JaneEspenson.com

Hi! I went back to college last night. I was invited to speak to a UCLA Extension course. It was a class that was specifically for people writing spec scripts. For those of you in the LA area, this kind of class is the sort of thing you should look to for info, encouragement, and a community of people any one of whom could get hired and turn into your friend in the business at any moment.

Anyway, I had a blast. Then I couldn’t find my car in the parking structure. I’m standing there in the middle of the structure, looking off to one side, craning, pressing the beep-button. I can hear my car beeping, but I can’t tell where it’s coming from. ANGLE ON: My car. I’m clearly visible in the b.g., standing right behind it, looking the wrong way.

Did’ja see that? That was an ANGLE ON. It’s a way to focus the viewer’s (or reader’s) attention on something by specifying a shot. Sometimes it can be very useful.

The use of ANGLE ON is pretty loose. And sometimes I use “ANOTHER ANGLE REVEALS” instead. This is one of those things that writers tend to learn just by noticing how other writers are using them, so they aren’t always terribly consistent. Here are some examples of places where you might use ANGLE ON.

This one is adapted from a script I wrote. Buffy is in the middle of a long speech. Unless I tell the reader otherwise, they’re going to assume the camera is on her.

BUFFY
…more than just a battle. It’s going to be a battle like we’ve never seen before…

ANGLE ON WILLOW, watching Buffy talk. Willow looks really bored.

Here’s another situation in which it’s useful to specify the angle:

GILES
For god’s sake! How can anyone be thinking about their social life? We’re about to fight the original, most primal evil, and these girls are all in mortal danger!

ANGLE ON GILES from some distance away… someone’s POV.

By suddenly cutting to this distant angle, it’s clear that someone as yet unrevealed is watching Giles.

Sometimes I use it if I don’t want to reveal the location of the scene yet. I’ll start with a CLOSE ON or an ANGLE ON a character, then later WIDEN TO REVEAL where they are.

And sometimes I use it when I have two things happening in the same set. For example, if there is a big party scene in which I’m alternating chunks of dialogue taking place between two different couples in different parts of a set. I can’t use a new slug line in this situation because I’m staying in the same set, so I’ll use ANGLE ON to switch between the two conversations. “ANGLE ON Jim and Tammy over by the fireplace,” like that.

I think you can see that any time it’s useful to move or focus the reader’s attention, you’ve got the option of using an ANGLE ON. But use it sparingly. Picking the shots is the director’s job. That’s why ANGLE is only one letter different than ANG LEE.

Lunch: I had the Enchiladas Verduras at Mexicali on Ventura here in L.A. Love that tomatilla sauce!

Yesterday, I was reading some interesting stuff over at whatsthatbug.com. You don’t know about whatsthatbug.com? Go there at once. It’s so cool. Anyway, I was reading about a certain beetle. It happens to look a lot like another beetle which can stand on its head and spray when threatened. The beetle that can’t spray, also stands on its head, bluffing. “I’m SO gonna spray you. I am. Because I’m that kind of beetle, I am.” Now, that’s putting some effort into an attempt to look like something else.

A spec script should look as much as possible like a produced script. Erin Dunlap, an aspiring writer who worked as writers’-PA-extraordinaire on Jake, has asked me some great questions about exactly how to accomplish that. She’s talking about the strange little technical stuff. She asks about when one should use “CUT TO” and what words to put in CAPS in the stage directions and when to use “ANGLE ON.”

The short answer is “look at the produced scripts and do what they do.” However, the things she has picked out are the ones that are often applied inconsistently. This is frustrating, but it should also be a clue that it’s hard to go too far wrong.

“CUT TO” is not usually needed. So why waste the space? If the show you’re emulating seems to use it sometimes and not other times, there may not be any pattern. Or it might be that they only use it when they want to imply a quick edit, such as when there’s a joke that relies on a cut. (You know the kind. The most hacky version of this is “I will NOT go to that party!” CUT TO: INT. PARTY – NIGHT). Using it this way – only when you want to call attention to the edit – is my default choice.

