SCENE HEADING -- SIMULTANEOUS

[nganok]

I have recently used this scene heading in a spec I'm writing. Essentially a guy assaults a book store owner. I want to know if people understand that they are chasing this MAN through the streets at the same time of his victim's questioning. Should this be written differently to relay this to the reader? or is it good the way it is? I wrote it similar to the following:



EXT. CITY STREETS - DOWNTOWN -- LATER

Dark clouds drown out the sun. Rain pounds the pavement and bumper to bumper traffic in an intersection. A symphony of car horns fill the air.

Two uniformed OFFICERS chase a MAN in a black trench coat and beanie through the maze of cars.

INT. ARABIC BOOK STORE -- SIMULTANEOUS

Two detectives listen to TALIB NAJI, 55, a middle eastern man with a thick accent frantically explain what has happened to him.

[Goodwriterguy]

I have recently used this scene heading in a spec I'm writing. Essentially a guy assaults a book store owner. I want to know if people understand that they are chasing this MAN through the streets at the same time of his victim's questioning. Should this be written differently to relay this to the reader? or is it good the way it is? I wrote it similar to the following:



EXT. CITY STREETS - DOWNTOWN -- LATER

Dark clouds drown out the sun. Rain pounds the pavement and bumper to bumper traffic in an intersection. A symphony of car horns fill the air.

Two uniformed OFFICERS chase a MAN in a black trench coat and beanie through the maze of cars.

INT. ARABIC BOOK STORE -- SIMULTANEOUS

Two detectives listen to TALIB NAJI, 55, a middle eastern man with a thick accent frantically explain what has happened to him.
The thing is, you can't write these scenes on the page "simultaneously," one has to follow the other, as you know. The scenes may be occurring at the same story time but your audience can't see them at the same time (short of some rather fast paced intercutting), they can only see them sequentially, as they indeed appear in your script.

The question becomes, what can a director do to convey their simultenaiety to the audience? You can include "SIMULTANEOUS" in your caption and it will tell a reader the scene is occurring at the same time as the chase through the streets, but the audience doesn't get to read the script, they only get to see the movie. So, what do you expect a director to do? How can he or she convey the notion of simultenaity?

The audience's perception will depend on what happens next; do you go from the book store back to the chase and then back to the book store? That would serve to convey simultenaity. But if you go somewhere else, you will lose those connections.

It's one thing to inform your reader, it's another to craft your movie so that your audience gets it. Is simultenaity crucial here? If it is, I think you could choose to go back and forth,

- chase
- book store
- chase
- book store
- chase and arrest (or escape)
- book store.

and this would most assuredly convey the simultaneous nature of the action and, not require the qualifier "SIMULTANEOUS" on the first book store scene caption.

Another way to do it would be to have one of the officers in the book store get a radio call from one of the officers involved in the chase.

OFFICER IN BOOK STORE
Yeah, you get the perp yet?

OFFICER ON CHASE
Nope, he zoomed down Peckerwood
street, jumped the car and ran. We'll
get him. Out.

Or some such.

Final note: I think caption qualifiers, such as "LATER" or "SAME" or "CONTINUOUS" or whatever are parenthtical statements and belong in parentheses,

INT CITY STREETS (LATER)

INT BOOK STORE (SIMULTANEOUS)

and so on.

Cheers! :D

[dpaterso]

If you truly want simultaneous then maybe,

SPLIT SCREEN - LEFT HALF

EXT. CITY STREETS - DOWNTOWN -- DAY

Dark clouds drown out the sun. Rain pounds the pavement and bumper to bumper traffic in an intersection. A symphony of car horns fill the air.

Two uniformed OFFICERS chase a MAN in a black trench coat and beanie through the maze of cars.

SPLIT SCREEN - RIGHT HALF

INT. ARABIC BOOK STORE -- DAY

Two detectives listen to TALIB NAJI, 55, a middle eastern man with a thick accent frantically explain what has happened to him.

...might work. Assuming that simultaneous is vital, that the scenes can't just play out sequentially.

