Screenwriting : How important is 'we see'? by Gen Vardo

I would stay away from it and just emphasize what ever you wanted noticed in the action description. Possible example:

Chris creeps down the hall of the haunted castle.

Far down the hallway behind him, a suit of armor slyly turns and raised its sword.

I don't use "we see," but when I want to try an imply a POV shot, I usually use "he sees" or "she sees" Here is something from a script I am working on now...

His icy glare moves to their horses. He sees:

WALKER (30s), in a tattered Confederate coat...

or another example

As he picks it up, he sees a cloud of dust in the distance.

I think it helps to imply that we are focusing on a reverse angle.

A Mini-Slug can also work.

Hope this helps!

Thanks guys, that's exactly what I do, feels more natural.

I've just read a few parts of other spec scripts that seem to use it tons, as well as some classics.

Maybe it's mostly an older way of writing.

Jerry - good call on the Mini-Slug. I find those useful for pacing a scene too.

That's a good question which I've definitely had in the past as well. I was writing an action script and needed to draw attention to something else in the scene. It felt too awkward to just put in WE SEE, so I ended up crafting the scene to where the camera would have to show the item. I found this website to be really helpful, especially the Pulp Fiction example: https://www.movieoutline.com/articles/cinematic-stories-and-directing-th...

I don't use "we see," Gen Vardo. It's not a rule. I just don't like the feel of it. I try to figure out a way to write unique action lines without "we see." It's a little challenging, but the result is better.

I use "we see" quite a bit when pounding out the first draft of a script. But when I begin the revision process, I do what Maurice does--craft unique action lines to rid my script of a glut of "we see." I rely heavily on the phrase "we see" in the first draft as a way of keeping my perfectionist tendencies in check so I can focus on telling a good story.

It's not gonna break a great script if it's there. Personally, I think you're writing will read better if you don't use it though. -- If you write only what can be seen in frame, it implies the camera direction. So, let's say someone is working on a car and lying underneath the car when another car drives up a dirt road. If you want the camera to stay on the person working under the car, you would describe them, the rustling gravel, and the dirt getting kicked up. If you want a close-up of what they're doing, say "a hand shoves an oil pan forward," or whatever. The trick is not to get so granular that you're telling the actor every little facial twitch and teeny arm movement unless it matters to the plot or reveals something.

unimportant.

It's not what we see, It's what the character sees.

Sean I would say it is the exact opposite. We see it, not anyone else. I recently used in an opening shot. It appeared even before the scene header.

“In the reflection of mirror glasses we see the havoc of a prison riot”.

INT. PRISON EXECUTION ROOM.

I use it when I need the reader to be positioned in a voyeuristic POV.

Lisa, the Tarantino example is a great one because there you have a director who is writing his own shooting script. It would make total sense for him to be specifying camera angles - and yet he's not, he's staying in the story.

Craig Mazin, co-host of Script notes, goes ballistic every time someone (usually experts who don't write for a living) say "we see" shouldn't be used.

Dan MaXx I so wanted to evoke the Mazin. But I feel I do it all the time. It is just part of english. Anything you can use in your chosen language to make something clearer for the reader is fair game. Good call.

I say to avoid using it - to my way of thinking it's weak and smacks of amateur writing.

Gen: I don't see any importance in using "We see" in a screenplay. However, I've seen it used in famous scripts. For example, here's the one the of opening narrative paragraphs from Nicholas Pileggi's Good Fellas

WE SEE FOUR OTHER MEN, including HENRY HILL and JIMMY BURKE, standing near BILLY BATTS at the bar, raise their glasses in salute. TOMMY DESIMONE and ANOTHER BEEHIVE BLONDE enter. BILLY BATTS looks up and sees TOMMY.

Pileggi uses "We see" more than 250 times during the script.

I don't use it because I think it's lazy writing, but it's a preference, not a rule.

Finally, camera directions are not necessary for a spec screenplay. Read this link for a quick example. This is provided by Screenwriter’s Bible author David Trottier.

https://scriptmag.com/features/screenplay-format-use-camera-directions-for-screenplays#:~:text=CAPS%20are%20hard%20on%20the,CLOSE%20UP%20of%20Bart's%20face.

Same with "BOOM", "BANG", "RATATATA", etc...creativity leisure you won't find in any other written media...that's why I was hooked on screenwriting...writing novels, poems, essays is so f@ck!ng boring...

Don't try to direct the camera. Chances are pretty high that the DP has a lot more experience when it comes to shot composition than you, so it's better to let them make the blocking decisions with the director.

Instead, talk about what the characters themselves are observing, watching, or focusing on. If the detail in question is important enough for one of the characters to give it their focused attention, the crew will need to get a shot of it. If it's not important in that precise way, then either it's not necessary to the action of the story and you can let it go... or it's a coincidental detail, and you need to find a more active way to move the story forward.

RIP comments!

Tennyson, if you do not tell a fully formed story you will be the only person on earth to enjoy it. Please don’t fall into the myth of “that is the director’s job”.

It is my belief that I am every job until someone replaces me. I do costume design, hair, casting, lighting and even directing.

There are a few ways I use “we see”. One is to point out “We” the audience see something that the people on screen do not see. The other to is call out a specific shot. A shot that set mood, tone and style of the entire story.

