Screenwriting : Gerunds by Marcello Aurelio Lanfranchi

Here's a slightly different example. My original character description: Dressed in tee shirt and baggy shorts, FRANK CAIN (a handsome man of 24, slim but muscular) cruises down the road, bouncing his head to the beat of a HEAVY METAL SONG. It was suggested to me to change "bouncing" to "bounces." To me, that takes me out of the moment.

He's in his car (which was established earlier). It's kind of important to make it clear the type of guy he is. That's something that, while it could be left to the director, is sort of essential to the character. It would convey a whole different notion if the director chose disco music or classical, country, what have you. I guess that raises another question, when do you make it clear who your characters are? Yes, it's a collaborative process, but the end result should bear some resemblance to the creator's vision.

I also don't see how "moves" or "bobs" improves the description at all. They're synonyms for "bounces." I don't mean that as an attack on you. I'm just trying to understand Hollywood's apparent loathing or gerunds and participles. I totally get that "she is walking" is more cumbersome than "she walks," but as I mentioned before, "he sits" could mean that he's already seated or that he is standing and then takes a seat. I've yet to hear how leaving something to interpretation when you intend something in particular (that might be crucial later in the story, such as whether or not he is already seated or sits down). This also seems to be one of those things subject to endless debate. This is why I really want to hear from people whose job it is to pass or recommend scripts. But, Jacqueline, I really appreciate your input. Thank you.

That's what I've often read in discussions like this, that it's ultimately up to each individual reader's preferences -- even the mood they're in at the time they read your script. I guess I'm kind of irked that I can't write the way that is comfortable for me to read. Obviously, a screenwriter needs to cut out all the fat and only include salient info. (instead of flowery language), but participles just don't feel flowery or extraneous, and there are times when not using them feels stilted or repetitive. For instance, "Milicent walks into a room, sits. Picks up phone, dials. Hears a crash in the other room. Screams." That seems stilted and repetitive. It's also not necessarily accurate. "Milicent walks into a room and dials the phone as she sits" means she's dialing and taking her seat at the same time. Perhaps that's crucial to the plot. Likely not, but if not, the director still has the option to have her sit first and then begin dialing. Hell, he might have her pick up the phone, dial it, and do a kick dance. Again, not what the writer had in mind, but maybe that'll work better. The use of broken sentences in the above example would drive me crazy and most definitely take me out of the moment. At the same time I keep hearing/reading/being told that we should use phrases like "we hear," "we see," "she crosses," etc. To me, "the lights of a suburban city glimmer in the distance" seems like a waste of words when "we see the lights of a suburban city in the distance." I hope some professional readers weigh in on this.

And again, Jacqueline, I really do appreciate you for taking part in this discussion.

As a professional reader " bouncing his head" does not take me out of the moment. Nor does "bounces his head". There are more interesting ways to write, but I can't for the life of me figure how "bounces" could take you out of the moment. Poor writing takes me out of the moment - not the different between "bouncing" and "bounces". "Hollywood" does not loath gerunds and participles. The “is walking” verb is called present progressive. In fiction, it's used to indicate a secondary action continuing up until or while the main action - the sentence's primary verb - occurs. Mary is hiking and steps on a leprechaun. Mary is kneading bread when the phone rings. In a screenplay, you don't need present progressive verbs at all. Mary hikes, and she steps on a leprechaun. Mary kneads bread. The phone rings. I don't know why you feel you can't write the way that is comfortable for you to read. You can write in anyway that you like. It doesn't hurt you as a writer to understand how a screenplay is different than other forms of writing. But you can always write exactly as you want to write. As a reader I can tell you if your screenplay is better than excellent, if you have a truly high concept, if you have characters that top actors will want to play, if you have a screenplay that reads fast and clear "Hollywood" will not care about these things. People writing books might. People on websites and forums might. Screenwriting "gurus" might. But the reader looking for that better than excellent script to recommend to their boss will not.

"Hollywood" will not care about these things. People writing books might. People on websites and forums might. Screenwriting "gurus" might. But the reader looking for that better than excellent script to recommend to their boss will not. Rik, that may be the best response to this perennial debate I've heard yet. Yes, it is the so-called experts (gurus, how-to authors, and the like) who seem to beat that drum the loudest. Thank you. I think the reason my "bounce" example rubbed me the wrong way was because it wasn't a complete sentence. The people who'd advised me on that would have cautioned me against using "as he bounces" as well. "...cruises down the road, bounces his head to the beat..." just doesn't flow naturally when read. Not to me, at least. It puts me at ease to hear that readers are not necessarily wed to that level of minutiae. Thank you for weighing in.

Using "ing" is not passive. It is called present progressive. In fiction, it's used to indicate a secondary action continuing up until or while the main action - the sentence's primary verb - occurs. I'm not suggesting using it is correct in a screenplay - in general it is not. But using it does not mean a passive voice. Marcello, in screenplays a complete sentence is not as important as it is in a term paper. the screenplay is its own, specific animal with its own language. While your “bounce” example rubs your the wrong way it’s helpful to understand the reader, then the exec then the producer. They are accustom to the screenplays specific language and a new, unproduced writer has not earned the (something) to go in their own direction. In your example "bounces" is more standard than "bouncing". I’m not saying a script that uses “ing” will get tossed. And I’m not saying that not using it will push a screenplay forward. All that is, as you said, a level of minutiae best left to teachers, “howto” authors and experts on forums and websites. Readers do look for clear writing. If the screenplay is just excellent but does not rise above that, then not following the standard, expected “formula” could be a detriment to the overall reading experience. Read more screenplays. I’m sure you have read several hundred already - read 150 more. Because that what readers do. And not just from movies you like or even produced movies. Read scripts written by your peers - people who haven’t yet sold a screenplay. Get comfortable with the way a script is written. Sometimes writing a complete sentence isn’t the best way to write in a screenplay. Sometimes it’s better to stick with the way it’s done even though it doesn’t flow to you.

Well, this discussion hasn't given me a definitive answer, but every comment is certainly appreciated. I thank you all for your participation. Please keep it coming (other people are more than welcome to join in!).

I agree. There isn’t a definitive answer. There are many opinions.

But, Dan, there isn't, hence this discussion. I've seen so many opposing opinions about this. That's why I especially want to hear from professional readers. I also keep hearing about how the old rules are melting away, even that strictly adhering to conventions that were standard decades ago can work against you. And this all makes sense, as older people retire and people from a new generation take their places. Could it be that more and more younger readers prefer sentences that sound more natural? Obviously brevity is key, but I think that can be done using gerunds. After all, "ing" is only one letter more than "es." Obviously, once you're established, you can break as many rules as you want (well, within reason). Jacqueline, you provide a great example. I'd be interested to know how established Tarantino was before he submitted Reservoir Dogs, and to whom he gave it. Did he get it directly to Keitel?

Yeah, that's what I wanna know!

I tend to agree with lots of the above comments. One or two ing's aren't going to kill a script. But in my opinion if its littered with them it will. As said above, it's an art to itself where fragmented sentences rule and other things don't make sense. As with every other rule in script writing, don't overuse anything and you might just be okay. There are no guarantees with any of it. Most writers would love to see their own work, but as Dan said, it is mostly writer for hire stuff that gets you paid. And they want writers who already know and stick to most rules. Not one who has a great voice but breaks them all. And that's just my opinion, of course. Through my limited experiences. :)

I like that notion, that moderation is key. I guess I should make it clearer, I'm not referring to statements such as "he is talking on the phone" or "she is eating a meal." It makes sense to me that it would be "he drives," "she eats." My beef was with the notion that "he drives down the road, bouncing his head to the music" is significantly different than "he drives down the road, bounces his head to the music." The only diff is that the former is one sentence, and the latter is two, only separated with a comma--instead of a semicolon, which is what your English teacher would point out. Yes, I know this isn't an English class, but I find, in this instance, my way of writing it ("ing" instead of "ed") looks, sounds, feels better and only adds one letter.

I would tend to agree. :)

Words ending in "ing" it's all b.s.. Put in your "ings". It's OK. "Script consultants" and dopey readers -- who are taking your money use these gimmicks to keep you paying for their services. Aspiring screenwriters: stop getting caught up in this nonsense and just write a good screenplay -- with of course the proper formatting etc. Read a ton of produced screenplays and notice all the "ings". It's OK!

