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

I'm 14, writing my first big script, need a critique

Hey everybody, I've been reading the boards for a while now, and I post every now and then, but now I finally have somthing worth posting. Well my friends and I want to make a feature, just for practice, that way in a few years when we're older and more experienced with movies we'll be set to go. Well anyway, I've got about 26 pages done, I'm aiming for around 80 pages in the script. This is pretty much what you can call the first act, it's setting up the story for what's going to happen in the next 54 pages or so. It's pretty much all dialogue. It's titled "Kings of the Night". Basically it's about a group of teens around 14-15, planning to sneak out of their houses one night and raise all sorts of hell. A lot of the stuff that happens in the movie actually happened to one of my friends or me at one point. Not everything, a lot. What I have so far is kinda dull, but I want to get this part of script evaluated so when the movie starts to get into gear i'll have a better idea of what to do. o.k. well if anybody wants to help an aspiring film maker out and wants to critique my script, email me at vinnyd3000@aol.com and i'll email it to you. Put somthing about the script in the Subject so I don't delete your email on accident. Thanks for anybody whose willing to read it!
 
Foul language...

SPaulovich said:
The discussion here brings up an interesting point: foul language in scripts. I've joked with a friend of mine (I can now boast that he's an award winning playwright) saying that writers, as a group, have the highest concentration of "voluntary Tourette syndrome."

I contend that foul-language is the refuge of untalented writers. There are many ways to portray character traits without having to sink to that level.

I contend that foul-language is also the refuge of uncouth, inarticulate morons who have haven't mastered advanced concepts like language skill to express themselves... but that's a personal bias.

On the other hand, I've gone into the circular argument that writers use foul language because it reflects reality. Or does the casual use of foul language in media portray it as acceptable in everyday life? That's a tough one to call.

To all the writers, all the creative folks out there, I challenge you to find new and interesting ways to portray the emotions your characters express without resorting to foul language.

I have to disagree. It all comes down to character and like you mentioned... Reality. Fortunately or unfortunately, many people use foul language. Many people don't like it but I submit to you that most people recognize that it is in fact reality that a lot of people use it. I won't argue semantics with anyone about whether or not it is correct to use it or whether or not it is lazy writing... That's simply OPINION. It comes down to character, plain and simple. I always applaud a screenwriter who takes a rough, tough, and gruff character like say... a Hell's Angel and creates him in such a way that we will actually believe that this character doesn't use foul language.

Throwing it around needlessly is in fact lazy writing but I for one (and trust me, I am not alone) want realistic dialogue. If that means cussing/foul language, then so be it. If not, then so be it. To make every sterotype character like a gangster or criminal use it just to make them seem real is lazy writing as well.

Having said that...

To simply recommend or challenge a screenwriter or someone who wants to be a screenwriter "to find new and interesting ways to portray the emotions your characters express without resorting to foul language" is fine for some characters but a little one-sided for all characters. No offense, but most of the people I know that dislike hearing foul language in films basically dislike foul language altogether and pay more attention to the foul language in a movie rather than the movie itself. Which is fine... It's a free country but let's face it... It's simply an opinion... And not the opinion of the movie-going, ticket-buying majority.

My mother and father were both in prison. Between the ages of 4 and 7 I visited both of them and trust me when I tell you that foul language is realistic for these types of characters... Not using foul language is the exception to the rule. However, that goes back to your other statement: "I contend that foul-language is also the refuge of uncouth, inarticulate morons who have haven't mastered advanced concepts like language skill to express themselves." --Whereas I can kind of go along with part of that statement i.e., uncouth... Maybe. I cannot agree with the rest of it. I happen to know quite a lot of very articulate people who use foul language. They might not use it in every sentence but it does get used. Morons? LOL. Again, this is simply an opinion.

I also spent 20 years in the Navy and during that 20 years I spent a lot of time with Marines and a little time with the Army... Even among a lot of officers you will hear foul language. Morons? Come on... Just because someone personally doesn't like to hear it doesn't make the rest of the world that does use foul language, morons. I am glad that you qualified the statement by saying it is your personal bias... Which again translates to opinion not reality.

filmy
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have to disagree. It all comes down to character and like you mentioned... Reality. Fortunately or unfortunately, many people use foul language. Many people don't like it but I submit to you that most people recognize that it is in fact reality that a lot of people use it. I won't argue semantics with anyone about whether or not it is correct to use it or whether or not it is lazy writing... That's simply OPINION. It comes down to character, plain and simple. I always applaud a screenwriter who takes a rough, tough, and gruff character like say... a Hell's Angel and creates him in such a way that we will actually believe that this character doesn't use foul language


It's actually more complicated than this.

