![]() ![]() His school of thought is more in the William Goldman zone whereby you speak visually though action and description and let that tell the reader where you see the camera without resorting to technical jargon. Jeff Nichols did a great talk about it that can be found on the On Story podcast. He's the opposite of Woody Allen.īutch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid strikes a bit of a balance where by you know what you are looking at through the writing without William Goldman ever saying "camera" or "angle". BUT QT knew he's be directing and he'd work out the detail in pre-production, it's worth mentioning he spends a lot of time on that kind of detail leading up to shooting. It's more or less a talking picture so it's the right approach. An incredibly visual picture with almost no camera direction in the screenplay. On the other hand have a read of Pulp Fiction. To be clear I love both films, just a hand example in regard to writing. He's also said in early interviews that he does 90% of the work in the writing and then he doesnt have to worry too much about working it out later. BUT the benefit for him at the time of writing was (because he knew what ever he wrote he'd direct) he could just create the blue print of exactly what he planned on doing. Perhaps if you read Magnolia without camera direction and PT just said "it will have the intensity of Goodfellas in the way I direct it, that could have been enough to understand how it played out in his head. I saw the film before I read the script but my feeling is unless you are someone who reads a LOT of scripts it could distract you away from the story. Read the first 10 pages, sooooo much camera direction. At that time New Line said they would give him final cut on whatever he wanted to do next and his dad had passed so he went balls out and wrote an epic script with an abyss of detail. ![]() Then take a look at Magnolia which is pretty extreme. When you read the script I think the visual style, tone and rhythm of the picture are clear but aesthetic ideas don't overpower the story. So I think the script worked as a clear blueprint for the picture he wanted to make. Take a look at Boogie Nights, it has camera angles thorough it and it reads similarly to how it was directed and cut. PT Anderson is an obvious example but also a good one for a guy who is probably an equal talent at writing and directing. but there is a big danger of over doing things. On one hand I want to show the way I visualise the drama unfolding photographically but on the other hand I don't want to bog down the reader with technical detail when they should be deep in story.Īs a first time screenwriter with the clear aim to direct what I am writing, I want industry people to see my flare for the way I will direct it as they read. One day I will put them in and the next day I will go back and remove them all. I am a director writing my first original screenplay and I constantly go back and forth between including angles and not. It's a good question and I keep tripping over. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |