SCREENWRITING ADVICE... What do you think?

[RPM323]

"Always write dialogue first. Description is worthless. The camera does that. Only through dialogue do you know the scene's intention. Why does he/she say it? Dialogue is everything. It's important because it makes you think about motive. Writing cinematically means you don't give a sh*t about motive. Dialogue is people structuring people. Forget the formula of 'structure first and dialogue later.' For me, dialogue is paramount. It's easier to write and to read back to see if it makes sense. Write dialogue and then come back and see what it means. Structure is useless because it doesn't come from character. It's imposed from outside. Structure is the easy way; that's why most studio execs and development people are always talking about it. It's the only way they can think because they are not writers. Ultimately, however, the guy who gets the job is the one who writes the great characters. Writing the dialogue first is how you discover the character. Otherwise, you have two characters talking in the same voice."

This isn't my personal advice, I didn't write it but a screenwriter did. I thought it was interesting... what do you guys think?

[RyRy]

I would guess you'd find very successful screenwriters who would offer just the opposite advice.

[Strange Mind]

unless i'm writing a scene that's action or needs descriptive prose and nothing else (like say...when enemy planes fly in and drop bombs), i almost always write dialogue, first. i find it a little distracting, if i have a good beat going, to worry about an action or an expression, to write in for the character. i'll write the dialogue, then go in and break it up with "Jack lights another cigarette" or "Grace adjusts her collar", etc.

the writer certainly expressed his pov strongly. but like many of us understand, there are no hard and fast rules to screenwriting. we do what works for us.

how else do you feel? you do anything like that?

[jacinthee]

RPM, that's the way I write naturally but I would never say it's the only way to write. My approach is usually character-driven and I'm confortable with it. I like to listen to my characters and what they have to say is crucial to me. Action comes less easy to me.

I have heard the opposite of your quote many times - that dialogue doesn't/shouldn't matter in film. I don't believe that, but I don't believe either that dialogue should be the only important element. Why state the extremes? Isn't a balance between good structure/action and dialogue the key?

Jacinthe

[screenwright]

I was in film school during a transitional period when cinematography was still taught to beginners using Super 8 film. The great part of this was that the Super 8 sync sound process was so awkward and cumbersome that the school never invested in the means to produce sync sound films.

This required a whole new way of thinking from the filmmaker. We were not allowed to use title cards or anything like that. The professor wanted us to tell stories through action rather than words.

It was a great experience from a writing standpoint.

I think films written in the manner you referred to would tend to be very "on the nose". As a student of human nature, I am far more interested in what people do than what they say.

Where theater is an art form based primarily on verbal, intrapersonal conflict, the cinema gives us the most powerful tool ever for mixing action and dialogue.

It's interesting how this theory of cinema kind of discounts all works created before the existence of sync sound.

[Wolfman262]

One of the most important things you can remember when writing a script - "show, don't tell"

[callitt]

Ditto, wolfman. Welcome aboard.

It may be the individual writer's preference to get the dialogue out first. So be it if it works for them. I do sometimes just jot down conversations between characters in my story notes, so I certainly understand that approach, BUT:

To say 'writing cinematically means you don't give a sh*t about motive' is just plain wrong. I would hope a professional screenwriter doesn't have such an attitude.

My personal style is to write the visuals and the dialogue at the same time. If I'm not clear on one aspect of the scene, I write it as it's in my head.


Characters have both visual and verbal aspects, and it's equally important to define both.

Remember, 'action is character'.

[RPM323]

CALLITT: You said:
"To say 'writing cinematically means you don't give a sh*t about motive' is just plain wrong. I would hope a professional screenwriter doesn't have such an attitude."

The words I posted were from an interview with a successful, professional screenwriter. Of course, he could still be 'wrong'... but I guess it's his attitude nonetheless.

Interesting responses from many-- thanks.

--rpm

[callitt]

Yes, it's his attitude, but I don't understand why he feels it's necessary to put down someone else's method of writing just because he doesn't utilize that method. Good screenwriters care a great deal about character & motivation. Building those characters is a matter of individual style.

Does such an outlook make this individual feel superior to other writers? Is that a power drink of ego he really needs? Does it help this writer land more assignments or create better characters when he poops on his colleagues' efforts?

I see no benefit in such an outlook.