How Important is Dialogue?

And on the topic of Kevin Smith, I really don't care for his screenwriting. The whole "oratory" thing kind of worked in clerks, but lost any charm by the time Dogma came around. That movie is one bloc of dialogue after another. I could barely watch it -- and, as a catholic, I was very excited to see a movie examining/satorizing the catholic faith. I just think it was poorly executed.

A wise screenwriter once told me that you must learn the rules before you break them. If you go willy nilly writing whatever comes to mind, damn the rules, you will not have a good product. The idea that rules are for amatuers alone is preporsterous.

Poke

Poke said:

Let me be more specific.

I'm not really wondering about dialogue vs action. I think it's a given that actions speak louder than words. And any good screenwriter knows to "Show it, don't tell it."

I am wondering about "rewriting over and over again until you get the dialogue right" vs "throwing some words on the page and letting the actors deal with it."

Poke

Click to expand...

I disagree comletely. A good writer can make or break a film. As an actor having watched some wonderful and horrific dialogue and even being apart of both, the moments when we weap are when the characters are stating something moving and profound and moving. It gets tiresome to see robin run up to maid marrian, if the words weren't there. We weap when after they have embraced she says "you came for me..." Robin: "I would die for you!" though simple the right words AND WORDING matters greatly. Bad writing puts a severe strain on an actor, why force he/she to have to justify the words when they also have to create a character and a million other things. Dialogue matters... and i was horrified to read an earlier statement about how "would we rather hear them exlaim their love or just watch them have sex?" It doesn't take an artist to create porn, but real talent comes from being original and interesting. If robin hood had made love to Marrian instead of embracing her and staying he'd die for her the movie would have sucked so much... but instead their intimacy surpassed that of sex and became real.

Disciple

Subtext...

Disciple said:

I disagree comletely. A good writer can make or break a film. As an actor having watched some wonderful and horrific dialogue and even being apart of both, the moments when we weap are when the characters are stating something moving and profound and moving. It gets tiresome to see robin run up to maid marrian, if the words weren't there. We weap when after they have embraced she says "you came for me..." Robin: "I would die for you!" though simple the right words AND WORDING matters greatly. Bad writing puts a severe strain on an actor, why force he/she to have to justify the words when they also have to create a character and a million other things. Dialogue matters... and i was horrified to read an earlier statement about how "would we rather hear them exlaim their love or just watch them have sex?" It doesn't take an artist to create porn, but real talent comes from being original and interesting. If robin hood had made love to Marrian instead of embracing her and staying he'd die for her the movie would have sucked so much... but instead their intimacy surpassed that of sex and became real.

Disciple

Click to expand...

Exactly... SUBTEXT and NOT on-the-nose dialiogue.

Although I think overall structure of a script is the most important (to make sure you cover all your bases) I would much rather read good subtext in dialogue than outstanding structure. A little less structure but a lot more subtext will vastly improve your writing.

Having said that...

Outstanding structure AND outstanding subtext... Oh yeah... Hurt me.

filmy

FilmJumper said:

Oh yeah... Hurt me.

Click to expand...

...you know you like it...

Zensteve said:

...you know you like it...

Click to expand...

Okay...

I admit it.


filmy

Well... I've personally never considered dialogue to be the "be all and end all" of the film viewing experience. For me film is a "dreamlike" experience and stiff words can actually get in the way. Dialogue is a method that seems to go against my particular style of filmmaking. It's almost like telling the viewers what to think and feel. Exactly why I have always been against videos for popular songs.

For me songs I like are only because I personally relate to them inside my own head. To have a described or "prescribed" mental image attached makes me feel and think a particular way and weakens the song for me. My personal attachment to the lyrics or music are diminished by the attempt to "tell me" what I should be thinking or feeling.

I approach films from the POV of "bringing in" the viewer rather than telling the viewer this is what you are going to see and this is what you are going to feel about it.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with "controlling" what the viewer feels but I like the varied results that come from giving them something and letting them come back to me asking if they "got it". Of course I will not tell them what I was thinking, all of their concepts are correct!

It's not a matter if they like it or not... It's a matter of avoiding indifference!
The opposite of love is NOT hate... Both are passionate emotions!
The opposite of anything we do is indifference!

Lots of words to describe my opinion of dialogue huh?! LOL!
Remember the NUMBER ONE RULE of filmmaking is...
There are NO FREAKING RULES!!!

