Dialogue and Subtext

Eric Boellner

Eric Boellner

Well-known member
Just found this brilliant quote that says exactly what I've been trying to say in some conversations about dialogue and natural, character conversations in writing.

"Conversations are like icebergs - only the very tops are visible. Most of their weight, their mass, their meanings are under the surface. Make your readers feel the tension between what is above and what's below, and you'll have a story."
- Jerome Stern

In real life, people very rarely say what they're actually thinking. Even in arguments, we often hold back. Yet, in so many films, characters go on about their feelings and whenever they have conversations with other characters, they always speak deeply and meaningfully, and often sum things up perfectly.

I must admit, I'm guilty of this in several of my screenplays. Sometimes, there just doesn't seem to be a way around having the character say what he's thinking. And I think sometimes it IS necessary and true to character and real-life.

But I think one of the markings of great films is when characters talk about something seemingly superfluous, but in reality they're addressing core issues that they're dealing with - only they don't do so directly.

I'm not sure that I'm trying to make a point here - I'm more thinking out loud than anything. I just found the quote to be a fascinating, and pinpoint accurate way of explaining how I feel about the subject of dialogue and subtext.

Michael
 
it helps if you imply things rather than express them, so instead of having Munny say "im over the hill" , you show him practicing shooting and missing then grabbing a bigger gun.

a way of looking at subtext is it's the underlying situation that is going on that the characters don't mention because they are too busy being in it. so in Jaws, when the guys bond over fish stories, noone says "hey were really bonding, aren't we?".
 
vcassel said:
Mainly just don't write dialogue that's too on the nose.
Click to expand...

Right, sure, but I think Michael's making a more nuanced point.

The scene near the beginning of "Inglourious Basterds" where Christopher Waltz sits in the house of the farmer hiding the Jews in his basement is a good example. He chit-chats amiably about trivialities with the man as he puffs his pipe, asks for a second glass of his "excellent milk" and so on, while everybody knows the metaphorically and literally underlying stakes are absolutely sky-high. It's about as "tip of the iceberg" as it gets without involving any actual frozen water. IMHO Tarantino's gift for playing these kinds of provocative contrasts into dialog is one of the more striking of his numerous and finely developed skills as a writer/director.
 
Last edited:
Ted Spencer said:
Right, sure, but I think Michael's making a more nuanced point.

The scene near the beginning of "Inglourious Basterds" where Christopher Waltz sits in the house of the farmer hiding the Jews in his basement is a good example. He chit-chats amiably about trivialities with the man as he puffs his pipe, asks for a second glass of his "excellent milk" and so on, while everybody knows the metaphorically and literally underlying stakes are absolutely sky-high. It's about as "tip of the iceberg" as it gets without involving any actual frozen water. IMHO Tarantino's gift for playing these kinds of provocative contrasts into dialog is one of the more striking of his numerous and finely developed skills as a writer/director.
Click to expand...

Not trying to be a jerk about it, but in reading his post again, 'not being on the nose' is a perfect summation to what you and he are saying. You want to heighten conflict and you don't want your characters to make things too easy on each other, even though the subtext may be readily apparent to the audience and sometimes even to the characters. In every scene a character has a goal, but because of character psychology and dynamics, they'll hardly ever be straightforward about it. This is why I don't think writing from character is "bulls*&t" like some have preached here. You want to 'not write dialogue that's too on the nose.'
 
vcassel said:
Not trying to be a jerk about it, but in reading his post again, 'not being on the nose' is a perfect summation to what you and he are saying. You want to heighten conflict and you don't want your characters to make things too easy on each other, even though the subtext may be readily apparent to the audience and sometimes even to the characters. In every scene a character has a goal, but because of character psychology and dynamics, they'll hardly ever be straightforward about it. This is why I don't think writing from character is "bulls*&t" like some have preached here. You want to 'not write dialogue that's too on the nose.'
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but I was thinking of a broader definition of the extremely common on-the-nose-dialog problem with screenwriting Paduan-Learners, which might be used, among many other ill-advised applications of bad dialog, in advancing the story mechanically (emphasis here on the dialog, not the separate show-don't-tell question).

