I have long blocks of dialog that I feel that are essential to my film, which is a horror/suspense/thriller. I don't want my movie to be all talking heads, but I feel that I need this dialog to convey some pertinent information and/or to make how people react to circumstances and situations sound and look realistic. What should I do with the dialog? Should I break them up, shorten them, or just take them out? BTW keep in my because of the context of the conversation in the scene some of these dialog block can not be broken up.
What Do I Do With Long Blocks Of Dialog?
- Thread starter eddie777
- Start date
ChrisHurn
Well-known member
In my opinion there is nothing wrong with a dialogue heavy film, but only if it's bloody good dialogue. I saw an independent film the other day that was so dialogue heavy that I couldn't sit still and watch it. The dialogue was trying to be witty and just unnecessary.
I think you have to look at what kind of film you are trying to make - horror and thriller can be pretty different genres - most people go to horror films to be entertained and scared the hell out of.
My advice would be to take a close look at every single line. Is every line absolutely essential in moving the story forward? Is there really no other way that you can show this information? Think of a song you like - break down the lyrics, with a song you only have a certain number of lines to tell the story, and one wasted line, is one less line you had to put in the good bits. It's very easy to throw in lots of dialogue in films. The hard part is chopping it down.
Keep in mind that the audience is smarter than sometimes given credit for and can figure out stuff for themselves. If you have too much dialogue, the suspense might not be such a suprise, or as intense. I guess you just need to balance it out and decide what exactly you are trying to say with the film.
Chris
I think you have to look at what kind of film you are trying to make - horror and thriller can be pretty different genres - most people go to horror films to be entertained and scared the hell out of.
My advice would be to take a close look at every single line. Is every line absolutely essential in moving the story forward? Is there really no other way that you can show this information? Think of a song you like - break down the lyrics, with a song you only have a certain number of lines to tell the story, and one wasted line, is one less line you had to put in the good bits. It's very easy to throw in lots of dialogue in films. The hard part is chopping it down.
Keep in mind that the audience is smarter than sometimes given credit for and can figure out stuff for themselves. If you have too much dialogue, the suspense might not be such a suprise, or as intense. I guess you just need to balance it out and decide what exactly you are trying to say with the film.
Chris
ConspiracyPenguin
Nosey Penguin
Yes, it would depend on the dialog as far as content and quality. I like dialog but if too much of it is abstract clichés then you would be better off without it. As far as the visual vs. audible debate, it is a preference I think. Many people don't like lots of dialog, but some do. Use what you need for character development and story telling and no more. Horror/dramas are visual genres. Use images to provoke a response in the audience rather than telling them what to feel/think through a character.
John LaBonney
Well-known member
Another thing to consider with long blocks of dialog is that it can be (depending on how it's shot) very difficult for actors to remember and perform.
ConspiracyPenguin
Nosey Penguin
That's true. Shorter stints of dialog are easier for some actors. Although, for others, it is easier to memorize large blocks like monologues. I work better with shorter back and fourths for the most part.
That might be true of amateur actors, but for anyone with training, not an issue.
JasonFox
Internet Sensation
If long exposition is really necessary, have your actors *doing* something while they speak. (Blake Snyder of "Save the Cat" fame calls this trick the Pope in the Pool.) Talking -- even with great dialog -- can be boring on its own. But if the actors are engaged in an interesting (even if it's ultimately irrelevant to the actual story) activity makes the scene entertaining instead of dull.
This has come up before, and I'll again offer a dissenting opinion. IMHO a character should not be DOING anything unless it specifically serves to advance the story or develop character. Doing things just to be doing things is gratuitous IMHO.
Smores
New member
Dialogue should be last and used sparingly
Dialogue should be last and used sparingly
I wholeheartedly agree. Upon starting my journey as a writer, I attended Robert McKee's Story seminar, which I recommend. Amongst his sage advice was to leave the dialogue for last. (i.e., Write the entire story and develop the characters in your plot line mostly through their behaviors and reactions, especially when under stress. Then, when all the scenes are strung together, write the dialogue).
His ideology is sound because so often, writers fall in love with their crap and don't know when to cull it. It's tempting to start a piece and jot down some snappy lines bantered about. Chances are they're unecessary and the story\plot development and character development can be shown without dialogue, assuming you have decent actors. Put in dialogue last to give the characters' distinct personalities. Then, anything you can't show visually (either due to time, poor shots or expensive shots); use that in exposition-- crappy dialogue used to move along the story.
