[…] Aaron Sorkin has a reputation as a great writer of dialogue, as well he should. One need only read the opening scene of …read more […]

I agree that the cross-cutting technique in The Social Network and Shawshank is much more cinematic and engaging for the audience - and the rhythm created by switching between the two is excellent for pacing and playing the sequences off against each other. I can easily imagine the sequences playing out separately being a flatter experience in comparison. However … James also notes that trying to do that on the page is much more difficult. It can make for a more confusing read than the visual experience. So, should it ever be tried? How comfortable is it for a writer to write without the cross-cutting while knowing that there could a better cinematic expression to hand? "Write for the reader", I guess?

I think it all depends on how it's written. You can write it so it's confusing, all the cross-cuts, too many cross-cuts. Or you can be clear about each cut, focusing on visual transitions that ease cut, and not do too many and make it too busy. Somewhere along the lines, I created a 'scripted' version of the version of the opening sequence in The Shawshank Redemption. I'll try to track that down to see if we think that's hard or easy to follow. However, it's worth the risk because if it's more cinematic and visual, then it's almost assuredly better. You try it. If it works, great. If not, go back to the other approach. Final note: Pro readers look for writers who think visually on the page, so these type of cross-cuts can work to a writer's benefit... again if done well.