Angle On

[Craig Mazin]

Re: Angle On

ANGLE ON isn't even a camera direction! It's actually an EDITORIAL direction, which we are constantly making as screenwriters... and in fact *must* make as screenwriters.

ANGLE ON is no more an encroachment on the director than "EXT."

When we type ANGLE ON, we're simply saying to the reader "visual continuity has been disrupted... instead of looking at what we were just looking at, we're now looking at...."

[Ven]

Re: Angle On

Posted this elsewhere in a response and re-posting here since it's on topic.

I didn't say "angle on" would get your script thrown out, I said don't do it. Several people over the years have told me, don't do it. Especially directors, the ones I've talked to absolutely hate it. "Write the script, don't direct the film."

Besides, it's superfluous 99% of the time.

That said, if you're Craig Mazin and your script is pretty kick ass, of course even if someone doesn't care for the camera directions, they are going to put that aside and like the script as a whole. Or they might not care. But if you're like most people and have a ton of different things wrong with your screenplays, you have to start cleaning them up somewhere.

------

Putting the debate about whether it's industry acceptable or not aside, can we talk about the merits (or lack thereof IMO) for using "angle on" and other directions?

I'll admit to inserting them in very occasionally in order to slow down or speed up the pace of the read at a critical juncture, but that's not screenwriting 101, right? So I don't see the value in a blanket statement of "it's ok" when most people are just going to use them to direct the film instead of actually using them to improve the writing or smooth out the read, which is how they should be used IMO.

Not arguing with anyone else's opinion or experience, just discussing.

[cristopherous]

Re: Angle On

I'm happy to answer that question, but first...

...because I'm an optimist....

...can you think of one really good reason why these two practices should be considered differently?

You can see ANGLE ON: but many times when summing up characters you can't.

But it's not even these two practices in general. When we are learning screenwriting, one of the best things we can do is read scripts. If the pro or repped scripts I read all have differing practices, how am I, as an aspiring writer, to determine which ones are right?

Thanks again, Craig.

[SundownInRetreat]

Re: Angle On

Putting the debate about whether it's industry acceptable or not aside...

There is no debate. Just like there is no spoon. Just like there is no debate about whether EXT will wreck a script. This is what we've been at pains to get across.

[SundownInRetreat]

Re: Angle On

I'm happy to answer that question, but first...

...because I'm an optimist....

...can you think of one really good reason why these two practices should be considered differently?

Because ANGLE ON can be seen - character bios (at their moment of intro) can't?

[SuperScribe]

Re: Angle On

One helps to make a movie leap off the page; the other stops that movie cold.

[TwoBrad Bradley]

Re: Angle On

I'm going to shoot off a letter to Final Draft suggesting they add a new format element: Editorial.

Come to think of it, because there is also nothing inherently wrong with it, how about a 'Camera' element?

Then there could be SmartType lists for each category. Think of the time savings - especially for the pros.

[JeffLowell]

Re: Angle On

I'm going to shoot off a letter to Final Draft suggesting they add a new format element: Editorial.

Come to think of it, because there is also nothing inherently wrong with it, how about a 'Camera' element?

Then there could be SmartType lists for each category. Think of the time savings - especially for the pros.

It's already there - it's called "shot."

And you're right - it's very useful for pros.

[JoeNYC]

Re: Angle On

Craig Mazin says, "ANGLE ON isn't even a camera direction! It's actually an EDITORIAL direction ... we're simply saying to the reader 'visual continuity has been disrupted ... instead of looking at what we were just looking at, we're now looking at...'-

-- In my opinion, camera direction and editing direction, or also known as continuity editing, are practically the same thing. Directors follow a conventional pattern of camera placement and editing.

Continuity editing is a style of editing that the director uses to make the film authentic as possible for the audience that matches the relationships from shot to shot to maintain a continuous and clear narrative action, so the viewer isn't distracted by awkward jumps between shots, such as: Establishing Shot, Re-establishing Shot, POV Shot, Long Shot, Medium Shot, Two Shot, Reverse Angle Shot, Extreme Close Up Shot, etc.

When I see something like...

EXT. AFRICA - DAY

HIGH ANGLE ON the treetops of a lush green rainforest, beautiful and mysterious and seemingly endless.

...it sure seems to me to be a camera direction expressing the placement of the camera.

[SundownInRetreat]

Re: Angle On

When I see something like...

EXT. AFRICA - DAY

HIGH ANGLE ON the treetops of a lush green rainforest, beautiful and mysterious and seemingly endless.

...it sure seems to me to be a camera direction expressing the placement of the camera.

And........?


It's all good.

[Why One]

Re: Angle On

ANGLE ON... my ass!

[JoeNYC]

Re: Angle On

And........?

-- Craig said in his opinion "Angle On" wasn't a camera direction.

[DavidK]

Re: Angle On

Craig Mazin says, "ANGLE ON isn't even a camera direction! It's actually an EDITORIAL direction ... we're simply saying to the reader 'visual continuity has been disrupted ... instead of looking at what we were just looking at, we're now looking at...'-

Yeah, and there are different ways of doing it. You could use "we see", or nothing. You say they "are practically the same thing" and you are right that they are almost the same thing, but not quite. That's where the natural writer in you comes into play. Your gift for usage, and knowing how to describe something the right way at the right time to create the right effect is what makes the difference.

HIGH ANGLE ON the treetops of a lush green rainforest, beautiful and mysterious and seemingly endless.

...it sure seems to me to be a camera direction expressing the placement of the camera.

That's right and there's nothing wrong with that. As with most of these things, it's not about knowing a rule which states whether or not you can or should use it, it's about knowing when it's appropriate and how to use it. These are the sorts of things that separate those who want to write from those who can write and there comes a point at which it's impossible to explain because the difference comes from within the writer and isn't something they're even conscious of, it's just something they know how to do.

[tavis sarmento]

Re: Angle On

When we type ANGLE ON, we're simply saying to the reader "visual continuity has been disrupted... instead of looking at what we were just looking at, we're now looking at...."

This is exactly how I thought of it, but wasn't sure others did.

I need to stop second-guessing myself.

[SuperScribe]

Re: Angle On

ANGLE ON... my ass!