Dialogue

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Dialogue

    Hi,


    I have been reading all the ideas/ rules about dialogue in screenplays and for the second time came across the, "You should be able to identify a character through his dialogue in a screenplay even if his name/slug is removed from the screenplay.-


    I have tried that on a couple of them (produced, well-known titles) with no right success. The dialogue reads normal, it does what it is supposed to (moves the story forward, unveils things...) but no way in hell I was able to identify a character after page 10 only by his dialogue; except by Yoda from Star Wars, Forest Gump, and the little dwarf from Lord of the rings.



    In "Dialogue Secrets,- this is only one of 40 rules. Most of the others are really helpful and logical, but this one...? To write dialogue like that could take me years and at the end, the result would be an awkward piece of work.


    Is this a rule meant only for high concept movies like Star Wars, LOR..., and even then only by certain main characters?


    Thanks for any comments.

  • #2
    Re: Dialogue

    Dialogue by far is one of those things that separates the wannabes and the pros. Its really difficult to do well. When stories start, they are cold, characters are cold, the plot is underdeveloped at the start as well. So, now you have a scene with your hero out riding his bike, he passes his neighbor. What does he say? How? In what tone? Is it something cryptic, something sarcastic, something mean? You would need to know what purpose this scene holds in the story structure and totally understand the ins and outs of your hero as well as what his/her relationship is with this neighbor. What is their backstory? What does 'status quo' for their relationship?

    I think dialogue is one of those things that shapes up later, as you get deeper into the story, things aren't so cold anymore. Your hero has layers now, you understand more about the relationship with the neighbor, and you know where this scene leads to and why. So now, dialogue is more pertinent, poignant, effective.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Dialogue

      It's a tough thing all right. There are a lot of times you will read professional scripts of films and TV shows that have been produced and are on the air and wonder what the big deal is with the dialogue.

      I can understand why you might feel that sometimes readers can seem quite begrudging with their ratings when it comes to dialogue by new writers. That the standard is set unfairly high. Unfortunately there's nothing you can do about that. What you can do is really make your dialog as strong as possible.

      I'm not produced so these are just my thoughts and my understanding of it.

      Dialogue is a reflection of character. There are so many layers to it. The most obvious is the accent and locality (Drawing a blank for the right word for it right now). This can be hard to portray in dialogue but even in the USA different people from different parts of the country will use different phrases. These phrases can be characteristic of a country, a city or even a part of a city. Guys from Brooklyn might use certain phrases that wouldn't be used by people living in the mid-west, for example.

      A very obvious example of this is the kind of mobster speak you see in gangster films or shows like the Sopranos. You won't see Doctors speaking like that or say a Harvard Graduate. Language can be coarse or articulate and any degree of spectrum in between.

      This is more generally applied to a group of characters. But now, within a group you need to try and separate them out even more. Some people don't like to talk a lot. Others will go on and on endlessly (like my meandering posts). Some characters will use softer language and try to be persuasive. Others will use much stronger language and be quite forceful. Some characters will always try and make a joke of everything. Some will always speak indirectly and try and cover their feelings.

      I guess what I'm trying to say, quite inarticulately, is that there are infinite nuances that make up an individual person, from their birth, to their upbringing, their education, their ethnicity, their likes and dislikes, their personality, their political beliefs and worldview etc that are all ultimately reflected in the way that they speak. And the more you can develop your characters to reflect this, the stronger your dialogue will be.

      And that's before we even get to the part about the story of the scene and how the characters are trying to communicate with each other. This too ties into their personality.

      As an example, I advise you to read an episode of lost. Episode 3 - Tabula Rasa is an excellent script. I'll give my take on a few of the characters.

      Hurley - This guy is quite obviously lacking in confidence and you can see that in his speech. It's hesitant, self-questioning, not really making demands like when he doesn't want to go into the plane. He shies away from conflict and finds it difficult to keep his cool under pressure.

      Sawyer - This guy is rough, likes to tell it like it is. He's not to worried about offending people when he speaks. This is quite a typical character in a lot of shows. Take the two brothers from the walking dead, Merle and Daryl. You can tell they are both from the west and from poor backgrounds. But even there, you can see the difference. Merle is just that little bit brasher, just that little bit more abrupt while Daryl is a bit more considered.

      Shannon - Has a very high opinion of herself and a very low opinion of others. You can see how her dialogue is sharp, cutting and condescending. She's not really interested in looking at any one else's point of view.

      Charlie - A little insecure, like Hurley, but he's got that British sense of humour. He likes to make light of things and is quite easy going and affable.

      I think if you read the script and pay attention you'll see how the character's personalities are reflected in the dialogue.

      Orange is the new Black is another perfect show in this respect.

      Now, not every single exchange and every line of dialogue is going to be special and unique, sometimes people just say things that need to be said in fairly common ways and it can be hard to tell them apart. But usually, over the course of a longer scene or conversation, you can see the subtle difference.

