Scene to Scene

[Chachee]

Hi again. I've just read in a thread on recommended books for new screenwriter's and I will purchase them ASAP. But until I do, I have another question.

When you have a character in one room, say a hallway, who does something like look at a photograph on the wall, and then walks into the kitchen down the hall, would the kitchen scene be a brand new scene?

Since I am writing this script with no intentions to direct it myself, and only have hopes to market and sell it, I'm not always sure about how I should follow/write a character who moves from one room to another. Feels choppy to write a new slug line when following a character through their house.

Any thoughts?
Chachee

[Kelsey]

I*m only answering as an attempt to better understand myself; please wait to for someone else to verify whether my anser is correct or not before using it. This is something I stumble over a bit as well.

I think you would do something like:

INT. AVA'S HOUSE - HALLWAY - NIGHT

Ava stumbles down the hall, still not quite awake. She stops in the middle of the hallway to look at the pictures on the wall before moving into the

KITCHEN

She opens the refridgerator.


I don't know, there are probably a few mistakes...this isn*t something I*ve been using a lot lately.

[Charli]

INT: HALLWAY -- DAY

Mark ambles down the long hallway. He stops for a moment, looks at the

PORTRAIT OF HIS YOUNGER SELF

on the wall. He straightens the frame, walks

INTO THE KITCHEN

heads straight for the pizza box on the counter.

****

If the picture is important to show as a frame in the story, then minislug it,
otherwise don't highlight it and move on into the next room. Read
Screenwriting Bible for rules on formatting.

Charli

[scripter1]

Yes it is all one scene.

This scenerio would be a very, very small sequence.

A real scene change is when the idea/plot point being presented changes.

You can shift through a multitude of locations but remain in the same scene going through sequences of actions, like a car chase.

I'll hunt for the link to the thread about scene changes we had several months back.

Choppy or not you have to highlight the location change. If anything has to be moved it's got to be marked.
The best thing to do is to NOT change rooms in one location that much if you can.
If you've got three, four or more mini slugs on one page the scripts going to look weird and the set designers/tech crew will be pulling out their hair trying to plan how to move all the gear.

If cool stuff happens in each new room then it is worth it.
I'm not sure that eating pizza, brushing teeth, getting dressed, kicking toys out of the hallway, tucking kids into bed, then checking something in the garage would be worth it.
ALL these things would happen in a new local but are they VITAL to the actual story? Most likely not.

You don't want to remain stuck in one place either for the entire story, that gets really boring. The human eye needs to see a change of scenery from time to time.

Take a serious hard look at your story and see if these kinds of changes are mandatory for the story or can you write the scene better while staying in one spot?
Why can't the picture be in the bedroom? Or the scene take place in the hallway? Or maybe it's a tiny all in one apt or bungalow with a mini fridge?
And just how important is it that we see him/her eating pizza in the kitchen?
Can't they eat and look at the same time?

(for a really interesting first hand account about films that take place in one location but move from room to room check out Bill's film log over at scriptsecrets. I'll post the link once I find it.)

well, for some reason I can't find a link to Bill's on location adventure but it's a great story. It's located in the cafe section, about four or five threads down.

The thread about what makes a scene change was on the old boards and I can't find it.

[Ravenlocks]

A "scene" in the story sense may still involve several location changes requiring sluglines.

[altoption]

Here's a master scene version. Meaning no mini-slugs.


INT. PIETRO'S HOUSE - NIGHT

PIETRO sashays down the hall, still dripping wet from the shower, a towel draped around his waist. He stops to admire a portrait of himself on the wall. Water pools by his bare feet on the hardwood floor.

PIETRO
Kid, you've still got it!

He heads into the kitchen, flicks on the light. It's a kitchen to die for, glistening white. On the counter, Tillie, the cat, has her snout buried in his dinner.

PIETRO
Tillie, no!

Pietro takes one step, slips. Feet fly up. Head hits floor. Pietro lies there, motionless on the gleaming tile floor. From her perch on the counter, Tillie glances down at him.

TILLIE
Fvcking idiot.

Then, she resumes her feast.

[TwoBrad Bradley]

When did definition of a scene change to include more than one location?

Did someone misinterpret the “beginning-middle-end” thing? Did some “expert” feel that if it’s impossible to accomplish this in one location (scene) the solution is it’s now okay to do it over many locations (scenes)?

