Quick formatting question

[BrackettWilderDiamond]

If a character's face/head isn't on screen but another part of his/her body (e.g., hands) is visible when he/she speaks, do you use O.S.? None of the guides that I've read address this problem.

[terryewalker]

Off Screen (O.S.) Character Extension. Dialogue or sounds heard while the camera is on another subject. Always abbreviated in all capital letters and enclosed in parentheses.

[BrackettWilderDiamond]

The textbook definition you quoted doesn't really address the specifics of my question.

What to do when you have the camera on an essentially disembodied body part in a dialogue scene? The hand doesn't do the talking, the head does. (Certain Mediterranean types excepted, of course.)

[zagoraz]

I would say that if someone's face can't be seen talking on screen, to use (O.S.). It just makes sense.

[IWrite]

Bracket - if the camera is focused on a character's hand or feet or whatever - then obviously that character is not off screen.

If you don't want the character's face to be seen - then you need to state that in your description - but you would not use O.S.

Also you should keep these types of things (i.e. only showing a hand) to a minimum and only if it's key to the script. Generally speaking the director decides the shots - not the writer.

[nganok]

Don't step on the director's feet unless it's impossible to get the point across in the description. ie "Mary is only aware of John's Hands then blah, blah ,blah"

[BrackettWilderDiamond]

Obviously, the writer doesn't direct the film, unless he’s also the director. But sometimes a writer needs to make his intent clear by including a specific point of view/perspective for a given scene.

Dialogue, action, and setting - while the primary story-telling devices left to the writer - are sometimes not enough to convey mood or subtext. Occasionally, it is necessary to actually use the language of film. We are writing screenplays, after all, not stage plays.

The point is not to overload the script with unnecessary directions. One POV or DISSOLVE TO every twenty pages or so – provided that it’s appropriately used – isn’t going to break your script.

Of course, once it is out of the writer's hands, the director is free to disregard any or all of what the writer has written, including dialogue, action, and setting. This shouldn't discourage the writer, however, from trying to communicate his own vision of what the film might look and sound like.

[boyd]

I would use O.S. I've run into this situation a lot, e.g., I love to have a character with tears streaming down her cheeks while mother scolds her off screen, "You dirty little tramp. You never were any good!"

I've had the "camera angle" criticism jammed down my throat for 20 years. How in the hell can you "show" a good story without camera angles of one kind or another. "Mountains in the distance" is a camera angle. I also like to stick by the fact that the writer knows the story better than anyone. Later, Boyd

[Joe Calabrese]

You are all right to a degree as it's mostly a matter of style vs. rule. The big thing is you want to make it clear and consistant throughout the script. With regard to this particular case of hands only shown during dialog, I've handled it in the following way. IMHO that is.

Bob sits in a pew at the back of a darkened, empty church.

CLOSE ON: Bob's hands fidgit with rosary beads.

BOB
God. I try. I really do, but I need ya again. One last time.

Bob stands, straightens his tie and walks out. He turns to the crucifix at the altar and smiles before pocketing his beads.

[scripter1]

If any part of the character is seen then they would be ON SCREEN.

(OS) is reserved O N L Y for a character who is NOT seen.

Boyd's example is correct as the mother would be off screen. It is a perfect example of off screen action.

If we SEE her finger wagging in the kids face, then that would be described in an action line by either just writing that "Mom wags her finger right in kids face"

OR it could be done with the direction as Joe used.... "CLOSE UP Mom has her finger right in kids face."

Either one will work and either one is acceptable and then the director will shoot it twenty-one times and decide what he/she likes best.

A limited amount of camera direction sprinkled judicially, wisely, and VITALLY through out the script will not cause problems in a well crafted and exciting script.k

[Joe Calabrese]

I've had the "camera angle" criticism jammed down my throat for 20 years. How in the hell can you "show" a good story without camera angles of one kind or another. "Mountains in the distance" is a camera angle.
"Mountains in the distance" is not a camera direction. "PULL BACK to reveal the mountains in the distance" is.

There is a fine line between using description in your story to give the reader a clear visualness vs. blatenly telling the director how to do his job. A lot of it is dependant on good writing. Good writing should be seemless and fit into storytelling without making it seem too technical and thus no longer elements of good writing.

In my example above with the CLOSE ON:, it's technical enough to give the info needed but you'll notice that I don't put a BACK TO SCENE. It is implied that once you show an action that cannot be in that close on, it's back to the main shot. By not putting a (O.S.) it is still implied that you don't see the face since the close on is the dominate action, but can be interpreted differently by the reader if they so wish to.

[Mightypen71]

I think it can go either way. But in a spec script you wouldn't want to get that detailed with character bodies, positions while talking ... etc. Would you?

[IWrite]

I think it can go either way. But in a spec script you wouldn't want to get that detailed with character bodies, positions while talking ... etc. Would you?

Sometimes for storytelling purposes or for effect - you might want to just show a hand holding a knife, a foot kicking a ball, etc. before revealing who the hand or foot belong to or what the hand is doing with the knife.

But again, you should keep the use of these devices to a minimum - an not use them as gimmicks.