Show don't tell...

[cartoonvandal]

I’m confused. Again and again on this site, (which btw is full of wonderful information) I’ve read the argument that says ‘show don’t tell’ and while I understand that in most instances, many of the successful scripts I’ve read fail to back this up - particularly when introducing characters. Here's an example, the opening action lines from Tarantino’s ‘True Romance’, the FIRST screenplay he wrote:

INT. BAR – NIGHT.

A smoky cocktail bar in downtown Detroit.

Clarence Worley, a young hipster hepcat, is trying to pick up on an older lady named Lucy. She isn’t bothered by him, in fact, she’s a little charmed. But, you can tell that she isn’t going to leave her barstool.

Isn’t he largely telling and not showing here? There is no way the camera can show, as it is said, that he is a ‘young hipster hepcat’. Throughout the script, there are many, many instances like this.

Doesn’t the value of this kind of description lie in the fact that it gives both director and actor an essential impression and insight into the character it refers to? Something outside of the purely visual? Or should a script contain only ‘concrete’ visual action and nothing else?

Remember, this was Tarantino’s first script. He couldn’t call the shots, as he can now. I'm not trying to say anyone is right I wrong, I'd just like to know the best way to go. Thanks.

[altoption]

There is no way the camera can show, as it is said, that he is a ‘young hipster hepcat’.


That's Clarence's CHARACTER INTRO you're citing. The point is to give the reader and actor a window into who the character is. You've got a little more latitude here than usual.

For example, from AS GOOD AS IT GETS:

MELVIN UDALL, in the hallway... Well past 50... unliked, unloved, unsettling. A huge pain in the ass to everyone he's ever met. Right now all his considerable talent and strength is totally focused on seducing a tiny dog into the elevator door he holds open.

That's just great writing.

But I really don't see your problem with 'young hipster hepcat.' It paints a pretty clear picture for me of who this guy is, what he's dressed like, how he acts. And the rest of Tarantino's description informs us how the scene will be played. We wouldn't understand Clarence's Elvis monologue for what it is, for how we see it on screen, as an attempt to pick up Lucy, without it. No problem here.

But even if you did find an example of 'crappy' writing in a sold spec, what's your point? TRUE ROMANCE is a great script. So is PANIC ROOM. Doesn't mean you can't find any examples of 'crappy' writing within them. Or within any well written script for that matter. I just wouldn't model my writing on those specific instances.

Best,
altop

[pantalone]

A good example where a character sketch goes too far is in Flynn's "How NOT to Write a Screenplay." I don't have it handy, but it goes on and on. The best way to tell the difference between a description that is "show don't tell" and is fine for character description is whether you are telling vague personality tics or feeding the reader some background.

Like altoption says, the most important part of the screenplay is a good story. SPEED has several "we see's" and SMASH CUTs. And I do believe that was a spec.

[Deus Ex Machine]

Character introductions are the exceptions to the rule. The goal of a character intro is to capture the essence of the character.

Also, keep in mind that this script only sold AFTER RD came out so it could have been written in crayon and still been sold and made.

[cartoonvandal]

altoption, perhaps you should read my post again.
I don't believe I said I had a problem with anything in Taranino's 'True Romance - in fact, I love the script.

As I said in my original post:

Doesn’t the value of this kind of description lie in the fact that it gives both director and actor an essential impression and insight into the character it refers to? Something outside of the purely visual?

Isn't that a defence of the example I gave?

My confusion came from the fact that certain people here have stated catagorically that if it can't be seen it shouldn't be there - character introduction or not. However, the replies I've recieved here have simply confirmed what I originally suspected.

Thanks guys, I appreciate your replies.

[Big A Machine]

TR sold right around the time RD started production. At one point, Tony Scott had both scripts in his possession and expressed a desire to do them both to QT.

Tarantino told him that he was going ot be directing RD but that Scott could have TR. Portions of the money QT received for TR was actually used to make RD. In fact, RD was actually released before TR came out. QT is on record as stating that he felt it was both important and lucky that critics saw him as a director who wrote his own material first as opposed to being a screenwriter who was trying to direct. But both films got off the ground around the same time.

And I'm not sure QT became the "word of God" until after the PF release. It seems the general consensus is that after RD, here was a director that showed promise but the jury was going to be out on until his second film. Once PF came out, QT could sell sh*t in a bag.

Sorry. Film geek moment.

[TwoBrad Bradley]

Part of your confusion, Cartoonvadel, is the "Show don't Tell" guideline has to do with Dialogue (that's the tell part) that can be better (or is already) shown in Action.

You are referring to the "In Action write only what can be photographed" guideline. So, in Action write action - write what the characters are doing. If you can't figure out what YOUR characters are doing, how do you expect the actors to know? Do you really want them to guess? ("That's what actors get paid to do" is not the right answer.)

In the very strict sense the "hipster" stuff is the least of the problem:

"in downtown Detroit"
How do you photograph that?

"... is trying to pick up on an older lady"
What is Clarence doing? Is he flexing his muscles? Waving around wads of money? Buying her drinks?

What is Lucy doing to show she isn’t bothered by him - and a little charmed - and that she isn’t going to leave her barstool?

Maybe Tarantino's writing with the "director" side of his brain because it sounds like how the director would tell the actor to act on the set:

"You're not bothered by Clarence, in fact, you're a little charmed. And, no way are you going to leave your barstool."

It works better in the "As Good as it Gets" example because Un-photographable bits are combined with action that can be photographed.

But, they are just guidelines.

[Deus Ex Machine]

Janice saunters in. She's confident and her favorite color is purple.

vs.

Jance saunter in wearing a flashy purple dress.

[Deus Ex Machine]

One thing that you have to keep in mind is that style is not arbitrary and doesn't exist in a vacuum. A script should be written in a cinematic style, thus the emphasis on images rather than internal feelings and thoughts. But part of creating a cinematic style is using devices and approaches that express a feeling that would be conveyed by a look or gesture of the actor or a camera position, in other words, reading the script should create the same reaction as seeing the film would. Style, any style, is in service of this end. When you hold up the Tarintino and Koepp examples you shouldn't ask if this can be filmed but rather does it contribute to the cinematic experience when reading the script? Like anything style can be overdone and distract from t he story, but if done well it can add an additional layer to the story that would not exist with purely sterile descriptions of the physical aspects of the story.

My 2 cents

[cartoonvandal]

Deux Ex Machine,

I believe you've hit the nail on the head - I've read scripts that have firmly adhered to the rule being discussed here, and they read and feel completely 'sterile'. Yes, a script is a blueprint, but it's a blueprint for a movie - a wonderful, exciting powerful medium - not a blueprint from an architect who plans on building a row of houses.

Tarantino gives us some of his images stylistically, cineamatically, rather than spelling everything out which, in my opinion, makes the script read muh more like the movie it represents.