Thread: When characters change their voices.

In my screenplay, I have two characters who use another voice in certain situations.

For example, my lead character, Sofia, talks to a doll. When the doll responds, it's Sofia mimicking the doll. She uses a different voice for the doll's dialogue, but she's essentially talking to herself.

Right now, this is how I have it:

SOFIA
blippity blah blah

SOFIA
(mimicking the doll)
Blah blah blah blah

SOFIA
blah blah

I'm afraid that because it happens so much in the movie, the dialogue will muddle together and be hard to read quickly. Should I establish early in the script that Sofia does the doll's voice and then just give the doll a CHARACTER CAP and use "DOLL" for its dialogue?

Second, I have another character named Simon, who has an English accent. His other personality is named Ben and speaks with an American accent.

This is how I have it so far:

SIMON
Hello, how are you?

SOFIA
Fine

SIMON
(American accent)
I'm glad to hear it.

SOFIA
What the hell?


Towards the end of act II, Simon/Ben begins to use nothing but an American accent. Is there an alternative to using a parenthetical every time Simon/Ben speaks?

Hrm. Okay. Two tough questions. My answers aren't the word of anything... and who knows, Lin might come and contradict me.... but this is what I would do.

First: the doll. When the doll starts to speak, or she starts to speak for the doll in the script... mention that she's actually the one doing the talking in doll's description. Then have the doll's lines be DOLL. We'll know from the way it's set up that Doll is also Sofia...but since she's projecting another character onto the doll... it'll be easier to read if DOLL is this character slug she's talking with.

SOFIA
blippity blah blah

DOLL
Blah blah blah blah

SOFIA
Blah blah.

If it's just the Doll's voice and Doll isn't present, it could go like this:

SOFIA
blippity blah blah
(in Doll's voice)
Blah blah blah blah
(in Sofia's voice)
Blah blah.

To answer your second question... WELL... this one all depends because the accent seems to be a part of the character development, not just a stage direction. Therefore, a pattern needs to be set up for us to know why Simon/Ben is talking in an accent and just assumes he adapts the American accent more and more. I'm not familiar with your script as to why Simon/Ben is doing this, but I'm sure it's getting a reaction from people around him. Therefore, if people are reacting to the accent, or don't realize Simon/Ben is who he says he is... we'll know. If you ever flip through the play Pygmalion, you'll see that the main character goes from one accent to the next and her speech/ grammar / syntax changes to show it. Plus, it's the subject of focus in the play. And we have reactions. A character will say, "oh, she's sounding more proper!" and we'll know how she's supposed to sound at this point.

I know that's not a perfect answer, but putting in parentheticals will drive you and your readers nuts. So, if you care to explain what's going on with the accent or the reason, maybe we can be of more help to establish the pattern.

If this screenplay is for general distribution disregard this.

I am not an expert in screenplay, but those in the profession are and they don't need their hand held I would suggest leaving the Doll/Sofia dialogue as you have it.

The Simon/Ben, once explained,will not have to be explained again just write Simon or Ben.

Here I come to contradict.

I don't think there's anything wrong with your formatting, Stephen. You see it handled the way you handled the doll a lot.

The accent, if it appears a lot, is best handled with a single action line:

SIMON speaks with a heavy British accent.
BEN speaks with an American accent

If he ever uses both in the same speech, use a parenthetical.


The idea of making DOLL a character is a very bad one. A very useful way to think about character names is to consider the final credits of the film.

You wouldn't see DOLL listed. It's not a character, just a voice. If she was talking like Daffy Duck you would have DAFFY DUCK be a character, would you.

The way you handled it works really well and you see it a lot. A shorter paren would be (Doll voice) you will have already had an action line to explain it.

You want to keep paren's to a minimum, but this is a pretty legitimate use of them. And as Wallmaker says, if she breaks from one to another in a single speech, use mulitple parentheticals.

You often see HYDE/JECKYL. Or JECKYL when first introduced and once the Hyde personae is unleashed, continue with the slashed double listing.

One way to avoid confusion might be
SIMON (AS BEN)

Or parenthetically (Speaking as Ben)

A lot depends on how much of this there is. If BEN only has a few lines, what the hell, paren it.

