Script vs. Actor vs. Director?

[sjh953]

Not long ago I saw 'Erin Brockovich' again, and today I've been reading the script PDF. The writer does an amazing job of painting a very clear picture in WORDS that make it easy to visualize the situations, Erin, etc. Extremely effective.

All this has got me thinking, and my question is this: Within the script, how far does the writer need to go in supplying details, etc. beyond the basic storyline? I agree that a script is not a novel, needing massive amounts of description. I'm also comfortable with the idea that a script is a framework that will be fleshed out and brought to life by actors, directors, etc. -- and who will view the script as little more than a starting point for their own vision.

When I look at the script I'm working on, I'm torn between wanting to use words to paint a detailed picture of what I'm seeing in my mind, versus leaving those details out so the reader's imagination can fill in the blanks. I'm just not sure where the boundaries are.

It's been awhile, but I remember reading the script for 'Fargo'. What struck me was how minimalist the script itself was, especially compared with how powerful the VISUAL storytelling was in the movie. I would have loved to have been in the room as the actors and directors brought that story to life.

If anyone can point me to articles or links which coould help me get a feel for writing description, or have any insight on it, I'd appreciate the help. Thanks.

[PerditaDrury]

Not long ago I saw 'Erin Brockovich' again, and today I've been reading the script PDF. The writer does an amazing job of painting a very clear picture in WORDS that make it easy to visualize the situations, Erin, etc. Extremely effective.

All this has got me thinking, and my question is this: Within the script, how far does the writer need to go in supplying details, etc. beyond the basic storyline? I agree that a script is not a novel, needing massive amounts of description. I'm also comfortable with the idea that a script is a framework that will be fleshed out and brought to life by actors, directors, etc. -- and who will view the script as little more than a starting point for their own vision.

When I look at the script I'm working on, I'm torn between wanting to use words to paint a detailed picture of what I'm seeing in my mind, versus leaving those details out so the reader's imagination can fill in the blanks. I'm just not sure where the boundaries are.

It's been awhile, but I remember reading the script for 'Fargo'. What struck me was how minimalist the script itself was, especially compared with how powerful the VISUAL storytelling was in the movie. I would have loved to have been in the room as the actors and directors brought that story to life.

If anyone can point me to articles or links which coould help me get a feel for writing description, or have any insight on it, I'd appreciate the help. Thanks.

Then if you have a plum assignment adapting a true story based on TONS of written material not to mention a living protagonist, then EB is a great script to study before you tackle your project.

If you are directing your next script, like the Coen brothers in FARGO, then you might as well adapt their style.

Neither of these scripts, as excellent as they are, have any relevance to a screenwriter working on a spec script.

Spec scripts from unknowns need to attract producers, directors, actors and all sorts of other interested parties. They want to know: will this make money, will this highlight my talents.

Screenwriting is not a writer's medium. Not until you're A-listed and others will take a chance on your more risky material anyway.

As a new writer, no one wants to read your descriptive prose.

Spec scripts tend to be fast-paced, with great dialogue. Characters must be developed through what they say and what they do, not how they're described.

When we (my company) adapt novels we've purchased and the director is attached, we just dump whole chunks of description into the script -- no need to "adapt" it, we all know what we're doing with it. The director and the writer work on "the script" which means the dialogue and the rest of the crew takes care of their respective chunks. The location manager hops on a plane to Kansas to find "a house whitewashed by time, poverty and a history of tears"... the set designer, with his sketch pad in hand, works up something "where generations of Smiths lived in the clutter of trinkets from long-forgotten World Fairs" or something like that. But if that type of prose came in with a spec script, forget it.

Too many words wastes my time... it all changes anyway.

So your question is a good one... but if you are writing a spec script, read spec scripts. That would be my advice.

[sjh953]

Thanks to both of you for your thoughts. I do have one follow-up question relating to this comment:

"So your question is a good one... but if you are writing a spec script, read spec scripts. That would be my advice."

Where does one find (and identify) scripts which were originally written on spec, by unknowns, but that got enough things right that they were read, and purchased? Has any author/teacher/site ever put together a list of accessible scripts which do a good job of illustrating the good and bad points of how a SPEC script should be structured?

I just scanned my small library of script-writing books, and all of them approach script critique from the same angle: pull out a classic, then talk about it as if it's the norm. Granted, I'd love for my first script to an obvious Oscar winner -- but what I'd really like is to read about other nobody's who managed to do enough things right that someone at a small production company read the script, and liked it enough to buy it. Not a home run, but a nice, clean single by a rookie who is just glad to have a chance to play in the Minor Leagues.

Thanks again.

[maestrowork]

I've seen minimalist scripts and ones with great descriptive details. My thought is that as long as it works, and by that I mean the story must be there and it should be a good read. I shouldn't have to struggle through the material to get through 120 pages. For example, when I read the script of The Talented Mr. Ripley I felt like I was actually watching the movie -- it was wonderfully written, vivid. James Cameron also has a lot of descriptions in his scripts, and sometimes they bog down the action. So it's all about how well you put it all together and make it a satisfying read. Sometimes less is more. But sometimes, a little more descriptions and details go a long way.

