@@PegLegCraig I'm curious what your experience was. I think for a film school to work, there has to be a balance of Film Appreciation, Film Writing, and Film Technique to be covered. And when I say covered, it needs to be nitty gritty. And maybe specializations will be chosen along the way so that a student can focus on a specific skill while having the basics to understand terms and work ethics. This would allow them to understand better the other departments in a production and work with them better.
When he says "Tell it in the cut," he is referring to the transition. Or the before and after. Regardless of how you write the scene, the next scene should be an "effect/result" of the preceding scene. A before and a after picture. Telling the story in the cut: We see the transition as opposed to having to read the transition.
there is a simpsons episode where they clean the house and there is a swing door to the kitchen, they walk in, the door swings open, closes, opens and the kitchen is a mess again - so much has happened in an instant and it all makes perfect sense, nobody is confused. It is like reading a book where your mind kicks in and fills in the blanks and that makes it yours as well. Someone once said: half of music is the silence between the notes
Man I swear, when I make enough money I'm gonna keep a good chunk aside to keep this amazing YT channel going. Film courage is life. Yet another gem of an interview.
I think "telling" is a symptom of the writer underestimating the audience, or not knowing the characters. There's more engagement for the audience if they are trying to piece together what is happening/motivating the characters, because it's got them curious about what will happen, why, and if they are right. The audience is rewarded thinking they are smart when it *appears* they have figured it out (as a new element triggers their curiosity further). Exposition should be saved for when the audience really wants/needs it, and ideally disguised (such as a verbal attack/defense).
Exactly.. Talking about visual cues to show, for instance how does the dream machine actually function in inception? Because as a viewer I definitely doubt Nolan's made the dream machine visually convincing enough as a concept.
@@evm6177 Depends on how you perceive the movie. Does it matter how the machine works, if you know that it's the device they need to use? It's explained that there is a pharmacological aspect to it, and that music or a kick is used to wake people up. That's all we need to know. Seeing them connecting the device is all we need to understand that they are going to enter the dream in the next moment. There's also the theory that the whole movie is basically one long dream sequence, in which case it makes sense they never explain the device within the dream. We could argue that in dreams, we often accept what we see at the time, without questioning the function or logic of it. As for 'visuals' I don't think show/tell is necessarily about visuals, if that's what you're saying? You can tell with visuals, and you can show with someone speaking (as long as the dialogue is not just explaining the information for the audience). For example; in A Quiet Place we see the newspaper clippings and news footage that tells us what has happened in the past. If we had to piece together what happened in the past by their conversations, that would be show. In fact, that's how the movie starts. Their behaviour shows us that noise is a danger. It doesn't explain. The newspapers and news footage or flashbacks, if anything, remove some of the mystery and excitement that hooks you at the start. The conversations and tension between the family show us what it's like to live in this story, and imply how it is affecting each of them. The father is over protective. It's a while since I've seen it, but I don't remember them saying outright, "You're an over protective father because of what happened, and it's damaging your relationship" Just my opinion.
@@Ruylopez778 Yeah I get you, and thanks need to check out a quite place you got me interested there. It's like a pickle we are missing similar plotted movies like Total Recall where you were once treated so well to a story, interesting yet believable cast so seemlessly interwoven with creative visuals, coherent moments and well crafted exposition that your mind finds the whole package so compelling and never wonders such stuff about how the Recall machine actually works? Though we get a better glimpse of the CTscan like machine as the Protagonists head or subconscious enters it. But Nolan's sensibilities when it comes to the way he puts together concepts and elements in his movies lately feels too underwhelming and lacking as if the guy is in a hurry and story alone towers over the cast, action or interesting aspects of the movie. Might as well read a book than bother watching a movie like that which robs you of a compelling over all experience.
@@evm6177 I guess Total Recall is more like a hard sci-fi, but I know what you mean about Nolan, sometimes it feels like the emotional and visual suffers in favor of the conceptual. Overall, I think I prefer Denis Villeneuve to Nolan (from what I've seen) for his more intricate worlds, and more satisfying interaction between characters. Nolan feels a bit manipulative sometimes. And of course, I prefer Kubrick to Nolan (who he seems to take a lot inspiration from).
I agree. But also, telling is saying: He was afraid. (statement) Instead of: His hand shook as he reached for the key, his pulse beat in his ears, deafening. (Describing the actual feeling) For example. But telling can also be writing every single action (including the needless ones), and over-explaining everything, even though it's quite clear what's going on. That's a mistrust of the audience, or (more often) beginner mistakes and inefficiency. At least that's my take on it. :)
He was candid and honest and kept it real. I mean really real. In the cut is so underrated. It's a great chance to move both story and backstory of a protagonist. Indie is really the last hope for this kind of creating.
Mindhunter used "tell" in an interesting way. As the protagonists in the series listen to the killers tell their stories, we get to imagine how it is, and imagination can be more elaborate than actually seeing it. Kinda like a horror story that's scarier when told than actually seen. So show don't tell is good, but it depends on how you want to tell the story I think
Exactly. This guy doesn't know what he's talking about. I've never even heard of anything he's worked on yet the majority of the films in the top 100 movies list its filled with exposition.
Yup, like he said, the audience cares about the story. So writers could get creative in all sorts of different ways too. One could get creative in exposition even if it's "tell and not show" I guess
Oh ffs, you don’t actually think that the use of dialogue is “telling”, do you? It’s displaying that character AKA “showing” him, his mannerisms, his side of the story, how he thinks. Rather than the writer flat out saying, “this man is crazy.” We are instead SHOWN him. I hear this shit all the time. Someone telling a story isn’t “telling” in terms of writing. Dialogue can be used to “show”.
No, I'm not saying if you use dialogue you are merely telling and yes I agree with you that we are shown mannerism and how the character behaves when they are telling a story. My point was writers can be creative in all sorts of way and even make exposition very interesting compared to clunky on-the-nose ones. They could have showed images, like flashbacks, while the character was narrating the event - this technique has been done too, but they didn't do that. They focused on the storytelling and the interaction of the interviewer and interviewee, which makes imagine more what could have been done. And our imagination is "greater" than what could have actually happened.
This is so true. I remember being told years ago to "show, not tell" and it confused me for a long time. The way he explains it here is abundantly clear.
One of the nice things is, nearly all of the stuff on this channel can be used for any kind of visual storytelling. Whether it's a comic, a movie, or a video game, this is useful advice. It's helping me figure out how to tell my own stories visually.
The guy is saying : “imply your message, don’t put it in your character’s mouth.” In today’s artless cinema (Hollywood or otherwise) that isn’t happening.
And then there's J.F.K., A Clockwork Orange, Forest Gump, All Woody Allen films, Apocalypse Now...with pure narrative voiceovers that tell a lot albeit less than they show but still tell a lot! It just requires a very powerful and unique voice or point of view. It can work either way with enough faith.
It's good to validate what I've done based on this advice! The charm of a story well told is in the balance between the explicitly told and the non told left to the imagination of the viewer/reader! Achieving that balance turns reading or watching a movie into a cooperative experience rather than a monologue.
When you actually feel during the scene that "oh this is the part where the writers needed to explain something directly, instead of making it natural" is the worst feeling. It takes me out of the experience completely.
