How to make characters sound real?

Mile Bozicevic

Mile Bozicevic

Well-known member
I see and read a lot of shorts and features where every character sounds alike.

In these, protagonist usually speaks directly and is over-exposing the thoughts of a writer. Other characters are often awkwardly placed there just to push the story forward, but it feels like they are puppets on strings, without anything real about them. I just recently read an indie script, and while reading it I couldn't imagine any of the characters feel real at all. I mean, people don't talk like that. It just felt empty. I thought if I randomly switch the names in a scene, no one would notice the difference. That's not good, right?

Now, I'm in the middle of my own feature. I'm trying to get my 2 main characters have their unique voice. I can hear their voice, I know their past upside down, I know what they're afraid of and why some of the stuff they say is kinda out-of-the-place at the specific moment. I know what they think when they say or don't say something. They are combinations of real-life and fiction characters, which helps me to have a strong vision of them in a scene. Psychical appearance, way of walk, accent and for a female character, I have a vague thoughts about a scent. It's kinda hard to imagine a scent really - not sure if this really helps but it does associate her with someone I know.

I'm still not 100% sure are their voices unique or not.

What are your methods? How to make characters sound real, so audience dives into the story without noticing writer's work behind it? How do you handle characters who won't get that much dialogue lines sound believable and real? Do you also think of real people or you create completely new ones? Any tips on how to distinguish characters?
 
If the screenplay is well crafted and the actors good at their jobs, then there's not a problem. So two things that can work for or against you. Sounds like you're just worried about the casting and directing, but happy with the words? Is this right? The proven way to help make something a bit rushed or perhaps compromised is to employ actors who are already in real life, your characters, so the words don't need to be acted - just learnt. Some of the soaps use this trick, write for the actor, not make the actor act.
 
You say 'if screenplay is well crafted', well that is my concern. :)

I was referring specifically to writing process. I'm curios how other guys approach this in writing stage. It's definitely not 'just' directing and good acting that will make characters alive.
 
Mile Bozicevic said:
I see and read a lot of shorts and features where every character sounds alike. ...
Click to expand...

Couple of tips to try:

1. If you put your thumb over the name of the character, you should at least be able to tell if its a man or a woman speaking.

2. To get a feel if you're on the right track with your dialogue, have a table read with professional actors after maybe your fourth draft.
 
These are seperate issues- dialog that sounds like real people and that reveals character. Keep in mind movie/drama dialog is not real , its the illusion of real speech.

Anyways......

It helps if each character has a single dramatic, dominant, exaggerated trait that drives their speech and actions (Serpico is HONEST), in addition to being a 3d character/not stereotype.

Also keep in mind that dialog that has "character", that sounds like real people talking, that serves the story, and that is clever/witty are four separate goals that are naturally at cross-purposes,- if you do one you kind of let go of the other, and its hard, often impossible, to do all at once in every speech/line. If you go stylized/witty you lose a touch of realism, etc. all around. For example, QT, Mamet, and Diablo Cody are known for their cool dialog, but don't the characters kinda sound like the author at work? Mr Brown doesn't say anything about Madonna that Ms Wallace couldn't. Mamet's very rhythmic (realism) and conflict-based dialog sometimes gets accused of not revealing character. Hes doing one thing well at the sometimes expense of other things.

Pick a writer whose dialog you like and learn from them; you cant have a universally good dialog style that hits all four corners (character, conflict, realism, wit/style, etc) at all times in every line.
 
Last edited:
Two techniques I have used is to first always act out the dialogue of the scene out loud. It helps to have a collaborator for that, but, if not, then just doing it with yourself is a great help. Second is trying to write the dialogue in a more conversational style. Endeavor to write like people talk. nycineaste is correct movie/drama dialogue is not real. However, a lot of the scripts I read from indies have dialogue that is very stilted and not conversational at all. The dialogue is made up of complete sentences with, usually, impeccable punctuation. Dialogue should be much more like poetry than like prose. Incomplete sentences, pauses, truncated words, slang and other elements can be used to help convey the characters and propel the story.
 
Don't neglect action descriptions. Don't say that the character is shy, have them be hesitant to respond in conversation, shuffle their feet in lieu of response, have difficullty making eye contact. Is the character bold? Make him act first, talk second. An interfering busy-body, always attentive and seeking an angle. Alternating observation and interjection. 70% of communication is body language. But don't put the actor in a strait jacket, dictating every single movement. But consider a non-verbal response, if the action is part of the conversation it should be noted. Also truth is more in action than words. Don't be afraid to have character say (and even mean) one thing then do another.

Don't be too intellectual when you are writing dialogue, when we talk to ourselves we are using higher functions of cognition, when we communicate with another person it is a more basal, emotional, instinctual and reactive affair. It is push and tug, a power struggle even in a cooperative conversation. Crying is a subconscious weapon to penetrate the others defences. Escalating emotion in one will often escalate in the other, anger, sympathy, many will do whatever it takes to stop the other crying - lies to placate, anger to shock, retreat to avoid, compliance to end it. A smile of encouragement is a weapon to make the other lower defences and seek approval, puts the other in a subservient position, even when well intentioned. A smile of encouragement is an act of donning the parent or mentor position. Communication is an animal thing. It is difficult to debate ideas rationally with another person. In fact that is something that requires academic training to do. The absence of these factors are usually what flags expositional conversation.

