My Creative Process Section 2

Reads: 472  | Likes: 0  | Shelves: 0  | Comments: 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Reddit
  • Pinterest
  • Invite

Status: Finished  |  Genre: Memoir  |  House: Booksie Classic

Continuing the story of my creative journey from short stories to a novel and a screenplay.

My lesson 10
?In completing the story, be sure to address all questions posed throughout the story and show how this has affected all the major characters as they finally resolved their issues.
?In part 11 we shall be looking at story versus the screenplay.
 

My Creative Journey Part 11

Hi readers

Today, we will be looking at Story versus the Screenplay.

One of the earliest things I learned was how much more visual-orientated a screenplay was compared to a story. I have touched upon how many stories tend to focus inwards on a character, examining internal thoughts and inner conflicts. Very often this is shown when the story is told in the first person singular. Scripts or screenplays, being more visual, tend to show emotions, ideas or intentions in an external way.

A quick example. A man wearing a hat is disgusted with the price of admission to a concert. Perhaps he has been speaking to a staff member in the ticket office. Maybe he has been reading the ticket rates on a board in the foyer. In a story we hear his thoughts; we read the words pouring out of his subconscious, and then the man walks away without paying. Fine. For a story. But how to show that visually for a screenplay? The trick is to do this in the best way, and that means without a single word of dialogue. Whereas stories and books relish lines of dialogue and engulf themselves in words, dialogue and yet more words via the subconscious, the best screenplays do it with few if any words. The clue is VISUAL. What we see, rather than what we hear. That’s the real difference. One answer is to show in a screenplay a close up of the eyes of the man. What does he do when he is annoyed? Do his eyes narrow in disgust. Or widen in rage. Perhaps we see him take a big sigh. He shakes his head, which even with slight movements, is clearly shown by his hat, when viewed from a distance. Or perhaps he simply grimaces and leaves. Or we can show the simplest way, of how he expresses disgust, which works from a wide shot, that’s camera term, for seeing the whole picture from a distance. He angrily chucks his hat to the ground and storms off.

With stories, the pictures form in your head; the head of the reader. In your mind, from the descriptions given, you build up an image of the characters, you imagine how they sound, you read what they truly think about the lovely buxom lady who has just entered their restaurant - their life. The dialogue, internal or spoken by one character to another, can be flowery, “regional”, beautiful, Shakespearean or poetic, not to say angelic.

With screenplays, the purpose is to tell a story as much as possible visually. It is for a larger audience, and forms the blueprint for a collaboration of many film makers, and just as a single still picture or photograph can only hint at the internal emotions of the subject, so too does the result of a screenplay, a film, of many frames (pictures) shot per second, can only hint at the internal emotions of the subject, unless the subject is DOING something. Visual – not internal, that’s the key. The best screenplays, and by extension the best films tell their stories visually, with style and without too much dialogue.

When I wrote “The Strongest Man Alive” I knew instinctively that I was writing in a more visual way than “Away with the Wind”, and this was partly because of the very visual, very action-orientated theme, and partly because of the subject matter, or theme of the story. To be sure, even the best romantic films are based on a screenplay that shows action, and action in this case doesn’t necessarily mean a couple diving into bed like a couple of Olympic swimmers, but “action” as in movement, the kind of subtle movement which shows emotions, as given in the example of the man with the hat above.

Always the thing to consider with a screenplay is how to show this scene (or part of the story) in a visual way, as opposed to doing it by dialogue. The film E.T is a film which is incredibly moving at the end, and it’s done visually. You will recall how earlier in the film when Elliot hurts his finger and says, “ouch”, ET recognised that this meant pain. Elliot did not have to clumsily say, “it hurts”. “Ouch”, the expression on his face tells us all we need to know. Therefore at the end when E.T is about to leave his friend, and his finger moves from his heart to touch Elliot and says, “Ouch” you know instantly what it means. Watch that scene again. Now watch that scene again and replace it with ET saying, “painful for me to leave you” Is that as powerful? See what I mean? Too many words there. And incidentally, ET himself says very little. In that scene, E.T simply says “come”. Elliot simply says, “stay.” That’s it. As little dialogue as possible. If this intelligent alien had learned the entire English language in a day, like the mermaid in Splash (and by the way, I do like Daryl Hannah, and the film too), and chatted like everyone else, do you think the ending would have been as powerful? “Oh please come with me, Elliot, we can’t break this bond, we’d always be together, you’d love my world, all my people would love you like I do, it would be wonderful…..blah…blah….blah…”

Take the example of the plants springing to life when Elliot had thought ET had died. As soon as he saw the plants springing up (a VISUAL clue) he knew that ET was back! No need for boring dialogue like, “Elliot I’m alive!” No sh** Sherlock. I would never have known for sure as dead people speak to me all the time! Good grief!

In First Blood Part II, after John Rambo’s girlfriend dies in Vietnam, when he has finished burying her, having wrapped around his neck her good-luck pendant, his hands in mud, clenching fist, then he picks up his crossbow, rises slowly and looks out, you know this guy is seriously pissed off! His eyes, his facial expression says it all. He doesn’t even need to shout in rage. And visually the rain helps too. It won’t just be raining water either….

In Pyscho, you know there’s trouble brewing. A mysterious house shrouded in darkness not far from Bates motel. When Norman Bates comes running down to see his guest, already something is not quite right. Then it gets worse. The empty motel, the business with selecting the room key..his quirky movements, pauses, hesitation, awkward silences, uncertainty, unable to say, “bathroom”, wanting to have her share his meal with him in the office, then not in the office, then in the room covered with stuffed birds bearing down on the Janet Leigh’s character, as though advertising for Hitchcock’s next Birds film! Indeed the stuffed animals look like they’re about to pounce on her. Would you eat in a room like that? And that’s even before he speaks to say how “a boy’s best friend is his mother…” Yikes! Sometimes a good screenplay can tell you all about a scene with or without character involvement. Look at the landscape, the weather, the animals, the stuffed birds, claustrophobic attitude, rustling leaves, blood trail, haunting mood - and the music helps too. And yes, even the screenplay can include notes on sounds and music, in a way that a story cannot.

Unlike a story, complete unto itself, screenplays are the first stages in the process of making a film. There are many things to consider, and the script just touches upon it. The first thing you notice when you read a screenplay is the somewhat unusual approach to storytelling. Characters are introduced by name and description in bold font, or CAPITAL, and the dialogue stands out from the rest of the description by virtue of being in the centre of the page. Also certain actions are highlighted in CAPITAL. This shows where the emphasis lies, and helps to distinguish for the director and everyone involved in filmmaking, what needs to be shown and how it needs to be shown, and the actors can clearly see what words they need, and how they will express it in the context given. It certainly surprised me when I first laid eyes on it. It was a strange new world for me. So I had to learn.

FADE IN

INT. HOUSE - DAWN

There was ME, Young and ambitious. And I looked at my paper, RAISED it to my FACE.

ME
 (very surprised)
 How am I going to learn this new form of writing?
 How will I learn to write a screenplay?

Then I sat down and STROKED MY CHIN thoughtfully, and set to work…

And so readers, that’s an example of the structure of a screenplay. When the film opens, going from a black image or a series of company logos and opens up, we FADE IN. If you were watching me in a film, then you would see me raise a paper to my face, a (camera) close up of my chin being stroked. Because that’s what the director, or screenwriter wants.

INT. HOUSE – DAWN This simply means Internal, as in the opening scene or beginning of a story based inside the house, and of course it is early morning. EXT. means external, a scene that’s set outside. Yes, there were quite a few things to learn.

But there’s more to it than just the technical structural and visual differences too. Where a novel, for example, can have a myriad of characters, a few dozen or a few hundred, screenplays tend to be condensed and consequently have fewer characters. Very often a character on film can be a composite of many other characters in a story upon which the screenplay was based. The reason is simple. A thousand page novel has lots of time to introduce and build up characters and atmosphere and storylines and gradually bring them to a crescendo in a final outcome. A 120 page screenplay has to do the same job in a fraction of the time. Consequently not only can we not have too many characters in a screenplay, but things have to be trimmed down.

Another example.

