Screenwriting : POV Format by Brad Harrod

I've seen it used in scripts loads of times, I think its fine as long as it reads well.

Great post Brad... I struggled with the same issue when I wrote my first script... a supernatural suspense drama... where "The Entity" (as I called "It") was (really) my Main Character. Personally, I used "ENTITY POV" in each of my sluglines where we (the audience) were looking through "Its" eyes.

After you establish that POV in the script's first pages, just write what you see... or, what you want the audience to see.

That's great advice Brian

Well, using "we see" is considered "old form," if you will. Not current form. Plus, its use is redundant when you think about it. Your action descriptions are visual, so if you're writing it, then the assumption is we're seeing it. I mean, no one writes, "we hear" before every line of dialogue, right? LOL! Anyway, I think it should only be used if absolutely necessary -- if at all! Of course, it's up to the writer to decide. :)

I just opened the first script on my desktop. I think the first "we" was 4 pages in. "We race forward ahead of the car..." Perfectly appropriate. I would never have given it a second thought, were it not for this question.

The writer could have said, "Camera races forward," but that is no "better" or "worse" of a reading experience than "we."

Although certainly appropriate, both "we" or "camera" seem like directing, yes? -- something screenwriters shouldn't do, at least in a spec script. :) Plus, there may be a better way to describe that same scene without "we." I think this whole "we/we see" thing is a much more debated issue among writers. LOL! As I said previously, I personally consider it something to use only if absolutely necessary. I'd much rather use/see description without it. When reading, it sticks out to me; suddenly the audience is part of the narrative. But, as always, these choices are up to the writer. :)

"A 90s pop song hums as we soar above a nearly deserted neighborhood." I changed some of the words for the sake of the writer. But this was on page 5. I would have never given it a second thought. If the writing is good, the stage direction/set descrip is judicious, there is no issue.

It's very obvious when someone is "directing from the page." Putting in a camera move on occasion is fine. CUT TO is also a direction/editing choice. It's used all the time, and that's fine. But if newbies can't sense when they are overdoing it, they should read some good scripts of produced films and see when to say when!

Yeah, that's interesting, Regina. That line would cause me pause. Perhaps the "we/we see" thing is just a "thing." I know in screenwriting circles/books/classes/notes we are told not use it. But, again, it all boils down to personal choice. It's good to know on the executive side it's not as "big a deal" as often believed. ;)

Why would it cause you to pause? It shouldn't. I'd bet $5 that the screenwriting instructor is speaking from an experience of having read an egregiously over-directed script. For example, if you read a script and the writer is telling the actors where to "pause" or "blink" or "scratch their elbow" all the time, that's overdoing it. Instructors are probably reacting to egregious examples. Judicious and merited. Just like my advice about putting music choices in.

From the 2nd script on my desktop: "She scribbles on something we can’t see." page 2 I would never have given it a second thought.

I think it's more offensive to overwrite and waste the reader's time, when saying "something we can't see" takes 2 seconds.

Is this another situation in which Academics might not have the best handle on "real world" practice, the practice of today's market? We discuss this in: https://www.stage32.com/lounge/screenwriting/Script-consultant-or-script... https://www.stage32.com/lounge/screenwriting/Professional-Notes

Yeah, great points, Regina. I agree, one should write tersely and with upmost clarity. Certainly don't wish to overwrite or waste a reader's time. "Directing" should always be at an absolute minimum. This preference is promoted to new writers and its use is often considered outdated. For me, I find the use distracting. Redundant. Boring. I avoid it the way I avoid hot spices. Lol! Perhaps it's a personal choice thing. I see it less and less in scripts I'm reading. It sticks out when I do see it. Anyway, I just share my thoughts about its use. Everyone will have their own. :)

There are no rules, only tools. The warnings about "we see" are due to some writers beginning half their sentences with "we see", when of course we see, it's a movie. Use ultra sparingly and you're okay. Are you identifying the shot as POV? That's a use ultra sparingly, too. I usually do POVs like this: TIM sees the hundreds of stampeding donkeys... and the clown funeral right in their path.

