Angle On

[goldmund]

Re: Angle On

Craig, the examples you provided read really cool, but I still don't get the necessity of this Angle thing :-(

It's as if you were drawing a detailed storyboard cut-for-cut. What if it went like that:

John enters his password.
The laptop screen begins scrolling through data.
On a lamp behind John...
is a microcamera. It focuses on the screen.

What I usually do is I just start a new line to imply the angle change.

Do you think I lost something along the way?

[JeffLowell]

Re: Angle On

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.

I'll take you up on your generous offer. Please PM me their names and contact info. Thanks.

[Why One]

Re: Angle On

<Kicks up a chair, tears open a super-sized bag of chips.>

[goldmund]

Re: Angle On

Damn, Bruckheimer's in for some ugly emails.

[SundownInRetreat]

Re: Angle On

I feel like I'm in church. All the pros? Really?

This is why we get asinine threads that rattle on for weeks and why the pros pull their hair out - because certain people just want to debate and argue and nitpick rather than put simple matters to bed. You're taking issue with my use of all? Now it's my turn to ask: really?

Because you unbelievably seek clarification, let me address this for you: I was referring to all the pros here at DD. Is that okay with you or is this where you mention a DDer who I'm unaware has turned pro and point out he hasn't spoken on the matter yet? I was also referring to the pros that the resident pros have referred to. And all the pro interviews and articles and scripts I've read.

Okay I exaggerated - that isn't all the pros in the whole wide world.But it should have been pretty obvious that I didn't mean every single one just as it should've been obvious that - just on the input on this forum alone - that pros confirm it's completely and utterly valid and that the industry as a whole doesn't damn well care if you use it.

Elevating 'ANGLE ON' to the stature of a legitimate tool is the first mistake.

Take your pic: or or

SundownInRetreat mentioned how ANGLE ON could be used in an extremely powerful and evocative way. This is great! This would be a great example to show new writers on how to use ANGLE ON in a proper and effective way.

What I actually said was used in conjuntion with pull back and push in it can be very powerful and evocative. Surely this doesn't need spelling out?

I can't give an example because of the pro and non-pro scripts that I've read, I've never seen it done in a way one would consider extremely powerful and evocative.

Then you can't have read many scripts - or seen many films.

SundownInRetreat says, "...it's irrelevant to go fish pro scripts for examples and prove as all the pros have confirmed it's a legitimate tool...-

-- This isn't about whether ANGLE ON is an legitimate tool or not. Early in this thread, my very first post mentioned this is indeed a legitimate tool.

Yes it is. The whole point is that it shouldn't even be up for discussion as there is nothing wrong with it.

What I don't understand is why you have to fish through pro scripts to present an example. You mentioned that you have used ANGLE ON in the opening of your own scripts where it enhanced the read in an extremely powerful and evocative way.

No, I said I used angle on in my opening pages. Plus, I shouldn't have to - you should be able to identify them yourself. And as HH said, it would only encourage people to disagree - here's a guy key to this thread who thinks Casino is badly written because it uses angle on and co! Plus I'm not going to be so presumptious as to claim my writing is extremely provocative.

But seeing as you insist on being spoon fed - check out the Hitchcock film Rope - where the cam. I'm not sure if it was written in the script or was a director's choice

Now, when you post opinions, I'll be wondering if you're making points up to give credence and to strengthen your opinion on the different topics of discussion.

Wonder all you like. But how is giving my opinion ever making things up? Or even strengthening my stance? Ven referring to nameless directors and ignoring requests from 3 pros to name them is cause to assume 'make believe to strengthen an opinion'.

To say that something is used in professional scripts so there's nothing wrong with it, is not a strong argument, to say the least.

And this is exactly why I said whether you like 'angle on' or not, you need to understand there is nothing wrong with it. How many producers, pro writers and scripts bought is it going to take before you realise this? Some may not like sounds in caps or blocks of a/d more than 2 lines or witty asides to the reader but it doesn't mean any of it is wrong. Just possibly not to your taste. I don't like INT or EXT so I just choose not to use them - not whine about them.

In short, there are reasons artists use it when they use it. They don't simply slap blue on the canvas because they can and it's cool.

And this is why I said Jeff's painter analogy would be lost on those who insist on dgging their heels in and being dogmatic over a non-issue. The point isn't about judicous usage - as you're trying to make out - but the fact that numerous pros have told you how it really is and it's ludicrous to ignore the pros and....oh **** it.

"Renoir and Monet used blue, and this guy down the street who's an up-and-coming artist says blue is his favorite color to work with, so I'll just use it whenever I want."

Exactly! Do you not see this is exactly what Jeff was getting at? Did you not see the lunacy of your current, myth-grounded outlook? There is nothing wrong with it!!!

You need...ah **** it.

Shows you what reasonable discussion can lead to!

Reasonable? What's reasonable about ignoring the blatant truth, ignoring the pros and producers (and scripts) and sticking to foundless myth? What's reasonable about being so obstinate that it drives Jeff to make his mocking analogy?