@@CaptainTitforce Even better, when bad exposition is used to make a joke in a comedy, then its one of my favorite jokes in the movie. The Great Muppet Caper and Spaceballs have two very good "Bad exposition" jokes. From the Great Muppet Caper: Miss Piggy: Why are you telling me all this? Miss Holiday: Exposition, it has to go somewhere From Spaceballs: Col Sanders gives a long winded explanation of their plan to steal all the air to save Planet Druidia Dark Helmet turns to face camera: EVERYBODY GOT THAT?!
I do agree with this advice but it does depend on the situation/scene. In my opinion exposition is only bad when it's boring. If the guy at the bar orders a woman a drink and they don't talk about anything interesting then sure, cut the in between. But what if she rejects the drink? What if her date is late and now the man who ordered the drink has only a few minutes to convince her to ditch the date for him? Is an actress going to jump at the chance to play a character with no lines who just gets picked up or a character who gets to juicy lines before she gets picked up? Absolutely cut scenes where you can but only if you can't come up with anything worth reading.
Oh boy, if I had a dollar for every time I've seen this in a script but the writer insists that the "information" has to be there. He's absolutely right.
@@nickp7069 I kind of agree with you but kind of agree with him too. Show not tell means not having to write everything conveyed unless its in an action sense. Hes simply using the transitions as action and story building. I feel like his answer is a part of the whole answer.
@@The0Kiyubii0Kid I can see what you’re saying. IMO he’s describing ‘montage’ in the example he uses of ‘two people look across a bar THEN they are going to his hotel room’. The order of those scenes shows the audience what happened next and how the human brain pieces what they weren’t shown to mentally complete the sequence (which is montage theory), so he is withholding information which is kinda ‘not telling’ the audience….. But I agree that his statement ‘showing not telling is what happens in the cuts’ is not an accurate description. A more complete description of ‘show don’t tell’ would have been to not cut out the middle section of his example, and use filmic / visual language to show these two flirting or finding something in common (rather than telling the audience they are falling in lust via drawn out dialogue).. His take on SDtT relies exclusively on an edit for the sequence to work. The shot of the man and woman making eyes across a bar doesn’t work to tell a story on its own, it needs the second shot to tell us they have fallien in lust. But true SDtT can happen in a single shot, as brief as something like he lightly grazes her elbow as he passes her and she gets up to follow him…
Yeah Tarantino doesn't know how to do this lol. In fact he often shoots for telling his stories WITH the cut stuff instead of the action. He doesn't always get away with it (his scenes can just feel too long) but when he does it well, it gives his scenes a uniqueness that other films don't have. I think he's carved a niche for himself there.
Exactly.. Talking about visual cues to show, for instance how does the dream machine actually function in inception? Because as a viewer I definitely doubt Nolan's made the dream machine visually convincing enough as a concept.
Richard Linklater another director who's stories thrive in the dialogue and who would shirk from telling a story this way. Proves that it all depends on the kind of story you are wanting to tell.
That's something I've struggled with. But what I've been hearing a lot, and trying to master, is that it's best to only drop pieces of info when it's necessary to move the story along, when it's important for the characters and the reader/viewer to know. Not all at once. And yeah, you want to establish some millieu in the beginning, but I think that can be done through the point of view character's experience. Use the setting to highlight that character. What stands out to them and how does it make them feel? As for film (which I'm not so experienced with except just watching and analyzing), I think you can visually show a lot of the worldbuilding, and evidence of the history, as the characters are moving through it. Take Star Wars, for instance. They just throw you right into the setting and conflict without any exposition, and you figure it out as you watch the space ships and then the characters interacting. The galaxy feels lived in. The characters are busy going about their lives and/or dealing with their part in the conflict, not worried about the viewers getting a history lesson. You do get some brief exposition later on from Obi-Wan, but at a moment when it's going to be important for Luke to know. And it's tied personally to Luke , so it has emotional significance for him and the audience. Anyway, I hope that's helpful. Good luck with your writing!
@@starnavigator73 Thank you for the detailed response! I have to agree that showing the world and withholding the info when its not needed is a good approach. But it's funny that you brought up Star Wars, because I think that the franchise got away with one of the biggest storytelling cop-outs, which is the opening Crawl. Nowadays, we just go along with it as part of the Star Wars gimmick.
@@faresmhaya You've got a point about the opening crawl 😆 I guess that part isn't... memorable to me. I've seen it a bunch of times and I know it's there, but it's just not what comes to mind when I think about the story. So then I guess the question is, would everything I said about the visual storytelling and dialogue still work without the crawl? I'm inclined to think so. I may be a little biased because I really like Star Wars. 😊 But I do think those principles are something to learn from.
@@starnavigator73 The opening crawl wasn't a cop out. And I think they don't get criticized for it because visually it was so well done just on it's own. But it also mirrored the scene of the imperial cruiser flying by the camera. So it complimented the scene and the special effects, and also the epic essence of the movie by tying into the expanse of space and traveling to distant planets. But one thing about explanation that works for fantasy movies is that it's done in the beginning of the movie to set boundaries or world building as they say. And after that, any explanation I think I've heard said needs to done in a way that it's key info that the characters are finding out for the first time. Otherwise, you're back into show don't tell trap. And of course, it still requires good story telling so that the new info isn't a convenient add on just so you can keep the plot moving or cover up a plot hole.
Your character should be a representation of their past- the group they surround themselves with, their manner of dress, the way they speak, their quirks, their decisions are "shown" in a way that is more organic than the author telling what tumultuous thing happened to them. I say, if you're going to tell me why, wait a while and let me think about it first with the aforementioned clues.
Watched the first 15 or 20 minutes of "Tomorrow War", and couldn't take it anymore. There was no story. It was a movie pitch stretched out with exposition. That's not a story.
Exactly I agree Tomorrow war is a classic example of film suffering from needless exposition.. Talking about visual cues to show though, for instance how does the dream machine actually function in inception? Because as a viewer I definitely doubt if Nolan's made the dream machine visually convincing enough as a concept.
Okay, help me out here. In my writing group, I'm the only one who says, "I'm writing a story about..." Everyone else says, "I'm writing a novel...I'm writing a screen play... I'm writing a graphic novel...etc. Since we are all writers, words matter. I don't think it's just semantics to introduce myself as a story teller. Am I off base on this?
Next time you’re in group and about to speak on your work cut “I’m writing a story about…” and just start from there. Saying it takes away from the impact. “…a man struggling with his creative identity holds twelve members of his writing group captive in a library conference room until they can come to terms with their own idiosyncrasies.”
This comment is for FIlm Courage & their frequent viewers.. Hitting like or thumbs down on this comment is akin to voting for or against the following.... I enjoy watching these videos. Yet often I'll hear the host in the background or hear others laughing. So I had the thought that y'all should do a 'Meet the Crew' episode where the hosts, camera operator(s) and others involved with the show gets interviewed. Perhaps for a cool twist,y'all can flip the script & have your guests interviewing the Crew!! However I can understand if crew members don't want to be seen & that should be respected.I think many of your regular viewers would like to see that. So for you fans of FC's content & would enjoy a Meet The Crew Episode(s) then hit like on this suggestion. *No this is not for me to try and get a bunch of likes as I don't see the point in that*. I just thought this was a cool idea & figured,hey ya never know. It would be cool to see who they are though. ✌😎🖖
Amen. I wonder sometimes how many stories with new worlds and elaborate systems couldve used more memorable visual cues and experiences instead of paragraphs to give viewers context. If Inception and The Matrix could do it. Its possible
Exactly.. Talking about visual cues to show, How does the dream machine actually function in inception? Because as a viewer I definitely doubt Nolan's made the dream machine visually convincing enough as a concept.
