"... What can't be shown"

Which is more visual and exciting for a reader (and also shown and not told)?

John get's upset.

or

John puts his fist through the wall.

It's a fine line that you have to walk.

I think it's usually better to show like, "John puts his fist through the wall" instead of telling like "John gets upset." But, I think you can tell rather than show sometimes and it works, if done well.

It's not, in my opinion, a bad thing to occasionally tell rather than show. You can say things like, in a scene involving a really bad blind date, "Jane spits some chaw into her cup. John's dying for an exit."

Okay, so "dying for an exit" is rather abstract and sort of violates that "show, don't tell" saying, but it is easily understood. People can visualize what that means without you "showing" them. They can see, in their heads, what he's probably doing - fidgeting, squirming, sweating - because we've all been in or know someone who's been in a situation where we were "dying for an exit." It's something that doesn't necessarily need to be explained.

Again, it all depends on how good a writer you are and whether or not it works within the context of your scene.

"John is upset" is fine (because the actor can still act it) but "John punches the wall" is more visual (but now you're specifically telling the actor what to do).

But "John is thinking about murdering his girlfriend" is not filmmable. It's not visual at all. You can't film thoughts.

maestrowork said:

But "John is thinking about murdering his girlfriend" is not filmmable. It's not visual at all. You can't film thoughts.

Click to expand...

What about those 'thought bubbles' you see in the cartoons!?

Seriously though, isn't it also possible to encorporate it into the dialogue? Either by use of words, or by adding (angrily) before they say what it is they have to say?

the logic of action and character...

action should always be a component of character. being visually specific can enhance this.

putting his fist through a wall can be a component of a naturally aggressive, hot-headed character and support that impression. or it can be so out-of character that we realize a normally meek, reserved character has snapped.

anger is relative.

(and according to rage against the machine, it's also a gift. but i digress...)

William Haskins said:

action should always be a component of character. being visually specific can enhance this.

putting his fist through a wall can be a component of a naturally aggressive, hot-headed character and support that impression. or it can be so out-of character that we realize a normally meek, reserved character has snapped.

anger is relative.

(and according to rage against the machine, it's also a gift. but i digress...)

Click to expand...

But then again, wouldn't it also depend on the extent of how upset the character is? A meek character isn't going to put his fist through the wall over lumpy milk - or basically something not very distressing - unless it's a "straw that broke the camel's back" scenario. For such a scenario, would a subtle hint (e.g. the tone of his/her voice) not be better suited?

If it's a specific moment to show a character's action, such as putting his fist through a wall, it's either specific character development (he's either acting out his anger the way he does, or the situation makes him do something out of character). It has a point in the plot, and if you write it that way, the actor will have to punch a wall (and the set guys have to build that wall).

But if it's just "he's angry" then you are leaving it to the director and actor to decide what "being angry" means -- does he twitch, shift in his seat, growl, or what? You'll leave a lot of flexibility -- so sometimes it's good to just "tell" if it doesn't make any difference if he just sits there and fumes, or if he punches a pillow or something -- leave it to the director and actor.

But either can be visual and should be visual. When you say "he is angry" you are telling the actor to do it visually (whatever his interpretation of "angry" means). You're not telling him to be "angry, but sit still and act like nothing is bothering you." That is not "visual."

You can show all that stuff in dialogue, action, etc. etc. You don't have to say "he is angry." You can write:

JOHN
You f***ing bastard. Motherf****
You should just die and go to hell now.
Get out. Get the f*** out.

It's perfectly clear that he's angry. There's no need to say (angrily). If you write it well, there's no reason for these parentheses. Leave the "indicating" to the director and actor. There are times when the screenwriter should shy away from "directing." Focus on writing the story. If there's a point for the actor to "punch the wall" then write it. If not, leave it open.

You've got a point, I guess. I can jsut see some instances where (angrily) might serve the purpose better, but for the most part I suppose other methods would prevail.

it's done all the time and it is alot more complicating than showing angry and telling about it. lot of times it's done to add that last zinger on a sentence.

Pike holds his tonge, his hand on his gun. He wants more than anything to blow a hole is this gringo, but can't.

tom smashes his hand through the sheetrock, he wishes it could be jerry's face.

alonzo takes the opium puts it in the pipe and hands it to the rookie. not wanting to piss him off he hits the pipe. inside he's wishing Alonzo would die.

it happens all the time, and there are different ways of doing. you have an action, like punching, then the writer gives a little bit of the characters pov after the whatever it is we just saw.

it happens all the time, but in each case, it has a purpose.

