JaneEspenson.com

Gentle Reader Dan in Philadelphia writes in with an excellent question (two of them, actually, but we’ll just tackle one of them today). Dan asks:

“How do you write dialogue for a stuttering mumbling character, such as Matt Saracen from Friday Night Lights? Do you write all the pauses and repeats or do you indicate it in parenthesis?

Does it change if you are writing for a character who always stumbles as opposed to a character who’s just doing it once?”

Ooh. I love this kind of nuts-and-bolts question. Thank you, Dan!

This is, in fact, a rare instance in which I would suggest that a spec script should look somewhat different than a script that’s been written by the show’s actual writing staff. I bet you anything that Matt’s lines in produced scripts are written without any repeats or stumbles. But your task isn’t to supply words to an actor. Your task, as the writer of a spec, is to demonstrate that you can capture a character’s voice. That voice, in this case, involves false starts and backtracks.

So I’d put ’em in, but lightly. If you put in as many of these as the actor does, I think it would get cumbersome and tiring to read. (And I probably wouldn’t write in literal stutters of this t-t-t-type.) But lay some verbal effects in lightly, here and there, especially when the character is stressed. If you want to call attention to it in a specific spot in the story, I wouldn’t do it with a parenthetical, but with a stage direction that calls attention to what you’re already doing with the dialogue. For example:

Matt’s nerves make his normal stumbling speech even more obvious, as he finally raises his eyes and looks at Julie:

MATT
I… I don’t– I don’t want you to go.

And as to whether it makes a difference whether a stutter is habitual with a character or a one-time thing, absolutely! If a character is normally a smooth-talker, and you’ve got them stumbling, you’ve got even more free reign to write in the curlicues when they happen:

HOUSE
But– I mean– Wasn’t– Isn’t the patient… with… you?

Using false starts and hesitations like this is a great way to convey emotion. Nervousness, agitation, gradually dawning awareness… you can get them across very elegantly this way. You’re really letting the reader use their imaginary ears to “hear” your script, which is the point of the exercise. If you relegate the hesitations to a parenthetical, you don’t get this effect at all.

Writing realistic speech of this kind is one of my favorite things. Give it a try and notice how your script starts to have a sound.

Lunch: veggie sandwich. How can avocados be vegetables? They’re so good.

I knew it would happen. I don’t like it, but I knew it would happen. Andy in Los Angeles writes to let me know that he attended a recent “breaking in” seminar at the Writers’ Guild and that agents and execs there said that Internet short films were becoming popular samples in place of spec scripts.

Andy directs me to his short, which is excellent, so I’m going to direct you to it, too, Gentle Readers. It’s called “24: The Interns” and you can find it at “funnyordie.com”. Those of you contemplating this option should check it out. The bar is set pretty high.

You can probably already guess why this is a trend that I dread, since I’ve already nosed around the edge of this topic in a previous post. In my opinion, watching a finished product like this makes it hard for me to tease out the contribution made by the script. It also can be so easily derailed by poor acting, editing or cinematography.

If this appeals to you anyway, give it a try if you have the resources; film school students, go for it. But please don’t panic if you don’t. I still believe that the best way to tell if someone can write a script is to read their scripts, and I suspect most show runners ultimately feel the same way. If you’re an introvert like me, most happy in a quiet room with your fingers on a keyboard, there is still plenty of room for you in the spec-script-writin’ game.

Lunch: Cup o’ Noodles (try the Salsa Picante Chicken flavor.) I buy mine from the little corner store here on the Universal Studios lot. They’ve got the bar code scanner set wrong so that every time I buy it, the computer says it costs over forty-nine thousand dollars. But so far they have never actually demanded the money.

There’s another good option in town, Gentle Readers! I’m hearing good things, from several sources, about the new configuration of the
Warner Bros. Television Writers Workshop. I used to hesitate to recommend this program since it charged money from its participants, but check out the details now – the only cost seems to be the application fee. Well, that just became much more appealing, didn’t it? The deadline is coming up: August 15, so you’ve got a little time to scrape together an application and I recommend that you do so.

They require at least one spec script “based on a primetime network or cable comedy [or drama] series that aired new episodes during the 2006 – 2007 television season”. They also allow you to submit multiple samples and to submit both comedies and dramas. Nice. (By the way, note that, according to that description, a show like The Sopranos, which was ineligible for ABC/Disney, is still kosher for WB.)

The obvious question has already been asked of me, by the way. Amanda in Ithaca wants to know if she can submit the same script to Warner Bros. that she already submitted to ABC/Disney. Well, I hate to go on the record with this in case I’m wrong, but I don’t see anything in the rules of either program to disallow this or that would make a submission or an acceptance to either program a disqualifying factor for the other program. If it was me, I would probably use the same script — whatever I feel is my strongest sample.

The Warner Bros. program is, clearly, more limited than the ABC/Disney Fellowship. It’s shorter in duration, in intensity, and it doesn’t provide a stipend. But it still can provide experience, contacts and bragging rights.

So get to work! Even if you’re going to regift your ABC script, that extra time should be used to polish, tinker and tweak! The nice thing about perfection is that you never quite get there.

Lunch: left over Chicken Piccata from Maria’s

Adam in West Hollywood has a good question for the blog. He wants to know if his portfolio of sample scripts should be designed to show focus, or diversity. In other words, should you write a bunch of the thing you’re most drawn to, or should you spread the love around with a comedy script, a drama script, an action script, etc?

Well, I’m a huge fan of infinite diversity in all its infinite combinations. My personal recommendation would be to write everything, and then let an agent or manager provide input on how they can best market you — if they know of a demand for action writers, they’ll be able to steer you in that direction.

Flexibility is a plus. For example, you might really feel you were born to write multi-camera comedy. But there’s so little of that right now that you’d find your options pretty limited if you only wrote that. So try new things. You might just discover new talents, too. I was startled to find I could write scenes that were interesting despite being jokeless. If I hadn’t been pushed to try something new, I might never have known.

However, remember that passion for what you’re writing is part of what makes it good. If you hate romantic comedies or action movies or low-brow comedies, you probably won’t be successful writing them. Since most of us probably watch and enjoy a whole range of different kinds of shows or movies, even someone with a pretty fierce dislike of a specific tone or genre can probably still find a pretty big stretch of the buffet to get their fingers into.

Lunch: tangerine, donut

P.S. Adam also asks a Buffy-related question about Xander. Sorry, Adam, I don’t have an answer for that one!

When you’re actually at the point of converting your detailed outline into a script, you will be faced by choices you’d probably never considered. For example, which of these do you prefer?

INT. COFFEE SHOP
Joe joins Adam, who is waiting impatiently for him at a table.

OR

INT. COFFEE SHOP
It’s rush hour and there are two or three CLERKS behind the counter, maybe a half-dozen CUSTOMERS in line, waiting more or less patiently. Joe enters and moves through the crowd to join Adam who’s waiting for him at a table.

OR

We’re close on a BELL. It JANGLES wildly.

INT. COFFEE SHOP
…Where Joe, who has just entered, lets the door fall closed behind him. He makes his way through the madding crowd to Adam, who’s already waiting for him at a table.

Notice that these aren’t just about different degrees of granularity of description. There’s information in option one that isn’t in two or three, and info in two that isn’t in the other ones, etc. And, believe it or not, none of these is strictly preferable. It’s just a matter of what you need to emphasize to the reader. If the meat of the scene is in the emotional conversation, go with option one. If you’re trying to convey a stylish tone, use option three. If that line of customers is going to be important, use option two.

Chances are, you’ll instinctively write this stuff so that it serves your purpose. Just remember that there are options and that they’re there to serve your script, not to tie you down.

Lunch: Lamb, potatoes, Caesar salad, cucumber salad, date bar

« Older Entries

Newer Entries »