Thanks William. :)

Excellent discussion, Regina, Beth you did again, thanks. I use POV when I don't want the audience to know who's approaching , mostly in horror or suspense. Forced of habit growing up watching Friday the 13 and Halloween, even in The Omen that cemetery scene with the the dogs. Anyway my thoughts on POV. Thank u all .

Thanks, Jorge. William Martell gave a great response too!

I love this discussion. Like Beth, it's been pounded in my head to never use "we" and if I see it in another writer's script, try to mention it so they can "correct" it. But over the years I've seen great screenplay writers use it sparingly, so I force myself to just look it over if I see it a couple of times, but it always sticks out. Regina, I'm glad to hear that you guys up top don't think too much of "we". I've used it once in a feature I'm writing now and I try to delete it everytime I do a rewrite, but somehow it always sticks. I think I won't worry as much anymore. I'm not a fan of POVs. When it's written or on screen. They just don't sit well with me.

I think I am a bit lost. From the screenplay Bounty Hunter/Ex-Wife Project by Sarah Thorp, first page of the story, "we MOVE IN ON" and screenplay WANTED by Michael Brandt & Derek Haas, the second scene reads, "...After the TRAIN passes, we find ourselves listening to..." and I have seen a lot of great screenplays which some of their movies received many awards. The question is, do you guys imply that "WE" shouldn't be used by a writer, instead it should be used by a director and his/her team revising the script? moreover, if I got here well, Regina indicated that transitions like CUT TO (FADE TO, DISSOLVE TO, ETC) shouldn't be used by a writer since they are direction/editing choice. I thought by default they add value to the screenplay format and such transitions exist in almost every screenwriting software. I know that there are screenplays that have no transitions like THE RUINS. So, getting back to WE, (We glide downtown, ascending from the sky.... We hear eerie sound... We see him...) as it is the director's prerogative I guess, does it matter as long as the reader can get the point?

As I've written many times before, the whole anti-we-see thing really gets my goat. It's one of these analy-retentive creatively constraining rules which is purely subjective but hides behind the dumb logic that the writer is overstepping their role if they use it - garbage. It's right up there with not using adverbs, the word and, going over four lines of dialogue, and all that other failed writer guru bullshit that we take as black and white because it got printed in some crummy book once. I don't use we see in my spec scripts. Like many others I've been brainwashed into being scared of my own shadow when it comes to naturally expressing creativity. God forbid I'd upset some $10 a read reader, right? But oddly enough, once I'm working with a director, I find myself using we see now and then since I know how they want to portray things. Plus we're writing together effectively. Although it's worth mentioning it's more like a combination of we see, we can't we, see can barely make out, we pull back, etc...

I have no problem using we see, I read many times that "we see" is bad but sometimes I need to because there is a lot of things going on, I prefer to use "we see" than inserting camera angles.

Great post CJ... I really feel your pain bro. When I was writing my first script in July of 1995, I knew I had to use 1st-person-POV for the supernatural entity... and it had to stay 2-dimensional... if it turned 3D, it'd turn hokey. I realized I've have to direct it to execute the concept correctly. So a film executive simply told me, "If you want to direct your script, then direct it on the page." Thus, I wrote "It" the way I wanted and envisioned... and broke all the rules... on my first script. The problem there, then, is that by doing so... typical script-readers today don't get that I received that advice from an industry veteran in 1997... so 20 years later, my version of the script is finished... but hasn't been produced. Then again, its concept's "delicate" execution hasn't been drecked either... a good thing... at least, in my mind. However, its Concept did get stolen (I feel)... and a schlocky Hollow-wood horror flick was made of its concept. Since it didn't have any of my script's execution, there were no grounds for a lawsuit. I walked away from seeing that film in 2007... and thought, "Well, at least the idea that got me going into the Hollywood and writing direction was in the ballpark and good enough to be borrowed." Yet, that advice... back in 1997... has stuck with my writing... and it's why I now write and have published 32 books... (as Elvis and Sinatra sang) - My Way. No "analy-retentive creatively constraining rules which is purely subjective" as CJ describes to brilliantly. As one of my teachers in 1998 in Beverly Hills told me: "Brian, there are many Picassos out there... but there will only truly be ONE: Pi - cas - so."

