Montage vs. The Off Screen Film

Montage: a reader gets 4 scripts in a week that abuse the montage. A bottle of ASPRIN is grabbed. Whiskey poured. A blog post begins...

A montage should only show things we need to see, either logically or emotionally. A team weak in one scene can not be olympic-caliber in the next. Someone getting over a traumatic break up will not stroll into the next scene without wear and tear. We get that. It's needed.

Here's when it's not:

It's not needed to show us things we already know happen. If a man is rescued from a deserted island we know he will pack up his things. We know he may say goodbye to a pet. He'll look around one last time. He'll board the plane. He'll look out the window, perhaps with a memento on his lap. We know he'll be greeted at the end by someone. We know they'll shake hands.

Other than the looking out the window as the island recedes into his past, we don't need to see any of that.

A montage isn't every moment not important enough to be a scene. It's what must be shown for the next scene to make sense.

The emotional side is when we've taken a journey with the character and want to see the fruition. Being handed a trophy or diploma, smiling/waving afterward... All good.

Dressing up beforehand, walking to the stadium, looking nervous, waving to friends, adjusting stuffy clothes, wiping off sweat, posing for pics, walking to the car after... Any of those can be included if you build a scene around them. If you don't but montage them you're implying we don't know they happen. We do.

As a fellow reader put it when I asked if she'd seen this glitch recently: "It's called the off screen film. Learn it. Live it."

EXCEPTION: If a montage sets up your world at the start of the script or after arriving in a new environment. Even simple moments can tell us a lot in those circumstances. But use sparingly. Better to montage too few shots than too many.

10 Page Rules: Gold from Go

Poking out of my cave I notice I've missed a controversy about contest readers.  Namely, that some of us get through 75 scripts in 3 hours.  I'm not sure I believe the person who posted that (though we know no one lies on the internet) but here's some info on the 10 page rule...

It works.

Not at 10 pages.  I usually do 30-80, but the concept is the same.   There is a reason and perhaps nothing else I say will be as important as this:

Every year I read multiple scripts that are great from page one. 

Multiple scripts.  From.  Page.  One.

Pretending a script that only develops after it's burned through 20 pages is as well-written as scripts that are gold from go is an insult to the writer you will become.  Because you will write a gold from go script.   With hard work and research you can get there.  

As a low-level reader, I'm as low on the totem pole as you can get without having to walk someone's dog (which I know because I've also been the dog-walker).  I'm like the guy you sing for in the Idol audition who clears you for the next level or not.

He doesn't need to hear the whole song.

People hate this because a script is both execution & idea, and without the whole script how can I judge the idea?  For starters, I read the start, middle, and end until I have the idea.  I like ideas. 

But a great script is excellent idea plus excellent execution.   Not either or.  BOTH.  Many scripts have this.  Those get my recommendation.

You will write one of those scripts.  The fact you read an obscure blog that doesn't even allow showboating comments is a good indicator you're in this to win it.  When you're at that level I will fight for you.  I send emails about scripts I like.  I cheerlead. 

Until then the worst thing that can happen is a mediocre script gets splashed around town with your name on it. That's the nightmare scenario.  You want to be an unknown writer while you develop.  It's protection. 

It beats the Hell out of being the writer known for his sh*tty first 10 pages.