It must be written down somewhere. I would like to see where you get this stuff from.

[altoption]

When did definition of a scene change to include more than one location?

Did someone misinterpret the “beginning-middle-end” thing? Did some “expert” feel that if it’s impossible to accomplish this in one location (scene) the solution is it’s now okay to do it over many locations (scenes)?

It must be written down somewhere. I would like to see where you get this stuff from.

I'm not big on rules, but...

The scene takes place in one location: PIETRO'S HOUSE. It's continuous. A guy walks from his hallway into the kitchen. It's one scene in one location. Sure, feel free to break it up. I like the simplicity of one slug.

You got a problem with that?

[TwoBrad Bradley]

altoption, I was referring to having more than one Scene Heading (SLUG) and calling it a single scene.

But, about your example:

I can see the “beginning-middle-end” of the kitchen part.

Pietro doesn’t want Tillie to eat.
He makes a move to stop the cat.
He fails.

What does the hall have to do with the scene?

[TwoBrad Bradley]

Consider a simple chase (action bulleted just for example purposes):

EXT. RESIDENTIAL STREET – DAY

- occupant in blue car tries to shoot out the tires of red car.
- fails

EXT. DOWNTOWN STREET – DAY

- blue car tries to run red car off the street
- red car is forced onto the crowded sidewalk but manages to get back on the street.

EXT. FACTORY STREET – DAY

- blue car tries repeatedly to get in front of red car
- succeeds but red car turns the other way.

EXT. COUNTRY ROAD – DAY

- blue car smashes into rear of red car.
- blue car loses control and flips upside down.

Each scene can not be considered a chase SCENE. It’s just a little scene (each with a beginning, middle and end) about someone trying to shoot out somebody’s tires, etc.
When you string all these separate SCENES together it becomes a chase SEQUENCE.

[altoption]

Brad - I don't think I understood your first post. And I don't understand what you're asking me now. Are you arguing that the scene example I gave is incorrect, meaning you can't write it with only one slugline?

From the original post:
Feels choppy to write a new slug line when following a character through their house.


The Pietro scene is an example of an unchoppy way of following a character through their house. That's the only purpose of the scene.

[TwoBrad Bradley]

The benefit of a MINISLUG is you don’t need to write out the complete Scene Heading and it is an indication of separate locations within one master location.

They are still separate scenes. They still need a beginning, middle and end. I’m suggesting that the read may appear choppy because the “scene” fails to be a scene.

[altoption]

INT. ALTOP'S HOUSE - DAY

Altop sits at his desk reading Brad's last post on his computer. Suddenly Altop jumps up, runs down the stairs, down the hall, through the study, the library, the trophy room, across the master bedroom and into the safe room, where he proceeds to quadruple-bolt the steel door.

ALTOP
DYEEAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!

[Chachee]

Altoption,

If correct, your example works great for me. My other question would be, I have two characters, a daughter and father, who live in the same house (because she's a kid), and who will have their own scenes in the house, at different times throughout the script.

If they are alone and have a scene which takes place in the house, should I begin my slug lines with:

INT. PETERSON (their last name) HOUSE - NIGHT (for example), or should I use their first names, since this is how we will know them in the story, like:

INT. JACK'S HOUSE - NIGHT or

INT. CASSIE'S HOUSE - NIGHT

I don't want to confuse or give the impression that they are in two different houses, because they're not.

Muchos Gracias
Chachee

[Charli]

If you start out in the hallway, but end up in the kitchen, you must get
the cameras to move with you. It's your job as the writer to show the
director where the action takes place.

So when you head into the kitchen it must be stated as:

INT: KITCHEN -- CONTINUOUS

or

INTO THE KITCHEN

Yes, same house, but just different places within the house.

Charli

[altoption]

Charli,
I see that you're an administrator, but I've got to disagree.

There's nothing wrong with this example:

INT. HOUSE - DAY

Bob walks down the hall and into the kitchen. He opens the fridge and grabs a beer.

[refriedwhiskey]

When did definition of a scene change to include more than one location?
Never. It's always included more than one location if you use "scene" to mean a unit of story as opposed to a unit of the actual words on the page of a screenplay.

This has been discussed before. The dictionary definition of "scene" includes "a shot or series of shots in a movie constituting a unit of continuous related action," and "a real or fictitious episode, especially when described."