I remember being very confused about what "Show not tell" meant the first times I heard it. I simply didn't get what it meant on the actual paper, so to speak. I get it now, but that knowledge came through writing, not by listening to people explain it. But yeah, sometimes you can show/tell more by not showing it at all. :P
Show not tell. Thus begs the question: Why does a talking heads movie, which told not showed, like Nomadland win 3 Academy Awards including Best Picture and Best Director along with being nominated for 3 additional Oscars including Best Adapted Screenplay? Weren't other Oscar-nominated films which told the story in the cut such as The Trial of the Chicago 7, Promising Young Woman, Sound of Metal, Minari, and Judas and the Black Messiah more worthy? Heck, films that weren't even nominated, such as The Mauritanian, Crisis, The Invisible Man and Tenet, excelled in telling its story in the cut.
I haven't seen the movie, but "talking heads" can easily show and not tell with the dialogue. You can even "show and not tell" by not even showing on screen, but implying a sight or a sound (or even a taste, touch, or smell) in creative and economical ways. Several movies over the last few years have done this at varying levels of effectiveness, some highly popular. In any case, if you do not feel an EXPERIENCE by following characters you are interested in as they move from one event to another that are logically connected in some way (even if it is only "story logic" acceptable to the audience) that is compelling, and instead feel like someone is just explaining what is interesting (when it isn't) and explaining what is happening (when why it is happening is unclear and never made clear) and explaining who is who and that you should care (when you don't and have no reason to), you have no story. Explaining is not a story--explaining doesn't make you laugh or cry or understand or care what happens next to the characters.
You really can't measure a film's merits by awards alone. Let's say the Academy really honors art and everything, there's still sooooo many films to filter out. And many get ignored along the way. That's why being nominated alone is a big deal already (marketing-wise) because of all the films that come out in a year, they were the ones chosen. Film, as a craft, is very much subjective (though there is still some objectivity to it) and it's a very confusing thing to even set standards on.
Sounds to me that what he was getting at, when comes to those frivolous and experimental scenes, is relatability. If the story and exposition is tight and told in the cuts, then you have more freedom to pull of those scenes and perhaps add an extra layer of relatability.
I dislike that word "relatability" and I'll give an example why: A kid I was talking to at my store said they were looking forward to a new game because the main character was "relatable." The character they were talking about had just raided a downtown business in a dystopian future and made a comment that- with things being as they were- at least they "wouldn't have to pay their student loans." To the kid, that's relatable. For me, who just finished paying off my B.A. while waiting tables in a downtown business, that wasn't a "relatable" moment. I was actively turned off by the game's trailer in its efforts at being "relatable." A friend of mine said another character that cheats on several women and feels depressed all the time is "relatable" but, again, I found nothing relatable about the character's behavior at all. A word I prefer to use when talking about characters (as I'm assuming that's what the word is in reference to) is "humanization." John McClain is humanized because we see him hurt, afraid, struggling with his crumbling marriage, and just barely managing to grapple with his situation. A non-humanized version of that character would behave like a superhero or a robot- we will never see them grapple with jealousy, limp away from a fight, psyche himself up to jump off a building, etc. Invulnerable characters are not human because they don't grapple with human emotion. If the character whose making the best of the apocalypse is to be "relatable," they need to be humanized first, and then the author can use them as a mouthpiece- if they must- to sell the audience on whatever version of reality they want to communicate. To be human is universal, and everyone in the audience can relate to being human, but not everything an author or a reader thinks is "relatable"can pass for such. My short rant on why I don't use the word "relatable" when talking about a piece of media.
I'm more confused by his explanation of show not tell then I was when I initially heard the phrase for the first time years ago. Now I need someone to explain what he is saying
Lol. I hear you. It was rather confusing. All he's saying is that exposition (i.e. necessary story information) can be handled by "the cut," just going to the next scene and letting the audience draw the conclusions and fill in the blanks about what happened in-between the scenes. So, he gave the example of a couple. He's saying that, instead of going through the whole process of the "seduction" through dialogue and action, just cut to the next scene of them landing up together. This also tells you something about these characters without spending a chunk of time in exposition that's not really required. "Cut" as he's using it here is the juxtaposition between the previous scene and the next scene. There is the beginning, then the next scene is the conclusion or outcome of what's been started. I hope this helps.
"Show Don't Tell" doesnt need to be taken that literally. Yes I believe in it wholeheartedly that there's tremendous power in letting the audience figure things out on their own. But that includes sometimes writing exposition that is nowhere near being on the nose. You CAN most definitely tell without telling. I think sometimes what happens isnt so much the writer overexplaining things on acount of not having faith in the audience - sometimes it's the writer having a great balance but the actor not being able to convey properly hence the director is then compelled to insert new dialogue since certain things arent quite coming across like they thought they would.
The best films have all started with a huge amount of exposition. From Star Wars to Godfather. Just try to imagine Star Wars without the word scroll in the beginning.
@@Leon-zu1wp Well you can view Star Wars without the sound and the color turned off but why would you? You seem like the type of person who enjoys cold showers.
@@noteem5726 You seem like a screenwriter trying to justify why having exposition in your script is somehow a good thing when it defies the very purpose of a film.
He'd probably say that was contextualization vs exposition to set the backdrop for the world we're in, vs giving unecessary details not necessary to understand the plot, setting or move the story, not meaning much in the entire run time. That opening crawl allows them to cut out A LOT. Most of what we need to know happens during the movie, in dialogue & through action, it can serve as exposition if done right. That scene when Vader walks in, you know this guy means business watching him in the scene, how he talks & moves, that he's tapped into the force & that the force is no joke (which he tells us & displays later), they didnt have to give us every battle he was in to get the point across, ships destroyed etc. Detail like that can be implied if we pay attention & sprinkled throughout the movie, otherwise you'd have movies lasting days, you might as well do a series (like clone wars).
@@EagleZtoTheGrave Not in my opinion. In all reality it is to set up the atmosphere of the entire film, as it is audibly jarring and visually reminiscent of Flash Gordon crawls it was based upon, along with Fascist font to build up the militant themes in the film. Every single thing that is in the crawl we later learn throughout the film or can simply assume.
You follow his advance and you will become a decent director, but follow Dennis Villeneuve advice: "Suggest, Don't show" and you will become a great one!
I'm frankly pretty annoyed when any people use that over-bloated catchphrase 'show dont tell' as if they really understand it. Both show and tell are VITAL to storytelling including for those Oscar films which use BOTH. Choosing to show and not tell doesn't mean AT ALL make the movie is better.
omg he is absolutely right, nobody gives a flying fuck about your scene, they are interested in the story you are telling! Tarantino's reservoir dogs or pulp fiction iconic talking scenes are great but the compelling stories are ultimately the reason why those scenes stand out nd feel special. This advice is solid af! stick to the basics, if your story is compelling chances are whatever experimental shit you throw in your scenes will stand out.
