On-the-Nose Dialogue
Collapse
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
-
Re: On-the-Nose Dialogue
Originally posted by crustygibbletNo sure what this means, maralyn.
Contrary to everything I know to be true.
I guess FARGO has no structure...
AMERICAN BEAUTY
CHINATOWN
All those David Mamet screenplays... John Sayles.
But then again, John Ford hated dialogue and cut it whenever possible (saw that in a documentary last night).
Why not just say do what's necessary to tell your story. Use dialogue if you need it, and if you don't...
Don't.Last edited by R.D. Wright; 10-20-2007, 12:41 AM."THIMK." - Amomynous
Comment
-
Re: On-the-Nose Dialogue
I said: Bill says, "The easiest way to get rid of OTN dialogue? Don't use dialogue to tell the story. Watch Buster Keaton silent movies."
That implies the script should be almost all action, little or no dialogue.
So if, as you say, the first level Readers skim the script, pass over action, what's left to read?
Originally posted by wcmartell View PostNo - just that the story should be told through the actions of the characters so that the dialogue can be free to be clever and interesting, instead of burdened with carrying the story.
You need great dialogue. But if the dialogiue is telling the story, it tends to be OTN. It can't be subtle - then the reader doesn't get the story. It's can't have characters who lie or avoid the truth or say one thing and do another (to show character) because readers will believe the lie - they have no other choice if the dialogue tells the story.
Actions speak louder than words.
- Bill
Both dialogue and actions are integral to a movie, both can be used to present a complex, rich story. Actions, by their nature, SHOW, while dialogue by its nature tends to TELL. Good dialogue doesn't tell the story. Good dialogue shows the story, it reveals character and moves the story.
I think I get it. We want the Reader to see the story; therefore, our screenplay should SHOW the story, not TELL the story.
As long as the action lines show the story, move it along, are concise, a reader can't help but read the action. When the action lines are too long and flowery, they slow the story from a reader's point of view.
Likewise, as long as the dialogue moves the story along or reveals character, readers will read and appreciate the dialogue. OTN dialogue usually slows the story and does not reveal character and gives a bad impression to readers.
Comment
-
Re: On-the-Nose Dialogue
Originally posted by maralyn View Postna, it doesn't mean you can't have lot of dialogue, just that in the medium of film dialogue isn't the vehicle for telling the story.
Filmic story structure is based on what HAPPENS.
Dialogue is more like decoration.
That's a great line, isn't it?
Okay, filmic story structure is based on what happens. But most of what happens where people are concerned is that they talk. Hate to break the news, but it's true. In fact a lot of people do nothing but talk.
So, unless it's a non-stop action thrill-ride, there's gonna be dialogue. And it had better be good. I'm surprised no one has used the word "exposition." That's mainly what we're told to avoid, isn't it? But sometimes it just can't be helped (like in parts of STAR WARS). So when that happens, just write as well as you can and hope the actors can make it sound interesting.
I think making a movie with minimal dialogue is fine if you can make it work. But seriously, try to draw an iconic image of a great movie from your mind, without stopping to think about it. It's going to be the same result most of the time -- a great face and a great line."THIMK." - Amomynous
Comment
-
Re: On-the-Nose Dialogue
I didn't say you have to have minimal dialogue. Use as much dialogue as you want.
Just that the dialogue isn't what's telling the story.
You can design your dialogue. Like the icing on a cake. Sure some like the cake, others like the icing, but the icing isn't the cake.
Comment
-
Re: On-the-Nose Dialogue
Originally posted by maralyn View PostJust that the dialogue isn't what's telling the story.
You can design your dialogue. Like the icing on a cake. Sure some like the cake, others like the icing, but the icing isn't the cake.
How can a story like NETWORK be told if the characters don't speak?
GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS is about salesmen, who do practically nothing but talk. There's really nothing to show that would tell the story. -- They must speak, and they do so enormously well.
(I started a list here, but it's really too long.)
No, icing isn't the correct analogy. In the majority of films, it is a big part of the cake recipe."THIMK." - Amomynous
Comment
-
Re: On-the-Nose Dialogue
Originally posted by maralyn View PostI haven't seen NETWORK, and I have to go out soon.
But let's look at it differently then. A film should still tell a story if you watch it mute.
And I'd be missing some funny stuff from Thelma Ritter!"THIMK." - Amomynous
Comment
-
Re: On-the-Nose Dialogue
Originally posted by R.D. Wright View PostI am watching REAR WINDOW mute at this very moment. It does tell the story -- mainly because I know the story. If I had never seen it and tried to watch it without sound, I would be having a tough time here.
And I'd be missing some funny stuff from Thelma Ritter!
Comment
-
Re: On-the-Nose Dialogue
Originally posted by maralyn View PostA film should still tell a story if you watch it mute.
Ergo, it cuts both ways. Huh?
And who said talkies was just a fad and wouldn't last?sigpic
Comment
Comment