      For example, take the pilot of the Walking Dead. Look at the scene with Rick and Shane. These two guys are quite similar. Same town, same upbringing, same job, possibly similar political beliefs. But even in that FIRST conversation, you can see the subtle differences. How Shane is a little bit cruder with his use of language, a little bit more sexist. How he doesn't really try to consider things too deeply, while Rick is a lot softer spoken, there's a lot more weight behind his words. Yes, a lot of that is performance, but it's there in the script too.

      The hardest characters to distinguish for me are usually the main characters. The Everyman and Everywoman. In lost that's Jack and Kate. (Even their names are like that.)

      I've only watched the pilot and read a couple of scripts from the series so maybe this gets fleshed out better later. But Jack's dialogue is pretty straight up, almost a little bland. But again you can see that he's strong and decisive.

      He's really like any decent guy out there. But he stands out in contrast to all the other characters.

      The problem happens when every character or a lot of characters in the script are like that. It's a sign that they are underdeveloped and the writer doesn't really know them that well.

      Hope this helps.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Dialogue

        What's scary is that even when you learn to differentiate between a rookie and a pro's dialogue, you still won't be able to write it yourself. It'll still takes years of experience.

        The good news is some genres can work without good dialogue. For eg. disaster movies, sci-fi actions, or actions in general always have weak, on-the-nose dialogue. But nobody cares because that's not why we come to see those movies. I think this is why we see so many amateurs break in with these types of films.
        I'm never wrong. Reality is just stubborn.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Dialogue

          Very true, Fox. Even with narrative there will come a time when you'll be able to recognize when it works and when it doesn't but it's another whole obstacle to duplicate it. That's the obstacle that holds the most corpses of writing dreams. I think every writer can get themselves to that last obstacle with some education, practice writing, and a lot of script reading. Getting over it or not, will take some talent and know how as well as some work ethic and some dedication.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Dialogue

            Originally posted by FoxHound View Post
            The good news is some genres can work without good dialogue. For eg. disaster movies, sci-fi actions, or actions in general always have weak, on-the-nose dialogue. But nobody cares because that's not why we come to see those movies. I think this is why we see so many amateurs break in with these types of films.
            I don't think any genre can work without good dialogue. With the qualification that by "good" I mean "appropriate for the context and tone".

            And I think you're absolutely on a fool's errand if you think you'll be forgiven bad dialogue because of the genre.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Dialogue

              Good is a relative term. If you look at the dialogue for Guardians of The Galaxy, it's full of exposition and all, but for a sci-fi adventure , it's good. There will never be any Tarantino or Mamet-style dialogue in these types of movies. However, you can still tell it was professional.

              Similarly, people complained that Transformers 4 had terrible dialogue, but you can also tell it was professionally written. If the dialogue had been truly written by an amateur, you'd be walking out of the theatre in literal shell-shock.
              I'm never wrong. Reality is just stubborn.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Dialogue

                Originally posted by FoxHound View Post
                Good is a relative term. If you look at the dialogue for Guardians of The Galaxy, it's full of exposition and all, but for a sci-fi adventure , it's good.
                Guardians-of-the-Galaxy-esque dialogue is VERY hard to do well. You've got cheesy, and then you've got knowingly nod-and-wink cheesy. That's a whole 'nuther level.

                Again, it's very perilous to think that just because you're doing a disaster movie/sci-fi romp or whatever that you'll be cut any slack when it comes to the dialogue.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Dialogue

                  Originally posted by Klazart View Post
                  It's a tough thing all right. There are a lot of times you will read professional scripts of films and TV shows that have been produced and are on the air and wonder what the big deal is with the dialogue.

                  I can understand why you might feel that sometimes readers can seem quite begrudging with their ratings when it comes to dialogue by new writers. That the standard is set unfairly high. Unfortunately there's nothing you can do about that. What you can do is really make your dialog as strong as possible.

                  I'm not produced so these are just my thoughts and my understanding of it.

                  Dialogue is a reflection of character. There are so many layers to it. The most obvious is the accent and locality (Drawing a blank for the right word for it right now). This can be hard to portray in dialogue but even in the USA different people from different parts of the country will use different phrases. These phrases can be characteristic of a country, a city or even a part of a city. Guys from Brooklyn might use certain phrases that wouldn't be used by people living in the mid-west, for example.

                  A very obvious example of this is the kind of mobster speak you see in gangster films or shows like the Sopranos. You won't see Doctors speaking like that or say a Harvard Graduate. Language can be coarse or articulate and any degree of spectrum in between.

                  This is more generally applied to a group of characters. But now, within a group you need to try and separate them out even more. Some people don't like to talk a lot. Others will go on and on endlessly (like my meandering posts). Some characters will use softer language and try to be persuasive. Others will use much stronger language and be quite forceful. Some characters will always try and make a joke of everything. Some will always speak indirectly and try and cover their feelings.

                  I guess what I'm trying to say, quite inarticulately, is that there are infinite nuances that make up an individual person, from their birth, to their upbringing, their education, their ethnicity, their likes and dislikes, their personality, their political beliefs and worldview etc that are all ultimately reflected in the way that they speak. And the more you can develop your characters to reflect this, the stronger your dialogue will be.