I was brought up in a Scottish community where the "f" word was used as punctuation and like many Europeans I don't have a personal problem with foul language in my everyday life.

However, as a screenwriter I've learned the hard way that foul language is often the least effective way of showing a person's character, unless I'm attempting to create an easily digestable stereo-type.

When I write dialogue I'm not trying to emulate reality, I'm trying to tell a story. The line of dialogue tells the audience either something about the character or something about how the character feels about the situation. It's a dramatic tool, not a documentary process. Of course, sometimes the easiest way to do that is with an expletive, but just because a character would swear constantly in real life doesn't mean that they need to in the screenplay. There are better and in my opinion more interesting ways to do it. The truth is that most dialogue isn't created from careful observation of "real" people, it's just a re-heating of dialogue that people have seen on TV and the formula is: constant swearing = gritty realism.

For example, given the time to write it, I'm sure that I could create a completely believable and authentic tale of prison life in Iambic Pentameter (Shakespere's language structure of choice) and also do it without ever using a single expletive. The truth of the matter is that of course it is about character, it's just that language or our relationship to it, especially in drama, is a very complex matter. This one of the reasons that it takes many, many years of experience to become a great writer.
 
If only 'gesture' were still the mother-tongue...ah, maybe not...that imagery is probably even more volatile :lol: .


What do mean, "you still believed in Santa" - Santa is real, isn't he?

:yes:


Hey Clive,

Know any MacAllisters? I know it's a silly question, but do you?
 
Last edited:
It really does depend on the character and what you're trying 2 say about them. Some characters are bound to use foul language because that's the way that specific person is. It is also important that conflict exists.

Remember that sloppy writing can appear in many different forms, and that includes foul language. At the end of the day, it comes down to ur story...
 
RE: complicated...

clive said:
It's actually more complicated than this.

I was brought up in a Scottish community where the "f" word was used as punctuation and like many Europeans I don't have a personal problem with foul language in my everyday life.

However, as a screenwriter I've learned the hard way that foul language is often the least effective way of showing a person's character, unless I'm attempting to create an easily digestable stereo-type.

When I write dialogue I'm not trying to emulate reality, I'm trying to tell a story. The line of dialogue tells the audience either something about the character or something about how the character feels about the situation. It's a dramatic tool, not a documentary process. Of course, sometimes the easiest way to do that is with an expletive, but just because a character would swear constantly in real life doesn't mean that they need to in the screenplay. There are better and in my opinion more interesting ways to do it. The truth is that most dialogue isn't created from careful observation of "real" people, it's just a re-heating of dialogue that people have seen on TV and the formula is: constant swearing = gritty realism.

For example, given the time to write it, I'm sure that I could create a completely believable and authentic tale of prison life in Iambic Pentameter (Shakespere's language structure of choice) and also do it without ever using a single expletive. The truth of the matter is that of course it is about character, it's just that language or our relationship to it, especially in drama, is a very complex matter. This one of the reasons that it takes many, many years of experience to become a great writer.

Hmmmmm. I guess I prefer to make it less complicated. Your point is taken... When I write dialogue I do try to emulate reality as much as possible... So we differ there completely.

Having said that...

A character needs to be developed in such a way that we BELIEVE he or she would or wouldn't use foul language. Again, this is semantics. Everyone has an opinion. If a screenwriter can write an outstanding script (RATED "R") and make me believe that every single character would never use foul language... Great. I'm all for it as long as I can believe it. As long as the majority of the audience can believe it. To qualify my opinion, I'm talking about rated R scripts and to a lesser degree, PG-13 rated scripts. A script I wrote several years ago has one very intimidating character (mafia character) and he never ever uses foul language. It is believable that he wouldn't because of the way I developed him. However, the people he works with (other mafia characters) do in fact use foul language. Not overly done, but they do use it. Maybe I've been conditioned by watching films but I've also been around lots of shady characters off and on throughout my life and again, I would submit to anyone that a film containing lots of different mafia characters simply would not be believable if not one character used some kind of foul language. I have no doubt at all that it can be done. Hell, I could do it but would it be believable? I simply use that type of film as an example... There are others of course where I think it would be difficult at best to create a believable story where not one character uses foul language at one time or another...

filmy
 
Steven Berkoff the actor also writes great plays. He wrote one called "West" about gangsters in the West End of London and did it all in rhyme. It's an incredible piece of writing. Totally believable, but not even vaguely realistic.

