Re: A springboard observation ...
On anachronistic screenwriting:
Yesterday I watched for the third time the movie Lincoln, but this time I followed the dialogue by reading the screenplay on IMSDb.
When blocks of Action occurred in the script, I looked up at the screen. The interesting thing to note was that several paragraphs of Action and Description were distilled to a fast-paced few seconds of cinematography. To read the Action/Description as if reading the screenplay for the first time, the written Action/Description set the scene, the mood, the tone, and captured the essence of the shot(s) to tell the story. But to read along with the screenplay in hand as the movie played, the on-screen Action/Description passed by rapidly, thereby lending credence to the old adage that “a picture is worth a thousand words.” It became necessary to skim the Action/Description to get to the next occurring dialogue.
As for the dialogue, not only was it very well written by Tony Kushner, it was very historically accurate. I'm a fan of the American Literature classics of the 19th and 20th centuries and like to believe I have a fairly good knowledge base of out-of-date words and phrases, their meanings, and their origins. Yet there were many words and phrases I'd never heard before, although they were no less interesting to me as to their meanings and origins once I looked them up.
That means I had heretofore been glossing over them in previous viewings of this movie, doubtless too caught up in the interest of “what happens next?” to dwell on them for more than a nanosecond. When I paused to reflect on that, what surprised me most was that even though the ear may have balked at these words and phrases unfamiliar to me, and doubtless to many others, the thrust of the general context of the remarks was conveyed by the Action occurring onscreen in the film in combination with the dialogue leading up to and often after the unfamiliar word or phrase. This was facilitated in part because of Action and Dialogue of other characters in those scenes.
For the first few instances of the jargon of the day, the anachronistic words and phrases, and having seen the film twice before, I had the luxury of removing myself from the story to consider why the screenwriter would want to include them for the sake of authenticity knowing full well a relative few would have the education or wherewithal to comprehend their meaning.
After a smattering of these quaint and effective words and phrases of the period, it did not take long for me to decide that the screenwriter had employed them perfectly well to lend the necessary flavor and character of the day to the film, to say nothing of the accuracy of the anachronistic words and phrases in delivering the meat of the context of the dialogue, as well as, now and again, adding humor. Without the anachronistic words and phrases, the dialogue would have been much the poorer, and to “modernize” the dialogue would not have been at all well to do.
Anachronistic screenwriting, when properly executed (as in the example given above), is the way to go. As ComicBent mentions in a previous post, it all comes down to knowing one's own language well enough — grammar, spelling, and punctuation — to execute any writing, but particularly anachronistic writing.
In a case where anachronistic writing seems not to fit well for a period piece, then rewriting it until it does fit would seem to be the order of the day.
On anachronistic screenwriting:
Yesterday I watched for the third time the movie Lincoln, but this time I followed the dialogue by reading the screenplay on IMSDb.
When blocks of Action occurred in the script, I looked up at the screen. The interesting thing to note was that several paragraphs of Action and Description were distilled to a fast-paced few seconds of cinematography. To read the Action/Description as if reading the screenplay for the first time, the written Action/Description set the scene, the mood, the tone, and captured the essence of the shot(s) to tell the story. But to read along with the screenplay in hand as the movie played, the on-screen Action/Description passed by rapidly, thereby lending credence to the old adage that “a picture is worth a thousand words.” It became necessary to skim the Action/Description to get to the next occurring dialogue.
As for the dialogue, not only was it very well written by Tony Kushner, it was very historically accurate. I'm a fan of the American Literature classics of the 19th and 20th centuries and like to believe I have a fairly good knowledge base of out-of-date words and phrases, their meanings, and their origins. Yet there were many words and phrases I'd never heard before, although they were no less interesting to me as to their meanings and origins once I looked them up.
That means I had heretofore been glossing over them in previous viewings of this movie, doubtless too caught up in the interest of “what happens next?” to dwell on them for more than a nanosecond. When I paused to reflect on that, what surprised me most was that even though the ear may have balked at these words and phrases unfamiliar to me, and doubtless to many others, the thrust of the general context of the remarks was conveyed by the Action occurring onscreen in the film in combination with the dialogue leading up to and often after the unfamiliar word or phrase. This was facilitated in part because of Action and Dialogue of other characters in those scenes.
For the first few instances of the jargon of the day, the anachronistic words and phrases, and having seen the film twice before, I had the luxury of removing myself from the story to consider why the screenwriter would want to include them for the sake of authenticity knowing full well a relative few would have the education or wherewithal to comprehend their meaning.
After a smattering of these quaint and effective words and phrases of the period, it did not take long for me to decide that the screenwriter had employed them perfectly well to lend the necessary flavor and character of the day to the film, to say nothing of the accuracy of the anachronistic words and phrases in delivering the meat of the context of the dialogue, as well as, now and again, adding humor. Without the anachronistic words and phrases, the dialogue would have been much the poorer, and to “modernize” the dialogue would not have been at all well to do.
Anachronistic screenwriting, when properly executed (as in the example given above), is the way to go. As ComicBent mentions in a previous post, it all comes down to knowing one's own language well enough — grammar, spelling, and punctuation — to execute any writing, but particularly anachronistic writing.
In a case where anachronistic writing seems not to fit well for a period piece, then rewriting it until it does fit would seem to be the order of the day.
Comment