-Derek

[jonpiper]

Since this is a SPEC SCRIPT, must nganok direct the sequence? I mean, should nganok tell the director how to film it. Goodwriterguy (go back and forth) and depaterso (use split screen), you both wrote good alternatives, but is it necessary to go that far in a spec script? Won’t the director decide how to film it? The “Go back and forth” or the “split screen” method are reserved for the shooting script, aren’t they? I don't know, just asking?

So, as far as the spec script goes, would it be sufficient, prior to the two scenes, to write a line that specified simultaneity, e.g., The following two scenes occur simultaneously.

[dpaterso]

Well sure, you have a point. But like most "How do I...?" threads, a question is asked, we all get to offer suggestions, then author decides which way he likes best. Democracy in action. :)

-Derek

[jonpiper]

I'm not sure if I'm being clear. I was really asking if it is necessary, or even proper, when writing a SPEC SCRIPT, to write how to film the sequence. Since a spec script is written to tell the story and get the attention of a "reader," do we want to insert too much "direction"?

[dpaterso]

No we probably don't, and you're right to say so, but again that's author's choice, if he thinks it does something for the story, and/or keeps adrenalin pumping, and/or makes for faster pacing that leads up to a big bang, who's to say it's 100% wrong? I haven't read the full script and just don't know how much direction it contains, if any. This could be a one-off for a specific purpose.

-Derek

[clockwork]

I'd use SAME TIME as the scene description.

EXT. CITY STREETS - DOWNTOWN -- LATER

Dark clouds drown out the sun. Rain pounds the pavement and bumper to bumper traffic in an intersection. A symphony of car horns fill the air.

Two uniformed OFFICERS chase a MAN in a black trench coat and beanie through the maze of cars.

INT. ARABIC BOOK STORE -- SAME TIME

Across town, two detectives listen to TALIB NAJI, 55, a middle eastern man with a thick accent frantically explain what has happened to him.

You might want to even slot in a 'CUT TO' after the chase sequence. They're not used much these days but I find them useful for explicitly linking two scenes together, especially when a sense of urgency is required.

As to directing from the page, I think there's a big difference between telling the director what to do (a boom crane starts at 100 feet and begins a slow descent, panning across the street to reveal blah blah blah) and just you're own writing style. If your style is engaging and keeps the story moving, a reader will overlook something that may be interpreted as direction.

[nganok]

All the suggestions seem right and efficient. I think I'll be safe and go with Jonpiper until I feel more comfortable. I'll just use DAY,AFTERNOON, NIGHT basic headings and then let the director do as he feels. I was reading Frank Darabont's Shawshank Redemption and he didn't LATER or SIMULTANEOUS anywhere that I saw. He just used the basic headings.

[English Dave]

I'll just use DAY,AFTERNOON, NIGHT .

I'd just stick with DAY and NIGHT.

[Goodwriterguy]

Since this is a SPEC SCRIPT, must nganok direct the sequence? I mean, should nganok tell the director how to film it. Goodwriterguy (go back and forth) and depaterso (use split screen), you both wrote good alternatives, but is it necessary to go that far in a spec script? Won’t the director decide how to film it? The “Go back and forth” or the “split screen” method are reserved for the shooting script, aren’t they? I don't know, just asking?

So, as far as the spec script goes, would it be sufficient, prior to the two scenes, to write a line that specified simultaneity, e.g., The following two scenes occur simultaneously.
Too much emphasis here on story and not enough on movie, methinks.

A screenplay is a PLAY FOR THE SCREEN, as in screenPLAY. You're writing a story, to be sure, but you are writing the movie of that story. Soon as you put one scene ahead or behind another you are defining a cinematic vision, you are, in effect, "directing on the page." There's simply no way around this and if you see yourself as a screenwriter you don't even want to get around it, screenwriters write movies, not just stories; they write plays for the screen.

If all we wanted to do was write stories we could write treatments and submit them.

Spec scripts use the master scene form of the screenplay, which means the spec screenwriter doesn't write or include the multitude of shots that are required to cover his or her master scenes, all the POVs, CU's, reaction shots, cutways, new angles, and so on that are needed to fully form a master scene for the screen.

