Using parentheticals
When I write dialogue, I tend to use the parenthetical a lot to describe the mood of my characters or the change in their mood. Also when I have a scene with two characters talking a lot, I tend to put lines of action between the dialogue describing the characters actions while they talk, such as shrugging, smiling, etc. How do you feel about this? Should I just let the actor find out how to react or should I control it by writing more specifically their actions during dialogue?
–Øystein Håland
For those who are unfamiliar with the term, parentheticals are small
bits of scene description within
blocks of dialogue. For example:
NATALIE
(reeling)
Did Pete ask you to ask me if I wanted to get married?
DYLAN
No! No.
(beat; casually)
He hasn’t said anything to you?
The (reeling) and (beat, causally) are parentheticals. They help communicate
the pacing and intention of the dialogue. Without them, the lines read
very differently.
Some actors have been known to automatically cross out all parenthetical
comments in their scripts, lest their performance be shackled by the
writer’s limited vision. If that makes the actor feel better, fine. But
there’s nothing inherently awful about the parenthetical. Properly and
judiciously used, these comments are an important writing tool.
Screenplays are meant to be
read-by directors, producers, editors and countless other creative types-and
it’s the screenwriter’s job to communicate crucial details about how
the movie looks, sounds and feels.
But that doesn’t mean you script every look, every turn, every smile.
Screenwriting is the art of economy, and overusing parenthetical comments
will not only break the flow of the dialogue, they’ll drive the reader
crazy. If you find you’re using three or more per page, look at whether
the dialogue itself is giving enough emotional information. If characters are
obviously arguing in a scene, an (angrily) comment is probably unneeded,
but you might need to highlight a line that is (sympathetic) or (withering)
when it could read either way.
Sometimes these little bits of description end up as free-standing sentences
(or fragments), rather than in parentheses. I’ve never heard a good name
for these snippets of interjectory description, but every script has
them:
Turning to Jason…
Finding the key…
She hands him the disk.
Generally, these little text chunks communicate some important piece of action. What only screenwriters understand is that sometimes you need a bit of screen description to break up a long section of character dialogue, or to give breathing room. In screenplays-unlike stageplays-a page full of only dialogue is considered poor form, so an occasional line of action helps put the reader at ease.
Int. and Ext.
I know this probably isn’t a big enough question, but I’m still curious and hoping for an answer. I’m not new to writing, but brand new to screenplays. I have no idea how to do notations. Like what INT. and EXT. mean and those sorts of things.
–Micah
" INT." and "EXT." stand for "interior" and "exterior." Basically, any time the scene takes place inside a building, you use "INT." for the scene header. If you’re outside, you use "EXT." In most cases, it’s very clear cut which one you would use. You are:
INT. LIVING ROOM - DAY
INT. OVAL OFFICE - NIGHT
INT. BARBARELLA’S SPACE SHIP - DAY
EXT. SUPERMARKET PARKING LOT - DAY
EXT. CASTLE MOAT - DAY
EXT. VULCAN DESERT - DAY
Sometimes, a situation will arise where it’s not clear which one really makes
more sense. For instance, you’re clearly
EXT. ROSE BOWL - DAY but are you "INT." or "EXT." for the Superdome? Or what if a character is using a phone booth? In both cases, it’s your call. Just be consistent. And for scenes that take place in a moving car, I often note it as
INT./EXT. RONNA’S CAR - NIGHT [DRIVING] to indicate that we’re both inside and outside of the car during the scene. For all I know, I’m the only writer who does that, but it seems clear enough to me. In addition to "INT." and "EXT.", you’ll occasionally see "EST." used as a header, such as
EST. THE GRAND CANYON - DAY "EST." stands for "establishing," as in "Okay, now we’re at the Grand Canyon." Personally, I never use it. By definition, an establishing scene wouldn’t have any real action or dialogue, so I find it clearer just to use "EXT." followed by a single word of action: "Establishing." Then you move to the next scene.
