When I first started writing, I did what all the books said and studiously avoided unfilmables. Readers liked my scripts, but said the characters were "thin" or "underdeveloped". Then I started reading screenplays, saw that people were using unfilmables, and started using them myself. Immediately people said my characters were far more convincing, and scripts even started to sell. So basically, I'm convinced!

"We know we can’t shoot them, but we can shoot the tone." Ooooh. Talk about succinct. I've read many a script that omit "unfilmables" and some are successful in their slickness and efficiency, but many appear thin, as the writer, fearing that he is describing unfilmable actions, steers clear of anything other than straight stage directions and, as a result, at least in my opinion, loses something in the endeavour. I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that unfilmables are part of a writer's voice. The above extract from (500) Days of Summer gives me an instant snapshot of both the writer's ability and the colourful tone of the piece. And any actor would chomp at the bit to put the actions described in that script on the screen.

I think there comes a time in a screenwriter's life when they realize all the hooey thrown out there as "rules" are more like guidelines and can be tossed out if necessary. I'll admit, I just got there myself last night on one of my scripts. Especially since it's one I plan to film, myself, I feel it's more important to get the TONE down of what the film will be, than try to make it clean for "readers" to feel satisfied that I followed all the rules.

This post shoots to the top of my "GITS Favorites" list. I think an occasional description that clarifies the tone or the attitude enhances the story for everyone involved. I agree with Lydia, any actor would be thrilled to have these short, simple insights that say so much about the character and the scene.

I have always maintained that if writers READ enough professional screenplays, they'll get a sense of how much of this is acceptable/average. Pro styles really vary. READ READ READ!

What Amanda said. I'm not saying you HAVE to use 'unfilmables.' Rather it is tied to your narrative voice. And the more scripts you read, the more and different NVs you experience. Some stick to the straight and narrow, only describing the action. But many if not most engage in a certain amount of 'editorializing' about the mood, tone, what's going on inside character's minds, their inner feelings, and so forth. The point is that anybody who does read scripts by professional writers would know immediately that the contention that a writer can NOT write 'unfilmables' in scene description is wrong. Final point: There is GOOD scene description and BAD scene description. As I said in the OP, we have to be judicious in our editorializing and commentary. Just because we can do it, doesn't mean it's necessarily GOOD. We have to judge those lines like all with the highest level of scrutiny about how it advances the story and adds to its entertainment value. But as Amanda says, this is one of the reasons to read scripts. And lots of them. Because you can compare different styles which can inform your own approach to writing.

Okay, except... All of those *are* filmable. Aren't they? As an actor first and a screenwriter second, I look at those and go, "Yeah, that'll play." "We see Dan remember the stuffed elephant that ruined his sixth birthday"... *That's* unfilmable. (At least without extra shots or dialogue or a shedload of setup.) But "Dan feels like he's six again, and it's not good." -- totally actable, and usefully specific. And therefore filmable. Or am I missing something?

One of the most necessary posts (at least from my young screenwriting experience) that I've seen on this blog. When I was a complete newbie, I used to exchange work to a writing group, and I would mark the bejesus out of a script for unfilmables. That's until I started realizing my writing was flat compared to those who used them (as long as they were used well and when needed).

Funny, we just had a similar subject a few weeks ago at TSL and i sure broke the neck of some anti-creativity arguments on the shoulder of formulaic freak outs. Where freedom of design and expressive choices fall in a perception bias, the only liberty writers have is to control truth in obvious terms.

The most common reason I've heard for not including unfilmables is that it intrudes on the actor's and the director's prerogative to interpret the script as he or she sees fit. Personally, I think the color that unfilmables bring can turn an intelligible script into a pleasurable reading experience. otoh, I've had coverage from some of the readers here, and they've called me out for what I thought was a fairly innocuous level of unfilmables in my script. I will say that as I've gotten better, I find myself naturally using fewer unfilmables resulting in tighter writing. So those readers had a good point.

But Danny, what if you were hearing or reading some screenwriting authority who said, "No, you can NOT write, 'Dan feels like he's six again, and it's not good.' Why? Because the audience can't know what Dan is feeling or thinking. You can only use action and dialogue to communicate your story. Scene description can only describe action." That is the essence of this 'literalist' view of scene description. So you're an actor, and you KNOW the value of little bits of business like "Dan feels like he's six again, and it's not good." There are people out there, and I don't know who they are, but I keep running into this idea of 'unfilmables', who would say you CAN'T write that. What you're missing is having intersected with this line of thought... which is, I would say, a GOOD thing!

pliny, as I said in the OP, we have to be judicious. I'm sure script readers cover scripts all the time where the writer goes overboard. And I'm sure they have to read scripts where the writer really goes novelistic, describing memories a character is having, going inside their brain for an extended time without visualizing what's going on. It just means we have to find a balance. There's no formula for that. It varies per writer, per story, per narrative voice. But again, we have the freedom to editorialize and comment on the moment, characters, etc. Just need to be prudent when we do it.