Think about it, features cut on average about every eight to ten seconds, more or less. That means in a two hour movie there's gonna be footage from somewhere around (2 * 60 = 120 * 60 = 7,200/10 =) 720 shots, some of which will be masters and some of which will be angles or cutaways.

A typical spec script has 110 pages let's say and anywhere between 170 and 225 master scenes (my scripts usually average around 1.7 to 2 scenes per page, as most do). Let's call it 190 master scenes. Where's the rest of those 720 shots? There's another 500-odd shots which we have not written. A director "writes" them and he or she does so by selecting them. They break a master scene down, let's see I need a POV here, a reaction shot there, a CU here, another POV there, and so on. They then film the master top to bottom ... and then shoot all these additional angles they've decided upon, some of which are obligatory, some of which are choice. The script supervisor keeps track of all this information and provides it to the editor so that when they cut the picture together they know what angles go where.

A spec writer only runs the risk of directing on the page when they start writing ANGLES within their master scenes, whether POVs, CU's, reaction shots or whatever. Those shots are the directors purview.

And, of course, when they start including camera directions.

But even then, many specs do contain some slugging of ANGLES within their master scenes, some, just not a lot. I won't hesitate a second to slug an ANGLE when it is going to greatly enhance the read and the conveyance of my cinematic vision, not a second. And any director worth their salt isn't going to suffer a huge negative reaction to this ... because, I have otherwise shown the discipline to my craft in 98 per cent of the script, and he or she is gonna know I did this one or the one back on page 16 for real reasons, reasons that make sense and with which they'll have no particular disagreement. They know in the end they can do it the way they see it anyway.

Doing as I suggested with the liquor store/chase sequence isn't "telling the director how to shoot it" any more than any other sequence you write. There's no camera directions and no slugs, there's only master scenes.

You do not want to load your script up with notes about how things are going to be seen, you want to write them as you want them to be seen.

I don't think a split screen approach to this particular problem is a very good solution. First, split screen presentations are uncommon; second, it's much less "movie-like" than going back and forth; third, I doubt the simultenaity of the two scenes is that important.

Going back and forth is common as apple pie, spec writers do it all the time. And I would not do it with this scene unless their simultaneous occurrence was somehow absolutely crucial to the audience getting the story.

Write master scenes. Cut or go back and forth as often as is necessary. If you're not writing 1.5 to two scenes per page on average, you may have a very slow paced picture.

Keep writing! :D

[English Dave]

Too much emphasis here on story and not enough on movie, methinks.

Write master scenes. Cut or go back and forth as often as is necessary. If you're not writing 1.5 to two scenes per page on average, you may have a very slow paced picture.

Keep writing! :D

Just to clarify what GWG is saying in that last line. That AVERAGE can depend on the genre, and remember that a scene can consist of a slug line and one action line and that's what can give you a 1.5 scene per page average. Don't be afraid to write 3, 4 or whatever page scenes if the scene justifies it.

[Goodwriterguy]

Just to clarify what GWG is saying in that last line. That AVERAGE can depend on the genre, and remember that a scene can consist of a slug line and one action line and that's what can give you a 1.5 scene per page average. Don't be afraid to write 3, 4 or whatever page scenes if the scene justifies it.
Indeed the average is somewhat dependent upon genre. In action scripts it will be higher, in drama lower, generally.

And, a screenwriter should not ever hesitate to write a three page scene if that's what it takes. No way. I certainly didn't mean to imply otherwise.

One can take a look at their average when the script is done and see where it has landed. If it's way off 1.5 to 2 scenes per page then it's worth having a look to see why this is so. It may be that in a given piece an average of .5 or .8 scenes per page is perfectly right on; But it may also reflect the fact that you have too many 600+ word scenes.

It's just another one of those million things a screenwriter has to think about. ;)

[Goodwriterguy]

I'd use SAME TIME as the scene description.

