Thanks for letting me know the templates and advice were so helpful. I really appreciate it! I always love to hear the different kinds of projects people are using them for.

You’re very welcome.
~K

I think you’ve inspired a future blog post, so thanks!
K

Wow! I hope I do justice with my answer.

I look at this from two point of views. First as a board artist for animation and second, from the live-action side but as an actor (because I have done some…but nothing major).

For my little drawings on the post (that I really just whipped up for the post) I consider ‘Fido smiling in relief’ is not in fact what he is thinking but what he is doing. He’s smiling and it looks like relief.

I can’t say for sure that he is thinking relief, but I (who is playing director) want him to look that way, so I give that note for the artists who have to work from my board.

If I wrote what he was thinking I might have put ‘Ahh, he’s so relieved’. That is telling the story, not what he is doing. It’s a fine line, I know, but I hope it makes some sense.

In animation there are no real actors (besides voice) so I am the actor. An animator who works from my storyboards just needs the facts. He isn’t always looking at the scenes in order or in context so I have to give them some clues of how I want the character to look or act (what he is doing). “Make him looked relieved animator guy!”

Live action directors (and board artists for that matter) see the story in its full context. It’s not just a bunch of little scenes on their own. If the script is written well, we will see the thoughts behind the words and dialogue and find our way of telling that story.

It’s not the screenwriter’s job (sorry screenwriters!) to direct it. It’s ours. Give us a good story, great characters and tell us what they are doing and we will see that story and make our choices of how to tell it. We don’t need to read inside the characters’ heads. If we do, they’re not doing their job effectively.

As an actor I don’t want the writer to tell me to blush (though they could because I view that as a ‘doing’) or tell me what to think. It’s my choice what to think. The director may choose to point me in a certain direction (because that’s his vision) but I have many choices to make too. I can blush, I can look to the floor, I bring a tear to my eye or make a small smile. It’s my choice and the director’s choice in how we interpret that writing.

So if the screenwriter is telling us all the right ‘doing’ stuff we will see all the thinking stuff. Don’t give it to us. Don’t look like a frustrated director or control freak that doesn’t want his story tampered with. It’ll get tampered with…that’s how it works. And we just hope to do your great words justice.

I hope this took away some of the ‘insanity’ and makes some sense in my long-winded babble. Thanks for the great discussion!
K

Can you help me understand a ‘rule’ that keeps popping up (for screenwriters) but that makes no sense to me or any other feature talent I’ve asked about it?

You echoed it in your bit on Dialogue (where I understand it in your context) and it often is warned like: show, don’t tell; don’t write what isn’t heard; the audience won’t read the pages so don’t write what the character is thinking; only write what can be shot; etc. You smartly went on to explain parentheticals, but some gurus say you can’t write that a character is blushing because that must be shown, not told… (If it’s not written, who tells the actor — ’cause it can certainly be acted!)

And yet, in your last bit on the the CU of Fido’s face, you rightly state “Fido smiling in relief.” That relief is what Fido “is thinking.” And it is necessary (for comprehension, not to mention the cute joke.)

The screenwriter is the first director; if the actor reads that “he’s embarrassed to have to race for the tree” it’s a very different action/acting than if it read “he races for the tree” and still more distinct from “he races for the tree in anger.” (Sorry we’re discussing a dog, whose trainer ain’t QUITE that good, but I think you understand me.)

If the actor isn’t given something to play, he can’t play it and the audience can’t see it. Some great acting happens that way (we can impose our own emotions onto stoic faces, as audiences did in the 40s & 50s), but this rule about “can’t write anything that you can’t film” is insane. As soon as the actor feels it, the camera can film it, and the audience can see it.

Can I get your thoughts on this? Thanks. (And keep up the good work, I’ve subbed and forwarded to our colleagues.)

You’re a doll.
K
(and Ms. Kane did indeed have some great advice!)