Witness makes very clear use of visual language. The language used in Witness is almost tedious in the way it chooses to tell its story. In every word, the reader gets a visual. Even intangible characteristics have a way of painting a visual for the reader. Take for example Rachel Lapp's character description. "In happier circumstances, although there haven't been too many of late in Rachel's life, we would see a robust, sensual woman of full figure, spirit and intelligence." Basically, it's very wordy. This is great that it can really paint a visual for the reader, but for a script it's a bit much. The script should serve itself as a skeleton, and the flesh and organs and whatever should really be provided by the director, not the writer. However, I do think this is alright if the writer and director are one in the same. It helps to have the rich description, but there has got to be room for the director to ‘put his signature’ on it.
Krystian Lorenzana
Questions.
1. Did you feel the format was balanced with the heavy description?
2. Do you see differences in movies that are written collaboratively as oppose to by a single person?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment