Adverbs not allowed???

[Vortigern99]

Horse hockey. What I'm saying when someone "staggers drunkenly" is to play drunk. Not how to act drunk, just to give the best drunk walk they know how. I know I'm not an actor, nor do I play one on television. My job as a screenwriter is to construct the best possible sandbox for the talent to work in. It takes their combined talent and the director's visualization to make it work.

Now, going back to Jane's example: in a six word sentence, I've managed to state in a very general manner what is supposed to take place. Maximum space for the director and actor to set it in whatever terms they want. All this is done with one adverb: drunkenly. Writers have only 90 to 120 pages to work in. . If there's a way to cram three sentences down to one short sentence with just one adverb, (without going crazy with them), then I'll make use of them.

Beanbag

This. If the character is drunk, and that description is essential to your story or your characterization, then as the author of the material you have to find some way to convey that information to the interpreters (the director, actors, DP, et al.). If you can do this with an adjective -- She staggers down the sidewalk, drunk -- then so much the better.

But sometimes you just have to use an adverb, either because so far you haven't had the space or opportunity to establish that the character (in this case) is drunk, or because it's the most expedient way to convey the information.

IMO, Arthwillipot's suggestion -- "She has clearly been drinking heavily" -- is needlessly wordy, and a far more severe impediment to crafting a brisk, readable screenplay than simply using the adjective "drunk" or the adverb "drunkenly" where necessary.

 

[Beanbag]

This. If the character is drunk, and that description is essential to your story or your characterization, then as the author of the material you have to find some way to convey that information to the interpreters (the director, actors, DP, et al.). If you can do this with an adjective -- She staggers down the sidewalk, drunk -- then so much the better.

But sometimes you just have to use an adverb, either because so far you haven't had the space or opportunity to establish that the character (in this case) is drunk, or because it's the most expedient way to convey the information.

IMO, Arthwillipot's suggestion -- "She has clearly been drinking heavily" -- is needlessly wordy, and a far more severe impediment to crafting a brisk, readable screenplay than simply using the adjective "drunk" or the adverb "drunkenly" where necessary.

This (as well).

One thing that a lot of critics may not realize is that scenes are NOT shot in chronological order. The scene where Jane gets drunk (conceivably inside a bar) most likely will NOT be shot the same day as when she's staggering drunkenly down the street. The staggering shot could be done way before the bar scene. The bar and the street may not even be in the same city. Therefore, I tend to write each scene as a stand-alone, giving just the very basic info the talent and the director need. NOT detailed directions, just the basics. You're drunk. Act like it.

I admit it could be considered foolish to write like that, where every scene has the minimum info required. The odds of the script I personally wrote being used for shooting are slim and none. However, I think that any reader who happens to flip to page 34 and start reading should know that Jane staggers because she's drunk, and not have to flip back three or eight scenes to find out Jane's been drinking (heavily).

Jane staggers down the street. Why is she staggering? She's drunk. Really? Then how is she dressed? What's her hair look like? Mussed? Askew? Does she puke on the curb? Heck, I don't know: talk to the director, wardrobe, and the makeup people. That's their decision(s). I'm just telling you she's drunk.

Beanbag

 

[Alan]

It could say "Jane is drunk".

My position is just that it shouldn't be a big deal for the occasional adverb or stage direction that isn't as bland as "Jane walks". The objection seems to be that people who adapt the script to a performance don't like being told what to do. First, they don't have to be faithful to the script. Second, the screenwriter has done a lot more suggesting what things should be (who the characters are, what they say, what they do, what places they go to, what it is all about), that it is ridiculous for somebody to be offended by an adverb like "drunkenly".

It's rational for someone to follow the rules if they're trying to sell it and the buyers are silly like that. But their belief about adverbs isn't rational.

 

[theprestige]

Are you channelling Earnest Hemingway, by any chance?

Impossible. I'm using far too many words.

 

[theprestige]

This. If the character is drunk, and that description is essential to your story or your characterization, then as the author of the material you have to find some way to convey that information to the interpreters (the director, actors, DP, et al.).

It could say "Jane is drunk".

This. If it really is essential, then simply say so. It's important that Jane is drunk? Then simply say "Jane is drunk", and move on to the next essential element in the story.

Let the director and the actors figure out how to portray it, or whether to portray it at all, or whether to imply it, or whether to simply show Jane drinking, and let the audience draw their own conclusions about why Jane reacts the way she does in the scenes that follow.

It seems to me that the goal of good script writing is to tell the essential story, while still leaving the company the most possible leeway in interpreting that story.

I stand by my analysis: If you're convinced that "staggers drunkenly" is the most important thing you could possibly write at that point, then your stories aren't very interesting, and probably won't get bought by anybody.

 

[Alan]

You're bordering on saying that a screenwriter shouldn't suggest that characters use particular words. I'm not saying you're actually going there. But only the essential story should be told, right? We should trust actors and others to come up with the rest.

I'm not saying that "staggers drunkenly" is the most important thing somebody could possibly write at that point. If somebody is offended or annoyed that they are being told what to do in stage directions like "stagger" instead of "walk", then they are being ridiculous. But the screenwriter should, if they want to sell, give into that.

 

[Beanbag]

Jane is drunk.

Okay. What's she doing?

She's walking down the street.

Really? If she's drunk, how is she walking?

Well, she's walking unsteadily. You know, staggering.

Okay. Why not sum it all up in "Jane staggers drunkenly down the street" ?

Game, set, and match, in only six words.

Beanbag

 

[Lolly]

Okay. Why not sum it all up in "Jane staggers drunkenly down the street" ?

People can be drunk without staggering... I'm sure Meryl Streep could portray drunk without staggering. Seeing the character stagger is how you see the story, but it could be seen differently. Doing it the way theprestige suggests leaves other options open.

 

[Beanbag]

Would I have her staggering down the street if it wasn't important to the story?

Think carefully now. I like paring my screenplays down to the minimum.

Beanbag

 

[arthwollipot]

You can tell I've never written a screenplay, right?

 

[quarky]

If a zombie was to eat the brain of someone that was very high on drugs, would he/she pick up some of the drugs, and act strangely?

Like, more strangely than normal?
(Geez, I sure hope I don't have to write a screen play.)

 

[Vortigern99]

Why not get the best of both worlds, silencing the anti-adverb critics and paring off unnecessary syllables, all while conveying the required information:

Drunk, Jane staggers down the street.​

?

 

[Beanbag]

Drunk, Jane staggers down the street.

That sentence doesn't flow -- it clunks.

Beanbag

 

[theprestige]

Would I have her staggering down the street if it wasn't important to the story?

Maybe. There's a reason even the best writers have editors.

Either way, I still think you're stuck with a Catch-22: Stories about drunk people staggering down the street usually aren't very important. Color me skeptical that this one happens to be the exception to the rule.

Think carefully now. I like paring my screenplays down to the minimum.

If you say so. Personally, I think that "Jane is drunk," is probably the bare minimum possible, providing the essential information while giving the company the greatest possibly leeway in interpreting and portraying that essential information.

By writing "Jane staggers drunkenly", you are in essence saying that in any faithful adaptation of your script, Jane must only, ever, always stagger drunkenly: no other option could possibly tell the story you have set out to tell. Is this really true?

 

[Beanbag]

Maybe. There's a reason even the best writers have editors.

Either way, I still think you're stuck with a Catch-22: Stories about drunk people staggering down the street usually aren't very important. Color me skeptical that this one happens to be the exception to the rule.

Take into account that we're talking about one sentence in a much larger work, taken out of context. I just used Jane's walk as an example of some of the ridiculous critics I encounter that immediately underline and bitch about any word ending in "ly."

If you say so. Personally, I think that "Jane is drunk," is probably the bare minimum possible, providing the essential information while giving the company the greatest possibly leeway in interpreting and portraying that essential information.

Jane staggers drunkenly down the street. Note I didn't say she was actually drunk. She might be faking it, for all we know. A lot happens that we don't know about in the preceding scenes. Again, contextual frame is missing. I just want her to walk like she's really toasted at this time.

