Some may say that a good script, one that is well-written, should be a smooth read. And that seems to make sense. You don't want something disjointed with no satisfying pace.
Well what about subtext - in the dialogue, the visuals, the motives and relationships of the actors, and in the narrative all together? I suppose everyone has different standards, but I like, and also work hard to write, scripts that reveal all of those through subtext as much as possible.
You ever read a script that had so much subtext in the dialogue that it almost didn't make sense? You have to read it over a few times and imagine how human beings actually behave and how this exchange would play out in reality. Or maybe it's still awkward, but then you see the movie, and because of how it was directed and how the actors delivered the lines, their mannerisms, their behavior - it all made sense and you picked up the subtext with no problem and it worked great.
Now you may respond and say, "No, I don't have that problem, I'm a smart guy/girl and I ALWAYS get the subtext." Or, "A well-written script subtly reveals the subtext - it just isn't obvious." I'm sure we all strive for that, but I don't think it always works that way. Also, in a way, if the script did work all on it's own, without the needed help of direction and actors - then why film it? If it works alone - sell it as something to read.
I think scripts should be a tough read the first time around, to a degree, and depending on who reads it. And I think this is just one of the reasons as to why scripts are generally considered tough to read as is.
And this is one of the things that makes acting and directing so tough - deciphering the subtext and making it work.
Scripts are often called blueprints. When a construction worker looks at a blueprint to build a house, does he only need to look at it once and then know exactly what to do?
This is one of the biggest reasons why I'm interested in directing and not only writing. I honestly feel like scripts are necessarily incomplete - and I therefore feel incomplete after writing them.
Well what about subtext - in the dialogue, the visuals, the motives and relationships of the actors, and in the narrative all together? I suppose everyone has different standards, but I like, and also work hard to write, scripts that reveal all of those through subtext as much as possible.
You ever read a script that had so much subtext in the dialogue that it almost didn't make sense? You have to read it over a few times and imagine how human beings actually behave and how this exchange would play out in reality. Or maybe it's still awkward, but then you see the movie, and because of how it was directed and how the actors delivered the lines, their mannerisms, their behavior - it all made sense and you picked up the subtext with no problem and it worked great.
Now you may respond and say, "No, I don't have that problem, I'm a smart guy/girl and I ALWAYS get the subtext." Or, "A well-written script subtly reveals the subtext - it just isn't obvious." I'm sure we all strive for that, but I don't think it always works that way. Also, in a way, if the script did work all on it's own, without the needed help of direction and actors - then why film it? If it works alone - sell it as something to read.
I think scripts should be a tough read the first time around, to a degree, and depending on who reads it. And I think this is just one of the reasons as to why scripts are generally considered tough to read as is.
And this is one of the things that makes acting and directing so tough - deciphering the subtext and making it work.
Scripts are often called blueprints. When a construction worker looks at a blueprint to build a house, does he only need to look at it once and then know exactly what to do?
This is one of the biggest reasons why I'm interested in directing and not only writing. I honestly feel like scripts are necessarily incomplete - and I therefore feel incomplete after writing them.
Comment