Angle On

[-XL-]

Re: Angle On

Holy fvck. Seriously? This is why you can't have nice things.

ANGLE ON is a tool like any other. It's generally used to redirect our attention (which, if you actually went and read some screenplays, would be fairly obvious).

Some on-the-fly examples:

TWO SCUMBAGS talking sh!t about a famous outlaw at a bar.

ANGLE ON: The HOODED FIGURE sitting at the table behind them.

HERO follows AGENTS PROTECTING HIM into the safe house. The TV is blaring when they enter the living room. LEAD AGENT chews out the OTHER AGENT, who denies leaving it on.

As the Lead Agent handles the remote, pushing volume buttons that have no effect, Hero turns his attention to him. Something's not right. And then the Hero realises...

ANGLE ON: the BOMB wired into the back of the TV.

Too late. The Lead Agent hits the power button. The Hero ducks behind the couch as the TV EXPLODES.

A battle rages. Our HUNDRED WARRIORS overwhelmed by the thousand-strong tide of VICIOUS BARBARIANS. Axes sever limbs. Clubs cracks skulls. Strong brave men are felled like saplings, the once-green field swiftly turned into a lake of blood and gore.

ANGLE ON: the COWARDLY SCREENWRITER hiding amongst a pile of corpses, taking notes (hopefully).

Yes there are other ways you can create the same effect. But then, there are a thousand ways to write *any* scene. ANGLE ON is a clear, concise, and effective way to manipulate the reader into seeing what you want them to see -- which, you know, is exactly what you want in your writing.

Now can we move on to the use of "we", or bolding sluglines, or any other of the things that really don't matter? Please??

[Centos]

Re: Angle On

Yes there are other ways you can create the same effect. But then, there are a thousand ways to write *any* scene. ANGLE ON is a clear, concise, and effective way to manipulate the reader into seeing what you want them to see -- which, you know, is exactly what you want in your writing.

So ANGLE ON is kind of like WE SEE on steroids?

(I don't know about others here, but I think I may have actually learned something -- thanks to this thread.)

[Ven]

Re: Angle On

I think it's because the first example reveals information in an interesting way. It sets up something a little strange. Then I see a small clue - the mirror. Then I see the next clue .. David writing down letters. Then I experience the 'Ah Hah' moment - and am impressed by John's cleverness.

The second example, I see something innocuous. Then I have someone explain to me what is really happening.

Yes - the same information is expressed, but I don't have the EXPERIENCE of finding it out for myself.

One makes me feel like I'm watching a good movie. The other feels like someone is explaining things to me.

That is my reaction as a reader. Do you have a different reaction?

Actually I agree with you, especially the bolded part. That's a great way to explain it.

What about

JOHN sits at a cafe table, casually moving his iPhone back and forth. Strange, but seemingly innocuous.

He also stares intently at a MIRROR on the cafe wall, which bounces reflected light from the iPhone. Quick flashes mixed with long ones. Morse code.

ACROSS THE STREET: David sits on a bus bench, catching the flashes of light through a window. He writes the letters down.

I'm not trying to re-write Craig's example for the sake of it, his example is fine, and I think I did a good job the first time showing what NOT to do.

But these kinds of comparisons help, as you made a great point in your last post Mac.

[Ven]

Re: Angle On

Or this (if you want to delay the payoff to the end)....

JOHN sits at a cafe table, casually moving his iPhone back and forth. Strange, but seemingly innocuous.

He also stares intently at a MIRROR on the cafe wall. It bounces reflected light from the iPhone -- quick flashes mixed with long ones.

ACROSS THE STREET: Dave sits on a bus bench and catches the flashes through a window. He writes down a bunch of letters. Morse code.

[Mac H.]

Re: Angle On

As a viewer (and reader) I still prefer Craig's version.

In your version#2 (and #3) I feel that JOHN is being a bit ham-fisted. I assume he's sending out a secret message of some kind .. but he's literally STARING AT the clue !

Just so the audience will notice !?

That's the kind of thing you'd have to do in a stage play .. to let the audience know that this tiny thing is a clue. (At least it isn't an opera - you'd have JOHN sing an aria about it for no apparent reason)

But it's a film. We don't have to have characters STARE and POINT to bring the audience's attention to them .. we have more subtle ways.

Why not use them?

Mac
(PS: Definitely delay the pay-off until the end. Version #3 is a big improvement over version #2. I had a reply pointing that out, but removed it because it was just bringing up a different issue. The payoff in the middle simply wasn't as good.)

(PPS: It just occurred to me - you just did a 3rd re-write .. all to rephrase a single sentence in the scene.

Why?

Just to keep track .. you are happy with this scene, but you are trying to come up with a better sentence for the one in red ?

JOHN sits at a cafe table, casually moving his iPhone back and forth. Strange, but seemingly innocuous.

ANGLE ON: a MIRROR on the cafe wall. It's bouncing reflected light from the iPhone. Quick flashes mixed with long ones.

ACROSS THE STREET: David sits on a bus bench, catching the flashes in the mirror through the window. Writes letters down. These aren't random. It's Morse code...

I was going to ask why go to such lengths to rephrase a single sentence .. but I'm afraid I get that way sometimes too. I think it's the way some people like us learn. While everybody else at the play center quickly learned that the triangle blocks didn't fit in the square holes - I was the kid in the corner vainly trying to make it fit. I eventually figured out the teacher was right .. but I had to repeatedly try it my own way first. It's just the way some of us learn - although it must have been very frustrating for the teachers!

OK - let's embrace it. One more attempt - rewrite #4. Let's change that one sentence to see if we can improve it. No having a character STARE at it. Just change the sentence.

The only versions I can come up with aren't as good. Can you do better?)

[Why One]

Re: Angle On

JOHN sits at a cafe table, casually moving his iPhone back and forth. Strange, but seemingly innocuous.

ANGLE ON: a MIRROR on the cafe wall. It's bouncing reflected light from the iPhone. Quick flashes mixed with long ones.

ACROSS THE STREET: David sits on a bus bench, catching the flashes in the mirror through the window. Writes letters down. These aren't random. It's Morse code...

vs

JOHN sits at a cafe table, casually moving his iPhone back and forth. Seems innocuous, but he's really using it to bounce light off a MIRROR on the cafe wall ... Quick flashes mixed with long ones ... Morse code ...

vs

JOHN sits at a cafe table, casually moving his iPhone back and forth. Strange, but seemingly innocuous.

He also stares intently at a MIRROR on the cafe wall, which bounces reflected light from the iPhone. Quick flashes mixed with long ones. Morse code.

ACROSS THE STREET: David sits on a bus bench, catching the flashes of light through a window. He writes the letters down.

The first one plays out like a movie with discernible shots. Something is happening: a guy is doing a piece of action. Another angle and the audience is seeing something else. Switch over to another character to get the reveal.

The second version: Something is happening, a guy is doing a piece of action. Someone turns around and explains it to you.

The third version: alters the dynamic of the scene completely. Alters the character action from innocuous to obvious. He's staring intently. I'm seeing a wide-eyed dude. He's playing the scene nervous as opposed to casual cool.

[Ven]

Re: Angle On

(PPS: Definitely delay the pay-off until the end. I had a reply pointing that out, but removed it because it was just bringing up a different issue. The payoff in the middle simply wasn't as good.)

Yeah I noticed it too. You can see I re-write on the fly constantly.

[-XL-]

Re: Angle On

JOHN sits at a cafe table, casually moving his iPhone back and forth. Strange, but seemingly innocuous.

He also stares intently at a MIRROR on the cafe wall, which bounces reflected light from the iPhone. Quick flashes mixed with long ones. Morse code.

ACROSS THE STREET: David sits on a bus bench, catching the flashes of light through a window. He writes the letters down.

You don't realise it but what you're doing is entirely changing the way we see this scene by changing the moment where we realise John is actually sending a message in morse code (in Craig's version it isn't until we're across the street).

*When* and *how* you reveal something can be just as important as *what* you're revealing. This is basic scene work and it is crucial to understand so that you can manipulate the elements of the scene for the most effect.

