In 2016 Taylor Sheridan received an Oscar nod for his gritty screenplay about two bank-robbing brothers in a modern western called Hell Or High Water. Last year he upped, the stakes by writing and directing the crime thriller Wind River, which in my opinion was one of last year's best films. The movie is visually spectacular, keeps the viewer on the edge of their seat and offers wonderful dialogue and emotional highs and lows. If you read the script, you'll see how adept the writer is at visually conveying the action. He blocks it out with generally no more than three sentences and still manages to leave plenty of white space on the page. I found this passage on his Wikipedia bio:
" As an ex-actor, Sheridan has explained that the amount of expositional dialogue he read for television caused him to form an "allergy to exposition" in his writing.
If you have a look at the Wind River script, the above sentence is abundantly evident in his work. I've attached the link to download the screenplay for this magnificent film. http://thescriptsavant.com/PDF/wind_river.pdf
Such vivid description and yet such a fast read. Thanks for posting. Much appreciated. I enjoy learning by example. : )
1 person likes this
“Hell or high water” is one of my favourite screenplay ever. Thanks for posting this one, I’ll give it a read for sure.
This is an amazing film! Need to read the screenplay.
1 person likes this
I like his writing in general and especially like the 'pace'' of his writing. But I noticed some 'unfilmables '.
Page 1: non
page 2:
"Getting down to the business of surviving."
Page 3:
"If coyotes could laugh, they would laugh at this."
"...and who knows what else, ..."
Page 4:
"...all instinct for survival bred out of them."
"This is not sport. This is his job."
"Doesn’t matter -- not his first cold cup of coffee."
------------------
I was wondering, 'unfilmables', are they really that bad!! Why then establishes writers keep using them? (Yes ,I know, only because they are established writers.) But is there more to it?
1 person likes this
Rutger
I used to concern myself about unfilables. Not so much anymore. It's all about tone and getting the reader interested in the story.
@Rutger Oosterhoff
Sheridan clearly loves the art of writing. I'm sure if he had to remove all of the unfilmables, he would go nuts. Also, these nuggets of genious writing make the script an enjoyable read for the producers and acters. It's not for the audience, it's for the ones that can make the film a reality. Plus, there's alot of visualisation in Sheridan's writing. Some directors will see it and be challenged: "how can I film laughing coyotes?"
1 person likes this
I believe Wind River is also Sheridan's directorial debut, or is rather considered as such. He did direct another years ago that's being completely ignored, perhaps it was a test run. Lol! Anyway, I read that he wrote his thematic trilogy in a 6 month burst. He was most protective over this script. Me, after watching the film, I have mixed feelings about it, I like it and I don't. Can't really say why? :/
1 person likes this
Unfilmables is a bit of a confusing subject. By using them, it's leaning towards prose which is an instant defenestration in the screenwriting world or circles thereof. I've read plenty of opinions on both sides of the fence, and I'm still none the wiser.
Would make for an interesting thread.
I love Sicario and Hell or High Water, but I haven't gotten around to this yet. Will get around to it so I can compare it to the script.
1 person likes this
Martyn:
Definitely check out WR. I loved it and thought about it afterwards for a day or two.
Owen:
U bet!
Beth:
Can absolutely get a mixed feelings response. Great writing anyway you slice it.
2 people like this
Martyn, if done well "unfilmables" can add further tone, mood, context, style, and voice. All writing tools and devices are available to ALL writers no matter who you are. It's truly a matter of effective use -- if it works, it works. Poor or overuse typically does not work. Good writing versus bad writing. ;)
3 people like this
I think there is a difference in what Sheridan writes and "purple prose". The "unfilmables" mentioned above as so short/clipped that they just add a dash of "salt" or "flavor" to the writing and not full paragraphs of exposition.
I'm not a fan of purple prose or tons of unfilmables but they are almost unnoticeable in Sheridan's writing because they are so natural and not overly prosaic or lengthy.
3 people like this
Chad, yeah, that's a great observation. And true of Sheridan's writing. Just a dash of effective "unfilmables." Some added flavor. However, too much of a powerful spice ruins the pot. ;)
1 person likes this
Read the script - not my writing style - but I'll watch the movie soon.
1 person likes this
I love Taylor's style. I think the "unfilmables" adds to the tone, and the examples given aren't lengthy so perhaps they're not seen as too jarring or damaging to the script. I'm looking forward to seeing, and reading more of his work.
1 person likes this
I liked the way he dealt with Native American characters and the reservation realistically . Allow people to be multi-dimensional and not just cardboard props for an agenda. Also assume his remote western locations are helping keep costs down. Although he does use some well known actors. Three months into 2018 I don't think I've seen a single film worth talking about. Hopefully he's working on something.
Just listened to an Interview with the writer Taylor Sheridan, this was a First Draft.
He says, "being the Writer, Director on an Independent Film, there was no one to give me notes." he continues to say he does not like notes.