Screenwriting : The Handmaid's Tale is what passes for great television writing these days. by Phillip E. Hardy, "The Pro From Dover"

Yeah, great style. Generally speaking... What you call "expository" is rather done a lot--perhaps more so in TV? Read more produced scripts by working writers. Lol! ;) And why would you hammer someone for making this style choice? You certainly are entitled to your own opinion, but why impose it upon someone else?

Again, I don't agree with that notion: that only certain people get to write a certain way. Why choose to restrict yourself? Sure, having a proven track record definitely helps one get produced, get hired, etc, absolutely, but the same writing tools and devices that are available to those certain people are available to everyone. Learn how to use them effectively. :)

AS: I don't think it's a bad example. It's an example. And this show is getting a lot of buzz. So, I say let the examples fly.

Beth: I'm kind of half-joking, when I say hammer. But as a rule, many script doctors and pros would frown on that type of exposition. But I agree, I'm seeing it more and more. So I guess it's all good. I'm not doing it. But God bless those that do. And my hat's off to Ms. Chaiken, she's got her work on television.

Phillip: No, they don't. This draconian "rules" nonsense seems to be perpetuated more so within amateur/teaching circles, does it not? Lol! People respond to good writing.

Beth: I must be an amateur then. But I don't need writer's spoon-feeding me lame narrative like Did she make a mistake with Nick? A Fatal Mistake? I don't know lady, it's your story not mine. Lawrence of Arabia is great writing. I don't think A Handmaid's Tale is great writing. So it looks like we disagree on this one. But that's why I post topics like this, to stir spirited discussion. Just don't disagree with me... damn your eyes!

Not one for squeamishness amongst adults, wasn't that TRIGGER WARNING ("F-bomb") in the script? Prudery aside, it's ridiculous, but there's no need to admonish others for not adhering to your high moral standard. Not having seen the product, that's not bad screenwriting, that's just bad writing. I can't imagine why "Later, we'll find out..." would be included at all - even in a production script. If it's meant to note foreshadowing for the DP or director, that would be a Note.

Whatever works to get your project into production... works!

I think Beth is right, us, as aspiring screenwriters, are asked to adhere to these 'rules', and that'll help us get into production... I don't think it will... I think a great story will.

For us, the problem is often trying to work out what feedback on 'rules' we pay attention to... see the recent post/debate on use of FADE IN, should you use it all, left or right placement etc... and that's just one single element... and ultimately doesn't matter.

Asides, and author commentary within the script... I think they can make for a more interesting read at times, add to the screenwriter's voice, sure they can be annoying when overdone, but would they really derail a great story... possibly not.

My takeout... the more 'pro' scripts I read, the more 'rules' I see broken... maybe the're right and we're navel gazing ;-)

Gawd. It is not bad writing. It's just different than what you would choose to do. That's subjective opinion. And, yeah, Phillip, sorry man... we do disagree. ;)

Break away from orthodoxy, just a little... Open your mind. 'Cause this self-imposed adherence to orthodoxy really is something that keeps everyone in the middle. No one responds to orthodoxy. Of course I'm not suggesting being unprofessional, etc, etc, etc, etc.. Preferences, creative choices, style, this is where the intangible shines. Just because you recognize "rules being broken" that within itself does not mean bad writing. Contrarily, you can follow all "the rules" to a tee and still end with a bad script.

John, they filmed it just fine. Lol! ;)

"She left the room like a killer queen" creates an image, a sense of attitude. That's filmable, something an actress could certainly act, and something any and all writers may certainly write. ;)

From The Handmaid's Tale script, page 2:

"June runs, carrying Hannah as she weaves between the trees.

She's gone a few hundred yards when --

THREE QUICK GUNSHOTS ECHO.

JUNE STOPS SHORT.

She turns back and scans the woods for a long, terrible beat.

Nothing. Just the sounds of the forest. Trees creaking in the wind.

Then, she sees MOVEMENT.

NOT LUKE.

Men in BLACK UNIFORMS. She can hear their faint SHOUTS. They carry SNUBBY AUTOMATIC RIFLES.

FUCK. June RUNS FOR HER LIFE.

She stumbles, almost falls, keeps running. As fast as she can. She’s gasping from fear and exertion."