"jerry climbs in his car, eager to get away" from enemy of the state.

now, it just eneded a scene where we know jerry was eager to get away, but the writer decided to tell us again. it's all about narrative choice. i tell you a stone cold fact every script i read breaks the so called rules, if you're a pro writer, or if you're a good writer, people don't dwell on the rules, they just read on and see what happnens cause they like the story.

vig

But you see, those narratives (can't be filmed) are to explain the action -- they're motivations, to help the director:

Pike holds his tonge, his hand on his gun. He wants more than anything to blow a hole is this gringo, but can't.

tom smashes his hand through the sheetrock, he wishes it could be jerry's face. (the last line helps the actor -- can't be filmed)

alonzo takes the opium puts it in the pipe and hands it to the rookie. not wanting to piss him off he hits the pipe. inside he's wishing Alonzo would die. (the last line helps the actor -- can't be filmed)

it happens all the time, and there are different ways of doing. you have an action, like punching, then the writer gives a little bit of the characters pov after the whatever it is we just saw.

Click to expand...

You're right, but as you've just illustrated, they're in there to "support" an action -- give the actor/director a POV to anchor on. The visual part has to be there -- the smashing, the hitting, etc.

"jerry climbs in his car, eager to get away" from enemy of the state.


If you simply write: "Jerry is outside on the driveway. He's eager to get away." That doesn't work. There's no action. Nothing is filmmable. But "Jerry climbs in his car" is filmmable -- the "eager to get away" indicates his motivation for climbing in his car.

See?

great thread

But "Jerry climbs in his car" is filmmable -- the "eager to get away" indicates his motivation for climbing in his car.

Click to expand...

actually "eager to get away" is filmable as well -- provided it accompanies the action of climbing in the car. it qualifies "how" he gets in the car, fumbling with his keys, forgetting the seatbelt, bumping his head, etc..

but, yes, good points, everyone.

write?

Great narrative can be can be the fabric of the story. (i.e CHINATOWN script) and if it's well done, it's part of a great read.

But, specifically, TOLD is explaining too much when we don't HEAR it in dialogue or have the opportunity to read it in stage direction or crisp narrative.

Too much is when you explain future character motivation? (i.e. 'Recently divorced Bob gets off the roller coaster' ) Being told something cheapens the read.

Either show in character action or let's hear it in dialogue.

My favorite screenwriters provide texture in narrative (elmore leonard). Sometimes you can get away with 'leaking' what you need to leak with transparent exposition. But give away in narrative what the audience would love to see or understand on film.

But you see, those narratives (can't be filmed) are to explain the action -- they're motivations, to help the director:

Click to expand...

I really don't think that's a motivation entering the minds of most screenwriters; "I want to write this in a way that helps the director understand the motivation."

If the writer happens to write a line of narrative that subsequently helps a director one day down the line IF the script actually gets made, then that is purely coincidental.

And, I also don't like the old "don't tell the actors how to act by writing the characters doing actions" line. It's weak and stupid, in my opinion.

Characters do things. They kill people. They laugh. The roll their eyes. Sometimes they punch holes through walls. They have a certain walk, or a certain hairstyle, or hold their cigarettes a certain way, because THAT IS PART OF THE CHARACTER. It's up to the writer to make the character do these things. It's not "telling an actor how to act." It's the character telling the actor how to play him.

Writers are writing to the reader. NOT the actors. NOT the director. NOT to the DP.

Whatever makes the script outstanding, whatever makes it a great read, THAT is what the writer is concerned with.

But we're coming back to what should be in the script, and what not. If you say, the writer writes for the readers, then is "prose" okay to write? Why do screenwriters say "write visually and what can be filmed" and then say something like "but inside his head, he though of killing his brother" is okay to write in a script?

Of course you're right when you say "if it's a good read..." but that's very subjective. So we're trying to come up with some guidelines here like "visual" not "prose," etc. As in novel writing, you have to know the rules before you can break them.

You're splitting hairs, maestro, and you know it.

A screenwriter is writing for the reader within the constraints of the visual style of screenwriting. He/she is writing in the hopes that his/her story one day makes it to screen, therefore must write in visual way. However, consideration of the director or the actors is not in the forefront of concerns for many screenwriters.

Writing a good, visual story is the primary concern.

It's not as complex a concept as you're coyly painting it.

the writer writes for the readers, then is "prose" okay to write?

Click to expand...