What we're all looking for is the leanest, cleanest and most engaging "read." Readers, whether they be paid studio readers or producers, prospective actors or directors are all looking to become engaged in the the story and anything that distracts them from that goal will distract them from the 'Recommend" or "Consider" you are seeking. The purpose of the spec script is the "read" and the script must flow unimpeded from scene to scene - image to image. These guys don't have the time for anything else. Once they've completed the read, they must feel as if they've seen the film. To this end, there are a number of suggestions made by the guys who actually do these reads in order to make their job less frustrating and more engaging: Avoid adverbs / Avoid parentheticals whenever you possibly can / Avoid words ending in “ly” = change “smiles smugly” to “smirks”, “briefly reads” to “scans”, “walks slowly” to “ambles” or “saunters” As McKee advises "Name the thing itself." / Avoid words ending in “ing” / Avoid passive verbs or helping verbs / Avoid “camera”, “angle on”, “cut to”, ’P.O.V.s” / Remove all “continueds” and “trys to” from your script / Avoid exclamation points! / Avoid “we see”, “we hear” = They are obvious and repetitive because that’s primarily all we can experience a film with – our eyes and ears. / Avoid long speeches / Avoid characters who talk to themselves / Avoid narration in scenes / Avoid “chit-chat” = meaningless dialogue. There are others, of course, but I believe it's a good idea to use them in order to get past the reader and closer to the sale.

James makes many valid points. -readers looking for leanest, cleanest and most engaging "read." -script must flow unimpeded from scene to scene -readers have a pile of screenplays to read and just don't have the time to labor through grammatical and formatting mistakes, etc However -- too many first time writers get caught up in all the DONT'S. Provided your screenplay is ENGAGING You the writer have a UNIQUE VOICE Your story is FRESH and ORIGINAL You adhere to basic story structure and screenplay formatting... Then an OCCASIONAL camera angle, exclamation point, CAP, etc --- provided it doesn't distract the reader but puts emphasis on your story within the correct context, is OK. The key is for your story to flow so as James points out, the reader should feel as if they've just watched a great movie.

Chuck's is the best response yet, IMNSHO. Thank you. And James' list of avoids is great. Avoid doesn't mean never use, and I think I have a good sense about when to and not to. I also agree that finding less wordy descriptions is usually the best choice. I feel pretty confident that I do that, but it's helpful to reread my work hints and tips like this in mind. Thank you, all!

I like Rik Carter's response as well. Very practical. Screenwriters: I'm hooked on this podcast. PRODUCED screenwriter's John August and Craig Mazin cover this topic and a host of other screenwriting topics. Smart, honest and informative. You'll never need to pay another "script consultant" again! http://johnaugust.com/podcast

I'm so gonna check that out. Thanks!

Ha, it's funny that you point out the gender thing, because I took all those out last night (on my 574th revision; well, maybe not quite that many). I realized that, unless the name is ambiguous, the reader can assume Frank is a man. Officer Hardwick is described as tall, broad-built, resembles a linebacker, so it seems obvious we're not describing a female linebacker. As for the description of clothing, I do think that it is essential to establish the type of person they are. Maybe it's just my background in fashion, but I believe a lot can be assessed about a person by their outward appearance, how they present themselves. As for the ALL CAPS, I assume you're referring to doing that the first time a new character is introduced? You're the only person who has ever said that. I've been advised by innumerable people that you always do that. Again, I think that would take me out of the moment. It makes sense to me to do that for a new character, but I find it jarring when I see all caps for sound effects and the like. Most of your other tips I find really helpful, some of which I hadn't thought of before. Thank you!

Avoid "is" like the plague. It's like very, really, truly, and so forth. Also try to avoid "sits." LOL No really. If you have an interesting verb, the tense is usually immaterial. "Julio, slumped at the bar, [does what]"...

The definitive answer is: use your search function and get rid of every "is" in your script! Also, you bounce a ball, you don't bounce your head (unless it's a horror movie). "Walks down the street bouncing his head" conjures a horrible image :))) YIKES!

Dan, yes, helpful. I reread and see that you were referring to sound. Good. As I mentioned, that always bugged me, whereas All caps for a new character makes sense. I really appreciate all of you for your respectful posts. I can't always say that about threads on this site. Thank you.

