Writing for the stage and the screen requires one _serious_ change. Since you cannot go into the minds of your characters, or assume an omniscient view in the narrative... you have to show everything.
Easy example. In another format I could go into any level of detail I wanted, to indicate that my character was getting hungry. I could say that they were hungry. I could talk about a gnawing sensation in their stomach. I could go into an anecdote about their growling stomach in church, or about a food daydream spoiling their concentration in a meeting, or, or, or.
In a stage or screenplay- which I am just going to call a play, for the rest of this- I have to show that. I have to write some playable instruction for the performer so that they can indicate this.
Problem is? Most writers take the short cut.
INT. BUICK: STAKEOUT- NIGHT.
BOB
I dunno, man. But I'm getting kinda hungry. You?
NEAL
I could eat.
Simple and direct, but this is _tell_, It works- the audience knows that Bob is hungry, and the Neal is, as well. I could add in some dialogue about them choosing a restaurant, debating fast food or sit down, and so on. Or just cut to the two of them eating.
All of which would be, really, tell. Not show.
Which robs the audience of an opportunity to _see_something_happen and leads to a static play. It is efficient in terms of dialogue, but not great in terms of audience engagement. Nor does it tell the audience much about the characters.
So.
INT. BUICK: STAKEOUT- NIGHT.
Bob is restless behind the big Buick's wheel. Looking left and right.
NEAL
What are you looking for?
BOB
Ain't you hungry? Jesus, I'm starvin'.
Two lines. Establishing Bob's hunger with action- his looking around while he drives. Better. But still more talk than show. Still not revealing much about the characters.
And it should. In any play, you have a limited amount of time to get the audience's attention and give them details about the characters. Too much at once, it comes across like an exposition dump. Too little, and your characters are impenetrable cyphers- with which no one can identify. Neither helps the story.
Third try.
INT. BUICK: STAKEOUT- NIGHT.
Bob is restless behind the big Buick's wheel. Looking left and right. Slowing slightly as they drive. Clearly looking for something specific- but what?
NEAL
What are you looking for?
As they pass storefront after store front. Clothing, liquor, many restaurants. Bob's stomach growls. Loudly. Dramatically. It is, in the history of growling stomachs, an epic. Easily on par with a priest, farting during mass, in terms of stertorous surprise. Or a pussy fart. It takes Neal completely out of the moment.
He laughs. Starts as snicker, then, off Bob's embarrassment, grows into a belly laugh, a guffaw.
BOB
Ain't you hungry?
Neal gives Bob side eye. Clearly timing his reaction for maximum burn. Nuclear burn.
NEAL
Not anymore.
A moment of tension. Are they colleagues, friends- is their relationship such where a little gentle shit giving is welcomed or tolerated, or a potential call for a thrashing?
NEAL (CONT)
I mean, Jeeeesus, that was pretty fucking filling.
The moment breaks, both men laughing. That kind of relationship.
BOB
(Bouncing his hands on the wheel)
We gotta stop anyway.
NEAL
No kidding. Someplace that sells underwear and what, a burger?
BOB
Long as they have a men's.(beat) and onion rings.
Laughing as they go in search of just such a place, they drive on.
Better. Funny and indicative. But notice that most of that is... me telling you in the stuff that doesn't get to the audience. This is me, seeing the moment in my head and writing down exactly what I see.
It works- but it is me directing on the page. And a little of that goes a long, long way. Actors have their own ideas, as do directors and producers. The more specific a writer gets on the page, the more constrained they feel.
This is not a bad example of that, as far is it goes. I have done and read much worse. But the important thing here- it goes _too_far_ in that direction. A script is not meant to be the writer telling the production what to do as much as it is the writer telling a story and indicating possible ways for it to be told on stage or screen. It is not meant to be _this_ specific. I once got a note on a script, telling me that the best writing was in the notes, the asides, the action line comments.
A good note for a potential novelist. Not for a script. You have to strike a line between telling enough to get the ideas across and telling too much.
I should also point out that this is still more tell than show.
Fourth try.
INT. BUICK: STAKEOUT- NIGHT.
Bob is restless behind the big Buick's wheel, looking left, then right, then centering his gaze on-
CLOSE UP: PIZZA JOINT sign. Neon, red and white checked pattern, perhaps with an extravagantly mustachioed guy in a chef's hat kissing his fingers. Does everything but scream in a terrible fake Italian accent.
Bob is eyeing the thing like it's promising him sex. Or money.
NEAL (off Bob)
Uh. You okay there, Bob?
Bob pulls up to the restaurant, stops the car and, as he gets out:
BOB
Many possible answers.
Bob walks toward the restaurant.
Better. Bob no longer talks about his hunger, but visibly experiences it and acts. Neal notices and reacts with concern- which indicates a level of interest and possible affection for his partner in this. Bob sort of blows him off as he acts- which could indicate he's an all action, few words sort. But he blows him off with a smart-ass answer. Which indicates that he is either kind of an asshole- I was aiming for Harry Callahan with that- or that he is kind of an asshole, but within the bounds of his relationship with his partner, it's acceptable.
It gets you to the same place as the third try- and good actors and direction could make all of these work. But as an actor and a director- I'd vastly prefer the fourth take on the scene. It gets you to much the same place, but allows for the production team to get there in their own way. And it's short.
