Look, since part of this scene is about the relationship of the cop with the prosecutor, get him to go to the police station if everything is that urgent.

In real life Queen Elizabeth I never meet Mary Queen of Scots, but they meet in quite a few films because it helps the drama and the story if they met. It works because the audience believes they meet as they're watching the film, even if a few know they didn't actually meet..

You're wildly over thinking this.

Ryan - encryption has been around for years. In the UK, the Police constantly talk about case details to the Criminal Prosecution Service and my son books offenders into a centralised custody suite in Norfolk, when he arrests them in Suffolk, and can view everything remotely. The only thing NOT done is the conversations between the acused and their legal representation because the people who COULD listen in, are the people who shouldn't! (but of course could).

It's now common for people to give evidence from their prison and not have to go to court, and in child or sexual abuse cases, distance evidence is less stressful - but private.

Look, since part of this scene is about the relationship of the cop with the prosecutor, get him to go to the police station if everything is that urgent.

In real life Queen Elizabeth I never meet Mary Queen of Scots, but they meet in quite a few films because it helps the drama and the story if they met. It works because the audience believes they meet as they're watching the film, even if a few know they didn't actually meet..

You're wildly over thinking this.

Oh okay, thanks. But you said before that the audience wouldn't believe if they kept a witness waiting for about 30 minutes, if they wanted to call the prosecutor and go over things with him. So how is it that the audience won't believe asking a witness to wait, yet they will believe the prosecutor coming down in person?

Isn't it just substituting one character being inconvienced for another? What makes one more believable than the other to the audience, just so I know?

It appears not to be a mere witness, but the rape victim, which is entirely different. However, I suspect such a person wouldn't be left on their totally own for long periods. If you do that the audience will possibly lose sympathy with your policeman.

Can't you plot anything? The prosecutor could already be there, since.I assume that this is a planned interview if it's going over stuff for the court hearing the next day. Alternately, he could be in the police statioon for other business (they do work on more than one case) and gets informed about the victim possibly changing her statement.

Since this also about a relationship, the two men being in the same location, kills two birds with one stone and the response to her statement can be very quick

You want to keep things moving in a thriller.

Well the way I wrote it was, is that she is trying to avoid getting involved in the case, so the main character cop found her, since she was dodging his efforts, and talked her into coming in. But since he didn't know when he was going to find her, and didn't know he could talk her into it, the interview is an unexpected interview, so the prosecutor would have to drop everything, spur the moment, just to go there, if that's believable.

Another thing is, is that after she reveals some new information in her statement, the main character and the prosecutor have to leave the room to talk about it, because they want to go over some things without her hearing about it.

I wanted the main character to leave the room and call the prosecutor, because then the prosecutor can just talk over the phone with his voice, and the actor does not have to be in two scenes. But if he is there during the interview, that is two scenes he has to be in then.

But also, would he drop everything and come over, if the interview was unexpected? Plus even though it's not polite to make her wait, I still need the main character and prosecutor to leave the room so they can talk about the new development without her wanting to hear about it. So wouldn't they have to keep her waiting anyway, therefore?

Would there be a court hearing the next day if she hasn't wanted to proceed with her allegations of rape until this point?

Yes they were still going to go ahead without her but the police wanted to find her before the hearing and get her to do an additional statement and try to persuade her into getting more involved if they could. At least that is how I wrote it so far. If it comes off as too heartless for the main character to keep her waiting while they talk, I could have him just say to the prosecutor "We shouldn't keep her waiting, what would you like to do"? If something like that would help?

It sounds like it needs more work on your part..

Oh okay thanks. Is there anything you were thinking of specifically, besides the dialogue?

I would do some research on how rape cases are handled.

Oh well in my research, normally in those kinds of interview with a female victim, they want a female interviewer and since the prosecutor and the main character are both male, so far I wrote it so that they sit outside and wait for a female interviewer to be done, and then go over the new developments in the interview after. If that is a good way to write, according to the research.

Or I could go by the Kubrick notion, that it may be realistic but is it interesting, and just have the main character and prosecutor in their as well.