This is visceral writing... in my opinion. The quick, staccato style creates a sense of urgency, fear, action... A family ( or not?) is on the run, the man is presumed shot and killed (we don't see it, we hear it, sense it), and the woman is running through the woods with a child in her arms. You easily, quickly sense her terror, her fear. Plus... this engages us: what's going on? We're instantly concerned for her. This kinda seems like our world as we know it, but not??? The following pages are well written, her panic, her frantic fight to get away. These horrible men.

As these Guardians bring her down, then crack her in the head, knocking her out, they take her child... The line: "Careful! She’s a red tag."—Huh? What does that mean? What is going on here?! ...The first 3 pages set up the tone, what's ahead, this horrible world, and incites intrigue. ;)

Beth: Agreed. The action portion is very well-written. And again, this writer got the work across the goal line. And for most of us, that's the goal. It's this commentary I don't care for: --Huh! What does that mean? What is going on here?!"

AS: Good point about insiders. I looked up Ilene Chaiken and she has a very established track record as producer/writer. And she is executive producer of A Handmaid's Tale. So she definitely has a lot juice. And, I checked out her picture. She's carelessly pretty in a bohemian way. Feisty and capable. You can tell that about her right away. Probably has a writing degree, two cats and like to date Scorpios.

In both writing novels and screenplays, and working with literary agents, producers and directors, it's been my experience that people with writing backgrounds or education can be snobby. I've been gigged on scripts (five of them optioned) for expository writing. But that was earlier on. It's a fairly accepted literary rule that good writers show and don't tell. And, as a writer, I endeavor to do that, allowing the reader to discover character traits as the story unfolds. Not giving themr 3/4 sentences as a character is introduced telling me what they're all about. For me, that's amateur hour.

But screw it! Do what you feel baby! Just sell them screenplays.

Commentary you don't care for? What does that mean, Phillip? I'm just trying to point out that this engages the reader, creates intrigue, makes you WANT to read further. Find out what does indeed happen. Isn't that the point? To entertain? Lol! ;)

Phillip - Basically I'm in agreement with you - I read lots of that sort of excess exposition all the time now-a-days. Many contemporary writers seem to defend it as "the new wave". Personally, I view it as lowering the standard of creativity to the art/craft of screenwriting. I've observed that many writers use excessive narration to pad their script's length (they don't have a big enough story to begin with.)

I'm old and well steeped in the art/craft - I just stick to the tried and true. But as always, I'm very likely wrong.

I don't care one way or the other about expositional choices... I try not to impose my personal taste or style onto what I'm reading. I look at something open minded. What is this particular writer's creative intent? Their style? And if it truly engages me, creates intrigue, hooks my interest... like the pilot script you posted. Wow, what is going on here? Then, I'm in. I'm reading through 'til the end. At that point whatever arbitrary notions I have or don't have about supposed "rules" are irrelevant. ;)

Doug:

Screw the new wave and the surfers that rode in on in.

Beth: It irritates me. But different strokes for different... and so on, and so on, and shoo-bee-doo-bee-doo!

And, I'm writing a comedy as we speak, where I inserted expository narrative with writer's commentary as a goof. And, I identified that way in the script. Have fun with all, right?

AS: I like it. Here's the tagline: "Narrative, with reckless abandon." We can have her picture on the back cover with no bio. Because potential readers will be able to see that she's capable and talented. And, of course, "Carelessly pretty."

The bit Beth quoted is not bad at all; the selections Philip quoted in the OP are terrible. Again, having nothing to do with screenwriting or "rules" on writing for the screen - nor even exposition or "unfilmable" script - it's just really poor writing. I could definitely see that in a draft, but not in a finished script. She being who she is, I doubt she wrote too many drafts (and that's not a knock - why would she?). That hysterical, hand-wringing, melodramatic pulp may serve its purpose well within the context of the script, but taken as selected passages, that is awful.

She backed against the wall, retreating from the politician's greasy touch.

^^^ That's kinda wishy-washy, you could even say hacky, but it serves the purpose and isn't just flat-out bad.

Her ample bosom bursting from her bodice as she heaves herself against the chantilly lace wallpaper in the glorious estate's master bedroom which had once entertained not one but two Presidents before The Great War (those were simpler times, as we'll find out later).

"Why Guv'nuh! Ah doo declayuh!"

