WE SEE, WE HEAR, POV . . . showing direction

[Ziljon]

Is it true that direction in screenplays is now considered a no-no?

What if you want a slow reveal of a squalid apartment, from kitchen to bathroom to bedroom and then finally to the protag sitting on the couch? How would you write it without:

WE SEE the dishes piled up in the sink. WE MOVE down the bare hall. Off to the right is a bathroom. The toilet is clogged. CLOSE on the swirling mephitic ooze in the bowl. In the BG WE HEAR the sound of a bottle being popped. WE MOVE down the hall, etc.

Is my question clear? How does one show stuff in a screenplay that is only seen through the camera's eyes and ears without using directions like PAN and CLOSE and WE HEAR and stuff like that?

(And yes, for the sake of argument, the apartment and its layout are important and the squalor tells much about the character. Plus, the time taken for the slow reveal is integral to the overall pacing of the work.)

Thanks for your expertise.

[NikeeGoddess]

all we're saying is that you don't need the actual words, "we see". take them out of the sentence and it's still the same. why do you need to say it?! it's on the screen because the camera shot it so of course we see it. but you don't have to say that we do.

eliminating the "we see" is about your style of writing. for screenwriting keep it clean and concise with adjectives that can be fully described in 3 or 5 words and verbs that are all about action and not passive. and cut out any redundancy.

[nmstevens]

Is it true that direction in screenplays is now considered a no-no?

What if you want a slow reveal of a squalid apartment, from kitchen to bathroom to bedroom and then finally to the protag sitting on the couch? How would you write it without:

WE SEE the dishes piled up in the sink. WE MOVE down the bare hall. Off to the right is a bathroom. The toilet is clogged. CLOSE on the swirling mephitic ooze in the bowl. In the BG WE HEAR the sound of a bottle being popped. WE MOVE down the hall, etc.

Is my question clear? How does one show stuff in a screenplay that is only seen through the camera's eyes and ears without using directions like PAN and CLOSE and WE HEAR and stuff like that?

(And yes, for the sake of argument, the apartment and its layout are important and the squalor tells much about the character. Plus, the time taken for the slow reveal is integral to the overall pacing of the work.)

Thanks for your expertise.

I guess that the real objection is that, given that you're describing something -- would the reader conclude that a viewer in the movie would *not* be seeing it?

That is, in normal circumstances, simply the act of describing something, of picking out details in sequence, tends to lay out the sequence of shots implicitly.

The only time, in my opinion, where it is appropriate to use something like "We see" is when something is happening that you, the writer, need to call particular attention to -- something that the reader might otherwise miss or gloss over or "read past" (which isn't uncommon). "We see" -- use infrequently, is sort of like an exclamation point put where you wish in the sentence. People object to it on the grounds that it calls attention to itself -- that it reminds people that you're describing a movie on a screen, as distinct from simply involving people in a story.

But sometimes, in order for the story -- which is ultimately intended to take place on a screen -- to make sense, you have to remind people of that fact. Because sometimes, for the story to unfold appropriately, "We" -- that is, the intended viewer, must *see* the events unfold in one particular way, as opposed to any number of other ways.

In that case, I think that it's appropriate.

But in the case above, it simply isn't necessary.


It's a squalid Apartment, In the kitchen, the dishes are piled up in the sink. Down the bare hall, there's small bathroom, the toilet clogged and overflowing with mephitic ooze.

Over the noise of the dripping toilet comes the sound of a bottle being popped.

Obviously, you'd like to be able to specify that this all be done in one lovely steadicam shot, drifting from one room to another -- but that's not your job, unless you become the director.

The director may do it that way, or may do it some other way.

The story you are telling does not require the use of steadicam -- so don't start maneuvering for one in your screenplay.

The goal is to tell the story. In doing so, you shouldn't forego using the tools of cinema -- but only to the extent that those tools are necessary for the telling of your story, not just whenever you think they'd be cool.