Jacqueline, just because I have a background in fashion doesn't mean I dress fashionably. Ha! You should see what I'm wearing now. And my hair is a mess!

Funny thing is, Julio, that I don't even have a character named Julio! It always bugs me when people use John or Mary or some other common Euro-centric name in examples, so I always try to be a bit more diverse (like my cast of characters).

Can't follow your advice, Julia. At least not an auto-replace or "is" with nothing. That'll screw up all the dialogue. But I get your point.

Boy, I did a crappy job conveying my facetiousness. I should have used a ;-) Obviously dialogue is written the way each character speaks. I was referring to globally deleting each "is." And, as with any other guideline, there are times when the use of "is" (or an adverb or gerund or anything else) is appropriate. I'm not speaking specifically to you, Dan. I know you get this stuff. But I think these are all good points that people following this conversation should know.

Thanks, Marcello. I was only talking about the description / action, not the dialogue. People talk with is and gerunds. As for rules, it's not about rules. It's about good, concise writing. I have a copy of LINCOLN. I'll check is and see how many times Kushner uses "is." OOPS. He uses "is." Okay, I give up. "Is" is all over the place. Clean, simple. There are no rules. :-)

Yeah, of course there are no rules for dialogue, other than spelling and punctuation. Characters should speak as they speak, and each should have their own "voice," but we all know that--well, most of us here do, I assume. All of this is great advice, and I've been going through, finding ways to make my sentences leaner. I'd originally written this as a novel, so I've already eliminated all the flowery prose. But I'm finding other ways to streamline.

Actually, when I originally adapted it, I made the action more direct, but I know that the shooting time roughly correlates with the length of the script (one page = one minute). So, in some cases, I was specifically drawing out the description to account for the fact that a scene should take more time. Should that just be done using added lines? For instance: Gianni walks to bookcase, grabs very large, dusty novel. Sits at his desk, opens book. He moves his lips as he reads. Turns page. Yawns, looks at clock on wall: 1 am. Returns focus to book. Eyes droop, suppresses another yawn, turns page. Times passes, lips move, his pace slows. Head falls forward, inch by inch. Head pops back up, eyes open wide. Head descends again, one hand falls to knee. Drops book, slouches in chair, unconscious. Okay, not the best off-the-cuff example, but you probably get my drift. If that scene is supposed to last say, an entire minute (and, for some reason, that's essential to the story), how else would we describe it so as to keep the script length true(ish) to shooting time?

@Marcello one of the things I try to pay attention to is the thin lines between these three things.... 1. telling the story effectively so it's entertaining visually as you read it 2. Allow the actor to act instead of dictating every movement with writing...which means creating effective characters...so whether they are standing or sitting in a moment is obsolete and the moment when it really matters their name and "sits" just works because the scene and the character are already established 3. I don't use "is" or "ing" or "are" in scripting because it's present tense in the moment action happening unlike when I'm writing a novel ...I use to question that a lot mentally when I first started writing scripts, but not using it in script writing just became the way I talked as a screenwriter and it began to make sense not only to me but to people who would read my spec scripts. ...but what was said about no real rules is true depending on who you're writing for, but if you are going to pass it around, may as well stick with the flow that's expected by the "standards"...On some level for me I just like to know I'm making it a good easy read that makes them want to read all the way to the last page and too much dictating the movement of the actors doesn't make for a good read especially not to the actors themselves who want to "act". I hope this is helpful... oh and...make sure those first 10 pages make it hard to put that script down...(also please excuse any errors in spelling or grammar here as well...it's 2am)

Thank you for that. All of this is helping me refine my script. As for the first ten pages, I'm really confident in them, Well, the whole thing, really. But the first ten really do a good job of blending tense action and light comedy, in my opinion. I've heard that from others too. I've paid for coverage twice, and both readers gave me some really good advice or pointed out flaws and weak spots. Both also questioned some plot points (each reader questioned different things) that made me wonder if they'd actually read the whole thing. I just took the advice on things that made me think, "aha" left behind the comments on issues that made me wonder, "WTF?".

Karen, I like what you wrote and agree. You put it much more diplomatically than I did. Great advice!

Thanks, Dan. You're right. It is a production script, obviously transcribed after the film was made. Didn't think of that... :)