Looking through binoculars, telescope, spyglass?

[avid-dreamer]

Ok...I was wondering:

If I begin a scene with someone looking through a spyglass or binoculars or whatever,is it necessary to write something like:

INT. VIEW OF BINOCULARS - DAY

OR

Can I just use the heading of the location of this new scene?

If it is a must to start with a heading that describes the view of the binoculars, then someone...please help. How can I say this?

Thanks!

[dpaterso]

As long as it's clear to the reader, write it any way you want. Alas, INT. VIEW OF BINOCULARS - DAY makes no sense.

Maybe something like:

EXT. FORT KNOX - DAY

viewed through a pair of binoculars.

Or if you're in the middle of a scene and want a quick cut to POV,

INSERT BINOCULAR MATTE - Monica sips her coffee.

-Derek

[avid-dreamer]

Oh, ok. Thanks a bundle!!:)

[Enzo]

I thought this thread was going to reveal some major news about the production company Spyglass Entertainment!

[dpaterso]

:e2fairy: A quick thread rename just to avoid that association. :)

-Derek

[nmstevens]

Ok...I was wondering:

If I begin a scene with someone looking through a spyglass or binoculars or whatever,is it necessary to write something like:

INT. VIEW OF BINOCULARS - DAY

OR

Can I just use the heading of the location of this new scene?

If it is a must to start with a heading that describes the view of the binoculars, then someone...please help. How can I say this?

Thanks!



I'd probably do it something like this:

EXT. - BINOCULAR VIEW - THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE - DAY

What you want to do is have the "interior or "exterior" be fixed by whatever the binoculars are seeing, not by wherever the putative person with the binoculars happens to be, since ultimately, they're just going to shoot the actual location and put a matte around it.

NMS

[avid-dreamer]

hmmm, ok. So imagine if it was the view through a microscope. How would you guys write that scene heading?

Thanks!

[dpaterso]

hmmm, ok. So imagine if it was the view through a microscope. How would you guys write that scene heading?
I'd maybe write this as:

INT. LABORATORY - DAY

SEEN THROUGH A MICROSCOPE: wriggling sperm attack each other.

SMITH sits back from the microscope, rubs his eyes.

SMITH
Good heavens, it's like Star Wars
down there.

-or-

MICROSCOPE POV: wriggling sperm attack each other.

INT. LABORATORY - DAY

SMITH sits back from the microscope, rubs his eyes.

SMITH
Good heavens, it's like Star Wars
down there.

-Derek

[nmstevens]

hmmm, ok. So imagine if it was the view through a microscope. How would you guys write that scene heading?

Thanks!


INSERT - THROUGH THE MICROSCOPE

Because whatever you're showing through the microscope, it's going to be an effects shot -- which won't actually be shot on location in that laboratory.

It is, perhaps, the very definition of an "insert" shot -- something shot somewhere else, at another time and another place by another crew, and stuck in.

This is as opposed to something that is shot, say, through binoculars, which might very well be actually shot during production on location, simply with a long lens, with the "binocular effect" added later.

NMS

[jonpiper]

INSERT - THROUGH THE MICROSCOPE

Because whatever you're showing through the microscope, it's going to be an effects shot -- which won't actually be shot on location in that laboratory.

It is, perhaps, the very definition of an "insert" shot -- something shot somewhere else, at another time and another place by another crew, and stuck in.

This is as opposed to something that is shot, say, through binoculars, which might very well be actually shot during production on location, simply with a long lens, with the "binocular effect" added later.

NMS

I was under the impression that INSERT could be used whenever we, as spec screenwriters, wanted to direct the attention of the reader to a closeup view of an object that is in a scene. That object could be filmed as the scene is shot, not necessairly somewhere else.
But it could be filmed elesewhere. For example

INSERT - LETTER

Dear NMS,
It's been . . .

Am I wrong?

[Plot Device]

I was told INSERT is kind of outdated. I would do the microscope thing as:

INT. LABORATORY - DAY

Doctor Proctor seats himself at the lab table and leans forward to peer into the

MICROSCOPE

where he sees

HUNDREDS OF MICROBES

wriggling in a clear suspension of fluid.

He leans back from the microscope again and rubs his eyes.

[nmstevens]

I was told INSERT is kind of outdated. I would do the microscope thing as:

INT. LABORATORY - DAY

Doctor Proctor seats himself at the lab table and leans forward to peer into the

MICROSCOPE

where he sees

HUNDREDS OF MICROBES

wriggling in a clear suspension of fluid.

He leans back from the microscope again and rubs his eyes.

I think that the above is simply a much less formal way of describing it. If I was a PM trying to break the above down, I wouldn't know exactly how to go about doing it.

We have to remember that, while there is a certain amount of looseness to all of this -- all of this stuff, the scene headings, the slug lines, the first time capitalizations of Character names, et al, have a *production purpose* -- even though most scripts never actually reach that stage.

The goal is to end up reaching production -- and when a script does, these latent forms suddenly come alive and their utility awakens.

And in that realm "INSERT" is alive and well.

MICROSCOPE on one line and a couple lines later, HUNDREDS OF MICROBES -- that's just a sort of literary device. It doesn't particularly translate into anything relevant to production, or a script breakdown.

On the other hand:

INSERT - THROUGH THE MICROSCOPE

Microbes are swarming on the slide.

-- serves that purpose, and also serves the comparable purpose for a reader of the script.

I suppose you could say: THROUGH THE MICROSCOPE and the PM will figure out that it's an insert, but I'm not sure that anything is gained by doing that.

NMS

[nmstevens]

I was under the impression that INSERT could be used whenever we, as spec screenwriters, wanted to direct the attention of the reader to a closeup view of an object that is in a scene. That object could be filmed as the scene is shot, not necessairly somewhere else.
But it could be filmed elesewhere. For example

INSERT - LETTER

Dear NMS,
It's been . . .

Am I wrong?


Well, the deal is -- you're not going to be shooting a close-up of a book or an ashtray -- or even someone's hand, if you've got your stars and your entire production crew hanging out.

Even if it takes place at the location, under normal circumstances, you'll wrap out your main cast and crew and you'll leave behind a small second unit "insert crew" (and if hands or feet or whatever are involved an "insert cast" -- to film that stuff.

Generally, since it's all close-up work, you don't even use the main stage. You'll simply duplicate whatever close stuff you need -- a table or a chair or a section of a floor or whatever else -- and have it all shot, again by a second unit, on an insert stage.

That's why they call them "inserts."

Pretty much every close angle you see of an actor's hands or feet, or anyone reaching for something or picking something up -- or even a star looking at something and it's over their shoulder down at the whatever-it-is, (say over the star's shoulder down toward a newspaper) it's almost always going to be an insert shot somewhere else with someone else on an insert stage.

Generally, the rule is -- if you're not actually seeing the star's face -- it's not the star.

NMS

[Plot Device]

MICROSCOPE on one line and a couple lines later, HUNDREDS OF MICROBES -- that's just a sort of literary device. It doesn't particularly translate into anything relevant to production, or a script breakdown.



I agree NMS. It's just symptomatic of my still being an unsold writer trying to craft a script with the more humble goal of merely "getting read" as opposed to the loftier goal of "getting produced." I'm trying to achieve a breezy, effortless, flowing read devoid of what can be clunky camera-direction type of stipulations.

[Plot Device]

Pretty much every close angle you see of an actor's hands or feet, or anyone reaching for something or picking something up -- or even a star looking at something and it's over their shoulder down at the whatever-it-is, (say over the star's shoulder down toward a newspaper) it's almost always going to be an insert shot somewhere else with someone else on an insert stage.

Generally, the rule is -- if you're not actually seeing the star's face -- it's not the star.

NMS

I can see the financial and logistic convenience of such a decision. But I am 99% certain that every single shot in all thee Lord of the Rings films where we saw Frodo's hands fawning over the Ring were in fact none other than the real Elijah Wood's hands. :D

(BTW --He's got ugly hands, not very sexy at all: hideously stubby fingers and short, underdeveloped fingernails. He would never make it as a hand model.)

[jonpiper]

Well, the deal is -- you're not going to be shooting a close-up of a book or an ashtray -- or even someone's hand, if you've got your stars and your entire production crew hanging out.

Even if it takes place at the location, under normal circumstances, you'll wrap out your main cast and crew and you'll leave behind a small second unit "insert crew" (and if hands or feet or whatever are involved an "insert cast" -- to film that stuff.

Generally, since it's all close-up work, you don't even use the main stage. You'll simply duplicate whatever close stuff you need -- a table or a chair or a section of a floor or whatever else -- and have it all shot, again by a second unit, on an insert stage.

That's why they call them "inserts."

Pretty much every close angle you see of an actor's hands or feet, or anyone reaching for something or picking something up -- or even a star looking at something and it's over their shoulder down at the whatever-it-is, (say over the star's shoulder down toward a newspaper) it's almost always going to be an insert shot somewhere else with someone else on an insert stage.

Generally, the rule is -- if you're not actually seeing the star's face -- it's not the star.

NMS

Thanks, that's the best explanation I've read of what INSERT means and why it is used. For production purposes it seems to be the best way to write it. However, must "production purposes" be our paramount concern when writing a spec script?

From the point of view of one reading a spec script purely for the read, without considering "production purpose," I'm under the impression that we could write our action/description in any of a vairety of ways. Use INSERT, a mini-slug, or simply prose.

Doesn't our choice depend upon our individual style and how well we write the scene?

James unfolds the crumpled paper.

INSERT - Letter

Dear . . .


or

James unfolds the crumpled paper. He stares at the

LETTER

Dear . . .


or

James unfolds the crumpled paper. He silently reads the note.

Dear . . .

or

Another way

[LIVIN]

Well, the deal is -- you're not going to be shooting a close-up of a book or an ashtray -- or even someone's hand, if you've got your stars and your entire production crew hanging out.

Even if it takes place at the location, under normal circumstances, you'll wrap out your main cast and crew and you'll leave behind a small second unit "insert crew" (and if hands or feet or whatever are involved an "insert cast" -- to film that stuff.

Generally, the rule is -- if you're not actually seeing the star's face -- it's not the star.

NMS, while I agree this would be true on many big budget Hollywood films, I would like to pose a different scenario, which I think is relevant. As spec writers, our "audience (read: eventual producers)" could be big budget Hollywood or small independent productions.

Having been highly involved in the production of an indie, it was actually more practical, IMO, to shoot inserts along with the rest of the scene. To break it down, character A might be shot approaching object B. Now, while object B is being shot by the crew, the director is afforded the chance to discuss the next shot involving character A and character C. Because the insert shot is pretty simple, the crew can work (on the insert shot) while the director and actors are working (discussing the next shot - after the insert), making the process more efficient, IMO.

So, practically speaking, an independent film may take a different approach to the one you outlined, which I don't doubt holds true for the type of production you are referring to.

[nmstevens]

NMS, while I agree this would be true on many big budget Hollywood films, I would like to pose a different scenario, which I think is relevant. As spec writers, our "audience (read: eventual producers)" could be big budget Hollywood or small independent productions.

Having been highly involved in the production of an indie, it was actually more practical, IMO, to shoot inserts along with the rest of the scene. To break it down, character A might be shot approaching object B. Now, while object B is being shot by the crew, the director is afforded the chance to discuss the next shot involving character A and character C. Because the insert shot is pretty simple, the crew can work (on the insert shot) while the director and actors are working (discussing the next shot - after the insert), making the process more efficient, IMO.

So, practically speaking, an independent film may take a different approach to the one you outlined, which I don't doubt holds true for the type of production you are referring to.

I've directed a low budget feature and have done similar things -- but in a sense, what you're describing is simply a variant of what I'm talking about.

That is, if the director is off working with the actors and he's leaving the D.P. to shoot inserts on the stage, he's allowing the D.P. to work as a de-facto second unit director, shooting on the stage while the "first unit" -- that is, the director, rehearses the actors.

And I'm prepared to bet that if one of those inserts requires a hand (belonging to the star) to reach in and pick something up, they'd probably look around and say, "Okay, whose hand looks most like the star's -- Joe? Bob? Okay -- you. Put your hand in and pick up that carrot."

NMS