For Mother's Day, my daughter bought me the book. A Gentleman In Moscow by Amor Towles. There have been announcements that it's being adapted for a limited TV series starring Kenneth Branaugh. Which makes sense since the story spans 30-plus years. IMDB states it's still in development.
Though I enjoyed it, the novel may not be for everyone - the author employs a lush, detailed style that echoes back to past centuries in its use of language. However, all of the glowing reviews rave about the richly-drawn characters and dialogue. And, for me, it's the dialogue - differentiated from character to character -- that adds to that richness.
Since so many iconic films, memorable characters and quotable lines, have been adapted from novels, I have to wonder why I rarely see dialogue given much weight in all the how-to screenwriting advice I've read over the years.
I think dialogue is a tool that screenwriters can use to more effectively to build individualized, compelling characters. The question is how?
I stumbled upon an answer when people gave me feedback on my first script. It was an adaptation of my unfinished novel and the exercise was a huge learning experience. There was one rather short scene I created for the script alone: the main character visits her grandfather in the hospital. And I literally transcribed near verbatim a conversation I once had with my grandfather when he was in the hospital.
Everyone raved about that character, "I love grandpa.- Yet not much else was raved about. It was a head scratcher because, action wise it's a static scene. He's in the bed, she's sitting in a chair beside the bed, and they're talking. Then it hit me - everything one needed to know about who my grandfather was as a person was reflected in how he spoke - his word choices, his point of view, the way his mind works.
I find the dialogue lacking in some (too many?) of the films and TV shows I watch these days - far too many characters sound alike when they speak. Perhaps it's less important in heavily plot-driven movies but taking the effort to differentiate these characters through dialogue can only be a plus, in my opinion.
In the midst of the COVID lockdown I was indulging my fascination for true crime documentaries and my teen confessed she finds serial killers really interesting. When I mentioned Silence of the Lambs, she said, "Let's watch it.-
Since I'd seen the film more than once, I found myself concentrating on the dialogue - especially in the scene when Lector and Clarice first meet. Another static scene, action wise, but it's the dialogue - and how each character's dialogue contrasts the other's - that lets us know who these people are.
I found a free PDF download of the novel and read that scene. The film boiled down their exchange yet a lot of dialogue was picked up verbatim from the novel. The polished, erudite way Lector speaks, including flashes of his cruelty, establishes the character immediately. Contrasted with Clarice's dialogue style, we know who she is and how she's chosen to interact with Lector. All without any physical action.
I think the trick is listening to the way people speak - people you know, people you overhear, to catch the differences in cadence and word choices, and then amp it up several notches for the screen.
I've been an eavesdropper since I was a kid because I find people fascinating and it's amazing how much dialogue material you can gather by listening to people. On occasion, I've used lines I've overheard from strangers in my prose fiction and scripts.
It's also helps to watch films and shows that excel with dialogue. For me, the series Billions is a prime example. I watch that show mainly because I'm mesmerized by how the dialogue is unique to each character. There are also some political commentator/talking heads who - though I don't agree with their POV on politics - teach me a lot about writing richer dialogue that reflects character.
Just wanted to throw this out there for discussion. On the topic of dialogue, what say you? (A pun?)
Though I enjoyed it, the novel may not be for everyone - the author employs a lush, detailed style that echoes back to past centuries in its use of language. However, all of the glowing reviews rave about the richly-drawn characters and dialogue. And, for me, it's the dialogue - differentiated from character to character -- that adds to that richness.
Since so many iconic films, memorable characters and quotable lines, have been adapted from novels, I have to wonder why I rarely see dialogue given much weight in all the how-to screenwriting advice I've read over the years.
I think dialogue is a tool that screenwriters can use to more effectively to build individualized, compelling characters. The question is how?
I stumbled upon an answer when people gave me feedback on my first script. It was an adaptation of my unfinished novel and the exercise was a huge learning experience. There was one rather short scene I created for the script alone: the main character visits her grandfather in the hospital. And I literally transcribed near verbatim a conversation I once had with my grandfather when he was in the hospital.
Everyone raved about that character, "I love grandpa.- Yet not much else was raved about. It was a head scratcher because, action wise it's a static scene. He's in the bed, she's sitting in a chair beside the bed, and they're talking. Then it hit me - everything one needed to know about who my grandfather was as a person was reflected in how he spoke - his word choices, his point of view, the way his mind works.
I find the dialogue lacking in some (too many?) of the films and TV shows I watch these days - far too many characters sound alike when they speak. Perhaps it's less important in heavily plot-driven movies but taking the effort to differentiate these characters through dialogue can only be a plus, in my opinion.
In the midst of the COVID lockdown I was indulging my fascination for true crime documentaries and my teen confessed she finds serial killers really interesting. When I mentioned Silence of the Lambs, she said, "Let's watch it.-
Since I'd seen the film more than once, I found myself concentrating on the dialogue - especially in the scene when Lector and Clarice first meet. Another static scene, action wise, but it's the dialogue - and how each character's dialogue contrasts the other's - that lets us know who these people are.
I found a free PDF download of the novel and read that scene. The film boiled down their exchange yet a lot of dialogue was picked up verbatim from the novel. The polished, erudite way Lector speaks, including flashes of his cruelty, establishes the character immediately. Contrasted with Clarice's dialogue style, we know who she is and how she's chosen to interact with Lector. All without any physical action.
I think the trick is listening to the way people speak - people you know, people you overhear, to catch the differences in cadence and word choices, and then amp it up several notches for the screen.
I've been an eavesdropper since I was a kid because I find people fascinating and it's amazing how much dialogue material you can gather by listening to people. On occasion, I've used lines I've overheard from strangers in my prose fiction and scripts.
It's also helps to watch films and shows that excel with dialogue. For me, the series Billions is a prime example. I watch that show mainly because I'm mesmerized by how the dialogue is unique to each character. There are also some political commentator/talking heads who - though I don't agree with their POV on politics - teach me a lot about writing richer dialogue that reflects character.
Just wanted to throw this out there for discussion. On the topic of dialogue, what say you? (A pun?)
Comment