                  And that's before we even get to the part about the story of the scene and how the characters are trying to communicate with each other. This too ties into their personality.

                  As an example, I advise you to read an episode of lost. Episode 3 - Tabula Rasa is an excellent script. I'll give my take on a few of the characters.

                  Hurley - This guy is quite obviously lacking in confidence and you can see that in his speech. It's hesitant, self-questioning, not really making demands like when he doesn't want to go into the plane. He shies away from conflict and finds it difficult to keep his cool under pressure.

                  Sawyer - This guy is rough, likes to tell it like it is. He's not to worried about offending people when he speaks. This is quite a typical character in a lot of shows. Take the two brothers from the walking dead, Merle and Daryl. You can tell they are both from the west and from poor backgrounds. But even there, you can see the difference. Merle is just that little bit brasher, just that little bit more abrupt while Daryl is a bit more considered.

                  Shannon - Has a very high opinion of herself and a very low opinion of others. You can see how her dialogue is sharp, cutting and condescending. She's not really interested in looking at any one else's point of view.

                  Charlie - A little insecure, like Hurley, but he's got that British sense of humour. He likes to make light of things and is quite easy going and affable.

                  I think if you read the script and pay attention you'll see how the character's personalities are reflected in the dialogue.

                  Orange is the new Black is another perfect show in this respect.

                  Now, not every single exchange and every line of dialogue is going to be special and unique, sometimes people just say things that need to be said in fairly common ways and it can be hard to tell them apart. But usually, over the course of a longer scene or conversation, you can see the subtle difference.

                  For example, take the pilot of the Walking Dead. Look at the scene with Rick and Shane. These two guys are quite similar. Same town, same upbringing, same job, possibly similar political beliefs. But even in that FIRST conversation, you can see the subtle differences. How Shane is a little bit cruder with his use of language, a little bit more sexist. How he doesn't really try to consider things too deeply, while Rick is a lot softer spoken, there's a lot more weight behind his words. Yes, a lot of that is performance, but it's there in the script too.

                  The hardest characters to distinguish for me are usually the main characters. The Everyman and Everywoman. In lost that's Jack and Kate. (Even their names are like that.)

                  I've only watched the pilot and read a couple of scripts from the series so maybe this gets fleshed out better later. But Jack's dialogue is pretty straight up, almost a little bland. But again you can see that he's strong and decisive.

                  He's really like any decent guy out there. But he stands out in contrast to all the other characters.

                  The problem happens when every character or a lot of characters in the script are like that. It's a sign that they are underdeveloped and the writer doesn't really know them that well.

                  Hope this helps.

                  I think that the key to good dialogue is always specificity. Specificity comes in two ways. First, specificity in terms of what defines the character, his background, his upbringing, his personality.

                  Second, and just as important, is specificity in terms of the character's objective, both overall and within the scene. What does he want, what is he trying to achieve. If he's talking, why is he talking? If he's not talking, why isn't he talking? Why is he even there at all? What does he want? How has that trajectory, the attempt to achieve whatever he's after, changed from the beginning of every scene that he's in, changed from the beginning of that scene to the end?

                  If a scene is just marking time, or if dialogue is just marking time, ask yourself seriously why it's there.

                  You want an example of great character-defining dialogue, look at The Godfather.

                  See how every character. From the Don, to Michael, to Sonny, to Fredo, to Tom Hagen, to Luca Brasi, speaks in his own particular way -- and in a way that reflects what kind of person he is and also specifies objectives, tells us what he wants, what he's after, in particular scenes and in the movie overall.

                  NMS

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Dialogue

                    Originally posted by nmstevens View Post

                    ... You want an example of great character-defining dialogue, look at The Godfather.

                    See how every character. From the Don, to Michael, to Sonny, to Fredo, to Tom Hagen, to Luca Brasi, speaks in his own particular way -- and in a way that reflects what kind of person he is and also specifies objectives, tells us what he wants, what he's after, in particular scenes and in the movie overall.

                    NMS
                    I agree The Godfather is a great example of powerful dialogue. But let's consider why it's so good. A large portion of the film's dialogue was picked up directly from the novel by Mario Puzo. He also co-wrote the script with director, F.F. Coppola. Both of them personally connected and familiar with the ethnic world and family structure of Italian immigrants and first-generation Italian-Americans they were depicting.

                    Simply put -- the writer heeded the advice, "Write what you know."

                    In my opinion, the flimsy dialogue I find in some specs gives me the feeling the writer has not invested the time and energy required to "know" their characters and the world they exist in.
                    Advice from writer, Kelly Sue DeConnick. "Try this: if you can replace your female character with a sexy lamp and the story still basically works, maybe you need another draft.-

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Dialogue

                      nms and sc111 thank you both for your posts. Great food for thought and I couldn't agree more.

                      It's all about specificity.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X