In an effort to be less on-the-nose with my dialog, I sometimes avoid the dialog all together.
My overly dramatic example:
TIM
It’s up to us to fix this.
Sarah’s face: How?
TIM
We go back to where it all began.
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:
TIM
It’s up to us to fix this.
Answering her question before she can ask it...
TIM
We go back to where it all began.
In this case, it reads just as well without the gerund. Some writers do a double-dash:
TIM
It’s up to us to fix this.
Before she can ask --
TIM
We go back to where it all began.
Another choice is to stay in Tim’s dialog block and do it with a parenthetical:
TIM
It’s up to us to fix this.
(off her reaction)
We go back to where it all began.
And don’t discount the option of just omitting it:
TIM
It’s up to us to fix this.
CUT TO:
EXT. BACK WHERE IT ALL BEGAN – DAY
Sarah and Tim sweep the field with metal detectors.
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.