Russell Holborn the novelist wrote a book called Ridley Walker in a language that he invented himself and once you get into it, it makes perfect sense.

I don't think excluding foul language for the sake of it is the point, neither is attempting to create characters who have to justify in some way why they don't swear. The point is that drama is capable of so much more than the simple formula, foul language = realism = believability. The whole point about any form of story telling is that the audience will accept whatever world you present them with, providing it is coherent, interesting and emotionally believable.

I use foul language in my scripts less and less, there is some in "No Place" and none at all in my next project. I like it less and less as a literary device.

However, that said, I don't think it's wrong for other writers to use it, I don't disapprove of it morally, I don't condemn people who use it as a device, I just find it very, very boring. Then again, I think three hour long Russian science fiction, where nothing happens and the characters wander about for three hours discussing the morality of science, philosophy and religion is light entertainment, so what the heck do I know.
 
I hear ya...

clive said:
Steven Berkoff the actor also writes great plays. He wrote one called "West" about gangsters in the West End of London and did it all in rhyme. It's an incredible piece of writing. Totally believable, but not even vaguely realistic.

Russell Holborn the novelist wrote a book called Ridley Walker in a language that he invented himself and once you get into it, it makes perfect sense.

I don't think excluding foul language for the sake of it is the point, neither is attempting to create characters who have to justify in some way why they don't swear. The point is that drama is capable of so much more than the simple formula, foul language = realism = believability. The whole point about any form of story telling is that the audience will accept whatever world you present them with, providing it is coherent, interesting and emotionally believable.

I use foul language in my scripts less and less, there is some in "No Place" and none at all in my next project. I like it less and less as a literary device.

However, that said, I don't think it's wrong for other writers to use it, I don't disapprove of it morally, I don't condemn people who use it as a device, I just find it very, very boring. Then again, I think three hour long Russian science fiction, where nothing happens and the characters wander about for three hours discussing the morality of science, philosophy and religion is light entertainment, so what the heck do I know.

Hey, I hear you... The mafia character I was talking about in an earlier post never commented or justified why he didn't use foul language. He simply didn't use it. I didn't want the toughest gangster to be cliche so I made him very courteous but in a psychopathic way. So I understand what you mean. But again, isn't this simply semantics? I like foul language when it's done right. When it's believable for the character. I've read over 500 mainstream scripts and of course I'm not telling anyone to do it because so and so did it but the majority of those scripts use it. But say a film like "North By Northwest" --a definite classic of screenwriting obviously doesn't need or use it. And the characters in the script are very sophisticated and well mannered even when they intend to kill you. Great stuff and if I was writing something along those lines, I would definitely think twice before using it.

But there are a lot of low life and not so low life characters that will use it here and there... That's all I'm saying. I'm not promoting the use of it at all. Just let me do my thing and you (not you personally of course) do yours... There's room for everyone. But to simply say anyone that uses it is taking the easy or lazy way out is totally unjustified... Not that anyone did that either... But there seemed to be opinions headed in that direction. If so, I'm just saying that it's a personal thing and of course opinion and cannot be defined as the correct way for everyone to write.

filmy
 
SPaulovich said:
I contend that foul-language is the refuge of untalented writers. There are many ways to portray character traits without having to sink to that level.

I contend that foul-language is also the refuge of uncouth, inarticulate morons who have haven't mastered advanced concepts like language skill to express themselves... but that's a personal bias.

On the other hand, I've gone into the circular argument that writers use foul language because it reflects reality. Or does the casual use of foul language in media portray it as acceptable in everyday life? That's a tough one to call.

I'm a big fan of foul language -- when used wisely. I think it all comes down to the character and the kind of film you are writing. If you're trying to accurately portray a punk high school kid, foul language is a must (see "Kids"). If you're trying to show Jack Ryan, a normally a well spoken man who chooses his words carefully, is really pissed at the president, a well-placed "fuck" can be very jarring.

I do agree that many times writers muddy-up dialogue by throwing in course language for no reason. This is very off-putting. Unless it's a trait of a character or used for effect (i suppose you could add "mood" as well, if you consider Tarantino's films) then foul language should be kept out. But that's just my opinion.
 
Back
Top