Question about Action Descriptions

[lrutledge]

I understand the comment that to properly write the action descriptions in a screenplay, it is best to visualize the movie playing in your mind and then write what you see. However, even when I do that I struggle over deciding how much, or how little, to describe. How do you usually decide how much description is right?

For example, let's say I have a scene where a 17-year old shepherd is taking care of his uncle's sheep in a field and there is a breeze blowing and one of the sheep gets bit by a rattlesnake.

I could write it is simple as:

EXT. FIELD - DAY

Sheep graze in a field. Dogs lay around the perimeter watching. JOHN DOE (17) leans against a tree keeping an eye on the sheep.

One sheep wanders away from the pack. A rattlesnake bites the sheep on the leg. John's attention is drawn to the sheep as one of the dogs begins to bark at the snake.


or, I could write something like:

EXT. FIELD - DAY

A large field expands across rolling hills and disappers far into the distance. The grass in the field bows as a slight breeze pushes it down.

In the middle of the field is a large pack of grazing sheep. Several herding dogs, with their ears perked listening for anything out of the ordinary, lay around the permiter of the herd. Nearby, leaning against a tree, is JOHN DOE (17), tall and good looking, could pass for a California surfer.

There is little sound other than the breeze blowing through the grasses and an occasional bleet from one of the sheep.


EXT. HERD OF SHEEP - LATER

One of the sheep, a little separate from the rest of the herd, suddenly bleats loudly. The dogs stand quickly and rush to the crying sheep and begin to bark loudly. The noise attracts John's attention and he hurries over to discover a rattlesnake near a bleeding leg of the sheep.


Etc., Etc., Etc.

Obviously there are many other ways to write this as well, but I hope I explained what I am after. I am not looking for a hard and fast rule, but rather just some ideas/guidelines based on your own thought processes when deciding how much/little to write in an action.

Thanks,
Larry

[Deus Ex Machine]

Read as many scripts as you can. Develop a sense of how much or little is needed to translate into the images you see in your head into words on paper.

You might find this article helpful.

Rhetoric of Action by Charles Deemer (http://home.earthlink.net/~scribbler/action.html)

[Winter in New York]

One thing I hate on DD is when somebody (such as your good self) offers up some sample screenwriting to help explain a question. And - instead of answering the question - certain folks take it upon themselves to RE-WRITE what you've done.

When I see that in threads I feel like shouting: 'F*ck off!!! - He didn't ask for you to edit or re-write his work, he asked a damn question!!!'. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...

So...I'm getting in early in the thread in the hope that nobody insults you / or your writing by re-writing what you've done! Because - as you rightly say - there are a million ways to write something.

On your actual question:

A screenplay is written to be filmed. BUT before it's filmed it has to be READ. And the more imaginative / evocative your stage direction (so long as one doesn't indulge or go on too long etc) the BETTER THE READ. The better the read, the more likely it'll get bought / made / etc.

QED.

This is a taste thing. But for my money, screenwriting is NOT journalism. So short, crisp sentences such as 'sheep graze in a field. A shepherd watches the sheep. A rattlesnake bites a sheep' is not the way to engage the reader.

Just my 2 cents...

Winter in New York

[pantalone]

For myself, when writing action, I try and put the writing into the pacing I expect from the scene. I want a rhythm. I think of this as directing from within the story. A sort of POV writing.

F'rinstance <Bob punches Zack on the nose> is shorter than <Bob shuffles his feet, fakes with a left and lands a looping over-hand right on Zacks nose> I'd use them for different effects within the telling of the story.

Another tack is to put two concepts in a single sentence, but to have that sentence hinge on a reversal. Where one side is winning at the beginning, only to lose it and have the momentum shift.

Sure, I know, leave fight choreography to the fight guys. But it's fun to write, and, as this is a spec, there isn't a choreographer.

[noh1]

Well, your second example is closer to what I would think would work best.

It's got more imagery behind it. Conveys the scene in a much more personal way.

Sure, it plays in YOUR head, but you gotta make it play in THEIRS.

[lrutledge]

Deus - Thanks for the link, that is a GREAT article. It really helped me a lot and I have bookmarked it so I can read it again later.

Winter - I have to agree with you on several points, it often frustrates me too when the response to a question is a rewrite of the sample provided. I also agree that my first sample was a little too short, at least for the type of scene I wrote. In some ways I purposely exaggerated the shortness of the lines on purpose to explain my self as clearly as possible. Thanks again for the input, it is very helpful.

pantalone - That makes complete sense, setting the rhythm with the writing style. That also fits well with the hundreds of scripts I've read which have such a varied style of writing - the well written scripts seem to follow this convention of letting the description drive the pace of the story.

I appreciate all the comments they have all been very helpful and now I think I will quit procrastinating and start writing ;)

One last question, however; what is your take on my second version of the scene? Does it read well, for the type of scene it is? Is it at least on the right track, even if a bit wordy?

Thanks again,
Larry

[TwoBrad Bradley]

Describe just enough to move the story forward.

Set designers know what a field of sheep looks like. They don't need to be told about "rolling hills", "disappears far into the distance" and "grass bows in a slight breeze".

[wcmartell]

Neither version.

You want the word count of the first version, but you want to make it as exciting and emotional as possible. *Use* the words. If you were to see *either* version on screen, you'd probably fall alseep.

First: get rid of any *still life* sentences. They're moving pictures. If something isn't moving in the sentence, get rid of the sentence.

Second: get us in there. If the dogs are the first on the scene, look at the scene from their POV - as the snake attacks them. Now we have *stakes* in the scene: we want the dog to live.

Just as we don't want a *visually static* scene (still life), we also don't want an *emotionally static scene*.

Excite us. Involve us. Make us feel with every sentence.

- Bill

[lrutledge]

Bill - Thank you for this response, it has been a huge help. For some reason, I have really been struggling with the right way to describe scenes, particularly when you first enter a scene. I have been "reading" a lot of screenplays, but I think I need to really start "studying" a lot of screenplays.

I also just finished reading two novels before writing the pages that triggered this thread, so perhaps that had something to do with why this and the resulting pages in "Script Pages" were so full of unnecessary prose.

Thanks again for all the help,
Larry

[crafty818]

To: Deus Ex- on one of your replies you left a link for an article by Charles Deemer called 'the Rhetoric of Action.' I would love to read this piece but the link is broken now. Any idea where else I may find this article? Thanks in advance

[pantalone]

try this:

www.google.com./search?hl...gle+Search (http://www.google.com./search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=Rhetoric+of+Action+by+Charles+Deemer&btnG=Google+Search)

[lrutledge]

Crafty- Here, I did a search and found the article at this location:

www.writingonspec.com/rhetoric_of_action.htm (http://www.writingonspec.com/rhetoric_of_action.htm)

- Larry