I do have an issue with one point. It may be a "simple technique," but it also leads to vapid, empty characters who don't say anything. They're cardboard. Tropes.
Exposition is the worst in Young Adult fantasy films because it's usually all the same generic guff and references to mcguffins that crop up all the time, and more often than not you won't remember all the exposition anyway because it just kind of rolls over you, but studios think their audience is young and dumb so they have to set up the story in the first minute. _500 years ago, the Elden Knights deserted the Kingdom of Laguardia and the Dark Empire took over. They sought to claim the Sword of Saxonby, the greatest Knight who ever lived. But before they could take it, a young girl called Eloin threw the sword into the mighty river Voll and it was lost ever since. The Dark Empire need only take the sword before the Crescent Moon of the Blood Season to achieve total domination. But alas, a young girl born in a poor village in a far away land was prophesied to find the sword and slay the Dragon Queen..._ yadda yadda
Totally disagree with "they don't care about your scene." As an audience member, it's all I care about. It's when I get to look at your characters with a magnifying glass, and feel out the relationships between them. This isn't achieved by jump cutting scenes or tight editing, but by actors - and the scene is the space they're given to work. Film is the actor's medium, not the director's. And an aural medium too - not a visual one. I'm might catch flack for that but it's true. The most memorable moments in movies usually come down to people saying things to other people.
No flak, but the speaker has a point. The author has to work under the assumption that the audience doesn't care about the scene. The audience doesn't care about the characters, the scenario, the dialogue, the atmosphere, until they are MADE to care. The author has to fight for their story on the page, not just assume they've ticked enough boxes that the audience they want is already willing to care.
@@12ealDealOfficial That's like saying an automaker only cares about making engines and not wheels. You need all the parts in order for the thing as a whole to work.
Christian is a fantastic guest. We're incredibly grateful that he was able to spend time with us. We believe many viewers will gain a lot from this series.
The live action adaptation of Ghost in the Shell was a pretty bad case of TELL DON'T SHOW as they kept explaining everything to the audience and dumbing everything down, which made me really dislike the film.
@@Mord12gp When they mentioned "ghost" and "shell" in the same sentence, I was like "Shut up movie". I didn't like the movie treating me like an idiot.
@@rxzero00 I think the worst part of the movie is the scene with the garbage man. They completely changed the tone and all the meaning raced by. The guy from the anime was confused messed up victim in the end who's mind was forever altered. But in the movie they made him and his friend the gunners and he had no seeming choice. I hated that scene. The movie looked good but all the meaning was drained.
@@Mord12gp They basically combine too many things whether it is the 1995 film, SAC and random American cyberpunk stuff with the neon lights and fancy holograms and dumb everything down. I also prefer the more realistic or at least grounded setting of the 1995 and SAC when it came to being futuristic.
@@rxzero00 And if they were gona have Scarlet Johanson then just have her be white and not the bs they tried to pull at the end of the movie. Either have a white girl or an Asian girl you can't do bot. Or maybe its a choice on her part to play like her old self is dead. The movie sucked story wise. The Puppet Master was combined with Kuza (one of the main antagonists) from GS-Second Gig. Dudes ideology and methodology had nothing to do with the Puppet Master, plus they were from completely different universe. A better pitch would have been that alot of the people in Section 9 were nationalized migrants who came to Japan after the 3rd World War, that's why like 90% of them AREN'T Japanese. Like wtf was Section 9s deal in the live action movie anyway, what about Public Security Sections 1-8?
@@filmcourage You're totally right. My perspective on "show, not tell" is that it's a very simple idea that works. It comes from the concept that film is primarily a visual art, and that given the option or the possibility of having one of your characters say something and having the audience witness something or watch something on screen you should always go with the latter.
What Christian Elder was referring to in this video, although it is a concept that is very useful when writing a screenplay, it doesn't have anything to do with the idea of "show, don't tell". What he's talking about is the ellipsis and when to start and when to end a scene.
I 2nd that, and is weird he struggles to grasp such a basic narrative axiom, always choose dramatic action over dialog when there's a option. Don't have your character say what he is have him showcase, what he refers is another tool, ellipses, useful to move the story along or to conceal an outcome until the writer wants the reader to learn what happened.
Dude, like... tell it in the cut, brah. You don't, like, need to use so much exposition and stuff. It's like, nonverbal communication, bro. It's more about what you, like, don't say and junk, and like, how you say it Broseph. YOLO.
Oh boy, if I had a dollar for every time I've seen this in a script but the writer insists that the "information" has to be there. He's absolutely right.
I learned more about filmmaking from this channel than 4 years of so called higher education on the subject.
Crazy how much is available to us online. Nice to hear you are finding such value here!
What did they teach you in school?
@@UncleJacq A more nuts and bolts approach lacking stimulation of vision and imagination.
@@PegLegCraig I'm curious what your experience was.
I think for a film school to work, there has to be a balance of Film Appreciation, Film Writing, and Film Technique to be covered. And when I say covered, it needs to be nitty gritty. And maybe specializations will be chosen along the way so that a student can focus on a specific skill while having the basics to understand terms and work ethics. This would allow them to understand better the other departments in a production and work with them better.
Because school is a business with no liability.
When he says "Tell it in the cut," he is referring to the transition. Or the before and after. Regardless of how you write the scene, the next scene should be an "effect/result" of the preceding scene. A before and a after picture. Telling the story in the cut: We see the transition as opposed to having to read the transition.
there is a simpsons episode where they clean the house and there is a swing door to the kitchen, they walk in, the door swings open, closes, opens and the kitchen is a mess again - so much has happened in an instant and it all makes perfect sense, nobody is confused. It is like reading a book where your mind kicks in and fills in the blanks and that makes it yours as well. Someone once said: half of music is the silence between the notes
Really well put. Thanks
@@rusalkin What episode is that?
@@robno1033 not the slightest... but its one of the early good seasons, where marge gets pissed that she has no help in the house i think.
Perfectly put, thanks!
Man I swear, when I make enough money I'm gonna keep a good chunk aside to keep this amazing YT channel going. Film courage is life. Yet another gem of an interview.
I think "telling" is a symptom of the writer underestimating the audience, or not knowing the characters. There's more engagement for the audience if they are trying to piece together what is happening/motivating the characters, because it's got them curious about what will happen, why, and if they are right. The audience is rewarded thinking they are smart when it *appears* they have figured it out (as a new element triggers their curiosity further). Exposition should be saved for when the audience really wants/needs it, and ideally disguised (such as a verbal attack/defense).
Exactly.. Talking about visual cues to show, for instance how does the dream machine actually function in inception? Because as a viewer I definitely doubt Nolan's made the dream machine visually convincing enough as a concept.
@@evm6177 Depends on how you perceive the movie. Does it matter how the machine works, if you know that it's the device they need to use? It's explained that there is a pharmacological aspect to it, and that music or a kick is used to wake people up. That's all we need to know. Seeing them connecting the device is all we need to understand that they are going to enter the dream in the next moment.
There's also the theory that the whole movie is basically one long dream sequence, in which case it makes sense they never explain the device within the dream.
We could argue that in dreams, we often accept what we see at the time, without questioning the function or logic of it.
