• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

Is this scene poorly written?

I think my script is too dialogue drive, and too talkie, and I thought I would show more, instead of tell. I decided to change one scene and make it all music and no sound, even though words are spoken. Some movies do this like how in Saving Private Ryan, near the beginning, the woman takes the paper from the telegraph machine, and shows it to her other officers, and we see they are speaking to each other, but all we hear is music, and no sound.

Here's a scene I wrote like that:

INT. PUB -- DAY

Sheila is playing pool with her friends. She hits a ball
into a pocket, and cheers alongside them --

A female detective walks over and asks to speak to her in
private, but we do not hear what they are saying over the
soundtrack of the band playing on stage --

Sheila is not pleased and looks around -- She turns away and
heads for the bar --

The detective follows and shows her badge. Sheila argues
with her and she tries to plead with her -- Sheila calls
for the bartender.

The detective gets insistent and Shiela walks away, to the
exit -- The detective walks ahead of her as the band's music
grows heavier.

Sheila tries to walk around her but she blocks her, and pulls
out handcuffs -- Sheila sees it's not an option...

The detective gestures for her to walk outside. Sheila walks
ahead of her -- The detective follows, unproud...

However, does the scene work for no sound since it is longer than the usual scene, where you do not hear dialogue. Would this work for an audience, or would they think it's weird how their has been silent dialogue over music for a whole scene, rather than just a short section?
 
It works fine. But I'm not sure you're solving your problem; the characters are still talking, we just can't hear them. The scene would probably be identical if we could hear what they were saying.

Oh, and It should be "Sheila plays pool...", not "Sheila is playing pool..."
 
It works fine. But I'm not sure you're solving your problem; the characters are still talking, we just can't hear them. The scene would probably be identical if we could hear what they were saying.

But at the same time, there is that exercise to test whether a scene is visual enough, where you remove all dialogue from the scene and see whether the sequence of events is still clear just from the action lines. This is a reasonable implementation of that exercise (I know there are unheard words, but the important thing is that the visual beats are all present). Is an exercise the best thing to include in a final cut? That depends on the story.

I would say, though, that when this sort of sequence works, there is usually a story reason for not presenting the dialogue - for example, some piece of information the character needs to know but that the writer/director wants to keep from the audience. It also works in particularly emotional moments, where a character's physical reaction is powerful enough (and the actor is good enough) to convey everything involved (I saw a superb example of this the other day in an HBO show). I'm not sure that applies here, although it would depend on the stakes involved.

Otherwise it just seems like the writer can't be bothered to write another scene of good dialogue :D
 
Last edited:
But at the same time, there is that exercise to test whether a scene is visual enough, where you remove all dialogue from the scene and see whether the sequence of events is still clear just from the action lines. This is a reasonable implementation of that exercise (I know there are unheard words, but the important thing is that the visual beats are all present). Is an exercise the best thing to include in a final cut? That depends on the story.

Yeah, as a writing exercise that's fine. But to actually leave out the dialogue, in a scene like the one H44 has posted above, that would be a decision to make in post, after shooting the film and trying both options.

If anything, you're going to have to write that dialogue for you actors to read anyway. I mean, what else are they going to do, just move their lips and hope for the best? :lol:
 
Okay thanks. I thought I would write it as is, so that the actors and people I showed it to, would get a feel of the scene, as I intended it be. But is their a term for this type of scene where it is music over dialogue, so the readers know that the scene is of that style and not lazy? Like for example, for a montage you write MONTAGE, so the reader can tell, but is their a term for this type of scene, that I should apply? The I would just write dialogue in a shooting script later for the actors, if that's better?

Do you think that doing it this way, underdevelops the characters though in a way? When Sheila is playing pool with her friends, you cannot hear what she is talking to them about, so there is nothing to introduce how she is like with her friend's dialogue wise. I could always start with dialogue and then go silent when the detective arrives. I thought I would just write the dialogue in the shooting script, later on, during pre-production. But if it's best for me to rewrite it with the dialogue in, I can do that, if people will think it comes off as lazy, cause there was none put in.

But I feel that if I put it back in, that the readers may think that the scene is overexplaining itself. We already know what they are talking about, and Sheila's emotion is more important, but if I tell what they are talking about, than I feel it is overexplaining, since she will just be saying the same thing to the detective in the next scene, in the interrogation room anyway. Would it come off as overexplaining, if she does say the same similar things in the next scene? That is why I felt this part was too talkie, and my reason for just intending it with music overtop. I felt it was overexplaining.
 
Last edited:
Okay thanks. I used saving private Ryan as an example before of a scene that does that. But I read the Saving Private Ryan script, and it's worded the same way. It says that the characters speak but no dialogue is heard:

http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Saving-Private-Ryan.html

It's the scene where the clerk reads the paper after the opening battle. So if the writer of Saving Private Ryan felt it was fine to write it that way, with not dialogue for the actors at that point, then does it still look bad for me to do so?
 
Last edited:
Why are you so interested in whether something "looks bad"? A lot of your threads seem to follow this theme. Either the story works, or not. Either the characters work, or not. Don't worry about looking good, just concentrating on the script being good!

However the SPR example seems to be in there for a very specific reason, namely that it brings home the structure of rank and order in the army. The clerk can only show what he's found to a lieutenant, and only a lieutenant can pass that information on to his captain, and only the captain can approach the commanding officer with the information. It's the same information each time, so in order to avoid repetition but maintain that point about rank and order, the scenes are silent and only show the emotional reactions of the men involved.