Script length
Your advice of 110 to 120 pages for script length agrees with what others say, but upon sampling a large number of films I find their lengths usually fall between 85 and 115 minutes, including five minutes of credits. At a minute per page, something doesn’t click. Do producers expect 15 extra pages because they feel scripts usually have fat that needs trimming? Or perhaps producers know that during script development, writers find it less distressing to eliminate scenes and hope no one notices, rather than turn them into something far removed from the original vision. Just a thought.
–Ryall
It’s true that a lot of movies clock in at 100 minutes or less, and that the one-minute-per-page rule of thumb really depends on whose thumbs are doing the measuring. Moviemaking is more art than science, so it never holds up to much mathematical scrutiny. Whatever the reason for the discrepancy, I assure it doesn’t come from producers trying to spare writers’ feelings.
One variable that really effects running time is pacing. GO was about 102 minutes long. The script was 126 pages, and almost nothing was dropped. The movie never dawdled, however, which is how it got the story told so quickly.
Even movies that end up at 85 minutes probably began as screenplays in the 110 to 120 page range. In the course of production, or post-production, scenes often get cut. Either they are never filmed, or they end up on the cutting room floor, just waiting for the DVD version.
Since scenes are going to get cut, why not just start out with a shorter script? It’s not a bad question. In television, where programs have to be delivered to the network at a precise running time (at ABC, it is 42 minutes, 20 seconds for a "one-hour" drama), it is obviously preferable to avoid shooting scenes that couldn’t possibly fit into the allotted time.
In terms of features, however, anything shorter than 100 pages "feels" too short. It’s literally just not enough pages in your hand. And if you go much beyond 120 pages, people get nervous. Even if it’s great, it feels long.
Western’s out?
Are western’s out?
–Mark Barragar
Yes. So write one if you feel like it. By the time you’re finished, they’ll probably be in again, and you’ll be ahead of the curve.
Film festival contacts
I am an aspiring screenwriter with several screenplays nearing completion. I envision my screenplays as independent films, with low budgets and talented character actors. I will need a director. I’ve been told excellent director contacts can be made at film festivals. Is this good advice?
–Kristy B.
It’s great advice. In fact, I intend to steal it as soon as I get the chance.
Early in their careers, most independent directors aren’t exactly getting besieged with scripts for them to direct, so you have a pretty good shot of getting them to actually read it. Having been through the festival grinder a few times, my only advice would be to try to find a relaxed moment to talk about the project, and not swarm the stage after a Q&A session.
If you don’t have a chance to meet the director at the festival, you can probably find contact information in a program or at the festival office. Drop a note telling the director how much you liked her movie and a few paragraphs describing what your script is about, and asking if you could send it to her.
It’s certainly not foolproof, but it would be a good way to get your foot in the door with a director you hope to work with.
Does a Brit have a chance?
I’m a 20-year old university student from London, currently studying film and creative writing at Buckinghamshire University. I’ve got a few questions that I would really appreciate you answering:
- Coming from England and being a wannabe film writer, would
you suggest moving to America or at least selling to America? To me
the English movie
scene is pretty dull and lifeless. Apart from the odd Guy Ritchie film,
there’s not a lot to offer in England unless you want grim reality films
of how poor
the North of England is.
- Do you think being from England will effect my chances of selling to America in terms of dialogue etc?
–Scott Macinnes
(Scott actually had five questions, but other columns probably answered the other three. So let’s address the England question.)
While your assessment of the British film industry is funny, I also think it’s a little unfair. Considering its size, the U.K. has a pretty substantial film business, with a wider variety of genres than you’d admit. True, if you want non-James Bond big summer popcorn movies, you’re out of luck. But you can find good examples of almost every other kind of movie.
Unless you’re dying to leave England, my advice is to stay put and see what you can learn there, at least for a year or two. It’s much easier to make the transition to Hollywood if you have something to show for yourself.
For instance, Christopher Nolan went from the tiny-budgeted FOLLOWING (shot in the UK), to the small-budgeted MEMENTO (shot in the U.S.) to the studio feature INSOMNIA.
But if you’re sure it’s L.A.-or-nothing, then by all means come. But make sure you’re going to be able to get some kind of work or educational visa that will let you stay in the country for a few years.
Articles