Battle Scenes

[Sunshine13]

So I wanted to get some input and opinions on what you guys think about a well constructed battle scene. I plan on reviewing some screenplays I know that seem to have "epic" battles. But what ar eyour thoughts? How much action is too much action? I'm almost content with what I have, but I've decided to add a little more. We'll see.

[dpaterso]

This is a shooting script not a spec script, but it's got the kind of big battle scene I like to read, and would strive to write, from around scene/shot 500:

http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Army-of-Darkness.html

-Derek

[zeprosnepsid]

My boyfriend and I have been watching some large scale battle scenes lately to see how they work but it's been more on the filmic level than writing. But I suppose you want the writing to be similarly rousing without being too much black. They always tell you to throw in a little unnecessary and explanatory dialogue ("John! No!!") because readers will skip over the black sometimes and just read the dialogue.

Anyway, the only thing from my recent study of how to film a battle scene that may be of help is to interplay what's going on in the large level (100s of soldiers running at each other) and the small level (your main character and supporting characters and their struggles). Because if you only focus on the former then there isn't enough emotional connection. But if you only focus on the later then there isn't enough scale. So it seems to work well to jump back and forth a little between the two to strike the right balance.

Anyway, depending on what kind of battle you are interested in there are any number of scripts you could read to see how they do it...

[Sunshine13]

Derek, thanks, I'll read that tonight.

Zep, thanks as well. Yeah, I've worked on the scale thing, mentioning the battle as a group or as a group of soldiers, and then the main characters and their struggles. But I still feel like something is missing. I'll probably eventually post them up (there are two major battles in the script) for thoughts and opinions once I feel good about what is there.

[nmstevens]

Derek, thanks, I'll read that tonight.

Zep, thanks as well. Yeah, I've worked on the scale thing, mentioning the battle as a group or as a group of soldiers, and then the main characters and their struggles. But I still feel like something is missing. I'll probably eventually post them up (there are two major battles in the script) for thoughts and opinions once I feel good about what is there.

I think the key to successfully conveying a battle lies in properly choosing the POV -- the point of view of the characters in the midst of the battle.

It's very easy, because you've got a lot of people, pretty much all dressed the same, in the midst of frantic action, often in very complicated geography, for readers, and also viewers, to become very confused as to what's happening in a battle scene.

If you pick one or two or three characters who are going to be key and stay with them, so that we never lose track of them, and put them where they need to be so that they, and thus *we* see what we need to see to understand how the battle is unfolding -- then it's clear to them (not necessarily all of them, depending on the requirements of the story), and it becomes clear to us.

Then, as you move around the battle field, instead of identifying only by locations, which aren't going to mean much and which may very well change constantly, you lock in the slug lines by *character* -- as they move around and through the battle, the reader, in a sense, moves with them, and thus the geography becomes much easier to follow.

So instead of writing, EXT. EASTERN SECTOR, THE LOWER GULLY - DAY

it becomes, EXT. THE LOWER GULLY, WITH CHARLIE - DAY

And then, EXT. THE HILLTOP - WITH COLONEL JAMES - DAY

While this may not be completely traditional, it serves a very important purpose. Because over the course of the battle field, you might have many different contiguous locations, sides of hills, gullies, trenches, craters -- dozens of little "mini-locations" within the big location. You could have fifty different slug lines and different locations in a very short battle.

But if you stick to your two or three characters as you move back and forth, then a reader will understand, as he moves through all these various locations -- oh, Charlie has moved from the last location -- now he's here. Got it. We're still with Charlie.

In a sense, the character becomes the location, becomes the defined center of the world, through which we see and understand the unfolding geography of the action.

Character X is on top of the hill at the rear, watching. Character Y is down below, part of the advance toward the enemy. Character Z is the enemy Field Commander leading his forces forward in the opposite direction.

Just move between these three. See the battle from these three positions. Never move anywhere else and the reader and by extension the audience will understand what's going on.

Now, obviously, with bigger and later battles you can introduce more characters and subsidiary characters but you should always aim to root the action in your characters' POV.

NMS

[Joe270]

Certainly the war makes a huge difference, the tank battles of WW2 can't compare to the hand to hand warfare of "300".

For WW2, 'Saving Private Ryan' and 'Band of Brothers' have incredible battle sequences.

If you give us an era, we might be able to suggest better reading material.

[similan]

Ahhh... been wondering about this.

So Charlie dives head long into the gully (at the beginning of the script) and decides to stay there until the war is over.

Later when he appears again, say, at the end of the movie, can I use

EXT. CHARLIE'S POSITION - NIGHT

if Charlie hasn't move since we last saw him?

[dpaterso]

Sounds like a job for a mini slug:

CHARLIE'S FOXHOLE

Charlie raises his head and looks around, wide-eyed with fear.

-Derek

[similan]

Even if he doesn't appear again until much later? Just curious.

[dpaterso]

No you're right, it depends on the timing.

If you're writing a big battle sequence (see the Army of Darkness example above) then moving around the battlefield using mini slugs will read faster. Writing scene headings over and over isn't wrong or anything, but this could become tedious after a while and give the feel of slowing the action down.

If you're going to go somewhere else, away from the battlefield, into another scene or sequence entirely, and so much time passes that maybe the reader might forget who the heck Charlie is, then yes, I'd probably re-establish Charlie's location with a full scene heading.

Judge the situation for yourself. Whatever works for you is right.

