My second script consultation for my screenplay of Dig Down was a mix of good and bad critiques. But not all bad critiques are negatives. In fact, I think some of the cons that were brought up during the discussion were not only positives in the long run, but were some of the best advice I’ve gotten about screenwriting.
I’ll start off with something small, because I had heard it before – the overuse of wrylies. In screenplays, these are written under the character’s name, but before the dialogue, in parathesis. They’re direction to the actor of how they should act or deliver the line. It might be something like (beat) or (pause) as a quick way to direct them how to act, or something like (shouts) or (whispers) for delivery. These got the nickname wrylies because early screenwriters would constantly write (wryly) as a way they wanted the actors to deliver these lines.
The general rule or guidance is to use wrylies sparingly. While writing novels writers have more leeway and can use them more liberally, it’s because books, novellas, and short stories aren’t a collaborative effort. It’s up to the writer to determine the amount of details they want to share to convey the story. In screenwriting and stage plays, this is a more collaborative medium, and using a lot of wrylies takes away from the actor’s ability to make decisions on how best to perform the role.
One thing the judge said throughout the consultation is that actors will constantly be demanding “Let me act!” and that’s fair, it’s what they’re being hired to do. The wrylies should only be used when it’s absolutely necessary, and part of the criticism that the judge gave me was that I should write the script so that it’s obvious how the actor should perform for as much of the dialogue as possible.
Admittedly, this would have removed most of the 17 wrylies I had in the script, which I thought wasn’t that much (and actually was down considerably from earlier draft, and the novella itself), but I can now see was too much. This didn’t eliminate all of them, and I did know that I would keep one instance, where I have a cop talking to Rob, and then into his walkie-talkie in one scene. I included a wryly for when he’s talking to the dispatcher, and then when he shifts his attention back to Rob. While I did feel that given the context of the two sentences it would become obvious eventually what needed to be done after reading a little more of the scene, I felt it would be best just to have the clarification in the wryly wright when it happened so the actors wouldn’t be confused until they read on and understood what was going on in this exchange.
This note, although from a criticism of how I wrote the screenplay, greatly benefited both the script of Dig Down, but could also be applied to any future screenplays I wrote.
I’ll get into the best advice I feel I’d ever been given on screenwriting, next time.