Talking to the cast, not the audience

[McDuff]

I'm interested in seeing what people here think of a certain script-writing technique which I haven't seen employed very much but which did strike me as incredibly useful when I saw it used.

I hold that there are some things that you need to know a lot of details about the world as a writer that you don't need to ever tell anyone else, because it would bore the crap out of them. Whether you're like Tolkien and construct a whole new geography complete with maps, languages and a historical canon of literature to which you can actually refer accurately or you just happen to know what your protag's favourite food is even if he never visits a restaurant, you need to have a universe in your head in which all this plays out. With novels this is nice and self-contained, because you pick and choose which details out of your fantasy world you wish to convey specifically, which to infer, and which are just there to help you get the world to work in your head. However, when writing a stage or screen play, the audience isn't the audience, but the cast and director and producers and the various people whose job it is to convey this story to the real audience, the paying punters who are going to keep you in truffles and foie gras (or at the very least, in food and shelter). You tell them what to say and what to do, and then they have to expand on that in a thousand different ways, none of which it's really your job to describe.

However, there may still be some information which is important, but which does not fall into the category of what people are saying or doing at the time.

In Arthur Miller's The Crucible, he takes occasional time out from the play to present information which has nothing to do with the scene he is immediately describing, but instead to give detailed backstory on characters and situations. The world of The Crucible is one in which historic context and the specific relationships of the characters are important, but which would be incredibly clunky to get across in dialogue. So Miller says "hey, Cast, Director -- do your jobs." He gives them the information that they need to add background to their character, to understand "their motivations", and hence gives them the capacity to get that information across in the course of their acting or directing.

On to the relevance: the story I'm trying to tell takes place against a detailed, rich backdrop of political and religious intrigue which borrows from the real world but which is mostly all, y'know, made up. While it's not so important that the audience know the details it is pretty important that the characters know them. In a novel, I'd just write them, maybe drop some information in, but it's a film, so I'm going to be relying on actors and directors to know this backstory in order to properly understand just why this character doing this thing is important.

Would it be reasonable practice to break from the script, like Miller in The Crucible, and just tell people things? To not bother trying to insert them into the dialogue so that the actors can clunkily say those lines and themselves understand "Oh, OK, I am prejudiced against the French", but to come out and give them three or four paragraphs of "here's why you're prejudiced against the French, so you can get that across very subtly in ways that I would have been completely unable to get across if I'd just given you three lines of dialogue"? (random example, I have no plans to actually include any anti-French bias) It seems like a useful tool for a screenwriter to have, much in the same way that leaving comments all over your code helps other programmers come in and understand what you did, but as I said I haven't seen it used anywhere outside of Miller, and he wrote plays anyway. Is there some reason I should avoid doing this?

[dpaterso]

Is there some reason I should avoid doing this?
No.

-Derek

[Ragnarok]

There are a few reasons why I'd never do that...

Firstly, the industry set a standard screenplay format. Chances are it was thought through and they like it a lot that way. The screenplay is what you're supposed to see on screen. Every page is supposed to stand for one 1 min of film. If you need 3-4 paragraphs to explain each scene, either your script will be 160 pages or your movie 60 min long.

And the way you describe it, you're going to write semi-obscure dialog only actors will understand. Would you as a moviegoer enjoy watching a movie that you will only fully comprehend after coming back home and spending hours doing some research in an encyclopedia? You might but I doubt every ticket buyer will be like you.

That's for *occult* historical elements and likes... There you should ask yourself if their absence will end up confusing the audience or if you can downright skip them out. In the former, it's your job as a writer to figure out how to cram them into the script.

When it comes to characters' feelings, it always is the writer's job to let the audience know where they stem from...

I don't know how many scripts you've written so far but the example you give shows a bad habit *every* beginner has when they start out. When you say "trying to insert them into the dialogue so that the actors can clunkily say those lines and themselves understand "Oh, OK, I am prejudiced against the French".... It could work if the char was being confronted on his bias (he'd have given hints before), if he said ""Oh, OK, I am prejudiced against the French BECAUSE...." . That is if the point was to justify his stance...

Otherwise, that's the inborn amateur reflex that MUST have the characters SAY the information... With experience, you learn to hint and suggest in dialog or even better come up with actions/events instead.

Still with the bias against the French, you could have the character associate "French" with something negative out of the blue. Like a friend buys him a croissant or what not and he'd say "Nah, thanks, my stomach doesn't get along with French cr*p." (cheap example)

[Joe Calabrese]

If you can't see it or hear it, then don't write it-- period.

There are instances where a writer can talk tot he reader but it is usually done to be funny or witty, not to give technical detail or insights into a character. I just finished reading a script for a producer to possibly do a rewrite on (it goes into production this summer) and the writer talks to the reader but does so to be cute.

But please do write a canon or bible for your characters/story.

If and when you sell your script, there will be plenty of times the producer or director during development meetings will ask you "why does he say that? or what's up with this scene?" you can then pull out your bible and show them the rich world you created. They probably will end up cutting out scenes/dialog that ultimately the audience will not get (because they won't get a copy of the bible at the popcorn stand), but at least you showed all involved that you are passionate about the story.

Some TV shows also have such a bible for the writers to refer to, but that was created by the creators, not the writer who is assigned to write an episode.

[McDuff]

And the way you describe it, you're going to write semi-obscure dialog only actors will understand.
Not at all, the aim is to write non-obscure dialog, and not too much of it. And they wouldn't find it in an encyclopaedia because I have, in fact, made it all up. Some is politics, some is really convoluted personal histories. I would never actually write "I am prejudiced against the French" in the script, but that's the point. There may well be a hypothetical scene where the character is talking to a French person. The lines can be delivered any number of ways, but the actor needs to know that he doesn't like the French. I could stick in "Bert doesn't like French people and makes it clear with his tone" and then the actor would have some clue, but then, why doesn't he like the French? Is it because his mother was killed by a Frenchman? Is it because he's just a racist tool? Is it because he's a Republican?

To use an actual example from the screenplay, some point about ten years before the story takes place, one of the major characters conspires with his brother's wife to have his brother killed so that they can get married. He does it because he's a lust-filled manipulative pervert, she does it because the main character is positioned to become very rich and powerful as a war profiteer and her husband just lost a lot of money in the self-same war. She also has a daughter. This young girl would have been about eight at the time, and is now about eighteen, and because the character is a dirty pervert he's casting glances in her direction rather than at his wife. I'm not even sure whether the murder is going to get any mention at all, and if it is it will only be by the briefest of allusions, because even people in extremely dysfunctional relationships don't casually talk about murder and also it's not the story I want to tell. The major character is descending into a fantasy world so he doesn't really believe it happened any more, his wife is trying to keep control of an increasingly uncontrollable situation and the last thing she wants is to dredge up old demons, but at the same time she knows all the history so when he looks at her daughter that way...

In my opinion, you can see that, and hear it too, in tone of voice and in action. The reason I want the information there is because it will have a genuine impact on what is shown on the screen. But it's much harder to put that in dialogue and in scene descriptions, especially if you don't want the characters to ever talk about it.

And then there's the explanation of just how much power in what arena the various government officials who drift in and out of the story have in relation to each other. That's something that's very easy to convey on screen with looks and actions, but hard to get in text to tell the actors what kind of looks and actions are required without some kind of tree diagram. Just telling people "OK, he's here and you're here, he's your boss here but you have power here unless this guy turns up, and he's on the other guy's side..." and then let them act out the lines on screen with the appropriate amount of knowledge as to how they should deliver the line "what are we going to do about these terrorists?" It's not a political drama and some of these guys are only going to be on screen for a couple of scenes at most, yet since I've had to create this political situation entirely from scratch nobody will know who's in charge of who unless I actually tell them.

It wouldn't require a paragraph or two explaining every scene, it would be a break at certain key points telling people history or salient information. And maybe a map, a diagram or two...

However.

I'm already writing a "Bible" running parallel to the screenplay -- I have more of that written than screenplay at the moment, because I need to get the world to work before I can edit it down into a coherent story. If it would be a bad idea, in people's opinions, to try and put information into the screenplay itself, I can simply work on solidifying the mess of notes into a coherent document alongside the script itself. Would that be better?

[Cat Scratch]

It's my belief that if the actors need to know it, the audience will need to know it as well. I, for one, hate sitting in a film with no idea why the characters are doing what I see as outrageous things--it doesn't matter to me that the actor is fully-committed due to some deeper understanding that I don't posess.

Basically, I don't see why your film would benefit from the actors knowing things that the audience doesn't. If it's extraneous and doesn't belong in the film, the actors shouldn't need it, either. There should be enough there in the text of your script for the actors to have the tools they need to properly play out your intention. If there's not, the audience won't get it, no matter how much the actor knows.

[McDuff]

But that's my point. The audience will know it, because actors (and directors) have all kinds of tools at their disposal that I don't. I'm putting words on paper in black and white. They're raising their voices a semitone or looking away at X moment or giving a *look* that conveys more than anything I could put in the dialogue. All I want to do is give them the tools to work out why they're doing it.

[McDuff]

Double post: I know I've asked for advice and now I'm arguing against it, but I think that people are misrepresenting what I'm trying to do. The point made above that it's Just Not Done in standard screenplay format is valid, and the kind of thing I was expecting. But the idea that I'm intending to put in irrelevant information is off base. To return to the original example, Miller's information-rich asides in The Crucible are tremendous assistances when it comes to staging the play, and it's hard to see how he could have incorporated such information into the drama without putting in too much useless junk that would have got in the way of the story. That's the kind of thing I'd be aiming for.

But, if it's Just Not Done, a "Bible" will do.

[xhouseboy]

Often when a script reaches the filming stage (or even before this for the main actors), the writer may get a call from the casting dept requesting the back-story/profile of the characters. Actors often wish to know exactly who it is that they're about to play, what makes them tick. Then your back-story document can be useful.

For minor characters it can be no more than a few lines. For a lead, it can sometimes be a few pages.

But this is never included in the actual script.

[Joe Calabrese]

You misunderstand the roles people play in making a film.

Your job is to create a blueprint of a story. You will never be able to submit any bible or character study along with the script or in the script. Only after, if there is interest in your story (sold on its merits alone) will you be able to mention a bible, but if a bible is needed to fully appreciate or understand a script, you will not get that far.

Long story short.

You must convey backstory and character motives in your action or dialog otherwise your script will never get read.

[Joe Calabrese]

Oh and I'm sorry if I offend but you are not Arthur Miller.

Many of the rules in screenwriting we are forced to abide to are broken repeatedly by those who work in the industry because they are in the industry.

If Mamet wrote a script in crayon it would still get read.

[McDuff]

You don't offend at all. I suspected when I asked that the question would be answered "you don't do this because you don't do this." I did hope that the answer would be more fluid -- I'm much more used to writing in novel form where I get to do whatever the hell I want and nobody can stop me (bwahaha) -- but I understand the constraints.

That said, if this gets made there's an incredibly high chance it will get made on a tiny budget by an independent (I'm writing because various people with lots of talent and no money said "write it and we'll try and make it"), so I'd probably be able to swing more creative control of the project anyway. Still, I'm not discounting anything, so I figure I should keep this in such a form that I could shop it off to the big houses in the incredibly likely event that the independents fall through.

[icerose]

The thing is something like prejudices are not that hard to get across in subtle ways.

James strides into the room, his skin darker than the night. He glances over at two white women standing near the corner.

Flashing his white teeth, he takes a hesitant step in their corner.

The two women bristle, and turn their noses ever so slightly into the air and turn to the side.

James shrugs it off and continues on down the street.

(Clunky and quick but hopefully you get the point. These two women are prejudice.)

[Joe Calabrese]

Not clunky at all Ice.

I think the point the OP should understand is that a film is a visual medium and as rich and full as we want our characters to be and give them motivation for their actions, the audience (and the reader) is limited to only what they can see and hear.

The actors hired may have questions, but if you write your script correctly, then you won't need to answer them because unless it is important to give the reasons why in your story, then no one ever needs to know. Actors can draw on their own experiences and methods to achieve the same results.

Do we know why Han Solo is an opportunistic rebel type. Does he have some deep dark secret or poverty from his childhood. The world will never know because it is not in any of the films.

Do we know why Howard Hughes has OCD? Yes. Because we show a flashback from his youth.

Write a bible if it helps you get the story down clearly in your mind, but do not have it as something to enhance or complete your script, because you won't get to send that to a producer along with the script, whether they be hollywood heavy hitters or independents.

The script alone is all you have to get them to fall in love and ultimately make your story-- unless you make it yourself.

[whistlelock]

you're talking to the reader, not the audience.


and what do you think the bits between dialogue are?

You either are telling the story directly to the reader, or you have constructed a narrator to tell the story to the reader.

How you approach and exicute that is up to you.

[dpaterso]

I take it everyone is intimate with Arthur Miller's work and knows exactly the kind of stuff the original poster means, so there's no need to ask him to post examples. (I know who Arthur Miller is but I haven't read his plays.)

-Derek

[Joe Calabrese]

I tried to google script excerpts with no luck.

I too would love to see examples. Maybe we're blowing this all out of proportion.

[icerose]

I'm not familiar with any of his stuff, so I am merely commenting out of my own experience and what I have read.

[dpaterso]

What with yesterday being April 1st, and the number of joke threads appearing all over the board, I wasn't sure whether this was for real. Given that the discussion has continued, I guess it is. :)

-Derek

[Rainy Night]

I assume we're talking about Arthur Miller the playwright, the man who wrote DEATH OF A SALESMAN, correct?

Really, when you are some one of his reputation you can get away with doing whatever you want.

[Joe Calabrese]

The Crucible was written in the 1950's when Miller wasn't a Playwright God.

Then again we are talking plays, not screenplays and definitely not the norm to today's standards.

Still, I would like to see an example before I keep shouting my mouth off, or at the least shoot it off with a 100% degree of confidence.

I'm almost tempted to drive over to Borders to take a peek.

[icerose]

I guess I just don't get the point of saying it to the actors but not the audience.

I mean we are supposed to be the ones pulling this together. If you aren't too careful your stuff is going to come across as an inside joke. Everyone who saw the script "gets it" but those who are just watching it are going to be left scratching their heads.

But if you work hard to convey it in a subtle way through subtext and what isn't spoken and through actions and such, you are going to bring along your whole audience including the staff, in a much more powerful effort.

At least that's my thoughts.

[Joe Calabrese]

OK.

I found a sample page from the Crucible to which I think the original poster is referring to.

Goes something like this.

PUTNAM: Now, Goody Ann, they only thought that were a with, and I am cetain there be no element of witchcraft here.

PUTNAM: No witchcraft! Now look you, Mr. Parris--

PARRIS: Thomas, Thomas, I pray you, leap not to witchcraft. I know that you-- you least of all, Thomas, would ever wish so disastrous a charge laid upon me. We cannot leap to witchcraft. They will howl me out of Salem for such corruption in my house.

A word about Thomas Putnam. He was a man with many grievances, at least one of which appears justified. Some time before, his wife's brother in law, James Bayley, had been turned down as minister of Salem. Bayley has all the qualifications, and a two thirds vote into that bargain, but a faction stopped his acceptance, for reasons that are not clear.

Thomas Putnam was the eldest son of the richest man in the village...

if this is the type of stuff the OP is referring to, then I whole heartily say that you would a) make your script way too long for anyone to accept and b) this stuff, although may be great for you to get a feel for the character so you can write them better, and may be great for the actor to get a feel for the character better, BUT it will never be read-- because a producer will look at that stuff and think you are either crazy, amateurish or a bad writer because if this stuff is so important then it should be revealed in action or dialog, not as a side note to the reader.

Enough said.

Now if this is not the kind of stuff the OP is referring to, then show me and I'll retract my statements if it is something that would work in the industry.

[icerose]

The closest I've seen to that is the X-Men script. And it just got obnoxious.

"We will get to know this boy, oh yes, we will get to know him well."

*Gag*!

Excellent movie but the script drove me up the wall.

