I'm in the "serve the story" camp. Write your script in the best, clearest, most entertaining way you can. If that means using "we see", then do it. Preferably sparingly. That said...I really dislike "we see" and go out of my way to avoid it. For me, it breaks the fourth wall: it pulls the reader out of an immersive experience of the story. I'd rather find a more elegant way to convey the same information; and, when I'm tempted to write "we see", I stop and ask myself if I'm arrogating the prerogatives of the Director or DP (and the answer is usually "yes"). I've been reading some plays lately (after a long haitus) and I'm shocked at how little goes on the page compared to screenplays: very little business, very little direction, very little blocking, and (obviously) no "we see". I feel like plays take for granted the collaboration of the director and actors in a way that (beginner) screenplays often don't. (They also typically have smaller casts and more limited locations than big budget screenplays.) I realize that stage plays are different from, and in particular far talkier than screenplays, but as an experiment I'm trying to throw more plays into my reading diet to see if they may balance out some of the screenwriting tendencies I'd like to change, and I'm hoping one result may be to help me leave "we see" by the wayside.

I don't mind "we see", but I try to restrict it to once or twice per script. Sometimes it's just the simplest, cleanest way to say what you need to say. But used routinely, it becomes intrusive and repetitive.

"...it pulls the reader out of an immersive experience of the story." I agree. One of the reasons screenwriting is so difficult is because of the creativity, and clarity it takes to keep a reader in the script's world. Words, or rather, evocative words, are all we have to create an enticing world for potential readers to explore.

I notice I use it occasionally. I'm a bit with Shaula, it's probably best left off the page. It does come across as a sense of author interference and in some ways it renders an otherwise potentially dynamic observation passive. "We see dark doorways on either side of the street ..." "Dark doorways line each side of the street ..." The setting is the same but the latter is definitely more active, and in my mind, preferable.

No other medium has such a stifling set of rules and on top of that, these dumb limits are uniquely an American thing. Foreign scripts I've worked with break every rule outlined in all the 'do not do' lists because they never put those limits on themselves in the first place. They know that a script is not literature and is more of an instruction manual, which may or may not be adhered to by the director. In short, screw the rules and write a great photo drama.

Blue Night, I don't know if anyone here would disagree with you--but here's another way to look at the same things. > No other medium has such a stifling set of rules and on top of that 1. Constraints will set you free. I love writing with constraints (hell, I love Oulipo games), which is part of what I love about screenwriting. In improv, you learn an open scene is the toughest challenge--which is why actors start by getting three ask-fors from the audience (to create constraints). It's possible to get into a groove where the constraints give you something to work against that frees up your creativity. A writer who can find that groove is a happy writer. > these dumb limits are uniquely an American thing. 2. Hollywood is Hollywood. When American blogs talk about screenwriting, they're generally talking about Hollywood screenwriting. You're right: there are lots of other markets and ways of making movies. If you have access to them, that's outstanding. > They know that a script is not literature and is more of an instruction manual, 3. Spec scripts are literature. A lot of the American screenwriting blogosphere discussion about screenwriting is about writing spec scripts, which ARE literature--before they get to be blueprints for a director, they need to work on the page for a (agency or prodco or contest) reader. So there's a method to the madness. And if you're not writing a spec, then you're right: the same considerations may not apply. I'm not disagreeing with you and I'm not picking a fight. In fact, I'm agreeing with you on the whole--and saying that there's a reason why screenwriting discussions centered around Hollywood spec scripts work the way they do. I envy you your experience with foreign scripts. What countries? What languages? I'd love to be able to read scripts from more countries and markets--if you can point me at how to find any, or screenwriting blogs and websites targeted at other countries (any language is good), I'd really appreciate it.

