The Word Cloud

How much time and effort do you put into 'the business' (the part of your play which is not dialogue but action, sounds etc.)?

Do you keep simply to detailing the action, or do view the business as just an important part of your screenplay as what your characters say? Do you view the quality of the business as an essential tool to prove your talent to the reader? Is it a case of not so much what you say but how you say it? Do you think it's impact and importance is genre specific i.e. is the business more important in an action movie than in, say, a romcom perhaps?

Let the discussion begin.

Hi Kim, it's definitely a crucial part of the whole thing, I'd say, and gives you every bit as much chance to shine. On the one hand you need to be very economical - very Hemingwayish, in effect. At the same time, well, you can show off in subtle ways. There's a lovely stage direction in Tarantino's Pulp Fiction where he says about (I think) the Uma Thurman character that 'Everything she is or does contradicts something else she is or does'. Wow! That's economical, intriguing, challenging, read-on-worthy.

There's also a kind of rhythm poetry that good action info can get into.

"The rope is sawing on the cliff's sharp edge.

Bond hauls himself up the rope. His hands are bloodied now and his arms are tiring.

The wind still blows. The rope still saws"

That kind of thing. At its best, I reckon the whole thing has a kind of low key eloquence to it. (Not sure that Bond movies are the best place to find it, mind!)

(Speaking as an interrested outsider) I always think that, unlike a novel that is written by the author for the reader with maybe a little input from an editor, the screenplay is quiet different. It's written by the author, but for whom? The film-goer, the equivalent of the reader? I'd say not; it's for the actors, producers, directors, film crew, special effects, you name it. What the film-goer sees is not the work of the screenplay writer (alone); so much more will have been added by the other tallents working on it. That's why I think, when I see a film has been "written, produced and directed by..." that it is likely to be less of a movie than if it had had three tallents co-operating on it.
So why have I said all that? I don't know what the ratio of dialogue to action is in the average movie, but I immagine it's fairly low. If writers concentrated solely on great dialogue, leaving all the business to the producer/director/actor they would loose out on the greater part of their contribution to the whole. Surely the 'stage directions' of how the writer envisages a particular set piece working out is vital to the success of the production. The producer/director, of course will add their own ideas of how it will work in practice and, ultimately, the actor will have to interpret it as he feels it. But it should be based on the writer's original thoughts and the final outcome should be at least as good as the writer intended, but, hopefully, even better. On the other hand, without guiding the actor with good stage direction, even the effect of brilliant dialogue could be spoilt. So basically, whatever the writer writes, whether dialogue or direction, should always be the very best they can eventually arrive at. Isn't it the same for all writers?

Oh Harry, I love the Tarantino quote. Inspiring or what? It has spurred me into thinking further about the business element of my play. I’ve been trying to work out what it is that is amuck with the re-write before I attempt to resubmit. The dialogue seems witty yet believable; the theme now very apparent, the plot complete and the characters intriguing having improved in complexity, (though whether enough remains an issue perhaps). However, something else is definitely not right. Could it be that the business is too clinical? I think it could. I shall return to it with renewed vigour. Thank you so much.

Tony, I always try to bear in mind when writing that a screenplay is in every way a team effort and I agree wholeheartedly with you on this point. My dilemma as the writer is how much one leaves up to the director, producer, actors etc., to interpret your actions, camera angles and dialogue. I have read various ‘how to’ books on the subject and most seem to recommend leaving bold directions out, but I’m finding it hard to hold back from writing down exactly how I see a scene playing out in my head. I have to keep reminding myself that the goal here is to have the play accepted by a director/producer, not to become one.

I also agree with you that the final outcome should be at least as good as the writer intended. Amongst the films we watched last week was one where a screenplay had been completely wrecked by poor cinematography and direction (in our opinion anyway) and another where a fairly basic script had been given a whole new lease of life with clever camera angles, inspiring choreography, wonderful use of inner-city sculptures and extremely talented actors.

Frightening either way, isn’t it, that a ‘team’ can so alter your original work. Letting go is going to prove difficult I fear. Thank you both. The dilemma continues...

Hello all

I'm new here.

Personally, I find any direction given in a script which is 'flowery' while eloquent can be a bit irritating. The purpose of the business should be to tell the reader what is happening at that particular moment in time. The only exception to this are descriptions of the setting. But here again too much eloquence can lose it for me.

Economy of words, showing not telling should be the maxim.

Steve

Hi Steve and welcome.

You raise a good point. Perhaps a happy compromise is called for? i.e. Make the read entertaining without trying to be too clever? Or, perhaps, the business should take on a whole style of your own just as much as your plot, theme, dialogue etc? Maybe it's an individual thing? Just a thought.
An interesting subject so thanks for your input.

