Ad lib diaglog - have you ever worked this way?

[brianluce]

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.
snipped
.

Very interesting and well said. However, if an actor and or director is lucky enough to stumble on great material then meddling with dialog can be risky. To use an extreme and unfair example, I doubt most actors would consider dicking with Shakespeare--or even Tarentino. Afterall, if you're a writer, that's what you should be good at, writing.

Vincent: You know what? It's those little things in Europe...
Jules: Example.
Vincent: Well, they put Mayo on French Fries. And dig this, hardly anyone speaks English.
Jules: Fascinating. So in Burger King it must be hard to order...
Vincent: Yes, good thing I stocked up on Snicker Bars before I left the states.

 

[CineMischief]

I'm getting the impression that two different things are being discussed and being confused as the same thing...maybe. I think improvising can really add to the realism, naturalism, etc of the film...with certain caveats. Obviously talent, prep, and structure still must come into play. I think everyone can agree that these are indispensable if anything coherent is to be expected while ad-libbing. I come from an improv background and have seen this method work in films (shorts and features). But it seems they only work when there is a game plan, motivation for actions, etc. Everything Zak said in his posts. It can work very well. But it was determined and developed before anything was shot.

However, coming from a writing background, man...if someone took my script, threw out the dialogue, and went from there...just wow. Sure, sometimes adjustments are needed. Sometimes improvised actions and dialogue are the best parts of the film, but writers put a lot of thought into what goes on the page. There should be a reason for everything there. Pacing, rhythm, character voice, style, etc all come into play as well. I dunno. I might be placated if Brando and Bogart were resurrected, playing off Ralph Fiennes, and were directed by Billy Wilder.

I'm going to echo what brian wrote above. That's just spot on.

One final observation: there's a difference between realism and hyper-realism and we have to be careful about glorifying one to the detriment of the other. As always, this is just my opinion and I love you all.

 

[rsbush]

A lot of valid points have been made. I'd just like to add a few.
Dramatic improvisation and Comedic improvisation are completely different beasts. Comedic improv has a long history as a performing art. Dramatic improv's history is mostly as a method of training actors to live believably under imaginary circumstances and as a tool for the exploration of character. It has also been used for story development to a lesser degree. While directors like Mike Leigh and Cassavettes are renown for their use of improvisation, very little of what you see on the screen is actual improv. Leigh uses improvisation extensively to develop the story and characters but shoots with a completed script. An example of how complete would be his film "Naked" that was developed completely through improv, but only one scene during shooting was improvised. Cassavettes always (Shadows may be the exception) had a script to start with and utilised improvisation as character exploration, but again, most of what you see on the screen was scripted.
I am trained and have trained actors in the Meisner method of dramatic improvisation. I find that while you can get something out of almost any improv, only about one in ten really works as a scene. Now if like Zak Forsman, you're talking about improvising dialouge within a tightly structured scene, your success rate will most likely rise dramatically, as dialouge is just one element of a scene and doesn't carry the weight in most films that it does in most theater. I've seen Zak's Blue in Green trailer and it is damned impressive. It takes infinitely more preparation, time and talent to use improvisation as a tool for filmmaking. It is not a shortcut but rather a longer, reliable road to truthful behavior under imaginary circumstances.

 

[brianluce]

I'm getting the impression that two different things are being discussed and being confused as the same thing...maybe.

I feel the same way. None of the POV's here seem mutually exclusive.

 

[Prodigi Pictures]

Generally, both written scripts and improvised scenes are awful.

I believe that most screenplays are painful to read and that to sit through most locally-produced productions of Shakespeare or a screening of NYU short films is akin to time spent in pergatory.

I also believe that most improvisational comedy troops suck rocks. I can't stand most locally-produced theatre sports performances. Almost all young actors think they're great at improv while almost all young actors deliver banal, awkward, clumsy improvisational performances.

The best of each is a different story...particularly because the VERY best improv is largely the ILLUSION of improv. Someone mentioned Spinal Tap as an example of great improv. It's one of my favorite movies of all time, but it isn't nearly as improvisational as you might think. Watch the DVD and listen to the commentary tracks. Rob Reiner spent an enormous amount of time rehearsing, structuring and scripting each scene of the film with the cast. They may not have had a 120 page script before they began production, but they didn't roll cameras and invent scenes, structure and dialogue as incredibly expensive filmstock rolled through the gate of each camera either!

And while it was mentioned that Christopher Guest's films are masterworks of improvisation, he learned his craft from Spinal Tap...and yet, again his work isn't as simple as "Let's roll camera and invent a movie on the spot, people!"

It requires tremendous preparation to create the illusion of an off-the-cuff improv.

My wife LOVES "Whose Line Is It Anyways?" I've found it fascinating for three reasons:

1.) Most people don't know they shoot far more sketches than they show in an episode and cut out the sketches that didn't work.
2.) Most people don't know the cast rehearses like mad, and have a "bag of tricks" they pull from to "save" an improvisational sketch if it is going poorly.
3.) Isn't it amazing that after many seasons on the BBC and here in the US that THREE ACTORS stood above everyone else...despite the desire to have a random sampling of actor/comedians the producers use Ryan Stiles, Kyle Mockery (sp) and Wayne Brady season after season. Everyone else is mediocre.

Improv is incredibly difficult...and if you're a filmmaker you're looking for an incredibly rare skill set. And when you find the actors with that skill set you need to accept the reality that you aren't really doing improv.

Best In Show, Spinal Tap, Waiting For Guffman, Whose Line Is It Anyways? and the other examples of BRILLIANT improvisational projects are far more crafted and structured than the audience realizes...

...so what's my point? The best of improv isn't really improved. The best scripted narratives are exactly that. Improv relies on the illusion that it is "the art of the spontaneous." I personally think it's a bit deceptive. I certainly enjoy it when it is done well...but I don't think for a second "What do I need a script for? Have you seen Spinal Tap? All I need are 3 great actors and I can make it up as I go along!"

Once I knew that improv wasn't really improved (at least not the way the audience thinks it is) I felt it lost some of it's magic. It's just like a master illusionist...they don't tell us how they perform the trick because once we realize how the trick is acomplished it loses much of its luster.

So, when I compare the best of both worlds, I prefer scripted projects. I like the crackle of Tarantino's dialogue. I like Aaron Sorkin's impossibly intelligent characters. I like Mamet's barrage of staccato-style stuttering (except when he's directing...then, it blows.)

When improv is well done it isn't improv...it's community-based writing created from massive rehearsing with carefully positioned unscripted moments.

When a scripted narrative is well done it is a scripted narrative.