CJ Powers is an author/speaker residing in the Chicagoland area. As a Writer/Director/Producer he is an international script consultant and conducts screenwriting workshops. His films released internationally and television programs aired on CBS, PBS, ABC, the Family Channel, and various syndicated stations. The majority of CJ’s directing awards, including the Silver CINDY and Crystal Communicator of Excellence, were for family films. He received additional honors from the U.S. and International Film and Video Festival and the New York Film Festival. He is a guest writer for Christianity Today’s Singles Connection eNewsletter and has also been an Arts & Entertainment columnist for the DuPage Christian.

CJ can be reached through his blog at http://cjpowersonline.com/

I often receive requests for a quick answer to a question the screenwriter needs resolved. “Should I do this, or this?” I find it difficult to answer because most of the time the correct answer is neither. And far too often it deals with the writer trying to tell the director, cinematographer, production designer, wardrobe department, actor, or casting director what to do. So this month’s column is designed to help you stop telling all those people how to do their jobs, while giving them enough information to do their jobs. (Applause erupts from the hundred-person crew behind the scenes.)

Let’s see if you can catch the “tells” in the following screenplay being shot in 2010.

INT. KAVANAGH BARN – DAY

Dust swirls in the forming block of sunlight as WILLIAM KAVANAGH (78) opens the tall, creaking door to the barn. Vast expanse of farmland and woods stretch past William.

Title: Wisconsin 2010

In the barn, a boy in his early teens, lies stretched out, head on the edge of a hay pile. PATRICK KAVANAGH (14), a kid small for his age, light-brown skin, and very skinny, wearing baggy athletic shorts and a baseball cap backward, fell fast asleep, staring at the gold key in his outstretched hand.

William's silhouette bends over amongst the dusty sunlight streaming in on the boy and his key. William quickly snatches the key from the boy's hand, shaking Patrick's shoulder in a scolding manner.

Patrick looks up, in shock, coming to quickly.

Patrick jumps to his feet, pulling at his shirt. Dust flies from his clothing.

At first blush the above scene seems normal to most writers. Before I point out any problems, here is the second draft after I gave the writer some tips. Let’s see if the changes help you catch the issues I’ll be sharing.

INT. KAVANAGH BARN - DAY

PATRICK KAVANAGH (14ish), small for his age, sleeps in a pile of hay. His position gives a disheveled look to his oversized athletic wear and backward baseball cap. Light spills onto his face as the old barn door CREAKS open.

WILLIAM KAVANAGH (late 70s) stands in the partially open doors with rays of dust-filled sunlight cutting across his large frame.

Patrick bolts up to a sitting position in a daze. William’s silhouette bends over the boy.

Patrick looks at the GOLD KEY in his hand.

Patrick jumps to his feet.

The scene is about Patrick helping his grandfather save the farm. Version 1 focuses first on the grandfather, but more important, it has the cinematographer facing a specific and difficult task of balancing the outdoor light with the indoor light. We are all aware that to have a beam of dust-filled light requires a very dark setting, and showing an expanse of farmland requires a lot of light. This extreme contrast can cause parts of the footage to be overexposed or underexposed—a cinematographer’s nightmare.

Version 2 opens on Patrick, whom the story is about, as ”Light spills onto his face as the barn door CREAKS open.” Notice that the ambiguity gives the cinematographer complete flexibility as to how he wants to shoot the segment. He can show a close-up of Patrick with light spilling onto his face, with only the sound of a creaking door in the background, a medium shot with a blurred overexposed door cracking open in the background, or a clean long shot using a green screen to balance the open door lighting with a background plate. In fact, there are three more possibilities that pop into my mind, including tracking shots and a jib arm. Now, the camera team will have some fun shooting this scene.

The actor playing Patrick is faced with a unique situation with version 1 telling him how to act: ”lies stretched out, head on the edge of a hay pile...asleep, staring at the gold key in his outstretched hand.” This type of description gives the exact imagery that the actor might struggle to achieve, especially because his view of the character is different based on his expertise.

Version 2 gives the director and the actor far more creative say in the development of the character. ”...sleeps in a pile of hay...the GOLD KEY in his hand.” They can use a touch of humor by having the character in a funny position, or posture the character in a way that suggests a long night of pondering the key until he drifted off to sleep, or maybe they would position his feet up as if in a recliner to expand his character development. The flexibility allows the experts at character development to determine what elements to visualize in order to drive the plotline, while solidifying the motivation.

The casting director might take issue with version 1 because it calls for Patrick to be fourteen and William seventy-eight. Version 2 takes the pressure off of the casting director by stating that Patrick is fourteenish and small for his age. This gives the latitude to hire a twelve- to fifteen-year-old actor who is smaller than most kids. William also goes from seventy-eight to late seventies, giving far more versatility to the casting team, especially since he is a man with a large frame—a physical type that is hard to find in that age group. The key to the casting is that the two characters need to look like family with a generation between them.

The production designer understands that the barn is tall in version 1 but can’t tell if the barn is a new building or an old one, forcing him to guess or sketch up two sets of designs for the director. Version 2 clearly states that the barn doors are old, which reduces the amount of design prep work. Both versions hint at a barn filled with hay and light spilling onto the main character, with silhouettes of the grandfather. This gives the art director a clear direction for design, color tones, and spot lighting.

The wardrobe department has many athletic outfits in storage and needs to know immediately if there will be any additional purchases or outfits to sew for this scene. In version 1, Patrick is wearing ”baggy athletic shorts and a baseball cap backward.” There is no mention of a shirt, so the team has to assume it is a hot day or check with the director. In version 2, he is wearing ”...oversized athletic wear and backward baseball cap.” By stating oversized athletic wear, the writer is giving leeway to the experts to consider shorts that are too big, shorts that are the right size and baggy, and various types of shirts like V-necks, crew necks, or tank tops. The key element is that both versions call for the clothing to be athletic, which is tied directly to the character.

Both also give leeway to choose what type of baseball cap he is wearing. A good dresser will provide the director a couple options to choose from, like an official MLB hat, college team, little league, souvenir hat, concert hat, etc. Since the writer didn’t see the importance of what the hat represents, with the exception that it must be worn backward, it will be the director’s call to determine if any symbolism, humor, or homage will be added. If, however, something specific about the character needs to be revealed through the hat, the writer should have been specific—but only if it made a difference with the character or story.

There are numerous other notes that could be made about dust flying off of the clothing, etc. I hope these few examples help you to remember that the script is not only the story of the film but also the blueprint for many departments that need information to do their job. And I hope you also realize that your word choices will make a difference in inspiring the crew’s creativity or ticking them off. Writing a well-balanced screenplay takes a good deal of effort to please all the departments, while keeping the team headed toward your vision. Your writing will dramatically improve from understanding the roles and talking with more directors, actors, and crewmembers.

CJ Powers can be reached for script consultation and translation work at cjpowers7[at]gmail [dot] com.