As for 'visuals' I don't think show/tell is necessarily about visuals, if that's what you're saying? You can tell with visuals, and you can show with someone speaking (as long as the dialogue is not just explaining the information for the audience).
For example; in A Quiet Place we see the newspaper clippings and news footage that tells us what has happened in the past. If we had to piece together what happened in the past by their conversations, that would be show.
In fact, that's how the movie starts. Their behaviour shows us that noise is a danger. It doesn't explain. The newspapers and news footage or flashbacks, if anything, remove some of the mystery and excitement that hooks you at the start.
The conversations and tension between the family show us what it's like to live in this story, and imply how it is affecting each of them. The father is over protective. It's a while since I've seen it, but I don't remember them saying outright, "You're an over protective father because of what happened, and it's damaging your relationship"
Just my opinion.
@@Ruylopez778 Yeah I get you, and thanks need to check out a quite place you got me interested there.
It's like a pickle we are missing similar plotted movies like Total Recall where you were once treated so well to a story, interesting yet believable cast so seemlessly interwoven with creative visuals, coherent moments and well crafted exposition that your mind finds the whole package so compelling and never wonders such stuff about how the Recall machine actually works? Though we get a better glimpse of the CTscan like machine as the Protagonists head or subconscious enters it.
But Nolan's sensibilities when it comes to the way he puts together concepts and elements in his movies lately feels too underwhelming and lacking as if the guy is in a hurry and story alone towers over the cast, action or interesting aspects of the movie. Might as well read a book than bother watching a movie like that which robs you of a compelling over all experience.
@@evm6177 I guess Total Recall is more like a hard sci-fi, but I know what you mean about Nolan, sometimes it feels like the emotional and visual suffers in favor of the conceptual.
Overall, I think I prefer Denis Villeneuve to Nolan (from what I've seen) for his more intricate worlds, and more satisfying interaction between characters. Nolan feels a bit manipulative sometimes. And of course, I prefer Kubrick to Nolan (who he seems to take a lot inspiration from).
I agree. But also, telling is saying: He was afraid. (statement) Instead of: His hand shook as he reached for the key, his pulse beat in his ears, deafening. (Describing the actual feeling) For example. But telling can also be writing every single action (including the needless ones), and over-explaining everything, even though it's quite clear what's going on. That's a mistrust of the audience, or (more often) beginner mistakes and inefficiency. At least that's my take on it. :)
This man is wise. And has a nerds sense of humor. I like him.
“Elder” is truly a fitting last name to this guy, wise and good at explaining
This is one of the best pieces of writing advice on the internet.
Those are strong words, glad you found this one helpful!
What did you like about this video?
He was candid and honest and kept it real. I mean really real. In the cut is so underrated. It's a great chance to move both story and backstory of a protagonist. Indie is really the last hope for this kind of creating.
The comments section.
And it shows how complex screenwriting is by just reading the comments section.
He explained one of the most egregious faults in films today.
Mindhunter used "tell" in an interesting way. As the protagonists in the series listen to the killers tell their stories, we get to imagine how it is, and imagination can be more elaborate than actually seeing it. Kinda like a horror story that's scarier when told than actually seen. So show don't tell is good, but it depends on how you want to tell the story I think
Exactly. This guy doesn't know what he's talking about. I've never even heard of anything he's worked on yet the majority of the films in the top 100 movies list its filled with exposition.
Gotta write your dialogue well in that case.
Yup, like he said, the audience cares about the story. So writers could get creative in all sorts of different ways too. One could get creative in exposition even if it's "tell and not show" I guess
Oh ffs, you don’t actually think that the use of dialogue is “telling”, do you? It’s displaying that character AKA “showing” him, his mannerisms, his side of the story, how he thinks. Rather than the writer flat out saying, “this man is crazy.” We are instead SHOWN him.
I hear this shit all the time. Someone telling a story isn’t “telling” in terms of writing. Dialogue can be used to “show”.
No, I'm not saying if you use dialogue you are merely telling and yes I agree with you that we are shown mannerism and how the character behaves when they are telling a story. My point was writers can be creative in all sorts of way and even make exposition very interesting compared to clunky on-the-nose ones. They could have showed images, like flashbacks, while the character was narrating the event - this technique has been done too, but they didn't do that. They focused on the storytelling and the interaction of the interviewer and interviewee, which makes imagine more what could have been done. And our imagination is "greater" than what could have actually happened.
This channel is so great!
Thanks, we appreciate you checking this one out.
More like Boring
This is so true. I remember being told years ago to "show, not tell" and it confused me for a long time. The way he explains it here is abundantly clear.
4:55 AS A WRITER WE ALL WANT SUM COLORFUL BANTER TO SHOW THE AUDIENCE OUR INTELLIGENCE…and end up boring them in the process 😩
Thank you for being “ that guy “ , life is about living .
One of the nice things is, nearly all of the stuff on this channel can be used for any kind of visual storytelling. Whether it's a comic, a movie, or a video game, this is useful advice. It's helping me figure out how to tell my own stories visually.
You’re channel has been a godsend. I learn something every time I watch. Thank you 🙏
Love to hear that Joe! We're doing our best. We have a fun writing challenge going up in 8 minutes. Keep an eye out.
Bob's Burgers has given me a new appreciation for breaking out into song.
Absolutely brilliant! Less is more. Love this guy
The guy is saying : “imply your message, don’t put it in your character’s mouth.” In today’s artless cinema (Hollywood or otherwise) that isn’t happening.
And then there's J.F.K., A Clockwork Orange, Forest Gump, All Woody Allen films, Apocalypse Now...with pure narrative voiceovers that tell a lot albeit less than they show but still tell a lot! It just requires a very powerful and unique voice or point of view. It can work either way with enough faith.
Excellent video with some ideas that I will spend some time thinking through.
Cheers!
I love his energy. Tell it in the cut is like how to play the Blues: in the changes. More of Master Elder, PLEASE.
It's good to validate what I've done based on this advice! The charm of a story well told is in the balance between the explicitly told and the non told left to the imagination of the viewer/reader! Achieving that balance turns reading or watching a movie into a cooperative experience rather than a monologue.
Bad exposition is one of my biggest pet peeves in films.
When it's done poorly...oh boy does it hurt
When you actually feel during the scene that "oh this is the part where the writers needed to explain something directly, instead of making it natural" is the worst feeling. It takes me out of the experience completely.
@@CaptainTitforce Even better, when bad exposition is used to make a joke in a comedy, then its one of my favorite jokes in the movie.
The Great Muppet Caper and Spaceballs have two very good "Bad exposition" jokes.
From the Great Muppet Caper:
Miss Piggy: Why are you telling me all this?
Miss Holiday: Exposition, it has to go somewhere
From Spaceballs:
Col Sanders gives a long winded explanation of their plan to steal all the air to save Planet Druidia
Dark Helmet turns to face camera: EVERYBODY GOT THAT?!
transition king for me, Edgar Wright, period!
Hands down!!!!!
yes!
#1
I do agree with this advice but it does depend on the situation/scene. In my opinion exposition is only bad when it's boring. If the guy at the bar orders a woman a drink and they don't talk about anything interesting then sure, cut the in between. But what if she rejects the drink? What if her date is late and now the man who ordered the drink has only a few minutes to convince her to ditch the date for him?
