Exception to 'Show don't tell' : KISS indies?

Randall_Oelerich

Randall_Oelerich

Veteran
The general rule is show don't tell, when possible, i.e. only use dialog when it furthers a story, gives needed exposition that can not be show, etc.

But-- I was thinking about KISS indies. If you read e.g. Dov S. From Reel to Deal, the advice given to filmmakers for their first indie film (and the writers who write such screenplays) is to make a KISS film, i.e. write a 'stage play' screenplay with lots of dialog, a film shot in mostly or all in one location and with mostly dialog. This would seem to break the general rule. I think it is mostly a matter of budget-- a stage play indie can be done cheap (e.g. Catch and Release, Bug). But of course if writing a spec script to sell to hw where someone else like a studio with $ picks up the tab and budget, I get the rule of 'show don't tell'.
 
I saw this on vimeo a few days back. Pretty damn good and a prime example of what Randall just described- Simple, lots of dialogue and in one location. Now if only I could write dialogues as just as deep.

The Echo
 
Thanks. Yeah, my goal is to come up with a KISS story idea in 2009, then write it, which as you say will require pulling some rabbits out of a hat as far as dialog--I'll be sweating blood writing dialog, but imagine the benefits of going through such a process when writing future films. It will have to be great dialog. But I figure if I am going to cheaply indie produce a feature it will take a great KISS screenplay. I can come up with all sorts of stories, but I don't have a KISS story yet, that is going to take some imagination over the coming months. Kudos to those writers that have done it successfully.

I'd love to hear some examples of other KISS stage play feature films if anybody cares to share some titles, so we can study them. The Dark (Maria Bello, Sean Bean, Sophie Stuckey) is pretty much a KISS film too, cottage on the cliffs of Wales, outdoor shots by the sea, etc., a supernatural horror/thriller. Resevoir Dogs to a large extent is perhaps a KISS film (Quentin Tarantino, one of Dov. S's students, followed the KISS formula). To Gillian on her 37th Birthday (Peter Gallagher, Clare Danes) is another KISS film, shot mostly at a beach home.

raymondluo said:
I saw this on vimeo a few days back. Pretty damn good and a prime example of what Randall just described- Simple, lots of dialogue and in one location. Now if only I could write dialogues as just as deep.

The Echo
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
If you can find it, check out ClosetLand. Two characters, one location. Alan Rickman and Madeleine Stowe.

It was produced by Amnesty International, so it can be slightly heavy handed at times, but great performances and a tense, deeply emotional storyline keep things going.

As for which direction to take, I simply suggest you play to your strengths. Would you rather make Clerks or El Mariachi?
 
Bummer, not listed at blockbuster.com, and costs $30 at Amazon. I guess I won't get to see it. Would be fascinating to see a feature film with only two characters; reminds me of My Dinner with Andre (4.5/5 stars!) which was primarily the two characters having dinner together and talking about life (a cult classic film for those that have never seen it, well worth watching imho) although there were a few extras and of course Wally's trip on the subway arriving and leaving the restaurant.

Jeff Koenig said:
If you can find it, check out ClosetLand. Two characters, one location. Alan Rickman and Madeleine Stowe....
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I agree with you...but we all know we can secure a few locations if we need to in order to get us out of that room. I am writing a feature to shoot later this year that is a KISS film...with a few outside locations, but for the most part takes place in an apartment. Two of my favorite KISS films are The Breakfast Club and Glenngarry Glen Ross.
 
Use PAN as a model for your horror flick and you'll be okay - but it was not a film where people sat around and talked.

- Bill
 
Characters talking and talking and talking in horror flicks just royally stinks. I actually rented some no-budget horror film a year ago and it was just that-- characters talking and boring the viewer to death. I remember the climax scene where the hero and antagonist are on a sailboat, each with a knife, waving their knife and talking back and forth for about 20 minutes; oh-my-god was that insanely boring.

wcmartell said:
Use PAN as a model for your horror flick and you'll be okay - but it was not a film where people sat around and talked.

- Bill
Click to expand...
 
Characters just talking are "talking heads" which is something as a screenwriter I try my best to avoid. Think about it, when you talk with your friends, are you snacking on something? smoking? cutting something up in the kitchen? clean house?

ACTION means just that. If you have an indie film, look for FREE locations: state parks, city parks, municipal buildings, piers, and even some private ventures like a private country club or private harbor will allow you to film. Beaches are public therefore free to film.

There really is no excuse not to have mulitple locations unless you are imitating a play. I believe "Jury" with Barbra Streisand was confined to a courtroom, which can be really tedious after awhile to look at.

Remember, you are creating something VISUAL as well as VERBAL, so use your words, sight and sounds wisely, it really does matter.

Charli
 
I agree with the dialogue over action deal...but I will always stand by the fact that a good story is a good story, which is what we should aim to write.

If you set up a scene well enough in the beginning, you won't need to add the filler: John sips a coke.

The director will ultimately block the scene the way he wants, so I say use as much action as needed, but never overplay the details. Tell your story through slugs and dialogue, only using the actions necessary to the story (ie: John pulls out a gun and shoots Abe in the back of the head).
 
Not "John sips a coke" - that is filler.

Visual storytelling. Usng the actions of the characters to tell the story.

"We should resort to dialogue only when it's impossible to do otherwise."

- Bill
 
I disagree, Bill. While I know that you're no doubt quoting someone who's made more money than me in screenwriting, I don't want to see a movie of pantomime. A screenplay without dialogue is a poorly-written novel..:Drogar-Mark-08(DBG)
 
It's not a game of charades, it's *screen*writing and not *speaker*writing. The story is told throughthe actions of the characters. What people say is usually a lie of one sort or another, what they do is the truth.

For he first 40 years, movies were silent - they told their stories through the actions of the characters. Watch any Buster Keaton movie, from the shorts to the features - THE GENERAL is a good one. At no time do you ever notice that there are only a handful of title cards in the whole movie, because characters are just doing normal things... well, it's a Civil War film, so normal things in a wartime setting. When Keaton finds himself behind enemy lines by accident, he doesn't say: "Hey, I'd better act like one of the enemy soldiers or I'll get caught!" He just does it.

Since the average US film makes almost 70% of its money from overseas (the actual number from last year was 67.6% - and it has been 70% some years), and most countries do not subtitle - they dub if they have a limited number of dialects or have an in cinema translator if they have too many dialects to make dubbing worthwile - usually the picture part is what tells the story, not the dialogue. Dialogue can get condensed into "He hates her" when you wrote a 5 page conversation. The picture part has to do its half (or 70%) of telling the story. That's not the director's job - it's the story, so it's the writer's job.

Over on Bordwell's blog he's talking about some Asian films he saw at the Palm Springs Fest and showing how echo scenes tell the story visually - because if you are making films in a small country you need that film to be successful in many many other countries where they do not speak your language. So you need to tell the story visually.

A playwright writes dialogue, a screenwriter writes pictures.
http://www.scriptsecrets.net/articles/independents-10-visuals.pdf

- Bill
 
Bill, I understand what you are saying. And actually my first screenplay that Margot (Maggie) Prescott mentored me through (I think you know here someone, at least she knows who you are; I just had a talk with her last week, a 90 min talk about revision ideas) is primarily visual, as Maggie emphasized exactly what you state. There is dialog of course, but it is mostly visual, action; it is supernatural thriller so it should be primarily action and visuals.

That said--I have to say most screenplays that I read (of popular movies) are loaded with dialog. I flip the pages and it seems >70% of the script is dialog. Maybe only 50% if thriller-horror. So what does that mean? I don't know. This grasshopper is still learning!
 
The problem with going the low-budget, wall-to-wall dialogue route is that, at the budget you are talking about, you cannot afford the writers, actors, and directors that can actually pull that off successfully.

In my opinion, low-budget films are better off with as little dialogue as possible.
 
I agree with Bill and Agcohn. Nobody really wants to sit around and WATCH people TALK. Add to that the foreign sales statistics and you're simply spinning your wheels by chasing after something like this.

There're a lot more interesting visuals that you can do on a tiny budget.
 
I'm just as guilty about using too much dialog as the next person. So what I do is take all of my dialog and see if I can show it visually. Go through your script and try this simple exercise...ask yourself the question, "How can I show this rather than say it?"

Instead of talking about the hot girl or guy show the hot girl or guy. The visual says it all. Instead of talking about being in love...show it. Instead of talking about the killer/crime show the killer/crime. Instead of talking about the grand plan...show us the grand plan taking place or if you do describe the plan with dialog then the plan should be a complete disaster. I'm done talking...wish I had a visual to show what I just said. Anybody?
 
Nice idea for improving a script, I like it.

Kess said:
I'm just as guilty about using too much dialog as the next person. So what I do is take all of my dialog and see if I can show it visually. Go through your script and try this simple exercise...ask yourself the question, "How can I show this rather than say it?"

Instead of talking about the hot girl or guy show the hot girl or guy. The visual says it all. Instead of talking about being in love...show it. Instead of talking about the killer/crime show the killer/crime. Instead of talking about the grand plan...show us the grand plan taking place or if you do describe the plan with dialog then the plan should be a complete disaster. I'm done talking...wish I had a visual to show what I just said. Anybody?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top