Screenwriting : Lesson from Tonight's Coverage Report in the Writer's Room by Karen "Kay" Ross

I agree, Karen "Kay" Ross. I like to add character thoughts and other unfilmables in my action lines because they express my voice, they help the reader visualize the scenes, they give readers (producers, director, actors, etc.) insight into the scenes and characters, and they make the script more fun to read, but I use character thoughts and other unfilmables sparingly. I'd use more character thoughts and other unfilmables if I needed to though. It all depends on the script.

Although I"m not part of the writer's room, and I have no optioned or produced feature films, so, as some say I have no right to speak. Here's my two cents.

My answer on your question is yes... and no. For the average screenwriter it's a yes, for the pro it could be a no; breaking the rules o so elegantly. For what I"m talking about, let us take a look at the first page of (for instance) Jo Jo Rabbit:

INT. JOJO’S HOUSE - MORNING

We open with QUICK DETAIL SHOTS of a young boy dressing:

- A brown shirt buttoned.

- Badges pinned.

- Belt tightened.

- Neck kerchief tied.

- Socks pulled up.

- Hair combed.

- Shoes clicked together at the heels, one foot stomps down hard on the floor.

He is dressed. We PULL to a CLOSE-UP, coming face to face with our HERO...

JOHANNES BETZLER, (JOJO), a cute 10 year-old boy.

The room is covered with NAZI POSTERS and other

PARAPHERNALIA, including pictures of ADOLF HITLER. You guessed it, he’s a little Nazi.

Jojo stares into a full-length mirror and takes a deep

breath.

JOJO

Jojo Betzler. Ten years old. And today

you join the ranks of the Jungvolk in a

very special training weekend. It’s going

to be intense. But today you become a

man.

(deep breath, nervous)

I swear to devote all my energies and my

strength to the savior of our country,

Adolf Hitler. I am willing and ready to

give up my life for him, so help me God.

A STRANGE FIGURE passes behind him, an ADULT, dressed in a NAZI UNIFORM. It feels ghostly and fantastical. We’ll find out who this guy is very soon.

VOICE (O.S.)

Yeah man, that’s right.

(beat)

Now, Jojo Betzler, what is your mind?

JOJO

A snake mind.

VOICE (O.S.)

And Jojo Betzler, what is your body?

-------'

(1)

Can't film "we."

(2)

Can't film ". You guessed it, he’s a little Nazi."

(3)

A STRANGE FIGURE passes behind him, an ADULT, dressed in a dressed in a NAZI UNIFORM."...

Can't film "

... "We find out who this guy is very soon."

But except the "we" thingy, I think these two redundant phrases make this screenplay so much more exiting!

Nothing wrong with unfilmables. It can add a lot to how a scene should feel and give actors critical guidance. As soon as a rule is presented as "never do this but with exceptions" it's inherently contradictory. Besides, lots of pro screenwriters do it, such as Tony Gilroy.

That said, I agree with the advice in principal. It's just being presented in an overly dogmatic way, as these more superficial types of "rules" often are.

A lot CAN be "wrong" with unfilmables, depending on how it's written and the frequency of that writing. Things that are not "seen" or "heard" on the page creates a problem. That problem is that your screenplay is no longer able to be understood universally by every reader, which goes against the core of what every screenwriter should attempt to achieve.

For example: WE HEAR (a sound), doesn't tell the reader who actually hears the sound. Unfilmables CAN be lazy writing that a reader, or a production member, MUST to solve in order to make it filmable. It also breaks the 4th wall by talking to your reader, which distract them and pulls them out of the universe in which you created for them to play. A screenplay is literally the blueprint for filming something. Therefore, if it's unfilmable, there is not really a good reason to include it in a screenplay. IMO there are very few exceptions to this "rule", if any.

Of course, there are plenty of produced script that have them, but I'd argue there's always another way. It may not be easier, but it will be better.

I'll never understand why people can't just get on with how they like to write and respectfully leave others to get on with how they like to write.

This is literally a place made for posting opinions and discussing the subjects mentioned.

Oooo, we got some juicy thoughts! Thanks for sharing, y'all! Maurice Vaughan I would absolutely agree that they can be included to "express your voice" or understand the project's tone. I think what trips up some early writers is they don't understand the difference between "voice" as icing on the cake as opposed to core information or story beats, which comes across as novelistic exposition. In the case of Monday's script, there was an entire apocalyptic event that is not seen (i.e. not in real life, not played out on screen) nor discussed (with say an opening scroll) before it is mentioned by a proper name in an action line on the first page. So, in this case, less expressing voice and more short-cutting world-building.

Rutger Oosterhoff Thanks for sharing this! I think this is a great example of when a writer is also the director, and so can break certain rules because there is no "lost in translation". If a screenwriter can fill in the gaps between what they've put on the page and what the heads of departments interpret with conversations, then they do not have to obey nearly as many rules. Similarly, if you are making your own films, instead of vying for investor money, then you don't have to defend those choices. This is the essential difference between writing for production and writing for greenlight. This is a BIG part of why we read both members' scripts and produced scripts in The Coverage Report - to continue to study in what ways rules can be broken without taking away from the cinematic experience.

And I think this also addresses your grief, CJ Walley, as to why people can't just get on with how they like to write. They can, actually... so long as their writing is good enough for their own money, their own contacts, and their own needs to go into production. Then you don't have to improve anything because you can just make up for the lack in production. The moment that writer has to put it in front of someone they don't know, and doesn't know them, and asks them to invest time or money making what they've envisioned, then there is nothing to help fill in the gaps. Shane Stanley said it best, "Producers don't want to read your script", so if you don't know them, writers have to do everything in their power to make the experience of reading their script as entertaining as possible. This includes knowing the craft, and in this case, referencing past events in an action line is a doubled-down "no no". You can allude to it by describing what we see that is a result of that event, but that goes back to "only what you see and hear". Actually, I feel like you can add "and feel". Because we also can't feel an event by name, so the writer must write how the scene before us makes us FEEL as we gaze upon and it still alludes to the event. Thanks for that! This rumination really helped!

And here's the rub - which I know you, CJ, know all too well - there is a parallel industry to "The industry", and it's the education or continuing education of the industry. So while I would love for people to just "get on with how they like to write" - and you do so very well, I might add! - sometimes writers want to know what doesn't work, what they can do to improve, and why no one is buying what they write. So, for those people who are asked to give feedback, whether for money or not, they must be able to articulate an answer. And those people can't just shrug and say "do what you want" because otherwise those writers looking for answers will be stuck in an infinite, unsatisfying loop. So, it's less about rules and more about common denominators. If you do X common thing found in Y other popular scripts, then you'll be closer to attaining Z result when your script is read.

Joshua Keller Katz That's a good point! I think the "only the see and hear" can now be expanded into "feel", as I ruminated on above. But to your point, we have to be efficient with our writing, so if it's not necessary, better to cut it. Keep it in an "outbox" which can become a bible, but it doesn't need to exist in the script.

As a paid studio/network reader for several years, you are spot-on about "Lines of Action" as well as "context clues". I always enjoyed the little asides to the reader.