’s a simple conversion process. Once you’re aware of it, you’ll see the use of more passive verbs everywhere.
Weaker verbs include: Am, Is, Are, Was, Were, Be, Being, Been, Do, Does, Did, Has, Have, Had, etc. Active verbs are verbs that make the writing instantly jump off the page. They’re not vague, but specific. To do this, just replace softer (or more passive) verbs with stronger ones, and your writing will come alive. Try to avoid the passive verbs as much as possible. I’m not able to do this 100% of the time in my own writing, but I do the best I can.
So for instance, there is a big difference in my book when I read a script that says “They kick the door open as Samuel is shooting a gun out the window,” with “They kick the door open as Samuel blasts a magazine of screaming bullets out the window.”
I know I’m over-exaggerating here, but there’s a difference between “is shooting” and “blasts.” It’s also a tiny bit more efficient and conveys more energy in the given action. So in this case, the same idea can be expressed using more passive verbs, as well as more active ones, and that doesn’t really have anything to do with the construction of Active Voice.
At least this is how I understand this Passive/Active business.
April 6th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
@Paula
I haven’t looked it up in THE SCREENWRITER’S BIBLE again to check, I had to put most of my books in storage just recently, so I can’t get to it right now … I only remember because I had the passive “is” debate on my blog last year and a friend looked it up.
I think my friend Christina looked it up, hold on, let me check that post again … here it is: http://writerjoshuajames.com/dailydojo/?p=641
Yep, if you read the comments on that post, Christina notes that Trottier used the example “Susie is walking past the cafe” as a passive expression and that is incorrect from a grammatical viewpoint.
I’ve primarily used that book to keep current on format, the other chapters in it weren’t as useful for me (just my opinion, of course) and in Trottier’s defense, he probably meant “is” is passive only with regard to screenwriting.
Even so it’s incorrect, but it explains why so many folks noted to John they thought “is watching” is passive.
With regards to readers and passive writing, etc … I do know that many of them have pet peeves or red bells and warning lights (I think Unk ran a list of them recently) and passive voice is one of them … how they define it may differ between individuals.
Another one is the use of “we see” in action description … personally I’m not bothered by “we see” (and I note that John has used it in GO and a few other of his scripts, and he used to be a reader) but it really bothers some folks.
BTW, It’s good to know the warning bells from pro readers, but at the same time if you write a really kickass, original script, it will be loved no matter how many red lights it has.
April 6th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
@ Luzid (#11) – That’s a great tip; thanks!
April 6th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
@ Mani: Thanks! Glad it made sense. : )
April 6th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
GabbaGoo: “How would the audience know if he has been doing it for awhile? That’s why you say watches instead of watching.”
The viewer would know the difference if, when the scene begins, the character is already watching. To say “he watches” allows for the possibility that the character is doing nothing when the scene begins and then (as if suddenly reading the direction “he watches”) starts watching.
Furthermore, consider: He sits on the edge of the bed. He watches TV. He trims his toenails. He talks on the phone. VERSUS He is sitting on the edge of the bed. He is watching TV. He is trimming his toenails. He is talking on the phone. In the latter, the audience will see that all four actions are simultaneous; he may even have been talking on the phone when the scene began. In the former, the actions could be sequential; he may not have talked on the phone until after doing the other things. That’s how the audience recognizes present tense versus present progressive.
April 6th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Mary sobs violently.
Coupons are cut. Through the tears:
Mary: Buy one, get one free…
April 6th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Grumpy:
Truthfully, why even use the word watch or watching… they’re so many other words… “stares with intent”…
Lol… I will never use the word watch(ing) ever again after this… just to stressful
April 6th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
Regardless of whether it is or isn’t passive voice, the only thing that matters is:
Was it the most effective way of communicating what you wanted to say?
Same thing with anything else in screenwriting. Sometimes, as much as it irks me, it’s more effective to say “We see” then it is to spend two paragraphs avoiding it.
And as far as “He sits” versus “He is sitting”, like Luzid said, change the words you use. “He slumps” “He rests” “He slouches”.
I’m with you though, Mani. When I write “He sits”, I visualize someone standing, then sitting down in a chair.
April 7th, 2009 at 12:02 am
Man, nothing sets off the OCD like grammar :)
That said, there are some interesting posts dealing with passive voice, or lack thereof, on Language Log http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1227
April 7th, 2009 at 12:55 am
Too bad the gate keepers will toss my pages in the trash when I use “‘is gnashing’ his teeth in frustration at the double standard that has become a mindless, unprincipled sham to guiltlessly reject writers with no industry contacts.”
I’ve noticed your subtle grammatical/action point forever. You can write it and be praised for your brilliance. I write it and get a big red X that a nobody reader is predisposed to place everywhere they can. (And the reader will wrongly note “don’t use passive”! Novice writer.)
Yes, I know I’m whining. But you know it’s true.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:24 am
You know when that simple present is really handy? When you’re trying to get rid of ‘orphans’, those single words that take up a whole extra line.
Writing ‘Mary cuts coupons’ instead of ‘Mary is cutting coupons’ just might win you back that one line you need to prevent the (MORE) at the bottom of the page.
April 7th, 2009 at 5:13 am
Following up to Natalie: The present continuous is even more convoluted in Danish. In order to express that Mary is cutting coupons, we have to couple it with some other verb that is “inherently continuous”: Mary sidder og klipper kuponer, literally “Mary is-sitting and cuts coupons”, where “is-sitting” is a different word from “sits-down”. A side effect of this idiom is that it forces the (screen)writer to make a conscious choice as to whether Mary is sitting, standing, slouching, etc. while she cuts — and provides a conspicuous hook for adding more information as to where she is sitting.
April 7th, 2009 at 7:18 am
When I see “he sits” in action line I take my cues from what follows. Dialog (or other action) would indicate if he’s been there for awhile. If it doesn’t then perhaps it doesn’t matter. If it does then as Luzid suggests a more descriptive verb should be used rather than obcessing over the form of “to be”.
April 7th, 2009 at 8:26 am
25 Henning Makholm:
This is the same in Norwegian. I haven’t been thinking consciously of it, but it’s probably why I’ll write “John sits watching TV” instead of “John is watching TV”. Hm, I’m not even sure if the former is proper English. :)
Variations:
“John sits, watching TV.” “John sits and is watching TV.” “John sits and watches TV.” “John is sitting and watches TV.” “John is sitting and is watching TV.” “Sitting, John watches TV.” “John is watching TV sittingly.”
April 7th, 2009 at 9:42 am
Obviously not sure of the full context of things, but why not: “Phil is seated at a laptop computer, watching live video from a tiny camera in Mike’s headset.” That reads much clearer to me.
(I definitely prefer “is watching” to “watches” here. Sometimes less active is preferable… like when things aren’t active!)
April 7th, 2009 at 9:51 am
It was years working as a screenwriting teacher before I learned the term “gerund” form verb. I would always just tell my students to “avoid the -ing verbs.” And I still never remember the term Present Progressive although I point out when one reads as weak all the time. As you say, the ‘grammar esoterica’ is not important in screenwriting, it’s just how it reads and if it’s clear. Strong or weak? It can be subjective, at times, but then there’s MANY writers who honestly don’t realize when they’re using forms of “be” and passive phrasing. Even though screenplay format is its own animal and CAN break the rules of grammar in any way doesn’t mean you usually SHOULD. Tread carefully. ;-)
April 7th, 2009 at 11:08 am
@ David Shepard, Amen. I use “we see” whenever I feel like it (Just kidding, I use it whenever it’s effective).
In other news, I’m starting to get this sense that there’s this alternate universe out there that I’m completely unaware of where career opportunities rest on whether you follow picayune rules. Seriously, I’ve never heard of this. Not sure what M is talking about, for example. But I will say that I’m not sure there’s a “double standard” so much as there are just barriers to entry, like in any career. If you want to be a lawyer, you have to go to law school. If you want to be a screenwriter, you have to know someone who can make an introduction to an agent or manager so that you can get read by people who don’t have time to care if you wrote “is walking” or “walks” or if you said “we see.” The one bit of advice I can offer from my career is to focus more on your story development skills and less on these kind of picayune details. As someone else said above, if you focus on your story — and then write it in whatever way best gets your point across, allowing the reader to feel like they’re experiencing the movie — you’ll just do fine. In my experience, the people who say yes to hiring you or to buying a project, or even those who think seriously about buying it, don’t care a rats ass about the so-called “rules”. They only care if it’s a good and viable idea, well executed. Seriously, we’re not in grade school. Become a great storyteller first and then you can refine your ass off. And remember, when John suggests a way of doing something, just remember that he’s already a great storyteller, so he’s working at a different level than a beginner might be. He’s ready to refine. You might not be. And really, whether you say “walks” or “is walking” just doesn’t matter. If you read a lot of screenplays you’ll see that people do it all kinds of ways and you should do it in whatever way you think is best.
So, got THAT off my chest (hahaha). Seriously though, it’s not about grammar and it’s certainly not about some made up rules that half the time don’t make any sense. I remember starting out and reading all these so called rules in various books and then I’d see them broken all the time to great effect by master screenwriters with big careers. And no, they don’t just get to do that because they’re successful (which I’ve heard). They’re successful because they do that. In going out with specs and writing on assignment, I’ve never, not once, gotten a note that said “please no passive voice.” Again, why would anyone care if it’s not going to be on the screen. And if it’s dialogue, well people don’t obey the rules of grammar and style when they speak.
