There are a lot of different screenwriting ‘rules,’ but the key idea is to write in such a way that you paint a vivid picture of the film in the reader’s mind. That doesn’t mean describing all of the camera angles verbatim (a big no-no, actually), but using enough descriptive language that the director/producer/potential investor who’s reading your screenplay can picture the film in their mind.
I wrote the following scene the other morning. It’s not terrible (well, maybe it is), but it’s not great. Then I began reading William Goldman’s screenplay for Marathon Man. And there, in the opening scene (a car chase that doesn’t end so well) was a completely different way to write action. So I went back and revised my own scene based on the style I had seen in Goldman’s work.
Below are the two examples: my first stab at it and my subsequent revision in the style of Goldman’s work. Take a gander, if you have a moment. Which reads better? Which paints a better picture of the action in your mind? I realize the scene is out of context, but is this a moment that you would want to actually watch? Or perhaps there is a 3rd, better way to write the scene? I know that some of you have actual honest-to-goodness “I’ve written screenplays before” experience, so throw down in the comments section. Don’t be afraid to hurt my feelings - my skin is made of leather, baby.
And here is the second example. 
18/06/2009 at 3:37 pm Permalink
My only observation about the second version is that it takes away from either the director, director of cinematography, editor or the storyboard artist’s jobs, which is to create the camera angles, scene edits, etc. I think the writer should try to stay focused on telling the story and not break it down into shot lists, cutting a scene apart into what the viewer sees from moment to moment, unless there is a really good reason for that. Or unless the writer is the director. As such, the first version seems much better and a lot easier to read. Who wants to read “cut to” 29 times in a row anyway? This is my own opinion of course. Good scene by the way!
18/06/2009 at 4:00 pm Permalink
Those are good observations, John. I think I liked the way Goldman did it because it kept the intensity of the scene up. In an action scene, he primarily uses run-on sentences divided up by CUT TOs, but I see what you’re saying about not wanting to read 29 “CUT TOs” in a row. Yeah, that’s kind of annoying (my wife made the same observation after she read it).
Perhaps there is a middle ground. Maintain the run-on sentence structure to keep the immediacy of the scene vivid in the reader’s mind, but ditch all the CUT TO business which is distracting. Hmmm…..
18/06/2009 at 4:11 pm Permalink
Hi Evan,
Reading your second example - the CUT TO didn’t register. I was focusing on the text in the center.
Between the two, I could mentally “see” your first example best. Probably because it read like a story, not a screenplay.
18/06/2009 at 6:34 pm Permalink
One more thing to consider is that if it is the first draft, I again believe that simpler is better. As you head toward production, those kinds of details would probably be flourished in later drafts, through discussions with the director, etc. Having said that, while in Hollywood I believe there is an accepted/expected approach to how a script should be structured, in the land of independent film, there is probably a lot more flexibility on the form and whatnot. Of course A-list screenwriters in Hollywood can probably bend the rules more than the rest.
18/06/2009 at 6:39 pm Permalink
And by the way, I do agree that the broken up, run on sentences are very gripping. And on another note, that “dental” scene in Marathon Man still makes me cringe whenever I see it.
19/06/2009 at 3:16 am Permalink
First, by far. I felt like I had to mentally interrupt my imagination and remember “ok, now I’m looking at THIS thing,” with each CUT TO:
Also, this is action, and will play very quickly on screen and you want to be a bit more accurate when you’re assessing how many pages you’re going to get shot that day (well, it’s your UPM/LM’s job… but still…).
I liked the descriptions… I was able to track well with the first and basically gave up on the second (probably because I already knew what was coming and found it tedious to make it through the CUT TO:s…
Also, the logistic meter was running wild in my head through all of this (apologies, but it’s inevitable for me to jump to that stage when I read something I or someone I know is going to produce)… “Where is he going to get a van? Can he get a permit to shut down that street? Will insurance cover a car action scene or will it have to be a premium? Will he be shooting this on a side-mounted rig or from another car? Can that car fit on the road as well? etc” Sometimes I wish I could shut my mind off and just read the dang story…
19/06/2009 at 7:09 am Permalink
I wasn’t expecting the response to be this unanimous.
But I’m glad for the clarification. I’ve been reading more of the Marathon Man script and Goldman does use way too much camera direction. It IS distracting. But then again, he’s arguably one of the Top 10 most successful Hollywood screenwriters of all time, so what do I know?
@Filmscore
That dental scene is brutal. A really impressive piece of directing.
@Ryan
Hehehehe, you’re cursed with the knowledge of production. Some of those things you mentioned crossed my mind, but I was (somehow) able to shut them off. This is certainly a “if-I-raise-a-certain-amount-of-money” scene. It wouldn’t be that expensive to shoot, but it certainly wouldn’t be cheap.
