• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

Every single scene explains the whole script - is that possible?

I'm a student to cinematography. Recently I was tasked to write a scene from within my script. I did.
I was told that this scene isn't understandable. Who is who? Why? What? Where? Why should I care?
Well, it's a random scene from within the script. It's not supposed to stand alone.

Of course I wrote a short description of what is relevant for the current scene, the background. But the teacher didn't want to read it. He said that every scene (big scenes of course) should summarize the entire script. So if a producer opens the script in a random page and picks a random scene, he will understand what the story is about.

WHAT?????

I've read a lot of scripts, and I barely saw that happening. In fact, most of the times if I open a random scene, I don't understand what the story is about, before I read at least the previous and the following scenes. The only times when I DID understand the whole story from one scenes, were the scenes which contain the "Inciting Incident" of the story, or the"Culmination". Well, because those 2 are the "key" scenes. But not the others. Sometimes maybe the opening scenes. But that's it.

So, the question... is that even possible, that every big scene in the script will summarize the whole story?
 
Maybe in Israel, budgets are so low, you can only afford to shoot one scene per movie? ;)

is that even possible

Sure it's possible, but it'll be for a shitty film.

There are a few possibilities:
1). You pissed off this teacher (or someone else did and they're just in a bad mood or it just unhappy with his/her life)
2). You misunderstood what he means.
3). S/He is leading by example. By showing you in this interaction, you understand the entire story of your teachers' life where the morale is "Those who cannot do, teach."

What does this have to do with cinematography? Isn't that more related to a directing and/or writing class?
 
So, the question... is that even possible, that every big scene in the script will summarize the whole story?

No. Perhaps you misunderstood what he meant. What is possible is that every big scene can hint at, imply or allude to the stakes/conflict, the relationship between main characters, the theme and the concept behind the film. Reading a good "big" scene can, at least in well-written scripts, give you a reliable feel for what the rest of the script is most likely about. Writing a big scene as a stand-alone (not yet part of a coherent whole) is almost always immediately noticeable because the characters aren't well-formed, the conflict is often erratic and unfocused, and the tone is usually uneven.
 
Why did you pick a random scene, instead of picking one that will be clearer?

In theory every scene should move the story forward and have something to gain of lose for someone.

Maybe the teacher is not so good at teaching, because he can't find the words to explain what he means.
From a math point of view:
Summarizing the script in every scene will create an infinite loop, because the script is full of summarizing scenes that summarize the script full of summarizing scenes full of...

I can only speculate: did he mean that every scene needs to breathe the theme of the story, or something like that?
Even a random scene wouldn't be filled with random actions.
And still: you are right: what is a scene without context?

But yeah: it sounds a bit like a weird demand.
 
I'm a student to cinematography. Recently I was tasked to write a scene from within my script. I did. I was told that this scene isn't understandable. Who is who? Why? What? Where? Why should I care? Well, it's a random scene from within the script. It's not supposed to stand alone.

Of course I wrote a short description of what is relevant for the current scene, the background. But the teacher didn't want to read it. He said that every scene (big scenes of course) should summarize the entire script. So if a producer opens the script in a random page and picks a random scene, he will understand what the story is about.
I'm confused. You were to 're-write' a scene from your previously written script? Since the scene was already written, I take it the task was to enhance those elements. While, as Sweetie suggests, it could be a flaw in your teacher, I can also see some validity to aspects of what you were asked to do. It may have been a miscommunication.

When you revise a script, you need to be very disciplined about only including scenes that advance the story. New writers often put in scenes that look cool but slow the pace of the story and are not really relevant. A scene needs to develop the plot or the character.

An example. One student gave me a script that discussed (no surprise) a fight with her mother and running off to commit suicide. It was meant to be a deep, soul searching journey. In the middle of this, there is a scene where she stops at a carnival and gets lost in a mirror maze. She gets out and the rest of the story was pretty blah. Now my thought--as a writer--being surrounded by all her 'potential selves' was a great vehicle. The student's explanation was she always was scared of that as a child and wanted her character to share that fear. But to come back to my point, the scene was totally at odds with the rest of the script. Did your instructor ask you to re-write a particular scene or any scene?

While you're absolutely right, every scene cannot be a microcosm of the script, a more general reading of his/her comments do have a certain degree of truth. Every scene needs to be integral to telling the story. It should be compelling leading me deeper into the story. It should show the nature of the characters. When an actor does a scene study, they need to breakdown the motivations, the dynamics, the flaws, the environment. What is needed to make this character live and breathe and make this scene's world believable. Good writers often have acted as well as held a camera.

