Ad lib diaglog - have you ever worked this way?

Big ScareCrow

Big ScareCrow

Well-known member
(I posted this in the screenwriting forum also)

I'm not even sure, if I'm using the right termonolgy, but in your script/directing/movie making experience, have any of you ever written or directed a movie where you as a director just give general explanitions for what you want certain dialog to unfold as. For example, you want a women and man to argue about her father's death, while eating dinner at a formal restraunt. And then let them "add lib" the conversation. Does that sort of thing work, or should you have lines already prepared? I'm sure your actors ability play a big role, but should I plan this way while writting a script? Any feedback is great. Thanks
 
Every line, every word, every particular phrase in a movie's dialogue is vital to continuing the story. There should be no fluff, no filler, just properly-written plot-conveying character-revealing incisive dialogue.

If you're having actors make up the dialogue as they go, that's akin to a carpenter just buying some wood and some nails and trying to build a house, without having any plans or architectural drawings.
 
Thanks

Thanks

In your opinon, is there somewhere in middle of the road. In my head I can hear particular lines, others just blah blah blah (i.e. announcements, radio, etc)
 
Well, if you want to make some manner of experimental film then I guess so. But in a scripted dramatic narrative, the dialog is an essential component. It should be pared to the bone so that every word is there for a reason. That way it helps convey the story, and most importantly it doesn't waste the audience's time.

The audience is trusting you to give them an experience worth paying for. So you have to deliver on your end of the bargain.

Then again, I'm coming from the world of wanting to have a shot list and proper storyboards. I know there are people who just "go out there and make it up." I can't fathom how that would actually work (and most nearly every one of those types of films I've seen have been absolutely horrible); it seems like that technique is right up there with stockpicking by throwing darts at a dartboard with the stock pages pinned to it.
 
It sounds to me like you're not ready to shoot. If you can't think of what all the lines should be, your story's not ready yet. Leave it baking in the oven until it's fully-formed! :thumbsup:
 
Barry_Green said:
The audience is trusting you to give them an experience worth paying for.
Click to expand...

Truer words have rarely been spoken. In fact, the filmmaker is OBLIGATED to the audience for that experience.

And that obligation is far too often ignored - not only in independent films, but in large scale studio films.
 
Barry_Green said:
Every line, every word, every particular phrase in a movie's dialogue is vital to continuing the story. There should be no fluff, no filler, just properly-written plot-conveying character-revealing incisive dialogue.

If you're having actors make up the dialogue as they go, that's akin to a carpenter just buying some wood and some nails and trying to build a house, without having any plans or architectural drawings.
Click to expand...
Someone alert Christopher Guest, he's been screwing up all these years.
 
I've seen some really great stuff that was improv. I prefer to have everything mapped out beforehand. If you're doing a short film, like around five minutes or so, it can't hurt to experiment with it and see if it works for you. If you're doing a feature or something, then I would recommend you having the dialogue already written.

I've edited some shorts where the dialogue was improv and I've spent more time in the editing room than I normally would have if the dialogue would have been written beforehand.
 
Last edited:
Sometimes things that look great on paper don't always sound right when people say them--so sometimes an on the fly adjustment can be useful. Or sometimes an actor might say "Can't I deliver the line this way instead?"
 
There's only a handful of actors who can pull off ad libbing well, and even fewer directors that can recognise great ad libbing and improv when it happens. Short skits and Second City are one thing - a dramatic film is a different beast altogether. (Notice how Guest uses the same few people over and over). I suggest heeding Barry's words. Shun the non-believer.
 
DorkmanScott said:
Someone alert Christopher Guest, he's been screwing up all these years.
Click to expand...
and Mike Leigh, and John Cassavettes (wait, he's dead) and...

Barry_Green said:
If you're having actors make up the dialogue as they go, that's akin to a carpenter just buying some wood and some nails and trying to build a house, without having any plans or architectural drawings.
Click to expand...
i will never write dialogue. and if i were directing someone else's screenplay, the words would just be a guide that we ultimately throw away. guiding improvised scenes requires more forethought and structure than most people realize. you can't ask for a result from your actors like, "fight about this, be angry here, forgive him there". instead, you have to be prepared to guide them down the path of the scene. the actors need to have playable actions and objectives to go after. if you do that, with some experience, you will get very real, natural "dialogue" that isn't making concessions for plot or for some writer's idea of what's clever. it's all true to character. the biggest challange, i've found is helping the actor stay in the moment. if they're in their head and self-directing, you might as well call "cut".

the feature i co-directed a million years ago, Blue in Green, was shot from a two page outline. there was not one scripted line of dialogue. my friend and co-director M. David Melvin worked closely with the actors to develop scene objectives for each character. my next feature, will be the same.

cyclone said:
There's only a handful of actors who can pull off ad libbing well, and even fewer directors that can recognise great ad libbing and improv when it happens. Short skits and Second City are one thing - a dramatic film is a different beast altogether. (Notice how Guest uses the same few people over and over). I suggest heeding Barry's words. Shun the non-believer.
Click to expand...
there's plenty more than a handful. i've worked with dozens. maybe youre referring to 'name' actors. in that case, your right.
 
