A Screenplay: Chess

[sakabatou]

It's supposed to be a short film, under five minutes (edit: had to get rid of "<" and ">".

Comments appreciated.

First draft:

INT. A DARK ROOM NO LIGHTS, EXCEPT AMBIANT LIGHTING FROM A FEW CRACKS. Single spotlight SHOWS A SINGLE TABLE WITH TWO PLAIN CHAIRS. Camera PANS TOWARD the objects. As it gets near the table, camera sweeps up and over the table TILTING to the TOP of the table. A CHESS BOARD W/ PIECES ARE REVEALED.

CARD: Chess is war over the board…

ENT. TWO PLAYERS. They take their seat at the table.

CUT TO: CLOSE UP of PLAYER ONE’S EYES (white). They NARROW.

CUT TO: CLOSE UP of PLAYER TWO’S EYES (black). They NARROW.

CARD: … The object is to crush the opponent's mind. – BOBBY FISCHER

PLAYER ONE SCANS the chess board. CUT TO: A shot over PLAYER ONE’S shoulder.

FX: A PAWN “HEARTBEATS”. PLAYER ONE REACHES for the pawn and MOVES IT TWO SPACES FORWARD.

CUT TO: A man in a white gi. WG LOOKS UP at the camera.

CUT TO: PLAYER TWO. PLAYER TWO LOOK UP at the camera and then back down on the board.

CUT TO: A man in a black gi. BG LOOKS UP at the camera.

CUT TO: Shot of WG over BG’s shoulders.

CUT TO: Shot of both with a SPOTLIGHT overhead. CUT TO: Shot with both in frame. ZOOM OUT.

CUT TO: PLAYER ONE AND TWO MOVING their PIECES into position.

FX (OVERLAY): BG AND WG CIRCLE-UP. FADE TO BLACK. FADE TO:

CARD: Chess is a matter of delicate judgment, knowing when to punch and how to duck –BOBBY FISCHER

PLAYER ONE CAPTURES A PAWN.

CUT TO: WG PLANTING a PALM HEEL STRIKE to BG’S chest. BG BENDS FORWARD FROM STRIKE

CUT TO: PLAYER TWO CAPTURES PLAYER ONE’S PAWN

CONTINUE FROM: BG EXCUTES A CHICKEN WRIST TO WG’S CHIN AND THRUSTS PUNCHES WG IN THE SOLARPLEXUS

CUT BACK TO: PLAYER ONE AND TWO CONTINUE TO CAPTURE AND MOVE. With each capture, a photo of BG and WG FIGHTING FLASHES ON SCREEN and FADES TO BLACK.

SFX: THUNDER is HEARD with each picture.

FX: FADE TO BLACK. FADE FROM BLACK: BG and WG are physically tired. They are HUNCHED OVER, BREATHING HEAVILY. FADE INTO:

PLAYER TWO’S eyes. PLAYER TWO is SWEATING*. PAN TO:

PLAYER ONE’S eyes. PLAYER ONE is also SWEATING.

PLAYER _________ MOVES ROOK.

PLAYER _______: (MOUTHING) Check mate.

CUT TO: ______ DROPS TO THE FLOOR. FADE TO BLACK. FADE FROM BLACK TO:

CARD: The chessboard is the world, the pieces are the phenomena of the Universe, the rules of the game are what we call the laws of Nature and the player on the other side is hidden from us.

FADE TO BLACK. FADE FROM BLACK TO CREDITS.

[sakabatou]

1. Nobody? Nothing at all?

[Orrex]

2. Stay tuned

I'm putting something together for you, but it's not yet ready.

[sakabatou]

3. Okie dokie.

[Orrex]

4. Here's what I've got

I'm afraid that I simply don't have much practice at critiquing screenplays—most of experience is with fiction, with a minor dabbling in poetry critique. But here are a few thoughts. (mine are in boldface.)

INT. A DARK ROOM NO LIGHTS, EXCEPT AMBIANT LIGHTING FROM A FEW CRACKS. Single spotlight SHOWS A SINGLE TABLE WITH TWO PLAIN CHAIRS. Camera PANS TOWARD the objects. As it gets near the table, camera sweeps up and over the table TILTING to the TOP of the table. A CHESS BOARD W/ PIECES ARE REVEALED.

As far as I'm aware, the slugline should include only the basic setting (e.g., "Room" or "Street" or "Cornfield") and the basic light conditions (e.g., "Day" or "Night"). Here, you've blurred the description into the slugline, muddying both.

It's imperative that we see what the scene looks like. More to the point, the goal should be to spell it out explicitly for the director. In this paragraph, too much is ambiguous: "cracks," "objects," and "plain chairs" are far too vague IMO to establish the setting effectively. Are the "cracks" in the windows? The doorframe? An old wooden floor? You need to specify this, because it can make a big difference. Where is the "single spotlight" located? Directly overhead? In one corner of the room? Over one of the players' shoulder? Are the "plain chairs" plush recliners? Vinyl picnic furniture? Metal folding chairs? Let us see them!
Also, you have an inconsistency: you say that there's only ambient light, but there's also a spotlight? Does the spotlight come on suddenly, or is it on the whole time?

Also, you should avoid over-specific instruction about camera movements; that's the director's decision, and even if you write them in, she will ignore them if she has a different shot in mind. For the most part, just put the camera in the scene and let the director decide where to go with it.

Consider this as a possibility:

INT. MEETING ROOM - DAY
We see a dark room, much of it hidden in shadow with incidental light showing through cracks in the doorframe and around the drawn windowshades. A square metal table stands at the center of the room with a folding metal chair at either side. Directly over the table hangs a spotlight that illuminates a chessboard on the table. The chess pieces are positioned for the start of play, with the white pieces at the right side of the board.

I know what you're aiming for with the "CARD" notation, but I’m not sure of the formally correct format—sorry. My sense is that it should be something like

Is that the first part of the Fischer quote? I'm not familiar with it, but it sounds like a million other chess:war comparisons. As such, you risk sinking into an age-old cliché, unless you're very careful.

ENT. TWO PLAYERS. They take their seat at the table.

Typically, the notation should include at least a brief, general description of characters as they're introduced. Are the players male or female? Are they children or adults? Are they of a certain ethnicity? Are they notably thin or heavy? How do they enter? Do they simply emerge enigmatically from the darkness? Do they enter through the door? Through a pair of doors? In a conspicuously symbolic piece like this, these choices really make a big difference. If one player is male and one is female, then the game becomes a proxy for gender conflict. If one player is fat and one is thin, then it's a conflict of body-image. If one is old and one young, it's an age/generation issue. The permutations are endless, and you must be conscious of how you frame them in the text. Even if your intent is to have the characters represent varchetypes rather than people, you need to indicate this clearly.

Consider:

PLAYER ONE and PLAYER TWO enter simultaneously from the darkness at the right and left sides of the room, respectively. Player One is of average height and build with close-cropped hair, and he wears a charcoal gray suit. Player Two is likewise of average height and build with his hair cut short, and he's wearing a dark blue suit. They approach the table from opposite sides, shake hands over the chessboard, and take their seats.

Recast the characters if you wish, or adjust their wardrobe as you see fit, but you need to give details to provide the director with the raw materials for the scene. In any case, cut the part about "Their eyes narrow" because it's a heavy-handed directorial notation. If the director wants to show their eyes, she'll show them.

To be honest, you could probably do without the first card. As I mentioned, it's close to cliché, and the second card has the money-quote.

PLAYER ONE SCANS the chess board. CUT TO: A shot over PLAYER ONE’S shoulder.

FX: A PAWN “HEARTBEATS”. PLAYER ONE REACHES for the pawn and MOVES IT TWO SPACES FORWARD.

Too much direction—again, you're telling the director which shots to use. Also, I have no idea what A PAWN "HEARTBEATS" might mean. Does it morph in some way? Is it solely an audio effect? And which pawn? Player One has eight to choose from, so you need to specify!
Consider:

Player One scans the board. CU: King's Pawn. SFX: Heartbeat. Player One reaches for the pawn and moves it to e4.

This accomplishes the same thing without getting in the director's grill.

CUT TO: A man in a white gi. WG LOOKS UP at the camera.

Cut to him? Where? Is he in the room? Is he in a field? Is he atop a building?

Consider:

EXT. MEADOW – DAY
This is a green meadow in springtime. The grass is short and well-tended, and patches of flowers dot the landscape here and there. No trees are visible. The sky is clear except for a few white clouds.

MAN ONE is Asian and of average height. His head is shaved bald with a few days' growth of stubble, and he is barefoot. He wears a spotless white gi. He assumes a martial arts stance of readiness.

Rather than having an ambigous jump-cut from one vague settings to another, we now have two scenes that are visually distinctive and seem to have a feel of reality. Additionally, the director knows exactly what you have in mind, rather than having to figure out where the Man One is standing or how he got into the scene. I don't know what is gained by having him look into the camera, either—that likewise seems heavy-handed.

CUT TO: PLAYER TWO. PLAYER TWO LOOK UP at the camera and then back down on the board.

