Critique of Sorkin's First Scene

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • Critique of Sorkin's First Scene

    From his The Social Network;

    MARK ZUCKERBERG is a sweet looking is a sweet looking 19 year old whose lack of any physically intimidating attributes masks a very complicated and dangerous anger. He has trouble making eye contact and sometimes it's hard to tell if he's talking to you or to himself.

    ERIKA, also 19, is Mark's date. She has a girl-next-door face that makes it easy to fall for. At this point in the conversation she already knows that she'd rather not be there and her politeness is about to be tested.

    Pretend that it was one of us who wrote this. Would we be criticized for telling and not showing? How is the audience supposed to know that Mark "masks a very complicated and dangerous anger" or that "At this point in the conversation she already knows that she'd rather not be there and her politeness is about to be tested?"

    Or is this really OK?


  • #2
    Re: Critique of Sorkin's First Scene

    The opening scene of the Social Network is among the best things I have ever seen and left me in awe of Aaron Sorkin.
    "I dub thee: Sir Non Sequitur." - sc111

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Critique of Sorkin's First Scene

      Originally posted by jkk808 View Post
      The opening scene of the Social Network is among the best things I have ever seen .
      Perfect answer.

      No need to go any further.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Critique of Sorkin's First Scene

        Originally posted by socalwriter1 View Post
        Pretend that it was one of us who wrote this. Would we be criticized for telling and not showing?
        by a paid reader or someone on the internet reciting what they've read from screenwriting books. yes.
        One must be fearless and tenacious when pursuing their dreams. If you don't, regret will be your reward.

        The Fiction Story Room

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Critique of Sorkin's First Scene

          Even the most fanatic of the 'rule' follows agree that one exception to the 'rules' is when a character is first introduced -that it's common to give a quick description on how to play that character.

          So, even by those byzantine limitations it's fine.

          And when I read the screenplay for that opening scene (and the rest of the film) I was blown away - I knew I had to see the film. Before then I was lukewarm.

          Their decision to leak the script as part of the marketing campaign was a great one.

          Mac
          New blogposts:
          *Followup - Seeking Investors in all the wrong places
          *Preselling your film - Learning from the Experts
          *Getting your indie film onto iTunes
          *Case Study - Estimating Film profits

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Critique of Sorkin's First Scene

            Originally posted by socalwriter1 View Post
            Pretend that it was one of us who wrote this. Would we be criticized for telling and not showing? How is the audience supposed to know that Mark "masks a very complicated and dangerous anger" or that "At this point in the conversation she already knows that she'd rather not be there and her politeness is about to be tested?"

            Or is this really OK?
            Do those lines help ground you in the scene? Is the comment about Erika's mental state something is clearly communicated by the actress which isn't necessarily in the dialog?

            WIthout going off on the whole rules thing, I just want to say that you have ALWAYS been given some lattitude to write a bit beyond what's strictly visible from a character right away when introducing your lead. This isn't new or unique to Sorkin.

            Although, really, you know, you read that scene and you focus on those descriptions? Do me a favor. Write a scene as good as that scene, and see if anybody worries about your descriptions. Really. I mean it. You've got a major forrest-trees issue going on here.

            Lastly, I'll say something I always say when this sort of thing comes up:

            For every screenwriting rule or principle (recognizing that this doesn't actually violate a principle), no matter how necessary or well-intentioned, you can find a successful script that violates that principle.

            If you really want to trawl screenplays looking for violations of "rules," however, you'll be able to waste a lot of time without actually getting any writing done, so you can have that going for you.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Critique of Sorkin's First Scene

              Originally posted by socalwriter1 View Post
              Pretend that it was one of us who wrote this. Would we be criticized for telling and not showing?
              No. Look at any script - any of them - and you will see **when a character is introduced** the writer is allowed to give information about the character that informs the performance. It's *playable*.

              "whose lack of any physically intimidating attributes masks a very complicated and dangerous anger."

