-
Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.
? about how to write this scene
- Thread starter Lenny
- Start date
Lenny,
The context of this is difficult to understand. Not enough info. What is the purpose of this scene and changing of the crowds? Time sequence? Dream? Insanity? Need more info.
WC
The context of this is difficult to understand. Not enough info. What is the purpose of this scene and changing of the crowds? Time sequence? Dream? Insanity? Need more info.
WC
Although there are conventions in screeenwriting, the bottom line is that it's all about communicating your ideas.
Within a scene it's perfectly OK to break up descriptions with the transition CUT TO
So, if I've understood your idea you might write it like this.
Jeff sits in the middle of a crowded theatre as the orchestra plays Bach's Fugue in E minor. The performance is brilliant and Jeff is clearly moved by it. Tears start to roll down his cheeks.
CUT TO
The orchestra plays on, but now Jeff sits completely alone surronded by empty seats, the rest of the audience is no longer there. Jeff weeps openly.
CUT TO
As the orchestra reaches the climax of the piece Jeff is once more surrounded by the same audience. (His being alone was metaphorical) The audience rises in applause leaving Jeff sitting alone, crying.
OK, this description isn't as detailed as you probably need, but the thing is it hasn't crossed the line of into putting into the script how the sequence is shot. As a director I can think of half a dozen different ways of shooting the above sequence, including not actually having the seats empty but shooting the shot twice from the same position , once with Jeff in the seats and once with the audience and then decreasing the opacity of the audience in post so that they are there, and then they fade to ghosts like images leaving Jeff isolated and then fade back. As you can see I've ignored the actual cuts in the script, which are not edit instructions, just a convention for breaking up the sequence.
The key is that you don't have different scenes, because it's all in the same location, but you do need to break the sequences up. Hope this helps.
Within a scene it's perfectly OK to break up descriptions with the transition CUT TO
So, if I've understood your idea you might write it like this.
Jeff sits in the middle of a crowded theatre as the orchestra plays Bach's Fugue in E minor. The performance is brilliant and Jeff is clearly moved by it. Tears start to roll down his cheeks.
CUT TO
The orchestra plays on, but now Jeff sits completely alone surronded by empty seats, the rest of the audience is no longer there. Jeff weeps openly.
CUT TO
As the orchestra reaches the climax of the piece Jeff is once more surrounded by the same audience. (His being alone was metaphorical) The audience rises in applause leaving Jeff sitting alone, crying.
OK, this description isn't as detailed as you probably need, but the thing is it hasn't crossed the line of into putting into the script how the sequence is shot. As a director I can think of half a dozen different ways of shooting the above sequence, including not actually having the seats empty but shooting the shot twice from the same position , once with Jeff in the seats and once with the audience and then decreasing the opacity of the audience in post so that they are there, and then they fade to ghosts like images leaving Jeff isolated and then fade back. As you can see I've ignored the actual cuts in the script, which are not edit instructions, just a convention for breaking up the sequence.
The key is that you don't have different scenes, because it's all in the same location, but you do need to break the sequences up. Hope this helps.
Clive,
Thanks! I think the part when you said, (His being alone was metaphorical) is key. I think without that the reader would get confused and I didn't know how to do that without saying, "hey everybody, this guys isn't really alone he's just kind of imagining his alone cause it represents how alone he feel." Cause that would be stupid.
I didn't know how to link it all either and I guess the "CUT TO" is that way to do it. I can't wait to get it down on the page. Thank you very much!
Thanks! I think the part when you said, (His being alone was metaphorical) is key. I think without that the reader would get confused and I didn't know how to do that without saying, "hey everybody, this guys isn't really alone he's just kind of imagining his alone cause it represents how alone he feel." Cause that would be stupid.
I didn't know how to link it all either and I guess the "CUT TO" is that way to do it. I can't wait to get it down on the page. Thank you very much!
No problem. Hope it works out for you.
If you ever feel like reading a screenplay that is superb at description, you might look at Bruce Robinson's "Withnail and I." It's the one I go back to again and again because it is so easy to read and gives such a clear idea of the picture.
If you ever feel like reading a screenplay that is superb at description, you might look at Bruce Robinson's "Withnail and I." It's the one I go back to again and again because it is so easy to read and gives such a clear idea of the picture.
CUT TO can work if this is a production script, however, if this is a spec script, you should describe it without direction; CUT TO, DISSOLVE, ANGLE ON, etc. The only exception is FADE IN which is placed two lines above your first scene heading, and FADE OUT, two lines below the last line of visual exposition.
There are some things you can use that are not considered camera directions, like INSERT, DREAM, DAYREAM, and when they are over, you put BACK TO SCENE.
If you can't describe it in the action, you may try INSERT.