If two different actors play the parts, then they are listed separately, as you would see JULIE and 12 YEAR OLD JULIE

Again, thinking of the cast credits helps keep a lot of this straight.

Originally Posted by lin

The idea of making DOLL a character is a very bad one. A very useful way to think about character names is to consider the final credits of the film.

Not sure it's a bad idea, I just may have misinterpeted Stephen's question. If doll is an alter ego, Doll can be a character. If Sophia is just playing with a doll and speaking for it, then it's just the voice. Since Stephen broke up the character lines to indicate Doll was a seperate voice/character from Sophia in his example and from reading his psychologically intense section posted I assumed Doll was more than a toy for a scene.
SOPHIA/DOLL could appear as a credit in the film (especially if this already has a Simon/Ben combination) in that case. It'd be harder to tell while reading who Sophia is speaking for if there's a paranthetical between every dialogue line. Also, it could happen throughout whole scenes of her talking to herself (which would not appear very reader friendly on the page).

Again, looks like I went out on a tangent about the question Stephen is asking. Maybe he could shed some light on the exact nature of the situation in the script?

To briefly summarize the arc of Sofia and her doll throughout the script, she starts off speaking to the doll and making the doll respond. They are two different "characters," but Sofia voices both. In the film, I expect it to be clear and obvious that Sofia is voicing the doll (her lips will move like a bad ventriloquist.)

As the story progresses, Sofia and the doll eventually merge into one. There is a scene where BEN locks Sofia in the basement with her doll overnight. Sofia and the doll have an argument and it becomes the final power struggle. Sofia emerges from the basement with the doll's personality, and later she throws the doll out the car window.

I've intentionally made the doll character's personality similar to Sofia's. Both characters are rude and arrogant, but the doll is murderous. It's as if Sofia has projected her murderous psyche on an inanimate object to rid herself of her past, but she cannot get rid of the doll because of the strong attachment she feels to it (the doll is essentially a part of her). This is why the two personalities become one again, and we have a snarky, murderous Sofia on the loose.

As far as the speaking parts go, Sofia only has an audible conversation with the doll when she's alone -- in front of people, they do the ear whispering thing. I want there to be a little bit of distinction between Sofia and the doll's voices, but not a whole lot. Toward the end of the movie, Sofia's voice becomes a muddle of her original voice and the doll's.

Simon is a volunteer at the asylum where Sofia resides/resided, and he helps her escape. He's 35 years old and madly in love with Sofia, and she uses this to her advantage.

Later in the movie, it's revealed that he has a nighttime alternate personality named Ben. Ben and one of the 8-year-olds from the asylum burglarize jewelry stores at night. Ben and Simon sometimes have conversations, too.

And if you're thinking "what the hell is?" in regards to the story, it's a dark comedy, not serious.

Then I firmly stand behind my first suggestion. Make the doll a character name. Even if it's just DOLL SOFIA. It'll save everyone a headache reading it and figuring out who is who. If I was reading it like you had it from the getgo, I'd be confused on why a character was speaking twice in a row. It'd look like a formatting error. But if you have a character that is DOLL, we'll see DOLL on the character slug and know somethings: how Sofia reacts to doll, if the dialogue sounds like Doll, etc. Doll will be a character (which Doll already is to Sofia).

Doll can be a character.

No. Of course not. DOLL is a VOICE. Again, think about the credits as I suggested. What actor plays "Doll"?

There is no REASON to do what you are suggesting. There are good reasons not to. Like getting written off by professional readers who think it's stupid to do things that way.

Let me ask you, have you ever seen a script that does that? I don't think so.

I expressed my REASONS, Lin. But for another go, here it is: It's going to look ass terrible on the page chalk full of parentheticals and Sophia's monologues. It won't look like a script. If this arrived on my desk in the form you suggest I'd find it difficult and less engaging to read and I would make a note of it on the coverage.