We're back in the room? Then that's what the slugline should show. I don't know why Player Two would look at the camera, either. More confusingly, it implies a connection between Man One and Player Two, since they've both looked into the camera. This is an ambiguity that doesn't seem to help the text.

INT. MEETING ROOM – DAY
Player Two scans the chessboard. He advances his Queen's pawn to e5.

See? Now the viewer knows which two pieces have been moved so far. Without identifying the pieces specifically, you're leaving it unhelpfully up in the air.

CUT TO: A man in a black gi. BG LOOKS UP at the camera.

Is he in the same place as Man One? Is he somewhere else? Why does he look at the camera?

Consider:

EXT. MEADOW – DAY
MAN TWO faces Man One from ten feet away. Man Two is also Asian and of average height. He has a crew cut and a thin moustache, and he wears a black gi. He is barefoot, and he assumes a stance of readiness to match Man One.

Now we have Man One and Man Two clearly established in physical proximity, and we know what kind of place they're standing in. Unless you clearly indicate that they're in the same place, they're not. It's up to you!

CUT TO: Shot of both with a SPOTLIGHT overhead.

Remove this—it's unnecessary direction.

CUT TO: Shot with both in frame. ZOOM OUT.

Remove this, too. They're already in the frame together, and what is gained by zooming out? If anything, that's the director's choice.

CUT TO: PLAYER ONE AND TWO MOVING their PIECES into position.

Since you're foregrounding chess-as-metaphor, you absolutely need to specify which pieces each player is moving. This may require you to research some classic games or else play a game and record the moves yourself. You can't simply say "they move their pieces" because we've got 32 pieces to think about! Make it specific.

Player One moves pawn to d4. Player Two moves pawn to d5.

Again, we know exactly which pieces have been moved and to where. This is necessary, because when they start capturing each other's pieces, we need to know where they are relative to each other.

FX (OVERLAY): BG AND WG CIRCLE-UP. FADE TO BLACK. FADE TO:

CARD: Chess is a matter of delicate judgment, knowing when to punch and how to duck –BOBBY FISCHER

I think you can omit the circle-up, because you're moving from chessboard to circle-up to card in pretty quick succession, and the circle-up doesn't really give us anything we don't already know. Move right to the card.

Show Card: "Chess is a matter of delicate judgment, knowing when to punch and how to duck – BOBBY FISCHER"

Then we're back to the chessboard:

PLAYER ONE CAPTURES A PAWN.

Notaton! Which pawn captures which pawn?

Player One captures e5.

Once again, we know which piece has captured which.

At this point, I confess, I become a little vague on the proper formatting. It seems as though you're going for a montage of images, intercutting between the chessboard and the martial artists. I'm not sure how you'd write that, exactly, but here are a few thoughts:

Unless it's absolutely relevant, you needn't specify karate-specific strikes or evasions. It's enough to say that they trade blows, and leave it to the fight's correographer to handle the specifics. Similarly, you don't have to explicitly identify each movement of the chess pieces, but make sure that, when the montage ends, you specify the arrangement of the board.

Continue to avoid over-reaching direction. Camera angles, close-ups, and zooms are the province of the director except in certain extreme (and significant) instances.

SFX: THUNDER is HEARD with each picture.

Honestly, I think that the repeated thunderclaps would quickly become tiresome. You might be better off with a stylized sound-effect of flesh-striking-flesh, or maybe no sound of impact at all. It's metaphorical fight, after all; the impacts needn't be any more "real" than the rest of it.

When the exchange has run its course, we slip out of the montage and back to the scene itself:

FX: FADE TO BLACK. FADE FROM BLACK: BG and WG are physically tired. They are HUNCHED OVER, BREATHING HEAVILY.

The Fade In and Fade Out are probably a directorial choice again, but the rest is pretty good. Consider this format, though.

EXT. MEADOW – DAY
Man One and Man Two are bruised and their clothes are rumpled from their violent exertions. They are hunched over, panting and soaked with sweat, but their eyes are locked on one another, ready for the fight to resume.

We then move back to the chessboard:

PLAYER TWO’S eyes. PLAYER TWO is SWEATING*. PAN TO:

PLAYER ONE’S eyes. PLAYER ONE is also SWEATING.

I think you spend far too much time on tight closeups, and on-screen this would degrade almost into a self-caricature. You're better off just keeping with the scene as a whole and letting the director move in for tight shots as needed.

INT. MEETING ROOM – DAY
Player One and Player Two regard each other over the chessboard. Each bears a sheen of sweat on his forehead, and both are fatigued as from a colossal struggle.

