Unspoken thoughts and Ocean's 11

Question

Okay, I always hear how you should never write something in a script that can't appear on screen, particularly the thoughts of the characters. But I can't help but notice that a ton of scripts - even by professionals that have turned into actual films - seem to break this rule quite a bit. However, the difference I notice in the better scripts is that the thoughts that are described come off as directions to the actors and director as to what the attitude of the character is.

I was just flipping through the script for Ocean's 11 (the Clooney one, not the Sinatra original), and never have I seen a professional script more loaded with characters' thoughts. For example:

- Danny checks his watch 12:58 then the lounge around him: prison had more nightlife.
- Rusty looks at him: are you stoned?
- Rusty takes in the sight bottled *** water on a poker table.

- At the bar, Rusty orders a double. He needs it.

I'm wondering if people perceive things like this as violating the "rule", and that perhaps the exception may be justified in some cases. In other words, if you were reading an amateur script, would you consider these things amateur mistakes? Or does the rule itself allow for small things like this?

Stephen Mack
"Nobody's smart enough to be wrong all the time." -Ken Wilber

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]Okay, I always hear how you should never write something in a script that can't appear on screen, particularly the ... amateur script, would you consider these things amateur mistakes? Or does the rule itself allow for small things like this?[/nq]
If the writer didn't do it too often (half a dozen times?), I'd just write it off as too much Shane Black influence, esp. if the surrounding action makes it obvious, or if these are paragraphs introducing the character, where a fair amount of "cheating" often takes place. If the writer is doing it a lot, then I'd be scrutinizing the action & dialog & structure to make sure there weren't holes the writer was covering up with these authorial asides.
it doesn't always come from 'amateurness', often fiction writers, who are used to playing with the distance between reader and point of view character, are slipping into old habits, or the writer isn't secure about having made the action clear...
In The Verdict, there is one cheat, where the line "Well..." is subject to misinterpretation so early in the story, and one almost cheat, describing Newman's character as standing in this mode: 'the ground cut out from under him.'
Mysti

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Okay, I always hear how you should never write something in a script that can't appear on screen, particularly the ... would you consider these things amateur mistakes? Or does the rule itselfallow for small things like this? Stephen Mack[/nq]
The point about all of the above and I do this sort of thing all the time is that it isn't really intended to convey internal states of mind it is simply the most succinct and also the most interesting way of conveying an external attitude on the part of an actor without trying to micromanage a physical description or, even worse, be generic.
So I quite commonly do things like:
He peers into the gloom. Something moves in the darkness. He looks more closely. What the **** is that?
Now, on one level, the last line could be read as a thought, thus verboten but it is obviously really intended as a description how the character is reacting to what he's seeing.
Now, you could simply say something like, "A quizzical expression flashes across his face" but the fact is as prose, that sucks.

And what's the point?
The goal, in screenwriting is always two-fold succinctness and readability. If expressing external action, on occasion, in the above form is the best way to accomplish that then do it.

NMS

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]I was just flipping through the script for Ocean's 11 (the Clooneyone, not the Sinatra original), and never have I ... characters' thoughts. For example: - Danny checks his watch 12:58 then the lounge around him:prison had more nightlife.[/nq]
That's a description for the look of the room - less nightlife than in a prison. Hyperbole, but reasonable as description.
[nq:1]- Rusty looks at him: are you stoned?[/nq]
Direction for the actor, more than internal monologue.
[nq:1]- Rusty takes in the sight bottled *** water on a poker table.[/nq]
Again, very specific and photographable. As a production designer, it tells me to put bottled water on the poker table, and to reinforce that feeling with other decor - these are the kinds of people who, rather than real poker players. Also tells the director to point up that fact.
[nq:1]- At the bar, Rusty orders a double. He needs it.[/nq]
Very act-able.
[nq:1]I'm wondering if people perceive things like this as violating the "rule", and that perhaps the exception may be justified ... an amateur script, would you consider these things amateur mistakes? Or does the rule itselfallow for small things like this?[/nq]
All of these seem perfectly reasonable. The stuff you're trying to avoid is:
BOB, twenty-eight and handsome, with a sister two years younger than he is (who made the sad transition from stripper to hooker six months ago, and is now living in Fresno), walks up to the bar.

BOB
(remembering that he forgot to put the cat out)
I'll have a double.

Life Continues, Despite
Evidence to the Contrary
Steven

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]The goal, in screenwriting is always two-fold succinctness and readability. If expressing external action, on occasion, in the above form is the best way to accomplish that then do it.[/nq]
Sorry to get in on this late, but I couldn't agree with Neal more on this one, and thought a few more comments wouldn't hurt. New writers sometimes get so hung up on the idea of "rules" that they forget the only really important one... you have to make your script a great read, with scenes and characters that jump off the page, so that you're creating a movie in the reader's head.
Sure, you need to pay attention to the general conventions, because part of making it read well is making it read smoothly, and getting too far away from the familiar "traditions" can slow down your reader by making them think about things that should just zip by. (A script written in past tense, or printed in Times Roman, or formatted in some excessively "creative" way is more likely to get a big "huuhh??" than a smile of admiration.)
But the people who do the buying... and more importantly, their gatekeepers... read lots and lots of scripts, which means the greatest risk you face is that yours will just blend in with all the others. What they're really looking for is a great idea, great hook, or great character... all of which are a whole lot easier to spot if they're found in a script that's holding their attention and entertaining them. And making them see a movie.
Which is where Neal's example comes in. Stuff like that, when used sparingly, sometims does a much better job of putting a picture in a reader's mind than dry description. It's also more fun to read. It fits in with what I said the other day about stock sluglines like "BACK TO SCENE" or "END FLASHBACK." Those may be officially accepted ways of doing it, but they seem mechanical and clunky to me as a reader, so I avoid them like the plague.
Don't ignore the "rules," but don't be a slave to them, either. There's nothing wrong with creating your own little stylistic touches, and letting them shine through. When done sparingly, and with care, they can help your script get noticed in a positive way.
Ken

Unspoken thoughts and Ocean's 11

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions