To show or not to show, the flashback quandry

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • To show or not to show, the flashback quandry

    Hi all,
    I hope your day is going well and that you are closer to your dreams than ever before.

    I wanted to put up a post about writing flashbacks in a script to get opinions on what everyone's preferred method to deal with them is.

    When I went to university to get my film degree it was drilled into me when regarding writing flashbacks you should always show not tell, if you put them in your script at all. (when I was in school flashbacks were kind of taboo, but I have seen over the years that they are used more and more)

    I have noticed in several films flashbacks are done with just auditory voices/sounds while having the character's facial expressions show his/her feelings on the memory instead of filming an entirely separate scene showing the full flashback visually. Sometimes it works, other times not.

    So what is your preference? Do you prefer to write flashbacks visually or just use sound overlay?

    I welcome all thoughts and opinions.

  • #2
    Re: To show or not to show, the flashback quandry

    This is one of the many things that is really up to the execution. I personally try not to use flashbacks too often because it is far too easy for them to come off as lazy and disrupt the flow of the script.

    While the success varied over the years, shows like Lost and Orange is the New Black used the frequent flashbacks to great effect because they told their own story while still naturally linking to the scene before it and the scene after it. It allowed them to tell two stories working towards one point. I think television is a bit more flashback friendly as you want to see these characters fleshed out so much. In a film it can just be a hindrance to the plot.

    When I do use flashbacks it's an entirely a scene of it's own. Better to commit to it than using half measures I think. It has to be important to what's going on and not seem out of place, otherwise you're just wasting pages.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: To show or not to show, the flashback quandry

      We've all seen movies where flashbacks work structurally, and others where they don't. There's two ways to use a flashback. The first one is to have the structure call for it. At this point in time in the story, the reader must experience this flashback because it adds to the experience. The other way to use a flashback is as an information dump. They also mean different things in different genres.

      As a writer, it is very easy to feel like a flashback works because the reader is getting information they need, but often times the reader feels like it is an info dump.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: To show or not to show, the flashback quandry

        Originally posted by Darthclaw13 View Post
        I have noticed in several films flashbacks are done with just auditory voices/sounds while having the character's facial expressions show his/her feelings on the memory instead of filming an entirely separate scene showing the full flashback visually. Sometimes it works, other times not.
        Not trying to sound snarky, but I think you answered your own question.

        "Sometimes it works, other times not."

        Use it when it works, don't use it when it doesn't.

        Generally showing beats telling in "motion" pictures. This comes from someone who loves to write dialogue. I can have two people talk for three pages and aren't they, oh, so clever. Then I whittle down those three pages and find ways to show instead. Sometimes I can get rid of all the dialogue and not lose anything. That's what I shoot for now.

        I figured this out by watching good foreign films. At first I'd keep the subtitles on -- but with most of the good foreign films you don't need subtitles.

        Now I started watching English language films with the sound turned off and some don't miss a beat. So I study how those work. Obviously this doesn't work for all films. Sometimes you can't beat good dialogue.

        But -- I've watched a lot of shorts that people post, who were on the same screenwriter forums that I was on. What is it with sitting around, talking at a kitchen table in amateur shorts? I've probably watched a dozen of these. 12 out of 14 minutes -- talk, talk, talk, talk, talk. Then in the last minute someone stabs someone, or shoots someone, or the freezer is opened to reveal a frozen head or some other "shocking" thing that lasts for 30 seconds, after 12 minutes of incessant yakking. Run credits.

        Watch a B movie. Fast forward (it's less tedious). Notice how many minutes are spent with the bad guys or the good guys or both yakking in an office or a warehouse or whatever, to each other. Compare that with a good movie. It just doesn't happen in a good movie.

        Sorry for the rambling -- I think I'm preaching to myself.

        Good luck.
        "I just couldn't live in a world without me."

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: To show or not to show, the flashback quandry

          interesting.

          i may have this all wrong (SPOILERS for the folks who haven't watched the movie at least six times), but when the story of FORREST GUMP really kicks out of all of the flashbacks, Forrest has finally found his Jenny, and soon finds out she is at last grounded and seems at peace, but is also dying, and that he has a son. he buries her under their special tree. life is like a box of chocolates.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: To show or not to show, the flashback quandry

            Originally posted by Darthclaw13 View Post
            Hi all,
            I hope your day is going well and that you are closer to your dreams than ever before.

            I wanted to put up a post about writing flashbacks in a script to get opinions on what everyone's preferred method to deal with them is.

            When I went to university to get my film degree it was drilled into me when regarding writing flashbacks you should always show not tell, if you put them in your script at all. (when I was in school flashbacks were kind of taboo, but I have seen over the years that they are used more and more)

            I have noticed in several films flashbacks are done with just auditory voices/sounds while having the character's facial expressions show his/her feelings on the memory instead of filming an entirely separate scene showing the full flashback visually. Sometimes it works, other times not.

            So what is your preference? Do you prefer to write flashbacks visually or just use sound overlay?

            I welcome all thoughts and opinions.
            From my perspective, I try to apply a simple test when dealing with the question of flashbacks. The question is -- where is the story happening?