Neither of those definitions limits the meaning of "scene" to one location.

So you're right; it is written down somewhere. It's in your dictionary.

[TwoBrad Bradley]

I’m getting the same dictionary definition:
The place in which the action of a play, movie, novel, or other narrative occurs; a setting.
- A subdivision of an act in a dramatic presentation in which the setting is fixed.
- A shot or series of shots in a movie constituting a unit of continuous related action.


“A shot or series of shots.” That’s what a scene is made of - in a fixed setting - a single location.
A series of SCENES in a movie constituting a unit of continuous related action is a SEQUENCE.
So, I still get the feeling it’s a misinterpretation of what "continuous related action" means.

[refriedwhiskey]

That’s what a scene is made of - in a fixed setting - a single location.
Not according to the dictionary definitions you left out -- and the last one you included.

Can you not agree that "scene," like many other words in the English language, can have more than one meaning, depending on context?

Can you see that the dictionary definition that most specifically references movies -- the one we both quoted -- doesn't say anything about being limited to one location?

In fact, I'll argue that the phrase "series of shots" in that definition implies a scene CAN have more than one location.

I think you're confusing the slug lines on the page of a screenplay with actual scenes. But a slugline isn't a scene. An entire scene CAN appear under a single slug line -- but it can also encompass several slug lines and several locations.

I gave an example like this the last time this misconception came up, but I'll do it again. This time, from The Last Samurai, which I just grabbed and flipped through:

EXT. TOKYO -- STREET - NIGHT

Later that night.

Algren and Gant, a little drunk by now, wander Tokyo's bustling red light district. Like Amsterdam, the geishas sit in windows facing the street.

That's all that appears under that slug line. The very next slug line is in a different setting, a geisha house.

I don't believe the example in bold above is a scene. It's a shot. It does very little in terms of storytelling. It establishes the time of night and the characters' states of mind, and that's it.

Along with the action in the next location described by the next slugline, the geisha house, it's part of a scene that shows Algren realizing how much he has to learn about Japan and how to get along in this strange country.

But Algren and Gant walking down the street -- not saying anything, not doing anything but walking -- I don't think the mere fact that it's set apart under its own slugline qualifies it as a scene.

[refriedwhiskey]

That’s what a scene is made of - in a fixed setting - a single location.
Not according to the dictionary definitions you left out -- and the last one you included.

Can you not agree that "scene," like many other words in the English language, can have more than one meaning, depending on context?

Can you see that the dictionary definition that most specifically references movies -- the one we both quoted -- doesn't say anything about being limited to one location?

In fact, I'll argue that the phrase "series of shots" in that definition implies a scene CAN have more than one location.

I think you're confusing the slug lines on the page of a screenplay with actual scenes. But a slugline isn't a scene. An entire scene CAN appear under a single slug line -- but it can also encompass several slug lines and several locations.

I gave an example like this the last time this misconception came up, but I'll do it again. This time, from The Last Samurai, which I just grabbed and flipped through:

EXT. TOKYO -- STREET - NIGHT

Later that night.

Algren and Gant, a little drunk by now, wander Tokyo's bustling red light district. Like Amsterdam, the geishas sit in windows facing the street.

That's all that appears under that slug line. The very next slug line is in a different setting, a geisha house.

I don't believe the example in bold above is a scene. It's a shot. It does very little in terms of storytelling. It establishes the time of night and the characters' states of mind, and that's it. It's an establishing shot. It's not a scene.

Along with the action in the next location described by the next slugline, the geisha house, it's part of a scene that shows Algren realizing how much he has to learn about Japan and how to get along in this strange country.

But Algren and Gant walking down the street -- not saying anything, not doing anything but walking -- I don't think the mere fact that it's set apart under its own slugline qualifies it as a scene.

[refriedwhiskey]

Another example that might help illustrate what I mean even further is a telephone conversaton between two characters.

You've got two characters in two different locations. Each time you change locations, you have a new slug line. Is each location change a new scene? Of course not. It's a new shot, yes, requiring a new slug line. But it's not a new scene.

And if one of the two characters is on a cell phone, talking to the other while getting ready for work, getting into the car, driving to the nearby mini mall and going into Starbuck's, you've got one conversation taking place in four or five locations.

But they're all one scene. The entire series of shots depicting the phone conversation -- however many locations they're set in and slug lines they require -- is all one scene.

[TwoBrad Bradley]

Semantics aside, we disagree on the construction and purpose of that “unit” of a screenplay headed by a SLUG (Scene Heading) … when they’re in a series forming a continuous related action … in a spec screenplay.

I say this “unit” … no matter how big … whether a part of a series or not … must be built on conflict. It doesn’t have to be major conflict, but something. A series would then be a group of smaller individual “units” when strung together form a "larger" continuous related action.

It’s the “beginning, middle, end” thing. A character wants something, attempts to get it, succeeds or fails.

You’re saying when these “units” are strung together in a continuous related action; each unit does not necessarily need a beginning, middle, and end. That would be the function of the series.

The Last Samurai example:
I agree there is no beginning, middle, and end … no conflict … in this scene. It’s an establishing scene. Its only purpose is to show something … a transitional scene to move characters from one location to the next.

I would suggest that scenes like this are not needed in a spec screenplay. The script (the story) will read just as well without it. It’s a waste of space in the spec screenplay – delete it.

Telephone conversation:
First person wants something, tries to get it, succeeds or fails. It’s a scene.
Second person, (since you made a conscious choice to include it, rather than show only one side of the conversation) also wants something, tries to get it, succeeds or fails. It’s a second scene.

It’s a:
- “Bill wants the information” scene
- “Ted wants to be paid more money” scene
- When strung together form the “telephone conversation” sequence.

Back to semantics:

When a single “unit” does it all by itself, you say it’s a scene. I say it’s a scene.

When the “unit” is part of a series, you say it’s a shot. I still say it’s a scene.

You call the series a scene. I call the series a sequence.

I’m beginning to understand the source of the misinterpretation. You’re trying to reconcile the difference between a shooting script (or the script written after the movie for mass distribution) and a spec script. They are two different things with two different purposes.

Chachee (the person who started this thread) has a problem. The read feels chunky. I’m saying you can’t fix it with formatting. It’s a problem with the scene.

Surely there must be more written about this subject in those numerous screenwriting books.

edited to add:

Oh ... good morning.

[refriedwhiskey]

I’m beginning to understand the source of the misinterpretation. You’re trying to reconcile the difference between a shooting script (or the script written after the movie for mass distribution) and a spec script.
No. Not at all. I've said nothing about shooting scripts or spec scripts, and I don't believe they have anything to do with what we're discussing. I'm not trying to reconcile anything with anything.

I'm trying to persuade you that the word "scene" has more than one meaning, and it doesn't necessarily imply one location and only one location.

I would suggest that scenes like this are not needed in a spec screenplay. The script (the story) will read just as well without it. It’s a waste of space in the spec screenplay – delete it.
I don't see how any bit of action can be fine in a shooting script but a waste of space in a spec. I think that's just part of this whole fallacy that because specs and non-specs have different purposes, they have very different "rules."

The principles behind telling an effective story and making the reader see the movie you've imagined don't change from one to the other. Any given element is either a waste of space in both, or it's fine in both.

I'm saying a spec screenwriter of a spec screenplay needs to be concerned with the "dramatic unity" in each and every "unit" of the spec screenplay.

Refried is saying (if I got it right) that's not necessarily so.
No. I'm not saying anything about differences between specs and non-specs. You implied that if "scene" could be taken to mean more than one location, then someone must've changed the definition. I've only been saying what Joe correctly interpreted me as saying: "Scene" has always had more than one meaning. And more than one of those meanings allows for more than one location in a scene.

It's not semantics. It's simply a statement of fact.

But I'm interested in your assertion that the "spec screenwriter of a spec screenplay needs to be concerned with the 'dramatic unity' in each and every 'unit' of the spec screenplay."

You used spec three times in one sentence. Are you suggesting that someone writing a screenplay on assignment doesn't need to be concerned with dramatic unity in each and every unit (scene, sequence, act, etc.) of the screenplay?

If so, I'd like you to explain that further. Why do you feel a screenwriter who isn't working on spec doesn't need to be as concerned with dramatic unity?

[TwoBrad Bradley]

Are you suggesting that someone writing a screenplay on assignment doesn't need to be concerned with dramatic unity in each and every unit (scene, sequence, act, etc.) of the screenplay?
... Why do you feel a screenwriter who isn't working on spec doesn't need to be as concerned with dramatic unity?
I’ll be happy to.
I’m still using the same definition of “unit” I did earlier: the part of a screenplay headed by a SLUG (Scene Heading).