When I write a scene, I ask myself those same questions. Are the characters believable and true to themselves throughout? What is happening in this scene that makes it important to the story? What must they do and why should I care? Is this consistent with the genre expectations? Are characters inconsistent at times? Yes. But when that happens, the audience often suspects that something is amiss. While a scene should not tell me the whole story, if I flip to a TV channel and watch for a couple minutes, I have a general sense of who the main characters are, a general sense of the mission and the genre. I will know if it's a crime show, comedy or romance. However, it won't allow me to figure out the whole story or its details. If intriguing, though, it may capture my interest to want to continue to watch.

I can't intuit, from your presentation, what your instructor's intentions were. But from the perspective of just flipping to your scene on a television, would it be self-explanatory and gripping enough to entice a viewer to continue watching? It seems to me you're coming at the issue from a written/technical point of view while your instructor is asking you to take a content/story point of view. And I think you are both correct from your respective POVs.

I don't think your instructor was refusing to read your re-written scene. S/He was refusing to read an explanation of the scene. The scene should be, in a way, self-explanatory. Are there scenes in every film that don't meet that criterion? Of course. But EVERY SCENE must be relevant or it ends up on the cutting room floor (well in the old days, anyway). If it's a key (or 'big') scene, how could it not define the characters and important plot elements? I agree with Adeimantus that you might want to seek some clarification.
 
Last edited:
Maybe in Israel, budgets are so low, you can only afford to shoot one scene per movie? ;)

You know, in some cases, it is actually true :)

There are a few possibilities:
1). You pissed off this teacher (or someone else did and they're just in a bad mood or it just unhappy with his/her life)
2). You misunderstood what he means.
3). S/He is leading by example. By showing you in this interaction, you understand the entire story of your teachers' life where the morale is "Those who cannot do, teach."

He didn't seem pissed off. A misunderstanding may be the case, but everybody understood it the same way. What could he possibly mean?

What does this have to do with cinematography? Isn't that more related to a directing and/or writing class?

It was a screenwriting class, which is a part of cinematography degree. But I don't study the whole degree, only specific things.

No. Perhaps you misunderstood what he meant. What is possible is that every big scene can hint at, imply or allude to the stakes/conflict, the relationship between main characters, the theme and the concept behind the film. Reading a good "big" scene can, at least in well-written scripts, give you a reliable feel for what the rest of the script is most likely about. Writing a big scene as a stand-alone (not yet part of a coherent whole) is almost always immediately noticeable because the characters aren't well-formed, the conflict is often erratic and unfocused, and the tone is usually uneven.

Yes, but a scene also contains details that you can't figure out, unless you know what happened prior to that. And he was clear about, - "Every big scene should get me into the story, without forcing me to read what happened before". Well, it sounds like a nonsense to me :)

Why did you pick a random scene, instead of picking one that will be clearer?

Well, no. Not just a random scene. A scene that answers a certain criteria. There must be an expectation of something to happen, but eventually fail (surprise the viewer). And it must happen a few times. All in subtext - covered with actions and dialogue that don't speak directly of what we are expecting for. And this scene has to be eventually applied to our scripts. It's a very interesting task, but I can't just pick up a scene from the middle of the script and explain what has happened prior to that, WITHIN THE SCENE.

For example, if a character carries a book in the previous scene, and continues carrying it in the current scene, should I tell once again, how he got that book and what is its purpose? It seems a waste of words and lines in the screenplay.
 
For example, if a character carries a book in the previous scene, and continues carrying it in the current scene, should I tell once again, how he got that book and what is its purpose? It seems a waste of words and lines in the screenplay.
Depends on how critical the book is, doesn't it? ;)

Code:
EXT. SCHOOL YARD - DAY

Kids play.  Huddled by the swings are Tommy and his gang.
Louis is by the teeter totter.

Sam emerges glowering the book tight under his arm.  He
moves across toward Louis when

Angela comes from behind and snatches the book.  Sam
whips about.

                        SAM
         OI!  Give that back!

Angela is quickly joined by her friends.  She starts to open it
when Sam jumps forward to grab it back but misses.

                        ANGELA
        Why Samuel Higgins what's your
        fancy?  A picture book?

His face wrinkles and he snatches again but she tosses it to
another girl.  Soon it becomes a game of toss as Sam runs
after it.

Marsha grabs it.  Her eyes narrow and a evil grin crosses 
her lips.  

                       MARSHA
           Does the headmaster know you 
           have this?

Sam's eyes narrow.

She prepares to open it when

Louis snatches from her hands.  The girls stare at him.

He dusts it off and hands it to Sam.

                        LOUIS
        What oh.  That's 'is.

Sam looks up at Louis in relief.

The girls scowl and move off.

                        SAM
        Thanks.

Sam looks past Louis to see Tommy and his gang
approaching, like sharks drawn to tussle.