EXT. CITY STREETS - DOWNTOWN -- LATER

Dark clouds drown out the sun. Rain pounds the pavement and bumper to bumper traffic in an intersection. A symphony of car horns fill the air.

Two uniformed OFFICERS chase a MAN in a black trench coat and beanie through the maze of cars.

INT. ARABIC BOOK STORE -- SAME TIME

Across town, two detectives listen to TALIB NAJI, 55, a middle eastern man with a thick accent frantically explain what has happened to him.

You might want to even slot in a 'CUT TO' after the chase sequence. They're not used much these days but I find them useful for explicitly linking two scenes together, especially when a sense of urgency is required.

As to directing from the page, I think there's a big difference between telling the director what to do (a boom crane starts at 100 feet and begins a slow descent, panning across the street to reveal blah blah blah) and just you're own writing style. If your style is engaging and keeps the story moving, a reader will overlook something that may be interpreted as direction.
True enough.

But I don't get where you got your idea about what CUT TO: is all about. It would be interesting to hear.

Traditionally, CUT TO: was a screenwriter's lexicon for saying "GO TO:" as in somewhere else, or "WE'RE GOING TO:."

This was used when your script changed locations in a major way, like cutting from LA to Paris or Seattle to NYC or even LA to Las Vegas. It put a reader on notice that a big change in location was about to occur and since such changes usually or often associate with the end of one sequence and the beginning of another, it sort of set sequences off, providing a little breather in the read.

Change of location is a matter of scale of course. If one's story sets entirely in one city, for example, then a CUT TO: might be an appropriate signal that we're going from downtown to Orange County or from the Valley to Long Beach or from Santa Monica to San Bernardino.

If this is not done then all the sequences run together with no letup and significant changes in location can get lost in the steady pace of new scene captions. You don't want a reader getting well into a new scene only to realize that, wait a minute, I thought we were in LA and this appears to be Central Park. The new scene caption should take care of this, but readers read very fast and can miss things like this. So, CUT TO:

Which tells them a change is about to occur. We're leaving the characters we've just spent fifteen minutes with or whatever and going somewhere else to another set of characters. Be ready.

Use of CUT TO: has declined for the same reason that a lot of elements of the form have declined in use ... so many new writers bashed them up and made messes, the reader cadre said "No more!" David Trottier advises against their use in his book "The Screenwriter's Bible," citing the gtrend toward "leaner scripts." He says don't use SERIES OF SHOTS, MONTAGE, CUT TO:, and DISSOLVE TO:, among others I believe. Well, it's hogwash, because all of these things were used by screenwriters for years and years and years and they have a function and they serve a purpose.

Like anything else they should be used appropriately and not overused just for the mere idea of using them as some attempt to look smart or something.

I wrote a piece not long ago that set both in the USA and in Australia and it went back and forth a number of times, and every time it did I used a CUT TO: to indicate the change. The script I'm working on now has two DISSOLVE TO:'s in it and I'm on page 70. It also has two or three SERIES OF SHOTS too.

It's cinema folks. These tools are in the screenwriter's tool box. They should be used where they are appropriate and not used where they aren't.

As for Frank Darabont's "Shawshank Redemption" I believe that was written on assignment, and scripts written on assignment are a whole other ballgame. Besides, Darabont's reputation is such that he can write a script any damned way he pleases, the picture's still gonna get produced.

But you and me, we're trying to sell a movie idea, and we're coming at the deal from ground zero, with no reputation hardly at all. Hence, we have to comply with the dictates and the lexicon of the form and we must do this masterfully. We have to make our movie come alive on the page. A script that runs from top to bottom without surcease when it's story is jumping from LA to London to Nairobi and back again is gonna be one tiring read. I think Alan Ball's "American Beauty" has 11 CUT TO:'s in it, and it was a pure spec (although adapted from his stage rendition).

If you want urgency in a cut, do it like this:

SCENE
Blah, blah, blah, blah.

NEXT SCENE (QUICK CUT)
Blah, blah, blah, blah.