A story can take many pages to depict a character who is fed up with the world and the politics of the world; he is a loner and has many past reasons for being so. We can read the thoughts of his mind and get a clear picture of the character. He can even voice his views to many people within the pages of the story. The challenge is how to show this visually and quickly in less than a page of script. Simple. The film or script opens up with a dishevelled man in a lonely apartment, no pictures of loved ones, few items in the house, and we see him disgruntled, a TV in the background. After adverts the TV then shows a politician speaking. The man sums up the energy to stroll over and switches off the TV in disgust. The telephone answer machine pips up, and a voice says “we haven’t seen you in ages? Why don’t you answer the phone?” Then he switches of answer machine and unplugs the phone. That tells you everything. Below is how I would write it as a screenplay.

FADE IN:

EXT. TOWN VILLAGE – DAY

A row of cottages on a quiet street. A speeding car breaks the silence. Passes a brown cottage. We CLOSE IN on a brown thatched cottage set slightly apart from the others.

INT. MESSY COTTAGE LOUNGE – DAY BRIAN COBSON, an unshaven man, unkempt wearily gazes out the window. We HEAR TV ADVERTS in the background. COBSON still gazes out. Then we hear VOICE OF POLITICIAN. V.O. (means voice over)
 We need a new kind of politics, this country cannot
 continue to carry on this way. If I’m elected I promise..

COBSON suddenly seems wide awake. He turns away, strolls towards TV. He SIGHS. Switches it off. Then telephone rings. Answer machine BEEPS. Recording starts.

V.O.
 Brian darling, where are you? Why don’t you answer
 the phone? It’s been ages since we all last saw you.
 Please answer….

COBSON SIGHS again and switches off the machine.

And, that is how I’d start the screenplay. In this short time we know that he doesn’t care about his room, his appearance or speaking to anyone. He doesn’t mind gazing out the window, and listening to adverts, but he has no time for politicians. That’s how it’s done. Short and simple, much like the sentences and dialogue in the script. Sentences and descriptions are short, as it depicts camera shots, and angles. Sentences do not deliberately flow as they would in a story.

That was lesson 11.
?My lesson 11
?Understanding and implementing the story in the structure of a screenplay.
?Keeping characters and descriptions simple and above all visual to illustrate the characters, their intentions and storyline.Next week, in part 12 we shall consider Dialogue, continuing the story of my creative film journey.

My Creative Journey Part 12

Today, we will be looking at Dialogue.

One of the most fascinating things I fell in love with when writing my stories was the endless variety of conveying thoughts and ideas through the words of a character. The English language is truly beautiful and we can thank all the different cultures that contributed to it, including the Normans, Saxons and Vikings.

I love words. My characters would come out with lines like “to whom it may concern, rest assured ye gentlemen that in my capacity as warlord within the lands hither, I’d do my utmost in this most grave hour. Beyond the shires, I will indeed invoke the spirits of my ancestors, and thus ensure that before the sun sets, victory shall lie within our grasp!” Say what? Well, this story was based within a mythical, magical, medieval realm. All that “King Arthur” stuff is really groovy. In fact I read a great deal of books with dialogue like that. Then I looked at the dialogue in screenplays. Let’s just say it’s different. Now, don’t get me wrong; there’ll still be historical-based films where you’d get a smattering of that kind of dialogue; perhaps more in the past than you would get today, but even on a contemporary level, a character might come up with, “when I saw you across the room, I felt we were meant to be together”. Now that’s not too bad, but honestly, how many people would utter those words….sober? More to the point, if a guy said that, how many women would believe him?

There are two main differences I learned about dialogue. 1. Brevity.
2.Realism

If we take difference number 1, what could take five or six or more words in a book’s character dialogue, should take less in a script. Remember, the idea is to convey more action or visual aspects of a story and leave dialogue where possible to a minimum.

If we take number 2, we have to make it sound like ordinary, everyday conversation.

So if we pick up the first example of our warrior promising to help win a battle, a modern translation might look and sound like this. “For those interested, know this. As war leader, I will do my best and will also pray for victory today” See how much more realistic that sounds, even with the historical-type context of the story. It is therefore shorter, and more realistic. A more streetwise modern take on it, especially if the leader in question is a gang/drug leader would sound something like, “listen ya’ll. I’m the badass motherf….. round here, and their ass is ours!” Too strong? Maybe. Realistic? Hell yes. We don’t even need to make prayers.