Is an actress going to jump at the chance to play a character with no lines who just gets picked up or a character who gets to juicy lines before she gets picked up? Absolutely cut scenes where you can but only if you can't come up with anything worth reading.
Oh boy, if I had a dollar for every time I've seen this in a script but the writer insists that the "information" has to be there. He's absolutely right.
I need one of this just for novels. It's amazing!
not sure how I feel bout this guy's take on the whole 'show not tell'.
Agreed. It’s a complete misrepresentation of what it means.
@@nickp7069 I kind of agree with you but kind of agree with him too. Show not tell means not having to write everything conveyed unless its in an action sense. Hes simply using the transitions as action and story building. I feel like his answer is a part of the whole answer.
@@The0Kiyubii0Kid I can see what you’re saying. IMO he’s describing ‘montage’ in the example he uses of ‘two people look across a bar THEN they are going to his hotel room’. The order of those scenes shows the audience what happened next and how the human brain pieces what they weren’t shown to mentally complete the sequence (which is montage theory), so he is withholding information which is kinda ‘not telling’ the audience….. But I agree that his statement ‘showing not telling is what happens in the cuts’ is not an accurate description. A more complete description of ‘show don’t tell’ would have been to not cut out the middle section of his example, and use filmic / visual language to show these two flirting or finding something in common (rather than telling the audience they are falling in lust via drawn out dialogue).. His take on SDtT relies exclusively on an edit for the sequence to work. The shot of the man and woman making eyes across a bar doesn’t work to tell a story on its own, it needs the second shot to tell us they have fallien in lust. But true SDtT can happen in a single shot, as brief as something like he lightly grazes her elbow as he passes her and she gets up to follow him…
Loved it. Will take another look at Heat's diner scene
Yeah Tarantino doesn't know how to do this lol. In fact he often shoots for telling his stories WITH the cut stuff instead of the action. He doesn't always get away with it (his scenes can just feel too long) but when he does it well, it gives his scenes a uniqueness that other films don't have. I think he's carved a niche for himself there.
Exactly.. Talking about visual cues to show, for instance how does the dream machine actually function in inception? Because as a viewer I definitely doubt Nolan's made the dream machine visually convincing enough as a concept.
Richard Linklater another director who's stories thrive in the dialogue and who would shirk from telling a story this way. Proves that it all depends on the kind of story you are wanting to tell.
I wish I had found this channel years ago.
Great movie lessons
What about stories that require a history lesson or an explanation of the world settings like fantasy movies?
That's something I've struggled with. But what I've been hearing a lot, and trying to master, is that it's best to only drop pieces of info when it's necessary to move the story along, when it's important for the characters and the reader/viewer to know. Not all at once. And yeah, you want to establish some millieu in the beginning, but I think that can be done through the point of view character's experience. Use the setting to highlight that character. What stands out to them and how does it make them feel? As for film (which I'm not so experienced with except just watching and analyzing), I think you can visually show a lot of the worldbuilding, and evidence of the history, as the characters are moving through it. Take Star Wars, for instance. They just throw you right into the setting and conflict without any exposition, and you figure it out as you watch the space ships and then the characters interacting. The galaxy feels lived in. The characters are busy going about their lives and/or dealing with their part in the conflict, not worried about the viewers getting a history lesson. You do get some brief exposition later on from Obi-Wan, but at a moment when it's going to be important for Luke to know. And it's tied personally to Luke , so it has emotional significance for him and the audience.
Anyway, I hope that's helpful. Good luck with your writing!
@@starnavigator73 Thank you for the detailed response! I have to agree that showing the world and withholding the info when its not needed is a good approach. But it's funny that you brought up Star Wars, because I think that the franchise got away with one of the biggest storytelling cop-outs, which is the opening Crawl. Nowadays, we just go along with it as part of the Star Wars gimmick.
@@faresmhaya You've got a point about the opening crawl 😆 I guess that part isn't... memorable to me. I've seen it a bunch of times and I know it's there, but it's just not what comes to mind when I think about the story. So then I guess the question is, would everything I said about the visual storytelling and dialogue still work without the crawl? I'm inclined to think so. I may be a little biased because I really like Star Wars. 😊 But I do think those principles are something to learn from.
@@starnavigator73 The opening crawl wasn't a cop out. And I think they don't get criticized for it because visually it was so well done just on it's own. But it also mirrored the scene of the imperial cruiser flying by the camera. So it complimented the scene and the special effects, and also the epic essence of the movie by tying into the expanse of space and traveling to distant planets.
But one thing about explanation that works for fantasy movies is that it's done in the beginning of the movie to set boundaries or world building as they say. And after that, any explanation I think I've heard said needs to done in a way that it's key info that the characters are finding out for the first time. Otherwise, you're back into show don't tell trap.
And of course, it still requires good story telling so that the new info isn't a convenient add on just so you can keep the plot moving or cover up a plot hole.
Great stuff.
Reminds me of backstory. All backstory is telling. If we can't infer it, then it doesn't exist.
Your character should be a representation of their past- the group they surround themselves with, their manner of dress, the way they speak, their quirks, their decisions are "shown" in a way that is more organic than the author telling what tumultuous thing happened to them. I say, if you're going to tell me why, wait a while and let me think about it first with the aforementioned clues.
@@12ealDealOfficial Then you agree with me. Don't show a flashback of someone stubbing his toe, show him being careful around table legs.
@@frenstcht Good way to put it!
@@12ealDealOfficial Thanks!
Watched the first 15 or 20 minutes of "Tomorrow War", and couldn't take it anymore. There was no story. It was a movie pitch stretched out with exposition. That's not a story.
Exactly I agree Tomorrow war is a classic example of film suffering from needless exposition.. Talking about visual cues to show though, for instance how does the dream machine actually function in inception? Because as a viewer I definitely doubt if Nolan's made the dream machine visually convincing enough as a concept.
The sing along scene in Us was EVERYTHING.
Okay, help me out here. In my writing group, I'm the only one who says, "I'm writing a story about..." Everyone else says, "I'm writing a novel...I'm writing a screen play... I'm writing a graphic novel...etc. Since we are all writers, words matter. I don't think it's just semantics to introduce myself as a story teller. Am I off base on this?
I like it. Sets you apart and the word story feels more intriguing than novel. To me any way.
Next time you’re in group and about to speak on your work cut “I’m writing a story about…” and just start from there. Saying it takes away from the impact. “…a man struggling with his creative identity holds twelve members of his writing group captive in a library conference room until they can come to terms with their own idiosyncrasies.”
@@jamesduncan2686 Oh good point, thanks.
This comment is for FIlm Courage & their frequent viewers.. Hitting like or thumbs down on this comment is akin to voting for or against the following....
I enjoy watching these videos. Yet often I'll hear the host in the background or hear others laughing. So I had the thought that y'all should do a 'Meet the Crew' episode where the hosts, camera operator(s) and others involved with the show gets interviewed. Perhaps for a cool twist,y'all can flip the script & have your guests interviewing the Crew!!