If you're taking your reader to a place far away, use a CUT TO:

If you're jumping your story ahead in time to some significant degree, use a DISSOLVE TO:

If you are jumping your story ahead in time to some significant degree AND changing locations significantly, use JUMP CUT TO:

Nobody will shoot you.

Cheers! :D

[jonpiper]

Goodwriterguy, you wrote: "Doing as I suggested with the liquor store/chase sequence isn't "telling the director how to shoot it" any more than any other sequence you write. There's no camera directions and no slugs, there's only master scenes."

I never completely understood what directing from the page meant, where developing and propeling the story ended and where directing began. It makes sense that when your write camera angles in a scene you are directing. In the same sense it seems you are directing when you alternate the chase scene with the interrogation scene by breaking them into those very small scenes.

I guess the question is: how does the reader respond to the way it's written?
It seems that you are saying readers won't put up with SCENES that are directed from the page but are open to SEQUENCES that are directed.

[Mac H.]

Traditionally, CUT TO: was a screenwriter's lexicon for saying "GO TO:" as in somewhere else, or "WE'RE GOING TO:."
I remember seeing a post once (I think on Larry Brody's board) by an old screenwriter who was writing for Paramount when they changed the way 'CUT TO' was used. Before the change they basically used it all the time.

Then one day they were all told to stop using 'CUT TO' between most scenes. And they did. They didn't think about the 'style' of the screenplay, because in those days they just considered themselves as lowly employees .. it didn't occur to them to have any 'style'.

If the guy paying you the money wanted the change indicated in a certain way, you just did it.

I wish I could find the post now.

Mac

[Goodwriterguy]

I remember seeing a post once (I think on Larry Brody's board) by an old screenwriter who was writing for Paramount when they changed the way 'CUT TO' was used. Before the change they basically used it all the time.

Then one day they were all told to stop using 'CUT TO' between most scenes. And they did. They didn't think about the 'style' of the screenplay, because in those days they just considered themselves as lowly employees .. it didn't occur to them to have any 'style'.

If the guy paying you the money wanted the change indicated in a certain way, you just did it.

I wish I could find the post now.

Mac
Yes. If you look at Goldman's "Butch Cassidy" it has a CUT TO: after every scene, much in the manner of those old writer's you mention. That script was penned, when? In the mid-60's sometime, late 60's? Somewhere in there.

The change may have occurred at Paramount by order and thus overnight but it didn't happen right across the industry that way. It took awhile before everyone stopped using CUT TO:'s after every scene and the protocol I described to take hold, but it had taken hold by the early to mid-70's, especially among spec writers, which were an emerging breed then anyway.

The fact that Paramount said "stop using CUT TO: between most scenes" is revealing and begs the question, which ones can it be used on? I think the concensus was those at which a significant change of location was going to occur.

There is no central authority on what exactly constitutes the master scene screenplay form. The studios have always had their own guidelines and while they have good general agreement, they aren't identical. We spec writers are sort of left to fend for ourselves, to absorb what we can of the generally accepted practices and apply them as we go. We're all free to choose our manner.

I learned this craft from writers who were active after 1970 and before, say, 1985, and was taught the protocol I described and have always written that way, using CUT TO: when there's a big change of location about to happen. So I have grown accustomed to it and I like it ... because it works and has logic, which is why I think it became established in the first place.

Ever think about why scene transitions are right justified instead of left?

Another one to ponder.

Cheers! :D

[nganok]

WHOA, you guys really went into left field after a basketball on that one. Geez. Thanks though, I learned alot from this debate

[Goodwriterguy]

WHOA, you guys really went into left field after a basketball on that one. Geez. Thanks though, I learned alot from this debate
Yeah, one thing leads to another. But it is good to hear you've learned something from it. I learned a few things too. There is so much to learn we can't stop. We all have to be lifelong students of this art and its craft. It will keep revealing itself to us if we assume this stance. Practice makes perfect and perseverence furthers.

Onward! :D

[The Lizard]

Wow! Kinda glad the topic was marginally hijacked.
As to the originial query? Excuse the *blonde* moment ... wouldn't CONTINUOUS fit?

I have a query re MONTAGES including scene changes but will post it elsewhere as in one of my scripts I have included scene changes in a montage that reflect the simultaneous situation.

L

[Goodwriterguy]

Wow! Kinda glad the topic was marginally hijacked.
As to the originial query? Excuse the *blonde* moment ... wouldn't CONTINUOUS fit?

I have a query re MONTAGES including scene changes but will post it elsewhere as in one of my scripts I have included scene changes in a montage that reflect the simultaneous situation.
"Continuous" and "sumultaneous" mean different things, que no?

[jonpiper]

Nganok, after a lot of surfing, I agree with GWG. A reader will understand scenes are simultaneous when the writer alternates them. No qualifier or modifier would be necessary. Perhaps to eliminate any suggestion of directing from the page, it is sufficient to alternate the scenes only once or twice.

As a different approach, I found the following spec script, EARTHLY DESIRES
by Charles Deemer [ http://www.ibiblio.org/cdeemer/earthly.htm ], where he uses V.O. from the first scene in the second through eighth short scenes to convey simultaneity. He doesn't return to the first location until the ninth scene.

FADE IN:

INT. STANFORD UNIVERSITY - CLASSROOM - DAY

At the chalkboard is BERT WILLIAMS, 50. Bert wears a work shirt, tie,
and sports jacket, his left-over academic style from the 60s.

STUDENTS watch as he writes on the board:

"William Blake, 1757-1827"

He turns, faces the class and starts to recite from memory:

BERT
"I went to the Garden of Love.
And saw what I never had seen:"

INT. COMMODORE HOTEL - SUITE - BEDROOM - DAY

A COUPLE is making love. The woman is MAUREEN, 20s; the man JACOB, 40s.

The poem continues:

BERT (V.O.)
"A Chapel was built in the midst,
Where I used to play on the green."

INT. SUITE - SMALL ROOM - DAY

NICOLE, 20s, sits in front of a laptop computer hooked up to a series of
video monitors. Each gives a different angle of the lovemaking going on
in the adjacent bedroom.

The poem continues:

BERT (V.O.)
"And the gates of this Chapel were shut,
And 'Thou shalt not" writ over the door;'"

[Goodwriterguy]

After a lot of surfing, I agree with GWG. A reader will understand scenes are simultaneous when the writer alternates them. No qualifier or modifier would be necessary. Perhaps to eliminate any suggestion of directing from the page, it is sufficient to alternate the scenes only once or twice.

As a different approach, I found the following spec script, EARTHLY DESIRES by Charles Deemer, where he uses V.O. from the first scene in the second through eighth short scenes to convey simultanety. He doesn't return to the first location until the ninth scene.

FADE IN:

INT. STANFORD UNIVERSITY - CLASSROOM - DAY

At the chalkboard is BERT WILLIAMS, 50. Bert wears a work shirt, tie,
and sports jacket, his left-over academic style from the 60s.

STUDENTS watch as he writes on the board:

"William Blake, 1757-1827"

He turns, faces the class and starts to recite from memory:

BERT
"I went to the Garden of Love.
And saw what I never had seen:"

INT. COMMODORE HOTEL - SUITE - BEDROOM - DAY

A COUPLE is making love. The woman is MAUREEN, 20s; the man JACOB, 40s.

The poem continues:

BERT (V.O.)
"A Chapel was built in the midst,
Where I used to play on the green."

INT. SUITE - SMALL ROOM - DAY

NICOLE, 20s, sits in front of a laptop computer hooked up to a series of
video monitors. Each gives a different angle of the lovemaking going on
in the adjacent bedroom.

The poem continues:

BERT (V.O.)
"And the gates of this Chapel were shut,
And 'Thou shalt not" writ over the door;'" Indeed, there are lots of ways to skin this cat.

Deemer's approach is similar to my suggestion of having the cops in the Arab book store get a call from the cops engaged in the chase.

It's a writer's decision as to which treatment works best in their script.

Charley Deemer has been a big and very positive contributor to the screenwriting community for a long time.

Good eye there, Jonpiper! :)