(ETA: I guess I was typing slowly...)

[Ven]

Re: Angle On

Just to keep track .. you are happy with this scene, but you are trying to come up with a better sentence?


Why go to such lengths to rephrase a single sentence?

The ANGLE ON version is a quick hitter. A lot of times, you'll want that.

But there are other times you may want a slower pace, so I'm just trying to fit it in with a more deliberate style. That's all really.

XL ....

yes, you type too f'in slow!

(actually it's probably that I type too fast)

[Craig Mazin]

Re: Angle On

So ANGLE ON is kind of like WE SEE on steroids?

(I don't know about others here, but I think I may have actually learned something -- thanks to this thread.)

It's similar to WE SEE in use.

I tend to use "WE SEE" for things are wider in scope, and often things that are seen by both the audience *and* the character(s). For instance:

John presses a button, and the wall behind him EXPLODES.

Through the gaping hole in the building, we see:

A MASSIVE CITY, filling a basin miles away, its gleaming spires rising up in the distance.


I use ANGLE ON for smaller things, typical "this would be missed by most, but you, the audience, can see it" type things. In many cases, the characters do *not* see the ANGLE ON thing. Only the audience.

John enters his password. The laptop screen begins scrolling through data.

ANGLE ON: the lamp behind him. PUSH IN to find:

A MICROCAMERA - focused on the laptop screen. The white of the scrolling text reflected in its tiny lens.

Am I "directing" this?

No.

I'm telling a story visually. I'm conveying my intention. This is absolutely standard. More than that, it's necessary and part of the job of the screenwriter. We aren't hired to write sluglines and dialogue. We are absolutely hired to paint a visual story, with clues and hints and specific descriptions of how that visual story ought to be realized.

[Craig Mazin]

Re: Angle On

The ANGLE ON version is a quick hitter. A lot of times, you'll want that.

But there are other times you may want a slower pace, so I'm just trying to fit it in with a more deliberate style. That's all really.

XL ....

yes, you type too f'in slow!

(actually it's probably that I type too fast)

ANGLE ON has nothing to do with pace. I could use it with any pace at all.

I don't know who you are, but you seem to be more concerned with saving face in an internet debate than accepting new information, admitting you were wrong, and moving on as a better writer.

You were totally wrong about this one, you continue to be wrong about it, and the only reason you're particularly annoying to me is that you continue to speak with the air of someone who really knows what they're talking about...

...when in painful clarity, you do not.

[Centos]

Re: Angle On

It's similar to WE SEE in use.

I tend to use "WE SEE" for things are wider in scope, and often things that are seen by both the audience *and* the character(s). For instance:

John presses a button, and the wall behind him EXPLODES.

Through the gaping hole in the building, we see:

A MASSIVE CITY, filling a basin miles away, its gleaming spires rising up in the distance.


I use ANGLE ON for smaller things, typical "this would be missed by most, but you, the audience, can see it" type things. In many cases, the characters do *not* see the ANGLE ON thing. Only the audience.

John enters his password. The laptop screen begins scrolling through data.

ANGLE ON: the lamp behind him. PUSH IN to find:

A MICROCAMERA - focused on the laptop screen. The white of the scrolling text reflected in its tiny lens.

Am I "directing" this?

No.

I'm telling a story visually. I'm conveying my intention. This is absolutely standard. More than that, it's necessary and part of the job of the screenwriter. We aren't hired to write sluglines and dialogue. We are absolutely hired to paint a visual story, with clues and hints and specific descriptions of how that visual story ought to be realized.

Now I understand. Thank you. Very clear examples.

[Mac H.]

Re: Angle On

Wow - thanks Craig. That really did explain things.

I've definitely learned something in this thread. Before the explanation with examples I could clearly see that your 'ANGLE ON' was better than my 'WE SEE' in that scene .. but I couldn't figure out *why* yours was better.

Now I wonder how I could have ever missed it .. it just seems obvious.

Thanks.

Mac

[Ven]

Re: Angle On

I don't know who you are, but you seem to be more concerned with saving face in an internet debate than accepting new information, admitting you were wrong, and moving on as a better writer.

