John August

Words on the page

‘Wherefore’ does not mean where

Rant, Words on the page

A headline in today’s Hollywood Reporter:

> Wherefore art thou, ‘Juliet’? It’s at Uni.

The story is about a book set up at Universal. The headline is incredibly frustrating. Wherefore isn’t a fancy way of saying where. It’s a fancy way of saying why or therefore:

wherefore

As longtime readers will know, I’m generally not Mr. Stickler when it comes to word usage. I’ve gotten several terms wrong over the years, including “begging the question.” I fully understand that words change meaning over time as languages grow and adapt. English is particularly nimble in this regard, and that’s a good thing. [English is not Latin](http://johnaugust.com/archives/2005/english-is-not-latin).

So why my beef with “wherefore?”

Wherefore isn’t a modern word in any sense. Its only use is in lame callbacks to the balcony scene in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. So every time it’s misused as a synonym for “where,” the writer reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the iconic scene.

JULIET

O Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo? Deny thy father and refuse thy name; or if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love and I’ll no longer be a Capulet.

ROMEO

(aside)

Shall I hear more, or shall I speak at this?

JULIET

‘Tis but thy name that is my enemy: thou art thyself, though not a Montague. What’s Montague? It is nor hand nor foot, nor arm nor face, nor any other part belonging to a man. O be some other name!

She’s not asking where he is. She’s asking why this hot guy she’s in love with has to be Romeo, a Montague, member of the rival gang. If we were writing that line now, it would be something like:

JULIET

O Romeo, Romeo, why must thou be Romeo?

But the where/wherefore mistake is so fundamentally entrenched that we now expect Juliet to be straining at the edge of the balcony, looking out in the night with hopes of seeing her true love. It sets up the idea that she knows he’s coming, that a rendezvous has been set. It changes the scene in fundamental ways.

I’m a realist: this fight will never be won. I’m certain I’ll go to my grave having just read a headline on the Mentalinet which makes the exact same mistake. I’m calling it out simply in hopes that some of my readers might join the fraternity of people who know that it’s wrong, and will bristle when they see it.

On the radio

Formatting, QandA, Words on the page

questionmarkI’m working on a script that includes a few scenes where characters talk on police radios, or on megaphones.

So my question is this:

How do you write that? I suppose it’s just a matter of picking a format and sticking to it throughout the script, but I thought I would fire this question across your desk in case you’ve already standardized how it might look. Currently I’m toying with something that might go along the lines of:

INT. POLICE CRUISER – NIGHT

The radio crackles with three call tones. Perry grabs the receiver.

PERRY

Go for Perry.

DISPATCH (ON RADIO)

(filtered)

Your mother’s calling 9-1-1 again, Perr. Says you’re grounded.

PERRY

Tell her I’m working. I’ve got a job, and I’m working. I’m already on patrol, Walter...and I’m 30.

DISPATCH (ON RADIO)

(filtered)

She’s threatening the Playstation.

PERRY

Tell her I’ll be right there.

He tosses the handset, floors it, and cranks up the siren and lights.

The other format I’m trying to crack is when someone picks up a megaphone to address a crowd of people. So far I have something like:

EXT. PERRY’S HOUSE – NIGHT

The squad car screeches up in front of the house. Perry’s mom opens the top floor window and extends the Playstation over the ledge.

Perry jumps out, holds up a megaphone.

PERRY

(filtered)

Don’t do it, mom. Go back inside, and keep the Playstation where I can see it.

PERRY’S MOM

You’re a rotten kid, Perry. Rotten to the core.

PERRY

(filtered)

I mean it. I’ll use force if I have to.

I’m not sure if you need the word “filtered” in parentheticals in both examples, and if I do, should I put it on each line, or just the first? With the radio lines, I’ve put “ON RADIO” next to the name, and on each line. Do I need to include it on more than one, or is the first sufficient?

— Scott Benton
Los Angeles

In both cases, I would drop the “(filtered)” tag on the second line of dialogue. We get it, and reminding us that it’s filtered is just getting in the way of the jokes.

While we’re on the topic, I’m a fan of how you used **DISPATCH (ON RADIO)** in the first example. I find myself doing that a lot in situations where the speaker is not physically present in the scene. In some cases, it indicates a character we’ll never really meet (perhaps your Dispatcher), or a character we do meet who happens to be on a speakerphone or similarly off-screen.

Putting the parenthetical as part of the character name helps reinforce that the person won’t be seen. That’s clarity for the reader and for 1st ADs when it comes time to write the shooting schedule.

Including an important symbol

QandA, Words on the page

questionmarkI’m writing a film about a cop whose investigation leads him into the occult, and there’s a particular (real) symbol that crops up several times. It’s more than just a Star of David: in fact, it incorporates several familiar symbols, and also some Hebrew words… anyway, it’s complex. I’ve written the scene where someone in the know walks Our Hero through the symbology, but I want to make sure that my readers really know what it looks like.

Is it appropriate to include an illustration or figure of the symbol at the end of the screenplay? I’ve seen some scripts that have pronunciation guides at the back, so how is this any different?

— Sean Wolfson

You can probably get away with it.

My advice: think about it like a book. In the best-selling novel version of your script, would the author have included the drawing? If so, do it. But only once, and only if it’s really that important.

Two from the file

Film Industry, News, QandA, Words on the page

The mailbag gets a little backed up here. I thought I’d reach back a few years to look at two unanswered questions.

questionmarkI am working on a romantic comedy and much of the comedy is situational, physical comedy. Is it appropriate to specify in the script a generic location and the physical actions of the characters? For example, if someone was going to jump out of his chair and run to chase a dog only to grab the leash and be taken over the hood of a car as the dog jumped for a Frisbee (whew!!), would it be okay to specify all that? I have been under the impression that, as the writer, it isn’t my place to dictate specifics…that is for the producer and the director.

— Ryan O’Donnell
January 18, 2005

As the screenwriter, it’s your job to give readers the experience of watching a movie. If you’re writing a movie with a lot of physical comedy, that means writing a lot of physical comedy. The same holds true for car chases, dance numbers, fight scenes and every other kind of cinematic moment that a layman would assume “aren’t really written.” They’re written. By writers.

Might some of those beats change based on directors, actors, choreographers and stunt people? Certainly. But your goal is create moments so funny and original that all parties involved want to do it your way. (Or at least, try to top it.)

questionmarkI know this might be a little strange but you’re obviously in the loop. What’s going on with the movie “Stay” written by David Benioff?

Additionally your commentary on CA: Full Throttle was interesting. What are the Wibberleys like?

— Sean Sullivan
January 25, 2005

Unfortunately, Benioff’s once-promising career was killed by Stay. (Too many people thought it was a downbeat follow-up to Go.) Last I knew, he was making a good living writing those things you get in the stores with the covers, and the words and the pages…

Instruction manuals. He’s writing instruction manuals. Mostly for vacuum cleaners.

As for the Wibberleys, they’re lovely people. If only a producer could convince them to write something commercial, as opposed to the [high-minded literary fare](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0436339/) they’re known for.

(In truth, David and the Wibbs are great and busy. One of the best developments since 2005 is that name-brand feature writers know each other better than they used to. The strike and the internet are equally responsible for this.)