“CUT TO” is one of those things the eye tends to blip over anyway. I don’t usually encourage sloppiness, but in this particular case, chances are no one will even notice whether the CUT TO is there or not.

CAPS. If you’re writing a spec Two and a Half Men, you don’t have to worry about this. In multi-camera half-hours, all your stage directions are in caps. But in single-camera shows, some words in some directions are in caps. But which ones? Well, the first time a character appears in the script, their name is in caps. But other than that, the rule is fuzzy. Important props, actions, video effects, sound effects might be in caps. If your script were being produced, the main function of the capping would be to call attention to things that will need input from specialized professionals – stunt people, effects people, etc. Since it’s a spec, all you’re really trying to do is make sure that those elements aren’t missed by the reader, but it boils down to the same thing anyway.

Here’s an actual stage direction from one of my Buffy scripts:

Mr. Trick GRABS GILES. Giles gets in a good solid KICK, but Mr. Trick shakes it off. He grabs Giles. Then he THROWS him. Giles lands right at the T-junction… the entrance to the demon’s tunnel. As Lurconis senses food on the dinner plate, THE RUMBLING BEGINS.

Here’s another one from the same script. The “she” here is Buffy, by the way.

Giles DIVES to one side and she aims the flame into the sewer pipe just as Lurconis’ slimy head darts out. The flame catches it full in the face. LURCONIS is on fire. It pulls back and we hear its DYING SCREAMS.

Looking at this one now, I have no idea why “Lurconis” is in caps in this second one. It’s not the first time he appears. If I wrote this now, what would be in caps is “ON FIRE.” That’s far more important! Geez. What was I thinking? But you can see the rough logic on the other choices. Big actions, sounds. Stuff like that. It’s all very approximate. In a lot of my Buffy scripts I haven’t used caps at all, except for character names and a few big “VAMPIRE POOFS INTO DUST” moments. Don’t sweat it too hard, and as always, mimic mimic mimic your example produced scripts. Spec scripts are non-spraying beetles, but that’s all the more reason they need to stand on their heads, look in anticipation at their own rear ends, and give every impression that something big is about to happen.

I’ll be back soon with a discussion of when and how to use “ANGLE ON.” So you know that’ll be one wild ride!

Lunch: instant wonton soup that I added water to and then entirely forgot for like forty minutes. It’s the first and only time that the centers of the wontons actually got soft and delicious. Breakthrough!

I got another great note! This one is from Alex Epstein from the blog called Complications Ensue. Check it out! Great writing stuff — you’ll like it. Alex asks about the very non-standard act breaks that are used on Gilmore Girls. “Is there some secret dynamic?” He asks.

Fantastic observation. Gilmore Girls breaks almost every rule I can think of, and it still works. I find this completely fascinating. Here’s an example of what Alex is talking about.

I wrote a Gilmore episode called “The Reigning Lorelai.” This was an episode in which Lorelai’s father’s mother died. There’s a huge moment in this episode in which Emily (Lorelai’s mother) discovers that the dead woman tried to block Emily’s marriage to her son. In this startling moment, Emily refuses to continue to plan the funeral, and the burden falls on Lorelai. The interesting thing here is that this moment falls in the middle of act two. The actual END of act two comes at a much milder moment, in which Lorelai struggles under the continued burden of funeral planning. For any other show, this would be a misplaced act break. But not for Gilmore Girls.

The best shows on TV are usually those in which the original voice of the show’s creator is allowed to shine through with minimal interference. The voice at Gilmore is the voice of Amy Sherman-Palladino. What Amy has done is create a show that takes seriously the idea of drama holding up a mirror to life. Stories unfold along curly lines, they sometimes end long before the end of the episode, with other stories starting late; they involve long, long scenes with long speeches and long exchanges that don’t further the story, and sometimes with important action happening off screen. All of these things break rules. Interestingly, it all has the effect of creating unpredictability in large portions. Wonderful unpredictability. And the lifelike rhythms help the viewers accept the characters as real people. I don’t think I really appreciated what Amy has created until after I worked on the show and I was able to look back at the episodes. She has a remarkably clear and original vision and I was lucky to work there.