By writing "Jane staggers drunkenly", you are in essence saying that in any faithful adaptation of your script, Jane must only, ever, always stagger drunkenly: no other option could possibly tell the story you have set out to tell. Is this really true?

Nope. Jane should walk like she's been drinking. The fact that I specified it means it's important to the story somehow. I can't tell the audience she appears to be drunk -- you have to show them. There is no inner dialog in a screenplay. Well, maybe in Airplane ("I have to concentrate... concentrate... echo?... pinch hitting for Pedro Vorvone... Manny Mota"), but not for any "serious" work. The original release of Bladerunner sucked with all the Harrison Ford voice-overs.

The director and the talent portraying Jane are free to come up with whatever degree of drunken portrayal they want. It's not set in stone. It's a given that the screenwriter's work is at best just a suggestion.

Like I would have any say over the final script, anyhow. A screenplay isn't a novel. Understand the lack of sanctity of an author's submission script. Scripts come in several flavors. The most common form written is the submission script. It's a few steps above a story treatment or outline. The submission script is what you use to pitch your story and sell it . You don't want to actually try to shoot a movie from a submission script. The detail and direction is just not there.

I deal with this a lot (I get called in to direct a lot of independent videos locally). They want to start shooting in a few days. They hand me a script, I flip through it, and hand it back, telling them what they've given me is a submission script, not a shooting script. The best example I have is where they handed me two scenes to shoot, and I handed it back to them as fourteen separate scenes, broken down as shots and angles. It was the same basic material, just pulled apart into a shooting script format you could actually work from.

Once you've sold your script, unless you are one of those literary living legends who can have it specified in the sales contract that it has to be shot the way it is written (like Michael Crichton, which explains why Congo was such a clunker), whoever bought the rights to your screenplay (usually a director) will most likely either hand it over to their favorite screenwriter for a rewrite, or start hacking on it themselves. The people coughing up the money to fund production will probably demand some changes as well. The screenplay then gets rewritten into a shooting script, which is more of a production blueprint, with camera angles, specific shots, etc. written in.

Once you sell the script, it's pretty much out of your hands. As one of my screenwriting mentors (who worked for MGM in the golden days) put it, "sell it for the most money you can get, then drop it and move on to your next project, because what ends up actually getting shot probably won't resemble very much what you wrote. Take the 'Original Screenplay By' credit and move on."

Beanbag

 

[Beanbag]

Just in case it isn't apparent, moviemaking is a group enterprise. Unless you're doing claymation, one person can't do it all. The screenwriter is a major player, but not the most important. They get over-ruled regularly by the director. Consider the following section of dialog lifted from memory from The Stunt Man:

Director (speaking to writer): What would you do if the studio told you your daughter would look better without one of her fingers?

Writer: Well, being an insecure writer, I'd call my agent and get a second opinion.

The quote I've heard attributed to Orson Welles says it all: A painter needs a brush, a poet needs a pen, but a director need an army.

Beanbag

 

[Howie Felterbush]

If a zombie was to eat the brain of someone that was very high on drugs, would he/she pick up some of the drugs, and act strangely?

Like, more strangely than normal?
(Geez, I sure hope I don't have to write a screen play.)

According to zombie canon, they aren't really digesting anything, they're just biting and chewing, so I would say no.

But a stoned zombie would be pretty funny.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Okay. Why not sum it all up in "Jane staggers drunkenly down the street" ?

Game, set, and match, in only six words.

Rematch. Serve.

"Drunk Jane ambulates."

Three words.

I don't see a problem with “staggers drunkenly”. It seems the most obvious way of saying, "At this point in the story we need to show the audience that Jane is drunk to the extent that it is noticeable due to her lack of motor skills.”

 

[Beanbag]

"Drunk Jane ambulates."

Okay: where is she ambulating? And ambulating is a bit vague. Doesn't bring up any mental image at all.

Beanbag

 

[Fnord]

Impossible. I'm using far too many words.

.
"Hemingway? No. I talk too much."

Corrected. You're welcome. Bye.