Screenwriting : This is something that should NOT be done in a screenplay by Florencia Provost

Interesting, Florencia! You only really start to appriciate what you just explained after you tried to convert a screenplay into a comic book.

Rutger Oosterhoff Florencia Provost Turning a story into a comic is such an exciting step. Visual storytelling really helps readers connect deeper with characters, one of my favourite things to work on as a book illustrator.

I agrees. "Punchy verbs" are the way to go. A screenwriter becomes a verb thesaurus in all of its glorious nuance the more they punch out text onto the pages.

This is such a powerful reminder. Visual storytelling really lives in actions, not explanations and it’s the same principle I follow when illustrating stories. The strongest scenes are the ones readers can see and feel without being told. Really insightful post.

Florencia Provost This is such an important point, especially for newer screenwriters learning the difference between prose writing and visual storytelling. Screenplays really live through behavior, rhythm, subtext, and what the audience can observe onscreen.

I also think describing actions instead of labeling emotions often creates stronger performances because actors can interpret and embody the feeling naturally rather than being instructed what to “feel.”

And honestly, sometimes the most powerful emotions in film come from contradiction between what a character says and what they physically do. A person quietly stirring coffee with trembling hands can communicate more anxiety than simply writing “he is nervous.”

That visual specificity is what makes cinema feel alive.

100%. I'll re-post a comment that I made on another post here earlier since it's relevant:

The instinct is to name the emotion ("she feels devastated"), but the camera can't film a feeling. It can only film behavior. Your job is to translate every internal state into something visible, and trust the audience to do the rest. Here are some good examples from existing films:

GRIEF — Manchester by the Sea (Kenneth Lonergan, 2016)

After Lee learns his brother has died, Lonergan writes:

"Lee sits in the hospital waiting room. He doesn't move. People come and go around him. A nurse says something to him. He looks at her. She says it again. He gets up. He walks down the hall."

The grief is entirely expressed in behavior; the nurse has to say it twice because Lee's mind has already left his body.

SORROW — Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Charlie Kaufman, 2004)

"Joel sits in his car crying. He is parked outside a drive-in movie theater. As he cries, the windows fog up until the screen is no longer visible."

The sorrow isn't just described directly; it has a physical effect on the world.

INTERNAL HAPPINESS — The Shawshank Redemption (Frank Darabont, 1994)

Andy Dufresne broadcasts Mozart over the prison loudspeakers and Darabont writes:

"Andy leaned back in his chair and closed his eyes, the music washing over him."

He doesn't pump his fist or jump for joy. He closes his eyes — joy so complete it almost looks like absence.

So the core rule is: show emotion through behavior, not feeling:

"Anna feels overwhelmed with sadness" - NO

"Anna sets down her fork. Doesn't pick it up again." - YES

"She is so happy she can barely contain herself." - NO

"She hums something under her breath. She doesn't seem to notice she's doing it." - YES

One test to apply: take any emotional scene you've written in a script, remove every 'feeling' word, and see what survives. If the emotion is still there in the action/behavior and subtext, you've done it. If it disappears, the behavior isn't quite specific enough yet.

Exactly. The old adage, show, don't tell.

Not necessarily true. Read the screenplay for "Send Help." It literally slaps you over the head with how the character is feeling.

Not saying I am a victim of this, but I have definitely advised actors by asking them to think of or feel emotions when directing them. Example "you are angry because of this" or "You are sad because of that" Emotions create different expressions for different characters. Sometimes just saying smile or frown doesn't let the actor know what to feel. Really don't see the harm in writing emotions especially if you are advising an actor on how their character interprets a situation. Maybe I am in the wrong here, but I have gotten good responses after advising the actor what emotion their character feels. Although I will say Katrina Wolfe has made some good points and are very helpful. I have just seen writing no emotions leaves the actor a little confused on what their character is feeling and often get an empty performance during the take. Which I will then have to make sure they understand what the character is feeling. Which if advised in the script is a step I could skip not wasting a take. I will say I do avoid writing emotions because of this "rule" but just seems odd, having this disconnect between the actor and writer which the director will then have to connect during a take all because some writing rule states, "don't write emotions". Maybe somebody can help me understand this better?

G Robert Frazier then, is not a script. Emotion is in the action, not in the words

I.D. Modisett If a director is asking for specific emotions, that's fine, but emotions are not written explicitly in a script. They are expressed through action, behavior, subtext, silence or through the actor's performance. The job of the script is to be simple and straightforward on the page. First, It's important to understand structure and learn how screenwriting actually works. Screenwriting is not for everyone, and not every writer connects to it. At the beginning, I struggled with the idea of "not writing emotions", but once I understood how it works, the process became more natural.

Reductive advice. It's perfectly fine to give actors their motivation. Oscar-winning screenwriters do this.