However I can understand if crew members don't want to be seen & that should be respected.I think many of your regular viewers would like to see that. So for you fans of FC's content & would enjoy a Meet The Crew Episode(s) then hit like on this suggestion. *No this is not for me to try and get a bunch of likes as I don't see the point in that*. I just thought this was a cool idea & figured,hey ya never know. It would be cool to see who they are though. ✌😎🖖
Amen. I wonder sometimes how many stories with new worlds and elaborate systems couldve used more memorable visual cues and experiences instead of paragraphs to give viewers context.
If Inception and The Matrix could do it. Its possible
Exactly.. Talking about visual cues to show, How does the dream machine actually function in inception? Because as a viewer I definitely doubt Nolan's made the dream machine visually convincing enough as a concept.
I remember being very confused about what "Show not tell" meant the first times I heard it. I simply didn't get what it meant on the actual paper, so to speak. I get it now, but that knowledge came through writing, not by listening to people explain it. But yeah, sometimes you can show/tell more by not showing it at all. :P
I used to live up in the cut. Over derr by Craig & dem
The second best example of a film either showing or stating the exposition is Blade Runner.
Show not tell. Thus begs the question: Why does a talking heads movie, which told not showed, like Nomadland win 3 Academy Awards including Best Picture and Best Director along with being nominated for 3 additional Oscars including Best Adapted Screenplay? Weren't other Oscar-nominated films which told the story in the cut such as The Trial of the Chicago 7, Promising Young Woman, Sound of Metal, Minari, and Judas and the Black Messiah more worthy? Heck, films that weren't even nominated, such as The Mauritanian, Crisis, The Invisible Man and Tenet, excelled in telling its story in the cut.
Some films speak to the politics of their time and are more appreciated for that perspective.
Because the Academy Awards aren't about good movies. They're about political favorites and virtue signaling.
I haven't seen the movie, but "talking heads" can easily show and not tell with the dialogue. You can even "show and not tell" by not even showing on screen, but implying a sight or a sound (or even a taste, touch, or smell) in creative and economical ways. Several movies over the last few years have done this at varying levels of effectiveness, some highly popular. In any case, if you do not feel an EXPERIENCE by following characters you are interested in as they move from one event to another that are logically connected in some way (even if it is only "story logic" acceptable to the audience) that is compelling, and instead feel like someone is just explaining what is interesting (when it isn't) and explaining what is happening (when why it is happening is unclear and never made clear) and explaining who is who and that you should care (when you don't and have no reason to), you have no story. Explaining is not a story--explaining doesn't make you laugh or cry or understand or care what happens next to the characters.
@@docsavage8640 If it was all about virtue signaling then The Trial of the Chicago 7 or Judas and the Black Messiah should have won.
You really can't measure a film's merits by awards alone. Let's say the Academy really honors art and everything, there's still sooooo many films to filter out. And many get ignored along the way. That's why being nominated alone is a big deal already (marketing-wise) because of all the films that come out in a year, they were the ones chosen.
Film, as a craft, is very much subjective (though there is still some objectivity to it) and it's a very confusing thing to even set standards on.
ten minutes of watching a writer.... struggle for.... words. In a tutorial, blatant exposition is very welcome.
It occurred to me listening to this that Quentin Tarantino has made a career doing the opposite of what is being said here.
Sounds to me that what he was getting at, when comes to those frivolous and experimental scenes, is relatability. If the story and exposition is tight and told in the cuts, then you have more freedom to pull of those scenes and perhaps add an extra layer of relatability.
I dislike that word "relatability" and I'll give an example why:
A kid I was talking to at my store said they were looking forward to a new game because the main character was "relatable." The character they were talking about had just raided a downtown business in a dystopian future and made a comment that- with things being as they were- at least they "wouldn't have to pay their student loans." To the kid, that's relatable. For me, who just finished paying off my B.A. while waiting tables in a downtown business, that wasn't a "relatable" moment. I was actively turned off by the game's trailer in its efforts at being "relatable." A friend of mine said another character that cheats on several women and feels depressed all the time is "relatable" but, again, I found nothing relatable about the character's behavior at all.
A word I prefer to use when talking about characters (as I'm assuming that's what the word is in reference to) is "humanization." John McClain is humanized because we see him hurt, afraid, struggling with his crumbling marriage, and just barely managing to grapple with his situation. A non-humanized version of that character would behave like a superhero or a robot- we will never see them grapple with jealousy, limp away from a fight, psyche himself up to jump off a building, etc. Invulnerable characters are not human because they don't grapple with human emotion. If the character whose making the best of the apocalypse is to be "relatable," they need to be humanized first, and then the author can use them as a mouthpiece- if they must- to sell the audience on whatever version of reality they want to communicate.
To be human is universal, and everyone in the audience can relate to being human, but not everything an author or a reader thinks is "relatable"can pass for such. My short rant on why I don't use the word "relatable" when talking about a piece of media.
I'm more confused by his explanation of show not tell then I was when I initially heard the phrase for the first time years ago. Now I need someone to explain what he is saying
Lol. I hear you. It was rather confusing. All he's saying is that exposition (i.e. necessary story information) can be handled by "the cut," just going to the next scene and letting the audience draw the conclusions and fill in the blanks about what happened in-between the scenes. So, he gave the example of a couple. He's saying that, instead of going through the whole process of the "seduction" through dialogue and action, just cut to the next scene of them landing up together. This also tells you something about these characters without spending a chunk of time in exposition that's not really required. "Cut" as he's using it here is the juxtaposition between the previous scene and the next scene. There is the beginning, then the next scene is the conclusion or outcome of what's been started. I hope this helps.
This is a smart technique. 🤔
Thanks for watching! We are excited to share more segments from this interview.
Christian is 100% correct.
"Show Don't Tell" doesnt need to be taken that literally. Yes I believe in it wholeheartedly that there's tremendous power in letting the audience figure things out on their own. But that includes sometimes writing exposition that is nowhere near being on the nose. You CAN most definitely tell without telling.
I think sometimes what happens isnt so much the writer overexplaining things on acount of not having faith in the audience - sometimes it's the writer having a great balance but the actor not being able to convey properly hence the director is then compelled to insert new dialogue since certain things arent quite coming across like they thought they would.
"We get it. We get it." Indeed, we do.
Exposition can be epic
Good film making
This was helpful.
Interesting
I follow this advice to the T. Dont tell us he is the villain show he is the villain. The audience is smart enough to put stuff together.
The best films have all started with a huge amount of exposition. From Star Wars to Godfather. Just try to imagine Star Wars without the word scroll in the beginning.
If you viewed Star Wars without any opening crawls, what is the worst that could happen?
@@Leon-zu1wp
Well you can view Star Wars without the sound and the color turned off but why would you? You seem like the type of person who enjoys cold showers.
@@noteem5726 You seem like a screenwriter trying to justify why having exposition in your script is somehow a good thing when it defies the very purpose of a film.
He'd probably say that was contextualization vs exposition to set the backdrop for the world we're in, vs giving unecessary details not necessary to understand the plot, setting or move the story, not meaning much in the entire run time. That opening crawl allows them to cut out A LOT. Most of what we need to know happens during the movie, in dialogue & through action, it can serve as exposition if done right. That scene when Vader walks in, you know this guy means business watching him in the scene, how he talks & moves, that he's tapped into the force & that the force is no joke (which he tells us & displays later), they didnt have to give us every battle he was in to get the point across, ships destroyed etc. Detail like that can be implied if we pay attention & sprinkled throughout the movie, otherwise you'd have movies lasting days, you might as well do a series (like clone wars).