Stuff like this:

GUY 1:

I just found out that Jimmy's in jail!

GUY 2:

What do you think we should do?

GUY 1:

We gotta get him outta there.

GUY 2:

How?

And so, nauseatingly, on...

I've read (and rewritten) scripts full of that kind of dullard-speak, which IMO is sort of on-the-nose-101 level, if you will. The kind of nuanced, subtext laden stuff that Tarantino writes is so far beyond the imagination of such writers that it's really a separate discussion in my mind.

But semantics being what they are, one man's nose is more or less on than another's, and it's all fair game...
 
Last edited:
Ted Spencer said:
I've read (and rewritten) scripts full of that kind of dullard-speak, which IMO is sort of on-the-nose-101 level, if you will. The kind of nuanced, subtext laden stuff that Tarantino writes is so far beyond the imagination of such writers that it's really a separate discussion in my mind.

But semantics being what they are, one man's nose is more or less on than another's, and it's all fair game...
Click to expand...

+1
 
A real life example for me. Me and a friend were competing over a girl. He eventually got her. After they got together I remained friends with them. One night, our group of friends gathered at a bonfire for a night of booze. A deep conversation broke out about the meaning of "freedom" and what it really means. Anyways me and the friend got into a heated debate/arguement about Freedom. The emotions were about the girl, and the words were about "Freedom". To this day I feel stupid about letting the emotion get to me like that, but I learned a very important lesson as a writer and subtext.
 
Jadotch said:
A real life example for me. Me and a friend were competing over a girl. He eventually got her. After they got together I remained friends with them. One night, our group of friends gathered at a bonfire for a night of booze. A deep conversation broke out about the meaning of "freedom" and what it really means. Anyways me and the friend got into a heated debate/arguement about Freedom. The emotions were about the girl, and the words were about "Freedom". To this day I feel stupid about letting the emotion get to me like that, but I learned a very important lesson as a writer and subtext.
Click to expand...

great! :)
 
Jadotch said:
A real life example for me. Me and a friend were competing over a girl. He eventually got her. After they got together I remained friends with them. One night, our group of friends gathered at a bonfire for a night of booze. A deep conversation broke out about the meaning of "freedom" and what it really means. Anyways me and the friend got into a heated debate/arguement about Freedom. The emotions were about the girl, and the words were about "Freedom". To this day I feel stupid about letting the emotion get to me like that, but I learned a very important lesson as a writer and subtext.
Click to expand...

Right, and this dynamic, in a myriad of ways, plays out in millions of people's lives all over the world, every day.

Actually, it also plays out in a very similar way quite frequently between humans and their *pets*. Cats in particular...

If that ain't universal, nothing is...
 
And then there are the JESSIE STONE television movies where the characters seem to talk using nothing but OTN, no subtext, lol. A rare exception to the norm of subtext of course.
 
vcassel said:
This is why I don't think writing from character is "bulls*&t" like some have preached here. You want to 'not write dialogue that's too on the nose.'
Click to expand...

ugh!!thats a stab at me!!!

stumbles...removes knife....ugh....

after doing more screenwriting and reading Ive since learned that the whole "character or plot first" debate is pointless as they are two sides of the same coin, and writers will simply lean towards one or the other as fits their interests, abilities and the types of stories they tell.

so public apology for coming off like a didactic asshole who only had half the story straight.
just cause you got an onion and water don't mean your making soup yet.

---

I do think think the Tarantino discussion misses the technique tho. He's suspending tension by delaying an oncoming disaster.

-Nazis show up (oh this has to be bad)
-They talk milk and rats calmly for a long time (ooooohhhh this is gonna be baaddd)....
-they just keeeeep taaalking (oh man this is so bad)
-powwopwopwowpowp

-Vincent and Jules talk cheeseburgers (why these suited guys talking cheeseburgers they must be up to no good)
-They pull out guns (oooh this is bad)
-They calmly talk foot massage politics (these guys are calm but I know this is really bad)
-powpowpowpowpow

notice how both scenes end up in bloodbaths, as does the shoot out in the basement during the card game.

it's not the same technique as having a guy and girl argue over their car when they are really talking about their relationship.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top