CJ Walley To give actors their motivation It's fine, but if you want to write emotions, write a novel. because in screenwriting you don't write the emotion, is in the action and behavior.

I'm good getting paid to write movies, thanks.

In general the rule of thumb in writing screenplays is 'you describe what you see' (I'ld rather consider it as a principle, not as a rule, though). But I think I'm with CJ Walley on this one. Sometimes action and behavior might need some subtle explanation about emotions. One referred to the script of Send Help earlier in this thread (I posted my perspective on that screenplay a couple of weeks ago).

By avoiding any emotions (and taking that too literally) screenwriters often stick with 'He's grinding his teeth', 'She's biting her lip' or 'There's tension in his hands'.

This is one of those areas where both ends of the argument can be true. You can write emotion and you can write physical action to communicate emotion. And this is where common sense should come in. If you're doing too much of either, be it stating emotions of the characters or simply summarising the emotions through physical movement, then you'd be wise to address this.

I've read scripts by writers who simply weren't aware of the external focus of a screenplay. They often come from writing novels where they can openly and endlessly state thoughts and feelings. But screenplays should primarily focus on the external - things we see and hear. But note I say primarily. Not solely. One doesn't have to avoid emotion. This is the art of a master screenwriter: to be able to accurately and distinctly communicate the emotion of the character in the scene, ideally so we might experience the scene as if watching it on the screen. (@KatrinaWolfe's examples show this very well.) But then merely writing: "she smiles" is too basic, too meh. New screenwriters rely too heavily on these; I can end up counting so many "she smiles"s in a draft that it becomes a writing tic, where, through the law of diminishing returns, it results in a lack of meaning or impact.

So, it's all about balance. But then this is one of the reasons why we rewrite. To get it right. We rarely nail it first time, or even in the second or third version.

... but, but, but-- trying to give an example of part of what Phil is talking about. As a screenwriter, sometimes you want to keep the flow by saying:

"HUNDREDS OF BEWILDERED RURAL FACES coming down off the train."

Not:

"Hundreds of faces of farmers, laborers, and villagers from Eastern European countryside areas, their skin naturally textured by the wind and sun, without any modern skincare or makeup, come from the train.

Men have thick, unstyled beards or rough shaves; women wear traditional headscarves (babushkas) framing their faces, pulling attention entirely to their eyes.

Dusty skin, dark circles under the eyes, and dry lips from days spent in cramped, suffocating cattle cars"...

.. Shhhhhshhhprrrrshhe... huh, sorry, what? I fell asleep! Call me when you DO need this last description, I mean while shooting.

Nothing wrong by placing ANGRY in Parentheticals or other words that convey something to the characters emotions.

And once again, an incredibly sweeping dogmatic rule (one that's been beaten to death over and over) becomes rationalized into balance through discussion.

Which is exactly why these things should never be presented in such a reductive way in the first place.

Claude Gagne It actually helps for the actor, only if it's in parentheses

CJ Walley I get what you're saying, but I feel it's a case of show don't tell. If you write (as per OP's example) "Susan is angry" you're simply telling the reader and eventual actor how to feel. However, if you write "Susan scoffs and scowls" you're showing and letting the reader and eventual actor develop the feeling. It'll be subjective and probably not what you had in mind, but script reads and all of pre-production can hone all that so that those involved can be on the same page. Pun not intended.

Like I say, it's been done to death. The problem with these "rules" is that they are overly simplified, and then people follow them blindly.

Phil Clarke does an excellent job of breaking it all down.

"Susan broods while everyone continues joking" is perfectly fine writing.

"Susan grits her teeth and tightens her fist with a sharp gasp while her face turns red and her chest tightens up while everyone continues joking" is the long, clumsy, and, ironically, less clear way round.

However, if the story genuinely needs to focus on the visuals, you focus on them.

"Everyone continues joking, but John notices Susan clenching her jaw, the wine glass shaking in her hand."

Actors need direction, and sometimes the most effective direction is an unfilmable they can build on. They love stuff like that. It's a big part of their job.

Thanks, CJ Walley - I'm glad it did. And I second what CJ's said above. The second version of his Susan line appears unnecessarily overwritten. It suffers from what is sometimes referred to as marionetting. Redundant indications of face or body movements that feel more like a puppeteer positioning the character rather than naturally communicating an emotion.

I see lines such as "He brings his hand to his face.", "She tightens her fist." etc far too often in early writing (or from writers early on in their development), where they think they are accurately and clearly communicating emotion or mood, but in fact can have the reader confused as to the movement. It has too much focus.

"Send Help" is the screenplay for the movie "Send Help." It is a script and it is an example that counters your argument. You can and sometimes probably have to literally write what the emotion is on the page because some readers just don't get it when you write it in actions and/or subtext.