QandA

Ordinarily, the scripts I tend to write are by nature
shooting scripts. In all probability its due to the fact that I know that
I’m going to be the one
directing them, so they’re very "CUT TO" and "FADE TO" heavy.
However, I’ve recently been entertaining the idea of entering a few in screenwriting
contests and most of the feedback I’ve received from peers has been that shooting
scripts are often dismissed as being "unprofessional."
Have you found this to be the case? If so, what sorts of things need to be
avoided and why?

–Richard

It’s truly a matter of personal style. I’ll explain how I approach it, but
you should know that there is not one right answer.

I use "CUT TO:" when it’s meant to be an especially blunt transition.
The classic and bad example is when a character says, "I will never, ever
get on a train." CUT TO: He’s on a train. (This is a situation where some
writers use, "SMASH CUT TO:", but that’s always seemed tacky to me,
like a cymbal crash.)

CUT TO: is also helpful when you’re finishing up a series of short scenes in one location, and then need to make it clear to the reader that you’re jumping
to a new place and time.

Overuse of fades can feel like the writer is trying to "direct from the
page," generally a no-no. One or two in a script won’t raise any hackles.
Fifteen will. So be judicious.

Is it possible to put to rest the largest writing controversy
(next to the appropriate number of brads), CAMERA ANGLES?
There are a lot of people who say camera angles don’t belong
in a spec. [But] if you read scripts written by the writers who do sell, they
nearly ALWAYS have camera angles.
What I see all over the net is a large subculture of new
writers excluding camera angles and not selling, while those who have advised
them to take this route ARE using them and selling. One professional writer
who
suggests they be used goes as far as to say that these other pros suggesting
they not be used are doing so to deliberately misguide the younger writers
positioned to take their jobs.

–ZD

You’re uncovered a vast screenwriting conspiracy, ZD. William Goldman and
his crack team of Writer’s Guild assassins will be visiting you shortly.

You actually make a very good point. Most of the classic screenwriting books
and instructors will tell you to never use camera angles, because it hurts
the readability and angers the director. While they have a point, I’d caution
you to be suspicious of anyone who lays down hard-and-fast rules.

Speaking as a member of the pro-angle faction, I’ll make the case that reading
a screenplay should give you the sense of watching the movie. Since camera
position is a crucial element in the cinematic experience, there are times
when it’s appropriate to mention it, just as it can be necessary to point out
costuming, or music, or effects in order to let the reader know what’s what.

That said, I almost never use the words "camera" or "angle" in
my scripts, because I think those words do tend to disrupt the flow. Rather
than write —

ANGLE ON: The truck SLAMS into the gunman.
— I’m more likely to write —

THE TRUCK

SLAMS into the gunman.
— which uses a slugline to indicate that this a new and important shot.

Along the same line, rather than say, "The CAMERA CRANES UP over the field," I
would say, "we RISE OVER the field." Since the camera is the audience’s
eyes, using "we" or "our" makes sense to me.

But I’m not the last word on the subject, nor can it ever really be put to
rest. Although none have said it to my face, some of the directors I’ve worked
with probably hate the way I move the camera on the page and wish I would stop
doing it.

Ultimately, writers have different styles that work for them, and my best
advice is find an approach that suits your taste and the material. There are
no absolute rules.

Except that the appropriate number of brads is always two.