This might be a really basic question but I'm struggling to find the right approach in my screenplay to describing a location without limiting what production design/directors might want to bring in.
For example, if I describe a location as "smelling like beeswax and old money" I know this is something the camera can't show, but it should give the director and production design something to interpret. I I instead described the mahogany desk, the first edition books on the shelves, the well dusted surfaces, I feel like i'd be stepping too much into production design land.
where is that line best placed? do different writers approach this differently?
thanks!
2 people like this
I have spent a few hundred hours standing next to the camcorder and directing actors, for no-budget films. So here is my perspective.
Don't write "smelling like beeswax and old money" because it doesn't tell the director anything. Different persons have different frame of reference. So "smelling like beeswax and old money" will mean different things to different persons.
Neither should you describe the details too much. Filming is chaotic, so the director will do what is simplest to do. There may not be any mahogny desk, but a completely different desk. The audience will not be able to see if the books are first edition or not. The audience will not see if the surfaces are well dusted.
Write what is essential. For everything else, trust the director. In addition, those who turn your script into a film may have good ideas, so you should encourage them. They want to create, so give them the opportunity to decide details.
1 person likes this
I use a mix of physical things and unfilmables when I describe a location, Dominic Hamon.
2 people like this
Mix together specifics that are important for your vision and the plot with general vibes and impressions that the location gives to the viewer. That way you don’t miss anything important but give the director and art director plenty to work together on.
3 people like this
I've had the art department just run with a vibe based on my words, and I've had them come to me with their head down, ashamed they couldn't recreate a minor, insignificant detail exactly as I described it. It's a strange beast, and in a decent development process, a lot of important conversations would bring clarity before locations were built or located.
I'll tell you this though, unless you are the director, it doesn't really matter what you envisage, as it will be their call for a variety of reasons. Your original vision is just part of the collaboration process, and may be seen as little more than a suggestion. Sometimes that's going to be frustrating and other times it's going to be eye-opening.
Do not write smells in that way though. That is going to distract a reader. You could write "the kind of place that smells of beeswax and old money" however, because that denotes a vibe rather than a detail. A lot of unfilmables can be hacked that way.
1 person likes this
i'm relieved to hear that unfilmables aren't completely taboo, as i do find it hard to avoid them when it comes to describing characters or locations. I do wish there was a disclaimer I could add to the top "All descriptions completely open to interpretation. I'm super collaborative and trust you to do your work the best way you know how to. <3".
I guess making it clear when it's a vibe and when it's a critical part of a scene is probably the line to draw.
2 people like this
Believe me, the default assumption is that everything is open to interpretation. Contrary to how screenwriting communities often think, producers see scripts as organic. It's just words on pages. They are reading in context with their budgetary, logistical, and product needs. When you write, "John jumps in his black 1984 Corvette", they are thinking, "I can get Steve's red 1990 Firebird".
Unfilmables is a polarising topic that sees a lot of dogmatic thinking. Many lump non-visual/audio descriptions as unfilmable when they clearly are. "Jane's scared. He seems to know." denotes emotion and thoughts rather than appearance and dialogue, but actors can understand and do a lot more with that than "Jane's eyes widen. Her hands clench. She looks to John, who smirks a little."
Writers waste a lot of time and emotional energy on things like the above, often at the expense of elements that really matter.