              Can an actor play repressed anger? Sure. What's more, if you read the dialogue and actions without this information, would you be confused? Probably. It's like saying the character is always sarcastic - hey, why not show it? Well, the problem is, you read all of the dialogue withiout knowing it's supposed to be sarcastic and it all still works - just not as intended. So his anger despite looking harmless is critical to the reader knowing how the lines will be performed - and the actor *can* perform them with anger lurking in the background.

              "He has trouble making eye contact and sometimes it's hard to tell if he's talking to you or to himself." Completely playable, completely visual. No problem here.

              I'm not going to do the Rosebud GF, because it's the same stuff.

              Think of these things as tools, not rules - what is the *reason* for the "rule" and how does that reason help your script? Sometimes the reason doesn't help your script, so you don't use that tool. Sometimes you find a different way to accomplish the same thing that may subvert the "rule", but it doesn't matter because you accomplish the same thing without creating any problems.

              There's a Dahl Bros script that has a parenthetical for *every* line of dialogue with the subtext...

              JOE
              (I could easily stab you with this knife)
              Can I cut you a piece of cake?

              Sure, part of it was breaking the "rules" as a stunt, but without the subtext would you have thought "Can I cut you a piece of cake?" was a threat of violence? It can be played that way by the actor. Again, a stunt - but if something can be *performed* it's not a problem. It's when Joe remembers the time he cried at his Grandmother's funeral while he's driving to work... um, you can't play that.

              - Bill
              Last edited by wcmartell; 03-01-2011, 11:27 PM.
              Free Script Tips:
              http://www.scriptsecrets.net

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Critique of Sorkin's First Scene

                Originally posted by wcmartell View Post

                There's a Dahl Bros script that has a parenthetical for *every* line of dialogue with the subtext...

                JOE
                (I could easily stab you with this knife)
                Can I cut you a piece of cake?



                - Bill
                I would love to read that script. Do you recall the name, have a copy, know the magic incantation???
                If you have someone on the set for the hair, why would you not have someone for the words?
                Louis Malle

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Critique of Sorkin's First Scene

                  Judging from the specs I've read lately and that have sold for big money, lead actresses should have some synonym for the word attractive in their description -- quite often they do not need any other words in their description, though the "brains and beauty" description seems to be quite popular.

                  This is important, because clearly the people buying these scripts for hundreds of thousands of dollars apparently feel that it was more important that they be reminded that they should hire an attractive actress for the lead (because God knows they were surely just about to speed-dial Snooki's agent) rather than find out a bit about the personality that the actress will be expected to bring to life.
                  Steven Palmer Peterson

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Critique of Sorkin's First Scene

                    Originally posted by wcmartell View Post
                    No. Look at any script - any of them - and you will see **when a character is introduced** the writer is allowed to give information about the character that informs the performance. It's *playable*.

                    "whose lack of any physically intimidating attributes masks a very complicated and dangerous anger."

                    Can an actor play repressed anger? Sure. What's more, if you read the dialogue and actions without this information, would you be confused? Probably. It's like saying the character is always sarcastic - hey, why not show it? Well, the problem is, you read all of the dialogue withiout knowing it's supposed to be sarcastic and it all still works - just not as intended. So his anger despite looking harmless is critical to the reader knowing how the lines will be performed - and the actor *can* perform them with anger lurking in the background.

                    "He has trouble making eye contact and sometimes it's hard to tell if he's talking to you or to himself." Completely playable, completely visual. No problem here.

                    I'm not going to do the Rosebud GF, because it's the same stuff.

                    Think of these things as tools, not rules - what is the *reason* for the "rule" and how does that reason help your script? Sometimes the reason doesn't help your script, so you don't use that tool. Sometimes you find a different way to accomplish the same thing that may subvert the "rule", but it doesn't matter because you accomplish the same thing without creating any problems.