Last edited:
And Cassavettes, like Guest, would use the same core group in his films: his wife, Peter Falk...
 
cyclone said:
And Cassavettes, like Guest, would use the same core group in his films: his wife, Peter Falk...
Click to expand...
well, even directors that dont use improvisation like to work with the same core group of actors -- wes anderson, pt anderson, coen bros, etc...
 
Barry_Green said:
Then again, I'm coming from the world of wanting to have a shot list and proper storyboards. I know there are people who just "go out there and make it up." I can't fathom how that would actually work (and most nearly every one of those types of films I've seen have been absolutely horrible); it seems like that technique is right up there with stockpicking by throwing darts at a dartboard with the stock pages pinned to it.
Click to expand...

What about the way someone like Cronenberg works? No storyboards.. no rehearsals until he gets on set and feels out how the scene should be shot. If your comfortable enough in your art / craft then this is a totally valid way of working.

Not saying I work like this.. cause I don't.. I definitely like to have my shorts already planned out.

But great drama doesn't just come from a writer.

"(and most nearly every one of those types of films I've seen have been absolutely horrible)"

BTW thats a pretty broad generalization... is that in respect to amatuer filmmakers? like a good portion of this site? or professionals?
 
I've done both improvised and "traditional" forms and enjoy both. But I'll stress this: All the improved films I've done have been with talented improvers from Second City, Improv Olympics, and Groundlings that already understood the mechanics of a scene. There still needs to be a beginning, middle, and end and each scene has to have a purpose. Editing can be hell, but the surprises and naturalism improv brings can be exciting.

I guess the point is, sure go ahead an improv if you want to, but make sure you surround yourself with actors that can pull it off. A great DP and/or multiple cameras works well too in order to "catch" everything that could be missed. Have fun and good luck.
 
I refer back to the axiom "if it ain't on the page, it ain't on the stage."

If a director were comfortable throwing away a writer's dialogue, I'd suggest that either a) that director doesn't understand the script, or b) the director doesn't want to make the movie that was written anyway, or c) the script was lousy (I mean, if ad-libbed dialogue could replace the written dialogue and not destroy the integrity of the story, then obviously the script must be awful).

Line adjustments happen all the time, sure. But wholesale discarding of the dialogue? Hey, to each his own, but I'm pretty confident in saying that that's not a common practice in mainstream professional filmmaking.

If you're not trying to make a conventional motion picture, and are instead going for something more experimental or "live" then sure, ad-lib all you want.
 
Barry_Green said:
I refer back to the axiom "if it ain't on the page, it ain't on the stage."

.
Click to expand...

I'm with Mr. Green. Although as others have said there are exceptions. But as a general rule, the fewer script changes the better. And frequent changes on a shoot suggests a script not thoroughly vetted.
 
let me preface this by stating the obvious: this is just an opinion that I've formed as my process of making films has evolved. it is not intended to argue for or against, but to illustrate how and why it works. as with anything, you are free to dismiss it. :)

imo, if the dialogue is so tied into the structural integrity of the script that it would collapse without it, that is a problem. maybe i've seen too many conventional dramas, but when i hear exposition, or a plant/payoff scenerio, or similar concessions being made for the sake of plot, i'm immediately aware of the artifice of the filmmaking process and pulled right out of the movie. for me it has undermined the believability of the world inhabited by these characters.

in my experience, if the writer was true to the characters, within the context of developing the story out of their wants and needs, then the specificity of the words that come from their mouths will be much truer to character if the actor is allowed to internalize his/her objective and pursue it with the guidance of a director who understands the path he's leading them on. if the writer (who is often the director in these cases) has done his job, the dialogue he wrote came from his own process of giving voice to the characters. he very much had to wear the hat of "actor" at that time. but at some point, he's going to be "recast" so to speak. so that now, the characters belong to the actors, and it's their burden to voice the character. and for me, that kind of community filmmaking is at the heart of why i love this uniquely collaborative artform. no singular person is the author.

improvised dialogue is far from "experimental" filmmaking. it's a process that is often misunderstood as figuring it out in front of the cameras. speaking for myself, i still have everything that a sceenplay provides -- structure, character arcs, etc. and in my own work, my "screenplay" also includes all the information I feel an actor needs for the scene -- relevant backstory, playable actions, and the motivation that will propel them through the turns of each scene. for me, it's a guided process that yields very natural results. but then, i would say my brand of filmmaking is atypical to a degree and falls in line with films like Breaking the Waves -- where it's not so much "dialogue" you're hearing, as it is a byproduct of the character's "behavior". but for my purposes, that's where I find the realism i seek, it's how I transcend the words I wrote on the page and it's the sort of thing that I hope will reach an audience in a deeply spiritual and meaningful way.

my 2¢.
 
Last edited:
Really appreciate the input

Really appreciate the input

Thanks for all the conversation on the topic. I figured laying all the dialog out would be best. I like the concept of the director having a responsibility to the audience. I've never thought of it that way before. Focused more on the "film grammer" more then anything. But stepping into tha writer/director roll, it makes sense. I've read a script writting book and one of the things that really stuck to me was when the book said people don't remember movie, but great scences in movies. I could relate to that. A great example in my opinon of having simple scenes with a good movie is "Telephone Booth" I believe thats what it was called. Very strong dialog in the movie. Thanks again. DVX forum is the bomb!!!!!! (in a non-terrorist way)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top