This must have been the hardest 'rule' to break. They all but surgically implanted it in our brains at film school. But in a way, it's pretty reliable natural selection. Only the autodidactic free-thinking writers who manage to take the red pill, survive.

Scott, I'm not saying they were wrong. But to be specific, I'm saying that 5 paragraphs or so of unfilmable color adding description over a 60 page TV script seems like a pretty innocuous level to me. I'll reiterate the point that as I become increasingly aware of how valuable script real estate is, as much as I love Shane Black, Coppola, Kasdan, Goldman and Towne, I find myself following Walter Hill more & more.

But if you look at what Neustadter & Weber did in this regard in (500) Days, their so-called 'unfilmables' were always just a line here, a line there, to provide color, feeling, tone. Dashes of description, not thick blocks. Speaking of Walter Hill, have you seen my thread of posts from back in like 2008 perhaps comparing Wall-e to Alien per the whole haiku style of writing?

Ah, the unfilmables debate. There are a couple of different kinds of unfilmables. The kind that you, Scott, cite in your post is what might be called the "tonal unfilmable." Something inexplicable might happen to the character, and the description might read "What the fuck!?!" That's something that generally works, and I'd think wouldn't raise a red flag for most readers. In fact, so long as you don't overdo it, it might even remain invisible or subliminal. Note that key phrase, "so long as you don't overdo it." Slush pile hacks are frequently guilty of thinking that if this trick works great on one page, then two or three times in that same scene would be even better, right? And then why not do this for every scene? There's a saturation point for tricks like this. Was it THE EXORCIST that only used music in a select scene or two, which made its eventual usage standout and be more powerful? CASTAWAY definitely did this sort of thing, as there's no musical score until Hanks gets off the island. In both cases, the absence of an element made its eventual usage more powerful. Any film composer will tell you the same thing - that scoring a movie is as much about knowing when not to add music as it is knowing when to use it. Same thing with tonal unfilmables. Some of you might be rolling your eyes at the fact I even have to say this, believing it to be self-evident. I can assure you from my readings that it is not. There's another kind of unfilmable that absolutely MUST be avoided at all costs - the expositional unfilmable: "Frank drives his 1987 Buick Skylark, which he bought three years ago from his grandmother. It's a good car, even if the upholstery smells like broccoli. He turns down Exposition Blvd, thinking to himself about his first solo drive down this very street, where he swerved to avoid hitting as squirrel, and instead drove his father's car into a tree. "That tree is gone, by the way, with no evidence it was ever there." Slush Pile Hack LOVES to tell his readers what his characters are thinking, remembering, smelling and usually the entire story of their lives. He's also big on describing the history of locations and settings, doing it in a way that draws attention to itself and isn't useful at all. (How is your audience supposed to know that the blue dress Jenny is wearing is actually something she borrowed from a friend and never returned? Why is that in the description?) I'd venture that at least 80% of the unfilmables I see come from the latter category - from writers who really should be writing novels. And THAT's really where the "no unfilmables" rule is coming from. I don't think anyone's gonna rap you across the hands for most of the examples Scott gives - but if you're putting exposition - vital, plot-changing exposition - into your action lines, you'll give yourself away as not knowing what you're doing.

Thanks, Nate. A welcome note from the front lines and true dat in terms of key exposition NOT in action lines. I'm talking a different kind of thing, as you noted. And also kept using the word "judicious" related to usage.

For me, If I think about it from an acting standpoint it becomes much easier to write descriptions. The writing that seems to be the most contended in these 'unfilmables' discussions involves acting descriptions. There shouldn't be a disconnect between the words on the page and the people who will be performing these actions. As I'm writing, I often imagine myself on set explaining to the actors how to play the scene and then I write just that. It's better to write something like "He can't believe she just said that." or "She feels awful about this." than trying to write how the actor would play it. The actors will figure it out. They're specialists in translating words into actions. As we read, we "act out" the parts in our mind. We are the actors. We should do the same when we write. It's perfectly okay to use language that will produce the most vivid response in the people who are "performing" the story. If an actor can understand how to act it, then it's probably fine. That will most likely translate to a reader as well. "Joseph, stand here and make copies." "Okay, how do I feel about that?" "Making copies sure is dull. Then Summer comes in and you're madly in love with her but you can't let her know that." "Got it."

I meant 5 paragraphs containing a decent unfilmable sentence, as opposed to 5 full blocks.

