Screenwriting : The Power of Perspective in Screenwriting by Eric Smith

Cheryl asked a great question regarding narration recently and I thought I'd write a post about it, due to what she mentioned- it's often seen as "somewhat taboo."  I'd like to offer an argument that I hope may be helpful in bringing some clarity to the issue.  I've decided to focus mainly on perspective, as it can be a very powerful tool in our toolbox.  To give some context, I don't believe perspective is the only helpful technique when thinking about narration, but one of many. I would love see others chime in and discuss what other techniques they believe could aid in "proper" and purposeful narration.

My first plan of attack in screenwriting is asking myself how I can show something before telling it.  As another member said- narration can be lazy writing, particularly in the form of unnecessary exposition.  It may also be important to note that some writers may not be lazy, but unlearned.  I think that may be the case more often than not.  That's what they know and they haven't learned how to show instead of tell, or why that's important.  I think it would be a very helpful exercise to get into the dirt regarding why we should try to show first before telling.  I also think this discussion can shed light on why we should embrace the occasion when narration or exposition may be the better choice.  The "showing" term is thrown around often, but it can easily be a topic that can be relegated to an answer that's somewhat vague- "Well, that's what you do, it's cinema."  I'm going to expand on that in a future post.

Perspective is very important to me.  I put a lot of time in working through scenes to see how I can show things from a unique perspective.  So, it's not just show it- it's show it in a unique way that deepens and layers the experience.  I find that the films, art, and music that I appreciate the most are the ones with a unique perspective.  Not just in the idea, but the way scenes are shot, the information presented in the frame, and the manner with which its carried out.  This is my lead in- I'm not against narration.  I am pro-narration. To clarify- I'm pro "any tool" that is used effectively. I don't think we should label certain tools as unuseful or necessarily positive or negative, but tools can be broken or used improperly. We can make the mistake of writing off certain techniques simply because someone else has failed to use it well or has a strong bias for or against it. Or maybe we've accepted a status quo that we've never thought through. Before I continue, I do believe certain things shouldn't be done in screenwriting, but I don't believe these qualify for our topic at hand.

We can imagine a carpenter that becomes anti-hammer because one day the head broke off and he decided to use just the handle for the rest of the job.  Doesn't work very well.  In that case, the tool is broken- there's no way it's going to work.  Some writers attempt narration, but it's not narration's fault- it's the writer.  It could be their style, method, integration- something is broken.  To clarify the analogy, I suppose we could say: "It ain't the tool's fault, it's the Tool's fault."  Simply put- it can come down to poor writing.  On the other hand, the carpenter could be using a perfectly intact hammer incorrectly.  I know this firsthand- my father was a carpenter.  He could slam a nail down in one relaxed swing. I can clearly remember my frustration as a kid- watching him work with such ease, while I worked hard to back my crooked nails out. We can write a great block of narration, but the images might not gel, the pacing is off, or it's placed at the wrong spot in the story.

Let's briefly look at Wind River by Taylor Sheridan.  In the opening, we see a girl running through snow.  He makes a deliberate choice to relate the framing in the screenplay: "ANGLE ON: BARE FEET slamming frozen earth," and "WE RUN BESIDE HER," among others.  Having read Sheridan before, it leaps out at me- he's put a lot of time into this opening because he has a clear perspective in mind.  He has a great knack for knowing when to write his framing in and when not to.  It's very strong here compared to other places in his writing.  He packs in a lot of imagery and uses literary devices more often than he usually does ("...screams whipping behind her like a cape," and "...floats above the plains like a wayward balloon.") and that's an indicator for me- he's going to great lengths to enforce his perspective.  This is also consistent with what I've read about the film- that even from the start he wanted to authentically, not generically, portray the Native American culture and the particular situation he was writing about.

Here's where it gets interesting- there's narration.  The girl is reciting poetic narrative.  And there it is- magic.  This isn't exposition.  It's something else.  It's 3D instead of 2D, sculpture instead of painting.  This is narration done well, in my opinion.  We see her running for her life in a wide open space.  The final words: "And when I find myself frozen in the mud of the real- far from your loving eyes, I will return to this place, close mine, and take solace in the simple perfection of knowing you."  The poetic and interpretive nature gives the images depth, context, and draws us towards finding meaning.  It's also revealing character.  There's foreshadowing here and more importantly- it looks as if Sheridan is giving us the heart of the piece at the start: There is pain in dealing with loss.  There's grief.  Feelings of failure.  Yearning.  Regret. Transcendence.  This is perspective compounded.

Another simple example of this may be using a short section of dialogue, or a monologue restated later, juxtaposed against a different situation- or like Sheridan, front-loaded.  Other techniques that I find interesting are setups (The Usual Suspects) and diversions.  There's a lot of ways that we could use narration well, but there it is- what way is it being used?  That's an important question.  If there's no way, then it may be wise to step back and examine our choice.

On to a more direct question: Can narration be used as exposition and be the best choice?  I believe so.  Let's break some rules.

Period pieces and stories with a strong central setting and particular characters may warrant such a choice.  Example: The opening scene of A Bronx Tale.  Sometimes, certain techniques, such as character definition can supersede the recognized weakness of exposition and do something unusual- invert it.  For the sake of argument, the character at the opening of A Bronx Tale could read off cereal box ingredients and the narration would still affect us because we hear his accent, his attitude, and other nuances.  Now, add some great writing... and you're showing more than you are telling- with words.  I'm not saying that this is always the best choice.  But it may be the best choice for a certain story.  The exposition becomes the icing on the cake.  It enriches the experience. It doesn't dilute it.  There's a link to the opening of A Bronx Tale at the close.

My answer is this- I work to show before telling, while being mindful of perspective and many other tools in my toolbox.  By doing this, I often get better ideas and that idea may include narration.  But it all begins, for me at least, with trying to show.  In the end, it may just result in me being able to show more- by telling.  

WIND RIVER opening scene

https://youtu.be/27hHo_5yHYU

A BRONX TALE opening scene

https://youtu.be/gDygdJ9JCGo