Dialogue

[Joel Kaye]

Film writers have become so subservient to plot (which is grossly overvalued)

I'm not sure what movies you're thinking of but there are a lot of plotless movies out there. And the Coen brothers hve a lot of interesting plot. BUT they have good characters and dialogue too.

A movie with no plot but a lot of dialogue is something I see film students and first timers pretty regularly. Many writers fall in love with their own words. And it's godawful 99.98% of the time.

I agree about the hems and haws.. but that's good acting and directing. When actors try to perform a hem and haw written into the script they aren't acting anymore. It has to come organically from the emotional context and the actor's they are interacting with.

I think every writer should be required to write at least 10 minutes with no dialogue at all. I think a lot of writers lean on dialogue because they aren't movie writers. Maybe they are novelists or playwrights... but they aren't movie writers. I think dialogue is overrated compared to story. I think people go to the movies for a good, surprising emotional -->story<--. Concept is still king if you want people to pay for what you're making.

 

[alexwhitmer]

It is especially difficult to create characters that extend beyond the borders of the film - they often, as a result of being defined solely by their actions and shorthand stereo types, are nothing more than objects created to serve plot points.

Spot on!

Plot point angst. Formulae hysteria. Three-act subservience. And dialogue is always the first victim in this separation of character from realness.

 

[Joel J. Feigenbaum]

Welcome to Fight Club. The first rule of Fight Club is: you do not talk about Fight Club. The second rule of Fight Club is: you DO NOT talk about Fight Club!

Film is a visual medium. Thus, the first rule of Film is: show it (visually), don't talk about it. The second rule of Film is: DO NOT talk about it, propel your story forward visually, whether it be by setting or an angle that CONVEYS WHAT YOUR ACTORS ARE DOING OR FEELING.

Only as a last resort, talk about it. And then only with dialogue that is cut to the bone. Never use two sentences when one will do. Never use two words when you can use one. Never use one word when the actor can get the point across WITH HIS OR HER ACTING. That's why the close-up on a big screen is one of the most powerful EMOTIVE FORCES IN THE UNIVERSE.

See how much easier the challenge of writing good dialogue just became?

And by the way, good motion picture dialogue has nothing to do with the way people talk in the real world. Two completely different animals.

 

[alexwhitmer]

I think the main culprit of bad dialogue in shorts has more to do with relying too much dialogue to tell the story.

This is very true. Exposition dialogue is relied on to fill in where 6 minutes couldn't quite wrap a complete story. This is poor writing used to cover poor writing.

I have to admit, though. Telling an engaging 'beginning-middle-end' story in under ten minutes is a challenge. It works well in short-story book where 'the audience' can choose their own pace and get lost in the story.

Conversely, in movies, short or feature, the pace at which information is given and received is defined by the film. You have X amount of minutes to experience and interpret what is happening. In the theater, anyways. You can always hit pause at home.

I'm of the school where dialogue should be added only to reinforce what is already being told visually on screen. That can be done with few, well-chosen - and realistic - words.

Some of these shorts have redefined the term 'talkies'.

That said, there are some really bad short stories in book as well. No matter what pace you choose, they still suck.

a

 

[Joel Kaye]

DO NOT talk about it, propel your story forward visually, whether it be by setting or an angle that CONVEYS WHAT YOUR ACTORS ARE DOING OR FEELING.

Reminds me of a quote I watched on a DVD called "Tales From the Script". It's a book also - very good.

One writer states he was working with Harrison Ford and Harrison said "this is a really nice monologue you've written, but I'm not going to say it. I can do this with a look." The writer then said "and he could".

It's a great lesson. And interesting because most actors WANT more dialogue. They want to say cool stuff, but often that's not what's best for the movie. Ergo - a good writer and director have to protect the MOVIE.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Some good points, but this bit bothers me. Few pretend. If they love it, they genuinely love it, most people. I don’t know who I am quoting, but I think it is Tarkovsky – “Cinema should be truthful, not understandable. Because truth is seldom easy to understand.” Now, that quote does not apply to experiential films you have talked about.

I'm not dismissing abstract work. And quoting Tarkovsky is preaching to the choir. Solaris is one of my all time favorite films. But it's also LOOOOOONNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGGG. He fits a LOT of material into that film. Far more than could be done through dialog because it's so abstract. You have to take time after the film to 'decompress' all the film that was packed into the gaps.

But they key in Tarkovsky films is that it's *actually there*. 99.9% of abstract films it's not a case of "I don't get it" it's a case of it just being left out. It's like taking a novel and removing every third word and calling it poetry or throwing out 2/3rds of your screen play at random and calling it abstract. It's not abstract because you weren't compressing information into less accessible delivery formats--it's just plain missing.