INTERCUT QUESTION

You are, to a degree, directing from the page.

Introduce your new character with the new scene heading, but then just run the entire conversation as if they were in the same room.

You can add a line in action that says the scene is intercut, but that's not really needed if it's clear they are on the phone.

Let the director worry about how to cut the conversation together.

There are a couple of ways you can do it and no one is THE correct way.

The key with a spec script is that you are selling the story/ideas/characters. You aren't writing the shooting script.

INT: RAZORMONEY'S HOUSE - DAY
The phone rings in Razormoney's palacial spread. The phone is diamond studded and sits beside a photo of a dinner party table where Razormoney seems to be sharing a hilarious joke with the Dalah Lama, George Bush, the Pope and Brittany Spears.

Razormoney picks.

RAZORMONEY
​

S'up​

?

WORDMONKEY​

Dude​

.

(You run the conversation)

Conversation ends as we CUT TO: Wordmonkey's cage. An old Smith Corona typewriters sits in a corner. The rest of the cage s sparcely decorated and the floor is covered in empty peanut shells and banana peels in various stages of decay.

That's not a great example, but you get the idea. It's also a way to get in your second location description without killing the flow of your converstaion which I would assume is the focus of that scene.

Like I say, there are other ways.

razormoney said:

What would you do if, in your example, Wordmonkey had not been described yet? I understand the phone conversation would introduce him, but what if you need to describe him to the audience. Would you do it right after the "Sup?" comment by Razormoney?

Also, I want to hear the joke about the Dalai Lama, the Pope and Brittany Spears.

R

Click to expand...

Cut to W/monkey's location with a 'same time' scene heading. Intro him with a brief description as he's on the phone, and then start your intercutting from there.

Intercutting makes it a smooth read for the editor, but as the script progresses through rewrites towards production this sequence becomes independent scenes. They're both at seperate locations, each location is a differently numbered scene, unless of course it's tight shots as someone mentioned. Director will decide.

razormoney said:

What would you do if, in your example, Wordmonkey had not been described yet? I understand the phone conversation would introduce him, but what if you need to describe him to the audience. Would you do it right after the "Sup?" comment by Razormoney?

Also, I want to hear the joke about the Dalai Lama, the Pope and Brittany Spears.

R

Click to expand...

Well, in my example, that description of the new character would come at the end of the conversation. If the conversation went on for five pages, that might be a bit extreme (but given that you'd be looking at five pages of talking heads, and that wouldn't be good) I would probably introduce the new character at the begining of the conversation. In my example, I probably should have ended the thing something more like...

The conversation is INTERCUT between RM and WM ending on...

INT: WORDMONKEY'S CAGE - DAY
Wordmonkey hangs up his phone. An old Smith Corona typewriters sits in a corner. The rest of the cage is sparcely decorated and the floor is covered in empty peanut shells and banana peels in various stages of decay.

Remember, I am giving you very slim examples here. If this is the first time we have seen WM, we need to introduce him as well.

However, as I said, there are several ways to handle a scene like this. The Bob Newhart way (You only hear one side of the conversation but from that you can deduce what is being said on the other end); hearing the other person's voice but not seeing them; intercutting, back and forth; half the conversation plays on one side and the second half finished on the second person and leads to another branch of the story; split the screen so we see both participants. All of those are valid and depending on the tone of the script/scene some are better than others. But that decision is the directors to make. You need to focus on setting up the scene, dialog and the relationship. As long as it's clear, you have some flexibility.

Did that make sense?

razormoney said:

Just wanted to get some second opinions on something. I know the standard answer is write so it's clear to the reader what's going on.

That being said, here's what I want to do. I have a character that I've already described who receives a phone call from someone who hasn't been introduced (until the phone call). I wanted to provide a new scene heading to introduce the new character, then INTERCUT between them after that. I thought of maybe having the phone conversation end with the new gal then stay on her and describe her then. Just seems to me it would be better to give her character description up front. Do any of you think it would be confusing? Here's a crude example:

Click to expand...