In the writers’ room, there was not usually any particular effort to put the big moments at the act breaks. Nor was there an effort to put them somewhere else instead. In fact, the stories were distributed over the acts with more attention to simple number of scenes per act. Eight-ish scenes per act and then a commercial. It gives the act breaks a unique, off-hand feeling, and keeps the viewers off-balance — the big moments can come at any point!

I hope this answers Alex’s question. There was not, in fact, a secret dynamic unless it was a subconscious rule in Amy’s head. Which is possible. But I really think it is more of an effort to free the writers from traditional dynamics than to create a new one.

Now. You may wonder how any of this applies to spec scripts. You probably aren’t writing a Gilmore Girls. It’s no longer a hot spec, simply as a natural consequence of having been on the air for a number of years. But suppose you’re specing another show that breaks rules. What should you do? Mimic the show, or follow the rule?

Follow the rule. If someone WERE writing a Gilmore spec, I would tell them to ignore the fact that the show eschews standard act breaks. The person reading your spec does not work at Gilmore Girls. They want to know if you know how to construct a standard act break moment. This is a rare situation in which mimicry will not serve you well.

This is sort of analogous to a chef adapting an exotic recipe to local tastes. If your American customers are not responding well to the fried crickets in the salad, try substituting almonds. Sure, it’s a perversion of your delicious national dish, but it’ll get you better reviews.

Lunch: An In ‘N’ Out Burger from the cutest little In “N’ Out that I’ve ever been to. Somewhere along the freeway between Palm Desert and here, there is this tiny restaurant with no inside. Just drive-up and walk-up windows and a sweet cluster of wind-swept tables and aggressive tiny birds looking for pickle fragments. Magnificent!

I have very poor eyesight, and I hate wearing contact lenses (I can get ’em in, can’t get ’em back out). So I wear glasses. (Did you ever think that this might be the last generation to wear glasses? We’re going to look really weird in old photos with these odd little sculptures on our faces.) Anyway, I can’t wear my glasses when I’m snorkeling. So I recently ordered a prescription swim mask on the internet. It arrived the day before yesterday. I haven’t had it in the water yet, but it works really great for walking around my apartment looking like a freak. A freak who can SEE, thank you very much.

This will allow me to see many more fish underwater. Until now I was only able to see those who swam directly in front of my eyes. Saucy little exhibitionists.

Hey, you know what that reminds me of? Script readers who don’t read the stage directions. They only look at the dialogue and therefore only see some of the fish. How can we put our fish in front of their faces?

It’s terribly easy to blip right over stage directions when reading. And since spec scripts are destined not to be produced, and only read, this is of crucial importance to you, the spec script creator. We’ve already talked about putting some of the staging into the dialogue. Here’s a way to do something similar.

What I’m talking about here is putting stage directions into parentheticals. This is of course, immoral and wrong. But it can also be effective.

Here’s what I’m talking about.

CORRECT:

CHARACTER
Ooh. Nice place.

Character feels the fabric of the drapes.

CHARACTER (cont’d)
Or maybe not.

INCORRECT but BETTER:

CHARACTER
Ooh. Nice place.
(feeling the drapes)
Or maybe not.

Parentheticals are supposed to be used to indicate how a line is to be read. Not to describe action. But it sure makes the action harder to miss if you sometimes put it in there. It’s nicely mixed in with the dialogue, like putting a fish right in front of a person’s face. This is a common and unremarkable violation of the rules and I recommend it if you have any concern that the action is going to be missed. Sticklers might disagree, but I like this technique. Possible parentheticals under this system could include:
(dodging a blob of taffy)
(noticing the door is on fire)
or
(kicking the otter out the window)

Here’s a more extreme example:

CORRECT:

CHARACTER
Guess they didn’t find the murder weapon.