With this, we steer the action and set the stage for the culmination. But you make, I think, a monumental error in the next bit:

PLAYER _________ MOVES ROOK.

PLAYER _______: (MOUTHING) Check mate.

You absolutely can't leave it up in the air like that. You're the writer, so it's up to you to write it. Instead, you're playing a choose-your-own-adventure sort of game, and it simply won't work.

Since this is a continuation of the scene, it doesn't require a new slugline. By this point you'll need to have spelled out the position of all pieces remaining on the board, especially the locations of the kings and the rook.

Player One moves his Rook, trapping Player Two's king.

Really, that's all you need. You don't have to have anyone say (or mouth) "checkmate," because anyone who knows anything about chess will know that that's when the game is over. And by cutting to the karate guys, you underscore it explicitly.

CUT TO: ______ DROPS TO THE FLOOR. FADE TO BLACK. FADE FROM BLACK TO:

Again, you must specify which fighter is beaten. In my framing, Player One/Man One has been victorious, so we maintain that here:

EXT. MEADOW – DAY
Man One strikes a final blow to the center of Man Two's chest. Man One withdraws two steps, and Man Two totters, uncertain on his feet. Man One resumes his posture of relaxed readiness, and Man Two falls to the ground.

Then we're back to the card:

CARD: The chessboard is the world, the pieces are the phenomena of the Universe, the rules of the game are what we call the laws of Nature and the player on the other side is hidden from us.

To be frank, this strikes me as a trifle over-written. Everyone in the world is familiar with this metaphor, and anyone who's still watching by this point will already have heard that "we're all just pawns." You make an interesting choice by identifying the pawns as "the phenomena of the Universe," but it's kind of tacked-on here at the end without precedent and with nothing in the film to support it. Therefore it comes off as coffeeshop philosophizing rather than a new or engaging insight. Worse, it doesn't connect to the Fischer quotes in any identifiable way, so we're left wondering why you included them, other than to attach a celebrity name to your film.

I'd suggest going with something simpler.

Show Card: "The chessboard is the world. We are the pieces and the players. We make the rules, and the rules make us. Chess is combat, and victory is not assured until the final move."

Or something like that, maybe.

FADE TO BLACK. FADE FROM BLACK TO CREDITS.

The first fade here is okay, but the fade to credits is superfluous.

Fade to black. Roll credits.

I hope that this doesn't seem harsh or mean, but there are some things you need to consider very seriously. Of utmost importance, you have to familiarize yourself with proper screenplay format. If you intend to submit your work for publication, you won't get in the door unless you've mastered this basic first step.

This is a visual medium, so any references to thoughts, smells, feelings, or memories are irrelevant--you've done an excellent job avoiding these! Bravo--the temptation to include these can be very strong and hard to overcome.

A screenplay should not be written to try to surprise the actors or director. The screenplay presents the story, setting, and plot, and the director takes care of the surprises. If a character enters a scene, you must indicate who he or she is. If he's concealing a significant object in his fist, you must reveal what it is. These revelations needn't be shown on-screen outright, but the director, in shooting the scene, has to know what's going on. If your writing comes across as evasive or confusing (or confused), then it will be rejected.

Lastly, it must be stated again that the chess/combat metaphor is as old as chess itself, and it's been done to death a thousand times over. To be blunt, the film as you've laid it out seems like a commercial for a car or a new razor. If your intent it to put forth a commentary on the nature of humanity in the universe, chess might be too tired as a metaphor to be effective here.

I'm sorry I don't have anything more concrete to offer. I applaud your intent to craft a screenplay, which is every bit as difficult as writing a novel (or short story) of equivalent length.

Best of luck in your revisions! If you have any questions for me, I'll be happy to answer where I can.

[sakabatou]

5. Couple of things to consider

1. It's a first draft
2. I am the director
3. Haven't chosen my actors yet, nor do I know who has which gender.
4. "Heartbeats" it's an effect I've seen on TV animation. Not sure what it's really called.

It's ok. I can take it. So thanks. I really appreciated it :D

[Orrex]

6. Fair enough!

Writer/director is fine, of course. You still might try to get a basic framing of the characters to help you with your casting, but you could probably do without that if you intend to handle the casting yourself. Just be conscious of the implications of man-vs-woman or old-vs-young and the like!

First draft is fine, too. I have a million and one first drafts sitting around, so I sympathize.

As for the suggestions themselves, they're yours. You may discard them or use them as you wish, with no obligation express or implied, and no questions asked.

Again, best of luck with revision!