19/06/2009 at 11:20 am Permalink
i would say, and i could be alone, that the point of the screenplay is to get the story and scenes in your head across to the reader. the reader could be anyone–a director, an actor, a producer, a storyboard artist…
in making your first feature–and this is an assumption–but, it seems like you’re planning to direct, no? You aren’t going to sell the rights to someone else. so, then it becomes a matter of what language works best for YOU as a director and storyteller. YOU are the reader. And you’ve done a great job of getting every detail out of your head and onto the paper (unless you’re holding back, and you just see everything in magnificent detail, which would be great)…but you may have written too much. i’ll explain in a moment.
i’ve always heard that when you “cut to:” it should be to a different place, but that could be way off. i believe this is correct mainly because when you type “cut to:” in Final Draft Pro, it IMMEDIATELY gives you the option to write a setting (int, ext–etc). The cuts in terms of screenshots, angles, etc within the scene are up to the director…but if you want to guide him (or yourself?) then develop a way to do that without using “cut to.”
my main “note” (which i have always been told never to give) would be that in a lot of your writing, which is often VERY compelling, you’re stealing power from your actors or your director–which, again, is probably you. Which is fine–but perhaps limiting in some ways. Think of a play: the lines shouldn’t read like this…
dave (menacingly): you did what?
sheri (coy): nothing–?
dave knocks a flower vase off the table
dave (becoming violent): DON’T PLAY COY.
the reason they shouldn’t, in my opinion, is because the adverbs are all inherent in the words and action. The above examples are purposefully (adverb!) implicit, and most writing won’t be so clean and clear: but that’s the beauty of it. To summarize, you don’t need “playing coy” if the next line shows that’s what she’s clearly doing. Let the actress say “nothing” in her own sly way….or NOT…so then when dave says “don’t play coy” it might have even MORE meaning…because she wasn’t, and Dave is just a crazy brute. You as a writer know your intention–and once characters start living in your words they’ll discover most of your intentions in the text…but they’ll also discover stuff you didn’t even see. and that’s why they get paid. unless they’re terrible. in which case you correct them. or fire them and hire me.
i say all this to say that you do have a bit of this happening. The look on the daughter’s face…the look on the father’s face. If he’s too late…and he really wanted to get there…we can all imagine our own version of what that would look like. you limit the reader’s imagination by telling them exactly what they’re seeing.
so you could, and again this is my opinion, instead of saying “then he sees her, his daughter, and she’s smiling–she’s smiling! He’d almost forgotten what her smile looked like…” and go for the simpler, more loaded with possibility
“they see each other for the first time in ____________(2 weeks, 7 years, no idea)—she smiles and waves. Simon smiles back. ”
Suddenly a van pulls up and grabs her and things go crazy and now we’re on to this ACTION stuff which is what i paid my $12 for. run, Simon, run!”
ok, so i added that last bit. you don’t have to use it.
the final thing i’d say, and this may be along the lines of the “3rd option” you were talking about (i’m totally rambling now) is that what you have are two scenes, which are following two different characters, and they’re happening in real time. So you actually would need the “cut to” until the two scenes converge. So anytime Simon can see the van, or his daughter, they’re in the same space. If they aren’t in the same space, there needs to be a “cut to” to establish where the scene is living, and, if you want to get really fancy, from who’s point of view the shot is. is it Simons…is it his daughter from the back of the van, is it the van driver’s? or is it a 4th option—the overhead camera, the all encompassing eye camera—. the “audience” camera…there are tons of options, but if you see something specific, write it. show us.
also: if you haven’t read John Truby’s The Anatomy of Story, i highly recommend it. it’s awesome.
also: how are you?
-jeff
19/06/2009 at 12:04 pm Permalink
Some epic comments there, Jeff. Thanks for the input - much appreciated.
And yes, your assumption is correct - I plan to direct. Unless I’m offered 500 grand for the screenplay (hardy har har) and then we’ll see.
Completely agreed on the use of adverbs, especially in the parentheticals. I’ve caught myself doing that a few times (adding ‘angrily’, etc.). A big no-no. You’re right - that’s why you pay your actors. Don’t insult them with your screenplay.
I actually adjusted the first paragraph before I posted it, simply to provide the readers more context. A lot of that exposition that you pointed out (and rightly so) isn’t there in the actual script, because scenes that come before it explain most of that stuff. But it’s also my first draft, and I’ve accepted that there will be many sucky bits present. Hopefully I’ll begin to catch them during the revisions.
And good thoughts on using CUT TO when the perspective shifts. When it gets down to the line in pre-production I’ll have to work through those things and figure out how to segment the sequence (assuming it gets to stay).
And nope, haven’t heard of “The Anatomy of Story.” Putting it down on my reading list………now.
And I’m good. How are you doing?