For a screenwriter, the script is the final product. But for an actor, the script is merely the starting line.
In a candid discussion about his 30-year career, spanning from local soaps like Isidingo to international blockbusters like Elysium and Chappie, Brandon Auret offers a masterclass on the symbiotic relationship between the page and the performance.
Here are five key insights for screenwriters on how to write scripts that attract and empower high-level talent.
1. The “Why” is More Important Than the “How”
When asked what he’d want from a ten-minute conversation with a screenwriter, Auret didn’t ask for line readings or tone notes… he asked for the purpose.
“Give me the blueprint of who the character is. Who, what, where, when and why. And be brutally honest with me… Give me the purpose of the character in the film.”
Avoid micromanaging the delivery in your action lines (e.g., “He picks up the cup angrily”). Instead, ensure the script clearly communicates the character’s fundamental motivation. If the writer provides the clear “Why,” the actor will provide the specific “How.” Auret notes that he creates the specific behaviors – the mannerisms, the physical ticks – based on the core truth the writer provides.
2. Leave Room for the “Invisible” Backstory
One of the most revealing moments of the interview is Auret’s anecdote about his character in the series Blood Drive. The script provided the basics: a psychopath who’s also a vegetarian.
Auret took those two written facts and built a terrifying, unwritten backstory to justify them:
The Prop: He asked the costume department for dog chains.
The Logic: He decided his character was abused by a father who bred fighting dogs. The character killed his father with the rib bone of a puppy he tried to save – hence the vegetarianism and the obsession with chains.
Your characters must be robust enough to support heavy interpretation. A “thin” character collapses under the weight of an actor’s preparation. A “thick” character invites the actor to layer on history, props and psychological depth that isn’t explicitly on the page.
3. Dialogue Should Be Designed for Reaction, Not Just Action
Auret drops a golden rule for screenwriting dynamics:
“The basis of acting should not be acting, should be reacting.”
He mentions that he doesn’t like to “run lines” to perfect a specific delivery. He prefers to learn the scene so well that he can listen and react in the moment.
Review your dialogue. Is your character simply waiting for their turn to speak, or is the dialogue forcing a reaction? The best scenes allow actors to play off one another. If a character is monologue-heavy without provoking a shift in the listener, the scene becomes static. The script provides the map, but the “play” happens in the reaction.
4. Clarify the Scene’s Hierarchy
Auret speaks about the discipline of knowing “your place” in a scene.
“Is this scene about you… or are you just kind of co-conspiracy in the scene to make this person more viable?”
Every scene has a driver. Screenwriters often make the mistake of trying to give every character a “moment” in every scene, which muddies the narrative flow. Be clear in your structure about whose perspective anchors the scene. When an actor understands they are there to support the lead’s realisation (rather than steal the show), the performance becomes tighter and the storytelling clearer.
5. Genre and Viability: The Business of Writing
Throughout the interview, Auret touches on the “business” side—distribution, funding and the new initiative he is involved with to fund films that have longevity. He mentions looking for scripts that aren’t just artistic expressions but have the potential for sequels, series adaptations (like Portside), or international distribution.
Artistic integrity is vital, but understanding the market is practical. Writing a script with “legs” – a story that can expand into a franchise or travel across borders (like the horror film Gaia or the action of District 9) – makes the project significantly more appealing to the actors and investors who will eventually bring it to life.
Brandon Auret’s approach proves that a script is a collaborative document. He views himself as “clay” to be molded by the director and the script, but that clay needs a strong armature to hold its shape.
To sum up… you’ve got to define the purpose for each character. Do they have a clear reason for existing in the story? Then, anchor the reality… does the character have logical inconsistencies that an actor can fill with backstory? Remember to prioritize reaction. Does the dialogue provoke an emotional response? Finally, trust the actor and write the emotion, rather than just the instruction.