Split Screen -

That's tough. We read from left to right and having two things happen at the same time is hard to convey on the page. It seemsto me like you have a phone conversation. I would do it traditionally with an INTERCUT: and let the director decide if it will be a split screen when edited.

INTERCUT: JOHN'S LIVINGROOM / RICHA'S BEDROOM - SAME

John answers the phone to hear Richa is on the other end.

JOHN
Hello...

RICHA
Hey Johnny.

--

ANother way is to do, where you are insisting on a split screen, is to do it like this...

SPLIT SCREEN SHOT: JOHN'S LIVINGROOM / RICHA'S BEDROOM - SAME

John (left of split screen) answers the phone to hear Richa (right of split screen) on the other end.

JOHN
Hello...

RICHA
Hey Johnny.

---

Also, as you can see, there's no need for INT. since it's obvious from making the location more specific.

I don't know about film, but in TV script you can do an intercut this way:


EXT. STREET, IN FRONT OF A GROCERY STORE - DAY
(GREG)

GREG TALKS ON HIS CELL PHONE. HE CARRIES A BAG OF GROCERIES IN HIS OTHER ARM.

GREG
Listen, I told you I’m through with it. No more jobs.

INT. AGENT’S OFFICE - SAME TIME
(JERRY, GREG)
JERRY GOLDBERG IS ALSO ON THE PHONE, AT HIS DESK.

JERRY
But Greg, why throw away your career just because your wife throws you out?

GREG
Jerry, you’re always such a jerk.

JERRY
What? I’m telling you the truth.

"Sideways" used a split screen too and as repdetect said, great directors (and editors) used them most effectively. BUT, it is almost NEVER written in a spec script. Unless it is crucial to use it or is done in an imaginative and/or creative way that makes it worthy, I would just use an intercut. The director may still want to do a split screen when you mention it during the preproduction meeting, but to put it in a script before being sold is presumptious and a sign of a newbie telling the director how to do his job is such an early stage of the game. Unless of course it is done in a creative way that blows the socks off the reader.

I'm starting to wonder what the heck the script for the original Thomas Crown Affair looked like...

In my opinion, I would suspect a split screen tact would be up to the director anyway and unless integral to the storytelling or mindblowing, would be changed or eliminated. For me, I avoid conveying any info that is based on a visual device/trick through camera POV or editing for a spec script.
That's my 1-cent worth,
Mightypen

If you show a character with an umbrella you know it will rain eventualy. Everything in a script world has a reason and helps propel the story forward. The same holds true for any visual direction. Do it because it is the best way to tell your story, not because it makes it look cool or hip.

Split screen, unlike using a match cut, close on, etc... (which are accepted ways for a writer to convey a specific visual direction if for the right reasons), is almost never justified and is the mark of an amatuer who wants to show off that he knows some technical moviemaking terms. Using these tech terms does don't make your script look more professional, on the contrary.

Worry about the story and leave the technical stuff for the filmmakers, unless you want to make it yourself.

MadScientistMatt said:

I'm starting to wonder what the heck the script for the original Thomas Crown Affair looked like...

Click to expand...

I wonder what the screenplay for Mike Figgis' "Timecode" looked like - that entire movie was split screen - 4 quadrants - 4 separate storylines going on simultanteously. The storylines were all tied together - but the action and dialogue in each quadrant was self-contained.

The entire thing was shot in real-time at the same-time. Must have been a nightmare to coordinate.

Keep in mind that Mike Figgis's script was directed and produced by him as well and the split screen in Timecode wasn't a device used to enhance the artistry of film, it was the whole film.

I doubt Timecode would have worked as a spec on it's own. As a spec script you got to get a lot of people to love the idea as much as you do.
Hollywood hates undue risk and doing something new and unseen like this with a 4 million dollar budget is a huge gamble.

Domestic theatrical grosses (estimated at a little over a million) didn't make close to the budget. The addition of oversees, Cable and DVD may have ended up giving the companies involved a profit but not something to write home about.

Still an interesting film. The film was shot 15 times, over two weeks, one continuous take each time. I liked it for what it tried to accomplish, but I doubt anyone would try something like that anytime soon.

Joe Calabrese said:

I doubt Timecode would have worked as a spec on it's own. As a spec script you got to get a lot of people to love the idea as much as you do.
Hollywood hates undue risk and doing something new and unseen like this with a 4 million dollar budget is a huge gamble.

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree with you more Joe - I was just wondering about the mechanics of the script. Being that there was some synchronization between the scenarios.