I've read scripts for various agencies in the UK, and haven't noticed a more marked prevalence for 'we see' in British scripts over the US screenplays I've read. [I've also worked in the UK comics and graphic novels industry off and on for a long time, where 'we see' is a lot more prevalent in scripts. But scripts are read by far fewer people in comics, so it's far less of an issue.] I'd humbly suggest what get argued about as style choices - 'we see', to use or not use CUT TO, the dying out of MORE and CONTD, etc - are actually examples of screenwriting's fashions and fads. The basic format style has remained much the same for decades. Within that format, certain elements have been popular or influential for a while - a bit like flares on jeans, or wide lapels on jackets. Certain screenwriters rise to prominence, exhibiting their own individual style. Emerging writers read those scripts, latch on to the elements of style and adopt them. The style becomes fashionable and much copied for a while. [Back to comics again - the same thing happens when a writer or artist with a particularly strong style breaks out. Emerging talents are influenced by it, and it becomes fashionable. In British comics, Simon Bisley's lush and muscular painted art at the end of the 80s inadvertently created a generation of artists who painted their comics, who got labelled 'Bisley clones'. In screenwriting, Tarantino cast a long shadow over the slush pile of spec scripts for years.] Style is individual; fashion is following a trend. As screenwriters, we try to stay informed about the latest trends, but equally need to be evolving and developing our own individual style. Sorry, long and rambling comment. Short answer: I avoid 'we see' like the plague. As a reader, it interrupts my suspension of disbelief. Not using 'we see' can require more thought, but - I'd argue - avoiding it helps you find an individual style. Your mileage may vary, etc.

I started out with the advice " No we see!," No cut to!," so have just never used them. I have to say though, on the rare occasions I have read it in a good script, I quite like it! Rather than taking me right out of a really great script, it makes me feel a bit of an Olympian God; I'm involved in the meddling mechanics of the world, I feel a bit of a puppeteer, whilst the show will still march on below without me. I think it's kind of like grammar rules. If you really feel it's incorrect, it will jar you and take you right out of the story but that's not my personal take on it. And my grammar gets worse by the day.

I've read about 15 scripts of the TV show "The Good Wife" and those scripts are some of the finest examples of engaging narrative. The rules of We See, Cut To, etc, have been placed by some people (I don't know who they are), but I can tell you that they probably aren't writers. Screenwriting is about depicting what you will see on screen, and feel while seeing it. That's all. That being said, the gatekeepers, and readers will have these preferences, which stifle style. Often times new writers who are reading the very successful screenwriters' scripts don't understand that there are two sets of rules. One for the nobody. One for the somebody. If you read scripts by Michael Mann for instance, they are like novels inside of scripts, and very hard to read, but they get made... It's cause he's Michael Mann, and these rules don't apply to him. There are of course numerous examples of such people, and sometimes, I think, maybe they are masters of the craft because they didn't follow these do's and don'ts. I try to stick to very sparse, almost underwritten, barebones descriptions, and I try not to direct actors even in scripts I intend to direct. Establish the scene, try to find the emotion, get to the conflict, and move on.

Excellent comments and spoken in the spirit of a professional TV and screenwriter. One of my writing mantras: "The story rules." The needs of the story trump everything else including supposed style and format 'rules.' Plus I love this: "Establish the scene, try to find the emotion, get to the conflict, and move on." Time is relentless in a screenplay. We write scenes in the present, but there is the push of the past and the pull of the future in every given moment. That affects everything including our narrative voice and how that is reflected in style. You don't mind if I promote this comment to a post? Worth a larger discussion.

What about "pull back and reveal"? [A term derived from the TV practice of panning out from a close-up to discover a humorous situation. Essentially you are holding back a piece of pertinent visual information until later in the story.] I love the "pull back and reveal" gag for certain kinds of comedies. But it's a camera-driven joke... When I've tried to write this without writing "we see" or including camera angles, readers have generally just been confused, and responded with "but we would have seen that already". Is there an elegant way to write a pull-back-and-reveal? Is there a way to write it in a spec script that won't really annoy readers? I'd really appreciate advice on this.