NMS

[Ziljon]

I think I'm starting to understand. It actually seems more literary but make less practical sense. No?

Would the rules be different if a director were writing his own screenplay? It seems like it would be helpful to have all those cues written in caps to help in the filming, but I could see how it would be annoying if you didn't plan on filming the story exactly that way.

Is that the point?

[NikeeGoddess]

Would the rules be different if a director were writing his own screenplay?
of course! the director can write his own script any way he sees fitting. however, the best fit is the one that is recognized by all in the industry so there is no confusion when the producers, actors, and all the crew can understand it.

it would be helpful to have all those cues written in caps
after you spec script is sold and prior to going into production someone will write a "shooting script" and put all those necessary cues in there. know that many scripts you get online will be shooting scripts and their formatting is not the correct model for a spec script.

[scarletpeaches]

This is similar to the discouragement against using filters in novel writing. Rather than writing, "She could hear a dog barking," it would be tighter if you wrote, "A dog barked." We already know we're in the MC's head, so we know she can hear it. Just say the dog barked.

Same thing with 'he could see', 'she could feel', 'they could hear'...none of these are necessary if the writer is skilled enough to make it clear whose head we're in. In whose head we are.

Damn me and my prepositional sentence-ends!!

[scripter1]

was invented.

Just find yourself a calm little roach, strap the camera to the little guys back, and off you go.

After all, everyone knows a place like THAT would have roaches.

[J. Holmes]

When I write a script I always know who I'm working (studio) with first and usually my agent or somebody will know whether or not they prefer direction. Although when I give direction in my script it's usually a bit more in line to technical directions for the director in camera terms. Not just general stuff like WE SEE or WE MOVE. If you have direction or producer experience it's sometimes good to include because it says you actually know what you're doing. Otherwise maybe leave it out altogether unless your agent or your contact at the studio hints otherwise.

[nmstevens]

of course! the director can write his own script any way he sees fitting. however, the best fit is the one that is recognized by all in the industry so there is no confusion when the producers, actors, and all the crew can understand it.


after you spec script is sold and prior to going into production someone will write a "shooting script" and put all those necessary cues in there. know that many scripts you get online will be shooting scripts and their formatting is not the correct model for a spec script.


This "shooting script" idea is one of the great fantasies of the unsold script universe.

I have shooting scripts. Some of my scripts have been turned into shooting scripts.

Nobody "goes through it" and does things like put in "we see" or rewrites it in the way that people seem to think.

What they do is adjust the format -- things like partial slug lines are turned into complete slug lines.

If, in a scene, somebody moves from a kitchen to a living room or from inside to outside or what have you -- that's going to likely be broken up into appropriate different slugs.

And everything gets scene numbers.

It's all technical. Nobody dives into the text and changes words around.

Once that's done, various production will start their own particular breakdowns -- they'll start budgeting, looking at locations, cast, effects, etc.

At a certain point, questions are going to be answered, in a more detailed way, as to how particular scenes are going to be shot. If these are complicated scenes, involving action or effects, they'll likely be storyboarded -- at which point, the boards are going to become the primary source for determining how the sequence will be shot, not the script.

How will the scene be shot? The director is going to sit down with the DP and the PM and the line producer and figure this out. How long do they have to shoot? Is it happening on a stage or on location? How many set-ups? Is this a big action sequence? A party scene? A jury scene? Two guys at a table? Is this a director who's planning some complicated steadi-cam BS where he wants to move all around the two guys at the table while they talk so that there can't be any lights on the floor or crew visible and there have to be four completely walls which is going to take extra time and extra money and be a big pain in the ass for nothing --

Or is he simply going to go for two shots and reverses and finish the scene in half a day and let's get moving?

None of that has anything to do with anything the writer puts in the script. Forget about it. Maybe the director wants a single moving shot drifting down the freaking hallway. Or maybe he wants a bunch of sharp cuts, or maybe he wants something completely different.