^^^ That's what those first lines read like.

Haha! A.S. and Phillip, that's great! Lol! :-P ))) Hmmm, I gotta think about that... But, that would not be the title. I am by no means suggesting anything "reckless." Rather the opposite. ;)

Beth: I know my dear. You are a thinker. No one reading your words would ever find them wanting. That's my MIster Darcy speak.

As far as the old Hand Maiden's? It's like Beth said, the show got filmed. So bully for them. I don't have Hulu. But even if I did, I don't like the dystopian crap. I'm looking forward to binge watching the second season of Master of None on Netflix.

C Harris, how can you say that about a writer who's been writing for TV for years! Hacky?!! "Greasy touch" is fantastic, pithy description. Nails it. Captures the way a woman truly feels when being sexually harassed or imposed upon or threatened by some gross, icky man. (Unfortunately, I relate to that line, having some scary experiences myself). From what I can gather from reviews about this show, it very much highlights the dread, the fear, the oppression that does indeed resonant for many many women.

Side comment... Sorry, it's probably not intended... But... "hysterical" is sexist when referring to a woman. Just saying... Not trying to incite an argument, or get anyone upset, or offend, or derail this thread.... Just... Know you risk deep-rooted offense, that's all I'm saying. Nothing more.

1941 got filmed... so did Gigli (twice!).

I saw where you posted the bit about the character description on another thread, and I think "carelessly pretty" and "feisty" (whatever it was) is fine. That seemed as much aimed at the actor as anything, but I could see where that might be important just for characterization as a whole. Again, it isn't about that - it's about the bad writing. The best examples are in hardboiled crime fiction, but I only know good hardboiled authors, so...

She was a shapely dame.

vs.

She was a blonde. The kind of blonde who could make a priest kick a hole in a stained-glass window. :D

Oh, I know, Phillip, my dear. ;) And A.S., absolutely, one person's carefree is another's reckless. Very true. ;)

Okay, not suggesting to mock anyone. Rather the opposite... Trying to promote objectivity and less judgement when reading other work. Open mindedness. Potential growth as a writer. And, again, why restrict yourself? When it's often those expressive risks that helps someone's work rise above the din. ...Perhaps it's just a respectful difference of philosophy. ;) Cheers all!

Beth: Keep it up. You sure keep me on my toes.

Yes, I intentionally used the word "hysterical" because of the subject matter - not to be sexist, but to point-out that it's written in a manner consistent with stereotyping. There's good melodrama, then there's Harlequin Romance "bodice-rippers" (also why I worked that word in). :D "Greasy touch" was mine - I wrote that. Them's my words. I'll be in my trailer in case The Academy calls, thank you.

And I'm not mocking, merely clarifying by way of humor. It's just bad writing. There are tons of highly-successful hacks. John Saul comes immediately to mind. But again, the excerpt you posted was fine. Honestly, I wouldn't have thought both excerpts came from the same writer (and may not have).

I find 99% of "The Rules" nonsense - as we've discussed many times before - but no matter how you decide to write anything, it needs to be good. Descriptive prose and purple prose are two different things, and the latter is frowned upon with good reason. (I won't give more examples.) Having said that, I find Tolkien's prose purple - not all of it (some of it is absolutely wonderful), but far more than I'm willing to stomach - so some of it is definitely just my opinion.

C Harris: Ah, whoops, I must have misread... My bad. Well, "greasy touch" resonates. My skin crawled when I read that. ;) Anyway, what you deem stereotypical may not be. What you, or I, deem "bad writing" is a matter of subjective opinion. Agreed. ;) But this TV series has a rapt, target audience. It's timely for how women are feeling these days... It's resonating. Sooooo... And, sorry, but in no way does "hysterical" need to be used to describe something that you feel is melodramatic. In that context is still rings not so great to me... ANYHOO, as I said... Just saying... Not trying to offend you or anyone... Sorry if I have, that's of course not my intention. It's just that word is loaded with not-so-great history, and, well, in the context of this series about the oppression of women in this dystopian story, it just stuck out to me like a sour note. My apologies... Carry on... Not another word from me about it. :) Cheers, again!

Maxxxy

Getting a script read is one thing. Get somebody to put up 30 million dollars for a movie is entirely another.