Oh, and to the original post, your not wanting to have talking heads for long periods of time is a wise instinct. This media, and especially horror, is great for movement! Also, remember the addage "a picture is worth a thousand words." With the advent of movie pictures, we can tell a tremendous amount without words being uttered at all.
good luck
Dialogue should be last and used sparingly
I wholeheartedly agree. Upon starting my journey as a writer, I attended Robert McKee's Story seminar, which I recommend. Amongst his sage advice was to leave the dialogue for last. (i.e., Write the entire story and develop the characters in your plot line mostly through their behaviors and reactions, especially when under stress. Then, when all the scenes are strung together, write the dialogue).
His ideology is sound because so often, writers fall in love with their crap and don't know when to cull it. It's tempting to start a piece and jot down some snappy lines bantered about. Chances are they're unecessary and the story\plot development and character development can be shown without dialogue, assuming you have decent actors. Put in dialogue last to give the characters' distinct personalities. Then, anything you can't show visually (either due to time, poor shots or expensive shots); use that in exposition-- crappy dialogue used to move along the story.
Oh, and to the original post, your not wanting to have talking heads for long periods of time is a wise instinct. This media, and especially horror, is great for movement! Also, remember the addage "a picture is worth a thousand words." With the advent of movie pictures, we can tell a tremendous amount without words being uttered at all.
good luck
Last edited:
Smores
New member
A character's behaviors & activities are revealing
A character's behaviors & activities are revealing
Things that are gratuitous should be cut to move the story along.
As an actor with method and Meisner training, I would strongly recommend you not have your actors doing an activity simply for the sake of keeping them busy. A trained actor should be savvy enough to spit out his lines with full opinion while doing something truthful to the circumstances. More over, as BrianLuce suggests, the activity should ONLY be done to develop the character and move along the plot.
The actor should have clear, concise behaviors that speaks to the character or the characters' emotional state of mind, impediment, etc. Doing otherwise could confuse the audience or, at the very least, dissipate the strength of the character.
You wouldn't see Darth Vader plucking out a wedgie or skipping merrily along. Doing these things would shatter his omnipotence. These are extreme examples, but they go to show how behaviors and doing certain activities in certain ways are how a character is defined to the audience.
A character's behaviors & activities are revealing
Things that are gratuitous should be cut to move the story along.
As an actor with method and Meisner training, I would strongly recommend you not have your actors doing an activity simply for the sake of keeping them busy. A trained actor should be savvy enough to spit out his lines with full opinion while doing something truthful to the circumstances. More over, as BrianLuce suggests, the activity should ONLY be done to develop the character and move along the plot.
The actor should have clear, concise behaviors that speaks to the character or the characters' emotional state of mind, impediment, etc. Doing otherwise could confuse the audience or, at the very least, dissipate the strength of the character.
You wouldn't see Darth Vader plucking out a wedgie or skipping merrily along. Doing these things would shatter his omnipotence. These are extreme examples, but they go to show how behaviors and doing certain activities in certain ways are how a character is defined to the audience.
Not to beat a dead horse but you said "But if the actors are engaged in an interesting (even if it's ultimately irrelevant to the actual story)".
It's interesting to hear smores's actorly opinion. My comments were only with regards to what appears on the page -- part of the discipline of writing being to keep it all as taut and lean as possible. I'd always assumed that on a set actors actually did find something irrelevant to do if the scene was otherwise static visually. But looks like a well trained actor imposes some of the same discipline on his/her craft that a writer does.
JasonFox
Internet Sensation
Well, then I guess we're splitting hairs in opposite directions and coming to the same conclusion. I meant "irrelevant to the story" to mean that it could go away and you wouldn't have some gaping hole of confusion left in its place. I didn't mean irrelevant to the character. Too tired to explain further, but I'm pretty sure we agree.
Here is a dialog article I put together...along with a few others. Maybe it will help.
http://filmschoolnow.com/dialogue.html
http://filmschoolnow.com/dialogue
If either of these two links don't work...drop me an email and I will send it to you.
Anybody have any additions/comments to the article? Send them in!
curtis@filmschoolnow.com
http://filmschoolnow.com/dialogue.html
http://filmschoolnow.com/dialogue
If either of these two links don't work...drop me an email and I will send it to you.
Anybody have any additions/comments to the article? Send them in!
curtis@filmschoolnow.com