...from my other 'on the nose' dialogue thread...

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • #91
    Re: ...from my other 'on the nose' dialogue thread...

    Originally posted by polfilmblog View Post
    Not sure about a couple of these examples.

    The Woody Allen scene isn't particularly useful. It's not subtext. It's a PARODY of subtext. Taking the subtext concept to absurd lengths is the punch line. We generally don't want to do that. We don't want to talk to the camera either.

    "You complete me" isn't so much subtext as an interesting way of expressing what is felt inside. It implies some emptiness, and motivation for the relationship. It isn't strictly saying one thing and meaning another. We are to take it that he really means what he is saying.

    It would be subtext if instead he had said, "I forgot my watch. Do you have it? I really need it. I wouldn't think of going x without it... (blah blah)"

    Subtext can be very annoying too. It's not the be-all, end-all, golden pyramid that some books make it out to be. Too much can quickly turn drama into comedy (as with the Woody Allen scene).
    Your watch example isn't subtext. It's actually about the watch.

    Mac's peanut butter example from "War of the Worlds" is subtext because the scene isn't about peanut butter. It's about their relationship.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: ...from my other 'on the nose' dialogue thread...

      The Woody Allen scene is a humorous illustration that when people are talking about something like photography, they're really thinking about impressing each other and fucking.

      While they're still carrying on a conversation about photography.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: ...from my other 'on the nose' dialogue thread...

        Hey thnaks everyone, I really appreciate the input so far. It has been very beneficial. Although if I'm honest, so far no one has demonstrated a clear way to 'execute' subtext in my writing. But I never really expected that, as this topic is 'physical' and therefore is very hard to explain, never mind put into practise.

        In Aliens, is it better if Hudson says "Game over, man! Game over!" or "We're in a really bad situation that we're unlikely to survive!"

        This, and many other examples are very good. But I think (subtextual speaking) that this is unfair, as it (subtextually) it implies that lots of my lines are "I'm-scared. We-are-all-going-to-die. I-hoped-I-would-survive-long-enough-to-tell-my-wife-I-loved-her. Gee-whiz.""

        Maybe this is how you think my dialogue is, and maybe I am wrong. But the characters aren't perfectly composed, talking in an overly rational robotic voice, in the face of danger.

        They're running around, shouting across the room to each other, barking orders, etc. Not speaking in a stacato, robotic voice.

        And the 'game over man, game over' example is GREAT subtext for such a simple phrasing "we're probably going to die".

        But how do I write important and lengthier exposition as subtext:

        "Looks like some sort of plasma cloud... condensed gas... a nebula."

        "It's useless, we've lost flight control. I can't get us moving... I've got no engines. I don't even have maneuvering thrusters."

        "Engines won't engage when there's a hole in the tank. No way to override it."
        "Sir, I strongly disagree. We should repair the hole immediately. Then we can fire up the engines, and get the hell out of this thing."
        "I have to release the fuel tank manually, but I need you to disengage the magnetic clamps."

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: ...from my other 'on the nose' dialogue thread...

          Fanatic, you can't just replace every line of exposition with subtext. It doesn't work that way.

          If you absolutely must include some exposition in your dialogue write it in an interesting way. Try to reword it to make it sound interesting and make it sound like different characters are speaking.


          Fanatic, is all that information really necessary for the story. We aren't here to ecducate the audience about rocket science and space travel. Our mission is to tell a great story. A little scientific info is ok, but make it relate to the story and condense it. The audience can follow only so much technical stuff. They won't hear half of it anyway.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: ...from my other 'on the nose' dialogue thread...

            Originally posted by fanatic_about_film View Post
            Hey thnaks everyone, I really appreciate the input so far. It has been very beneficial. Although if I'm honest, so far no one has demonstrated a clear way to 'execute' subtext in my writing. But I never really expected that, as this topic is 'physical' and therefore is very hard to explain, never mind put into practise.

            In Aliens, is it better if Hudson says "Game over, man! Game over!" or "We're in a really bad situation that we're unlikely to survive!"

            This, and many other examples are very good. But I think (subtextual speaking) that this is unfair, as it (subtextually) it implies that lots of my lines are "I'm-scared. We-are-all-going-to-die. I-hoped-I-would-survive-long-enough-to-tell-my-wife-I-loved-her. Gee-whiz.""

            Maybe this is how you think my dialogue is, and maybe I am wrong. But the characters aren't perfectly composed, talking in an overly rational robotic voice, in the face of danger.

            They're running around, shouting across the room to each other, barking orders, etc. Not speaking in a stacato, robotic voice.

            And the 'game over man, game over' example is GREAT subtext for such a simple phrasing "we're probably going to die".

