I am a film school student in southern CA, and I just saw
a preview for CHARLIE’S ANGELS. I was very intrigued with the mis-en-scene
of the picture and I wonder: How much influence does the writer (in this case)
have
over the
art direction
and style of photography?
–Anonymous
Well, clearly you’re a film student because you used the term "mis-en-scene."
In the case of CHARLIE’S ANGELS, I was more involved than usual during pre-production because of the overall coolness of the director, McG, and production issues
that would end up affecting the script. So I saw storyboards and got to know
Russell Carpenter, the director of photography. But that’s the exception, rather
than the rule.
In general, a writer doesn’t have a lot of direct input on the art direction
or photographic style of the movie. Unless it’s important, you don’t mention
the color of the walls or whether the light is incandescent or fluorescent.
Not only would all these details piss off the people whose job it is to make
these decisions, they would make your screenplay unreadable.
That said, remember that it is the screenwriter’s job to evoke the experience
of watching the movie through words. Somehow, you have to give a sense of the
visual style of the movie without mentioning it all the time. For instance,
CHARLIE’S ANGELS tweaks a lot of the conventions of the original TV show, with
triptychs and wipes, so when appropriate I included those in the movie. And
the plot itself lent a lot to the visual style, setting it entirely in Southern
California and featuring three beautiful women who go undercover in all sort
of disguises.
How much description is too much? The first time your script visits a location,
you can give a sentence or two to describe it. More if you really have to.
And if a character is wearing something important to the plot, you absolutely
need to describe it.