Directing on the page

[stuckupmyownera]

'Write vertically', they say, so that every new line directs the mind's eye. Use 'invisible camera directions', they say, by describing everything in shot order.

But how much is too much?

I have an opening scene which is being criticised for too much direction. They're probably right - we're talking nearly a page and a half of description with very little happening. BUT most of the details described are vital to the story, and I do feel that the atmosphere and the stillness needs to be really well established at the beginning too. I honestly don't know how to cut it down without it losing all its impact.

I realise my current entry in the 'Share Your Work' section may be guilty of the same overdescription, but atmosphere etc. is not an issue there.

I suppose my question is, is what I've done all right under any circumstances? Just once in a while. (The rest of the script is not like this - it's just the first scene.) Or do I HAVE to cut out the direction. I have to get the detail in so this would still mean a fair amount of description, just in a less interesting couple of paragraphs, instead of revealed shot-by-shot.

[Cyia]

You aren't the director, so don't do his job.

All you do is set a basic scene; the director is the one who decides how it's shot. His vision may not be yours, or there may logistical things that change the way a scene is done.

If it's still, then just say so.

"A pervasive stillness and eerie calm settle over the landscape", or some such.

[JoshEllingson]

Originally Posted by Cyia

You aren't the director, so don't do his job.

All you do is set a basic scene; the director is the one who decides how it's shot. His vision may not be yours, or there may logistical things that change the way a scene is done.

If it's still, then just say so.

"A pervasive stillness and eerie calm settle over the landscape", or some such.

as a person who watches a lot of movies, and is currently writing a screenplay, i would like to point out that some of best movies ever made, are directed by the person who wrote them, the reason for this is because a third party director does not understand what the writer means at all times. even when a movie is directed by someone who is not the writer, and still wins awards, that is because thay had the writer on set, to clarify what was written, and meant.

just my opinion, take it or leave it.

[mscelina]

As a former director, I have to tell you that nine times out of ten, I took a red pen and drew a line through all of that description and second party directing stuff written into any script. You create the scenario and the characters, but once it's in a director's hand it's their interpretation of the script that will go on the screen or the stage.

[dpaterso]

Originally Posted by stuckupmyownera

I have to get the detail in so this would still mean a fair amount of description, just in a less interesting couple of paragraphs, instead of revealed shot-by-shot.

That's the trick -- don't make it less interesting.

-Derek

[icerose]

It's amazing how much you can describe in just a few short pointed sentences that would take a page or more in a book. Your job is to get your vision across on the page and spark that vision in the person reading it. You don't need a lot of flowery words to do so.

[Maryn]

Exactly, icerose. The screenwriter incorporates only what needs to be there for the story to unfold as it does. You do not include how you see it play out in your mind. You write like Hemingway, sparse with words but each so well chosen it imparts all which is necessary.

Seriously, read some Hemingway so you see how well terse can work.

Maryn, old dog working on new tricks

[Cyia]

Originally Posted by JoshEllingson

as a person who watches a lot of movies, and is currently writing a screenplay, i would like to point out that some of best movies ever made, are directed by the person who wrote them, the reason for this is because a third party director does not understand what the writer means at all times. even when a movie is directed by someone who is not the writer, and still wins awards, that is because thay had the writer on set, to clarify what was written, and meant.

just my opinion, take it or leave it.

IF a writer is also the director (and many winners are) then they can describe every look and blade of glass if you want. If you're wanting to sell a script, then you need to minimize descriptive passages and maximize white space on the page.

The reason the writer gets to direct has nothing to do with someone not being able to understand the script - if the script isn't clear, it was poorly written.

[icerose]

Originally Posted by JoshEllingson

as a person who watches a lot of movies, and is currently writing a screenplay, i would like to point out that some of best movies ever made, are directed by the person who wrote them, the reason for this is because a third party director does not understand what the writer means at all times. even when a movie is directed by someone who is not the writer, and still wins awards, that is because thay had the writer on set, to clarify what was written, and meant.

just my opinion, take it or leave it.

If you need to clarify what you meant on set, you did a lousy job of writing it in the first place. Just saying.

[Exir]

How do writers get to direct their own scripts anyways? By getting the finance themselves, or by subbing to a production company, and then saying "hey, I'd love to direct too" if the production company really likes it?

[icerose]

Some act as the producer/director/writer and they put it all together themselves so there's no one telling them they can't do it.

Others prove themselves as a director first and then go on to write/direct. Tarantino did this I believe.

[icerose]

Here's an example of a director/writer making it big, but again, he had to make his mark first and prove himself through his own small films.

http://everything2.com/title/M.+Night+Shyamalan

[creativexec]

It takes a writer a page and a half to describe a scene, but it takes a screenwriter just a few sentences to accomplish the same.

Generally, less is more in screenwriting.

I've BLOGGED about this.

[nmstevens]

Originally Posted by stuckupmyownera

'Write vertically', they say, so that every new line directs the mind's eye. Use 'invisible camera directions', they say, by describing everything in shot order.

But how much is too much?

I have an opening scene which is being criticised for too much direction. They're probably right - we're talking nearly a page and a half of description with very little happening. BUT most of the details described are vital to the story, and I do feel that the atmosphere and the stillness needs to be really well established at the beginning too. I honestly don't know how to cut it down without it losing all its impact.

I realise my current entry in the 'Share Your Work' section may be guilty of the same overdescription, but atmosphere etc. is not an issue there.

I suppose my question is, is what I've done all right under any circumstances? Just once in a while. (The rest of the script is not like this - it's just the first scene.) Or do I HAVE to cut out the direction. I have to get the detail in so this would still mean a fair amount of description, just in a less interesting couple of paragraphs, instead of revealed shot-by-shot.

The real question isn't whether you're "directing on the page" -- because in the end, our job is to tell the story on the page -- and the story that we're telling isn't a novel or a play or a short story or a blue print -- it's a movie.

Just the way that, if I asked you to tell me the story of some movie that you saw, you wouldn't feel limited obliged to *not* describe what you'd seen on screen but to only use those verbal tools appropriate to radio drama.

No. You'd want to describe what the movie you'd seen was like. You'd want to give me as complete a sense of that experience of seeing that movie as you could, within the time that was available to you.

Well, when you write a screenplay, you want to do the same thing -- you want to try to use the tools of prose to convey that experience as vividly as you can.

The point is, it's bad to give a list of shots not because you're intruding on the director's domain, but because that's a bad way to convey that experience.

If you were telling the story of, say Goodfellas, chances are you wouldn't describe the long continuous takes or the freeze frames or all that sort of thing. So if you're "telling" the story in your script, don't bother putting that sort of thing in the script.

The question of how much detail or how little detail always comes down to the same thing.

There's too little detail to draw a reader in on the one hand -- and then there's too much detail -- which you can generally tell because a reader is going to get bored and start skipping over it (which means you might as well not put it in).

So don't bore the reader with too little description and don't bore the reader with too much.

You just have to remember that this is going to be read by people who read a lot of scripts and who reach that "I get it" threshold rather quickly.

Audiences these days also reach that "I get it" point quite quickly.

So when you're writing something you just have to keep that in mind. When you're describing something, when characters are speaking, when a scene is aiming to achieve a particular point -- when is it that an audience is going to "get it."

When they get it -- move on.

Along these lines it's interesting to watch Paul Thomas Anderson's movies because he's very cued into this idea of being attentive to what audiences get. You'll find yourself watching a scene in one of his movies, and the scene is unfolding and you'll find yourself thinking, "Oh, now we're going to have a scene where this happens --" and instead of that scene happening, the movie will promptly jump ahead. The scene that you were just thinking about won't be there. Instead, you'll have the *next* scene. The scene that comes after the scene that you were expecting, that you already, in effect, played out in your head.

Because Anderson figured -- hey, you already know what's going to happen in that scene, because I set it up, so why bother showing it? Let's jump ahead. Let's move on.

If you use the moments you write to manage those expectations, you don't have to write those scenes.

So read that first scene. What is it intended to convey? When is that information conveyed? When does the audience get it? Is it really the last line at the end of the scene? Not the line before? Not a couple lines before?

NMS