Witness evoked many images in my mind when I read it. the script flows very well from scene to scene, maybe its because I saw the movie last semester but it's easy to visualize because the script is written well. Unlike a Goldman script, this script uses technical terms, but I find its just as easy to read as a Goldman script, if not easier, evoking more visuals in my mind. The character descriptions in the script really helped me visualize the characters again, I felt like I knew what the characters looked like and how they would act very early in the script. The casting in the actual movie is almost dead on when it comes to the writers descriptions of the characters. The script is writen very well, thats why it's so easy to see a film in your mind, while reading. The authors use of visual language makes this possible, an example of one of the many uses of good writing and visual language was the part where Samuel identifies Mcfee as the killer, only Book see's this and he keeps it quiet. That part was written so well, theres no dialogue in that part but theres really alot being said without being said in that scene. Its short simple to the point but very descriptive and effective, because of the visual language, for example, watching, expressing, slowly, raises, hand, point, photograph, gently, takes, small, hand, concealing, accusation, watchful, eyes, smiles, gently, boy. This is all very descriptive language that helps make the script easy to see in your mind, and this was all packed into four sentences.
1. Does anyone think this script was better written as far as visual language and more entertaining to read than the way Goldman writes?
2. Do you think it makes a script stronger or weaker when two or more writters collaborate on the same script?
Ryan Taylor
No comments:
Post a Comment