That's my take on it, anyway, having not seen the film :D

The question is, does that sort of narrative purpose apply in your case? There are few more inherently dramatic scenes than arrest scenes, so why not exploit that in-built drama?
 
Okay thanks. I guess I just felt too many of my scenes in the first act, had the same quiet talky tone, and I felt that if I changed one of the scenes up, by making it a silent dialogue scene, filled with atmospheric music, it would just be a change of tone. But that's my reason for making it that way. If you cannot see the same reason for it being like that, than I will put the original dialogue back in. How is this instead:

INT. PUB -- DAY

Sheila plays pool with TWO MALE FRIENDS. She hits a ball
into a pocket, and cheers alongside them --

Detective Sweet comes over. Sheila is not pleased and looks
around -- She turns away and heads for the bar -- Sweet
follows and shows her badge.

SWEET
I'm Detective Sweet. I just need
you to make a statement, some--

Sheila ignores her and walks to the bar -- Sweet follows
alongside.

SHEILA
Look, I already told you people
before, I do not want to get involved.
If I do, I'm in danger.

Sheila signals to the bartender, but she is busy --

SWEET
I understand that, but--

SHEILA
(interrupts)
Look, you've heard enough! It's my
right not to say anything, and I'm
done talking to you!

Shiela walks away, to the exit -- The detective walks ahead
of her. Sheila tries to walk around her but she blocks her,
and pulls out handcuffs --

Sheila sees it's not an option... The detective gestures for her to walk outside. Sheila walks
ahead of her -- The detective follows, unproud...

I haven't thought of something for Sheila to say when she cheers with her friends for hitting a ball into a pocket, but I will think of something for that. Does it read better, otherwise?
 
Last edited:
Another very interesting discussion, started by you.

First of all. Don't trust old scripts to do the formatting right. It's the studio readers who make the rules and they come up with new changes all the time. It seems pretty clear to me that you today are NOT supposed to write "we do not hear what they are saying". It is clear, as no dialogue can be seen on the page.

Your main question about using dialogue or not has a lot to do with if this is a payoff scene or not. You're establishing a movie language when you tell the story. It has to be consistent, exciting etc. Right now we can't tell if it's consistent, but you say that you want to make it more exciting by changing it up. It seems like a good idea, as the script is filled with dialogue. I suspect that to be a bit dull, because you don't make this scene very exciting the way you describe the action in it. You can get that much better by not doing it 100% by the book. You seem to follow the rule "write only what you see" too much.
 
She is just a witness, but she is not cooperating so the officer is arresting her for not cooperating. I asked two cops and they both said that you can arrest a witness for doing that if they keep trying to walk away, and not come in to answer questions, because they are intentionally trying to ruin a case essentially.
 
Last edited:
Okay thanks. I asked two cops and they said they can legally arrest a witness, if she/he refuses to answer any questions or cooperate. So I wrote it based on what they said, unless they were incorrect.
 
Thanks. I know about subpoenas, and that's how it works, but what if the prosecutor wants to know what the witness knows before serving a subpoena to appear in court. You might as well know what the the witness knows by arresting and interrogating her, rather than have her come in and possibly screw up the case, on the court date. I was told you could arrest someone for interrogation for 24 hours at least, if they are withholding information on a case. But that's just what they said, unless they are incorrect of course, again.
 
Last edited:
Okay thanks. I asked three cops and they all said that a witness can be arrested if they do not cooperate and refuse to answer questions. They said my scenario should work fine, although rare, still legal.

Does the scene make sense if it were just music and silent dialogue though?
 
Thanks. I know about subpoenas, and that's how it works.

Then, why are you trying to rewrite this in a different way than how it works, since it seems you are going for realism?

...but what if the prosecutor wants to know what the witness knows before serving a subpoena to appear in court. You might as well know what the the witness knows by arresting and interrogating her, rather than have her come in and possibly screw up the case, on the court date.

This seems to be in direct contrast to an individuals' rights. There are procedures that need to be done in order to do this, and what you are talking about seems to the need for a deposition. Though, in criminal cases these are usually allowed by the court as opposed to a normal part of discovery in a civil matter.


I was told you could arrest someone for interrogation for 24 hours at least, if they are withholding information on a case. But that's just what they said, unless they are incorrect of course, again

I think you may want to consult with a criminal defense attorney to see how it is in the jurisdiction that this movie will take place in.

But from what I read from your scene, the cop went to the bar to get a statement from a potential witness which I dont think would ever fly since the person may be inebriated and not in the most coherent of mindsets this making the statement questionable. Also, why would the cop then automatically arrest her since she refused to give a statement? I believe that in some jurisdictions, a person has a right to refuse to cooperate with a state actor and doing so is not grounds for a valid arrest.
 
Well in my script the detective is ordered by her superior officer to bring her in, if she doesn't cooperate, because they have tried to contact her before, with her avoiding them. So this would be after the superior has already gotten authorization to make an arrest, if further attempts do not work. I could write it so that in the prior scene, the superior says, "we have tried everything else, now it's time to play hardball", or something like that, if that would help. And yes, a deposition is needed, but if the witness refuses do a deposition, or talk at all, the police have the right to arrest the person, if a judge allows it. But this is what I was told by cops when interviewing them for research.

You make a good point about it being a bar. Perhaps I should choose a different setting.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top