Show, don’t tell.

The argument against editorializing in screenplays is that, often, inexperienced screenwriters will place major plot points or critical information into a story through the subtext in a typical “tell - don’t show” scenario. This makes for a screenplay that is filled with moments that are unfilmable, resulting with a story that’s untellable in the visual medium of film.

Consequentially, it is beaten into every screenwriting student that any editorializing or use of subtext to convey a point is absolutely forbidden, treated as the ultimate sin of screenwriting and the mark of the amateur.

The only problem is that screenwriting and filmmaking are two different disciplines.

In a novel, one would write out the subtext in the actual text, allowing for the author to communicate things that the main character is thinking, things that may be happening simultaneously, or other unknowable facts that the audience would not know had they not been outright told.

Filmmaking is a visual medium, yet what transpires during the transition from paper to screen is often different. Many elements are changed to accommodate the filmmaking process. Often dialogue is trimmed or scenes get shorter.

The reason for this is twofold:

1. The inflection and tones of a line reading can communicate volumes of information that simple words on a page cannot. A phrase read plainly can mean one thing but read sarcastically can communicate the exact opposite idea. Without some kind of editorializing as to the intention of the dialogue, the screenplay would leave the reader with, at best, a misinterpretation of the scene or, at worst, a confusion of what is going on in the scene.

2. One of the most frequently quoted statistics on nonverbal communication is that 93% of all daily communication is nonverbal. Popular science magazines, students, and media outlets frequently quote this specific number.

So where does that number come from? Dr. Albert Mehrabian, author of “Silent Messages” (http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1973-04431-000), conducted several studies on nonverbal communication. He found that 7% of any message is conveyed through words, 38% through specific vocal elements or inflections, and 55% through nonverbal and visual elements (facial expressions, gestures, posture, etc…). Subtracting the 7% for actual vocal content leaves one with the 93% statistic.

This implies that 7% of the written dialogue accurately communicates the message portrayed.

When faced with this fact, a screenwriter must use some of the tools normally reserved for the novelist in order to properly tell the story.

The screenplay is NOT the movie.

Camera direction and editorial comments are used to convey the bigger picture of the film itself. Of course, these can be changed by the director or the actor at will, but without them, the screenwriter is asking the reader to infer 93% of the understanding from what the actors are speaking about. This puts everyone at a severe disadvantage.

The same goes for action. While adverbs are frowned upon in screenwriting, there are a myriad of reasons to place them within a screenplay.

For instance - a “properly written” line from a script would say this:

When she finishes speaking, John runs out of the room and slams the door.

An improperly written line would read like this:

As she says these words to John, he stands silently, allowing them to sink in for one heartbreaking moment. Suddenly, with a rush of rage he races out of the room, slamming the door behind him.

From a scholarly perspective, the second line would be critiqued by saying, “There is no way to visually portray things like ‘heartbreaking’ or ‘rush of rage’ as they are not concrete, actionable elements. They are not for the writer to place in the screenplay as they are useless in being filmed.

However, what this “scholarly and accurate” perception of the screenplay does not address is the 55% nonverbal communication that is occurring within the scene. It is said that those moments are “unfilmable.” However, many people would find it easy to conjure an idea of an image of what a heartbroken person might look like or how someone would act if they were filled with rage as they acted out an event such as slamming a door.

The simple, minimalistic, and “traditional” usage of editorialization is not only a poor way to approach filmmaking as a whole, but is not even adhered to by professional screenwriters today.

There is a misconception that these kinds of phrases and sentences lay solely in the domain of the amateur writer; however this couldn’t be further from the truth.

Let’s take, for instance, the original screenplay for Cinderella Man, written in 2004 by Cliff Hollingsworth. The screenplay was nominated for a WGA (Writers Guild of America) “Best Original Screenplay” Award (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0352248/awards).

A cursory review of the first act of the written screenplay exhibits over 105 examples of either camera/screen direction, or editorialized content that could not be directly filmed or seen on camera.

However, each of these instances helps create the world and tone of the film, as well as bringing to life the characters that inhabit it. They allow the reader to envision that 93% of the film that does not get communicated in the dialogue of the actors.

Here are some examples:

“A BLACK AND WHITE IMAGE CLOSE. Of a FIGHTER being hit.” (camera direction - Scene 1)

NYC 1928 “A world, happy, with no knowledge of the future. It’s still the roaring twenties, after all.” - (editorializing - Scene 1)

“New York sparkled back then. A world of black shadows and clear white light. Simpler times.” (unfilmable editorializing - Scene 1)

“Jim likes these guys, the fact that they love him so.” (Editorializing - no way of knowing what’s in his head - scene 2)

“HOLD on the face of a man who knows for a second the good luck of this moment, his life. CAMERA begins to circle him.” (Editorializing what’s in his head and providing screen direction. Wow, what a sin!)

I argue that these, and the hundreds of other moments like them, help paint a picture of the film and characters that inhabit it, yet would be struck through judiciously with a red pen by a screenwriting professor if asked to grade it.

Certainly many first time writers can’t tell the difference between what is film-able and what isn’t. They often write complex plot-centric moments into subtext, creating an impossible way of telling the story. This is not what I’m advocating whatsoever. It is in the craft of the screenwriter to decipher the difference between editorializing for the sake of the story and editorializing to help get them out of plot problems or replacing actual, actionable scenes that turn and create drama.

To cast a blind blanket over all forms of non-verbal and non-visual language within a screenplay is to hold the screenplay hostage by its own rules and risks creating a dried and withered piece of writing that no one wants to visualize into existence.

I encourage you to look through other established screenplays, specifically ones that are not written by the director (as those are often given more leeway because of the assumption that the director’s vision is clear in his own mind).

Perhaps I’m completely off base here, and while I’ve written my fair share of screenplays, nothing has been heralded as a heartbreaking masterpiece of writing. However, as I try to refine my craft, I find it helpful to ask these kinds of questions and at least explore the possibility of different ways of doing things.

I have written screenplays for Hollywood executives, and my style has certainly been met with mixed reviews. But if I’m going to take the risk, I’d rather make something that comes alive with a little more flourish than constrain myself blindly to “the way it’s always done.”

As a final note, please feel free to completely dismiss this entire line of thinking. I am a student of McKee, Truby, and the like, and wiser men than me have advocated to the contrary. I look to the films that have already been made and think it’s worth posing the question.

Semper Ad Meliora

b