                    There's a Dahl Bros script that has a parenthetical for *every* line of dialogue with the subtext...

                    JOE
                    (I could easily stab you with this knife)
                    Can I cut you a piece of cake?

                    Sure, part of it was breaking the "rules" as a stunt, but without the subtext would you have thought "Can I cut you a piece of cake?" was a threat of violence? It can be played that way by the actor. Again, a stunt - but if something can be *performed* it's not a problem. It's when Joe remembers the time he cried at his Grandmother's funeral while he's driving to work... um, you can't play that.

                    - Bill

                    Bill, how about scripts where we'd like to withhold/disguise the character's nature, even from the reader, a sort of Jagged Edge situ, enter a smooth business man, respectable, who may also be a killer. Do you see still see that ambiguity in his character suggested at the beginning in these types of scripts, something like-

                    "he's slick, respectable, handsome: but there's a cold tingle on the end of that sideways look he shoots at your back when you turn away"

                    Do these kinds of stories give more away upfront because the actor needs to know how to play it, if so, the read probably gives away the identity of the killer?
                    Forthcoming: The Annual, "I JUST GOT DUMPED" Valentine's Short Screenplay Writing Competition. Keep an eye on Writing Exercises.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Critique of Sorkin's First Scene

                      Originally posted by socalwriter1 View Post
                      MARK ZUCKERBERG is a sweet looking 19 year old whose lack of any physically intimidating attributes masks a very complicated and dangerous anger. He has trouble making eye contact and sometimes it's hard to tell if he's talking to you or to himself.
                      Wonderful. Paints a thumbnail portrait of the young man, answers key questions about casting, creates an enduring image, provides essential clues for the part, and gives us very much the same first impression on the page that we'd have if we met him in real life. What's not to admire about that?

                      The general "show don't tell" guideline is not an instruction on how to introduce characters.

                      Or is this really OK?
                      I think history has already answered that question, but I'll give you a clue: it's really okay.
                      "Friends make the worst enemies." Frank Underwood

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Critique of Sorkin's First Scene

                        Originally posted by The Road Warrior View Post
                        how about scripts where we'd like to withhold/disguise the character's nature, even from the reader, a sort of Jagged Edge situ, enter a smooth business man, respectable, who may also be a killer.
                        It might be simpler than you think. Write what works best for the story.

                        The "rules" aren't really rules; they are guidelines and conventions and within their definitions is more than enough latitude for any writer to conjure a brilliant script, as the work of our best writers has proven.
                        "Friends make the worst enemies." Frank Underwood

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Critique of Sorkin's First Scene

                          Originally posted by DavidK View Post
                          It might be simpler than you think. Write what works best for the story.

                          The "rules" aren't really rules; they are guidelines and conventions and within their definitions is more than enough latitude for any writer to conjure a brilliant script, as the work of our best writers has proven.
                          With you, I sometimes think, okay, this has been solved before, elegantly, but if I follow that approach, I run the risk of importing a cliche from the genre, let's give 'em something new, something new is likely to be harder to set up, but as you say, it's my story.

                          I try to avoid getting suckered into the "rules"!
                          Forthcoming: The Annual, "I JUST GOT DUMPED" Valentine's Short Screenplay Writing Competition. Keep an eye on Writing Exercises.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Critique of Sorkin's First Scene

                            Originally posted by The Road Warrior View Post
                            I try to avoid getting suckered into the "rules"!
                            i you stop using the word (rules) then they will cease to be.
                            replace "rules" with "guidelines" or "suggestions"

                            back on topic:
                            incredible best "set up" scene ever!
                            it took nearly 100 takes and 3 days to do that one scene. it was worth it.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Critique of Sorkin's First Scene

                              Originally posted by NikeeGoddess View Post
                              it took nearly 100 takes and 3 days to do that one scene. it was worth it.
                              It takes Fincher 100 takes to do EVERY scene.

                              HH

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X