Screenwriting : Directing on the page by Craig D Griffiths

Craig - there's directing and there's DIRECTING. In a spec script, your directing is incorporated in your action text and writing style. A spec script has two transitions only - FADE IN, and FADE OUT. It has no Angle on, Cut to, CU... It's the Director's job to add those once the script has been greenlighted. Those scripts you pull off the internet are production scripts, not spec scripts.

My 2-cents worth (now I'm broke): EXPLICIT directing on the page ("We see...", "The camera...", transitions, audio pre-laps, etc.) are generally best to avoid. They tend to take away from the reading experience which is the primary audience of a spec script. IMPLICIT directing on the page is good writing. By implicit I mean carefully choosing what you include and how you write your action and description. Think of a scene that is set in a large stadium, then you describe a single loose bolt on a seat whose squeaking can be heard by the main character sitting in it. You haven't said to put a close up of the loose bolt but the reader will most likely imagine it.

Craig D Griffiths Hey! I wash! At least once a week.

I can't really share a favorite example because... Every single script I read -- whether written by an industry pro or by an amateur or by an aspiring writer; written on assignment or written as a spec screenplay; or written by a writer who is also the director and/or producer -- they ALL have camera direction to some degree either through action description or include some technical jargon, or both. All that truely matters is great writing. Period. Sure, aspiring screenwriters writing spec screenplays often receive the recommendation to not overuse technical jargon. Like cooking, too much salt ruins the pot. So always be thoughtful about its use. But never say never; there are exceptions to everything. ;)

Oh, wait... One script with well-written direction is HELL OR HIGHWATER. On page one "we see/we hear/we move/we look/we pass" is used over and over. Lol! As I'm told by execs, it's really no big deal. Personally, I don't like it, I avoid its use, but that has nothing to do with anything. That's just personal taste; I find "we see" redundant. ;) Honestly, a lot of this really has to do with writing style or voice. I agree with Dan M, THE MATRIX is a great script to study, especially if you are looking to see creative directing on the page. ;)

Hi All. The industry professionals are wrong is an interesting concept. So we are trying to attain what standard again? This is one of those occasions when I agree with brother Dan M, I would use direction if it is an integral part of the tone. I can see where I would do it. I am rereading Aliens, which is full of camera direction. Cameron was working on terminator when he wrote this, no huge career, poor as a church mouse. He wasn't the heavy hitter he is now. But you can see and hear the film as he directs it for you on the page. So Matrix good example, any others. Do NOT let fear hold you back my friends.

Thanks Beth, haven't read it. But watched it a few times as a sanity saver fly Australia to U.K. (Stupidly long trip).

Well, it's not about some notion of "right" or "wrong" here. It's rather about good or bad screenwriting. Good writing stands out. Regardless. Which usually has much more to do with writing style/voice than some imposed "standard."

Until someone else shows up the writer is the filmmaker. Lol! ;) Screenwriting is visual writing, is it not? Visual is action, is cinematic.

The hard rule is: If it (anything, that is) doesn't forward story or build a character, it should be avoided, or at least used very very sparingly, especially if it is a spec or the writer is unproduced. Sooner or later it gets in the hands of a director and most do not take kindly to being told their biz -- what angle, speed, or focal lens etc. to use. It could mean you don't get called on set, because the director can see by your script you are going to have too many director ideas and be in his or her way. In the same vein, most will not use your direction and replace it with their own, so as not to give your credence as a director or appear as though they don't have a more creative mind of their own than the writer who does this. But again, there is no set formula in Hollywood. Read the "Nightcrawler" script... great script and it doesn't have a single slug line. What? Mm-hmm.

NIGHTCRAWLER is a great script. A great example of writing style. ;)

Tony Gilroy just moves through scripts using direction. The "Great Story Telling" is my point. How can we not use a tool to help tell the story. Every director will make the move they want. Ever script changes during shooting, shots can't be made, actors can't get words out. A writer using the language of the director may be an advantage. You may be making it easier for them to visualise talking in a form they use. They will disagree, for sure, but they will see what you mean. The point Beth made is great, visual medium.

The "job" of a spec screenwriter is to engage a reader, whomever that may be -- right? You must capture your reader's attention. Your reader should visualize your story easily. You must focus on their entertainment experience with your script. "Directing" is done through crafting action, crafting a screenplay. Paint a vivid, cinematic picture in your reader's mind. You really do not need technical jargon to do so, unless clarity is an issue. So, personally speaking, I don't see that as using "director's language" per se, but rather as screenwriting itself. A script is a flexible document. If a spec script goes into development, then others will contribute. Take it from there. So why worry about an imaginary director while writing a spec? Your "job" is to write a captivating screenplay. Get others excited about a possible project. ;)

That's not a problem. Lol! ;)

