Screenwriting: David Wappel; Anchoring Nouns (Twitter Transcript)

Back in December screen writer David Wappel tweeted about the way he structures his screenplays. He specifically talks about how he uses his action lines to create an image of the action in the reader's mind. 

I think this is very helpful, not just for screenwriters but also for storyboard artists, because it discusses how you order the images on screen. There are storyboard artists who instead of starting with sketches or thumbnails will actually start by writing down every beat and shot. As you'll see that isn't so far from how writer David Wappel approaches his screenplays. 

Below is a full transcript of his thread with some minor editing: 

David Wappel: [This is] a thread on writing action lines, with special attention paid to word order and what I call “anchoring” nouns. These tools are part of my process, and I’m not advocating for them over anything else. I just want to share some of the things I think about as I write.

Let’s start off with what I think action lines are aimed to accomplish:

1. Describe what is happening.
2. Describe how we see what is happening.

A lot of the scripts I read from aspiring writers often focus solely on 1. More experienced writers focus on 1 and 2. The best writers do both, but hide 2 so you don't even realize it’s happening.
1 is important. It's the story. But 2 can help the way you tell it. And that’s what I’m going to focus my thread on, and hopefully illuminate how craft can allow you to make those choices in the script, without bumping the reader out of the story.

Alright, so we're focusing on "how we see what's happening”. The first thing to discuss is the ongoing debate over "We see" and all its forms.

As I said, I'm not here to advocate for one thing over another. Generally, I try to avoid "we see" (though I use it twice in my latest spec) mainly because I think it's implied in the fact that it's a screenplay. In most cases of "we see" it can be struck and nothing is lost.

“We see a bushel of apples under a tree.” could just as easily be “A bushel of apples sits under a tree.”

I think “we see” works when you need to explicitly limit the audiences view. So you're more describing the fact that they "only see" what is right there.

“We see a single flower. It stands alone in the center of muddy, war-torn No Man's Land as mortars kick dirt into the air.”

It's important to clarify we only see the flower at first, otherwise the reveal isn't as powerful.
Ok, so that’s a quick bit on “we see” but now I want to talk about what I really came here to talk about: These things that I call “anchoring nouns” An “anchoring” noun provides the unit in which I want the reader to interpret the visuals I’m presenting. It is the noun that “anchors” the reader to how they should be picturing what is unfolding.

While remembering that I totally made up this nomenclature, an “anchoring” noun (AN) can be defined as the first noun you encounter which provides context for the size of the action you’re being asked to hold in your brain. From my experience, the human brain doesn’t do anything more than it needs to. It’s super lazy (or super efficient depending on the water in your glass).
So if I say “picture an apple” you’re only going to picture an apple. You’re likely not going to picture an apple hanging from a branch of an apple tree, or in the mouth of a pig at a luau. You’re probably just going to picture the apple. And that apple picture is of a certain size: just big enough for the apple.

This is where you can ask: What camera shot contains this noun? Is it really, really far away? Probably not. Are you so close, you can only see a part of it? Also probably not.
It’s probably just big enough to see the apple. Might be what’s considered a close-up. So without mentioning a camera at all, your brain is actually creating a shot size.
If I say “the stem of an apple” you’re likely picturing just the stem. (ECU)

If I say “An apple” you’re likely picturing an apple. (CU)

If I say “Five apples” maybe we move to a MCU

A bushel of apples.

A row of apple bushels.

An orchard. (EW)

But all those things have an apple in them.

I’m trying to use ANs to orient you to what they are. (stem, apple, five apples, bushel, row, orchard) The AN is (with a few exceptions) the first noun you encounter, which provides context for the size of the action you’re being asked to hold in your brain (because remember, you’re not going to hold more than necessary, you lazy-brained human)
So in one case, that AN may be “apple,” but in another it’s “bushel,” and in another it’s “row” These are the first nouns the reader encounters in that description...until another one bumps them off. (More on that later.)

Ok, now at this point, some of you may be thinking, “But there’s no action there. You’re just describing things in different sizes. That’s not screenwriting.” You’re right, so let’s put this notion into practice. Read the following.

Sally reaches into her back pocket.