[xhouseboy]

A word about Thomas Putnam. He was a man with many grievances, at least one of which appears justified. Some time before, his wife's brother in law, James Bayley, had been turned down as minister of Salem. Bayley has all the qualifications, and a two thirds vote into that bargain, but a faction stopped his acceptance, for reasons that are not clear.


It's a character bio. Miller being Miller can include this in the body of his play, whereas most bog-standard screenwriters, if requested to do so, supply this if and when required.

[scripter1]

hopefully you guys won't drill me out or ban me as a heritic BUT,
I would disagree that a teeny, tiny bit of what McDuff means could be possible and acceptable.

You get points for style according to Ted and Terry.

So, what would be wrong with something like:

JEFF BUTLER, (56) big guy, impeccably groomed. Hates the French. Doesn't matter why. He guards the door tonight.

A FRENCH GUY struts up.

Butler collars him, grabs his belt and chucks him in the dumpster.

SAM
Why do you do that
to French guys?

BUTLER
Doesn't matter.

***

I don't know, if playing with the reader can work for Shane Black.....

It isn't important to spell it all out and set it all up, the scene just takes a moment and so I get the message across in the shortest way possible. I tell the actor his motivation.

I think this would only really work in short scenes, maybe with minor characters, or bit characters.

[zeprosnepsid]

There’s nothing an actor or director hate more than being told what to do. You have to let them find their own character and find their own story. You’re being like an overprotective mother. You birth your characters and then you have to let them go. In the end it'll be the actor's interpretation, not yours.

Most actors can't even stand simple parentheticals. They think you're on their turf. Oftentimes they'll go through the script and cross out every parenthetical. They will not take well to this over-indulgent tyranny of creativity.

>That said, if this gets made there's an incredibly high chance it will
>get made on a tiny budget by an independent

Then good luck getting actors who will convey your nuances.

*
The kind of writing shown in the Miller excerpt will simply not fly in the film industry. It's a world where any script not conforming to the standard will be discarded. If you use the wrong size brad it'll be thrown out.

I agree with Ice and others that if it's important then it can be described in proper screenplay format. You have to work within the confines of the format to get across what you want to. Shakespeare could have told you the same thing in whatever form he wanted, but he wrote sonnets and stayed true to their format and worked within it. The format is non-negotiable for a new writer. If you want to be a great screenwriter, you must conquer working within the form.You said you worked in novels before. It's like saying that this passage can best be explained in song, so let me put this mp3 in the middle of the novel because I'm not a good enough novelist to explain it in novel form.

As a side note, I shouldn't post when I'm this sleepy. I just come off mighty cranky. I'm sure you'll do whatever you want in the end anyway.

[Beemer]

McDuff - if you are writing a spec screenplay with the intention of submitting it to the industry, you would probably not want to muck up your script with too much of the sort of stuff you mention. As Joe C. said above, the role of the writer is to provide the basic story upon which a movie is to be made. If you want the sort of creative control your suggestions imply, then you would probably need to produce and direct the movie yourself. Having said that, I doubt if a note to the actors here and there is going to bother anybody. The notes may be ignored, however.

If you are indeed writing for yourself or a group of associates with the intent of producing the film, then write the script any way you want. The scripts for the small independent films on which I worked, and sometimes co-wrote, were not entirely standard by most people's definition. The thing about being independent is that you can make up your own rules. :)

[icerose]

I snipped out part of your message to illustrate that "Hates the French. Doesn't matter why." Is an entirely unnecessary duplication.

Sam states that he only does it to the French Guys and Butler mentions it doesn't matter why so there's no point in restating the obvious you tell us as much through the proper channels.



JEFF BUTLER, (56) big guy, imbeccably groomed. Hates the French. Doesn't matter why. He guards the door tonight.

A FRENCH GUY struts up.

Butler collars him, grabs his belt and chucks him in the dumpster.

SAM
Why do you do that
to French guys?

BUTLER
Doesn't matter.

[Celia Cyanide]

There’s nothing an actor or director hate more than being told what to do. You have to let them find their own character and find their own story. You’re being like an overprotective mother. You birth your characters and then you have to let them go. In the end it'll be the actor's interpretation, not yours.

