So-Called Screenwriting ‘Rules’: Part 10

There are conventions. There are expectations. There are patterns. But the simple fact is… THERE ARE NO SCREENWRITING RULES!

Awhile back, I posted this about an occurrence that happens with irritating regularity in the online screenwriting universe: The contentious specter of so-called screenwriting ‘rules’. More below.

What happens is pretty much this:

• Somebody posts something about how there is a rule against doing this or that.
• That circulates as people bat around the idea.
• Professional writers catch wind of it, then lambaste the shit out of the thesis in question.
• The ‘debate’ fades away…
• Until the next time it arises.
• Again…
• And again…

So it occurred to me, why not just deal with it once and for all! Get every single supposed screenwriting rule out on the table, then go through them, one by one, to see if we can take all the heat that typically gets generated when one of these online snits breaks out and collectively create some actual light.

In other words, let’s make this a real learning experience and hopefully in the process, put some of this nonsense to bed for good.

I asked for your help in aggregating these ‘rules’ and as always, the GITS community responded. I’ve gone through them all, thought about it, and here is my plan: Do a 3-week series on “So-Called Screenwriting ‘Rules’”.

Week 1: As long as we’re going to take the time to go through this stuff, I figured we might as well put it all into some perspective: historical, theoretical, and practical. I’m going to start that process today:

Part 1: The Organic Nature of the Screenplay
Part 2: The Emergence of the Selling Script
Part 3: The Evolution of Screenplay Format and Style
Part 4: There are no screenwriting ‘rules’
Part 5: There are expectations

Week 2: I’ve sorted out five real nuts-and-bolts items which I will analyze and discuss one per day in our second week:

Part 6: We See / We Hear
Part 7: Unfilmables
Part 8: Action Paragraphs — 3 Lines Max
Part 9: CUT TO (Transitions)
Part 10: Parentheticals

Week 3: Readers made several suggestions that are about larger narrative choices, so let’s take those on as well:

Part 11: Flashbacks
Part 12: Voiceover Narration
Part 13: Sympathetic Protagonist
Part 14: Protagonist and Shifting Goals
Part 15: Certain Events By Certain Pages

Before we jump into this, a caveat: Everything I post in this series is my opinion. I think it’s safe to say it’s a pretty well-informed take seeing as I’ve been writing scripts since 1986 and teaching since 2002. But again, I’m simply expressing my perspective. It’s incumbent upon you to sort out your own approach to screenwriting style and the single best thing you can do in that regard is read scripts, especially screenplays written within the last 5 years as they represent the latest trends.

With that, forward into the breach!

Part 10: Parentheticals

A parenthetical is another screenplay element with its roots in stage plays. For example, here are some excerpted sides of dialogue from the 1913 play “A Wife for Life” by Eugene O’Neill:

THE OLDER MAN — (stirring the fire in a futile attempt to start it into flame) I wonder what can be keeping him so long? (hears noise of someone approaching) Hello Jack, I was just beginning to think you were lost.

— —

THE OLDER MAN — Good night. Poor Pete. Same old story. Been bucking the faro bank again I suppose. (looks at telegram) Hmm. Wonder what this is? Jack has had no correspondence in the five years I’ve been with him. May be something important in connection with the mine. I guess I’d better open it. He won’t mind anyway. (He opens the telegram and reads aloud) “I am waiting. Come.” No name signed. It comes from New York too. Well it’s too many for me. I give it up. (puts telegram in pocket) Must be that fool operator got mixed up in his names. I wouldn’t like to see Jack obey any summons like that. He’s about all I’ve got now and I’d hate to see him leave just when we’ve struck it rich. (dismissing the subject) I guess this wire is all a mistake anyway. (He looks around yawning and his eye lights on the panning tub.) Now if only the upper part of the claim is as rich as that we’ve been working — (The noise of someone approaching is heard.) Here he comes now. Welcome wanderer! Where have you been all this time?