            But how do I write important and lengthier exposition as subtext:

            "Looks like some sort of plasma cloud... condensed gas... a nebula."

            "It's useless, we've lost flight control. I can't get us moving... I've got no engines. I don't even have maneuvering thrusters."

            "Engines won't engage when there's a hole in the tank. No way to override it."
            "Sir, I strongly disagree. We should repair the hole immediately. Then we can fire up the engines, and get the hell out of this thing."
            "I have to release the fuel tank manually, but I need you to disengage the magnetic clamps."
            And the 'game over man, game over' example is GREAT subtext for such a simple phrasing "we're probably going to die".

            Sorry, this is not subtext. They're 2 synonymous sentences. They convey the same information to the audience. 'game over man, game over' has more flair and more characterization. That's it.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: ...from my other 'on the nose' dialogue thread...

              Originally posted by fanatic_about_film View Post
              But how do I write important and lengthier exposition as subtext:

              "Looks like some sort of plasma cloud... condensed gas... a nebula."

              "It’s useless, we’ve lost flight control. I can’t get us moving... I’ve got no engines. I don’t even have maneuvering thrusters."

              "Engines won’t engage when there’s a hole in the tank. No way to override it."
              "Sir, I strongly disagree. We should repair the hole immediately. Then we can fire up the engines, and get the hell out of this thing."
              "I have to release the fuel tank manually, but I need you to disengage the magnetic clamps."
              As Jon says, everything can't be subtext. So:

              "Screw it, I'm firing up the engines and getting us the hell out of here."
              "George, there's a hole in the fuel tank. We'll die."
              "Ah, damn."

              Of course, that's terrible. But at least there's something going on - some conflict, some tension.

              What I'd actually do is this. First, I'd take a long, hard look at whether I need those lines at all. Then I'd go watch Apollo 13 again to take notes on how much it goes into the technical details of firing boosters and so forth. Then, once I narrowed that down to the bare minimum I absolutely must have so as not to confuse the reader, I'd take another look at the scenes of McCoy chasing Kirk through the Enterprise trying to stop an allergic reaction while everyone dumps exposition at them in the Star Trek reboot (hat tip to Emily Blake) to see how to slip in exposition on the fly rather than having people making reports to one another.
              Patrick Sweeney

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: ...from my other 'on the nose' dialogue thread...

                Originally posted by mariot View Post
                And the 'game over man, game over' example is GREAT subtext for such a simple phrasing "we're probably going to die".

                Sorry, this is not subtext. They're 2 synonymous sentences. They convey the same information to the audience. 'game over man, game over' has more flair and more characterization. That's it.
                On the surface they both say there's no hope, the end is near. But I'd argue that they both contain subtext in addition.

                Game over... tells me this character is strung out and pissing in his or her pants. It tells me this without saying it.

                We're probably...tells me the character is cool under the circumstances, resigned to dying.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: ...from my other 'on the nose' dialogue thread...

                  Originally posted by jonpiper View Post
                  On the surface they both say there's no hope, the end is near. But I'd argue that they both contain subtext in addition.

                  Game over... tells me this character is strung out and pissing in his or her pants. It tells me this without saying it.

                  We're probably...tells me the character is cool under the circumstances, resigned to dying.
                  I agree they give you different information about the character's personality and state of mind. I consider that to be characterization not subtext.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: ...from my other 'on the nose' dialogue thread...

                    Originally posted by mariot View Post
                    I agree they give you different information about the character's personality and state of mind. I consider that to be characterization not subtext.

                    What do you mean by characterization?

                    I think you mean revealing character or telling us something about the character of the character who is speaking. Good dialogue should reveal character and/or move the story forward and/or be interesting.

                    You can reveal character with on-the-nose dialogue or with subtexted dialogue.

                    Those two lines of dialogue give us different info about the characters' personalities and states of mind. They give us this information without explicitly telling us that's their state of mind and their personality. That's why I say they both contain subtext.

                    You don't either include subtext in a line of dialogue or reveal character in a line of dialogue. You may choose to use subtext to reveal character.
                    Last edited by jonpiper; 01-12-2011, 11:05 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Re: ...from my other 'on the nose' dialogue thread...

                      Both sentences convey the character's reaction to the impending doom.

                      They tell us how this particular individual is reacting in this situation.

                      I don't see any additional layers of meaning.

                      Comment


                      • Re: ...from my other 'on the nose' dialogue thread...

                        Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
                        The Woody Allen scene is a humorous illustration that when people are talking about something like photography, they're really thinking about impressing each other and fucking.

                        While they're still carrying on a conversation about photography.
                        Here's the thing about subtext and that Woody Allen scene. Although dialogue subtext can be used to reveal character, I don't see how it can be used to reveal a character's thoughts.

