The Flashback

[VPTurner]

I'm sitting at the keyboard late last night pounding out page one of a new feature, and I caught myself because I was about to launch into a flashback to show in the past the significance of a specific prop as it relates to my main character. It stalled the momentum. But I suppose this is a good thing because before I would just do it and find out later it was a bad move. I'd rather avoid the mistake in the first place.

I've read in the past that the use of a flashback as a character building mechanism was cheap and amateurish, and that a character's history is better developed through action and dialogue in the present. Even though I see several TV shows and some movies that still use it, does the use of flashback remain taboo for spec writing? I can certainly leave it out and let the mystery behind the object pique curiosity. The more I think about it, leaving the mystery could compel a reader to keep reading beyond page 10 to find out what it means and why it has such a profound psychological affect on her.

Thoughts? Should I avoid it, or just do it?

Thanks!

 

[directorik]

Using a flashback isn't cheap and amateurish. What you most likely
read is that most new writers use flashbacks in a cheap and amateurish
way. And that is true. As you say, you see them used and used well.

If your plan is use this script as a writing sample or to get an agent
or to sell (not make yourself) then my advice is to not use a flashback.
Because most unrepresented, unproduced writers use them poorly,
most readers put their guard up as soon as they see one.

It's not fair - but readers are human, too. It's tough enough getting
your scripts read without throwing in aspects that are, traditionally,
considered problematic.

It sounds like you have already discovered why flashbacks aren't liked.
The more you think about, the better your story gets without the flashback.
That's pretty typical. And that's why you often read that flashbacks are
a cheap way to feed the audience information.

 

[VPTurner]

I wasn't planning on producing this one myself. That could change, though. It's primarily an exercise to make sure I am up to date on the writing process. It has been long time since I wrote a feature script. Some of my books on screenwriting are twenty years old now. And, yes, I will use it as a writing sample. I want at least five of them under my arm before I take the next step toward an agent. The first script I wrote got some agency attention, but then they asked, "What else ya got?". I didn't have an answer. That won't happen again.

Despite efforts I'm making toward independently producing some of my own stories and ideas, my primary goal in the industry right now is writing. I will have plenty of time to pursue other film work if I can use writing to replace my current income. I hate not having enough spare time to devote to this endeavor, so now I am working to change that. Writing is the one thing I can do anywhere, anytime, and doesn't require a crew. It also has the greatest potential of a supplemental income.

Thanks for the feedback.

 

[spinner]

...hmmm...this is something new that I am hearing....

I have always been of the understanding that in film you don't tell the story, you show the story. So, if flashbacks are 'cheap and amatuerish', how do you give a characters background? Too much 'talky' dialogue and discussion can slow a film down, right? What are your suggestions on how to strike a balance?

This is the first time I've heard people say 'don't use flashbacks'....


-- spinner

 

[VPTurner]

If your character gets a facial tick whenever a particular piece of music plays, or refuses to wear a digital watch, preferring instead to stick to his/her antique wind-up, that tells almost as much about a character's backstory as a flashback could. When we walk the streets, do you see images of people's past flash before your eyes? Nope. Well, not unless you're Silvia Brown. There is always an air of mystery. This is why we take time to get to know interesting people.

Besides, rik corrected my misperception about the use of them in general. As long as they are done right, they remain acceptable. It's the writers who don't have a name or experience who tend to use them in cheap, amateurish ways. As such, readers tend to be on their guard when they see them.

How is it it any different visually depicting that your character is afraid of water by showing a flashback of a near death experience with drowning than to simply show him/her shake, shudder and back away from the pool? That stare of horror at the water should tell the audience most everything they need to know for the moment, right? Then you can expand on it later, and perhaps even force your character to deal with that fear by putting someone close to him/her in the same scenario. Sometimes, a flashback is jarring and confusing. I did not like the movie The Good Shepherd because Matt Damon didn't appear to age or change appearance; there were no visual cues that we went back or forward in time.

Note that there is not a single line of dialogue mentioned. You can reveal a great deal about a character's past without using dialogue.

 

[directorik]

...hmmm...this is something new that I am hearing....

I have always been of the understanding that in film you don't tell the story, you show the story. So, if flashbacks are 'cheap and amatuerish', how do you give a characters background? Too much 'talky' dialogue and discussion can slow a film down, right? What are your suggestions on how to strike a balance?

This is the first time I've heard people say 'don't use flashbacks'....


-- spinner

I'll bet you can find a dozen great movies that didn't use flashbacks and
still managed to give the characters a background. It's actually very
rare for a movie to use flashbacks as a way to show a characters
background.

No flashbacks in "One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest" yet by the end we
know the backgrounds of McMurphy, Bibbit and the Chief.

No flashbacks in "Million Dollar Baby" yet we soon know the backgrounds
of Dunn and Fitzgerald.

Having long scenes of character exposition isn't any better than using
flashbacks. The balance is exposing the needed background through
character strengths and flaws and with short, important "talky" scenes
where it counts.

 

[Anodyneguitarist]

I think that the use of a flashback depends entirely on the context of the film. Is it needed? Is it more effective to show or to tell? Suppose the protagonist experienced near death experience of drowning and someone asks him to go swimming. You can either show the flashback of the nde or you can focus on his expression as he angrily says "I don't like water." Or you can do both. The important piece is to keep it relevant to the story, don't waste the audience's time with a flashback if it isn't part of the story.

 

[barnaclelapse]

I agree with Directorik. While I do think a flashback can be still used effectively in a dramatic setting, I think you'll be a lot more satisfied if you reach the same conclusion you're aiming for with that flashback through other means.

If that makes sense.

 

[knightly]

In Average Joe, w wrote in some flash backs...I'll be recutting them to the front of the story and it'll flow a lot better. I was withholding the information from the audience, but I found when watching that I didn't care about the character because I didn't know this stuff til later...he was just a pathetic character. With the flashback bits cut to the front and the transitional bits cut down, the flow works better and I cared more about the main character. So for me, I had so many hurdles when filming them that they became muddled and didn't help the story as flash backs.

 

[spinner]

Having long scenes of character exposition isn't any better than using
flashbacks. The balance is exposing the needed background through
character strengths and flaws and with short, important "talky" scenes
where it counts.

...I guess I never really thought about it that much, I haven't had much call to do it. But this really gives me something to think about.

Interesting subject....

-- spinner