Not confusing but my question would be is it necessary at all?

A moving van across the street is going to generate some noise and sharp-eared Sheila is gonna notice and have a look.

If Jen is a significant character in the story she deserves a decent introduction, not an entrance in a phone call. Most often, significant characters get an entrance to bring them into the story and, if she is a significant player, her introduction should convey something about her persona other than the fact she has young ones. Who is this woman? What's she like? What might we expect from her as things unfold?

At the least perhaps she could come next door and show Sheila what's going on across the street, which would opportune a more appropriate entrance. Sheila could then invite her in for coffee and they could talk about the implications of what's going on across the street.

No A-List actress is gonna tolerate an entrance in a phone call.

If Jen is a minor character in the story, well then, that's a different ball game and in that case perhaps she might make the call ... but the conversation shouldn't go on and on either. She just conveys the information, Sheila looks to confirm it, and that's that.

You should play around with this, try to find a way to avoid the hassles of intercutting and introducing a character in a phone con, especially if she's a principle.

HTH.

I've always used on the rare occasion I would even use it....

"INTERCUTTING BEGINS"

Never had any complaints.

It's been my opinion that readers don't really give a damn as long as it's a coherent and acceptable method.

If you use the word "INTERCUT" they'll automatically assume you have some idea of what you are doing over someone who may say "The Characters start talking back and forth and we see them at their houses."

No A-List actress is gonna tolerate an entrance in a phone call.

Click to expand...

The phone warbles.

SHEILA
What now?

She picks up the phone. Notes the caller ID as she mashes the "talk" button.

SHEILA (INTO PHONE)
Hi lover, why the early call?

INT. CASTILLO HOME - DAY

JENNIFER (JEN) CASTILLO (30), naked except for a pair of shiny black thigh boots, stands at the front window.

INTERCUT

JEN
I'm feeling very naughty. I thought
you might want to come over for some
morning delight?

Sheila closes her eyes, sucks in deep breaths.

SHEILA
What are you wearing?

JEN
There's only one way to find out.
Oh by the way, someone's finally
moving in across from you. Perhaps
she's a naughty girl too?

Never say never.

-Derek

razormoney said:

You make a great point.

Should be pretty easy to come up with a way to introduce the new character, then start the phone call.

Don't know why I couldn't think of that myself. Amazing how the mind gets "tunnel vision" when writing sometimes. Seems the more I write, the more I get set in my ways and find it hard to step back from them. This site is great at motivating me to look at things from more than one persepective.

Just another reason why I love Absolute Write.

Thanks,

R

Click to expand...

I think we all suffer this "tunnel vision" business from time to time. I know I have.

An interesting aspect of this is the idea that the tried and true almost alsways serves the need ... we just need to alter them a little bit to avoid their cliche. Things that work tend to become tried and true. Then again we ought to push the envelope wherever opportuinities present themselves.

The script I just finished has a ton of phone cons in it, far mnore than anything else I've ever written. They are short scenes, two three speeches maybe four and out. So, I just tagged one of the characters' dialogue with "(VO)" and let it go at that. I chose the less significant character in these scenes to get the "(VO)" treatment, kept the star on the screen.

I did also write, though, an intercut phone con in which I declared the cuts ... the characters were 8,500 miles apart, one of them in an airplane ... and the nature of the call dictated full scene intercutting, as opposed to just INTERCUT CU's. In fact, other characters become involved in one end of this call. As I recall we go back and forth twice. It seems to go just fine.

Another design I used was to cut from the scene in which a character is talking on the phone to another character ... to that other character, where of course we find him on the phone, talking to WE know whom. Now the exchange is wrapped up and away we go. This cut has to make story sense too, of course, like any other.

We do what we need to do. I try to keep my vision as wide as possible yet at the same time I don't wanna get bogged down in long decision making efforts on the periphery stuff I might envision. Gotta produce some pages. Gotta keep the pace up. Who said this was easy?