This is only a perspective and I claim ownership of it solely: As a screenwriter, I was taught to resist the urge to direct on page (IN A SPEC). This took discipline. This took training and time to learn. I had to come up with unique or creative storytelling ways to replace direction urges. In my view, this, in the long haul made me a better writer. Now, when I see a spec script with direction all over the place I have to consider that maybe the writer has minimal or limited talent. Meaning, if he/she has to resort to abbreviated directorial language (ie. CU, MOVE WITH, AERIAL, TILT UP, ZOOM IN... A "GLINT" ON THE KNIFE...") to compensate for his or her writing, it is a statement that they are unable to communicate effectively. Some, not all readers have been trained similarly, so why risk it. If you are hired by a studio to write a screenplay, that's different, direct all you want on the page. But approaching the runway on your first flight recklessly is no way to be viewed or remembered by the control tower. And Hollywood caters to some of the most controlling people I know.

I write and take advice from the screenwriting pros at Jacob Krueger Studios. During a screenwriting retreat in Vermont last October, one of them said, "If you absolutely feel the need to incorporate direction, do it by breaking your action into paragraphs and sentences as you see each shot. If you want the director to do a close-up on a pair of shoes for example, write your action so that it says, 'Her bright red shoes move slowly across the hardwood floor.’

No camera direction needed. The writing alone implies your vision. Yet, as so many have pointed out, the director will do as he or she sees fit.

Also, as implied, rules are broken every day. I think what matters is how well the story flows and how humble you are when creating relationships and pitching your idea.

This over concern seems to be perpetuated and taught within aspiring circles. It's easier to tell people to not do something because many new writers just happen to use tools poorly or may not understand their use. That's bad writing. That does not mean the tool choice itself is bad. Nor does the choice indicate bad writing either. That's misplaced logic. I'm not advocating for wild, unbridled, technical camera direction within a spec script, not at all! Lol! Again, good writing far outweighs any of these restrictive notions. No one cares if you have a wee bit of technical direction, especially when it is used wisely. The more you communicate with working people the more you realize there aren't such extremes. I have actually received messages from execs asking me why this bizarre obsession?? I just say that's what is often taught or recommended. Look, the same tools that are available to an industry pro are available to you, dear aspiring writer. Learn how to use them effectively. :)

Yup, every new paragraph typically indicates an action change. Everybody says this... But seek out and read scripts, especially ones that are close to what you wish to achieve. See how it's done. And see the wide variety of approaches. Happy writing!

I feel your pain Craig. I once spoke to an aspiring director and he kept asking me where in the room were my characters. My novice view on directions is anything that slows down the read is bad. I am not an aspiring director, actor or producer. So I try my best to avoid camera directions, stage directions and multiple locals. I want to write scripts that people not only enjoy reading but will be inspired to produce, shoot and put out there to be viewed. Here's to the Writer's Journey.

The best on page directions are SHOOTING SCRIPTS. You woud find the non-shooting script drafts (if you can find them) to be completely different. But I'm probably wrong because I am a weird novice.

Dan G, well Craig Mazin & John August on the Scriptnotes podcast (IMDB will give all the stuff they have done) and years of listen to the Nerdist Writers Panel. Ben Blacker (nerdist host) doesn't interview just anyone, they are always multi-film, multi-tv series writers. I can strongly suggest both these. This is where you hear comment about directing on the page is perhaps the only way to get tone across. After if I got a Coen brothers film and shot it using my camera angles and shot composition it would feel so much different. Word for word the same, same location and actors.

Myron I write what I need to set tone. Most of the time I suggest shot as transitions, but avoid camera specific shots as it break from the story.

Dan G, you've never heard the expression directing on the page or from the page or any version of the idea of a writer putting directing in their script. I am not trying (or even suggesting) there is a specific phrase. This is just a conversation. You do get the concept?

"Directing on page" is a derogatory term commonly used in the room and behind the curtain by executives, aimed specifically at the writer. If an exec says, there are a lot of camera directions in this script, (CU. MS, HOLD ON, etc) this may be true or not true. But if the exec says there is a lot or too much directing on page, they are slamming the writer and referring to the fact that the writer is positioning themselves (or trying to act like) a director. It's not a good thing for a writer to hear.

Maybe that's your experience, Pidge. But that just is not generally true. Plus we're talking about writing spec scripts here. Specs tend to be calling cards for writers. "Directing on the page" is a common writing phrase and usually not negative. It simply refers to using action description, NOT technical camera direction to "direct." If a spec is purchased and goes into development, the original writer may or may not be further involved. Many others will be making decisions and/or collaborating. The script will go through many changes from that point on. Something like camera directions would be decided by the director -- of course! Anything in the original spec screenplay is easily adjusted or changed.

