[…] So it occurred to me, why not just deal with it once and for all! Get every single …read more […]

Looking forward to this! What scares the crap out of me is that veven when we write "freely", pro-readers wonät read any further if they spot the first "rule-failure"....

ChRiSHuszar, I'm going to take that into account in my comments. In fact, The Bitter Script Reader is going to weigh in with his take from the 'front line' on precisely this point. As you can see from topic titles, while there may be no 'rules,' there ARE expectations. And we are wise to bear those in mind. However if you write a GREAT story that is entertaining and it's clear what's happening on the page, no reader worth their salt will pass on it if you make format, style and narrative choices that go counter to conventional wisdom. You just have to know what you're doing and the choices you make should be dictated by the needs of the story, not to make your job easier as a writer. Much more on this subject during this series.

I'm newly diving into my first screenplay, admittedly extremely green when it comes to the process. Looking forward to reading this series of posts, thank you.

A. Bove, we will talk a lot about what the conventions and expectations are, albeit fluid in nature as noted. The safest thing to do is avoid things that script readers tend to see as the sign of an amateur. Almost every single one of these 'rules,' at least stylistically, have alternate ways of handling the scripting process, so it's doable. But long term, you should be reading movie scripts, as many of them as you can. Then writing pages. Testing out your OWN style to find your OWN voice.

Hi Scott, A conversation with a friend I had once shed some light on the purpose of the screenplay. Since he came from an advertising background, he compared the script with the creative brief that is submitted by the client. The brief is the problem statement that captures all the aspects of the client's needs. The advertising agency must then work "within the brief". Similarly, wouldn't the script also represent the creative brief in some ways? Especially if the script is forwarded to all the various departments (actors, directors, technicians, production etc). Each of these departments individually have to understand the scene and hopefully become inspired to bring something special into it. In this context, is it suffice to say that all formatting rules must be help fulfill this purpose? Your views?

crackednut, that's an interesting analogy. It dovetails into the conversation in Part 2 about the emergence of the "selling script". As to your question: There is no 'right' answer. It just depends. Where is the writer in their level of immersion in the craft (i.e., how much experience do they have / understanding of conventional approaches)? What is the genre of the story they are writing? What is the nature of their Narrative Voice? It's a nuanced thing and ultimately boils down to something like you suggest. At the end of the day, format should be subservient to story, not vice versa. But again, the writer has to make sure s/he knows what s/he is doing.

I teach screenwriting to students who are not instinctively creative writers, and many of whom have never seen a film script. You'd be amazed how many different formats they will spontaneously generate if you don't give them some guidelines to work from. I teach them in terms of "the spec script", and find myself giving them all kinds of "rules" of the type you have discussed here. But in every case where I say "do this" or "don't do this" I try to take care to show them the benefit of doing it (or not doing it) a particular way. By the end of the process, most of the students will produce something that looks, feels, and smells like a film script, in a recognisable spec format. You might say this is indoctrinating them to working to a particular format. Or you might say that it gives them an appreciation of the power of language to steer the reader's visualising of a story. I like to think the latter. You asked for specifics of "who is promulgating these rules". There is a slim book produced by the British Film Insitute which is called TEACHING SCREENWRITING. It goes through most of the familiar rules about camera shots, parentheticals, paragraphing etc. Not as absolutes, but as guidance. For the more academically minded, I would also recommend Ian W. MacDonald's new book SCREENWRITING POETICS AND THE SCREEN IDEA (Palgrave). This isn't a how-to book, but an attempt to study the actual practice(s) that drive and inform screenwriting. He talks in terms of the normalising pressures of industrial practice (the so-called "doxa", the orthodoxy) and the opposing pressures of individual writers' practices (the so-called "habitus". I did say this was an academic book, didn't I? I should add, though, that MacDonald has worked in British TV for a couple of decades, so he knows what he's talking about.)

My theory about "Who is promoting these rules?": For at least some of the rules, it is everyone who teaches screenwriting. I taught a high school film course for eight years. It didn't take more than a couple of days before I started saying, "All that should be in your script is what the audience sees and what the audience hears." I ended up doing that because beginning writers (understandably, I guess) would write character description like this: "Close up on Max, who is 25 but looks 40, having lost both parents in a car crash when he was 10." It's correct for someone to ask the writer, "We're supposed to get all that from a close-up? How the audience is supposed to know all that information, unless it is presented on screen somehow?" The same holds true for "we see." For example: "We see Max getting out of bed, wondering where the girl he met the night before is. We hear her on the phone in the bathroom." You'd be hard-pressed to explain why that is better (or even acceptable) compared to something like, "Max sits up. He looks at the empty side of the bed, then scans the room. He notices a pair of high-heels on the floor. ..." and so on. As for other rules, probably similar origins. Avoid voice over? Yes, when it's lazy storytelling. Avoid flashbacks? Yes, same reason. But any of this can be done well. It's just not usually done well by beginning screenwriters (me included).

Phil and Bretton, I hear you. At the intro level, which I have taught myself, when writers have no idea about screenplay format or any of the nuances of screenplay style, it is important to provide them an overview of conventional approaches. However I think it is also important - at the same time! - to give them a CONTEXT for why these conventions exist. That in and of itself will convey to them that screenplay form is ORGANIC in nature. And THAT in turn puts things into proper perspective from the get go: The FORM is subservient to STORY. At the university level, when touching on format and style, I hardly ever say DON'T. Rather I focus on how can this be written in a more visual and creative manner, exploring current conventions to do that. Plus I ALWAYS promote the habit of reading contemporary scripts. For example in the Master Screenwriting class I teach, where students write a first draft of an original screenplay, each one of them is responsible to read a spec script that sold within the last year and provide script coverage on it (the latter to help prepare them for possible relocation and work in Hollywood). The problem, I fear, is when the conventions get taught as rules with zero attention paid to the context of WHY they are the way they are, the organic nature of a screenplay, and most importantly how to use format and style as a means to maximize the writer's creative expression. If that balance isn't presented, then that's where the trouble begins: Writers thinking they have to obey this set of rules, or even worse, if they MASTER these 'rules,' then they are mastering the craft of screenwriting. And that's simply not true. It's the CREATIVITY that is the most important thing. Part of this, too, is about the magic and mystery of creativity. We can learn 'rules' and conventions and all the rest. Those are pretty much discernable. But how to engender creativity? How to get in touch with it? How to find the magic? There is no clear path to teach that, let alone access it as we write. And so it's only natural -- especially for beginning screenwriters -- to not stray far from the security of the 'rules'. Frankly that's one of the primary reasons why we see these recurring online snits flame up, where writers get into disagreements about the 'rules' thinking they are talking about screenwriting. They are, but on a very surface level. Because on the OTHER end of things -- the world of professional screenwriters -- we just don't give a shit about these supposed 'rules'. By the point a screenwriter has written two dozen scripts or more, they will have developed a voice, their own take on style, and THAT'S where their energy resides, using that as a funnel through which creativity can flow. That's what I try to imagine when I'm working with beginning screenwriters: How can I teach them in such a way they understand the conventions of screenplay format and style, yet see them not as RESTRICTIONS - a set of 'rules' - but rather as TOOLS to be used for creative expression? Long story short: Tools, not rules. That's my working mantra. More on this as the series goes along. Thanks for sharing your experience as teachers. It's a wonderful thing to work with writers, passionate about stories, movies, TV, hungry to learn the craft, excited to be in touch with their creativity. I hope you have learned much about the craft through your teaching. I know I have!