Yes. God forbid an artist should feel free to use a color just because he wanted to.

There you go! What more do you want Ven?

Yes but if the artist decides "what the hell, I'll use blue today" he will already know how to use it well.

When the wannabe-artist decides, "what the hell, I'll use blue today" chances are he doesn't know what he's doing.

But you can say this about anything in a script - from dialogue to a/d to the use of certain words. An amateur can type: "he hit him and hit him again and went to leave and turned back and fired a cold stare and left and walked out into the rain" but it doesn't mean "and" is to be handled with care.

but I also know that a few people in the biz have said it to me

Who?

And I think DavidK gave the best response possible in the similar "Writing Inner Thoughts" thread just posted.

So what about David's response that it's never been an issue and that he, nor anyone else he has come across in the business, cares?

you are an authoritative voice because, when questioned, you usually give authoritative responses (just like ChadStrohl did on the color blue). This above, however, was one of the exceptions.

How more authoritive do you want Jeff to be? He's told you enough times - mocking you for the past 3.

e "if it works, it works" line doesn't work. It doesn't lead to any understanding at all.
Mastering any craft is about repetition and that response never leads to repetition.

And this is exactly what i said in my previous post - how c ertain people are scared by the abstract, where things can't be easily defined, pinned down, broken down. You're looking for rules and formula in a field that is artistic, and thus abstract, in nature. No one can say use this/don't use it and it wil be good - it's all in the delivery.

the question remains: what are the merits of using it? Are there any?

Did you even read Craig's replies? Can you not see for yourself the merits (or lack of)?

Or could you just write the same thing with standard description?

That's for you to decide. Just like anything else in regards to writing. Or just read - and digest - Jeff's words: "You know what? I'm getting tired of doing people's homework for them. Get some produced screenplays. Search for the phrase "ANGLE ON." See how professional writers use it. Decide whether or not you want to do it."

I know, I know. Your experience trumps mine. You've had unnamed directors politely hint at vague rules that you interpreted, after reading between the lines.

Thank god eager writers on done deal have the benefit of your wisdom, which you so freely and definitively share.

Is this derisory and mocking message from Jeff getting the message across Ven? Or are you going to see through it like every other pro opinion that's debunked what you're keep insisting is true? Are you going to contineu to say that Casino is a badly written script?

And finally - as if this shouldn't even be necessary by now:

I'm a bit confused though - you said 'instead of writing a standard description'. 'ANGLE ON' is a standard description.

That's it Ven. It really is that simple!

I've typed enough now and not much more to say but it really is clear that you're just digging your heels in, reluctant to admit you're wrong. And over something so minor too - I just don't get it.

[SundownInRetreat]

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).

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??

This. Times infinity.

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.

Okay, last post (I just want to sit in a corner and cry after all this). Can you see this Ven? You've missed all the other definitive times the pros have told you you're wrong so can you see this one at last? It's reassuring to see I wasn't the only one who thinks you're trying to save face whilst stubbornly refusing to grow.


And to finish, your spat at Craig is compleely bizarre. Not once have the pros done what you've accused them of and as for their patience finally giving - look at the way you've acted throughout these past 15 pages. You would have tested the patience of a saint and there's only so many times people can repeat the same message and be met with staunch defiance before they finally turn. And even when they did - they only highlighted the lunacy of your stance.

[Why One]

Re: Angle On

To me, it's the contrarian attitude.

You see them in every class: at school, college, corporate induction days, training courses, seminars etc. It's that know-it-all guy that holds up the class by challenging everything the teacher says -- exhaustively until:
A - The contrarian wears the teacher down and he relents by throwing the contrarian a bone to shut him up so the class can move on.
B - The contrarian can't think up a better comeback.

Whatever the case, the contrarian's MO isn't to learn. It's to be right, but doing so under the guise of inquisitiveness.

You don't have to look far to find uses of the ANGLE variations. Heck, just read the DIE HARD script.

But, without a shadow of a doubt, the contrarian would rewrite the DIE HARD script, removing every usage of the word ANGLE and saying, "Why can't it be written like this?"

[mge457]

Re: Angle On

Holy hell. It's amazing we still have pros here at all.

Thank you Craig, Jeff and BDZ, you've offered some great advice in this thread. Asking for clarification is one thing, but these posts have become much more than that.

If you like the advice, use it. If you don't, move on.

[JoeNYC]

Re: Angle On

Mac. H says, "I'm a bit confused though - you said 'instead of writing a standard description,' 'ANGLE ON' is a standard description.-

-- Ven's talking about writing simple scene description to achieve the desired effect a writer wants instead of using a technical term.

There are subtle ways to shift focus and direct a reader's eye (direct the camera) from one person or thing to another, and then there are blatant ways.

An example in a blatant way:

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

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

ACROSS THE STREET: David sits on a bus bench...

