I'd like to hear from Actors and Directors regarding what they think or feel about a certain inclination I've had lately, as I've worked on my latest scripts;
THE HARVEST as well as A MAN LIKE HER.
Usually a third of the way in, my characters and plot are clearly established: we understand who the lead/protagonist is and their situation, what drives them, what they want to accomplish, what stands in their way, etc ...
I've been inclined to describe what the lead/protagonist is thinking in reaction to actions or dialogues that just occurred.
Do you appreciate it as a chance to make it your own, or resent it as unnecessary?
Does it help or hinder your work in a performance?
Does it inform your expression/action or is it just cumbersome and annoying?
Do you prefer description of just an actual reactive action like "a smirk" "a smile" "rolls eyes" "just stares at them" "squints pensively" ...
For example:
In THE HARVEST, the 14 yr old female lead looks on to a table of catty girls and thinks they're stupid after we have seen her fantasize an invitation to join them as besties.
The lead in A MAN LIKE HER is a transgendered man established as a woman, with a strong suspicious feeling about her husband and her best-friend's husband.
The audience has already seen that the two men are having an affectionate affair ...(their objective is to find a way to tell their women, but it gets side-tracked when the women have an exciting career opportunity which advances the female lead's story)
There exists a very strict rule in screenwriting that you ONLY describe visual action that will be seen on the screen.
My theory is, that what the character is thinking will be expressed on their face, in their eyes, perhaps a gesture, a glance.
I figure an actor or director can inject their own nuances.
But I've been reminded time and again through critiques and otherwise that you ONLY write what hits the screen.
What do you think?
As a casting director, I would personally not go too much into description giving too much details, and YES I agree with who told you to just write what hits the screen. I think is preferrable to focus more on a short but well done introduction of the character, but I won't go any further.
1 person likes this
I have seen both in scripts. Some scripts are describing a lot of details, mood of the scene++, and others hardly have details at all. Personally, I think this often is the director and the actors role to decide. The writer is making the framework of what the film should be, and make it easy to visualize for the director and the DOP.
But if you can describe it cleverly, and if it helps to understand the script and the characters. You can put in some, but I wouldn't over do it.
Makes sense?
Ole-Andre, you're very correct. A script is not a novel but a cinematic play. You can't tie Director;s and Actors hands down. Their creative work is to take the script to it's zenith of artistic creativity!