                        That's why I think WA resorted to subtitles to explain the subtex he wanted to convey.

                        Once the actors know what is expected of them, they can convey the subtext through their acting. But the words themselves in that example cannot convey the subtext...in my opinion.

                        Comment


                        • Re: ...from my other 'on the nose' dialogue thread...

                          Originally posted by mariot View Post
                          Both sentences convey the character's reaction to the impending doom.

                          They tell us how this particular individual is reacting in this situation.

                          I don't see any additional layers of meaning.
                          If the particular individual delivers the first sentence we learn something about his personality and state of mind IN ADDITION to his reaction to the impending doom.

                          If he delivers the second sentence we learn something different about his personality and state of mind IN ADDITION to his reaction to the impending doom.

                          Read my previous two posts to you again.

                          Subtext isn't always about layers of meaning. In this case it is telling us something about the character without spelling it out.
                          Last edited by jonpiper; 01-12-2011, 11:38 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Re: ...from my other 'on the nose' dialogue thread...

                            Originally posted by jonpiper View Post
                            Here's the thing about subtext and that Woody Allen scene. Although dialogue subtext can be used to reveal character, I don't see how it can be used to reveal a character's thoughts.

                            That's why I think WA resorted to subtitles to explain the subtex he wanted to convey.

                            Once the actors know what is expected of them, they can convey the subtext through their acting. But the words themselves in that example cannot convey the subtext...in my opinion.
                            That's interesting. I think Woody uses the subtitles as a device to poke fun at our society and how we are socialized to make polite conversation instead of being direct about what we want.

                            It has 2 layers of meaning: 1) As a commentary about our society and, 2) letting us know the characters are anxious and horny.

                            Comment


                            • Re: ...from my other 'on the nose' dialogue thread...

                              Originally posted by jonpiper View Post
                              If the particular individual delivers the first sentence we learn something about his personality and state of mind IN ADDITION to his reaction to the impending doom.

                              If he delivers the second sentence we learn something different about his personality and state of mind IN ADDITION to his reaction to the impending doom.

                              Read my previous two posts to you again.

                              Subtext isn't always about layers of meaning. In this case it is telling us something about the character without spelling it out.
                              Your post was clear and I understood what you were saying. However, I still put this under the category of characterization.

                              We have one man facing impending doom. We have a choice of two sentences which offer different personality traits for this man.

                              You say we learn something in addition to his reaction to the impending doom. I'm saying the sentences are the reaction.

                              Is there another reaction? Neither choice shows us a man taking action. He faces impending doom and utters a single line of dialogue which is intended to convey how he feels at that moment. How this particular man feels at this particular moment.

                              Neither line of dialogue makes me think it would expand my opinion of who he is as a man. It doesn't make me think he's a coward, it doesn't make me think he's brave, it doesn't make me think he's selfless or selfish or scared or relaxed.

                              The first choice makes him seem hipper and younger. This sentence would probably not be used by an 80 year old woman who could very well say the second sentence.

                              Comment


                              • Re: ...from my other 'on the nose' dialogue thread...

                                Mariot, I think we both agree that both lines "game over man, game over" and "we're probably going to die" express impending doom.

                                I think they both contain subtext, you say neither contains subtext.

                                You say the "game over" line has more flair and more characterization. I agree with you. I claim this is where the subtext is.

                                Originally posted by mariot View Post
                                We have one man facing impending doom. We have a choice of two sentences which offer different personality traits for this man.

                                An actor who plays the character will play the part according to the subtext in his or her lines of dialogue. True the two lines offer different personality traits but they also inform the actor about how to deliver the lines. Quick, panicked. Or slower, less urgently.

                                You [jonpiper] say we learn something in addition to his reaction to the impending doom. I'm saying the sentences are the reaction.

                                I'm saying the same Character would not utter both lines. A given actor would utter either line depending upon the Character he or she is playing.

                                Is there another reaction? Neither choice shows us a man taking action. He faces impending doom and utters a single line of dialogue which is intended to convey how he feels at that moment. How this particular man feels at this particular moment.

                                Again, one Character will feel one way at that moment another Character will feel another way.

                                Neither line of dialogue makes me think it would expand my opinion of who he is as a man. It doesn't make me think he's a coward, it doesn't make me think he's brave, it doesn't make me think he's selfless or selfish or scared or relaxed.

                                So a character who is running around a confined area in circles with an empty gun is going to be very rational and say, "We're probably going to die."

                                The first choice makes him seem hipper and younger. This sentence would probably not be used by an 80 year old woman who could very well say the second sentence.

                                I think that explains a lot about one aspect of subtext! There are many types of subtext.
                                Last edited by jonpiper; 01-13-2011, 09:56 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X