Most actors can't even stand simple parentheticals. They think you're on their turf. Oftentimes they'll go through the script and cross out every parenthetical. They will not take well to this over-indulgent tyranny of creativity.

Actually, no. We actors don't all hate being told what to do. In fact, most of us even acknowledge that it is the director's job to tell us what to do. I have heard of one famous actor who did always cross out parentheticals. But most of us don't, and that one in particular probably got away with it because he was so famous. The rest of us would just get a take two, and be told, "this time do it more like (crossed out parenthetical)."

The problem with "talking to the cast," at least too much, is that you are attempting to do the director's job. If you were to describe shots, you'd be doing the DP's job, and you just don't need to. If you are directing the film yourself, I think it's okay. I have read screenplays by Hal Hartley, and he does go into a bit of what the characters are thinking and feeling, instead of just describing what they do. He is directing from the page. But unless you really are the director, it's probably not your place to do so.

[McDuff]

>That said, if this gets made there's an incredibly high chance it will
>get made on a tiny budget by an independent

Then good luck getting actors who will convey your nuances.
Never seen "Brick" then?

(in all seriousness, one of the characters is being written for a specific actress. Her interest in the part was one of the catalysts to starting the project in the first place. She is very, very talented. My only concern is that she'll get too successful to be bothered with a little independent western by the time we get it made.)

To me, this project isn't a screenplay, it's a movie. Which means, if I'm reading everyone right, that my choices are clear. I need to write it as I've been writing it, work with the guys I've been working with, and who I trust understand the story (including, for Celia's peace of mind, the probable director), and probably part-produce it myself (selling my body on the street for funding). Then if that falls horribly flat and I still want to see the movie made, even if that means risking it going to, I dunno, John Woo and getting rewritten as an action thriller, I'll rewrite it.

I'd rather take a finished movie around and try and get a distribution deal, though.

[Joe Calabrese]

So, it's settled.

If you plan to do it yourself, write anyway you see fit. If you plan to sell it, conform to industry standards.

That's all folks. Nothing else to see here. Move along. :D

[NikeeGoddess]

wait - i came in late in the game, joe ;)

years ago they use to give actors "character bio's" - i'll bet some still do especially for tv series (it would probably be included in the series "bible". this is something you could make available -- but at the right time and that right time is during casting... for the director who if he/she chooses can pass it on to the actor. that right time is not in the script itself.

[Boo_Radley]

I'm also coming in late, but I've got to agree with Joe C on this one. If you're writing a screenplay, write only what will be seen or said. Some screenwriters break that rule, sure, but typically they've already got a track record and can get away with that kind of thing.

An example from early on in Quentin Tarantino's script for Kill Bill:

In another age men who shook the world for their own purposes were called conquerors. In our age, the men who shake the planet for their own power and greed are called corrupters (notice the misspell!). And of the world's corrupters (again!) Bill stands alone. For while he corrupts the world, inside himself he is pure.

Tarantino can get away with misspells and lengthy asides conveying unseen information, but only because he's beyond being simply well-established; he could friggin' sneeze and Miramax would make a movie of it.

Aspiring screenwriters, like it or not, are basically bound to spec script formatting. You risk scaring off a potential reader by including bulky chunks of extrapolative text which won't be seen on-screen. Most readers would look at that kind of thing and think, "He's not supposed to do this in a spec script...what ELSE did he do wrong?"

Best to just stick to the rules until you're in a position where you can afford to break them. My two cents.

[Celia Cyanide]

Tarantino can get away with misspells and lengthy asides conveying unseen information, but only because he's beyond being simply well-established; he could friggin' sneeze and Miramax would make a movie of it.

He also directed Kill Bill himself. He doesn't need to worry about overstepping his bounds as a screenwriter, or showing a director he knows the "correct" way to write a screenplay.

[dpaterso]

Point taken, Celia, tho' what QT had to do was write a screenplay that would win over investors and fill them with confidence. I'm thinking maybe these extra splashes of gloss paint, unsuitable for a newbie spec script, were put there for this specific purpose.

-Derek

[Cat Scratch]

I realize you've already made up your mind, but as an aside, I'd like to clarify about The Crucible text someone quoted above. A lot of plays, once they become published, include a great deal of text that was not in the original stage play. This is for the ease of readers, and explains why when you pick up a stage play at a Barnes & Noble you'll see a number of stage directions and even, occasionally, historical or character facts that will enhance a reader's enjoyment of the play.

A working copy of the play (that being, what the actors and directors use when staging it) is entirely different. Stage directions are all but cut and an aside about a character would NEVER be included, whether your name is Arthur Miller or not.

They're intended for two different audience, so please do not use the published version of a play (or screenplay, for that matter) as a blueprint for work you are attempting to get produced.

[Cat Scratch]

I'd also like to add that it doesn't seem as if anyone was tooting the "You don't because you don't" horn. A number of people cited extremely reasonable examples for why screenplays are written the way they are. You may not wish to do it this way, but a deeper understanding of why the rule exists will probably enhance your writing.

[scripter1]

a few days for a serious bout of grumpiness to pass before I responded.

Regarding my Butler hates the French example.

Let's say our Protag needs to get into the bar where Butler works.
Let's say that the Protag is French.

What I wrote tells the actor who plays Butler some vital information about the ATTITUDE he should give his actions. I've still left him plenty of room to choose how HE wants to portray that BUT I've also made it clear that it is a certain way and not another. The French guy would get handled differently then a Spainish guy who needs to be removed from the area.
The dialog then explains why the action was taken.
The guy was French, not a trouble maker.

What I'm also saying is that Butler's backstory isn't worth enough to go into detail. And maybe if I take the scene a bit further NOTHING the Protag can say will change Butler's mind about the French. There isn't a reason for it. It doesn't matter and so the Protag doesn't have any ground to stand on.

If I take the hates the French part out a reader/ actor is going to go "Why did he do that? What does that mean to the story?"

With it in when the Protag shows up the reader knows EXACTLY what the conflict of the scene is going to be.

The VIEWER, the audience will pick up on it by the effort of the actor.

[Cat Scratch]

There are still ways of doing this without outright directing your actor/reader. If prejudice is a theme of the story, it will already be evident that this is the reason. Particularly if you give the bouncer a line or two before he arrives to demonstrate that the bouncer isn't simply a grouchy guy--like he's making jokes with a bartender, or something, and has a demeanor shift when he hears the Frenchman speak.

If prejudice isn't a theme of the story, just an important plot twist, then the audience likely won't get this as the reason no matter how good a line-delivery by your actor, whether they are given the "reason" in the text or not. This is also easily remedied by adding an aside or mumble by the bouncer that is derogatory toward the French.

Perhaps you feel that's too easy, but those are just examples of ways to get this across to both actor an audience, if it is that important. But if, like you're saying, the reason itself isn't important, then why not leave it up to the actor? He or she will come up with a viable reason--that's their job.

[scripter1]

prejudice is a theme of the movie then yes, I would say the set ups before would/should be enough to give the actor what he needs.

Let's just take the scene on it's face value.
Butler hates the French and it is Butler that stands in the way of our Hero.
He is just an obstacle to overcome. No more no less.
I shouldn't waste time setting up anything more because
IT DOESN'T matter.
The point is the challenge he provides.

Sure, maybe the actor will choose to mutter some type of curse against the French, take it a step further BUT, I've still given the actor that choice. My little sentence is pretty short yet it gives everyone everything they need to understand the scene. No more, no less.

But let's say we choose to really have some fun with this and take it a step further. To make it a running joke.
Maybe as our Protag drives up the sidekick can say "Watch out for that doorman. He hates the French." "Why?" "It doesn't matter."

So now I'm kinda playing the story off the script.

I don't know if it would work or not, but if it makes a reader grin a little then it would be a good thing.

It's hardly on the scale Mcduff is thinking but it's a viable option.
Character descriptions are really the only places I've seen this in scripts.

And it is MY job as the writer to make every line of writing have some flare, style, punch, rythem, excitement, uniqueness in it.