@@EagleZtoTheGrave Not in my opinion. In all reality it is to set up the atmosphere of the entire film, as it is audibly jarring and visually reminiscent of Flash Gordon crawls it was based upon, along with Fascist font to build up the militant themes in the film. Every single thing that is in the crawl we later learn throughout the film or can simply assume.
"Show" not "Tell"
Kinda sound like if ya dealing with a group of beginners (Actors & Actresses)
Guy says "it's not about scenes", then says he loves the scene from 500 Days of Summer
You follow his advance and you will become a decent director, but follow Dennis Villeneuve advice: "Suggest, Don't show" and you will become a great one!
this guy is cool af
a video espousing the maxim "show, don't tell" doesn't use a single video clip to illustrate this idea, but instead TELLS us about it. Ironic?
Experimental? The sing-along scene is the epiphany of romcom cliche
Christopher Nolan needs to watch this. Jaysus....
Bring back film credits at the beginning of films. It literally requires the writers to find ways of showing without telling immediately every film.
I'm frankly pretty annoyed when any people use that over-bloated catchphrase 'show dont tell' as if they really understand it. Both show and tell are VITAL to storytelling including for those Oscar films which use BOTH. Choosing to show and not tell doesn't mean AT ALL make the movie is better.
The worst is "As you know..."
omg he is absolutely right, nobody gives a flying fuck about your scene, they are interested in the story you are telling! Tarantino's reservoir dogs or pulp fiction iconic talking scenes are great but the compelling stories are ultimately the reason why those scenes stand out nd feel special. This advice is solid af! stick to the basics, if your story is compelling chances are whatever experimental shit you throw in your scenes will stand out.
I do have an issue with one point.
It may be a "simple technique," but it also leads to vapid, empty characters who don't say anything. They're cardboard. Tropes.
lol nah there's nothing confusing about saying show dont tell.
I think that's simplified enough 😅
I dont need to make some 'cool' sounding name for it
Take notes, Christopher Nolan…
Exposition is the worst in Young Adult fantasy films because it's usually all the same generic guff and references to mcguffins that crop up all the time, and more often than not you won't remember all the exposition anyway because it just kind of rolls over you, but studios think their audience is young and dumb so they have to set up the story in the first minute.
_500 years ago, the Elden Knights deserted the Kingdom of Laguardia and the Dark Empire took over. They sought to claim the Sword of Saxonby, the greatest Knight who ever lived. But before they could take it, a young girl called Eloin threw the sword into the mighty river Voll and it was lost ever since. The Dark Empire need only take the sword before the Crescent Moon of the Blood Season to achieve total domination. But alas, a young girl born in a poor village in a far away land was prophesied to find the sword and slay the Dragon Queen..._
yadda yadda
It doesn't sound like he's talking about exposition.
Show don't tell? You need a envonment explainer voise, to audiobooks?
This guy sounds like he’s been in LA too long
Totally disagree with "they don't care about your scene." As an audience member, it's all I care about. It's when I get to look at your characters with a magnifying glass, and feel out the relationships between them. This isn't achieved by jump cutting scenes or tight editing, but by actors - and the scene is the space they're given to work. Film is the actor's medium, not the director's. And an aural medium too - not a visual one. I'm might catch flack for that but it's true. The most memorable moments in movies usually come down to people saying things to other people.
No flak, but the speaker has a point. The author has to work under the assumption that the audience doesn't care about the scene. The audience doesn't care about the characters, the scenario, the dialogue, the atmosphere, until they are MADE to care. The author has to fight for their story on the page, not just assume they've ticked enough boxes that the audience they want is already willing to care.
@@12ealDealOfficial That's like saying an automaker only cares about making engines and not wheels. You need all the parts in order for the thing as a whole to work.
You've really been featuring a lot of lightweights recently ...
Christian is a fantastic guest. We're incredibly grateful that he was able to spend time with us. We believe many viewers will gain a lot from this series.
@@filmcourage Not picking on him. He's just one in a series of lightweights you've had recently.
@@vonchaney9216 is this loss?
The live action adaptation of Ghost in the Shell was a pretty bad case of TELL DON'T SHOW as they kept explaining everything to the audience and dumbing everything down, which made me really dislike the film.
"Your ghost, your soul" when they got to that part i was like. You aren't supposed to say it out loud!
@@Mord12gp When they mentioned "ghost" and "shell" in the same sentence, I was like "Shut up movie". I didn't like the movie treating me like an idiot.
@@rxzero00 I think the worst part of the movie is the scene with the garbage man. They completely changed the tone and all the meaning raced by. The guy from the anime was confused messed up victim in the end who's mind was forever altered. But in the movie they made him and his friend the gunners and he had no seeming choice. I hated that scene. The movie looked good but all the meaning was drained.
@@Mord12gp They basically combine too many things whether it is the 1995 film, SAC and random American cyberpunk stuff with the neon lights and fancy holograms and dumb everything down. I also prefer the more realistic or at least grounded setting of the 1995 and SAC when it came to being futuristic.
@@rxzero00 And if they were gona have Scarlet Johanson then just have her be white and not the bs they tried to pull at the end of the movie. Either have a white girl or an Asian girl you can't do bot. Or maybe its a choice on her part to play like her old self is dead. The movie sucked story wise. The Puppet Master was combined with Kuza (one of the main antagonists) from GS-Second Gig. Dudes ideology and methodology had nothing to do with the Puppet Master, plus they were from completely different universe.
A better pitch would have been that alot of the people in Section 9 were nationalized migrants who came to Japan after the 3rd World War, that's why like 90% of them AREN'T Japanese. Like wtf was Section 9s deal in the live action movie anyway, what about Public Security Sections 1-8?
Made no sense to me
This guy has no idea what "show, don't tell" means...
It's good to have discussion, what is your perspective on "show don't tell?"
@@filmcourage You're totally right. My perspective on "show, not tell" is that it's a very simple idea that works. It comes from the concept that film is primarily a visual art, and that given the option or the possibility of having one of your characters say something and having the audience witness something or watch something on screen you should always go with the latter.
What Christian Elder was referring to in this video, although it is a concept that is very useful when writing a screenplay, it doesn't have anything to do with the idea of "show, don't tell". What he's talking about is the ellipsis and when to start and when to end a scene.
I 2nd that, and is weird he struggles to grasp such a basic narrative axiom, always choose dramatic action over dialog when there's a option. Don't have your character say what he is have him showcase, what he refers is another tool, ellipses, useful to move the story along or to conceal an outcome until the writer wants the reader to learn what happened.
We appreciate you adding your thoughts Francisco. Thank you for taking the time. This opens up the conversation.
Is this guy ok? Just say what you want to say pal, it's not about you.
Demonstrate, don’t explicate.
Dude, like... tell it in the cut, brah. You don't, like, need to use so much exposition and stuff. It's like, nonverbal communication, bro. It's more about what you, like, don't say and junk, and like, how you say it Broseph. YOLO.
Oh boy, if I had a dollar for every time I've seen this in a script but the writer insists that the "information" has to be there. He's absolutely right.