MEFITE: (posts on AskMefi) Why am I like this?
July 26, 2016 8:09 AM   Subscribe

How did "PERSON: (action) Speech" become the convention for scriptwriting or dialogue writing, when that's not even how scripts are written professionally?

So a lot of times - especially online or in amateur-level stage productions - you'll see scripts or dialogues written like this:

PERSON 1: Line 1
PERSON 2: Line 2
PERSON 1: (some action) Line 3

Sometimes the action is marked in italics and/or *asterisks* though I see that more commonly online.

Yet when you look at professional scripts for stage or screen, they look kind of like this but with much more specific tabs/spacing:

PERSON 1
Line 1

PERSON 2
Line 2

PERSON 1
(some action)
Line 3

Which form came first and how did it start? Why is there a discrepancy between the two forms? Are there other ways in other places that people depict scripts or dialogue?
posted by divabat to Media & Arts (7 answers total) 4 users marked this as a favorite
 
I don't have a definitive answer, but I do have a few facts and some speculations that might help you come to your own conclusions.

For one thing, I'd note that the format that puts the character name and the line of dialogue on the same line is extremely common in professional "Acting Editions" of printed plays (see for instance) -- these are booklet versions that are given to actors performing the play (the Samuel French Acting Editions are what come to mind for me). Because a production may buy dozens of these per production, and because they are essentially disposable (they'll be marked up and torn apart by the cast and crew while being used), these seem to be designed to be as cheap as possible. That's reflected in the small point size, the cheap binding, and the paper cover. I'm guessing that the compression of character name and dialogue onto the same line also helps make it cheaper by cramming more text into fewer pages. The purpose and audience of the Acting Edition (to be as cheap as possible for actors to mark up & memorize) is very different than the purpose of the manuscript (to be as readable as possible to appeal to an agent, producer, or studio), and that alone might help to explain some of the variations.

Another fact worth considering is that printed plays predate screenplays by several centuries, and that the format has not always been what it is today. If you take a look at Hamlet in the 1623 First Folio, you'll see that the (abbreviated) character names are printed in the same line as the dialogue. Perhaps this, too, is to save paper and make the book cheaper?

As for screenplay formatting, here's a short video that explains the historic origins of screenplay formatting. It gives a good overview!
posted by ourobouros at 8:49 AM on July 26, 2016 [7 favorites]


One reason might be that the professional format is just trickier to produce correctly (with the varying margins and everything) for someone using a regular word processor or writing online, without using specialized software or becoming adept with Microsoft Word settings.

I think the non-professional format is also somewhat common when a script is printed to be read, rather than performed. It may be more readable in the case where a single person is reading: The professional script format separates the characters’ dialog and actions more, which is of benefit to an actor reading a single character, but not so much to someone reading straight through by themselves.

So if someone has read Shakespeare and other plays in literature classes, they may just be used to this format. For example, this 1832 annotated edition of Shakespeare is printed like this, as are many more recent editions:
FRANCISCO on his Post. Enter to him BARNARDO.

  BAR. Who’s there?
  FRAN.    Nay, answer me: stand, and unfold Yourself.
The First Folio used a similar format (but without the all-capital names) back in 1632. The current professional format dates from the era when writers used typewriters, so things like italics had to be replaced with parentheses and capitals.
posted by mbrubeck at 8:51 AM on July 26, 2016 [3 favorites]


It makes for easier reading, for one thing. The two times I use the "incorrect" convention are on Facebook and in my group chat at work. It would look quite strange indeed to write a chat in the correct format. It just doesn't look good in those media. Skype chat and Facebook comments also use the return key as a send function, so unless you hit the shift key when you hit return, your line breaks will actually be separate messages, which will look even stranger. If you're actually trying to write a screenplay and be taken seriously, you should use the correct format, but for typical, informal usage, the incorrect format is just more convenient. Regardless of history, that's a big thing.
posted by kevinbelt at 9:16 AM on July 26, 2016


I kept trying to figure out why the "wrong" way looked so right, and then I wandered off and watched the Trainspotting 2 trailer, and I was thinking about who I went to see the original with, and then I remembered: IRC. Other chat too, but for me it looks totally natural because of IRC.
posted by Lyn Never at 9:28 AM on July 26, 2016


Yeah, I'm aware that screenplays are written like that, but the plays I've read and the plays I've been involved in the production of have all been printed in the "incorrect" style, which doesn't seem incorrect to me.
posted by hydropsyche at 11:34 AM on July 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


Scripts written in books for popular consumption are written the "wrong" way, presumably for space saving reasons. I just went on Amazon and looked for the first Aristophanes play I could find in book form and indeed it looks like your wrong example.
posted by emilyw at 1:33 PM on July 26, 2016


I don't know much about theatre, but in terms of screenwriting, the professional format you mention has been in use since the earliest days of talkies -- you can see it in place already in this 1933 script for King Kong. (Site requires registration.)

Filmmaking is a complex industrial process, and making a movie involves hundreds of professionals, each with very specialized responsibilities. Formatting each element differently and putting each element on a separate line makes it easier for somebody to quickly find the elements that are relevant to their specialty.

Also, now that the format is established, there's a strong incentive to stick with it, because as long as the format is consistent, you know roughly how much screen time of finished movie a single page of screenplay will yield (roughly one minute per page, as it happens.) You also have a sense of what is involved in shooting a single page of screenplay. I've often heard "pages filmed per day" used as the measurement of how quickly a director works.

However, if you aren't actually making the movie, you don't really need to worry about any of that, and professional screenplay format isn't the most efficient use of paper (or space on your computer screen.) I've always assumed that's why you don't see it used so often outside of the environments where it's professionally required.
posted by yankeefog at 3:35 AM on July 27, 2016 [2 favorites]


« Older How to coordinate medicare and long term care...   |   Used chewing gum: which bin? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.