Symbolism versus realistic scripts,

[aceinc1]

A lot of people advocate on symbolism in scripts and some people prefer to keep things realistic. Can we have a discussion on what you’d prefer and your reasons for the preference.

 

[Lord of Light]

I just write, man. I don't concern myself with too much symbolism (there is some but it's buried beneath the story) and I'd rather leave it to the audience to figure it out and draw their own interpretations from it.

I don't quite get your comparison though. Realism and symbolism can easily go hand in hand with each other given the degree of how far you take it. My scripts tend to be very realistic and could be almost an unintentionally true story to someone out there. Yet I utilize some symbolism at the planning stage and incorporate it into the story. And symbolism can mean a variety of things from literary devices to religious symbols.

My advice: write the story first. Then when the movie gets made, let the audiences, reviewers, film snobs, etc. pick apart the movie to find your symbolism. IMO it's more important what the story means to the viewer than what it means to me.

 

[Unknown Screenwriter]

I love symbolism... I try to flesh it in there just as I would subtext for dialogue. I use it for locations, actions, visuals... You name it.

My goal has always been to make a movie be the kind of movie that gets discussed afterward. Gets studied. You can easily give the ticket-buying demographic what they want but I also think if you love movies and want to help draw old demographics back into the theater, you also need to be thinking of them as well as the current demographic.

Which is why I personally like to use symbolism when I can...

filmy

 

[Jijenji]

I think the trick is to make the symbolism effective.

In the Godfather movies Coppola uses orange(s) to symbolize death.
But, in the end, it doesn't really mean anything more than a cute trick.

In Les Diaboliques, water is used as a symbol for death.
But the water is not just an ornament added in.

The characters talk about "taking to the waters" for summer vacation.
They drown the guy in the bathtub.
They hide his body in a murky pool.
Then drain the pool, and the body is gone.

On and on.

And then, at the end, the wife thinks her husband's ghost is haunting her.
She searches the house and hears noise after noise in the dead of night.

Then prolonged silence.

She searches and...

Water starts running from the faucet in an empty house.
She rushes into the bathroom and finds him in the bathtub where she killed him.

And she dies of a heart-attack. Except he's still alive.

 

[jrhmy]

I love symbolism... I try to flesh it in there just as I would subtext for dialogue. I use it for locations, actions, visuals... You name it.

My goal has always been to make a movie be the kind of movie that gets discussed afterward. Gets studied. You can easily give the ticket-buying demographic what they want but I also think if you love movies and want to help draw old demographics back into the theater, you also need to be thinking of them as well as the current demographic.

Which is why I personally like to use symbolism when I can...

filmy

I agree. I think every good film you can think of includes important symbolism. Besides, straight-on, direct movies are unlikely to be 'discussed and studied' afterwards.

Symbolism just keeps the viewers engaged, even during the second viewing.

 

[Kosh]

We are visual writers - "show it and don't tell it". In some schools of thought the screenplay is just a blueprint that is fleshed out by the director and the production and post production units. Here the visual structure (space, line, shape, tone, color, movement and rhythm) is woven into the story structure by a director who has studied the script in deep detail and visualized their version of the story within the words written. But there is no harm in the writer's use of these components in the script. It's like with everything else in our business - less is more, so manage your visual queues or symbols mindfully. Be mindful of not falling into the stereotype pitfalls associated with these visual queues, and above everything weave them into the writing skillfully and not "on the nose".

Jijenji gave some great examples above of how visual components can create an additional unmanned character (e.g., death) in the cast. Another example is Speillberg's use of camera angles and ominous music to symbolize or communicate the arrival of you know who in JAWS (though I have never read the script for JAWS and I am not sure if that is a credit to the writer or the director - still a writer could have done that too). Sometimes the audience gets it and your story is analyzed and/or scrutinized well after your job is done and sometimes, like the best planned out set-piece, it gets missed. Still not a bad idea to use the visual components/symbols in your writing. Moderation is the key.

 

[Jijenji]

My advice is don't leave it up to the director.

One, motifs and such will add to the power of your story and make it a better read.
Two, like writers, there are a many directors who aren't any good (and many who are).

The better your script is, the less the chance that someone will screw it up later.

 

[jeremy]

I think good symbolism grows organically from the story. I personally write the story out and go back after the fact and look at these relationships between elements of the story. Subtext is the same thing for me. I didn't fully understand the subtext of my writing until I had to examine it in deapth.

I think if it is conceptually built in to the writing it begins to exist for the sake of existing. It becomes more present and less poiniant. However; I am sure there are 1000 examples to the contrary.

 

[Jijenji]

I think good symbolism grows organically from the story. I personally write the story out and go back after the fact and look at these relationships between elements of the story. Subtext is the same thing for me. I didn't fully understand the subtext of my writing until I had to examine it in deapth.

I think if it is conceptually built in to the writing it begins to exist for the sake of existing. It becomes more present and less poiniant. However; I am sure there are 1000 examples to the contrary.

I don't think this is the case at all.

If you write dialogue without thinking about the subtext,
it seems unreasonable that you will find subtext in there when you look back.

This is like baking a cherry pie without cherries, then expecting cherries to be in there when you eat it.

I know that when I write, I know the subtext, beat-by-beat, for every line of dialogue in every scene.
I never write the dialogue until I've handwritten the scene, beat by beat.
And I know exactly what I'm doing with my symbolism and other literary techniques.

In writing, everything should have a specific purpose.

 

[jeremy]

This is like baking a cherry pie without cherries, then expecting cherries to be in there when you eat it.

It is exactly like that, only when you look back... there are cherries. It's the damnedest thing, but they are there every time. It's really a Freudian slip on a grand scale.

Here's a novelist (who's work I am not familar with) suggesting to avoid writing symbolism. I've seen Tarantino interviews where he's stated he doesn't look at subtext until the film is in the can because he doesn't want to steer that message into the film. As I stated above, I'm sure there are 1,000 contrary examples of authors advocating active inclusion of subtext and symbolism including the Guru above. In my experience, when authors actively write in subtext and symbolism it turns into this awful, unapproachable, self important, technically perfect mess.

However, it is more a matter of prefference and approach. If you do either well then you should just go with what works.

edit: full disclosure - I do always know what themes will come up in any scene.