Screenwriting : Phone conversation by Andy Celis

It’s called INTERCUT.

INT. FIRST ROOM

PERSON1

Says Something.

INT.SECOND ROOM.

PERSON2

Says Something.

INTERCUT PERSON1-PERSON2.

PERSON1

Words words

Words

PERSON2

More words

Etc...

Look up INTERCUT to double how it is done. I haven’t used it in a while.

maybe buy a copy of "The Screenwriter's Bible" , read it and understand the how & why on the page, then do your own thing.

Good Luck. This formatting stuff isn't brain surgery. Simple works best.

Like Craig said in his example. Make sure you use PERSON2 (V.O.) before you intercut back an forth between the two scenes because the voice would have to be added after the scene had already been shot.

Another thing to remember is to focus on the performance that is important. Do we need to see the person talking or the person reacting.

def use intercut. The director will then decide which part of phone conversation will be heard but not seen or when a reaction needs to be shown.

I was confused by this as well Andrea, so I looked up everything the usual suspects (gurus) had to say about it, and here's the simplest solution:

1) Once you've established that the phone RINGS in your action line

2) State [CONVERSATION WILL BE INTERCUT]

3) then create two slug lines for each location - so you can continue to describe each caller's actions and reactions.

i.e. -

INT. JACK'S HOME ( if your previous slug line already established this general location, then get specific - i.e. KITCHEN)

Jack is pacing waiting for Jill to answer the phone.

INT. JILL'S CAR

She yawns.

JACK

Pick up, Jill!

Jill glances at her phone , then rolls her eyes before reluctantly answering.

JILL

This better be important, Jack!

There is no "wrong" way, but the key is clarity. So that's how I did it in my script. Good luck!

If the scene has Person A in it, with Person B on the other end of the line, I do this:

PERSON A (INTO PHONE)

PERSON B (OVER PHONE)

And vice versa. I read somewhere that intercuts were a sign of amateurs, but then again films rules can be bent and broken on occasion. Whichever you choose, keep writing and good luck Andrea!

My understanding is that intercut is standard, but "split screen" is amateurish. (Even though it seems more contemporary.) But again, there are no hard rules, only guidelines. And if there were rules, they'd be meant to be broken - but only if you knew them first. :)

Tony. Intercuts are often used in phone conversions so it is not considered amateurish.

Tony that is the funniest thing I’ve read. Well done. I am guessing you are joking.

Because not being able to tell a story efficiently is the sign of an amateur, actually a bad writer. Putting a scene heading for every shot, which is what you are suggesting is a waste of page space and a slog for your reader. You must not like the people who read your work.

Actually, I like this format because it's easy to budget and put in to the Day Out Of Days. From a producer's standpoint I care about being able to clearly understand who is speaking, where they are, what they are doing, and what the camera sees around them. If the dialog is riveting, I'll have no problem ignoring the slugs.

Imagine the dialog tags and text are centered.

INT. LIBRARY (DAY)

Jane is in the law library surrounded by open books and lawyers looking up cases. She is on the phone and looking about her as she speaks fiercely into the phone.

JANE

Donald, I will kill you.

INT. OFFICE (DAY)

Donald is in his corner office, looking out at a glittering New York City.

DONALD

It's done, Jane.

INT. LIBRARY (DAY)

Jane stands and starts shoving notebooks and pens into her bag one handed. Her voice is loud enough that the people around her look up.

JANE

Then you are done, Don. Start looking over your shoulder. Start now and never stop. Because I will find a way to put a bullet in your head. Rest assured. You are a dead man.

Nancy Fulton so you would prefer to read the scene heading for every intercut.

When I have filmed these. You film one side of the conversation and then the other. They are cut together in editing. I am guessing that is where the term “intercut” comes from.

Craig. I might be wrong but I took it that Tony meant PERSON A and PERSON B are character names not scene headings. I have seen that when the voice is coming over a radio or television for example:

PERSON A (OVER TV)

Blah... blah... blah...

I don't remember ever seeing that for a phone conversation though.

Nancy. I don't know why you feel it is easier to do a budget. You still have the same number of scenes that you are cutting back and forth between. All you are doing is letting the director decide how he or she wants to film the two scenes.

Dan Guardino sorry Tony if I read it wrong.

I’ll us a (V.O.) during an intercut if the reaction of the listen is more important than the face of the person talking. Choosing what side of the conversation is the important part of story telling.

No harm, no foul Craig. I'm a learner just as much as the next person. I was just repeating what I read somewhere.

Tony Ray i think of scene headings as guides to the reader. So we are in a room with Craig talking on the phone. We are now in a room with Tony. Craig-Tony-Craig-Tony it is quick cuts.

I think of it as a logic statement. If we say Craig is in his car. Craig is in New York, then Craig’s car must be in New York. Once we establish Craig, we don’t need to re-establish Craig’s room.

That’s how I approach it. I try to write for the quickest read possible.

Craig D Griffiths The way I approach it is that I keep the setting where I think it'll have the most effect, depending on the situation. For instance, I would write something like this:

INT. TONY'S APARTMENT-NIGHT

TONY (INTO PHONE)

Craig, you killed my father and you think I'm going to negotiate!?

CRAIG (OVER PHONE)

He was going to die anyway, and you know it.

TONY (INTO PHONE)

That's beside the f*&%ing point!!!

INT. CRAIG'S HOUSE-NIGHT

CRAIG (INTO PHONE)

No, that is the point. Now, do you want the Ring of the Nibelung or not?

And it goes on. Like I said, I write it by situation. If it's not an important call, or I'm not presenting any new information, I'll just keep the same setting and have the other person be OVER PHONE the whole time. I will consider doing intercuts in the future though. =)

Tony. I don't know why you are writing (VOICE OVER ) instead of (V.O.) which is the standard way of doing it. Also (INTO PHONE) is a (actor's direction) so it should go on the next line in parenthesis.

Using your example:

INT. TONY'S APARTMENT-NIGHT

TONY

(into phone)

Craig, you killed my father and you think I'm going to negotiate!?

CRAIG (O.V.)

He was going to die anyway, and you know it.

TONY

(into phone)

That's beside the f*&%ing point!!!

I always think about who needs to be on screen. Think carefully about reactions and who you should see. So I slug the screen heading and just put the character talking as you would any other dialogue scene. You'll want to indicate in the action they are on the phone. When the person not on the screen is talking, I will mark (O.S.) after that character name. If you change to the other person's location, you reslug with their location.

After working in feature production management at 20th Century Fox the best method is "intercut" as pointed out several times in the responses when using two sets/locations. Both sides of the conversation will be scheduled and shot as this will allow any change to be made in post, i.e. show both characters talking/reacting or just show one character and the other is only heard on the phone).