One of the biggest traps writers fall into, new writers especially, is writing scenes with just two people sitting, or standing, and talking their way through large chunks of exposition. In other words stagnant scenes. They are not visually appealing, slow and heavy to watch, and in most cases very boring. So how do you make scenes like these more visually interesting?
Here's a scene from an earlier draft of a TV detective drama pilot of mine.
EXT. CANAL - NIGHT
Dan and Gary stand by the canal and check out a warehouse on the opposite bank.
GARY
Malcolm Price is a serious villain. It’s rumoured he was in on the Brink's-Mat robbery. He wasn’t even fingered by the police because the others were too scared to give him up. The police have been trying to put him away for years without success. How well do you know this Mick?
DAN
Pretty well. We grew up together.
GARY
Malcolm Price has managed to stay out of the law’s reach this long for one reason only. He’s the kind of person to take action, not bother with questions. If he thinks someone is looking too closely into his affairs they tend to disappear. If I start looking for Mick it’s going to draw unwanted attention. However, if an old friend decides to look him up?
DAN
Malcolm Price is less likely to take an interest.
GARY
Or something like that.
DAN
So why are we here?
GARY
About a year ago I was working for a local business man whose partner emptied the business account and did a runner. He let slip he’d had dealings with Malcolm Price and had bought the warehouse in front of us on his instruction. Malcolm Price owns it even if the official paper work says otherwise. It might be nothing but it’s a start. You’re going to keep an eye on it until the morning to see what you can learn.
DAN
And you?
GARY
I’m going home for dinner with my family.
Gary saunters off smiling to himself. A long night awaits Dan.
Not very dynamic, is it? It will certainly be dull to watch. Here's how I made it more visually appealing in a later draft.
EXT. CANAL - NIGHT
Dan and Gary walk along by the canal, check out the rear of a warehouse behind the wall.
GARY
Malcolm Price is a serious villain. It’s rumoured he was in on the Brink's-Mat robbery. We couldn’t finger him for it because others were too scared to give him up. How well do you know this Mick?
DAN
Pretty well. We grew up together.
Gary jumps, clings onto the top of the wall and pulls himself up until he can see over. He has a good look around at the back of the warehouse, then drops to the floor again. They continue walking.
GARY
Malcolm Price has managed to stay out of reach this long for one reason only. He’s the kind of person to take action, not bother with questions... And he covers his tracks well. If I can find out what he’s up to and let the boys at the station know, maybe they can finally lock him up for good. I’m going to need help though. If I start looking closely into his affairs it’s going to draw unwanted attention. However, if an ex-con decides to look up an old friend..?
DAN
Malcolm Price is less likely to take an interest.
GARY
Or something like that.
DAN
So why are we here?
At the other end of the warehouse Gary jumps up at the wall again and peeks over. Seconds later he drops to the floor.
GARY
About a year ago I was working for a local business man whose partner emptied the business account and did a runner. He let slip he’d had dealings with Malcolm Price and had bought the warehouse on his instruction. Malcolm Price owns it, even if the official paper work says otherwise. You’re going to provide that help I mentioned by keeping an eye on the warehouse for the next twenty-four hours, logging the comings and goings.
DAN
And you?
GARY
I’m going home for dinner with my family.
Gary saunters off, smiles to himself. Dan glances up at the warehouse.
So much better, isn't it? With just a couple of extra lines of action the scene instantly becomes less stagnant and more dynamic.
Think how you can make each and every scene more visual, more appealing to the viewer, more dynamic and interesting. Your character doesn't have to do anything big, indeed they can be doing something as simple as trying to find the right channel on the TV, checking the oil level in their car, picking up their dog's poo while out on a walk, just something to ensure two characters aren't just stood there stock still talking for one or two pages.
7 comments:
Disagree. Though static scene description does not help, the principal cause of stagnant scenes IMHO is too much dialogue. Admittedly I only skimmed your script excerpts there, but I'd still be willing to bet real money you could could cut that dialogue in half and it'd do the same job, simply based on my experience of the spec pile - "too much dialogue" is a real issue.
Thanks Dominic. I've posted a link to it on Scottish Screenwriters' website www.scottishscreenwriters.ning.com - hope that's okay.
Helenodlerbutwiser: Yeah that's fine :-)
Lucy V: Of course "too much dialogue" is a real issue and should be addressed also. But I really hate reading scenes with nothing going other than characters sitting, or standing, while talking. It might as well be a radio play if there's nothing interesting to see.
My point was, it's the amount of dialogue that's impacting on the scene description and thus making it duller. If a screenwriter forces him'/herself to lose dialogue, suddenly their characters *have* to DO far more. Problem solved.
All elements of screenwriting are a symbiotic relationship, sure, but dialogue has the upper hand in too many spec scripts. Take that upper hand away and it's a whole different ballgame - suddenly it's all about action.
More on this from 2010:
http://www.bang2write.com/2010/05/screenplay-tips-1-static-scenes.html
Follow up post on the blog next week, seems like a good time to revisit. Cheers Dom!
Hi Dom,
Great post, just catching up on your blog! Your example is great but I think Lucy nails it in her post where she talks about giving the characters an emotional/story angle in the scene to pull it away from being static, rather than just adding action.
I'd also add that because of this context is everything and the answer may not lie in the scene you're trying to fix - it's probably to be found in something you've set up earlier.
For example, in your scene, what if we knew that Gary is actually working for Malcolm Price? Suddenly instead of just a conversation between two men, we're wondering what Gary's up to? Will Dan work it out? Is Gary going to kill him? Etc. There's more at stake without changing anything in the scene at all. Then every action you add becomes charged - why's he jumping up on that wall? Is he preparing for someone to come out of the bushes and push Dan in the canal? I'm being hugely vague and general of course as I don't know anything about the rest of the script but you get the idea.
Two examples from Hollywood of dialogue-heavy scenes which require hardly any action (and one of them is almost all exposition!)
1.) Raiders of the Lost Ark - the scene in which the Army/CIA men come to brief Indy and Brodie about the Ark. It's about five minutes of very expository chat, of the kind that I must confess I would have big questions about as a script editor. But it's done brilliantly, and reveals important things about character - that Indy doesn't believe in "the power of god" and other mumbo-jumo bullshit. His journey, of course, is towards finally restoring/finding his faith in something other than himself, which will ultimately save his and Marion's life. John August and Craig Mazin's podcast has a great discussion of it here: http://johnaugust.com/2013/raiders-of-the-lost-ark
2.) The cafe scene in Heat. It's five or so minutes, a two-hander, across a table in a cafe. Neither character does anything other than talk. Admittedly it's Pacino and De Niro, but the intensity of the scene comes from the story - that in the midst of normalcy these two men are having an existential discussion over coffee, a discussion that culminates in mutual assurances of one another's destruction. Bloody hell! It's that incredible juxtaposition, set up by what we've seen in the film so far, that drives it. And of course the scene itself sets up the finale.
Here's a PDF of the scene https://dl.dropbox.com/u/25904046/Heat%20cafe%20scene.pdf
There are loads more examples outside Hollywood of course - the scene with Michael Fassbender and Liam Cunningham in Hunger springs to mind.
In general I think the instinct to cut dialogue, to rely on action and visuals, is a good one, and one many first specs would do well to engage with. However as with many techniques it's not a panacea, and dialogue can be as effective as action in preventing "staticness" in the right context.
Anyway, that's my two cents. Is that lunch over? Feel free to tell me I'm talking rubbish!
Hope you're well.
D
Nope, you're not talking rubbish at all. Those are some very valid points :-)
Post a Comment