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

Will this make sense if I 'tell' do not know 'show'?

H

harmonica44

In my script, I have a section of the plot where a detective is following a suspect and is using a parabolic microphone to listen in on what he says. He follows him to a building and records him, but he is not talking. He walks into a room where the detective can not see him but hear what is happening through the mic and records it. He records a heist happening, and uses the sounds of the heist to peace together clues later and figure out what is going on and what the suspect is up too.

However, I do not want to show the scene where he is recording the heist. My script is too long with rewrites and I need to cut the scenes down. I would like to skip this scene and have the detective tell his friend later, what he recorded and describe it. He can play back the recording to his friend and they listen in, but I do not want to actually show the scene where he follows the suspect and records the heist.

Will this make sense to the audience though? Will it raise more questions, like why did they plot skip ahead and this was never shown. And when it comes to the detective figuring out that it was a heist that happened, and why it happened and for what, will the audience have a tough time piecing it together since they never saw him follow the suspect and record the heist at all maybe?

Can I make this work, if I tell instead of show?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
In my opinon I think it would really help if you do that scene of the detective following the suspect but maybe instead of writing a scene showing the heist you can just tell us what is being said on the recorder - like the scene in Touch Of Evil where the narcotics detective is following the crooked cop and a good cop and the good cop has a microphone attached to him and the narcotics detective follows them with a recorder, and everything being said between the crooked cop and the good cop is heard off the recorder while at the same time being recorder.
Now I can't find the scene on YouTube but if you watch the full movie just towards the end this scene happend. And I can't imagine the audience not knowing what happened if the detective wasn't shown following the suspect.
Hopes this helps.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You could have the detective seeing the suspect. He prepares the microphone. He follows the suspect to the location and holds the microphone in position or he could even be in position already and recording. Those shots could be quick and to the point without having to show the detective standing there for the whole scene recording what transpires.

Then after those parts cut to the detective telling his friend what he recorded by playing it back and they listen in. The audience would then put two and two together and know that the detective recorded the audio. It is easy in this day and age to pander to those in the audience who need their hand held all the way but if executed well enough then an audience will connect the pieces together, and with a detective as a character the audience can feel like they're a detective as well, piecing together what's happened.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Okay thanks. However, when the detective records the heist, there is no dialogue spoken by the crooks. There is only one crook, and he does not talk throughout the heist. All he records are sounds of the heist, like a safe being cracked and some objects being moved around, and has to piece it together based on those sounds only, not dialogue.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
What Phantom said, basically. Establish the scene the audience won't see... a detective, a load of listening equipment, a vantage point: that should make it obvious what the detective is doing in less than 20 seconds of screen time.

The recording itself does not become relevant until later, so save it till later.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
harmonica44 said:
Okay thanks, so you're saying I should show him recording the heist, but only in quick shots, right?
Click to expand...

It would seem they're saying that this is one option, so you really only need to eliminate, oh, about infinity others. Really in the end it will be your choice.

There's a saying though, I think it's from Robert McKee:

"Use your exposition as ammunition."

This essentially boils down to what maz said, save the information until the audience needs it. You can use this information deficit as a draw if you do it well.

"What did he hear? Does he know something we don't?"

A decent example of this would be Ocean's Eleven. Throughout the entire movie they talk of the heist, and they talk generally of some of the major stages, and what roles they would need to have filled, but you don't know the real plan until the moment each step plays out or after, and it plays out quite satisfyingly.

It takes really good writing and directing to accomplish well, though.

TL;DR?

Having the cop describe everything to someone just to save yourself having to film it is a BS solution, find a better way.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Okay thanks. I think I might just show it in quick shots, and quick editing, just so the audience gets the idea, and nothing more until later, and will right it that way sort of.

I also had a scene where detectives are interrogating a suspect, but I did not show the interrogation, the detectives just talk about what they are going to do in the interrogation, cut a deal, and then later it shows the suspect being released, and the audience gets the idea.

Does the audience need to see the detectives speak to the suspect, especially if he's the main villain?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
harmonica44 said:
Okay thanks. I think I might just show it in quick shots, and quick editing, just so the audience gets the idea, and nothing more until later, and will right it that way sort of.

I also had a scene where detectives are interrogating a suspect, but I did not show the interrogation, the detectives just talk about what they are going to do in the interrogation, cut a deal, and then later it shows the suspect being released, and the audience gets the idea.

Does the audience need to see the detectives speak to the suspect, especially if he's the main villain?
Click to expand...

Only you know the answer to your question. Does the audience need to see the interrogation? Does it serve any plot or character purpose? Interrogations, especially of main villains, are traditionally dramatic high points in cop movies, but that doesn't mean it has to be so in yours.

Don't underestimate the audience's intelligence though: if you provide enough information for the audience to conclude that scene A leads to state E, then you don't necessarily need to handhold them through steps B, C and D. Indeed, requiring the audience to assume they know what happens at B, C and D also enables you to spring a surprise later on...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Okay thanks. I am going through the script trying to shorten it here and there. There is a scene where the main character, a cop, screws up and embarrasses the police force, and his relationship with his superior, goes sour because of it.

Can I make this the first scene of the cop with his superior? Or do I need previous scenes establishing their relationship beforehand? I have two scenes with them in early in the script, but was wondering if I could cut those, and jump straight into the case, of the cop after hie already given assignment by his superior.

Or do I need to show what their relationship was like before, rather than the audience assuming how it was. I could have it implied what it was like through characters talking, but do I have to show it between the two of them in those two early scenes, before we see the relationship go sour?

For example, in The Silence of the Lambs, when Clarice Starling has her first scene with Jack Crawford, she gets her assignment and it establishes their work relationship so far. If they cut that scene out and skipped to Clarice at the asylum telling Dr. Chilton about how Crawford gave her that assignment, would that have hurt the movie in anyway, since we would still see Clarice and Crawford meet up later to go over things?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top