To answer the question, there are creative ways to indicate POV or even CU without saying it. His gnarled hand slips off the doorknob forces the reader to picture just that without taking them out of the story. That's where the "rule" comes from -- Far too many new writers use camera angles and we see as a lazy crutch to the point that scripts are laden with these forced instructions and it removes the reader from the story -- so to err on the side of caution new writers are told to avoid it altogether, like flashbacks and voice overs -- but we all know good stories can be told with these devices. Use it if needed -- especially if your script is in a room of characters and you need to point out that one of them sees something the others don't. If you cannot CLEARLY indicate that, JOE sees MARY slide a thumbdrive into her sleeve, then by all means indicate: JOE'S POV: Mary slips a thumbdrive up her sleeve.

Great comments! :) Thanks Laurie! Personally, I don't see this as "garbage" or "brainwashing" or "rules." This preference certainly was not "pounded into my head." Perhaps others feel differently. It's simply making intelligent choices and creative choices. :)

I completely agree with Laurie, its a good example! It is better to write what one character or other characters see, and if the character/s are (O.S.) ... then just describe the scene, therefore "we/we see" is not needed!

The thing is there's a big difference between a writer making intelligent and creative choices based around their own confidence and a writer constraining themselves or second guessing themselves due to fear. Compounding that there's the issue of writers taking these suggestions/guides/advice as black and white and applying them as rules when they feedback to others, or even worse if they become professional readers or consultants. I admire anybody who knows what brings out the best in themselves and sticks to their guns be it the typeface, formatting, terms, or words they use. What I have disdain for is taking these personal preferences and using them to judge others. It's all too often a complete distraction from task.

All the more reason for discussions like this to present various considerations, practices, and ideas. :) How someone perceives and uses information is up to that person. Exposing oneself to different resources and gaining knowledge certainly helps build confidence to better discern creative choices and determine what works best for one's writing.

Totally, providing we are just as critical of our information resources as we are of ourselves, that's a very healthy way to develop.

Couldn't agree with you more, CJ. :)

@Tsepo, no, I'm saying there is nothing wrong with using "we," camera moves, and "cut to" in the ways you've described. I wouldn't have noticed any of those usages. I'm surprised that people are concerned about them. Like I said, I wouldn't have even noticed them as they are normalized to me. I was defending the writer's use of "cut to," not condemning it.

Regina, the whole we see thing is a very contentious issue within amatuer screenwriter communities. It's often touted as one of the biggest mistakes we can make a surefire way to look amateurish. For example; http://reelauthors.com/screenplay-coverage/do-not-use-we-see.php http://theworkingscreenwriter.blogspot.co.uk/2007/11/we-see-and-other-ru... http://www.doctormyscript.com/2010/10/screenwriting-mistake-9weseewehear... http://www.trilane.com/ref/action/action5/action5.html The wierd thing is a lot of the professional advice is the the contrary such as; http://johnaugust.com/2007/we-in-scene-description As mentioned I personally find it a silly and creatively limiting rule. As Beth has said, it should purely be a personal choice.

Thank you everyone for your thoughts. I will be looking over the POV scenes to see if they flow better without we. To me though, to reference the character in common slug line fashion when it is their POV scene seems to detach the reader from that view. It's like a few of you said, directing through clever words. We puts the reader in the perspective of the character.

To add to what CJ posted and to what he and I just recently discussed... I think there's also a notion of personal style and taste at play here from the perspective of a writer -- the "craft" of writing. Certainly in the very beginning, we want our writing to be the best that it can be. We scrutinize every word on the page. :) Plus, considering how one may approach writing a spec script, verses working for hire, or reworking a script for development, or how a script ends up in its "final" version as a shooting script, there are differences. Spec scripts are often written as "cleanly" as possible; nothing extra on the page; very little "direction." Trying to capture the reader by focusing on the story. Whereas a script in development takes on the task of functionality; bringing the screenplay into fruition. When I consider these differences in general broad strokes, "we" in a spec script translates to mean "we, the audience; the reader," whereas in a shooting script "we" translates or expands even further to also mean "we, the people making this film; the director; the cinematographer, et cetera." When I consider the use of "we/we see/we hear" solely within a spec script, I really do not wish to bring the audience into the narrative, nor take my reader out of the story. That's not following some "rule" that's more my preference as a writer. :)

I always use "is seen" or "is heard". The "we" is embedded in these instructions and are a more professional way to indicate what you want the character and reader to share.

CJ, I liked John August's straightforward position as well: "So use “we” if you want to. But there’s no reason to overuse it. Always spend the 10 seconds to ask yourself if you need the “we see” or “we hear.” If it reads as well without it, drop it." That works for me too. :)

Quoting CJ: "The wierd thing is a lot of the professional advice is the the contrary such as; http://johnaugust.com/2007/we-in-scene-description" Goes to my point, mostly discussed in https://www.stage32.com/lounge/screenwriting/Script-consultant-or-script.... As a professional, I believe for many writers, there is value in getting the perspective of a pro working in today's market. John August is such a pro. If you are looking for market advice, why rely on peers who are not in today's market to guide you? (Note: I realize CJ is not trying to sell to Hollywood, and he might be a perfect example of writing in whatever style you prefer, since you aren't trying to sell to Hollywood. To each his own path! No one's path is more valid than anyone else's path.)

Yes, absolutely, there is incredible value in receiving advice/guidance from a pro working in today's market! :) However, I have also received/heard advice to avoid/limit using "we/we see" from working professionals and professional script consultants -- so it's not just coming from fellow peers. Again, I think one has to discern all the options/opinions and decide for oneself. :)

I don't like it when there are camera directions in a script, but I don't mind reading or writing the "We see..." It is written because that's how the writer sees his story and that's how he wants readers to understand it. When the director comes in he can change it if he wants, but the writer should be allowed to express what he wants creatively. The script writer is writing for a visual medium, anyone who reads a script has a different head and s different way of imagining the page visually.

As long as it serves its purpose and it gets you to turn the pages, it's because it works and it doesn't mean your stepping on the directors toes.

Thanks for the views!

I've read produced scripts that use the words "we see", and I've read scripts that just jump into what it is that we see. For example, "We see a door slowly opening..", or "A DOOR SLOWLY OPENS". I prefer the latter - it makes your script more economical; it's a better way to set the stage for that visual; and I think it gives a better visual depiction (on paper) of what the reader should focus on.

I always thought that you use POV to present a scene so that the audience sees it though the eyes of a particular character. That it is even a means for transmitting the character´s emotional response so clearly that the audience feels the same response.

Like Bill said, it does get used. If you must, do so sparingly. Screenplay format has evolved over the years -- eg. you don't see CUT TO: in newer screenplays. A number of changes have taken place to simplify the read -- make it faster. One I've seen and used myself, is as follows: INT. KITCHEN - DAY followed by; SAME - LATER if the action takes place in the same location, but with a time cut, then; SAME - LATER STILL if another time cut has taken place in the same location. I'm wondering if others have seen this and would consider it acceptable?

I think used in moderation it is fine. But only in moderation where it is vital to set a particular scene. The same goes for - There is a - There are.... But I think too often can be too repetitive and cause the reader to lose interest in what they are reading. If it helps it flow, give it a go........ LOL

Gavin, are you referring to my comment or the usage of "We see"?

That's interesting, Harold. I was just doing that today on 'The Other War'. It's the same setting, but later, so I just started a new action paragraph and it started: Later, Miisigen watches..... I don't think I like the look of that SAME - LATER, but maybe I'll try it. I don't use CUT TO at all. But, I have used MATCH CUT: when it's integral to the flow of the film, like when a guy in one country looks at a video on his computer MATCH CUT to his girlfriend in a different country looking at the same thing on her cell. I think I over-used it in 'Occupy This' so much, that in the end I took it out! I mean, you have to set the new slug line in the new country anyway, so just describe that the girlfriend looks at the same video on her cell. I agree wholeheartedly with CJ on this point. Don't let 'rules' constrict your creativity! That said, I also agree with Bill, that it often reads better to just write what's going on, without POV or 'we see'. Screenwriting is the art of minimalism, so if those words/directions aren't necessary, don't use them. I also really liked what Brian said about his 'Entity POV' idea. Totally unique idea, Brian. I'm guessing 'Predator' was the outcome you never got credit for? BTW I bet that a screenplay written by a director, or anyone who works on a ready-to-film script (actors, set designers, key grip) would be very used to seeing these directions (POV, CUT TO, MATCH CUT, etc) and I bet their scripts would be full of them!

Sarah, I guess one could add INT. or EXT. to make the SAME - LATER look more in place. Thoughts?

The 'Same' time indicator 'can' work, but be careful. Much like the abused, continuous, instead of time of day, writers tend to get lazy or try to be creative with sluglines and really that is not the place for it. Simply stated, it's a nightmare to fix and budget for a shooting script when you veer away from NIGHT and DAY. A simple way to address this (and a space saver for your page count) is if you are in the same location but later; break it out with, TIME LAPSE - Or if it is a specific time that is needed, 2 AM -

So, Laurie, so you just put 2 AM ? That's enough for a 'modified slugline' ? I wish our writer's software didn't even offer 'morning' or 'evening'. Directors must hate that!

Hi Sarah, the 2 AM is not meant to be slugline (that's the point) it's and example if you are in the same scene location and there has been a time shift that it is important you know exactly the hour, You could also write an action line that says something like: The clock rolls over to 2:00 -- it depends on your style and the tone of the piece. The bottom line is sluglines should only be Night or Day (unless it's important to note SUNRISE or such)

Take those rules with a grain of salt. In the end, it really depends on who is reading it and who (if it gets that far) is making it. Regardless, you can write a POV scene without using the word 'we' quite easily, if you're trying to avoid it.

How does we see add anything in that example? It could just as easily (and more clearly) say: A SNIPER in the tree trains his rifle on ABE.

There is no problem with " We See" I don't understand why you're trying to avoid it.

Why paranoia, Stuart? Nothing is too much if it works and doesn't take the reader out of the story. Honestly, I read countless scripts a week and I cannot tell you the last time I read 'Match Cut' -- doesn't mean there is anything wrong with it, but putting on a big picture hat, it feels like an editorial choice -- BUT who knows it could very well be a storytelling device and if that's the case, go for it. Black out moments are perfect for Fade Out -- because it conveys a feeling -- and anytime you can do that is a win.

Stuart, your jitters is exactly the issue I was originally referring to. When applied as rules, stuff like this can really strip writers of their confidence.

I'm prepping reading materials for Class 3 of my S32 class (https://www.stage32.com/classes/How-To-Hook-Your-Reader-In-Only-5-Pages). I've been using American Pie as one of my chief teaching tools. Page 1: "We PULL BACK to see JIM -- 17, short, horny." Nothing wrong with "we" when appropriate.

I just looked at the first page of The Hateful Eight. There are SEVEN uses of "we" in the first half. Of course no one's going to tell Q. T. how to write.

I think this rule varies depending on the type of script you are composing. The golden rule of spec scripts is avoid camera direction where possible. Also review whether or not the scene absolutely needs to be POV, as in most cases this is not essential.

If however this is integral to the story you are telling then simply add this into your scene description, e.g. Claire approaches from Kathy's POV.