John August

Search Results for: parenthetical

Writing unspoken things

QandA, Words on the page

questionmarkIn 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.

One-sided dialogue

Formatting, QandA

questionmarkI’m writing a script in which a main “character” is invisible and the audience will never see or hear him. The character (Bob) is built from his interactions with the lead character in the story (Jane).

My question is, what is the best way to write dialog between the real and invisible character, when it appears as if the lead character is talking to herself?

Here are a couple examples of what I mean:

  • JANE
  • I’ve gotta get some food in me. You hungry…? You know I’m a vegetarian– Yeah, so…? Pork rinds are not made of real pig… Fine. You buy me a bag and I’ll read the label.

or:

  • JANE
  • I’ve gotta get some food in me. You hungry?
  • (beat)
  • You know I’m a vegetarian–
  • (beat)
  • Yeah, so?
  • (beat)
  • Pork rinds are not made of real pig.
  • (beat)
  • Fine. You buy me a bag and I’ll read the label.

or:

  • JANE
  • I’ve gotta get some food in me. You hungry?
  • (Bob answers)
  • You know I’m a vegetarian–
  • (he cuts her off)
  • Yeah, so?
  • (Bob won’t shut up)
  • Pork rinds are not made of real pig.
  • (he begs to differ)
  • Fine. You buy me a bag and I’ll read the label.

Do you think one of these options is better than the others? Do they all suck? I’d appreciate any suggestions from your own experience.

— Michael
Los Angeles, CA

You’re bumping up against one of the limitations of screenwriting: it’s hard to capture some things on paper that make perfect sense on screen. You’re trying to balance clarity with annoyance, so the reader will understand what’s happening without being aggravated by the technique.

Option one is just too dense. Option two is much easier to read, but you’re beating us to death. And option three provides more detail than we really need.

So my suggestion would be to try a combination of options two and three. Use (beat) or another short, meaningless filler such as (listens) or even (. . .) for most breaks, then provide more details (such as “he begs to differ”) on lines that need the setup.

Also, consider how often you really need to break up the lines, and look for occasions when it makes as much sense to keep them together.

It’s never going to be ideal. But if your dialogue is sharp enough, the reader will ignore the parenthetical awkwardness and enjoy the rhythms you’re setting up. That’s all you need.

Pre-Lap

Formatting, QandA, Words on the page

questionmarkThanks for posting [the script to The Nines](http://johnaugust.com/downloads). In it, you give some dialogue a “(PRE-LAP)” extension. This dialogue begins in V.O., bridges us to the next scene, and continues onscreen. Obviously, it’s a useful and commonly used device.

The term “Pre-Lap” makes obvious technical sense, but is it common enough for us unknowns to use in our scripts? I’ve seen some scripts that use “(BRIDGING)” or “(BRIDGE)” – or even put some explanation in action paragraphs. I’d hate to adopt “PRE-LAP” only to find that low-level readers think I’m making up my own neologisms, or using obsolete technical terms like SFX or M.O.S.

What would you recommend?

–bagadonuts

Pre-lapping is when dialogue begins before we’ve cut to the scene in which it’s spoken. Here’s an example from The Nines:

He turns his back to the foyer, listening to the instructions on the phone.

GARY

Nine leopards run through the jungle.

(listening)

I bought two cakes at the store.

His identity evidently confirmed, he hangs up. He looks back into the foyer.

GARY (PRE-LAP) (CONT’D)

The house is haunted. There’s a zeitgeist, or something.

EXT. UPSTAIRS DECK – DAY

Margaret has brought coffee and pastries from Susina.

MARGARET

Poltergeist, and no. Maybe they were rats. L.A. is teeming with rats. They live in the palm trees.

Often, it’s a choice made editorially, during post-production, but you can also write it in if it helps sell a joke or moment. It’s common enough — and simple enough — that I think most readers will understand it in context, even if they’re unfamiliar with the term.

You should know that some readers despise pre-laps, despite their usefulness. If you use them, you need to have a vigilant script supervisor, because these dangling lines of dialogue can find themselves forgotten in the rush of production.

Masturbating to Star Trek

Challenge, QandA, Words on the page

questionmark

This isn’t really an imperative screenwriting question, and is something below your answering pay-grade, but…in fact it’s a petty squabble, though hopefully it’ll amuse you enough to intervene.

A few friends and I, on a lark and to make one another laugh, have been writing a script off and on, sometimes with it gaining more seriousness than other times. It starred us as us, writing a meta-movie which you would see coming together on-screen. But most of that involved our bickering and insults. And, well, art imitated life imitating art imitating — y’know. Now the argument devolves into whether or not we’re being needlessly mean puppeteers to one another.

Lately I’ve been coming back on one guy in particular, Sam, saying that I can dish and take whatever he writes as long as it’s good and funny. I’ve written three screenplays myself and I’m reasonably content with them, but, since I don’t have any objective validation for them (never sold any fiction writing, said friends are kinda dicks when it comes to helping others with their work), it’s hard for me to “lecture” to him certain screenplay “rules” (cohesiveness, economy, flow, momentum). Add to that, I can’t help but to continually tell Sam he’s a “shitty screenwriter,” which he takes the insane pejorative assumption that I’m calling him a shitty writer.

For example, here’s a scene from Sam’s latest draft, involving a 500 word scene about me masturbating to “Star Trek”:

  • INT. SHANE’S BEDROOM – NIGHT
  • Shane crosses the room, turning on the television and throwing his keys down on a table or couch or something giving the illusion that he just came home. With the TV on, Shane walks over to his computer. Still standing up, Shane starts to look at pornography. This could be shown with brief glimpses of nondescript nudity along with some sexual moaning noises. It should be clear that he’s looking at pornography.
  • Shane looks over at the TV set, and then concentrates on the computer screen.
  • Shane starts to masturbate. This should be done as classy as possible, with Shane keeping his boxers on or something, and the camera view either being a chest/body shot where we can see his arm fluctuating like mad, or from behind arm fluctuating like mad. Obviously no one wants to see Shane’s penis, but it should be clear he’s masturbating.
  • ((If Shane’s comfortable with “kindergarten style” as in the way kindergartners use urinals, where the pull their pants all the way down to their feet and then tuck their shirts under their chin, sticking their mid section out. It’s almost a universally hilarious human position that has rarely been exploited.))
  • We then hear the TV a bit clearer. It’s a star trek like show. Shane, hears it a few seconds after we do, and he slows his rhythm a little and looks over his shoulder at the television set, hesitating in his masturbation.
  • Almost with a renewed sense of duty, Shane turns his head back to the computer and masturbates with more furious abandon than previously seen. He’s obviously trying to hurry up.
  • The sound from the star trek TV show get a little more intense, maybe it’s a space battle or a battle down on some planet, either way we hear laser sounds and sound effects enough of a distraction that Shane turns his head again, slowing his pace.
  • He stares for a moment, almost stopping, then as if jolting back to life, he turns back to the computer and begins pumping his manhood but, more of a regular pace, not as much vigor as before, more determined this time, less frantic.
  • At this point, Shane needs to be looking back and forth from the computer screen to the television, keeping a steady pace regardless of where his eyes are at.
  • Gradually, Shane spends longer time looking at the television and less time at the porn. He should make the transition to only looking at Star Trek on the television, possibly turning his body away from the computer screen and towards the TV, but still maintaining a fluid, steady masturbation motion.
  • We still don’t want to see him actually masturbate, so the camera should be chest level, if we indeed do a shot from up close.
  • He essentially is masturbating to Star Trek as the door to this room opens and Dustin wanders aimlessly in, followed by Sam.
  • DUSTIN
  • Hey-a Shane.
  • SHANE
  • Ah!
  • SAM
  • Hey Shane.
  • DUSTIN
  • Ah!
  • SHANE
  • Ah!
  • SAM
  • Ah!
  • DUSTIN
  • Ah!
  • SHANE
  • Ah!
  • DUSTIN
  • What the hell are you doing, Shane?
  • SHANE
  • Masturbating?
  • SAM
  • Were you just masturbating to Star Trek?
  • SHANE
  • No, I had it on but I was masturbating to this inoffensive porn on my computer why the fuck didn’t you guys knock?
  • SAM
  • Settle down there, Shane.
  • SHANE
  • (mocking voice)
  • Were you just masturbating to Star Trek? No, I wasn’t just masturbating to Star Trek! You have no right to come in here, in my house and just start accusing me of things I’m not doing!
  • DUSTIN
  • Were you going to time it so you came when the crew beamed back to the ship?
  • SHANE
  • Get the fuck out of here!

If you’ve read this far in the email, is there any chance you could help me? I can’t see you wanting to post something this long yourself (unless you want to make me an example of collaboration do-not’s, in which case I can’t say I don’t have it coming). But something as simple as “[Sam/Shane] is right, [Shane/Sam] is wrong” to post on my blog with WGA-writer certification would be great. You don’t even have to point out that his scene is based on a caught-jerkin’-it! joke that makes “Porky’s” cutting edge, or that he finally sticks it to those Trekkies who have for far too long gone on an unmocked free ride. Just something so I can say, “John August, screenwriter of ‘Go’ and ‘Big Fish,’ whose blog has been a featured screenwriting resource in the New York Times, says this could’ve been done in 30 words. So suck it, Sam.”

[Scene Challenge]Suck it, Sam.

This scene has the potential to be funny,Not hilarious, not genre-defining, but satisfactorily awkward to elicit laughs from people who like the American Pie movies but wish they could have incorporated more geek nostalgia. but is undermined by very sloppy writing. This makes it the ideal candidate for the first-ever __John August Scene Challenge__.

Everyone can play. Here’s how it works.

1. Rewrite the scene. You’re not limited to 30 words, but it shouldn’t take more than 200 to get to the dialogue. (Shane/Sam’s takes 490.)
2. Post your entry in the comments.Links to videotaped versions of the scene are also encouraged, though this is technically a screenwriting thing. Don’t worry about the fancy formating. We’re friends here.
3. All entries must be submitted by 8 a.m. PST on Wednesday, Feb. 28th., 2007. Remember that comments are sometimes held in moderation. __Don’t submit twice.__ It will show up. Promise.
4. I’ll pick a winner later that day.
5. Winner receives bragging rights, which may be exchanged for a sense of self-worth.

Begin.