-Derek

[dclary]

Sure. Specify if you think the reader might not get it:


CHARLIE'S FOXHOLE - NIGHT

Still cowering from day's battle, Charlie finally pokes his head out to look around

[Sunshine13]

Well I'm glad I've at least been "formatting" it right, as far as putting mini slugs in. With school starting this week it's been hectic so I haven't had a chance to read over Army of Darkness. I hope to during her nap time.

[nmstevens]

Sounds like a job for a mini slug:

CHARLIE'S FOXHOLE

Charlie raises his head and looks around, wide-eyed with fear.

-Derek


I wouldn't do it this way -- that is, identifying a place with a name, especially because there's likely going to be a moment when we see Charlie getting into that foxhole and it's going to be oddly identified as his before he gets into it.

I think it makes more sense for the slugline to independently tie the location with the character, who may be moving into a foxhole, then getting out, then moving on, or staying there.

So, more like -- EXT. THE FOXHOLE - WITH CHARLIE

Or, if you want a mini-slug:

THE FOXHOLE - WITH CHARLIE

Then, if Charlie leaves the Foxhole, the foxhole no longer belongs to him. It's just a hole and because the slug is essentially split and if Charlie moves, we can follow Charlie.

NMS

[scripter1]

I hope I can add my two cents worth without taking anything away.

1) What is the importance of the battle? Is it a setting up battle or a middle of the story turning point battle, or is it the big climax battle?

Each type of battle will need a slightly different focus.

2) What events of the battle will change/move the story?

If important people get hurt or die, a significant advancement is achieved, or a tactical mistake is made, etc you want to make this the focus of your scene.

The purpose of the scene and the battle should be the same, ADVANCE THE PROTAG'S / ANTAG'S GOALS.

3) Try to set up on a small scale minor characters that we can relate too.
Make sure that we are feeling the thoughts and emotions of members of each side.

Create an enemy we want to see defeated and heros we will root for.

In Braveheart we met many of the lesser soliders, just briefly but when we saw thier faces after the battle we were either sad that they had died or happy that they survived.

[Plot Device]

I am not one for the WRITING of battle scenes, but I know what I like when I see a film. And the following excerpt from Aint It Cool News reflects my sentiment exactly. This is from Moriarty's review of the film 300.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/31823

In the end, the reason to see this film is because of the way Snyder handles the battle sequences, and this is where he proves himself as a major talent.

I’m a picky bitch when it comes to action scenes on film. Geography and clarity are the two things that are most important to me in an action sequence, and Snyder’s got a great feel for both. In a film where many of the major characters look alike while in battle, it would be easy for this to become confusing, jumbled, frantic instead of kinetic. But Snyder’s got a steady hand and a great eye, and he transforms Miller’s static images into something fluid and beautiful.


Geography and clarity. Moriarty is SO TOTALLY on the money there. When a battle scene is going down, we need to keep track of who's who and who's where.

First, I'll address CLARITY

The past ten years (or more), the usage of hyper-confusing editing combined with a "shaking camera" in battle scenes has been a real thorn in my side. It just annoys the daylights out of me. I find the employment of frenetic editing and shaking/bluring camera shots to be an overblown piece of nonsense that some directors have actually convinced themselves is somehow cool. Perhaps these same directors should take clue from the brilliance of the recent Children of Men.

Now for GEOGRAPHY.

In LotR, the Battle of Helm's Deep from the second film in the series was (in my opinion) a superior piece of cinema than the Battle of the Pelenor Fields from the third film. I found my ability to follow the Helm's Deep battle far more effortless than the confusion of the Pelenor Fields. The sheer scale of all that was happening at Pelenor Fields was just way too much to keep track of, while Helm's Deep was of a much smaller scale and so I never lost focus for even one moment during that smaller battle. (Although I will say that when I saw the Extended Edition of the third film, the longer version of the Battle of the Pelenor Fields was much easier to follow because many critical details of clarity were included in the longer version that were lost when editing down the theatrical version to fit the under-three-hours running time that the studio demanded.)



My feeling on writing a battle: whatever the heck is going on in your battle, help us to SEE it and to KNOW it. If there are two guys we have to keep track of, help us keep track of them. If there is someone or something of extreme importance that needs to be protected during the battle, help us see the danger all around that person/thing. If there is a specific geographic destination that needs to be reached during the battle (a tower, a vehicle, a well, a body of water, etc), help us get a handle on the location and on all the obstacles that lie between the hero and that destination.

My general feeling on battles is that ALL stories are about conflicts and battles--but usually only personal and symbolic battles and struggles. But a LITERAL battle is a massive step up from a symbolic one and requires a skilled hand. There are obstacles in the way, show us the obstacles. There are high points and low points. There are moments when power shifts back and forth from antag to protag. There are moments when the protag wants to give up. It's all the same as the symbolic battles, but they are literal and very very visual instead of merely psychological and conversational. Show us the goal, show us the gains and the losses, show us the twists, and show us the satisfying resolution.

I have read that it's a good exercise for a writer to draw up for himself a map of the battle he has in his head, and to include specific/critical geographic features on the map, and maybe even place 3-D soldiers on the map (anything from D&D figures to green plastic soldiers to chess men to checkers) and move them around on your paper map. I am told the very tense and nearly wordless farmhouse basement scene from the recent War of the Worlds was mapped out extensively on paper before it was written. In that scene, Tom Cruise and Dakota Fanning and that other guy all moved around from hiding place to hiding place to hiding place there in the basement, and then the aliens and the alien camera thing all scampered around as well. But it all had to be mapped out first before it could even be written.