Have a ever read a script where the lead fulfills two character roles in the piece? Absolutely. I've recently read the script Requiem for a Dream in which the MC Sara has an alter ego on TV she interacts with that's slugged as RED SARA to distinguish the two. You're problem is that a doll is not an actor. It's a piece that the actor uses and therefore she's just using a different voice when she plays with the doll. However, as Stephen said in his summary, the doll becomes an alter ego of Sofia's and takes over. Exactly like Sara and Red Sara in Requiem for a Dream. Except it's a doll and we can see the voice actor voicing it in the same scene.

If this wasn't the same actress voicing Sophia as the doll, we wouldn't even be arguing. It would be DOLL. Just saw a film with a ventriloquist and his dummy. Dummy voice is from a voice actor, but it looks like the Ventriloquist is doing his thing and making the Dummy talk. They both get billing for their roles, clearly. It'd be the same for Sophia, except she'd get billing for being both the Ventriloquist and the Dummy in this case (or if you film it, you might find a voice actor that does a creepier doll voice than the lead actress... who knows?)

So, I recommended Sophia and Doll Sofia as a similar set up... or frankly, I wouldn't bat an eyelash at Sophia and Doll. Why? Because it'd still be clearer and more engaging than that mess of parentheticals. Professional scripts are, most importantly clear and engaging to read.

I'm sure Lin and I could argue about this forever. And I'm not sure that's going to be entirely helpful to you. Why don't you ask your screenwriter teacher what you had in mind and hear his/her response (Your teacher will know your piece more than I could). It may not be perfectly formatted just yet (but you are only on draft one), but it will be readable in class.

Yes, actor playing two roles. But NOT actor doing two voices, each slugged as a character.

REASONS don't matter...people are always wrong for a reason. I asked if you'd seen a pro script in which an alternative voice is listed as a character.

This is the only full screenplay I've ever written, but my gut was to use paren to specify when Sofia's doing the voice.

If repeating a character slug looks sloppy, consider this:

The longest Sofia/Doll conversation I have in the script is this:

SOFIA
Now what?

SOFIA
(mimicking the doll)
You’re asking me?

SOFIA
There’s no one else down here.

SOFIA
(mimicking the doll)
Figure it out for yourself. I’m not the one who’s going to starve to death.

SOFIA
You’re the one who told me to come down here in the first place!

SOFIA
(mimicking the doll)
Not my problem.

Sofia screams in frustration.

SOFIA
I hate you! I hate you!

Silence.

SOFIA (CONT’D)
I wish you were dead!

Silence.

SOFIA
(mimicking the doll)
I wish YOU were dead.


That's when the big screaming, psychotic fit goes on, and Sofia emerges from the basement the next day as the merged personality.



So, would it be too cumbersome to do this instead? --


SOFIA
(herself)
Now what?
(doll)
You’re asking me?
(herself)
There’s no one else down here.
(doll)
Figure it out for yourself. I’m not the one who’s going to starve to death.
(herself)
You’re the one who told me to come down here in the first place!
(doll)
Not my problem.

Sofia screams in frustration.

SOFIA (CONT'D)
(herself)
I hate you! I hate you!

Silence.

SOFIA (CONT’D)
(herself)
I wish you were dead!

Silence.

SOFIA (CONT'D)
(doll)
I wish YOU were dead.


Thoughts?

If this is the way you decide to go...

First is wrong becuase you are adding extra slugs. If Sophia is the only one talking, then you can only use one slug. Now, if there's action lines, you can then put a Sofia (cont'd) slug after the action. Slugs are meants to delinieate characters and who is speaking when. But using extra slugs reads odd and looks newbie-ish. As said before, if this was one my desk at work, I'd make a note that the writer had trouble with format.

The second is more correct if you use parentheticals. But most scripts limit dialogue to no more than 3 lines per a character as much as possible. (There's a long running joke that the best screenwriters were formily haiku poets ). Naturally, some long dialogues are still allowable, and even needed in a good script... but keep it in mind. If this is your longest/only scene like this, it won't kill your chances to do the script that way. But from my previous posts, you know my position on this.

Cheers,
Kay

Cheers

Wallmaker, where do you work? Production company?

Dark Horse Entertainment. It's the movie division of Dark Horse Comics.

Well, ask them to teach you a few things.

The idea that the second solution here is better is just nuts. Your reasons the first one, which is pretty normal is wrong doesn't make any sense whatsoever.