You couldn't be more wrong.

If you read any of the other posts, I wrote something down and kept rewriting it, admitting to my shitty writing. Mac, Chad, XL, and at first you, gave great responses.

I am 100% sure that some people learned more in the last 1 page of this thread than they did in the first 15 (I know I did).
Even if that's what NOT to do. And then with your later responses, what TO DO.

My intent was never to prove that ANGLE ON should not be used. Ludicrous.
If you thought that was my intent, you were mistaken.

I merely said let's show through writing and explanation -- which we've been doing for the last page or two.

You were totally wrong about this one, you continue to be wrong about it

What was I wrong about? There are two topics in this thread ...

----------

1. Whether using ANGLE ON is ok. Clearly, it's useful and used by a lot of professionals. That's not the question. The question became whether new screenwriters should use "camera directions".

I said no, based only on what I had been told by a few people (directors and even, gasp, professional writers!). Then you guys said it's fine, based on your experience in the industry (which I never disputed), and apparently took issue with me saying otherwise. But I said what I said based on what I had been told by other professionals. Forget about amateurs on DD, can you not grasp the fact that other professionals might have said something different than you? And that they might have said it for reasons that have nothing to do with whether it is legitimately used in the industry or not?

Like I told Jeff, if you want, I can put you in touch with those people, so you can tell them to **** off, like you guys have basically told me.

Perhaps there is a reason those particular people say, as a general rule, don't use them. Look at this thread. You have amateurs who only partly know what they are doing, and pros that, for 15 pages, couldn't articulate why they use it when they do. It literally took until just the last page before someone said something useful, besides "just STFU and do whatever we tell you".

---------

2. Can you write the same description without ANGLE ON, or no?

And that's what we're getting at in the last page.

Can you write it better? Or at least different? Or is ANGLE ON the best technique?

Even if using ANGLE ON is 1,000% better than the 2nd best possible way to write the same description, what in the hell is wrong with playing around with something and learning? Not once has anyone said they were out to prove a premise that one style or technique is wrong. It's just a process of learning. Questioning and learning.

If you believe something, and especially if you feel that you irrefutably know something, show it. Even the teacher has to prove to the students WHY something works the way it does. True, you have no responsibility to teach anyone here anything, but since you take the time to post here, I assume that is a goal of yours, no?

and the only reason you're particularly annoying to me is that you continue to speak with the air of someone who really knows what they're talking about ... when in painful clarity, you do not.

Is that because I don't kiss a** when you make rude, condescending responses at me? Correct me if I'm wrong, but no matter how stupid I might sound, I don't think I was ever rude to you until now?

I see that's a common theme on the internet -- some forum founders or gurus, masquerading as providers of knowledge, but secretly harboring god-complexes that demand constant reassurance of their greatness.

It's like 2nd team NBA'ers spending too much time at their old high school so they can hoop it up on undeveloped teenagers.

Thankfully, I've spoken to many professionals in this industry who are not like that. They are polite and helpful, no matter how much of a struggle it might be to convey an idea to someone. I am not a screenwriting teacher, but I have taught in schools, and trained people in my line of work, and not once in my life have I ever, or seen a fellow co-worker ever, maliciously disparage a student or trainee. No matter how frustrating it gets.

But, apparently a couple of pros on DD feel that it's ok, because they are behind a computer speaking to someone they have never met before. That makes it ok.

Let me tell you something ...

When people who know what they are doing take time out of their busy schedules to instruct others (in any profession), we are all grateful.
No matter how many times you tell us we are wrong, as long as you explain why, we'll deal with it.

But when all you have to say for 15 pages is "I'm a pro, lolz, do what I say, don't ask why, lolz, oh I guess that means you'll never figure it out, lolz" and otherwise act like a condescending jacka**, no, nobody is grateful for that, no matter who you are.

[nic.h]

Re: Angle On

Can we please keep the personal out of it? The round and round doesn't help either. There have been some very helpful responses here, so I'm not sure why it had to continue for so many pages. The question seems to have been asked and answered more than once.

Agree or disagree, but please don't resort to personal attacks.