I've come to realise that most scripts I've read so far, are written by the director of the respective script as well. There are a few points in these scripts that come into contrast with what I was taught about how to handle writing a script in school, meaning a script meant to be sent to a production company as a screenplay writer or as well as the director. I find myself slightly confused. There are some aspects that even the screenplay writer has to direct audibly or visually after all in writing, since the final destination, the whole reason for his/her piece of writing afterall, is to be audio-visually depicted. Right? So, where does one draw a line to this? I'll highlight my questions by using "Desperado", written, produced and directed by Robert Rodriguez as reference, since it's the latest script I've been reading. Here's a link for your facilitation: https://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/Desperado.pdf and here are the two opening vids in order to compare the writing to the final cut: This will get you up to page 14, ending approximately at the end of the opening credits. If you compare the two, you'll find that the differences are minimal. It's almost a script followed loyally, with some minimal improvisations by the characters that are expected anyways (they color the characters, for example the Barman that spits his toothpick on Buscemi) and some actions that although altered (one I found is that in the script Buscemi said he crawled towards the Stranger after the bar massacre occurred - that part and dialogue got completely deleted - , while in the film he's just stunt in place and the Stranger pays attention to him, also points a gun to his face) I believe they don't alter the overall plot or mood the least bit and make more sense in a way. (If he was realistically stunt, I doubt he'd crawl towards the Mariachi at all. It wouldn't make sense, you get me)? Anyhow, as for the writing form, I got some questions. I loved his writing actually and wouldn't have a problem myself in the position of a presumed director to read this script, although it has clear technical notes to it, but that's my personal take on this. If I decided, for example, to direct his script myself and disagreed with some of his takes, I'd simply skip them and handle them in a way I'd see more suitable. After all, it's the director's job to do the decoupage of the script, but his technical notes didn't bother me the least bit. They actually helped me to "see" his story. Now, I'll get right to the points: 1) Right from the start of the script, we get technical aspects: "P.O.V. of BUSCEMI bursting through the doorway into the bowels of the stench filled TARASCO BAR Buscemi, an anglo character about 28 years and not in the best physical shape, rambles towards the nearest barstool, which seems a mile away in this forced perspective." We get a "P.O.V" and a "forced perspective". I did this a lot in my scripts too, but then again... they were directed at me from me. Nobody else, except me and the actors read them. I wrote parts of the decoupage as I went for these projects. When I was writing a script though, which was meant to be taken just as a script for script value, I didn't. Not at all. I was told that it wasn't my place as a script writer to give directions. I have to say that writing was more challenging this way. 2) Page two: "Short Bartender knows his booze is cheap, but these undeserved compliments disturb him." I love this kind of writing in a scene actually, since it gives the overall mood and reaction of a character without having to spell each character's action out, set in stone. It also gives the actor a better idea of the character his playing and leaves him space to act it out his own way. My question here, is how much of these kind of instances can you have in a script? It's something that "tells" in writing form rather than "shows". The "showing" comes at filming the scene when the actor presumably acts this information out. Is there a common balance or preference or is this solely based on the screenwriters decision and voice? How often is it acceptable to delve into a character's mind in a script and for what other purposes? 3) Page 3. Can you even do this? I know that you can put the way one speaks for example in parenthesis (whispers, tired, wide-eyed, etc) but isn't this... different? More personalised. Furthermore, it doesn't depicts the way he says what he says, rather than gives the overall scene mood his talking creates to the rest of the characters. Is this conventional? "BUSCEMl (hammering the-point home) - I'm sitting there_. Short Bartender's not even wondering when the story's going to start, he's pouring himself another warm one. BUSCEMI (beating a dead horse) So ... I'm sitting there ..." 4) More directions: "CUT TO: POV of unseen STRANGER.. opening the bar door, just as we saw Buscemi do in the opening shot. We hear Buscemi's voice over this dreamy, slow motion flashback." "We see the shadow CRAWL bad..." and more importantly: Buscemi has his audience back. He acts the scene out now, and we intercut between the flashback and Buscemi's live show. I need to pause here for a minute. I've been having a massive headache about how to write a scene with intercutting between two scenes, so please do tell me your opinion about this as I have no clue about what's the common way to go about it. Is this common? If you are somewhat experienced in script writing, please do read this script up to page 14 and tell me your take upon it. Whichever observation you have to make apart from the points I made are greatly welcomed, since I might be missing stuff. I'm really interested in this. I'm writing a script that's meant to work solely as a script and be judged by script writing value and I'm not sure after all, how "personal" I can get with it. For example, is there another way, more legitimate, to write intercuts in scenes? Whatever observations you make with this script as reference, will be greatly appreciated, as well as suggesting me other movie scripts to read that are taken for their script writing value, preferably ones that aren't written by the one who directed them. Thanks!