Question: Bolded sluglines — yes or no?
Open forum question from The Douche Guide:
bolded sluglines
thoughts?
Let me back into the subject by talking first about transitions — CUT TO, DISSOLVE TO, SMASH CUT TO, etc. My sense of style trends is that they are being used less and less. Why? I suspect because they can prove unnecessary. Worse they essentially eat up two lines of space. Two words for two entire lines of space? What a waste! If you insert a transition between each scene and your script has 60 scenes, that means you have over 2 pages of wasted space, pages you could have used to enhance your story or lower your pages count (thereby winning the gratitude of weary script readers everywhere).
And here’s the thing: If you’re consistent with how you use primary sluglines — you only use them when making a transition from one scene to the next — you can ‘train’ the reader to make the transition without using CUT TO, DISSOLVE TO, etc.
The singular advantage of using a transition is that it creates a literal break in the text that clearly communicates to a reader the story is moving from one scene to the next. For instance, here is an excerpt from Aliens that uses CUT TO to signify the transition from one scene to the next:
Ripley turns sharply away, trembling with frustration
and anger. Dallas looks back at her from the video
screen, his eyes burning from the photograph, as we:
CUT TO:
INT. CORRIDOR
Ripley kicks the wall next to Burke who is getting coffee
and donuts at a vending machine.
All that white space to the left of CUT TO: creates a gap that signifies to a reader there is a scene transition. However that’s also wasted space. So what if you did this instead:
Ripley turns sharply away, trembling with frustration
and anger. Dallas looks back at her from the video
screen, his eyes burning from the photograph, as we:
INT. CORRIDOR - DAY
Ripley kicks the wall next to Burke who is getting coffee
and donuts at a vending machine.
What if you bolded the primary slugline? Isn’t that equally effective in underscoring the scene transition — without the aid of CUT TO, enabling the writer to save two lines of space?
Are there screenwriters who do this? Yes. For example, Alan Ball. In his screenplay for American Beauty, Ball not only bolds primary sluglines, he underlines them, too:
Lester watches her through a WINDOW on the first floor,
peeping out through the drapes.
LESTER (V.O.)
That's my wife Carolyn. See the way
the handle on those pruning shears
matches her gardening clogs? That's
not an accident.
EXT. JIMS' HOUSE - CONTINUOUS
In the fenced front yard of the house next door, a dog BARKS
repeatedly. A MAN in a conservative suit (JIM #1) chastises
the barking dog.
The bottom line for me is making the script as readable as possible, while avoiding wasteful screenplay elements like transitions and parentheticals. And to my knowledge, there’s no Golden Rule prohibiting bolding sluglines. So if it tickles your stylistic fancy, I say why not.
UPDATE: Responding to comments, let me underscore the point: You may use bold for sluglines, however that is purely a stylistic choice on your part, not my personal recommendation. Again if you are consistent in using primary sluglines to signify the beginning of a new scene, that alone should be enough to convey the transition to the reader — ergo you don’t need bold or underline. But like Alan Ball, an Academy Award and Emmy winning writer, you may choose to do it because it suits your style.
Comment Archive