            The reason that flashbacks often don't work, especially for beginners, is that, in most cases, the story is happening in the present. That's where the action is taking place. That's where the conflict is, that's where the stakes are. And so when you jump back in time, all of that stuff, the whole forward momentum of that present-tense story, is put on hold and it stays on hold, until you get back to the present.

            It's very much like taking an intermission, during which you put up an picturesque crawl that conveys useful expository information, but meanwhile, all of the characters, who have things to do and places to go in the actual story that you're telling are just waiting around twiddling their thumb until you finish up your flashback before they can get back to business.

            The exceptions, of course, are stories where the events unfolding in the past, connect in some way directly to what's going on in the present -- where there's some mystery that has to be unfolded, or some secondary but related story that is going to ultimately connect to the present-day story and we're not exactly sure how -- or something along those lines.

            In that way, the overall forward momentum of the story is maintained, in much the same way that you can show action featuring one group of characters in the present and then cut away to another group of characters in the present doing something else, and maybe we're not exactly sure how these two groups are connected, but we're given enough information to understand that these sequences disconnected by space do relate to one another and they will ultimately relate and pay odd.

            You can do the same thing with events separated by time. This thing is happening here, this is happening there -- but it will all connect up and pay off.

            Okay. This happened in the past, this is happening in the present, but these two sequences of events will ultimately connect up and pay off.

            It's the connecting up and paying off that makes flashbacks work.

            The same way that the flashbacks (really flash-forwards) in The Terminator ultimately connected up and paid off at the end when we see that picture of Sarah Connor taken at the end.

            So they managed to do double duty. They were giving us information about that future world, but they were also setting us up for that final resolution with that connection between present and future.

            You look for those kinds of connections with flashblacks.

            What you should try to avoid doing is just using them just for illustrated exposition. Despite what people say about showing not telling, it's rarely the best use of flashbacks.

            For instance, while they might have originally intended to use a flashback in that scene with the spring lambs in Silence of the Lambs it really would not have been the optimal choice -- and that's because, really, the story wasn't happening back where Clarice Starling was a little girl chasing after that lamb.

            The story was happening in the present, between the adult Clarice and Hannibal Lechter and that's really where the camera belonged, with them and with her telling that story to him. Even though the only thing that's happening is just her talking and him listening, it's still the right place for us to be, because sometimes, the story is happening in a place where two people are talking.

            Or, if it's Twelve Angry Men, it's in a place where 12 people are talking.

            Or, if it's Castaway, it's in a place where one person is talking to a soccer ball -- but that was where the story was happening and it would have been a terrible decision to let Tom Hanks off that island by yielding to the temptation of throwing in a bunch of flashbacks.

            Which, by the way, a lot of "castaway" type stories often do.

            NMS

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: To show or not to show, the flashback quandry

              I guess the question is, how does a writer tell if a flashback is working in their story or not? Because, in all the scripts out there that have flashbacks in them were written by writers who think that flashback works.

              Again, I think in the comedy genre you can have a silly little interruption of the timeline in either a flashback, flash forward, or daydream sequence. It works in comedy as long as the interruption has a good joke in it.

              In thrillers, or dramas, the flashback or interruption of the timeline has to be much deeper in meaning. In Minority Report Cruise has flashbacks of the moment his son was kidnapped, he is also being set-up to murder someone he thinks is the kidnapper. There needs to be a correlation between what is shown in the flashback and what is going on in the plot. A meticulously plotted correlation. And look, you may not have that correlation in the first drafts. In those drafts the flashbacks are not correlated, they are information dumps right now, and all feedback is saying to cut them, but you feel they do belong. All that means is that they do not work yet. You don't have that deep correlation yet, but stuff like that can be found in later drafts if you can make it that far. I'd say taking into account all the unfinished scripts out there, all the completed first drafts, and all the scripts that were given a major rewrite after draft 1, I'd say the amateur average is about 1.5 drafts per concept.

              Here's an experiment for you, write a one page letter to a friend you haven't spoken to in a while. Save it. Then rewrite the letter one time. Save it. Rewrite the letter a second time. Save it. Go all the way to draft seven of the letter. Then open up the draft 1 file and compare it to the draft seven. There'd be no comparison. The draft seven would be better organized, say more with less words, be funny where you had to and serious in other parts. Draft one and a half can't compare to draft 7, but most amateurs never, ever get there on a concept. I haven't. You putter out long before then either for self-doubt reasons or the passion for the story has turned to frustration.

              The Sixth Sense was rewritten six times, and the big twist was discovered in the last draft. I think pros can get to those deeper levels much quicker. It would never take seven drafts usually. In two or three drafts they are there because they know what those deep levels look like and feel like, they have the road map to them and they have a nose for what story is and where their story needs to go.