Sure, for novels. Because that is the format for novels. That is not the format for screenplays, so why would a screenwriter write a screenplay in novel format? Doesn't make much sense to me.

Why do screenwriters say "write visually and what can be filmed" and then say something like "but inside his head, he though of killing his brother" is okay to write in a script?

Click to expand...

That's a pretty illogical generalization you're making there. You might have heard a so-called screenwriter once say something like that, but it is a logical fallacy to erroneously say that all screenwriters say that. I've never said it.

I don't believe anyone in this thread has said that.

That is, however, a lovely straw man you've created.

I am asking questions -- general, philosophical questions, Opti. I'm not asserting anything. If you can get the gist of my post. I never say "all" screenwriters anything. So why do you have to be so defensive and antagonistic?

I'm saying is, without us telling a newbie a certain rules of screenwriting (such as, prose is for novels, not screenplays) you end up with someone writing prose in a screenplay, because you have a blanket statement like "if it's a good read" -- what does it mean? It is so vague it has no value in that assessment. A novel is a good read, but it's the "wrong format" for a screenplay. A newbie wouldn't know that, if you don't tell him "prose" is not suitable. Same with "don't write about thoughts." Rules are made to be broken, but we need to tell the newbies what those rules are before they can learn to break them. Otherwise a newbie would write prose and thoughts in his screenplay -- it could be a good read, but we won't know.

The original poster of this thread asks a valid question: what can or can't be "shown." Since we're talking about show, not tell, that's what we should focus on. What does it mean by "show, not tell"? And that's a very important concept to grasp as a screenwriter.

And so I said, "thoughts can't be shown." Action can. Dialogue can. "Thoughts" can't.

When you write "He thought of killing his father" or "the sun is hot like a big furnace, searing the land with its mighty power" -- it's prose. And you already said it yourself -- prose belongs to novels, not screenplays.


That's all I am saying. I'm in no way telling anybody how to write their screenplay. It is, after all, your screenplay.

maestrowork said:

I never say "all" screenwriters anything.

Click to expand...

Grammatically you did, though, by not quanitying when you said, "Why do screenwriters..."

Though you didn't intend it, that sentence is structured to include an understood "all." You generalized it by indicting a category, not a section of that category.

But, that's another debate.

I'm saying is, without us telling a newbie a certain rules of screenwriting (such as, prose is for novels, not screenplays) you end up with someone writing prose in a screenplay, because you have a blanket statement like "if it's a good read" -- what does it mean? A novel is a good read, but it's the "wrong format" for a screenplay. A newbie wouldn't know that, if you don't tell him "prose" is not suitable. Same with "don't write about thoughts." Rules are made to be broken, but we need to tell the newbies what those rules are.

That's all I am saying. I'm in no way telling anybody how to write their screenplay.

Click to expand...

So...you're advocating telling a newbie the "rules" of writing a screenplay, but not telling anybody how to write their screenplay?

Huh?

Seriously, I see what you mean, but the "show don't tell" aspect of screenwriting has already been covered in this thread. Now the topic has slightly diverged into something different, yet still related. You can see that, can't you, and how the "show don't tell" argument is somewhat misplaced to the point I was making, since my point had little to do with that?

Grammatically you did, though, by not quanitying when you said, "Why do screenwriters..."

Click to expand...

Now who is splitting hair?


Perhaps we're arguing about different things then. I'm still talking about "show vs. tell" -- what can be shown. And I'm still talking about "thoughts can't be shown."

I have NOT diverged from that discussion. I'm just expanding on your "if it's a good read" comment, tying it back to the "show vs. tell" discussion. If you have moved on already, then I'm sorry. We're debating on two different things, then.

So...you're advocating telling a newbie the "rules" of writing a screenplay, but not telling anybody how to write their screenplay?

Click to expand...

Correct. There's a difference, and if you can't see that, I don't know what to say. By rules I mean guidelines, not ball and chains.

Telling someone what is "best practice" or "rules" doesn't mean I'm saying "you have to do this or else." I hope you can see the difference.

I have ALWAYS said that, and I will repeat it again: rules are made to be broken, but you can't effectively break them if you don't know what the rules are. Never did I say you have to follow the rules to the Ts. Never.

I can see that. But, if you can't see how saying "Why do screenwriters..." applies to all screenwriters and shows an obvious bias (from your acting perspective), then I don't know what to say, either.

Your original statement was opinion-based hyperbole. Nothing in your statement (which WAS insinuating "screenwriters in general") was ever said in this thread by anyone. You were arguing a non-existent statement.