I like reading screenplays. Especially academy nominated or other highly praised works. Quite often they are “we see”ing all over the place.

The most important aspect, is it natural to you. I use it sparingly as I don’t want to draw attention to the writing. I want people to involved and engaged in the story. But the occasional “we see” can bring them even closer.

If a producer, exec, director, or cinematographer gets upset that you've used "we see", you're working with completely the wrong people.

As I write I am living the script in my head. I SEE what WE SEE on paper translated from my mind to the script. This perhaps works only when writing true stories.

Zero qualms with it... a proper screenplay is a blueprint and if that's how you need to write it to make a reader grasp, just do it that way.

CJ - In this case I have to both agree and disagree with you. I prefer that the 'we see' not be there but it's nothing to go ballistic over. Using 'we see' is a weaker form of writing but it's not going to dissuade my Directorial Vision. It's not that important.

Again, if someone's dumb enough to employ a reader of that ilk, I've no interest in working with them.

Sorry if this causes me to come across as curt/obnoxious/arrogant but I've made the mistake of writing in fear and trying to please everyone and it's no way for a creative to live.

INSERT:

Why make a mountain out of a mole hill?

I understand what you're saying...good question. I don't know what other alternatives could be used. Following this with interest.

It's an older style of writing according to many. Just like ...The DOOR opened with a BANG. The gun POPPED.

https://johnaugust.com/2022/we-see-and-we-hear

Dan G, there is a difference in how people would understand these two lines.

Dan sits at a table. From the far door Craig walks in.

Dan sits at a table. From the far do we see Craig walks in.

The second sentence implies that we the audience sees it and Dan does not. It is actually short hand. Rather than.

Dan sits at a table. From the far door Craig walks in, Dan doesn’t notice.

In my opinion, this is just another thing people can tout to maintain control over new writers. Don’t use “we see”, don’t use “ing” on the end of words. But as you learn you see professionals doing it everywhere. Then you are told “you have to learn the rules to break them”. As you grow in craft and confidence, you soon see the foolishness in these “rules”.

Thanks Dan and Craig. Rules are made up to filter out scripts; often that may be a lazy way to make the pile shorter...

Jon, I know this happen due to the mountain of screenplays floating around. I remember sitting in a pub when I was a young man and this beautiful girl was hitting on my friend. He was not interested. I asked him why.

“Ugly ankles”. Some things are important to some people.

Dan sits at table, watches Craig enter from the rear door. Much tighter with a touch of action. What does it tell us about the set - Dan sits (there is at least one chair, maybe more). There is a table, we are in a room facing a door (open/closed) from which Craig enters (walks, rushes, bursts, sneaks...).

Dan G. I am not saying you are trying to do anything other than be helpful. Other people do these things. Sorry if it came across that way.

But in your example, in all likelihood Dan sees Craig walk into the room. Which is normal in most screenplays. But if we want to imply a voyeuristic aspect to the story, like in a horror. Where poor Dan is unaware of the sinister Craig.

I would use a We See to imply only we see it. Not our protagonist Dan.

I use we see to get across a specific first person feel to the section I am writing. Most writing is third person. We watch the world unfold before us. But if we are in the moment, almost part of the action, I unleash the “we”.

I find that you allow it up to the reader and later the director. One thing I have seen in scripts is when you want to reader or audience to really know it's a visual cue or important close angle you can write in a slug line CLOSE ON JILL or CLOSE ON THE Gun etc.

Ilan, that is very accurate and correct. But I avoid going from the story to the real world as it breaks the immersion. If I have done my job correctly, the reader is seeing the film in their minds eye. I am painting a picture that they are seeing. To suddenly remind them that there is a camera crew is something I try to avoid (personally).

The people reading these scripts are professionals and they know the process. It would be more seamless for them. In my specs I try to give an experience more than an instruction.

Having said that the first line of one of my screenplays is “CLOSE ON A WOMAN’S CLOSED EYE. IT SNAPS OPEN.

insert Insert INSERT INSERT:

Craig D Griffiths, in my experience, exposition is only necessary in passive stories. In an active structure, those details actually do become extraneous. I've seen a LOT of examples. I've read thousands of screenplays. So far, I haven't found the one that convinces me that a more literary structure, and one requiring attention to context beyond the logistical needs of the scene, ever makes a movie better.

I'm not saying it's impossible. I am saying it doesn't pay off.

"We see" are not dirty words. If you can think of using something more creative then use it. However, it needs to be clear to the reader. Imagine using it as a POV for example, or something critically important to the script, scene, or moment. "We see" might be your best option instead of trying to be fluffy about it. These are screenplays not novels.

Writing the action itself can inform the reader’s “eye” to what they’ll be looking at on screen. “We see” isn’t necessarily bad, but it’s not always needed.

I try to use it sparingly but specifically. I don't want to come off as the A-hole who wants to try and tell the director their business. But at the same time, if I want to give the reader a feel of the scene from a different camera angle then I'll put it in there.

If you end up being the director, as well as the writer, then use it as often as you want. Happy writing.

Joseph Conrad mentioned a writer's job is to make the reader see. Ditch "we see" ...

I'd say you all beat that one to death. Over & out.