Screenwriting : How Much, Is Too Much Or Too Little by Imo Wimana Chadband

It really depends on what's going on, whether or not "interlocking his fingers" is a relevant repeating characteristic. If it's not, it doesn't belong there.

Likewise, "leaning forward" may or may not belong in there, depending on context.

"Focuses ahead" is clear and concise without being boringly on-the-nose.

Alright alright, Kay. I get where you're coming from.

This part especially I took in, "...is a relevant repeating characteristic. If it's not, it doesn't belong there." I need to start adjusting that in my writing more. Sometimes I find myself painting every detail i'm seeing in my head, and now that you say this, I see that at times it's not really relevant and just takes up valuable space.

I like to stay closer to #3. Unless I have a physical joke or something requiring a little more.

Context? It’s hard to say without it. Just reading sentences, I’d say 2 and 3 are fine. My only critique is that the first one is overwritten and in its current form seems redundant. Plus it has too many sentence clauses with commas, making it a "clumsy" read and in need of structure. For example, you could break it into two sentences which would make it read better, not seem overwritten, and would add a little more “importance” to this showing of John’s actions. He leans forward... and then makes a show of interlocking his fingers. Is he being interviewed? Is he trying to plead with someone? Or intimidate? Perhaps he’s praying? What’s with this body language? “John Doe leans forward, stares straight ahead. He clasps his hands, interlocking his fingers.”

Depends what you want the audience to see. The only edit I would do is either choose “interlock fingers” or “clasps hands”. They are pretty much the same thing.

Ah! Good stuff guys! The scene actually is where someone offers him an opportunity, and asks him what lengths he's willing to go to get it. The actions above show his change in attitude at that point.

In the scenario you just now described, I'd make the gesture a bit more visceral and meaningful - to reveal something about his emotional state or mental reaction - i.e. inner conflict ("he begins to rock back and forth now"), anxiety ("he bites his lower lip"), or eagerness ("he leans forward, as if to leap right into the challenge"). Physical expressions are often subconscious but always universal, so just imagine what you would do with your body based on your emotional state, and describe that.

In all honesty, and with insightful good humor intended, what I imagined he was going to do, based on your initial description, was chase down a chicken. Like in ROCKY. :)

FYI: Actors don't like Writer's telling them how to act. They want to act, not be programmed. The fewer explicit acting directions, the more likely to find a named interested actor.

In short order the Actor will be telling the Writer how "his" character behaves and demanding corrections anyway.

Kay is right, in the sense that using adjectives in parentheticals as a crutch is highly frowned upon - since actors consider it mircomanaging their emotions. But, I'd respectfully and completely disagree that SHOWING emotion through action lines via gestures is unwarranted. In fact, as you well know if you've read the best film scripts of our times, this is precisely what makes them so compelling. - They use physical subtext to express state of mind, and inform readers/viewers of a character's emotions through subtle gestures and non-verbal cues, instead of the dreaded and amateurish parenthetical emotion exposition overkill. (Still, there is a time and a place to use parentheticals - namely to indicate sarcasm, provide clarity when there's built-in but unintended ambiguity, or when a character shifts emotions in the middle of their dialog.)

Of course, at the end of the day, filmmaking is a collaborative endeavor, so despite a writer's well-intended, or much needed insights on a character, both directors and actors will have their unique interpretations. And that's perfectly okay and as it should be, unless they completely misinterpret and so misrepresent something important - and if they do, it's likely because the writer failed to indicate it. I have done this myself...and cringed while watching an actor play a scene straight that was meant to be ironically comedic. Naturally, I had no one to blame but myself for not indicating that well enough. (It was a workshop where chosen plays were given to random directors - so I had absolutely no say in how things were acted out. Which made it an eye-opening experience, to say the least! Lol)

BALANCE in all things, always. :)

P.S. - Imo, imho a clarifying adjustment would also suffice. i.e. "John Doe interlocks his fingers and presses them forward. He's in." To me, that's engaging and energizing - since it immediately makes me want to know what will happens next.

In screenwriting today, you got to get past the gatekeepers, basically the “readers” who look for every reason to put your script down and say no. Readers love white space, the more concise, the better. Have to agree with Dan here, "focuses ahead."

Thanks a mill guys! The responses were very insightful and clarified what I needed to move ahead. Can always depend on you all to inch my writing that much closer to the satisfactory mark.