April 7th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
P.S. Just looked at a little of the video from the post preceding this one, which prompted the comments about passive voice. Which made me realize two things I probably wasn’t clear about above:
The kind of detail work detailed in that video IS the kind of stuff one should master. These are the kind of details that have to do with the actual craft of writing. For example, it’s essential that you have new scene headings when you need them, that you’re specific, etc… This is separate from what I said about storytelling, but related. The storytelling stuff plus this detail work is what I mean by “a good story, well executed” (or however I said it before).
It does matter if your scene descriptions are well written. I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. But I do want to say that “well written” is not about rules. It’s about effective use of all the tools available. Rules really are for children or for, say, a dissertation or legal brief. But creative writing — whether for a film, magazine, tv show, novel, you name it — is about deploying whatever device works even if you violate a rule. I, for example, love sentence fragments in screenwriting, particularly in the action lines of a fast-paced movie. It gets things movie in a way that can be quite compelling in the write screenplay. I think it works in a Bourne movie, for example, but might not be the way to go in writing The English Patient.
April 7th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Ah, Paula, written like a true, condescending, arrogant screenwriter! What a refreshing change from John’s concise and respectful advice!
April 7th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
I completely agree with this column & the subtle nuances in meaning.
My first & last screenwriting instructor (because I couldn’t afford to spend money on screenwriting classes like hers anymore) said present progressive and verb tenses ending in “-ing” were NOT ALLOWED. They must ALL BE REPLACED with present tense. ALL OF THEM. She circled all of them on certain pages and said to replace them all in the whole script. She did NOT TOLERATE discussions like these. EVERY ONE MUST be changed.
April 7th, 2009 at 11:45 pm
19 Jack:
“Mary sobs violently. Coupons are cut. Through the tears: Mary: Buy one, get one free…”
Apparently, Mary just found out that her husband has also been sleeping with her sister, Debbie, throughout their marriage.
April 8th, 2009 at 12:00 am
“creative writing… is about deploying whatever device works even if you violate a rule… that can be quite compelling in the write screenplay.”
It is deadly dangerous in the read screenplay though.
This is the type of thing that gets noticed in a script workshop, but not by a studio executive who was too busy driving his Dad’s Mercedes to pass high school. So Paula, I somewhat agree with you (and I certainly don’t put my pedantic hat on until the rewriting process) but I don’t think a blasé attitude towards the finer (I believe you used the word picayune) details is going to help any writer. It’s best not to get completely hung up on these types of things if the story development is going to suffer, yes, but you should leave nothing to chance. I believe Mr. August was trying to illustrate a point about economy of language, and if knowing a few grammatical tricks helps a writer to think about how to use words precisely then good for the writer. The less ammunition you give someone to use against your screenplay the better, so while you may not have come across professional types that give you notes on grammatical issues you never know why any given individual might stop reading your screenplay or what cumulative factors will contribute to them passing on it. Personally, if I find spelling mistakes and huge formatting gaffes and obvious grammar or punctuation issues, it tells me that the writer doesn’t care about presenting a professional product that’s up to industry standards. And I’m a fellow writer, not a mover shaker.
Great article though John, I agree with your points and while I never looked this term up I believe I use it a lot.
April 8th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
I agree with this comment. At the same time, I read over many screenplays as a reader. I did this for the experience (though I was paid for it).
I know what makes me stop reading a screenplay.
The clear indication there is almost no chance that I would recommend to anyone to proceed in any way with this project or writer at this point.
This has little to do with using present progressive, especially in cases where it conveys more effectively the intended meaning. Unless perhaps it was excessive and part of a much larger problem AND the above also still applied.
April 8th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Shmopeless, I can’t figure out if you are joking or serious.
April 8th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
John,
The way I described the progressive tense when I was teaching English was like this: Consider two swimmers, trying to make it across the English Channel:
John swims the English Channel. Mark is swimming the English Channel.
In the first sentence, John completes the entire swim, going from one side and making it to the other (extraneous grammar-dork note: you may also be implying that he swims the English Channel all the time, depending upon context).
In the second sentence, Mark is still in the process of swimming the English Channel. He’s already left his starting point, but he’s not at the other side. He’s somewhere in the middle, still moving his arms and fighting the current. It’s “in progress” — hence the progressive tense.
Of course, if you write continually in the present tense, it gathers a rhythm that leads the reader to believe that not everything gets completed: He ties his shoes, one lace at a time. Slowly at first, then faster and faster until–
April 8th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
I do think August gives great advice, and does so respectfully. And Paula’s comments did rub me the wrong way. But for all I know she’s a wonderful, generous person and I’d feel like an asshole for being so obnoxious to her in this anonymous forum. So I pretty much regret the previous post.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:58 am
I like to screenwrite.