Case studies: Writing Dialogue
The following clips illustrate some of the aspects of writing dialogue mentioned in Screenwriting Technique: Writing Dialogue. Note that this is only a tiny sample meant to touch on issues such as the use of dialogue to convey exposition effectively (one of the main problems that novice screenwriter’s experience) as well as to underscore the importance of sub-textual meaning.
Ordinary People 1980
Exposition in dialogue
Ordinary People was a family melodrama about the inability of a mother to love her son. This scene occurred quite early in the film. Conrad, an alienated teenager, blames himself for the death of his brother and has attempted suicide. He looks up Karen, a girl who spent time in the same psychiatric hospital, hoping to find common ground in the experience they shared together.
The script extract here is from an early draft of the scene. It is not badly written but it contains quite a lot of anecdotal information. The dialogue is used to propel the scene, rather in the manner of a stage play. In the version that reached the screen however much of that information has been pared away. There are silences and misdirections. The scene is graphically more about the lack of communication between the characters than what is said.
The ability of film to penetrate a moment — in this case, to capture the subtlest nuances — is something unique to the medium. Dialogue written for the screen should exploit this by leaving room for it to happen.
Coupling 2000
Subtext — the unspoken and unsayable
It’s a general rule that dialogue written ‘on the nose’ is a bad idea but sometimes it can be a great comic device. In Annie Hall, Woody Allen exploited it very effectively in one scene by using subtitles on screen to show what the characters were really thinking.
Coupling was a very successful UK comedy series that, at its best moments, aspired to pure farce. Here the idea of a ‘truth helmet’ — a typically throwaway comic invention – uses video gaming conventions to show the subtext (i.e. what the characters are ‘really’ saying).
The bonus speech at the end about cushions was another regular feature of the series and a good example of a ‘purple passage‘. These set-piece speeches were always given to Jack Davenport’s character who would launch into a hilarious tirade about something tangential to the action (most memorably trying to explain why Lesbian Nun Inferno was a film with artistic integrity.)
The Long Day’s Dying 1968
Monologues as an inner voice
Unjustly neglected, The Long Day’s Dying, directed by Peter Collinson in 1968, is an unusual war film that tells the story of a crack team of British soldiers behind enemy lines during World War 2. There is very little dialogue between the characters; instead, through voice-over, we overhear their inner thoughts. As a highly trained and close-knit unit, they also seem to be able to communicate telepathically with each other.
It’s a very resonant idea: emphasising the isolation of a soldier in conflict and the frequent necessity to act silently. In contrast to this, the insanity of war itself prompts strange, random thoughts. In this clip, the inner monologue of the character counterpoints the brutality of the scene, drawing a picture of someone who is completely at home with violence but sickened by it at the same time.
Monologues in films are frequently done as voice-overs. Just as the technique of contrasting what you see with what you hear continues to be a favourite way of creating a range of dramatic effects – comic, ironic and sometimes tragic.
Passion Fish 1995
A purple passage
A ‘purple passage’ is defined as a story or part of a story, that is narrated by a character within the main plot that may have nothing directly to do with it. Note that it is a speech, not a new scene filmed as a flashback or a digression.
This monologue comes out of dialogue and is a confessional piece, revealing something about the character but also altering the tone and mood of the scene. It feels convincing because this is often how monologues occur: one character dominating a conversation because they have something important to say or share.
Talking To A Stranger 1966
The dynamics of a group
Directed by Christopher Morahan, Talking To A Stranger was a quartet of four television plays by John Hopkins who also wrote the play upon which Stanley Lumet’s The Offence was based. Exploring the relationships within a dysfunctional middle-class English family, each play was written from the perspective of a different family member. The psychological observation and delicacy of touch, coupled with fine performances from an exceptional cast, made this a landmark in tv drama.
The scene is a family meal and even banal interchanges carry undercurrents of the tensions within the family. There are rivalries and competition, hurts and resentments bubbling under the surface, which erupt as the meal progresses.
Although written sequentially, the dialogue is beautifully orchestrated, with interruptions and non-sequiturs, so you really feel there are several things all happening at the same time. These are the kinds of exchanges that are instantly recognisable to anyone who lives within a family but you could see also see them happening as part of any group dynamics.
Point-counterpoint
Like A Long Day’s Dying above, this scene uses dialogue to create an effective juxtaposition. The strained erotic fantasy of the woman talking ‘dirty’ to her client for money contrasts with the genuine affection between her and her family and the reality of everyday relationships.
The Good, The Bad and The Ugly 1966
Finally, as Tucco The Rat (Eli Wallach) reminds us, there are times when dialogue is superfluous and action is enough. It’s just as important to recognise the occasions when the absence of dialogue – or dialogue pared down to a minimum – is the best and most effective choice.
David Clough © 2010