All of those stage directions inside the parentheses are called parentheticals. You can see how playwright turned screenwriter Paddy Chayefsky translated them into the screenplay format with these examples from Network:

HOWARD
(reaching for the bottle of
booze on HUNTER'S desk to
refill his glass)
-- let's do the Lennon deportation
at the end of three ------ PRODUCTION ASSISTANT
(frowning and very puzzled
indeed by this diversion
from the script)
-- ten seconds to commercial ------ HACKETT
(to GIANINI, who is seated
at another secretary's desk
studying a typescript of
the aborted news show)
Anything litigable? --

Eventually screenwriters, used to fighting for every line space they could, scaled back parentheticals so they would normally only take up one line. Here are some examples from the script for the 1993 movie Philadelphia, written by Ron Nyswaner:

ANDREW
Ah hah! Yes!
(chewing a string bean)
Rentworth v. Pennsylvania...
court of appeals affirms jury
award of punitive damages for
wrongful interference with
prospective economic
relations...---- ANDREW
Whacked with a racquetball.
(taking Wheeler's hand)
I appreciate your faith in my
abilities.---- ANDREW
That's the third time. I better
call the office.
(smiling at Niguel)
Would you relax, please?

While there is no official rule about the use of parentheticals in screenplays today, remember that there has been a shift from the formalized approach of the studio system era, where screenplays were thought of primarily as blueprints to make a movie, to a more literary feel found in contemporary selling scripts. As a result, I think it is fair to say that parentheticals are used less than they used to be… and you should presume this is the attitude of most professional screenwriters.

There are a few reasons for parentheticals falling into disuse:

• Using one or two words in a parenthetical is an inefficient use of a line space.
• Actors do not want to be told how to read a line. This is equivalent to directors not wanting screenwriters to insert a bunch of camera shots, essentially ‘directing’ the movie on the page. Similarly, actors do not like parentheticals like (angrily), (resisting), (sadly) and the like. The dialogue itself should indicate enough of the characters intent, along with the entire context of the character up to that point, then leave the interpretation of the side to the actor.

There’s a lot of misinformation out there about parentheticals. For example, I just did a quick Google search and found this:

Here are some samples of dialogue with Parentheticals:

BOB
(sarcastic)
Of course I love you. MARTHA
(trying not to
explode)
Can't you be serious for once?
(a beat, then)
Wait, who are you?Here are some bad Parentheticals: MIKE
(reaching for gun to
shoot the alien)
Stop! HARRY AND SALLY
(they keep arguing as
they walk out the door)
Am not. Am too. Am not. Am too.What makes the second examples "bad" is that they're describing Action, not giving information to the actor about reading the line.

In my view, this is precisely the opposite of how to look at parentheticals. Again, we do not want to be telling the actor how to read their lines. They don’t like to be told how to act. Conversely, one of the very few legitimate reasons to use a parenthetical is to include action within a side of dialogue, such as (reaches for gun).

But here’s the thing: We have a tool available which can help us avoid parentheticals pretty much altogether and that is our good friend — scene description. Instead of this:

Mike barges into the room-- MIKE
(reaching for gun to
shoot the alien)
Stop!

Try this:

Mike barges into the room, reaching for the gun to shoot the alien-- MIKE
Stop!

Put the action in scene description and you save 2 lines.

If the expectation on the part of a script reader is that a screenplay with a lot of parentheticals is a sign of amateur, why not handle this so-called rule — Avoid using parentheticals! — by embracing the tool of scene description and minimize parentheticals?

Besides you save lines and you give your script a more literary and less ‘scripty’ feel.

If you have any questions or observations, please head to comments. Again, as long as we are taking such a comprehensive approach to this content, let’s do it to the max. I want to hear your thoughts and am glad to make this an extended conversation with a goal of putting this subject into a more helpful perspective.

Next week, we move from the picayune items we’ve been discussing this week into more substantive areas of discussion: Flashbacks, Voiceover Narration, Sympathetic Protagonist, Protagonist and Shifting Goals, Certain Events By Certain Pages.

Comment Archive