INT. OPERA HOUSE - NIGHT
It is a full house. John is seated in the second row. The audience APPLAUDS.
INSERT: JOHN'S FACE
As we move back we see the seats around him are empty. It is silent.
BACK TO SCENE
The APPLAUSE settles down as the orchestra starts a new arrangement.
If you can't describe it in the action, you may try INSERT.
INT. OPERA HOUSE - NIGHT
It is a full house. John is seated in the second row. The audience APPLAUDS.
INSERT: JOHN'S FACE
As we move back we see the seats around him are empty. It is silent.
BACK TO SCENE
The APPLAUSE settles down as the orchestra starts a new arrangement.
indietalk said:
indietalk said:
An INSERT is as much a "direction" as CUT TO or ANGLE ON. And I don't agree that they should necessarily be avoided in specs. I've read great specs that had them and lousy specs that didn't. And I'd buy the great spec with the camera directions in it any day. As long as the story works, then the rest is window dressing.
Beeblebrox said:
Yes, but CUT TO may look more like directions for the editor than INSERT. I'm just trying to give him another option.
Here's something I grabbed for you from a quick google.
SCRIPT TERMS:
O.S. - (dialog or sound heard in scene, but OFF SCREEN )
V.O. - (VOICE OVER / narration that does not originate in scene)filtered - (voice coming over radio, telephone or speaker)
P.O.V. - (camera angle showing a character's POINT-OF-VIEW)
INSERT: - (used when camera shows a specific object in a scene)
LEGEND / SUPER: - (written info that appears on screen to show location, etc.)
INTERCUT: - (used when showing characters interacting from two separate locations,as in a telephone call, etc.)
MONTAGE: - (series of co-related or contrasting images played with music over)
SERIES OF SHOTS: - (shots used to establish a scene location)
CAMERA TERMS: PAN, TILT, DOLLY, CRANE, SWEEP, and MOVE IN are all common camera terms, but should be avoided in the spec script. Pro Hint: DO NOT THINK IN TERMS OF THE CAMERA, instead just describe what is being depicted on the screen. e.g. INSTEAD OF: PAN up three stories and FIND a soldier climbing the side of the building. WRITE: Three stories up, a soldier scales the side of the building. Also try and avoid using the "Goldman WE", as in WE SEE, WE MOVE, WE PAN, etc. (made famous by William Goldman).
indietalk said:
I'm a professional screenwriter/director. I work with other writers, agents, producers every day. And no one I know has any hangups about these dumbass "rules." And no, there aren't seperate standards for pros and amateurs. What they care about is a great story. Good writing counts as well, of course, but using PANS and MOVES is not considered bad writing unless they are confusing or overdone. But that's true of anything in your script.
In fact, anyone giving you advice NOT to write like William Goldman, one of the most respected and well known writers in the business, should have his head examined.
Beeblebrox said:
Hey chief....no one cares how qualified you feel you are......Give your opinion and head out...Let's not attack the other members...especially the founder of the board.....If you disagree ... be tactful with your response...you sound like a prick by going into attack mode the way you did.....No need for that....Head over to moviepopshoot's board if you're looking for a good internet scuffle....
Indie, my comment about "dumbass" and "head examined" were not directed at you, but rather at the internet noise machine that has produced and regurgitated these so-called "rules" about screenwriting.
If anything, this should be of great comfort to anyone trying to write their opus screenplays, the relief in knowing that all of these niddling details that beginners sweat over don't matter. No one is going to throw your script out because you write "we see" or "cut to." They don't care. And the ONLY time I've ever even seen this addressed at all is from amateurs on internet message boards. Not once has any agent or producer I've dealt with EVER commented on this.
What matters is your story, the idea, the characters. And language is certainly important in a general writing sense. But camera direction isn't. Most professional scripts have it to some degree or another. And whenever I point this out, I'm invariably met with the comment that "pros can get away with it." What that person is essentially telling you is, "Don't do it like the pros do it." That's cracked.
And if someone told me that I should avoid writing like William Goldman, I would ignore their advice from then on out. Which, of course, you are naturally free to do with mine.
If anything, this should be of great comfort to anyone trying to write their opus screenplays, the relief in knowing that all of these niddling details that beginners sweat over don't matter. No one is going to throw your script out because you write "we see" or "cut to." They don't care. And the ONLY time I've ever even seen this addressed at all is from amateurs on internet message boards. Not once has any agent or producer I've dealt with EVER commented on this.
What matters is your story, the idea, the characters. And language is certainly important in a general writing sense. But camera direction isn't. Most professional scripts have it to some degree or another. And whenever I point this out, I'm invariably met with the comment that "pros can get away with it." What that person is essentially telling you is, "Don't do it like the pros do it." That's cracked.
And if someone told me that I should avoid writing like William Goldman, I would ignore their advice from then on out. Which, of course, you are naturally free to do with mine.
Cut To:
is perfectly acceptable to use in a spec for this particular scene IF it works better and tells your story better than using some other way.
You simply do not want to throw CUT TO: around at the end of every scene and especially at the end of each sequence before you start a new location.
filmy
CUT TO:Lenny said:
is perfectly acceptable to use in a spec for this particular scene IF it works better and tells your story better than using some other way.
You simply do not want to throw CUT TO: around at the end of every scene and especially at the end of each sequence before you start a new location.
filmy
I've read it in several How to screenwriting books. Warranted or not, I don't think "internet amateurs" are just making it up out of thin air. I also think they say that just so beginners won't make the mistake of putting directions and camera angles all over the place. I doubt if someone really likes a script that they would throw it out because they ran across a CUT TO on page 87.Beeblebrox said:
Thanks for the help everyone. Once I get the scene written I might post it and see what you think.
Last edited:
Lenny said:
It actually evolved out of a cleaner, more novel-like writing style prefered by some younger agents and execs who didn't have a background in film production. Somehow this has been perverted into all of these strange reasons why you shouldn't do it. "It's a sign of weak writing." "It's harder to read." "Don't tell the director how to do his job." And so on.
But prior to this, ALL screenplays had camera direction in every scene. That's how screenplays were written. In fact, without them screenplays run shorter, which is one of the reasons you aim for 90-110 pages now instead of 120. And one TV exec said that he could tell the pro spec scripts on his desk from the beginners because the pro scripts had camera direction. And most of the time you pick up a script written by a pro, there's simply no regard one way or the other. Some have more than others, but there's not any deliberate attempt to avoid them.
That said, there's nothing wrong with NOT putting them in. But I do see a lot of writers get hobbled by going out of their way to write around what they could just say with a nice, simple camera direction (like POV, for example). To me, it's like the rule about ending sentences with a preposition (which, unlike the camera direction thing, is actually a rule of grammar). Yes, you can write the sentence the technically proper way, but sometimes it just feels less "right" to do it that way.
Both indie and bebblebrox are right.
Indie is right when he says that a spec script shouldn't cross the line into giving specific camera direction and Beblebrox is right when he says that actually the only rule that really exists is "Tell your story well."
I thought I'd skated the line between those two positions pretty well because CUT TO isn't a camera instruction, it's an edit instruction that informs the reader that we now have a different POV, and I didn't specify the shot I was cutting to.
However indie did give a good alternate way of writing the scene, which is
Jeff is listening to the orchestra playing Nellie the Elephant, (the song playing when his puppy was killed in scene 17), he starts to cry.
INSERT VISUAL METAPHOR TO SHOW JEFF'S ISOLATION (Jeff listening to Nellie the Elepahant, tears rolling down his face which now has a trunk like an elephant, but the entire audience has vanished, leaving him isolated)
The song reaches the climax where Nellie packs her trunk, Jeff is still crying, back to normal, surrounded by the audience again.
It's a personal preference thing. I prefer to use CUT TO, because it's neater, but the bottom line is that providing your entire script isn't written in the form of camera directions, a few cut tos to make a sequence clear aren't going to get the script tossed.
I've always felt that if your story is so weak that the reader is focussed on the way it's written rather than the content then "The Rules" are the least of your problems.
Indie is right when he says that a spec script shouldn't cross the line into giving specific camera direction and Beblebrox is right when he says that actually the only rule that really exists is "Tell your story well."
I thought I'd skated the line between those two positions pretty well because CUT TO isn't a camera instruction, it's an edit instruction that informs the reader that we now have a different POV, and I didn't specify the shot I was cutting to.
However indie did give a good alternate way of writing the scene, which is
Jeff is listening to the orchestra playing Nellie the Elephant, (the song playing when his puppy was killed in scene 17), he starts to cry.
INSERT VISUAL METAPHOR TO SHOW JEFF'S ISOLATION (Jeff listening to Nellie the Elepahant, tears rolling down his face which now has a trunk like an elephant, but the entire audience has vanished, leaving him isolated)
The song reaches the climax where Nellie packs her trunk, Jeff is still crying, back to normal, surrounded by the audience again.
It's a personal preference thing. I prefer to use CUT TO, because it's neater, but the bottom line is that providing your entire script isn't written in the form of camera directions, a few cut tos to make a sequence clear aren't going to get the script tossed.
I've always felt that if your story is so weak that the reader is focussed on the way it's written rather than the content then "The Rules" are the least of your problems.
I agree CUT TO: can work for you. Like filmy and clive said, just don't get used to using it at the end of scenes or shots, otherwise, you're playing editor. When used effectively they do not distract, they help. Post your scene when you are ready. 