Directing should be left to directors. ;-)

Beth, have it your way, but for those who are open to it, it has been my "experience" from both my experienced screenplay instructors who wrote for Universal Studios and created shows for CBS, that if an exec tells you to revise your script (spec or otherwise) minus your "directing on page" and you do not extract your technical camera language or camera direction (has nothing to do with action or description), you will not hear from them again.

Pidge never been in the room with Executives listen to their private conversations. I'll have to trust you. David filmmaking is a collaborative process. Making suggestions is all part of collaboration. I couldn't work with an autocrat. Probably my I make the stuff I write (Sometimes).

Film-making is a collaborative process. But that's not what you asked about. Writing a script is rarely, initially, collaborative. The first submitted script should not have camera/technical directions in - that's what the SHOOTING SCRIPT is for. Yes, you can get away with and have descriptive things likes CU to set the scene, but you should never put "DOLLY CAM ZOOM" or other directions into a script. As I said, and it's not being autocratic, the director decides on which shot and where/how it's achieved.

"No" to camera directions....."Yes" to brilliant visual descriptions.

RIP CHARLIE MURPHY ( July 12, 1959 – April 12, 2017)

David a shooting will have it. All scripts can have it. Camera direction is just part of story telling if needed. An entire spec script is a suggestion, that's why there are 'notes'. The reason why I prompted this conversation is because the myths that run around spec world beat all personality out of story telling.

I dunno Craig, everything I've read and everything I've been told by actual working screenwriters has been to avoid camera direction. Camera direction IS part of the story-telling. The directors part.

But hey, maybe Dave Trottier has it wrong. Maybe times have changed. I haven't found it to be so, but who knows.

Great assumption DanG.

I think sometimes people get confused because they read a script, see camera directions and think it's acceptable to use them. But those scripts are almost always shooting scripts, not spec scripts.

I feel like it's hard enough to get an exec to read my scripts. I don't want to compromise that in any way, so I try to keep the read as clean as I possibly can. Lots of white space, minimal descriptions, preferably under 110 pages (my latest is sitting at 115 and I really want to get rid of 5-6 pages but haven't managed to yet, ugh) and no distractions such as camera direction, underlines, bolds, etc.

Jody try this. Go seen by scene and write down exactly what that scene achieves. Do any scene achieve the some outcome. Loss one or collapse them together. Think of when you watch a film, you can feel a wasted scene, it goes over old ground. Hope that helps.

Getting them to read your script is hard. But they don't know the content until they do read it. This weeks scriptnotes podcast was good, discusses what a good read is.

Well Dan.G I am a person that is realistic about the world in which I live. I refuse to be dictated to by amateurish fears. I will use all tools at my disposal to do the job at hand. I am also intelligent enough and mature enough to realise my a particular piece of work does sell is because it is compelling, it doesn't solve a pressing needs. I am not silly enough to buckle to childish fears that if I act unconventional that the cool kids won't like me. I am just putting forward concepts for discussion. What about exclamation marks, I heard actors don't like having their performance dictated to them. This is not a fight to be won. It is a discussion or debate at best. I hold on to be beliefs that free because I refuse to blame something other than myself for failure and not the existence of a description. A camera angle is not a story. People buy story, not a document due to it lack of something. I am afraid we are just going to have to disagree. BTW I never use them. But would in a heartbeat if I needed one.

Cara, exactly my point. When needed. I have made a few things, and a director doesn't do their work on the page. They do it on the set. It would be possible (and has been done) where a director and actors improv an entire film - no script. If I write that there is an extreme close up on a dilated pupil I am make a visual statement. I am not approving wardrobe, deciding light temperature, choosing shots with my cinematography or deciding to shoot on film rather than video - because that would be the director's job.

BOOM on Dan's callout. CU on Craig's reaction. PAN over to Cara for more insightful observations.

Cara - Well done.

Always bet on the Italian.

Bwahahaha! Nice (left or right, doesn't matter) hook for the start of a story.

Cara, nice.

I was going to continue with this, but why. Like I stated in the thread's question. Some people will give examples while others will just say never. It looks like the thread has ground to a halt and we are left with the NEVER crowd.

I believe we live in an Auteur Directing age. We as writers aren't just popping out scripts to sell to networks to be re-written for budgets and post-production needs. Equally, directors want the same authenticity. We all are rather doing our darnedest to create original masterpieces that unfortunately can only live, in the fullest, inside our own minds. It's your script, your vision. My opinion? If you aren't planning on directing it yourself, be prepared to kindly leave the on-page direction out of it. The shooting script is where all that happens. Plus it will save you valuable time during re-writes. On the other hand might I offer "A Beautiful Mind" as a film that most definitely needed additional direction. Give it a good read to see what I would say is an appropriate level of "on-page direction".

So I guess I'm in the almost Never crowd :)

If you are writing a STAGE PLAY and give a lot of directions, woe be to you. Theatre directors will put a hex on the piece. :-D