While I was searching for inspiration for this week’s initiative post, I found myself spending hours reading scripts of my favourite TV shows and films. There’s something almost nostalgic and oddly satisfying about seeing early production documents when you’ve only ever known their completed form. It’s kind of like seeing baby photos of someone you love but never knew as a child – you take notice how they’ve grown, developed and changed from when they were ‘young.’

After reading a script or watching a read-through, I would then seek the completed version of the product for direct comparison. I think making these comparisons is especially fascinating as we get an idea of the stylistic choices made in order to adapt the script onto the screen. While ‘action’ in a script may tell us what the character is doing, it doesn’t tell us how it will be shot, cut or the specific details of the mise en scène. After reading a script, we become more aware and focused on these stylistic qualities, as we already know what dialogue is to come.

It is also interesting to note how the dialogue of scripts translates onto the screen. I was curious to read a script for one of my favourite TV shows, Skins, to see if I would engage with it as much on a textual level. As the show is set in Bristol, UK, the characters speak with an extensive amount of local slang and cuss words. Through reading a transcript (couldn’t find an original script or screenplay), I was surprised by how differently it delivers on paper. In fact, given the language used, it was much less comprehendible and engaging without the tone, body language and actions of the characters.

Obviously the writers of Skins knew what they were doing would translate to screen, but by reading the script alone, people might question whether or not it would appropriate. Of course, it must be realised that a script is a film in its earliest stages, and the complete picture will not come together until it is executed visually and aurally, complete with performance and mise en scène. This essentially reiterates the need for writers to have an aptitude for filmmaking – they must understand what type of text will work on screen and what will not. Alas, being a skilled writer alone is simply not enough.

Image source: HD Wallpapers

This led me to think about how novels differ to scripts and screenplays. Novelists do not have a visual component to fall back on, and thus rely entirely on their descriptive language to paint a picture in the readers’ mind. They must describe their characters thoughts, feelings, whereabouts, actions and dialogue in a way that is both compelling and engaging for readers. Scriptwriting however is concise and straight to the point, with a rule of thumb being to only describe what is seen or heard in addition to dialogue. According to Brian Klems, “clever dialogue is found in quick back and forth exchanges, not prose-y speeches.” He recommends that 95% of dialogue is kept to three lines or less.

Interestingly there is in fact a novel adaptation of the show Skins. Although I have not read it myself, I’d be interested to see how the style of writing differs to that of the dialogue in the script.

All in all, I think it is a valuable exercise to compare scripts to completed films and make observations. I will endeavour to do this throughout the course as it is not only fascinating, but also teaches me a lot about the interdependent relationship between writing and filming.