Are you trying to follow investigative practice or wrote a movie script? You don't seem to understand very much about the way rape is dealt with, and being such a personal subject, not being female makes writing this something that is probably just not going to work. Rape counselling and criminal investigation of rape is a very sensitive and quite controlled process. It's common for them to use special suites in the building with softer lighting, comfy chairs and trained female (or even male personnel in certain cases) to do the talking. Other officers may or may not view the interviews live via cameras, and probably they will be recorded. Your story doesn't seem to follow procedure, and these kinds of errors will really annoy people if you get it wrong in process, or in attitude. I think we told you before this part of your script is very, very difficult to manage. Get it wrong and you will offend, trivialise, compartmentalise, judge and divide your audience without VERY great care. I don't think I could write a scene like this without a huge amount of help from specialists.

Your script is going back to where we were last year isn't it? We tried to talk you around then, and we've just closed the circle and started again.

Oh okay, but I wrote the scene so that it takes place in such a room. I already wrote it the way you described, which is one of the reasons I wrote it so that the prosecutor was not in the room. Did I not write it that way, or did I do something different? I already wrote it so a femaly interviewer does the talking, but it was suggested to me before to bring in the prosecutor to make the scene more convenient, if I should? Plus I took the advice given before about the script and made changes and improvements that were recommended to me before.

I’m not sure if we have an equivalent in our system? I’m lost. Who in your system is the prosecutor. A lawyer? In our system the police prosecute, linked to our CPS system, but the legal people for prosecution and defence only get a voice in court, they don’t join in work to investigate or interrogate.

Being in the building watching a video feed, isn't the same as the prosecutor being in the room. I assume the policeman also isn't in the interview room, if that's the case they could be sitting together discussing the interview as they view the live video feed in the police station. This would also allow them working together to be established. .

Or, the prosecutor could be in their office talking to the policeman in the police station, as they both view a live video feed interview. As Paul mentioned, they could be using an encrypted feed, so we don't need to go around in circles about that. They could talk over the phone as they watch.

You didn't provide the full picture earlier, you called the person a witness, instead they are the rape victim. Providing incomplete information means that you can easily get conflicting or wrong information back.

Ryan's arrangement sounds like the French one or an assistant district attorney in the USA.

Oh okay thanks. Sorry for not getting more into it. I didn't think the prosecutor could watch it live, but I can write it that way, if they can. One movie where the prosecutor watches the recording after, the fact was Wild Things (1998), but perhaps that's because it's in the 90s, compared to now?

Also, what do you mean when you say 'the French one'? That French TV show, recommended before? They would have to wait till the video is over before discussing the bulk of it though, which means they would still have to keep her waiting though, but if I write that the main character does not want to keep her waiting, is that better?

It's the French legal system. There;a a link above that explains the role of an investigating magistrate.

Watching a live feed is the easy way out.

Oh okay, and by easy way out, you mean lazy way out, writing wise?

No, given what you want to achieve it's the easiest way of doing this.

Oh okay. I just that the live feed would be more work in the sense that I need to shoot the prosecutor watching with at least a voice over effect of the dialogue. Where as it's less work, to just show the interview room scene only, then cut to the next scene in the office, discussing it with the prosecutor, which I thought would be less footage and less audio, since I do not have to show the prosecutor watching therefore. Unless I am wrong?

I could write so that the prosecutor is viewing it remotely. However, I still want him and the main character to have a discussion about her statement without her hearing about it. That means he will have to leave the room while she waits, and that was the issue before, it was said as to being clunky. So is it possible for a detective and a prosecutor to talk about the case, without the victim of the crime hearing about it, without it being clunky?

The policeman can have a quick chat over the phone with the prosecutor, if they're remote having anything more will slow things down. Having an in depth discussion will be going over old ground for the audience, unless there's some kind of argument/debate between them, will add little to whats going on.

There's no big deal in shooting the prosecutor watching the live feed, That can be done anytime.

The victim doesn't need to in attendance while they're talking.

Having anything else will just be bad daytime TV drama.

Is the police man going to drive round to the prosecutor's office to have this chat, while the rape victim is left waiting?

Oh okay. No he was not going to drive to the prosecutors office. The way I wrote it was that the main character has a female interviewer do the interview, based on what an LEO told me in my research, and then the main character was going to take that statement and make a phone call, and talk about it. He was then going to take the victim home. They are not going over old ground, just some new developments in the statement, as well as establishing the relationship.

Or at least that is how I wrote it so far, unless it should be different of course.