I noticed from another post that you are on a screenwriters course. How's that going for you? Do you find it helpful? I just wondered as I have never been on one myself; I've studied the subject mainly through reading scripts and self-help books. Would you recommend it?

Hi Kim

Re 'the business'. I may be wrong here so I apologise beforehand but I've been reading a lot of scripts - some well-known, others by beginners like me or perhaps more experienced. The pro ones while eloquent appear to use words carefully and econmically whereas the beginner /less experienced falls into a trap of trying to be clever as you put it. That's my perspective and it may be completely wrong.

I also feel that 'flowery' language belongs to a novel and not a script which is why I wouldn't make a novelist. I'm a visual person rather than thinker - I find it difficult to write eloquent prose (except for articles). I also would probably find it difficult to write a play for the stage. Writing for the screen - film or TV is me. Not just that, there is less to worry about regarding grammar.

Which brings me nicely onto the scriptwriting course. I've been doing it it for a couple of years but I had 2 enforced breaks from it. It's going very well. I do it through "Writer's News". People say you shouldn't do such courses but for me I need someone at the moment to at least keep a check on what I am doing and make sure I'm going in the right direction. I certainly recommend it but knowing what I know now about scriptwriting it isn't so much the writing that concerns me it's breaking into the business.

I'm nearing the end of the course. I've enjoyed it and not found it too difficult to do. They don't accept email coursework which is a pity as sending my tutor work by post slows everything down.

My tutor is Roger Kendall who is knowledgeable, helpful and supportive. Hopefully, he will give me pointers as to where to send my work. That said, I get the impression that he has only had work produced by say the BBC and not outside the country - notably Hollywood. That place is the mecca from what I can see.

What sort of scripts are you writing? I have 3 projects on the go other than my coursework. One is about the last man to be hanged in the Isle of Man; the second is about a Victorian serial killer called Fred Bailey Deeming who was also a suspect for the Ripper murders. The third is a fictional supernatural horror. Swapping between the 3 stops me getting bogged down. I also feel if one of them gets snapped up I will have something else to show.

I also have a few other ideas - one based around my current job as a dance teacher; others are historical. True life stories interest me most.

Have you ever thought of collaberating? I often wonder whether 2 or 3 people working on an idea would help get noticed more. I'm very willing to do so if anyone is interested.

Steve

Interesting - we're actually just on the point of launching a course for screenwriters. It's going to be a real physical course. Like actual people in an actual room. I don't think it matters whether tutors have sold work in Hollywood or not. Truth is that there are damn few writers in the UK who have ... but story is story. Some of our WW script editors have sold work to Hollywood, but they're certainly not more 'in the know' than those who have sold work to UK and international outlets. What matters is whether a tutor understands how to tell a story through film.

Oh and Steve, I've said it before and I'll say it again: write for TV. That's where the money is in this country. That's where the demand is. That's where a career lies. If you get established there, then you can dream about the big screen ... while still having a way to pay the bills as you dream

Hi Harry

Thanks for that. Actually my Isle of Man story I'm hoping to sell to TV. Sme with my Fred Deeming story. I've also got other ideas eg the Rainhill Trials about the famous race that brought the train revolution in this country and the first railway accident! As it's a British only story it should have more relevance on our TV.

Not sure about the supernatural story - it's a film idea really but I don't care as long as I manage to sell it in the end. That's the bottom line really I suppose.

Steve

Steve & Harry, thanks for the heads up on the writers courses, they do sound of interest to me. Harry, could I please trouble you to send me some details when it's all up and running? Thank you.
Your projects sound very interesting Steve. Well done you for working on three at the same time. Wow! I find it enough of a challenge to work on the one (though I do have a second one in mind).
In answer to your question, I'm writing a two part drama/romcom, hopefully for TV. I've been working on it for years, it being my first project and me having very little free time. I've sent it in a couple of times to Writers' Workshop and had some excellent advice on how to put it right. Having just finished the second re-write it's about to be submitted again, so fingers crossed. I'm just going through the business, hence my desire to ask the question above.
Good luck with your writing, Steve.

Good luck to you as well Kim.

Let us know how you get on.

Steve (Keggs)

In my highly limited experience, I'd say that the biggest weakness SP writers have is in attempting to direct the director via the SP. There's a lot of talk about Tarantino here and it's telling.

You'll see a lot of basic rules broken in produced SPs and used as examples of how 'the rules don't matter'. The problem is, if you're not established, and not down the pub with the director on a regular basis, they do!

A spec SP needs to tell a story about a bunch of characters. And it needs to do that as clearly and as simply as possible. Close ups, camera angles, etc., should be highly limited in a spec and only implied through good descriptive writing. In my opinion.