                        SAM
                  (serious whisper)
        Do you trust me?

Louis smiles and shoots a questioning look.

Sam opens the book and whispers something.  As he does,
he touches Louis' sleeve -

but not before Tommy lays his hand on Louis' shoulder.

The playground swirls and falls out of sight.
It's a scene fragment. What do you suspect came before? What do you think comes next? Who are the main characters? What is the genre? What's your guess as to what the story is about?

I don't have to explain how Sam got the book or who he is. Hopefully the reader/viewer gets a sense he's a shy kid and our hero. It's a scenario that most people can relate to. He's thrust off into an adventure with Louis his protector and Tommy the bully. Somehow we expect the three will make some uneasy alliance in the course of the adventure. Sam will discover himself as the hero. And along the way, the book is the key. This is the trigger ("call to adventure") so it's a key scene. It's the story in a microcosm though certainly many details are yet to be elaborated. Yet you know this is a magical adventure.
 
What were the examples of this "entire story within every scene" the teacher cited or provided?
(And did you know beforehand the teacher was going to expect this? And did others in class receive the same/similar criticisms?)

Are there examples of this (seemingly bizarre) requirement in a textbook or other source you were provided with?



I was told that this scene isn't understandable. Who is who? Why? What? Where? Why should I care?

So, the question... is that even possible, that every big scene in the script will summarize the whole story?
I think that in most key scenes the audience should be able to A) identify WHO key players are (protag or antag), B) quickly understand WHY and/or WHAT their conflict to resolve is, and C) WHERE in the scope of the story they are physically or stage toward goal achievement.

Antag wants X
Antag needs X to achieve Y
Antag is speaking with the sage to learn where X is to achieve Y

Doable?
Yeah.

In EVERY scene?
I dunno. But in KEY scenes establishing WHO, WHAT/WHY, and WHERE should be doable.
 
Last edited:
It's a scene fragment. What do you suspect came before? What do you think comes next? Who are the main characters? What is the genre? What's your guess as to what the story is about?

Well, it looks like an opening scene. In this case it's obvious that it should reveal the story setting.

What were the examples of this "entire story within every scene" the teacher cited or provided?
(And did you know beforehand the teacher was going to expect this? And did others in class receive the same/similar criticisms?)

Well, many wrote much bigger scenes. By bigger, I mean bigger descriptions within the scene, that explain what happened prior. And of course, they were told NOT to do that in the future. What he said, is that it should reveal the entire story by showing it, not telling it. Well, if the story was a love of a prince to a watergirl, or whatever, such a story can be summarized. Such a thing is easy to show. But stories can be more complicated or harder to show.

I dunno. But in KEY scenes establishing WHO, WHAT/WHY, and WHERE should be doable.

Yes, it sounds more logically correct than doing it in every scene.

Maybe he meant that every scene should stand on its own as a small story/mini-movie?

If so, some scenes can be translated into different stories, very much different to the movie where it has been taken from.
 
It's a scene fragment. What do you suspect came before? What do you think comes next? Who are the main characters? What is the genre? What's your guess as to what the story is about?
Well, it looks like an opening scene. In this case it's obvious that it should reveal the story setting.
The point was that it was not the intro. It picks up after some initial incidents that develop the characters and discussed how Sam comes into possession of the book and some preliminary events. As a reader this is clued by the fact that the speaking characters weren't capitalized, that is, they weren't introduced for the first time. Angela, Marsha, Louis and Tommy are not new.

Why don't you post the scene in question. It may give us a better sense of what your instructor was trying to help you accomplish. And if you want to include the backstory, we'll read it too. :)
 
He said that every scene (big scenes of course) should summarize the entire script. So if a producer opens the script in a random page and picks a random scene, he will understand what the story is about.
If this is truly what he said then he is a fool. He should stick to
teaching cinematography.
 
Maybe. But isn't it the real way how the producers read the scripts?
Absolutely not. No producer opens the script to a random page, picks
a random scene and expects to understand what the story is about
from that scene.

Think about it. I'll use a movie I'm sure we all have seen; Lawrence
Kasdan's "Raiders of the Lost Ark". If a producer were to randomly
open that script to the scene where Indy and Marion are kissing do
you think that producer would know what the story is about? Isn't it
foolish to think that the scene should be removed because it has nothing
to do with the ark?
Do producers have time to read full scripts?
Do producers read scripts? Or hire someone to do that?
Yes, producers have the time to read full scripts. And yes they hire
people to cover scripts for them. The reader provides full coverage of
scripts to the producer. If the reader gives the script a "pass" the
producer will not read it. If the reader gives the script a "recommend"
the producer will read it. No producer goes into production without
reading the entire script.
 
As asked, here is the scene I wrote. I don't tell what is the story about, on purpose. I want to see if it hints on the story.

Code:
EXT. NEAR TOMER’S CAR / ENTRANCE TO AZRIELI – NIGHT

Tomer opens the car’s door. Alona approaches him with the “Count of Monte-Cristo” book.

					ALONA	
			Mr. Hakkan?!

Tomer turns around. Alona gives him the book.

					ALONA
			You forgot it in my house!

					TOMER
			Yes. A year ago…
					(beat)
			Keep it to yourself.

He prepares to enter the car. Alona comes ahead of him.

					ALONA
			I… I wanted to tell you, that…

She looks a few seconds into his eyes as if she wants him. Tomer gets nervous and 
avoids looking back.

					ALONA
			I like what you did in Sderot.
			You’ve turned it into paradise
			within a year!

					TOMER
			What exactly do you like there?!
			You know, I’m ruining your husband’s
			pre-election campaign! What did you
			do in this meeting in the first
			place? What do you know about
			Sderot?!

					ALONA
			And what do you think you know
			about me?

Tomer doesn’t answer, and glances at the book’s title.

					TOMER
			The count of Monte-Cristo! 
			A nice book, isn’t it?

Within a few seconds of silence, Alona’s face expression changes. She lowers her 
eyes, her voice shudders.

					ALONA
			It was the only book he has ever
			read. I was a book worm from Tel
			Aviv dating an uneducated guy from
			Sderot, named Tomer. I wanted to 
                        make him read at least one book in
                        his entire life… Well, one book is
                        what he managed to read before 
                        that incident in Gaza…

She suddenly stops and glances up, at Tomer.

					ALONA
			Where did you get this book?

					TOMER
			Why are you telling me all this?

					ALONA
			He always dreamed of Sderot as the
			“Singapoor of the Middle East”. It
			is ironic that he didn’t get the
			chance to see his dream coming true

Tomer seems uneasy, uncomfortable, when Alona looks right into his eyes while 
she speaks.

					TOMER
			Do you need a taxi, Mrs. Crainfeld?

					ALONA
			I can’t leave my car here. I don’t 
			want Eyal to know I was here.

Tomer closes the car’s door and remains outside. 

					TOMER
			What happened to that “Tomer”?

					ALONA
			He shot an innocent Palestinian 14 
                        years old boy and was sentenced for 
                        15 years.A few days later he 
                        committed a suicide in prison.

                        		TOMER
                        For real? A soldier killed an 
                        innocent child?

Alona lowers her eyes in disdain.

					ALONA
			He was a person of high principles
			and morale…

Tomer faces her with hope. Alona glances at the book.

					ALONA
			But Edmond Dantes didn’t know his
			friends either, before he became
			the Count of Monte Cristo!

Tomer lowers his eyes with dispair.

					TOMER
			But Mercedes Montego didn’t know
			that Edmond was framed, and never
			cooperated with Napoleon.

					ALONA
			Edmond’s prototype WAS guilty of
			helping Napoleon!

					TOMER
			And how do you know that?!

					ALONA
			A history fact!

					TOMER 
			History is written by the victors!	

Tomer gives her the book back and prepares to open the car’s door. Alona keeps 
staring at him. 

					ALONA
			I didn’t say he was a soldier.

					TOMER
			Excuse me?

					ALONA
			I said he killed an innocent boy,
			not that he was a soldier.

Tomer swallows. He has nothing to say. Alona tilts her head and starts 
circling Tomer while she speaks.

					ALONA
			I know who you are!

					TOMER
			I knew I had to tell you, but…

					ALONA
			You’re a spy of the “Right” wing,
			those radicals that want the former
			government back!

					TOMER (confused)
			“Right” wing?

					ALONA
			That’s why you’re interested in
			Tomer’s incident! You want to dig
			up something to use against my
			husband in media!
				(quietly, into Tomer’s ear)
			You better leave us alone!

She turns around and starts walking away. Then stops and throws the book at 
Tomer with a force.

					ALONA
			People sent to the “Chateau d’If”
			in Frannce if 19th century were 
                        traitors, national prisoners, who 
                        deserved to be there! Monte Cristo
                        was not an exception!
                        		(quietly)
                        Tomer is dead, and that was his 
                        own choice!

Alona leaves. Tomer gets into the car and angrily hits the wheel.
 
Last edited:
Is it on purpose that Tomer is the guy Alona is talking to, but she is also talking about Tomer in 3rd person, and that Tomer it would seem is dead by suicide in prison?

She thinks Tomer is dead by suicide 15 years ago. Tomer uses a fictional identity now. Alona doesn't recognize him after so many years, and thinks he is someone else.

Do you think I should hint about it in the scene?
 
Back
Top