Screenwriting : Dilemma: Words or non-verbal communication? by Dorian Cole

I'm not so much interested in what to say, which I have plenty of in words and demonstrations, as how it is received, which tells me much more about how to present it. I've done these workshops many times, and they are transforming for both writers and actors. Instructors, teachers, and leaders work at many different levels. I'm interested in writers' response, which I don't get to hear a lot of.

So you're talking about facial expressions and body language?

Yes, facial expressions, body language, and actions. (I also include verbal expressiveness.)

I like that, John.

Does the body language ever conflict the dialogue, and how does a writer indicate that? In many cases, directions to actors are removed from the script.

The "wrylies" are removed so the action and dialogue become fodder for the director and actor to tell the story from their respective interpretations.

you can use BL to great effect if a character is lying. he said no, but he was fidgeting with his glasses.

Just to keep the conversation on track: This applies just as much to drama as comedy. It just happens I'm workshopping and producing comedy at the moment. There are a lot of ways to write comedy, and some actors can read a phone book and make it funny. Many comedy writers spend hours trying to make one line funny. It can have a huge payoff, or as Erik suggested, can kill it. No right or wrong on this, just as long as you don't have to analyze and explain it for the audience. :) Argh! So, does this notion about non-verbal communication create any reaction about your writing?

Thanks, everyone. I think that answers my question. (Please, no one think I'm advocating writing body language or facial expressions into a script, or going overboard on actor direction.) I personally feel this about scripts: Scripts are for reading, and the writer includes enough direction so that the meaning is not misunderstood by the director or actor. A director's job, officially, is to take what a writer has written, and create a cinematic experience that conveys that. For a variety of reasons, I don't think this happens very often, but that's a different subject. An actor has the same job. Actors make choices of inflection, facial expressions, body language, and stage business (limited actions), that tells the story the writer has written. Actors also don't always do this, but that's a different subject. But the director and actor have to choose the best method of conveying the writer's meaning to the audience in a visual environment, and sometimes that means ad hoc rewriting and dropping words. I have to do this directing my own scripts. But that's apart from my question - it's ultimately the "word selection and performance" that communicates effectively.

A writer for screenplays can't, as a rule, write in expressive emotions or body language, but that doesn't mean we can't influence a director or actor in to thinking the same as we do. As a writer we can build pace in the dialogue to create urgency, drama, tension, fear and such. One device is to place action sequences / description in between the dialogue, this guides the dynamics of the scene which shapes the feel of each character. We can even describe the character (not emotion) and what they are wearing thus can use stereotypes, such as with our own sense of semiotics, a set description of a facial expression leads to the presumption of emotion, a person dressed in a set way indicates their wealth, health and situation. I hope this helps, but I have studied semiotics and find it fascinating. It is partly due to the fact that I don't want anything I write to be lost in translation why I have decided to direct my first short movie. I have written for theatre in the past, and although the end performance was good, I couldn't help thinking I could have done better by directing. Anyway, good luck and kind regards. Chris.

I'm not sure about comedy writing, but based on my own evolution what writers need to learn is how to convey the moment without overdirecting it. In other words, they need to know what NOT to write more than what TO write. If we've done our jobs right, the intent of the scene is crystal clear, without hemming in the actors' and director's choices on how to convey that intent. Or to take that intent and ratchet it up a notch with more nuance and emotion than we might have expected. Respect the craft - ours and theirs. Don't be an armchair actor or director.

So many wonderful posts on this topic. As a teacher of writing, theatre, and film, my take on Dorian's initial post is that there is a disconnect between the word choices young writers make and the actual application of those words in a performance scenario. Regardless of what you include between the wrylies, you still must convey the sense/flavor/hue of your character's non-verbals. Most of my young writers will just throw in a word without considering its connotative impact. I teach diction as being word choice, word relationship, and word order--writers must control their diction. Humans react connotatively to everything they hear & see. That's a controllable factor for a writer who knows that before the audience sees their work performed, someone else is going to do the work of preparing that performance. Great discussion, gave me some wonderful pieces to use in next year's lecture.

Chris, I'm also a student of semiotics, particularly Umberto Eco, and I've written a lot about visual semiotics - conveying meaning without words.

Shelly, very well put.

Aaron, I agree wholeheartedly. Glad you found something useful. I will add this. Work through the emotion of a scene either first or before rewriting, and then rewrite so the words match the emotion. Then it is much more difficult to misinterpret. Wish I would do this. :)