🎥 Eyes on the camera
Describing shots on the page, and writing characters speaking to the camera.
This week’s rebroadcast brings together posts on writing for the camera and writing for characters talking to the camera.
I’m currently banging ideas around for a script, but have a question concerning the implementation of camera angles/shots. Should these be written into the first draft as you envision it in your head, or are they best left until you write a final shooting script?
–Ross
Until the movie is in theatres, there’s no such thing as a final shooting script. During production, and even during editing, the script itself is subject to change.
In my opinion, every draft of a script should be shootable, with the same level of detail, clarity and professionalism. Scripts do change to a small degree when production begins, with every scene being numbered, and a byzantine system for keeping track of changes. But the words themselves are no more or less specific at this stage than any other.
If a director has specific camera angles that they feel necessary to put in the script, they get put in the script. But more often, these non-story details are handled by storyboards or shot lists, rather than the screenplay itself.
Is it possible to put to rest the largest screenwriting controversy, CAMERA ANGLES? There are a lot of people who say camera angles don’t belong in a spec. [But] if you read scripts written by the writers who do sell, they nearly ALWAYS have camera angles. What I see all over the net is a large subculture of new writers excluding camera angles and not selling, while those who have advised them to take this route ARE using them and selling. One professional writer who suggests they be used goes as far as to say that these other pros suggesting they not be used are doing so to deliberately misguide the younger writers positioned to take their jobs.
–ZD
You’re uncovered a vast screenwriting conspiracy, ZD. William Goldman and his crack team of Writer’s Guild assassins will be visiting you shortly.
You actually make a very good point. Most of the classic screenwriting books and instructors will tell you to never use camera angles, because it hurts the readability and angers the director. While they have a point, I’d caution you to be suspicious of anyone who lays down hard-and-fast rules.
Speaking as a member of the pro-angle faction, I’ll make the case that reading a screenplay should give you the sense of watching the movie. Since camera position is a crucial element in the cinematic experience, there are times when it’s appropriate to mention it, just as it can be necessary to point out costuming, or music, or effects in order to let the reader know what’s what.
That said, I almost never use the words "camera" or "angle" in my scripts, because I think those words do tend to disrupt the flow. Rather than write —
ANGLE ON: The truck SLAMS into the gunman. I’m more likely to write —
THE TRUCK
SLAMS into the gunman. — which uses a slugline to indicate that this a new and important shot. Along the same line, rather than say, "The CAMERA CRANES UP over the field," I would say, "we RISE OVER the field." Since the camera is the audience’s eyes, using "we" or "our" makes sense to me.
But I’m not the last word on the subject, nor can it ever really be put to rest. Although none have said it to my face, some of the directors I’ve worked with probably hate the way I move the camera on the page and wish I would stop doing it.
Ultimately, writers have different styles that work for them, and my best advice is find an approach that suits your taste and the material. There are no absolute rules.
I want to know more about proper formatting of the new documentary aesthetic that’s been brought about by shows like The Office and Modern Family. I’m referencing specifically the ironic or conspiratorial glances into camera, the unexplained interview shots. These shows seem to have the assumption that there’s a documentary crew present. I love that! And I love the potential for humor it brings about.
My question is this: how would that be written in a script other than through the use of “into camera”? Is there a way to indicate that an entire film or pilot would be shot in this manner? I’m also interested in your general stylistic take on this and whether or not you think we’ll see this approach used in feature films successfully?
— Ashleigh
The faux-documentary style has detractors, but I think it works very well in the two shows you mention.
Each show will have its own house style for how they format it in the script,1 but it’s usually handled in the slugline when the whole scene is directed towards the camera:
INT. LIVING ROOM – DAY [INTERVIEW]
MARK
No. I’m not disappointed. Not at all. Surprised, sure. Dejected? A little. Angry maybe, but not furious. I guess I’d say I’m “disappointed” and leave it at that.These shows tend to treat the camera as an unnamed character who either (a) is aware of something other characters in the scene aren’t, or (b) might take something embarrassing out of context unless clarified.
If a character is directing a line or a look to camera, call that out. (If it helps, think of “camera” as a producer standing right next to the lens.)
CANDY KANE
It just seems too big to fit. Maybe if we greased it up or something.
Laura gestures to camera -- see?Reference the camera sparingly. Unless the point of your script is the documentary itself (c.f. The Comeback), you’re likely to undercut the comedy or drama by acknowledging that characters are aware their actions are being filmed.
Are you enjoying this newsletter?
📧 Forward it to a friend and suggest they check it out.
🔗 Share a link to this post on social media.
🗣 Have ideas for future topics (or just want to say hello)? Reach out to Chris via email at inneresting@johnaugust.com, Mastodon @ccsont@mastodon.art, or Threads @ccsont@threads.net
As always, if you’re writing a spec episode of a existing show, hunt down one of its scripts and follow its lead exactly.