Your Droogie,
-HAWKEYE

Dialogue is everything

dialogue is everything. it literally sets the tone for the entire movie and it goes hand in hand with the actors acting ability so without a group grasp of what the dialogue either expects of them or directs them to do, the entire film can end up completely uneventful and dissapointing. Take "league of extraordinary men" for instance. The potential of that movie was so great that i even found myself tempted to write my own version of it and the characters and their descrptions were so amazing on paper......but then when you saw the film, it was utterely sickening. the dialogue really sucked, the antire plot was completely lost after the first 15 or so minutes and the actors looked like they themselves were little fish swimming a huge pond. you had acting greats like sean connery, new commers like the kid that was on " a walk to remember" and television veterans lik ex star of "la femme nikita" and every scene that appeared, you could see it in their eyes that they litterally had no fucking clue what they were doing. it was so horrible and dissappointed because they could have done such amazing things with that script and they just wasted it all on that piece of shit they called a movie. it pisses me off till this day. but then take a look at movies like "donnie darko" and "meet joe black". both highly dramatic and enigmatic films, but one got critical acclaim because of how emotionally renching it is, and the other is mostly known and enjoyed by indie buffs like myself. Donnie Darko was an awesome movie, but it was an independant one, so its grasp on dramatic was froma whole nother "anarchist", "punk" sort of view, whereas "meet joe black" equally awesome, was just as dramatic, but from a "hollywood" point for view. And we all know that in the battle between "Main stram America" and the "local Punk", America always wins, but in this case, Donnie Darko's continuous banterical, ironical, engrossing dialogue captured by the script make it one of the greatest films ever made in my book. Its the perfect independant movie, assuming it was one. An example of Hollywoods perfect understanding of the significance of dialogue would be with Mel Gibson with "Signs" and "the Passion" and an example of Independant america would be with, one of my personal favorites, Quentin Terantino with "Kill Bill 1 and 2," and " Hero." The dialogue, as well as the scene sequences are what make them so amazing. Dialogue is everything and anyone who doesn't understand that is destined for a life filled with second rate "league of extraordinary men" rated films.

• Story
• Acting
• Dialogue

...in that order.

pINKpIRATE said:

dialogue is everything. it literally sets the tone for the entire movie and it goes hand in hand with the actors acting ability so without a group grasp of what the dialogue either expects of them or directs them to do, the entire film can end up completely uneventful and dissapointing. Take "league of extraordinary men" for instance. The potential of that movie was so great that i even found myself tempted to write my own version of it and the characters and their descrptions were so amazing on paper......but then when you saw the film, it was utterely sickening. the dialogue really sucked, the antire plot was completely lost after the first 15 or so minutes and the actors looked like they themselves were little fish swimming a huge pond. you had acting greats like sean connery, new commers like the kid that was on " a walk to remember" and television veterans lik ex star of "la femme nikita" and every scene that appeared, you could see it in their eyes that they litterally had no fucking clue what they were doing. it was so horrible and dissappointed because they could have done such amazing things with that script and they just wasted it all on that piece of shit they called a movie. it pisses me off till this day. but then take a look at movies like "donnie darko" and "meet joe black". both highly dramatic and enigmatic films, but one got critical acclaim because of how emotionally renching it is, and the other is mostly known and enjoyed by indie buffs like myself. Donnie Darko was an awesome movie, but it was an independant one, so its grasp on dramatic was froma whole nother "anarchist", "punk" sort of view, whereas "meet joe black" equally awesome, was just as dramatic, but from a "hollywood" point for view. And we all know that in the battle between "Main stram America" and the "local Punk", America always wins, but in this case, Donnie Darko's continuous banterical, ironical, engrossing dialogue captured by the script make it one of the greatest films ever made in my book. Its the perfect independant movie, assuming it was one. An example of Hollywoods perfect understanding of the significance of dialogue would be with Mel Gibson with "Signs" and "the Passion" and an example of Independant america would be with, one of my personal favorites, Quentin Terantino with "Kill Bill 1 and 2," and " Hero." The dialogue, as well as the scene sequences are what make them so amazing. Dialogue is everything and anyone who doesn't understand that is destined for a life filled with second rate "league of extraordinary men" rated films.

Click to expand...

Dialogue is the last important part of a screenplay. The most important part is STRUCTURE. You must have solid structure to keep your story MOVING and ON TRACK. Dialogue alone simply will not achieve this. Even if you're not capable of creating good dialogue, properly structuring your screenplay allows the actors to PERFORM good dialogue. A good actor will understand that he or she has a crappy line and will normally argue that fact and want to tweak it... But, even if they don't, a competent actor can take poor dialogue and make it better simply by good acting.