Nono, you just made me feel defensive of my word choice. Let's do it this way:

"Oh FUCK,"

- OMG WHAT!?

"we can see the terror in her eyes,"

- Oh. That's a bit hyperboli - wait, whose eyes?

"even if we don't know exactly why."

- WE don't, how the hell WOULD 'we?' DO YOU?

"Later, we'll find 'The eyes' are the secret police of Gilead."

- Uh... WHOSE EYES!? These are two, completely disconnected thoughts referencing two, entirely different things!!! Also, change 'later' to 'IMMEDIATELY.'

"The Gestapo."

- Oh FUCK

"Offred goes pale, looks away."

- Vomits.

"Offred is still rattled"

- Just look at her eyes!

"-- did she make a mistake with Nick?"

- WE don't know... [push in close on eyes]

"A fatal mistake?"

- [push in CLOSER on EYES]

"It's possible."

- Is it, though? [PUSH-IN SUPER-TIGHT on EYES - not THE "Eyes," HER eyes]

[LONG TWO-SHOT of HER EYES]

Note: Offred reminds me of Alfred and offal in one fell swoop.

It's just bad writing - far outside of screenwriting "rules." Mind you, the author being the producer, this is more a "blueprint" (I hate that concept) for her thoughts than anything. And she can write whatever she wants however she wants not because she's famous, but because she's a known quantity and anyone reading this knows what she's capable of, that she knows what she's talking about (I'm not convinced), and that she's going to be involved during filming, so - as BFH noted - it's not just that she has a Star on the Walk of Fame or whatever. Plus, who knows what production draft or revision this is from, etc., who else made notes or rewrites along the way, or how many episodes they already had plotted or even filmed when these changes were made.

No, screenplays aren't Literature, but they at least need to make sense! We constantly hear how important it is to read scripts to see howthey are written, so it's not about that. There's a fine line between, say, Romance / Erotica / Pornography (in keeping with the theme), or Suspense / Thriller / Horror. Comic books aren't Literature either, but you don't have to read too many to tell which ones are just plain bad.

Not that you should judge a book by its cover, but here are two children's books to further illustrate my point:

Even Daddies Are Sometimes Angry

A Children's Book for Kids

WHAT DID YOU DO WITH DADDY'S LIQUOR!?

A BOOK FOR JEFFY

Agree with Dan M.

We are aspiring writers with only a few credits between us. We've heard about this rule or that rule, read a book or two, had coverage/notes from someone (usually without credits) that we should do this, but not that, say it this way, say it that way... of course the next person who gives you feedback will say the exact opposite ;-)

So, I re-iterate what I said earlier...

Maybe they, the currently working writers, making a living from it, know more than we do.

I disagree, John Hunter. The real art of a screenplay is that it is visual writing and has no time or place for internalizing. It not only slows the reader down, it also directs the scene. Over directs actually. That's a novel, not a screenplay. In my opinion.

Sacre Bleu! Say it is not so! The writer should not direct from the page - what blasphemy is this? The writer is sacred above all else, no?

Wow... Okay? Well, I just finished reading this script in its entirety. The pilot is very effective. I can see why the series is getting much attention. It's a horror. It's a thriller. It's allegorical. It's scary. It certainly makes dark commentary on society. Glancing at the book (I have not read it), the writing style of the script rather fits the source material's narrative tone. From what I can gather it seems a pretty good adaptation. And it seems those producing this project had that in mind; perhaps that's their creative intent. ...So did any of you actually read this pilot?

Fiona, you are correct: "Not Luke" is not directing on the page. It's action description. It's well written. It works great within that scene. It's terse. It's economical. And, sorry, but I'm not going to step into a potential argument about "directing on the page." Also this is a TV pilot developed by the series creators. It's not a spec. First reason for not stepping into that argument, many have different notions of what that means. Second, I'm not one for black & white, reductive "rules." Third, I'm rather taken aback by this self-imposed, red pen, didactic judgement over someone else's work without taking their creative intent nor the source material into consideration. Personally, I see this as yet another approach. There is no one way in screenwriting. ;) And lastly, it's Mother's Day! I'm spending the day with my family. :) Happy Mother's Day!

