Screenwriting : CRAFT QUESTION: Noting Mysterious Characters by Zach Rosenau

Something there seems wrong but there isn't much to go on. Rule #1 is do not confuse the reader. Rule #2 is use standard formatting. Chances are you aren't doing anything original ... find a movie similar to what you are trying to do and see how they wrote it up. I'd start there. Hope it helps.

I feel your pain, Zach. Stuff like this can drive you crazy. I feel the issue here is that a person's name isn't an easy constant to remember or lead the reader into memorising it. Could you not used a more descriptive constant that will stick ie; mystery woman, tall woman, beautiful woman?

The first time Jessica is introduced I would say something like "Jessica appears as different minor characters throughout" so the reader knows to watch out for her. That might be clearer than having her typical introduction in the second act after we've already seen her. Clarity above all.

Give a brief description in the action to explain her transformations going forward. Drop a specific line that explains the situation so when the reader reads your "transformation cue" they will understand what Jessica is going through

Thanks for these suggestions, CJ, Adam and David! In parts the problem posed is the conundrum of a writer trying to direct on the page: I'm trying to keep someone in the background and then gradually pulling her closer and closer into a closeup. I really just should not attempt this as it's not my job. However, maybe it's just me, but I always think of the PROPER NAME IN CAPS as being a visual queue for a closeup (it is after all the only way that the audience can obtain most of the details written about the character), whereas the TITLE or OCCUPATION of a character indicates middle-ground or background of scene. Does anyone else have these visual presuppositions tied to reading names in scripts?

The character hierarchy you mentioned certainly makes sense to me. I think the challenge is communicating to the reader the same level of recognition the viewer will experience when seeing the film. Essentially you want the viewer to think "Hey, there's that girl again. Wasn't she the waitress a few scenes back?" I'm not sure those revelations work as well on the page so you might need to signpost it a little. Maybe you want to look at breaking the fourth wall. I know it's a no-no but I've seen good writer's do it sparingly and it becomes part of the voice. "There's that girl again but this time she's a nun. Who the hell is she?" Hope this helps.

www.wix.com/jlovins1/media-story

Zach, a writer is always directing on the page to some extent, we have to play out our story. Don't worry about that. Certainly don't compromise what you feel you need to write just because you may offend a director. What's needed here is for you to write for the reader. I've done what Adam suggests by making it part of the voice. Worked very well for me.

Interesting re the use of 'we', as in 'we see...'. I've never consciously found it objectionable, although I totally understand that you want to try not to obviously 'direct' the experience with too much blatant direction. But as CJ states, by the nature of writing the screenplay, we are already directing it. Do you mind if I ask where you learned that it was 'bad form' per se? If you didn't mind sharing an example / extract, I'd be happy to try and look at options.

I don't think it's bad form in the sense that you SHOULDN'T DO IT; it's bad form in the sense that I WON'T DO IT. It's kind of like novels written in the present tense: it can be done, I have read some examples, but I would never do it myself.

Ah no worries then, :) but still I wonder why? - sorry just the curious sort. I guess something about it bothers you.

I think the main objection to 'we' is that beginners overuse it to try to direct the action instead of using concise, sparse descriptions. Like voiceover, it is still a useful tool but it's just one of those tools that gets overused to begin with. Learnt to live without it until you know why you can't live without it.

I could help if i read the script

As I understand things, it is perfectly OK for a writer to insert a "PLEASE NOTE" statement (enclosed in parentheses) into their script to clarify such issues. Clarity is the most important issue here. You do not want your reader to have the slightest question as to what is going on with the mysterious presence. Spell it out in a lyrical and succinct manner that does not intrude on the story-telling too much. The first time you meet the presence, take the opportunity to clarify the situation, and then move on.

I've heard many advise to not use "we see". It should be "the character sees" and it should be from the character's point of view.

I agree with Mike: "The first time you meet the presence, take the opportunity to clarify the situation..." After that, you might consider putting in the character name, as usual, followed by a clarifying stage-type direction. JESSICA / SWIMMER JESSICA / NUN JESSICA / YOUNG WOMAN (You can put her description here.) It's a little difficult to format this properly in a post, but you get the idea. And I think that if you have the explanatory sentence the first time she appears and always start with her name, rather than the character she appears as, your intent will be clear, throughout.

Mike, I used "NOTE: ..." in a animated film I wrote by sheer necessity. There were a series of scenes where humans and talking-animals were sharing the same space and talking over one another (which happens in a lot of talking animal movies: Babe, Chicken Run, etc..). Anyway, on the page, it read like the animals and the human might be talking directly with one another (and as a writer I was interested to play with the irony that they couldn't, a la the babies in Look Who's Talking for instance). But it was this playing-with-irony that resulted in some initial readers thinking that the humans really could hear the animals talking to one another, which messed up their reading of the whole rest of the script. So, I had to do an author aside and "NOTE..." like you mentioned, twice I think - so, yeah, it's perfectly okay.

I just saw the way my post looked. I'd typed it so JESSICA / SWIMMER was centered and on a separate line, as you'd see it in a script above dialog, and the same for the next two -- each centered and on a separate line. Just wanted to clarify.

That's helpful, Marlene! Thanks!

You're welcome, Zach!