Although The Apartment was a well-developed story with good dialogue and a right amount of suspense and drama, I found that, as a screenplay, it lacked proper form. At the very beginning, the sluglines provided very little information on the story’s setting. When I read “A DESK COMPUTER,” I had no idea where the computer was or the time of day. Then, when the next slugline read “THE INSURANCE BUILDING - A WET, FALL DAY,” I was not sure if it was providing further detail to the previous scene or if the setting had changed. The following scenes only added to my confusion.
In addition, the Action was too descriptive. It felt like I was reading a novel rather than a screenplay. Sometimes information relayed in the dialogue was repeated in the Action, contributing to the extravagance of the script. Furthermore, the Action was written unprofessionally, using words like “it’s a big mother” and “chopped up” instead of more sophisticated terms like “immense structure” or “divided.”
Maybe some would not have seen these as a problem, but I found them distracting. The script’s incomplete sluglines, heavy description, and poor grammar hindered my comprehension and enjoyment of the story’s exposition. Fortunately, it was the dialogue and the story itself that allowed me to finish it. Overall, it was a good script, but, if I were a producer or studio executive, the first two pages would have prompted me to discard it.
-Fernando Rosas
Discussion Questions:
1. From my experience, I have benefited from “result-oriented direction.” From yours, would you agree with Weston in her argument that “result-oriented direction” hurts an actor‘s performance?
2. McKee states that the climax of a film determines its success. Do you agree with this assessment? Would The Apartment be a successful film?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Fernando,
I would not describe the style of the script as "poor grammar." THE APARTMENT is punchy and slangy, sure, but that's part of what makes it a classic. The WGA lists it as #15 in their 101 best screenplays of all-time, and it won the Oscar in 1960 for best screenplay.
Granted, you might not see this exact description in a screenplay today: "It's a big mother, covering a square block in lower Manhattan, all glass and aluminum, jutting into the leaden sky." The language is a product of the 60s, but there's nothing wrong with writing a screenplay that has its own voice, even one that is colloquial. A screenplay's voice and style has to fit the tone of the story, and I think THE APARTMENT does a marvelous job of that.
As for the sluglines, again, one of the reasons we're reading so many screenplays is to show you that while there are many rules to screenwriting, there are no rules to screenwriting. That is to say, sometimes you can do whatever you want if you can pull it off (though starting writers are better off playing it safe until they're a known entity). That said, again, this screenplay is a product of its time, when screenplay form was a little looser. However, I'd argue that screenwriters today are beginning to take those chances again. Sluglines are the most dangerous place to do this, since they have a functional production role and you don't want to send the message that you don't understand the conventions, but established screenwriters (Wilder and Diamond were quite established) can play with convention all they like.
It's good that you're understanding the conventions, but don't let them constrict your view of a great screenplay. Conventions are created by great screenplays, not the other way around.
Post a Comment