An example in a subtle way:

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

MIRROR (or, A MIRROR)

on the café wall. It's bouncing reflected light from the iPhone. Quick flashes mixed with long ones.

ACROSS THE STREET: David sits on a bus bench...

-- Highlighting "mirror- this way you focus the reader's attention to the mirror, implying your desired effect without having to use technical jargon.

If you don't prefer using a minislug, you just break up the lines and put "mirror- in its own paragraph, which implies there's a shift of focus: A MIRROR on the café wall. It's bouncing...

Think about it. Does a reader really need a camera direction, such as, ANGLE ON in front of every intense or important visual to get the effect that the reader wants?

There are some writers/readers, such as in this thread, that'll say they like how it reads with the camera direction. That's cool. If this is the best way for them, then certainly use it.

Some writers/readers, like myself, feel the story flows more easily without being weighted down by technical jargon, interrupting the flow. One expects to see technical jargon such as Master Scene Headings, Character Cues, etc. in their expected locations, but when it suddenly POPS up in the action/description narrative it's jarring. It distracts from the story and slows the read down for the reader.

A reader wants to be immersed in a powerful and a compelling story, but when those technical terms POP up, it reminds the reader he's holding a screenplay.

Now I realize there are writers/readers who feel technical jargon doesn't bother them and in some situations may enhance the read. We don't need a "Spartacus" moment with writers getting up on their feet and shouting for another ten pages: "I use technical jargon and I love it!-

I'm just grateful for message boards like this that suggest to new writers to use camera directions sparingly and effectively. It makes the read a lot easier for me.

Well, thanks to this thread catching a second breath, I believe new writers now have sufficient amount of information to make a knowledgeable decision on whether or not to use a tool such as Angle On in their work.

[jonpiper]

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.

It took 145 posts in this thread to get to this.

Now I understand. Thank you. Very clear examples.

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

Totally agree.

To me, it's the contrarian attitude.

You see them in every class: at school, college, corporate induction days, training courses, seminars etc. It's that know-it-all guy that holds up the class by challenging everything the teacher says -- exhaustively until:
A - The contrarian wears the teacher down and he relents by throwing the contrarian a bone to shut him up so the class can move on.
B - The contrarian can't think up a better comeback.

Whatever the case, the contrarian's MO isn't to learn. It's to be right, but doing so under the guise of inquisitiveness.

You don't have to look far to find uses of the ANGLE variations. Heck, just read the DIE HARD script.

But, without a shadow of a doubt, the contrarian would rewrite the DIE HARD script, removing every usage of the word ANGLE and saying, "Why can't it be written like this?"

I know how you feel, Why One, but without Ven's contrarianess, for whatever reason you want to attribute it to, and the lively debate in this thread, Craig may never have made his above post.

Diamonds are difficult to mine. That's why discussion forums were invented.

Hang in there, Ven.

[Craig Mazin]

Re: Angle On

Craig, the examples you provided read really cool, but I still don't get the necessity of this Angle thing :-(

It's as if you were drawing a detailed storyboard cut-for-cut. What if it went like that:

John enters his password.
The laptop screen begins scrolling through data.
On a lamp behind John...
is a microcamera. It focuses on the screen.

What I usually do is I just start a new line to imply the angle change.

Do you think I lost something along the way?

Yes. It's not fun to read. It's flat. No sense of emphasis.

I see dead writing like this all the time. And if I'm seeing it, it's because they want me to rewrite it, which means the guy who wrote it got booted from his script.

Engage the reader. Thrill them. Make them curious. Reveal dramatic things--

-- with DRAMA!

Right?

[Craig Mazin]

Re: Angle On

Is that because I don't kiss a** when you make rude, condescending responses at me?

No. Honestly. You've reversed the arrow of causality.

Try not to speak with an authority you do not have. You said "Angle On is a major no-no."

Don't say things are major no-nos if you're not yet major. You'll find out what the major no-nos are.

They have NOTHING to do with script formatting or style choices.

[JeffLowell]

Re: Angle On

I know how you feel, Why One, but without Ven's contrarianess, for whatever reason you want to attribute it to, and the lively debate in this thread, Craig may never have made his above post.

Or, you know, he could have asked and saved us all a lot of time.

[goldmund]

Re: Angle On

Yes. It's not fun to read. It's flat. No sense of emphasis.

I see dead writing like this all the time. And if I'm seeing it, it's because they want me to rewrite it, which means the guy who wrote it got booted from his script.

Engage the reader. Thrill them. Make them curious. Reveal dramatic things--

-- with DRAMA!

Right?

Thanks. To understand that a script is a tool of excitement, a dildo for the reader's imagination, was really a major step for me. That I should think and convey my feelings like the most excited audience member to ever see that movie... because if I'm not excited, who the hell would be.

But it was a lesson from you guys.

In books and at film school we are taught to be dead. With a reason, I think. Because when most people write emphatically, the result is ridiculous. Dead is safe.

[odocoileus]

Re: Angle On

a tool of excitement, a dildo for the reader's imagination,