Her hand slips into her back pocket.

Both describe the same action, but you’ll likely see them differently. In the first, “Sally” is the AN. You may picture anywhere from a MW to a MCU, but generally, you’re probably picturing a person. In the second example, “hand” is the AN. Most likely you’re picturing a CU. Neither one is inherently better than the other, but understanding how we interpret words into images can help you make choices that have different dramatic effects. It’s also worth noting that I had to change the verb to fit the noun. Reaching is an action that generally involves the shoulder, arm, and hand, so using that verb will almost always trigger a wider shot in the brain. But a hand slipping, that’s subtle, and small.

Is this “directing on the page?” I think yes and no. On set, the actress just has to get something from her back pocket. She can do it however she wants. Also, the director can shoot this however they want. But at this point, as the writer you ARE the actress and director. So act and direct how you think this story should best be told. When it’s time, they’ll come in and do their jobs, and hopefully that collaboration will yield results better than any of you could’ve done on your own.
Alright, so that’s ANs.

Now let’s talk about word order. Your word order can help suggest camera moves, edits, tone, you name it. In my writing, first and foremost, I try to use an AN to orient the reader to the shot they’re looking at.

Then, I try to move through the action using...

word order
grammar
sentence structure
punctuation

...to suggest camera moves and edits.

Below are five different ways to write the same action.

Each have the slug line INT. KITCHEN.

How do you interpret the camera moves and edits (if any) in each example below?

John scrubs dishes in an empty kitchen.

In an empty kitchen, John stands alone at the sink. Scrubbing dishes.


A sponge swirls on a dirty plate. John scrubs away over the sink. Alone in an empty kitchen.

As he washes the plates, John sighs, alone over the kitchen sink, the table behind him covered with ten more dirty plates.

SCRUB. SCRUB. John’s eyes look up, and out the window. A sigh. He returns to his scrubbing.

Disclaimer: In no way am I saying that there is a 1-to-1 with the way things are written and their visual interpretation. As in all things screenwriting, there are no “rules.” I’m just saying that certain writing is going to suggest different visual tones for the same action. Now, look at the difference between the first example and the last. In the first, the action of scrubbing the dishes seem to be the important thing to notice. But in the last, it’s about his emotional reaction. I don’t mention dishes. (Yes, the other examples primed you for dishwashing. I may have gotten a freebie there. Depending on context, I may or may not be able to do it in the script.)

Alright, remember when I said that a new AN can bump you off an old one. (Do you? Lazy-brained human?) Let’s look at one of the examples above to see it in action. Let’s look at the third one, which I’ll repeat here.

A sponge swirls on a dirty plate. John scrubs away over the sink. Alone in an empty kitchen.

I think this is clearly communicating three shots, in specific order. The sponge on the plate. John, the holder of the sponge. The empty kitchen. Each new sentence has a new AN to trigger you to see something else, and this time I’m going from CU to a W. The new AN’s “bump” you off the previous one, and you’re just seeing images, one after another. So you never have to worry about a reader getting visually stuck in one shot, unless you want them to…

A sponge swirls on a dirty plate under running water. The sponge stops. A sigh. The water runs. The plate and sponge are put down, unfinished in the sink. SQUEAK. The water stops.

Hopefully, that keeps you visually rooted in the sink. (Once again, you already have some context, so I’m getting some freebies there with what’s going on, but hopefully you understand the concept I’m going for.)

In summary, your action lines should be doing more for you than just describing what’s happening. They should describe how we see what’s happening, and hopefully some of the things I’ve said can help you think about how you might achieve that in your work. I should note here, that in my process, this is one of the last things I do. When the characters and story are working (1), this is a fun tool you can pull out to orient the reader and communicate camera and shots (2).

I’ll end with a metaphor that I often think about when I think about the act of screenwriting. I think of a screenwriter as a sculptor. And I used to think that the screenplay is the sculpture, but I don’t think that fully captures what we do. I’d say what’s more accurate is that you’re the sculptor, and the reader’s emotional journey is the sculpture. Words are your chisel, and the screenplay is the act of chiseling. Everyone else’s job on a film is to use magic to bring the sculpture to actual life.