              I've said this before, but I am really going to try and push through and get to those later drafts on a script where I know things will be better organized, dramatic moments will be stronger, jokes will be better set-up and given an effective punchline. As mush as we want to, a perfect story is not going to come out of you in the first draft. It's easy to feel like you are starting to write crap in draft 1, and get discouraged. I'm writing crap in my script now and I know that, and sometimes I feel that oh just pack it in feeling, but I'm ignoring it. I keep telling myself it doesn't matter what I write now, it is going to be changed.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: To show or not to show, the flashback quandry

                Flashback is better than exposition
                I heard the starting gun


                sigpic

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: To show or not to show, the flashback quandry

                  Originally posted by Southern_land View Post
                  Flashback is better than exposition
                  Unfortunately, a lot of flashbacks are exposition.
                  "I just couldn't live in a world without me."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: To show or not to show, the flashback quandry

                    Flashbacks work best when they're telling their own story, as the OP (or someone else) said upstream. Have the flashbacks roll out a mystery that connects to the present storyline. (Implicit to that is my belief that flashbacks have to be used throughout the script or not at all -- the one-off flashback to just tell some info is a no-no, in my opinion.) So a series of flashbacks will be connected and have a climax of their own/be their own storyline/impact the foreground plot.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: To show or not to show, the flashback quandry

                      Originally posted by Cyfress View Post
                      The Sixth Sense was rewritten six times, and the big twist was discovered in the last draft. I think pros can get to those deeper levels much quicker. It would never take seven drafts usually. In two or three drafts they are there because they know what those deep levels look like and feel like, they have the road map to them and they have a nose for what story is and where their story needs to go.

                      I've said this before, but I am really going to try and push through and get to those later drafts on a script where I know things will be better organized, dramatic moments will be stronger, jokes will be better set-up and given an effective punchline. As mush as we want to, a perfect story is not going to come out of you in the first draft. It's easy to feel like you are starting to write crap in draft 1, and get discouraged. I'm writing crap in my script now and I know that, and sometimes I feel that oh just pack it in feeling, but I'm ignoring it. I keep telling myself it doesn't matter what I write now, it is going to be changed.
                      I love everything you wrote Cy. However, I dunno re: pros arriving to the deeper/later drafts faster. I think they make less amateur mistakes, so that's part of their improved speed, but I think everyone struggles with getting to what their story is really about. It does indeed take time. In terms of the pros I feel like they tank too, only diff being they get paid for it. Dunno. How many one-hit wonder writers are out there? A bunch. The creative process is a big unwieldy mess no matter who you are, I think, and some beloved ideas just don't find their final, best expression.

                      One big diff between amateurs and pros, though, is that pros know which universal, basic concepts to apply to their ideas as they're developing them -- focus on character seeking a clear and urgent goal, marry story to plot, etc. They know what NOT to do and have a more attuned nose to what ideas smell bad when they're first pitched.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: To show or not to show, the flashback quandry

                        I get what you are saying, Six. You can probably count on one hand the screenwriters that make a living on spec. From what I have gathered reading around here is that most work is writer for hire work. There are lots of movies written by screenwriters you never heard of again. Every year there is a new group of writers nominated for the Oscar. It's not like sports where Tarantino would win every year for best original screenplay.

                        I agree, all writers struggle with their stories. If you do not then your story will not be big enough, or dramatic enough, or funny enough. How many amateurs walk around with a story that has 50 - 60 scenes meticulously plotted and cinematically written that pushes the boundaries of the genre they are in? Probably none or very, very few. It's hard to do even for really good writers. It's so easy to fall into cliché genre conventions and not even know it or see it.

                        Like you were hinting to earlier, all steps of the process are reduced in time once you find out what YOUR process is for getting a story into tip-top shape. Once you have the process down, the time for you to get through the process will reduce in time. All steps get time shaved off of it: Outlining/Mapping and Writing. From what I heard years ago, usually if you get a writing gig for a producer or studio they want to see a first draft in 12 weeks. And I do not think any writer is handing in a pure first draft. They have gone over it a few times. Most amateurs here would need much, much more time. It could take 4 - 6 months for an amateur to type fade out.

                        Everything you say about the flashbacks I agree to be correct. They just can't be thrown in, there must be a correlation that enriches the story. That's not just true with flashbacks. That's true for character, dialogue, setting, voice over, structure, and everything else.

                        I can't tell you how many times I read a script for someone, and I saw an avenue they could take that fits perfectly in their story and deepens the story only for them to tell me that's not their story. But it is their story, they just do not see it. As a critic, you see boundary lines and the roadmap crystal clear, as a writer they are fuzzy as hell. Each draft brings the story into focus more and more.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: To show or not to show, the flashback quandry

                          AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN goes out the gates with flashbacks.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: To show or not to show, the flashback quandry

                            Wow. There's a movie from the past. I saw it years and years ago. I can't recall the flashback. The fight scene between Lou Gosset and Richard Gere was a great scene.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: To show or not to show, the flashback quandry

                              if i remember right, the movie begins with the hero and his drunk father in hotel room or apartment with a couple of women. as he looks at his father, he has flashbacks of his tough upbringing, which i guess as the story moves forward and he enters the navy, made his cold loner sort of character more sympathetic. you have an understanding of why he is like he is. why he is cold. why he doesn't trust people. why he knows how to fight. etc. debra winger eventually gets through all of the defenses, warms him up and when that happens, the story is over.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X