If we pick up on our next example, when the guy falls for a girl, it could come across like this, “as soon as I saw you I knew it!” Those would be his words. Short and sweet, inviting the girl to respond, most likely with, “knew what?” And in the script, the character would simply smile a sweet smile and nod gently, as if to say, “yes you’re the one.” Though he won’t actually say it. See how much more powerful that is? More realistic.

Ultimately, how I learned to write good dialogue was to listen very carefully to what people say everyday, minus the swearing hopefully – unless called for in the context of character and situation - (and I’m assuming we are writing a contemporary story here) and then substitute that for my “writers’ dialogue” which tends to flow and be all flowery. Also when actions can convey dialogue instead, use it.

So here’s another example, just made up. In a story, the character approaches people on the street and says “I’m Captain Kramer of the special police branch, investigating the disappearance of Mrs Wood, a neighbour here.” In the script this becomes, the character simply flashed his badge and said, “Captain Kramer. Have you seen Mrs Wood?” See? Short, sweet and realistic.

Here is one more made up example. In the story, a girl is comforting a well-known street beggar who has lost his beloved dog. As a story the dialogue might be like this. “Listen Joe, I heard from Mac that your dog died. I’m really sorry; I know how much he meant to you. All those years together…and it was so sudden. I just can’t convey my sympathy enough…my thoughts are with you…anything I can do for you?” But in my script, I would simply write, the girl silently strolled towards him, wiping off a single tear and sat beside him. She reached out, held him by the hand, gazing at the photo of the dog. “So sad”. They sat together in silence for a long while, then she gave him a hug, and passed a card to him. “Sorry Joe, gotta go, call me anytime.” See the difference?

The other thing I learned to do was to emphasize the difference in characters by their dialogue. While I had always done this, it was brought sharply home to me while learning to write dialogue for the screen. Take this story-type example.

“Listen Jack, I told you that if you don’t study hard, you’ll end up like me – in a deadend job. I’ve told you dozens and dozens of times. You don’t get many opportunities in life, and this one is superb. Now you have three weeks until the finals, what are you going to do about it? Well? Do you really want to end up doing what I do?” “But Paul, your work is all right. I don’t see anything wrong with it. I’m happy just doing this. We all get along. Your friends are my friends. After all, you managed all right, didn’t you?”

What does this interaction tell you about the characters?

Now try this.

“Listen Jack, I done tell ya, you gonna wind up like me if you don’t grab that bull by the horns. Ain’t no big deal doing this I can tell ya. Ya want something better, ya wanna look better, talk better. Exams coming up soon. Ya gonna go for it or what?” “But Paul, your work is all right. I don’t see anything wrong with it. I’m happy just doing this. We all get along. Your friends are my friends. After all, you managed all right, didn’t you?”

Now what does this interaction tell you about the characters? Different backgrounds, perhaps? Now try this below.

1 “Now I done tell ya, I don’t like this food” 2 “I told you, I don’t like this food”

Who was speaking the first line, Jack or Paul? See the difference dialogue and the type of dialogue does for a character? Here’s another exercise.
1.“I’d like to withdraw some money please, preferably in notes – maybe just a few coins”
2.“I wanna take out some cash now. “
3.“Hey bro, need to get out some dosh”
4.“Listen asshold, I want money”

Tell me, who is the most educated one. Number 1, 2, 3 or 4? Who is the most impatient? And who sounds like a bank robber? Who sounds like a student? Again dialogue can tell us so much about a character, and also their mood.

It is understanding the importance of brevity, realism and reading the hidden characterisations within the words, types of words used and manner in which they are used.

That was lesson 12.
?My lesson 12
?Understanding the key differences between dialogue in book form and dialogue in scripts
?Using dialogue to convey the nature or class of character, their mood, and their differences in terms of speech patterns.In part 13 we shall consider my first film, The Aftermath, continuing the story of my creative film journey.


Submitted: September 27, 2015

© Copyright 2022 Ben Kal. All rights reserved.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Reddit
  • Pinterest
  • Invite

Add Your Comments:


Facebook Comments

Boosted Content from Other Authors

Short Story / Mystery and Crime

Book / Memoir

Book / Young Adult

Book / Action and Adventure

Other Content by Ben Kal

Poem / Humor

Poem / Poetry

Poem / Poetry