[PerditaDrury]

Thanks to both of you for your thoughts. I do have one follow-up question relating to this comment:

"So your question is a good one... but if you are writing a spec script, read spec scripts. That would be my advice."

Where does one find (and identify) scripts which were originally written on spec, by unknowns, but that got enough things right that they were read, and purchased? Has any author/teacher/site ever put together a list of accessible scripts which do a good job of illustrating the good and bad points of how a SPEC script should be structured?

I just scanned my small library of script-writing books, and all of them approach script critique from the same angle: pull out a classic, then talk about it as if it's the norm. Granted, I'd love for my first script to an obvious Oscar winner -- but what I'd really like is to read about other nobody's who managed to do enough things right that someone at a small production company read the script, and liked it enough to buy it. Not a home run, but a nice, clean single by a rookie who is just glad to have a chance to play in the Minor Leagues.

Thanks again.

Good question. Somebody posted a list of spec scripts that made it big... does anybody know where that list is?

You're right, the classics teach you how to write a script, which MUST be mastered first, but not how to write a spec script.

I would look at the list of Academy Award and Golden Globe winners for the last five years to identify original screenplays... then follow them backwards to where they were conceived. If the script was written by the director, that's not a good example (though it may very well be a great script). Seek out original screenplays written by newcomers... there's bound to be a couple and that might lead you to others that were made.

I would also suggest you look for scripts that are like yours in content and storyline by looking at movies which were produced. You can do this at Blockbuster. Look at who the screenwriter is, check out his/her credits at IMDB.

Follow the sales to made-movies at Done Deal. Meanwhile, read EVERYTHING. Once you've read a thousand or more scripts, like most readers have, you can identify what not to do and, therefore, what to do.

Scriptwriting isn't about inspiration. It's about honing a craft. The more examples you see, the better writer you will be.

Oh, and the idea that the first five scripts you write probably aren't good enough, is true. Not for everybody, of course. But for most everybody. It really takes practice.

I think others here will have great suggestions.

Good luck to you... you sound earnest and sincere and that's so much nicer than egotistical and enraged.

[sjh953]

"Scriptwriting isn't about inspiration. It's about honing a craft. The more examples you see, the better writer you will be."



This is part of what I'm finding so interesting about getting into scriptwriting -- the whole idea of being a novice, learning the ropes, making mistakes, getting better.



I've been through this process before, but in photography. I got started in high school, made zillions of mistakes, and asked thousands of stupid questions. Eventually, I went pro, operated a studio for 20 years, have written three books and a few magazine articles on the process of building a pro photog business.



If there's one thing I've learned, it's that when you're not sure what you're looking at, what you're dealing with, it's almost inevitable that you're going to spend an enormous amount of time making stupid mistakes -- mistakes that are obvious to someone else who'se 'been there, done that'.



Now that I'm older and wiser, with scripts I'm hoping to avoid re-making all those same newbie mistakes. With the script I'm working on, I have faith in my basic idea, the story, the characters, etc., but I have only a fuzzy idea of how to 'package' it all in the expected form.



Let me put it in photographic terms: I'm afraid that I've got the right subject, the right lighting, the right composition... but my focus is off, so the final result will be fuzzy, and therefore rejected.



I don't mind the idea of being massively wrong; what haunts me is the is being a little wrong, and losing the game by a single point.



I guess there's no escaping the obvious... I'm a newbie.

[madmaxmedia]

Personally, I think it is best to not go overboard with scene descriptions. However, make sure that what you do point out really captures the scene. It's amazing what you can accomplish if you just nail the 1 or 2 details that really stand out. Not only do these details fill out a scene, but they can also contribute greatly to characterization (for example, if at a character's home or workplace). The reader can then fill in the rest himself.

Don't spend a lot of lines describing the generic stuff that would could have been assumed by the slugline alone.

There's a great Steven King article at Site link removed per request of other site's Webmaster about imagery, I think it might be a helpful read for you-

Site link removed per request of other site's Webmaster

[Chesher Cat]

I went to a screening of Brokeback Mountain with a Jake Gyllenhall Q&A. He said he wanted to be in the movie because of the script. He was attracted the the pages and pages of moving descriptions.

Go figure.

Then I met a woman who was married to a very famous screenwriter. She said screenwriters today are trying to hard to write to all the formulas out there. Her husband always said to just write the story the way it needs to be written. From your heart.

[zeprosnepsid]

I would warn you about basing your choices on scripts written by writer/directors like the Coens or Cameron since they are writing for themselves. Cameron puts in enormous details so he'll remember what he wants later. Tarantino practically writes notes to himself in his screenplays.

Description or no, the better your script reads, the better chance you have. Some scripts that are not even very good story/character-wise have sold because they are easy reads. Don't do anything that would make someone feel like they are slugging through your script.

You don't want no description either especially if you are trying to interest a director. If they can't see it, they won't want it. If it's for an actor, they get bitter sometimes if you tell them too much about what they are supposed to be doing. "Jane raises an eyebrow", "Jane's face drops in dissapointment". Unless it's important to the story don't write it.

That being said, some people will just read your script dialogue alone -- it's true. So make sure your dialogue holds up.