Lately, I have been strictly following this rule, e.g. facial expression can be described but not the working of interior of the head, appearance should be described but the character’s bio and the reasons he/she feels a certain way is not given. Looking at Jack’s examples, it does look like even the senior pros ONLY break the rule in character INTROS. No actor guidance afterwards. Thus in reviewing a script aren’t we still correct in objecting to ‘interior of the head’ descriptions that appear later? – and where the visual description is not enough to make it clear to reader as to exactly what happens on screen, eg she threatens to jump off the cliff means only that but if the writer intends for the jump to be seen it must be written in.

Of course many of these wanderings are reigned in during rewrites and yet some are hard to let go of. Since reading Goldman who once began one book ‘screenwriting in hollywood’ i think, with the very clear statement, ‘there are no real rules to screenwriting’ i have never had qualms about including a few rule-breakers like these being discussed.

The example by Sorkins rule-breaking provided by Jack ‘the master’ Brislee in his article illustrate perfectly these psychological aspects of a character, sometimes ‘historical’, that i try to include. I find they speak more to the actor and the director than the student reader or studio exec, because they add a dimension you can never get from a ‘mr x likes blue sneakers and wears a permanent smile on his face’. And i figure, hey, if studio heads are into expecting, nay allowing, these rules to be constantly broken by Goldman and Sorkin and whoever else we deem legendary enough to get away with such rule-breaking then the art has already evolved but as usual, the education system in place to perpetuate the art has stagnated.

There’s nothing wrong with feeling confident enough to get away with the occassional piece of psychological/historical wordplay if its going to enhance the emotional comprehension of the character. I’d rather have my script full of broken rules dumped on the pile of scripts by goldman and sorkin for consideration than the other pile by writers who write like they’ve just stepped out of ‘scriptwriting by correspondence’, obviously too afraid to cross the occassional line, bend the occassional rule, or do something totally original and inspiring because the text book said you shouldn’t.

As a side note, revisit Dead Poets Society’ – RIP, SHRED, TEAR, RIP IT OUT, GET RID OF THE INTRODUCTION and so on and so forth.

I don’t think the majority of professional writers do break this rule, and I poured over a lot of scripts to find (unsuccessfully) examples of the breaking. But I think you might be onto something. I am sure there is a way to make scripts more entertaining and readable by gently breaking the “on the screen/on the page rule”.

If you write “Jack knows Jill wants to kill him” then I think I know exactly how the “Jack” and “Jill” actors would play this, even though Jack and Jill’s intentions are (apparently) unknowable. You should develop this idea, Brendan, but also look at scripts that adhere to this rule that are great reads.

All the above examples are effectively character introductions. I believe this proves the point that not only are you allowed to break the principle of ‘don’t write what’s invisible’ but – as Brendan rightly puts – ‘Scripts that don’t break this rule are bland reads’.

Every great (main) character introduction cheats a little bit.

My question: are there other areas in the script where we consistently find this rule broken?

I can’t think of any.

but on the other hand if you make your character descriptions very specific then you may find it hard to attach a name actor to your script that doesn’t fit the description. it’s perfectly acceptable if you are writing for someone specific. but a no-no if you are trying to keep the possibilities broad.

I think different rules apply to different people and situations, indie or big business, but it is good to know those rules and to focus on the action, and what’s on screen in the script. I also believe, however, that getting that deeper character information shown on screen needs different treatment and allowances that we should all be privy to.