As the title suggests, how would one achieve this without overt exposition?
My last script was peppered with dialogue to reflect themes and character motivations in what I thought was an elegant manner - organic, not too obvious, double meanings etc. However one reader (a fellow writer) didn’t pick up on any of these and when I mentioned the deeper layers and how the dialogue reflects character mindsets, they asked why none of this was in the script, to which I replied that it was and rattled off several lines of dialogue to which they replied with ‘it wasn’t clear enough’.
In my mind, if I was any more overt then it would be too obvious and in your face. Granted, this reader may not paid attention but I don’t want to fall into the trap of being defensive and blaming the other person. Additionally, this reader has a strong grasp of story (but not as good as they pompously think they are) so I feel I should give them the benefit of the doubt.
Eg: the central themes is of nature v nurture - which leads on to the questions of whether people can change and if redemption is possible, especially for the most serious of crimes - and my wrong-side-of-the-law protagonist struggles with his actions and morality. Was he born bad or just a victim of his social environment? Is the **** he now finds himself in karma that he doesn’t deserve to escape from?
Though he’d love to change and escape the dire situation, his self doubt leads him to think he was born bad and is a fool to think he can become a decent person. A ‘good’ character tells him he can leave crime behind, that he just needs to own his life choices rather than pass blame and play the victim. On the flip side, an antagonist purposefully plays on the protagonist’s self-doubt throughout the script (to get his own way) by assuring that it’s in his nature to do the bad things being asked of him. And another antagonist, out for revenge against the protagonist, promises there’s no escape, no way to make amends.
There’s multiple examples of all of the above throughout my script but not too heavy as to be clubbing the reader over the head. Each character is like an an angel or devil sat on the protagonist’s shoulders whispering in his ear and fighting for his soul. This literally comes true in the final act when two characters are trying to convince the protagonist to do what each wants him to do whilst the third antagonist - the one that promised no way out - closes in.
Thoughts?
My last script was peppered with dialogue to reflect themes and character motivations in what I thought was an elegant manner - organic, not too obvious, double meanings etc. However one reader (a fellow writer) didn’t pick up on any of these and when I mentioned the deeper layers and how the dialogue reflects character mindsets, they asked why none of this was in the script, to which I replied that it was and rattled off several lines of dialogue to which they replied with ‘it wasn’t clear enough’.
In my mind, if I was any more overt then it would be too obvious and in your face. Granted, this reader may not paid attention but I don’t want to fall into the trap of being defensive and blaming the other person. Additionally, this reader has a strong grasp of story (but not as good as they pompously think they are) so I feel I should give them the benefit of the doubt.
Eg: the central themes is of nature v nurture - which leads on to the questions of whether people can change and if redemption is possible, especially for the most serious of crimes - and my wrong-side-of-the-law protagonist struggles with his actions and morality. Was he born bad or just a victim of his social environment? Is the **** he now finds himself in karma that he doesn’t deserve to escape from?
Though he’d love to change and escape the dire situation, his self doubt leads him to think he was born bad and is a fool to think he can become a decent person. A ‘good’ character tells him he can leave crime behind, that he just needs to own his life choices rather than pass blame and play the victim. On the flip side, an antagonist purposefully plays on the protagonist’s self-doubt throughout the script (to get his own way) by assuring that it’s in his nature to do the bad things being asked of him. And another antagonist, out for revenge against the protagonist, promises there’s no escape, no way to make amends.
There’s multiple examples of all of the above throughout my script but not too heavy as to be clubbing the reader over the head. Each character is like an an angel or devil sat on the protagonist’s shoulders whispering in his ear and fighting for his soul. This literally comes true in the final act when two characters are trying to convince the protagonist to do what each wants him to do whilst the third antagonist - the one that promised no way out - closes in.
Thoughts?
Comment