Whether exemplary writing or not so exemplary, content on the page the camera cannot see or shoot is called in writing circles " a cheat." The cheat here -- "Later, we will find out (it's this)" is not only a spoiler cheat the audience is unable to see onscreen (...but expected to know? At least the reader was told, right?), but gets into the "show us, don't tell us" provision taught by so many screenwriting instructors.

Pidge, perhaps start thinking beyond writing circles and teachers... Lol! This script was not written for readers or for students. It was written with specific intention. Other pro scripts have those "tells" too. This is not something new. Look beyond orthodoxy and read a variety of professional work but with informed knowledge about the production, its purpose, the creative intent, the people involved, etc. ;)

AJ:

Crapsack is a great word. Incorporating into my vocabulary. Funny stuff.

A.S. it's set in the future, and it's a work of fiction... by your logic they shouldn't make Man in the High Castle either, afterall the Germans have atoned too, and I'm sure they don't like reminding of their 'sins'...

But sometimes it's those very reminders that stop them happening again.

And I have no religious leanings one way or another, BUT the Catholic church was dragged kicking and screaming into the light, after decades of abusing children and protecting the priests who did it, they did not 'air' anything, they were outed.

EDIT: I know there are many thousands of Catholic priests who have done nothing but support their parishioners and faith, they are to be commended and I'm sure they are as appalled as everyone else is about past abuses.

Maxxxy: sorry, being broadcast on television doesn't make it good.

Yeah... I can't participate in this discussion any longer.

I'm enjoying the Handmaid's Tale, to the point of looking forward to Wednesdays for new episodes.

As far as the writing, I don't care if it was written in crayon on cocktail napkins. Once something gets produced, I judge it on the basis of the final product.

Beth: Which bit did you find distasteful? There were a few.

Phillip: Actually, that's not why... It's the judging, imposing opinion, nitpicking over the superficial without consideration of the whole, ignoring someone's creative intent. Like I said, I'm taken aback.

Whoops, fixed my typo... And I'm spending the day with family. Cheers!

I've read the book. It's 90% internal exposition and flashback. I've not read the script and don't have time unfortunately. Both sides of this argument have points. Is it bad writing? No. However if this was written as a spec script I also doubt it would make it off of a paid script readers desk.

Yes it is John, same source novel by Margaret Atwood

No comment!

Beth, we're not saying to follow the rules. We are simply pointing to the possibility of some that are well-known in the Industry, so that breaking them can be an informed choice. Nothing wrong about using a cheat, but what was given as an example is called a "cheat" in screenwriting, whether performed by a seasoned veteran or aspiring new writer, regardless of intention or source material. Be original... be creative, but be informed. We are not taking anything away from anyone but "adding to" by handing out some known screenwriting tools. You are the one disenfranchising and snatching things out of person's hands by telling everyone to ignore them.

Pidge, think Beth has bailed from this thread, but she didn't snatch or disenfranchise anything or anyone... she just suggested that there is more than one way to write a script... which there is.

Thanks, Anthony. ;) Yeah, you seem to be misinterpreting me, Pidge--sorry about that. And I am well informed, thanks. ;) Best to you!

Maxxxy

For me, this thread was never about the success or failure of the writer. In fact, since I didn't know who Eileen was originally when I posted this, I think it made me less prejudicial about the work. I posted this merely as an observation of the style of writing period and, I'm glad it's stirred so much discussion.

Maxxxy

Ilene has managed to be both successful and topical. She should be an inspiration to other women writers. Whether or not one lyikes

her work, she's definitely earned respect from me for being a working writer.

I love Ilene Chaiken. I didn't read the script, but she's definitely the goods, and knows her audience. It's great when a writer can inject exposition in a script. It's obviously not something that I would recommend to unsold writers who are sending their scripts to producers/agents/consultants and trying to break into the business, but she's established, and can do what she wants.

Write on, Ilene! (And Dan MaxXx....I remember those L-Word Parties, too.)

I'm with you, Phillip, I've read your work and your credibility has currency, more so than someone who makes authoritative comments, yet has no screenplay of their own on S32 available for scrutiny, keep up the good work, cheers.

Chanel:

Thanks, my friend.

Geez. you all are a touchy, contentious lot.

Been awhile, Phillip, pleased to see you're still on here, I got a writing gig, about to sign a contract, it's about a lady that changed the law in this country re "Rape in marriage" and domestic violence - I'll email you when bit further down the track, cheers, my friend.