That's his business. How those particular details are shot -- that is, the particular way in which they are conveyed to the audience is not *story* -- only *that* they are conveyed.

Sometimes, the way in which information is conveyed to the audience *is* a matter of story, just as sometimes the way in which a line is spoken isn't simply a matter of an actor's interpretation, but the substance of the story itself hinges on a line being said in a certain way.

In that case, it is not only permissable, but necessary that the writer indicates how the line should be spoken. That's not intruding into someone else's domain -- because *story* is the writer's domain.

But whether they're using a dolly or a steadi-cam or the shot is hand-held or they're doing it as a bunch of separate cuts -- that's not the writer's domain.

But in any case, all of that stuff -- how they decide to shoot or cover a scene, is something that is decided between them. The Director may scribble notes on his particular copy, as the DP may make notes on his copy, as the Art Director may make notes on his copy of the script -- but those notes are particular to the individual -- they're never incorporated into some final "Shooting Script" that is generally published.

The only things that end up as rainbow pages are changes to scenes and to dialogue -- additions and cuts -- that effect schedules and what the actors are going to do and say on the set.

And all of those things that are memorialized and distributed as rainbow pages -- are done by the writer.

NMS

[dclary]

Is it true that direction in screenplays is now considered a no-no?

What if you want a slow reveal of a squalid apartment, from kitchen to bathroom to bedroom and then finally to the protag sitting on the couch? How would you write it without:

WE SEE the dishes piled up in the sink. WE MOVE down the bare hall. Off to the right is a bathroom. The toilet is clogged. CLOSE on the swirling mephitic ooze in the bowl. In the BG WE HEAR the sound of a bottle being popped. WE MOVE down the hall, etc.

Is my question clear? How does one show stuff in a screenplay that is only seen through the camera's eyes and ears without using directions like PAN and CLOSE and WE HEAR and stuff like that?

(And yes, for the sake of argument, the apartment and its layout are important and the squalor tells much about the character. Plus, the time taken for the slow reveal is integral to the overall pacing of the work.)

Thanks for your expertise.


Just write the damn script. If it's the best damn story the reader has ever seen, nothing else will matter.
If it's not, then why are you writing it?

[J. Holmes]

NMS is right on! I'm sure some colleges take an entire semester to teach what you've wrapped up in a nice little explanation. LOL

Basically, if you have to ask the question of whether or not you should leave it in or leave it out and you're writing stuff like WE SEE and so on for directions...leave it out. lol It takes time to learn all the technical jargon that goes into laying out all the shooting cues and everything and usually it's nice to have some cam or directing experience, in my opinion, to back it up.

[Plot Device]

I have an example of "We see" in my current script.

Here

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1634430#post1634430

is the context of my usage of it. I'm open to critiques and corrections on the choices I made there.

[dpaterso]

Hmph! A totally transparent ruse to make people read your script pages! :)

<takes a quick peek>

Funny, I did a search on "we see" and the only place it showed up was in the title of the thread.

-Derek

[Plot Device]

Hmph! A totally transparent ruse to make people read your script pages! :)

<takes a quick peek>

Funny, I did a search on "we see" and the only place it showed up was in the title of the thread.

-Derek

Actually it says "We don't see" and then it says "we only see" and then I have a whole bunch of "we hear" and "we tip the camera."


So there! :tongue

[dpaterso]

Yeah just looking at those...

"We don't see what he sees." works fine within the context of the scene.

The camera directions skate on thin ice but yeah I can see why you'd want "a moment" here.

Happy now? Excellent! :)

Just don't ask me about the expositional on-the-nose dialogue.

-Derek

[Plot Device]

Yeah just looking at those...

"We don't see what he sees." works fine within the context of the scene.

The camera directions skate on thin ice but yeah I can see why you'd want "a moment" here.

Happy now? Excellent! :)

Just don't ask me about the expositional on-the-nose dialogue.

-Derek


:tongue :tongue