And I was referring to the complete dramatic unity within that single unit … and doing away with only parts of a dramatic unity that require additional units to complete itself.

It is because non-spec scripts have different "rules" that you may see them padded with more establishing and transitional scenes.

I didn’t mean to exclude assignment screenwriters and shooting script writers (did I include everybody?). So listen up everybody.

Does a scene like The Last Samurai example hurt the script? No.
Does it help the story? No.

If I had a scene like this in my screenplay, I would seriously consider why it’s there in the first place. Does it have any value in itself? Is it (can it be) more than just an establishing scene? If “no”, I cut the scene. It’s gone. No looking back.

I can’t remember. Was this scene so important, so necessary, that it remained in the movie? Or can’t I remember it for another reason?

(don’t get me started on the “Like Amsterdam” bit)

[refriedwhiskey]

(don’t get me started on the “Like Amsterdam” bit)
Don't worry. :rolling:

I can only say again that I think good writing, good storytelling, is a universal thing. There aren't different rules for good storytelling in a spec vs. a script written on assignment. And anything that's unnecessary in a spec script and should be cut is unnecessary in a non-spec script and should be cut.

I don't agree that the shot from Last Samurai is unnecessary. It's an establishing shot. It tells you when and where the characters are, and what state of mind they're in. It sets up the rest of the scene. If I thought a shot like that should be cut from a spec, I'd also believe it should be cut from a non-spec -- but I don't believe it serves no purpose, so I don't think it should be cut in any case.

[TDWoj]

I've just gone back and re-read all the posts and by my count, the resounding majority - in fact everyone EXCEPT TwoBrad - said the answer to Chachee's question was that it was one scene.

It read to me like one scene. It felt like it should be one scene. There was a beginning, a middle and an end to it, and the action - walking down the hallway into the kitchen - was one continuous flow of action.

I've suddenly got this wild urge to see the spec and shooting versions of "Rope".

[TwoBrad Bradley]

Okay, I’ll write the scenes to illustrate what I’m talking about. It’s only a first draft – okay? Here are three scenes (hall, kitchen, backyard), each with their own beginning, middle and end. I added the third scene to complete the sequence. This is it. I’m done.

INT. PIETRO'S HOUSE – NIGHT
HALL

Pirtro stops at the table – pats his hand across the empty top – looks behind the table …

TILLIE, a white overweight cat, slinks to his pillow.

… Pietro looks all around the floor.

The edge of a picture frame sticks out from underneath the pillow.

PIETRO
Get off.

Tillie exposes his claws and snarls.

Pietro jumps back, but quickly recovers. He punts Tillie into the kitchen. He picks up the picture, gives it a loving embrace, and sets the picture of a dog on the table.

KITCHEN

Pietro stands before the open refrigerator drinking milk from the carton. Milk splashes everywhere.

Tillie is up on the counter - her snout buried in Pietro’s TV dinner.

PIETRO
Tillie, no!

Pietro takes one step - slips - feet fly up - head hits floor. Pietro lies there, motionless on the gleaming tile floor.

TILLIE
Fvcking idiot.

EXT. BACKYARD – NIGHT

Pietro pats down the freshly-dug small grave. A second mound of dirt is near.

A NEIGHBOR peeks over the fence.

NEIGHBOR
What happened?

PIETRO
Nothing.

NEIGHBOR
That’s two in two weeks, isn’t it?

PIETRO
Do you have a problem?

NEIGHBOR
Your wife must be real upset.


Like I’ve been saying: If nothing is happening in the hall scene, it is not a scene – cut it.

Try this for extra credit: Read the three scenes in reverse order. The individual scenes remain the same, but the sequence tells a different story.

[TDWoj]

You haven't written one continuous flow of action in several locations. You've written three separate scenes in three locations. Even I, raw newbie that I am, can see this, and it is not at all what Chachee described in his(her?) first post.

And, reading your sample, I see you've very cleverly left out the CUT TO between each scene change, but even leaving them out, they are still there because WE DIDN'T SEE PIETRO MOVING FROM LOCATION TO LOCATION. The CUT TO is implied; hence, new scene.

For me, then, you still haven't made your point, because you didn't follow the parameters of the question Chachee asked.