You can do that, but it doesn't really sound like the best way to establish a relationship. As I said, it' sounds like poor daytime television..

Oh okay, why isn't it the best way, or what would be better?

If this prosecutors is a key character, dramatically you need something that establishes their character and the current power relationship between them and the policeman. If the audience hasn't seen the prosecutor character before, they need something more than a phone call.to confirm than a statement from an interview is OK.

Watch LA Confidential to see how each character is introduced there.

Oh okay thanks. I have a copy of L.A. Confidential and like that one, but what am I looking for specifically? The fact that supporting characters are not introduced on phone calls?

If you've got any talent as a writer you'll quickly spot how characters are introduced.

Are you referring to how the more major characters names are subtitled on the screen when they are introduced?

Yes subtitle everything that will eliminate all confusion. ;-)

Speaking of subtitles. Did you ever finish the interview?

Yeah the interview is finished but I have to meet up with the guy for him go over some of what he said that I could not understand what he said in order to edit in the b roll properly.

Since I was talking about color in movie looks, I also came across this:

Why Great Movies use the Three Color Rule - YouTube

It talks about how some movies only use a 3 color rule. However, in a movie in the video like Drive for example, they talk about how drive has three colors, brown, blue and red. But they mostly show the scenes that take place in daylight. The night scenes have a lot of orange and green in them. So are they not counting those colors, or do those colors not count because the lights of night in LA. are orange and green, and that's just happenstance, and not the actual colors they picked intentionally, compared to happenstance atmosphere?

The project I was planning on for, for the colors, I can think of six colors I would use. Brown, blue, red, black, white and grey. But do shades out count as colors? But for mine there is a sequence set in the forest/woods area, and the trees are green of course. Does that mean green is a part of the color s I would be using then, or does it not count if it's just happenstance because that is what trees are?

And if I shoot the night scenes at night, there will be orange lights on the street. So would orange count as part of a color pallet I am using then, or no?

How much do you learn about each character when they first appear in LA Confidential?

A good amount I would say. What are you saying :). Are you saying I should introduce the prosecutor another way?

If they are an important character in your story, yes.

If this court hearing is just to get a search warrant and you don't hear about the prosecutor character again, the phone call is probably unnecessary, a line about getting a warrant will do the job.

That's unless there is some difficulty in getting a warrant. In which case, I would assume that this character will have more involvement later in the story than just getting the correct paper work.

Yes the character has more involvement in the story. There's more complications to go over them just a search warrant.

I don't have anything for the prosecutor to do plot wise, before this scene though, therefore shouldn't this be his first see if I don't have anything for him to do prior?

That's why getting him into the police station would made sense. He could be there for other business, if this is in the US, he could be a DA up for reelection. You need to create a character otherwise he's just a cardboard cutout.

Oh okay, I was thinking of setting it where I live, Canada, but maybe I could the US. But I have him there for other business, and then the witness is conveniently there, wouldn't this come off as a convenient coincidence in the plot though?

Films are full of coincidences, if they weren't they'd take forever to tell the story. Real life is full of them as well.

Yeah that's true, it's just I was just advised not to use them before.

So when you say it sounds like daytime TV, I am just trying to understand, it's not like there needs to be chases or shootouts all the time, or what is it that there should be instead of dialogue driven scenes, or are dialogue driven seens, just not exciting enough?

Yeah that's true, it's just I was just advised not to use them before.

So when you say it sounds like daytime TV, I am just trying to understand, it's not like there needs to be chases or shootouts all the time, or what is it that there should be instead of dialogue driven scenes, or are dialogue driven seens, just not exciting enough?
No offense but you have a very on the nose approach that one often sees in day time tv soap operas. I can already envision an office that's supposed to be a police station, bad actors with flatly delivered dialog...
For me, when I watch a movie, I want to be taken on an unexpected journey with characters I care about.

Oh okay. Is it just because of past actors and dialogue in past projects, or is there something about the description of this scene and this script particularly that seems made for TV? Or that makes it seem you do not care about the characters? Or am I doing something specific in this description of the script that seems on the nose?

From what you've been saying, it's pretty much both.

Ryan, you have trouble contextualising. Remember we’ve told you dozens of times not to take specific advice as rule setting. Clearly, from the number of times we’ve told you our opinions, only to have them resurface wrongly, means you can’t do this. You say you were advised, but you have misunderstood the advice and done your thing, crested a rule for your very thick book.

Frankly, everything you are saying shouts loudly to me that this script is truly dire. Awful. Bad. You have no skills in story telling. Everything is confused and you’re tampering with everything to make it fit and it’s just unreal, artificial, trivial, complicated, but above all it’s BORING. If you put the best bits in a trailer, nobody will watch. Brian has tried and tried and we’re all watching you reject every positive and focus again on trivia.

What makes you even think there is something that a typical distributor would find a box office hit?

It’s the basis for a terrible movie. Here, even when you explain we scratch our heads, the audiences will treat it like a bad daytime tv drama, and you don’t even have the actors or locations, let alone crews. Sorry, but I have to say it. The script is just dead in the water.

Oh okay, but what I don't understand is, what is it about a scene where a detective talks with a prosecutor over a case, that is so bad? What are the specifics? You say it's bad, but there are lot other movies, where this happens, so what is so bad about it specifically?

What about it is unreal, or artifical, trivial, etc. It seems that the advice is very broad, and no one is putting their finger on it exactly, unless I am wrong?

I mean all I did was describe a scene where a detective talks to a prosecutor about the case, which builds into the next plot point. Can anyone pinpoint, what is so trival, or unreal about that

But as far as dialogue being boring goes, what is it about it that's boring? I can't have chases and shootouts for the entire thing. There has to be story and dialogue, to drive some of it, doesn't it? Or do I have to have chases and shootouts for all of it, if that is what you and everyone else is expecting?

Also, if I cut the scene because it is boring, I am worried that the audience will not understand the pay off later unless there is no set up. Unless audience does not need set up, and it's all about pay off?

Now I know I don't need physical action such as chases and shoot outs for the whole thing of course, but why can't I have dialogue driving the plot in some sections, without it coming off as trivial, or unreal?

Drama is about conflict, that's why you have bosses who the main protagonist has problems with and in rom coms the couple who get together at the end can't stand each other that the beginning of the film.

It's about overcoming difficulties and involves struggling to overcome these. Each scene has to be good or bad in the protagonist achieving their goal, but there needs to be an element of struggle within it. If there isn't. you need to question why it's there.

If the phone call just involves conveying some information, you need to ask if there's a more dramatic way of doing this. Don't ask us, it's something you need to ask yourself, because the answers lie in your script and the characters you've created.

Conflict doesn't just mean fights, its how the characters make their power plays.


.

Oh okay, well I felt there is a new development in the victim's testimony in which the prosecutor now had to make a big decision, which is make or break, on a ticking clock before the hearing tomorrow. So I thought it was dramatic, or so I thought.

If this is the first time that the audience have come across the prosecutor and the cop is informing him about new testimony, that an expositional scene, there's no drama in it.

If the audience already knows that the prosecutor doesn't like dealing with rape cases (e.g. because of the high failure rate) and want to drop this one, so the cop has to turn the prosecutor's view of the case with this new testimony. That's where the drama lies.

Oh okay, well it's just that the cop tells the prosecutor of a new development and this causes the prosecutor to make a decision, If I cut it, the audience will not know what development caused the prosecutor to make such a decision. So I feel like the audience needs to see it for the pay off later, but that's just me...

Yes, but in drama, you need more, without being melodramatic about it. Especially, if this is the first time that the audience comes across the prosecutor. Having the cop persuade the prosecutor against his initial decision (which he wants to hold onto) to this new one is what would make the scene more interesting.

The conflict and struggle reveals more about the characters, that's why in films conveying a vital piece of information is made difficult.

Ryan the way you describe your movie/script is akin to reading an owners manual who’s purpose is to inform rather than entertain. You’re characters don’t behave naturally, instead they’re follow this overthought tedious rigid plot you’ve carefully constructed. You’re telling the audience a series of facts and events. All movies need plots but if one were to relate them directly to the audience it would be uninteresting.

Why don't you give us two or three pages of the dialogue for the scene, so we can be accurate. It could be that it reads really well and we will form opinions on the character - we're endlessly discussing ABOUT the dialogue, without actually being able to see it? Maybe it's your descriptions that are making us think it's not good? That's possible? Just give us an example of the words in the performance context.