Couldn't agree more PsychoPat.

In everything I've read and been told by my tutor you should NEVER tell the director etc how to do their job. It shows yourself up as an amateur. Just stick to story telling.

I think the only reason Tarantino is mentied is he probably has a strong input into the writing as well as directing. Most directors I believe don't get involved.

Steve

I agree that you should never 'tell' a director specifically what to do but I think that you can still hint at the importance of the atmosphere that you are trying to convey within a given scene; challange the director, if you like. Give him something to think about. You can then leave the interpretation of this challenge up to him. What do you think?

Personally, I agree with that, Kim.

So many find an original approach in Tarantino and that shows how ideal it is to actually be in charge of your own vision. (Other complete originals: Charlie Chaplin (Writer/Director); Woody Allen (Writer/Director). Maybe that's why so many prefer writing novels to SPs?

But Steve is right: coming onto the scene and trying to do the director's job is a no-no. There are always ways to hint at what you want without being on-the-nose.

That's right PsychoPat. I've seen a number of scripts on other forums that use direction shots eg Close Up. I don't think this is too bad but rather than get slated and called amateur I think I'd prefer to err on the side of cauton and say something like "moving closer, we can see..."

I don't think Tarantino would even use directions in the writer's script. He would wait to use the director's version.

Steve

Hi all - as you probably know I'm new here too... I'm so glad to have found a place where like-minded folk can meet to discuss the things that fire them, and I figured I'd have a stab at this topic as a starting point...

Hi, I'm new to The Word Cloud and so only just picked up on this great thread. I've read thousands of scripts in the course of my work and I have to say that the way the action is described (too much detail, not enough) might be a minor irritation but it would never put me off pursuing a script. The key things for me are always a story where something actually happens (you wouldn't believe how often nothing does) and characters that are interesting. Formatting, action descriptions, are things that, as an editor, I can easily help to iron out (so the director, when he/she comes on board, doesn't get hacked off with all the 'zoom in's, etc) but as long as there's something compelling then I'm sold.

I'm with Harry - writing for television is the way to go. You polish your skills so fast when you're actually commissioned and have real deadlines - procrastination isn't an option when there's a 150-strong crew waiting for your shooting script. It's exciting, exhilirating and hugely collobarative. You'll (hopefully) find that your script editor quickly becomes your best friend and helps you solve all the problems - they want a fantastic script too and they'll work flipin' hard to help you deliver it.

That said, don't go into tv if you hate it. If you try to write for a form or genre you don't enjoy watching yourself then you'll get spotted a mile off. The people working in tv drama (commissioning it, making it) are passionate about it and it's just as competitive as feature film writing, so you've got to actually want to do it. If you love watching it (ok, granted, not all of it, just some of it - there is rubbish and greatness in television drama and feature films!) then there's no better way to earn a living than by writing it.

Hayley

Cheers Hayley. This is all very useful information. It is great for us novices to have several professional's takes on a topic such as this.

I'm delighted to hear that the business is not all important and will not put you off a good story. I wonder though if all talent scouts/editors/agents are quite as tolerant as your good self.

I have to say that it has become somewhat of a personal challenge for me to try to make this aspect of the screenplay as tight and inspirational as possible. It can form a hefty percentage of your overall word count and for that reason I feel morally obliged to make it as good a read as possible. I'm beginning to enjoy writing this aspect of the script almost as much as the dialogue. It's a real art form I think.

Thank you to all for your generous contributions thus far.

Kim

Just read all the posts on this topic (thanks for starting this, Kim). The old adage of 'show, don't tell' is obviously paramount in writing a good script, and it the area where I feel 'weakest.' Trying to capture the essence of the scene, with the minimum use of words, is proving difficult. I can picture the scene, but the words on paper never appear to offer justice to the perception. Perhaps this is merely self-doubt, or a continuing effort to improve! Whichever this may be, the strive remains, and time will tell if the effort will be worthwhile. In the meantime, the passion is for television and film, so the journey continues.

Thank you for your contribution James.

It can be difficult to know what to include in the business when our knowledge of our characters and scenes is so intimate but the reader is experiencing our work for the first time. I try and limit myself to one or two punchy sentences at most, only when absolutely necessary, to explain something vital which simply cannot be gained from the dialogue chosen; a mood, a feeling, an essential action.

Knowing whether to include these or judging whether you have tipped the scales a little too far and are now doing the director’s job for him can be a real challenge. Good luck with it!

Hi

Haven't been around for a while - getting going again.

Anyone here sold a script to a TV channel?

Steve

I've seen The Business. The writing was gash.