photo by Jin's diary 87
About five years ago I decided to take on the challenge of writing a spec action-movie. Not written for independents, but something that would take at least $30M to produce. In other words, I wanted to see if I could write a Hollywood blockbuster. I didn't expect to ever see it make the screens, which was just as well, really. It was a writing exercise and nothing more. However, what I soon realised was that rather than being easy, writing good action sequences is difficult. It's difficult, because good action sequences don't focus on one person in one room. Good action sequences move multiple characters through the events of a sequence, all from slightly different locations; all of whom are moving, reacting and problem solving on the fly. Tricky stuff.In this week's article I want to write about how that is done. I want to focus on this, because once a writer understands how to tell a story from different and moving points of view, then their scripts get better. Ironically, understanding how to write action sequences, is the key to understanding how to write cinematically. Which is a good thing.
So, why are action sequences so difficult to write?
Well, largely because action sequences are about keeping track of a lot of things and people, all at the same time... and, therefore, there is always going to be a struggle to balance coherence and the pace of the read.
If you watch the first minute and a half of this clip from Bad Boys II, you'll start to get an idea of what I'm talking about.
If you look at how that sequence is cut together, you can see you've got a huge intercut from at least five different locations: you've got the action on the multi-story, the guys in the surveillance van, Will Smith's position at the exit of the multi-story, the inside of the victim's vehicle, the inside of the antagonist's vehicles, the inside of Will Smith's vehicle... and, all of this before you get into the car chase.
Another way of seeing this sequence, is to understand that what are unfolding, are the individual story-lines of multiple players. The camera and the audience aren't stuck to the protagonist. The story consists of all the things that are happening around the protagonist, which impact on the protagonist, even if the protagonist doesn't witness every single second. Again, easy for the director and editor... tricky for the writer.
The other point is that the audience's attention doesn't stay on one single location for much longer than a single unit of action, of about half a second. When the editor cuts to Will Smith the first time, it is for him to notice the gunfire and to swear... and that is it. Then we are somewhere else. And then, half a second later, we are somewhere else. And so on.
The problem is, most writers don't think like editors. They tend not to skip rapidly from one location to the next. Most writers like to nail their protagonist into one place, so that the hero can talk about stuff. As you can see, the action sequence is the polar opposite of nailing your protagonist in one place so they can talk. This is what makes a complex action sequence so challenging and so fascinating for the viewer.
So, how do we write about rapid location changes, following the stories of multiple players, without the script becoming incoherent. Well, basically, it comes down to two things: clear character names and minor slug lines.
Let's deal with the minor slug lines first, because for a lot of writers this will be a new concept. Basically, at the start of a scene the slugline is the line of information that tells the reader where the scene is and when it's talking place... for example:
INT: THE ROOF OF THE MULTI-STORY CAR PARK: MIAMI: DAY
Possibly the worst way you could write an action sequence, would be to break each minor location into a distinct scene. This would be bad, because it means the entire page would be sluglines followed by one line of action and maybe a line of dialogue. It would be bad, because reading the sluglines slows down the read and takes the pace out of the sequence for the reader.
EXT: THE ROOF OF THE MULTI-STOREY CAR PARK: MIAMI: DAY
A Black van is parked on the roof
INT: BLACK VAN: DAY
Julie checks her watch, she's anxious.
JULIE
They're late
EXT: THE ROOF OF THE MULTI-STOREY CAR PARK: MIAMI: DAY
Three muscles car drive up the ramp on the roof of the car park. They drive towards the black van.
INT. THE TOWER BLOCK OPPOSITE THE CAR PARK: MIAMI: DAY
Policeman 4 checks his watch, barks into his radio
Do you see how difficult that is to read. How broken up the sequence feels. It robs the scene of all the excitement, movement and pace. It makes the read turgid and slow. The opposite of what you want at this point.
The answer to that problem is to forget the production team for a moment, who do need to break the sequence up into distinct locations to shoot... and, instead see the sequence as one single location, that just happens to have different points of focus. Therefore the slugline for the sequence identifies the larger location. Like this.
EXT/INT: MULTI-STOREY CAR PARK: MIAMI: DAY
then, all of the location moves within the sequence are flagged up using minor sluglines ":ON THE ROOF", for instance.
So, it would become:
EXT/INT: MULTI-STOREY CAR PARK: MIAMI: DAY
A black van, parked.
IN THE VAN:
Julie checks her watch, she's anxious.
JULIE
They're late
:ON THE ROOF
Three pimped out muscles car roar up the ramp to the roof of the car park. They bear down on the black van.
:IN A WINDOW OVERLOOKING THE ROOF
Policeman 4 checks his watch, barks into his radio
"Three cars, coming in fast"
As you can see, by doing this, the writing gets back the pace it loses by using full sluglines. And, with an action sequence you really need the reader to feel the pace, to get how fast moving the sequence is. It does this without robbing the reader of coherence. In fact, it's easier to visualise the sequence this way.
Now, the interesting thing about this, is that once you understand this technique you can apply it to any kind of sequence. It's not just for action sequences. This way of anchoring the distinct lines of story within a location, makes it easier to separate out storylines, as they unfold in one or multiple rooms. It one of the ways that a writer can guide the audience's point of view within the scene... and the more you think in terms of guiding the audience's point of view, the more cinematic the script becomes.
This technique allows you to move the point of view of the audience from the protagonist, to any other character. Simply by doing that, you are making the screenplay less like a play, where the audience are nailed to one point of view, and more cinematic, where the audience's point of view moves with the story.
The other thing that helps with action sequences, is to not give all of your characters names. If you've got ten different people doing things all at the same time, then you on;y want to give names to your main and established characters... everyone else needs to be: "Fat Cop" "Muscle Guy" "Tattooed Biker"... embrace the cliche on this one and only situation, because keeping it simple will keep it coherent. I don't trust a reader to juggle more than four characters who are identified by their names; and, fewer than that if the names are common place. It is better to call a character Mr Sharky, than Jim, for just this reason.
Of course, other than mastering the writing of action sequences for movies that will never see the screen, there is another reason for learning how to do this... basically, I rarely, if ever, read a script where the writer knows how to handle the actions of multiple players, in one story. Every script I ever get sent, nails the protagonist into one room, where they talk about stuff. The action never moves away from the protagonist, unless it is in a distinct scene. And yet, this style of multi-player, audience shifting, story-telling is what makes movies vibrant, it's what gives them pace, it's what keeps the action and the story moving.
Basically, it's worth doing because almost nobody does this. It's also worth doing, because it is writing the way directors think. By allowing the director to see what the audience needs to be shown, you're making it easier for them to visualise the finished movie. They will love you for that... or hate you for doing their job for them. Either way, they'll remember you.
keep writing brilliantly and viva la revolution
Oh, and if you're wondering... I got a lot of interest in my Hollywood spec in Hollywood. It sold my skills to some very cool people, who are still helping me today. Ultimately, what let me down was the core concept wasn't right for that time. Now, I'm reworking it for the TV. Even specs that stand no chance of ever seeing a movie screen are still worth writing. Always.
Posted via email from Filmutopia's Sunday Morning Movie Blog
