QandA

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:

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:

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.

Learn more about the basics of parenthetical usage here!

My question concerns the use
of character names in screenplays, specifically, should they be capitalized
throughout the script wherein they are actually in a scene, or should they
just be capitalized when they are first introduced?

This is really driving me crazy as the screenplays I have
read adhere to the capitalization throughout, the logic being that the actor
can see at a glance
that their character is in a scene if the name of the character is in capitals.
Indeed I was taught this as well in a University Degree in screenwriting. But
I have had feedback from some producers who say this is wrong.

–Brendan

In stage plays, the characters’ names are generally capitalized throughout.
In screenplays, characters’ names in the scene description are capitalized
only when a character first appears in the script. (And by capitalized, I mean
in all caps, like MIKE or BOB.)

Yes, I’ve seen exceptions to both rules, but I think the conventions make
sense and should be followed. Here’s what it looks like:

Bartender BOBBY DENTON is 29, with a mullet haircut and pit stains.
If your drink takes more than two kinds of liquid, Bobby’s not your man.

Subsequent mentions of Bobby, in this scene or later, would not be capitalized.
One possible exception (which came up in BIG FISH) is when a character’s age
changes so much that it obviously involves another actor. In that case, you
might capitalize YOUNG BOBBY the first time the five-year old version is introduced.

I can’t tell you with any certainty how stage plays and screenplays evolved
to do things differently. One theory might be that in a stage play, it’s very
important that an actor enter a scene at exactly the right time, thus the rampant
capitalization to make it more apparent. (In fact, stage plays often use "small
caps," which are a point size smaller than the regular typeface, just
to make it more readable.)

In movies, on the other hand, it’s often very important to know in what scene
a character is first established, particularly because scenes are often filmed
out of sequence. Thus, his or her name is capitalized only that one time.

The Script Police are not going to arrest you if you decide to capitalize
your characters’ names all the time, but it does make for a messier page, considering
the other things that need capitalization: sounds, sluglines, scene headings
and such.

So forget what you learned in university. Leave the caps to Shakespeare.