On the other hand, poor screenplay structure will kill your script in a heartbeat. Ever wonder why we can barely sit through indie films (by indie films I mean from people like us... Not Hollywood indie films)? Very poor structure... No concept of story or of storytelling. And, I guess what really gets me about that is that in all other respects, many of the indie films I see are technically very good looking i.e., good lighting, good locations, good costumes, etc... Where they really fall flat is the story but in reality, the story, in and of itself is also a good story but simply executed poorly.

The story must be arranged in a way that pulls us into it emotionally. Dialogue alone can't achieve this.

filmy

If dialogue was unimportant mime's would be movie stars. If you can't match Shakespeare keep it brief.

If dialogue was unimportant mime's would be movie stars.

Click to expand...

Didn't seem to be a concern before 1929.

One doesn't need dialogue to tell a story, if you have the actual story and actors to play it.

Ever wonder why we can barely sit through indie films (by indie films I mean from people like us... Not Hollywood indie films)? Very poor structure... No concept of story or of storytelling. And, I guess what really gets me about that is that in all other respects, many of the indie films I see are technically very good looking i.e., good lighting, good locations, good costumes, etc... Where they really fall flat is the story but in reality, the story, in and of itself is also a good story but simply executed poorly.

Click to expand...

Actually, I think this is really important.

But it's not just lack of structure, beyond that there is often a lack of understanding of people, which leads to bad dialogue, poor acting and less than fascinating films.

The truth is that the technical aspects of film making can be mastered by pretty much anyone, story-telling is a whole other matter and I think it's significant that we see more postings about cameras here than about writing.
I think this is because the technical questions are easily resolved, very few grey areas. Plus, everyone thinks they can write and finds it almost impossible to give up on that delusion. In my experience a lot times this is because people can't tell the difference between having an idea for a film and being able to write. They are two distinct things; the idea being the easy bit that anyone can do. The writing, however, takes years and years of dedication to achieve anything like competence.

If you ask any producer in the world what their biggest problem is, they all say the same thing. A shortage of great scripts. The truth is that the industry is crying out for good writing. Ironically, there are more scripts out there than ever before, but the quality is almost universally bad.

I think if we spent more time understanding the technical requirements of good writing instead of worrying about which 3ccd chip camera is best for under $500 the indie film scene would be in a better state.

The origianl question "is dialogue important" is a profound one for the indie filmmaker, because beneath it is the more important question, is good writing important and if so what are the key elements?

Zensteve said:

Didn't seem to be a concern before 1929.

One doesn't need dialogue to tell a story, if you have the actual story and actors to play it.

Click to expand...

Don't forget even in pre 1929 they used little white Dialogue Boxes. Which goes to the heart of the issue .
In my humble opinion its the quality of the dialogue not the quantity. Every part of a script must advance the story. If not it is no more than set dressing and that falls in someone else's department.

TO: FilmJumper

Wow, you're reply was the most constructive of any other I’ve gotten. Everyone else seems to be stuck on the "why are all your words capitalized?" thing. but yeah, i agree. Structure is important, but i believe that dialogue place a very intricate role. for instance, the movie "taking lives" lets be realistic, the whole structure of the movie was poor and it basically left me lacking in the interest department, but Angelina Jolie was still an awesome actress in all respects. Everyone else seemed to be falling apart at the seams but she still kept a handle on her acting and execution of words. Sean Connery in "league of extraordinary men" was good in his acting but the movie was so disorganized that i finally started to think that the reason the other actors were not as good as they usually are was because they were spending too much time trying the find the whole point of the movie. as many times as i have watched it in HBO, i still don't get it. and yeah, some indie films really lose you but i love them simply because they cover topics no other "Hollywood" film would ever dare shoot. originality of the scripting can only be found on IFC or Sundance because all the other filmmakers, even though they say they are original, are too scared to go outside the box and write something really racy that can appeal to make the homosexual population, or the sexist men population, or anything else that is usually seen as a taboo in our society. The lighting is probably always in good in some indie films as apposed to the script being so because the people directing are more talented in that department as opposed to writing. their are only a view people who are good at all three. I can write and direct, but know only about camera angles as far as production goes and nothing else. have you ever seen Donnie Darko? yeah its a Hollywood film but its writers are Sundance created, that’s why the concept grips people that are usually seen as outcast like rockers, or skaters or gothics. The film was good, but Meet Joe Black was equally as good but could never grip skaters, rockers etc... Simply because the writers were Hollywood made. its all about how far the writer is willing to go to get across not only their point, but also to identify with the not so common audience.
but thank you for replying though, its nice to hear someone that actually writes about film making as if they were passionate, too many people have this as a simple "hobby" that it gets to a point that you end up talking to someone who is obviously not as interested in it as you. hope to hear a reply again.

-pINKpIRATE