I'd largely disagree with what are labeled here as "unfilmables." She looked like the cat that ate the canary. This IS filmable. Just not in any literal sense. But it is clear what she looks like (and what we will probably see onscreen). True unfilmables are a little more straight forward (and from my experience tend to happen more often with novelists trying to write a screenplay). An example: EXT. MISSION STREET On the edge of town, a ramshackle house weathers the coming storm. A BOY rides past on his bicycle. Normally, he prefers to stick a finger in the apple pie Ms. Miller leaves on the windowsill. But not today. All of this description could actually be SHOWN and be very filmable. However, the way it is written is impossible to be filmed. Generally, these are the type of unfilmables that are problematic. Does the writer actually want the director to film this scene with the boy sticking his finger in the pie? Or is he just establishing tone? Is there even an apple pie on the window sill in this shot? It's unclear. Clarity is the real problem. In all of the above examples in this article -- it is clear what we are watching onscreen at that precise moment. Pg 7 -- Tom is disgusted. Pg 8 -- Tom is really fucking disgusted. They aren't true unfilmables. They're just colorful description. We understand what is going to be on the screen. My personal rule of thumb is to always error on the side of clarity.

This is really interesting, Nate, and I like how you bring up music - noted the same technique in The Hospital, where there is no background score at all until a very important scene around the middle. And this does tie in with what Scott said about judiciousness. One of my favorite closing scenes of all time is the one in Dangerous Liaisons -- Glenn Close removing her make-up. This is how Christopher Hampton wrote it: "Everything is back exactly as it was, leaving no trace of MERTEUIL's rampage. She, in her negligee, sits at her dressing-table, alone, removing her make-up. As it comes off, a new MERTEUIL seems for the first time to be revealed, weary, fragile, vulnerable almost. She looks at her reflection with the anxiety someone feels in the presence of their only friend: and the image slowly FADES TO BLACK." It is arguable that the last sentence could've been unfilmable, but it wasn't. It was a necessary flourish. It challenged the actor and translated beautifully to the screen, creating an epic closing scene.

Thank God for common sense. I've read so many comments elsewhere in the past about these so called "unfilmables" where people say "it took me out of th story". Seriously, what happens when someone sneezes in the theater next to them? Does that take them out of the story, too? I remember once I got in an argument with a guy over the use of BEAT. It drove me nuts.

I'm flattered, both of you, but ahem. The person who wrote that post, their name rhymes with Bitter Script Reader.

The Bitter Script Reader covered pretty much everything I was going to say. "Unfilmables" starts to be a problem, like Scott, TBSR and Amanda have said, when they're used without any sort of intelligence, restraint or purpose. Beating a dead horse here, but reading unfilmables in a script like 500 DAYS OF SUMMER, where they're being written by a team of writers who have the style and usage of that sort of thing down pat (and an integral part of their "voice"), spoils you. I (TBSR and Amanda as well, I'd imagine) read scripts where it happens once every half page in an incredibly painful, unhelpful way. Repeatedly. More than you can imagine. More than you could ever want to imagine. And I'd think that's where the gross generalization of UNFILMABLES ARE BAAAAAADDDDDDD comes from--too many readers reading too many scripts where the people trying to slam unfilmables down our throats didn't really have any idea how or when to use them. Like Scott says repeatedly, there's no one way to write. Intelligent, spare uses of unfilmables never hurt anyone. On the flip side to this, though, a lot of unfilmables, even ones that the reader likes/doesn't mind, are just telling an actor how to play their scene. Readers might not mind that. Actors? HATE. THAT. This isn't related to a spec script since an actor is rarely going to ever see an untouched spec, but just to put it out there, if you're writing in unfilmables that have anything to do with how an actor plays a scene, 95% of them are going to ignore it gleefully. Actors don't like being told how to play the specifics of a grimace. So, fair warning--if those are in there, they'll get ignored by your cast.

Fantastic discussion, and thanks to you all. Bitter Script Reader (do you prefer Bitter?), thanks especially for the 'tonal' vs. 'expository' distinction. That's exactly what I was trying to get at. And, yes, it's a question of degree I'm sure. We're also told not to direct the script, but if I write 'Evelyn runs for the train.' I don't assume there's going to be a train in any shot where she's actually running. (As opposed to scrambling down platform stairs, etc.) Maybe all we're going to see is Evelyn running in an established street. But if I write 'Evelyn runs.' it suggests an entirely different scenario — different attitude, intensity, props and costume — until we get to the station. Which means if we do actually break each shot down into only what is seen on screen, we're transgressing a *different* cardinal rule of screenwriting... (So I guess I'm a pedant, even before I'm an actor and a writer.) That said, I absolutely empathise with the readers who encounter tone-deaf unfilmables at every turn of the page. I will do my best to only break the rule after I've at least suggested I know what I'm doing. And Actual Nate: alas, I suspect you're right about actors. It's not true for me, and I think it's a demarcation born of insecurity, but that doesn't make it irrelevant or let us wish it away. I challenge my fellow actors on it whenever it comes up, ("Really? You love this dialogue, but you think some jobbing hack snuck in and wrote the directions?") but it does seem to be an established entitlement.