One of the nearby COPS hands him a knife. Instead of blood, the knife is covered with a thick GREEN GOO.

CHARACTER (cont’d)
Am I the only one who thinks this is strange?

INCORRECT:

CHARACTER
Guess they didn’t find the murder weapon.
(taking KNIFE from cop. Re: GREEN GOO on knife)
Am I the only one who thinks this is strange?

Now, this is a really extreme example. A cop, a prop and some goo are all introduced in a parenthetical here. This is really against the rules. It is a lot harder to miss the action in the second version, don’t you think? Also, look at the extreme space savings. That could totally help pull up a page if you need the space. But my instincts tell me this one is going a little too far.

Probably the best answer in this case, is to give the reader TWO chances to see the important info.

OPTIMAL:

CHARACTER
Guess they didn’t find the murder weapon.

One of the nearby COPS hands him a knife. Instead of blood, the knife is covered with a thick GREEN GOO.

CHARACTER (cont’d)
(Re: GREEN GOO on knife)
Am I the only one who thinks this is strange?

There. Now the parenthetical isn’t quite SO ridiculously overloaded and the reader has two chances to observe that goo and to fathom the fact that a knife was found. Isn’t that cool?

LUNCH: Went to a Greek street fair thing. Lamb! Innocent and delicious!

I know that I haven’t made it especially easy to contact me about this blog. So I’m blown away by the great notes that have made their way to me. Thanks to Pat in Texas who sent me a note on a beautiful post card, and included information on her lunch! I love it! I also got a sweet note from Jesse Jackson. But I think it’s not THAT Jesse Jackson. And a great card from Ken in Virginia, who groks my love of scifi as well as of Jane Austin! Thanks to all of you!

The most inspiring letter was from Alicia in Australia who started watching Buffy when she was eight (!) and is going to start studying film-making next year. She thinks she’s not a writer, but her letter sounds exactly like a person talking, so I suspect she’d be great at dialogue.

So, let’s talk a little about dialogue! You know what your character is FEELING, but you don’t want them to just say it out loud, right? So how do you let your audience KNOW what they’re feeling? You can’t rely on acting to do this — not in a spec script! Somehow you have to do it on the page. Well, I’m going to show you a little trick. Credit Freud for this one.

Here’s a tiny little bit from a Buffy script of mine. Buffy has finally decided to let her boyfriend, Riley, know just how strong she is. They spar, and she throws him across the room. She hurries to him and they have this exchange:

BUFFY
Are you hurt?

RILEY
I… I’m… I don’t think so.

The trick here is having someone START to say something, then change their mind. Riley started to say “I’m…” something. “Okay,” probably. Or “fine.” That’s what you normally say. When he changes his answer to “I don’t think so,” he has decided not to commit to being fine. We know he IS hurt, even if not physically injured.

In that case, a character started to speak, then realized what they were going to say was a lie, and took it back. The reverse works too, in which a character starts to let the truth spill out, then stops herself.

I wrote an Angel script in which Cordy mourns the life she used to have as the Alpha girl of Sunnydale High. At one point she’s looking around at a beautiful apartment and she says:

CORDELIA
I… I used to have this. I was…

She decides not to finish the thought, and just trails off there. Someone else speaks, and Cordy never comes back to what she was, but we’ve heard enough to know that she’s thinking about her change of circumstances as a change in what she “was,” as a genuine change in identity.

I love this trick. It’s easy and efficient. It reveals character without a bunch of words. Give it a try! But only use it when a character is REALIZING something, because that’s when they’re distracted, when their censor is not engaged, when things can slip out.

Lunch: Chicken and waffles at Roscoe’s Chicken and Waffles. Wonderful as always.

« Older Entries

Newer Entries »