If you can't see how you misspoke, and your statement actually did imply "all screenwriters," then think of how this statement sounds:

"Why do blacks rob people?"

You see how illogical and wrong that is?

Moving on, you're arguing against me saying to make the script "a great read," ignores the context of my original post, and it makes me curious as to whether or not you're ignoring the context on purpose.

Let's look at the context of my statement:

"I really don't think that's a motivation entering the minds of most screenwriters; "I want to write this in a way that helps the director understand the motivation."

If the writer happens to write a line of narrative that subsequently helps a director one day down the line IF the script actually gets made, then that is purely coincidental.

....

Writers are writing to the reader. NOT the actors. NOT the director. NOT to the DP.

Whatever makes the script outstanding, whatever makes it a great read, THAT is what the writer is concerned with."

To which you replied:

"But we're coming back to what should be in the script, and what not. If you say, the writer writes for the readers, then is "prose" okay to write?
....

Of course you're right when you say "if it's a good read..." but that's very subjective. So we're trying to come up with some guidelines here like "visual" not "prose," etc. As in novel writing, you have to know the rules before you can break them."

And I responded:

"{Prose} is not the format for screenplays, so why would a screenwriter write a screenplay in novel format? Doesn't make much sense to me.

A screenwriter is writing for the reader within the constraints of the visual style of screenwriting. He/she is writing in the hopes that his/her story one day makes it to screen, therefore must write in visual way. However, consideration of the director or the actors is not in the forefront of concerns for many screenwriters.

Writing a good, visual story is the primary concern."

Then, you continued to argue as if I were denying "newbies" the "rules" such as "show don't tell" and as if I had said that prose was okay.

However, as I said, my "make it a great read" was directed toward the assertion that one should write a script for the ease of directors and actors. There are about 8 posts ahead of that one which already cover the "show don't tell" guideline.

When you misunderstood the context of my statement, I then clarified with my paragraph about "writing within the constraints of the visual style," the style that'd already been covered in the previous posts.

I never advocated using prose. I never even mentioned prose in narrative. You just seem to be stuck on arguing about a point that several people have already covered. I was speaking of "making it a great read" in the context of writing it for the reader, and not for members of a film crew.

Optimus, scripts aren't normally just read, as novels are, for entertainment, stimulation, and so forth. Who is "the reader"? Are you speaking of an employee who goes through the slushpile looking for a good script?

Optimus said:

And, I also don't like the old "don't tell the actors how to act by writing the characters doing actions" line. It's weak and stupid, in my opinion....

Click to expand...

Actually Opti, I feel you SHOULD tell the actors how they should act in action. It is emotions and feelings they don't want to hear when you blatantly tell them what they should be feeling. This is why parenthteticals (or wry-lies) are frowned upon. Yes, you should tell the action, but more important, do so in a way that gives deeper understanding of the feeling and motivation behind those actions.

Optimus said:

... Writers are writing to the reader. NOT the actors. NOT the director. NOT to the DP.

Click to expand...

Your reader is a director or a producer or an actor. No one else of importance if you want your script sold and made. There is a common feeling that you don't tell them what their job is. That's true, but you should be speaking in their language. Producers, actors and directors speak in the language of the visual. Your script should be written that way otherwise they get lost when you put prose in the narrative or misused parenthteticals, long stretches of dialog, etc... Be visual. I'm not saying you should write camera directions because that it telling them their job, but direct the reader visually by using action and visual cues to direct what you want them to see and subsequently feel.

But Optimus, Maestro, Haskins and others bring up some good points and suggestions. The important thing I can say about any so-called rule or theory-- Do so in moderation and under appropriate circumstances. If you can't find a way to convey the same info in action, try dialog, then try parenthetical, but I feel action should be your first and preferable device.

My original intent when answering the original post was to show the poster that actions speak louder than words. If a character is upset-- show it. Whether a fist through the wall or clicking his fingernails in despair always opt for action (with hidden feelings behind them) rather than words.

And Opti, we get it. You don't have to beat a dead horse. Do you get paid by the word on your posts?

Maybe it is bad form, I don't know...but what usually when I feel myself wanting to write "what can't be shown", I write it in a way that CAN be shown. "Carol is upset" is a good example. Instead of saying "Carol is upset", I'll say something like "Carol cries. A tear streams down her cheek and her chin quivers." That way I'm painting the picture of what the actor is doing, but I'm also setting the theme of "Carol is upset". lol