Screenwriting : Exposition - What's Your Twinkie? by Christopher Cooksey

"That's a big Twinkie..."

Haha, love that line.

When writing exposition scenes i usually try to engage the audience with visuals and actions than just "telling" it to the audience. Though it depends on the context of the scene, the characters and the location involved. Plus i always asked myself two questions: "what if" and "how".

Yes, hence my comment about "Show, don't tell." Anything you can get across the audience in the actions is usually preferable but there are instances where relaying information in dialog is necessary, either for the sake of time constraints or the budget. That's what my video is meant to cover. I'd like to hear more about your "what if" and "how" statement. Exposition is generally the "how" or "what" within the story. "What if" is usually the premise of any story but can also be the slippery slope into an inexcapable sinkhole if indulged for too long.

I try to salt it in, if I need it.

But not telling people everything works okay as well.

True Detective Season1. Matthew McConaughey character demands beer during the interview. The cops fold and get him beer. Anything he says after drinking a beer is not admissible as evidence as he could argue he was impaired, he didn’t mean what he said. That isn’t explained. Just left for the audience to pick up or not.

Craig, yes I agree with you, there. Just so long as the audience has enough information that they can put it all together. I have yet to watch True Detective. I'm curious if the beer scene served some other aspect of the character if it never came back around to the point you made. It seems superfluous to include material that just dead ends like that. Does the character have an issue with drinking? Are his words called into question, later?

Maurice, yes sometimes that's all that is needed but I always encourage writers to think of different approaches that will draw the audience in. Best to avoid "see/say" which is, if the audience can be shown what the character is doing, then they don't need the double layer of also being told.

I usually try to give exposition while something else is going on to interrupt the constant flow of needed information. I once had a character carry on an entire phone conversation filled with necessary exposition while being chased through a marketplace by armed gunmen. It ended up being an entirely entertaining scene and the needed information was still given. Another trick I've learned is to make sure that the person or people giving the information have very interesting or even quirky personalities. They can give offbeat analogies or use unusual phrasing. This gives character to the information, making it sound interesting rather than dry.

The pope in the pool technique (Snyder, Save the Cat) can be useful. I learned a lot about delivering information through the story while writing audio dramas. I found myself putting the characters in action because of the needs of that particular medium. But I found my skill as a screenwriter and novelist improved after doing so. I suggest this as an exercise for anyone struggling with information delivery. What if the scene was only audio; how would the situation change to keep audience interest?

That Twinkie, tho.

Christopher Cooksey he is a high functioning alcoholic. But he is also incredibly smart and strange. Watch Season 1, you can skip 2, 3 is good. But season 1 is amazing.

No one questions the statements he has made directly in the story. The story allows people to engage at all kinds of levels and places. There is a lot to unpack in the season 1.

It is masterful story telling. It does all sorts of things that we are warned against by people. The main characters are hard to like. There are flashbacks, actually two simultaneous storyline’s in two timelines. The characters don’t really arc. Their lives change heaps, married to divorced, employed to unemployed and broken. But they are basically the same as people. Their circumstances change, but they are the same guys.

It is evidence that great story telling trumps everything else. Season2 tries to pull off the same thing and fails (in my opinion). Because it isn’t a great story being told in a great way.

Craig D Griffiths Sounds like they're complex rather than archetypal characters, which is always great when accomplished successfully.

Joey Madia I read "pope in the pool" wrong and thought of Caddy Shack. lol. I used to love radio dramas when I was younger, with the characters explaining what they're seeing. It could be jarring but it worked for the format because the audience accepted its limitations. Of course, I'll go for "show don't tell" whenever possible but my video is meant to highlight situations when it isn't possible.

Thom Reese Yes, I've seen the talking on the run bit done before with varying degrees of success. Usually, it's done best when the action is in some form of counterpoint to what is being said, either ironically or in conflict with what the person on the other end of the line wants. On the flip side, there's the exposition that explains what the character is doing which can lead to see/say. Not the worst sin in the world. It can work but it can also serve to compound audience boredom. Quirkiness can be a fun way but I always warn people to make sure that character quarks serve the story, whenever possible. Example: In Knives Out, (SPOILER) the character's inability to lie without throwing up leads to the big reveal that the murderer had been tricked into confessing.

Raiders of the Lost Ark does it so well - Indie explaining the history of the Ark of the Covenant and the staff of Ra to the Army Intelligence suits at the University. We get everything we need in that scene to set up the rest of the film and it feels so organic.

Jason Mirch Raiders is an all-around great movie. The exposition works fine. He's being given his mission and we're shown his skepticism which will be part of his arc (not ark) for the rest of the film.