Personality is half motivation (what they want) and half pre-existing tendency (what they are) and dramatically speaking motivation usually has to overcome the pre-existing tendency, show this struggle. The shy-guy needs to overcome his shyness to satisfy his motivation. Along the way he will make bad decisions, miss opportunities - the longer he fails to overcome his nature, the greater the dramatic tension. The action guy will create the dilemma by acting first without all the facts, he will make things worse until he overcomes his impulsiveness to satisfy his goal. Make sure that things are not working out for you characters and that it is their own tendencies that create their dilemmas. Then they will be real.

The external inciting incident is not meant to be a series of external events that happen to a character but to create a situation that brings their weaknesses to the fore, to examine under the microscope as they fight against themselves. Overcoming the external problem is only acheived by resolving their internal issues. The victory is the trophy of defeating the internal struggle. Most people fight against themselves on a daily basis, the bad choices are what the audience relates to and frustrates them. What engenders sympathy and dramatic tension respectively. Sometimes it is the story/plot itself that creates weak characters. If the plot does not directly illuminate their flaws, why are they in this story?

As far as dialogue goes, you can give quirks of speech and the like, accents, ticks etc. This is a bit of a hack way to go about it. If you are going to write in mannerisms make them subtle, structural and suitable. If your dialogue is appropriate for their social class and gender, as a rule you should be fine. Unless a speech mannerism, eccentricity or physical attribute such as a limp is plot driven, leave it to your actors bring these factors to the party. If you think all your characters are different shades of the same voice then ask yourself of each line, am I speaking through the character or is the character speaking through me. And as always - steal. Go spend a day on the train and listen to people's conversations. Pay attention, steal their voices.
 
Thanks for advices guys - very useful. I think I was on a right way, but applying stuff you wrote definitely improved them all.

For example, while writing I accidentally switched some names in one scene. Re-reading it again, literally - the dialogue couldn't belong to that person. Here, my 'hack' was that person didn't swear at all but was using very polite and somewhat aristocratic type of language. In the misplaced dialogue there were no ugly words or swearing, but just the way sentence is delivered couldn't possibly belong to that 'aristocratic' person.

And reading out loud is incredibly helpful. You can actually see whether dialogue is flowing nice by adding or removing some of the stuff. Definitely a great way visualize it before during rewrite.
 
Certainly delivery and direction - and editing - will play heavily on sounding authentic. But it does start in the screenplay, and the dialogue you give your characters. That includes the Hmms and the Umms and the whistling.

Dialogue is both information and a reinforcement of character attributes. Many argue that every word is there to move the story forward, to which I wholly disagree. There is room for fluff, albeit restrained.

Basically you are writing a spoken language, as opposed to writing for written language, such as history books, manuals and the like. Your short forms, paralanguage and colloquialisms are characteristics of spoken language. Pronouns, for example, are often left off in informal conversation - TED Where ya goin'? MING To the store.

Ming doesn't need to say 'I'm going to the store.'

Much also depends on the role your character plays, such as street punk, Congresswoman or professor, and the situations you put them in. The goal is to have each character have their own voice - well, mostly anyways. There are those groups that cling together and all sound the same. High school cliques come to mind.

You want the dialogue to deliver information the visuals alone cannot, and you want your dialogue to reflect your character doing the talking, even if it's a grunt or a sigh (paralanguage). Your short form, like 'call me later' and 'seein' a movie tonight, along with mashed words like gonna, wanna, sup and the like, and paralanguage uterances such as sheesh, ugh and pffft are all part of authentic spoken language - and as far as I can tell, all languages have their version of this. (sometimes these utterances end up in your parentheticals - wrylies - like this (sighs), but try and keep them to a minimum).

Avoid the on-the-nose, delve into double entendre to engage your audience, and match your dialogue to your character's attributes and ambitions.

Maybe this can help ...

http://thestarvingdramaturge.wordpress.com/my-ebook-how-to-speak-script/

Read chapter 10.

And this from one of my long-winded articles ...

Life experience can also be a handicap, as a writer may find it difficult to be objective when passing that experience to a fictional character. I have read a number of screenplays by writers who have yet to master creating VOICE for their characters. That ‘thing’ that makes John different than Mary. There is most often just one voice – the Writer’s voice – speaking for everyone. Each of the characters have the same backgrounds, wear the same clothes, eat the same foods, and pray to the same gods. A preponderance of these screenplays have weapons as the main story prop, followed closely by fast cars, expensive alcohol consumption, and women without pants. Course, this may or may not reflect the writer’s own life experience. It could simply be the worship of commercial viability.
 
And this from the same article ...

Giving voice to your characters

I cannot stress enough how important it is to give your characters the right voice. This includes the tone in which they speak, the vocabulary they use, and how they address others.

​
Let me start off by saying I really hate it when I have to read a particular accent/vocabulary spelled out verbatim start to finish in a script. I think, for one, it runs the risk of appearing like a writer’s opinion or limited exposure on how a particular individual, or group, might actually speak. I find this especially true when writers are trying to portray inner-city characters and farmers. Airplane, 1980, with Lloyd Bridges and Peter Graves – among other classic comedians -, comes to mind, with its scene where a White woman passenger (Barbara Billingsley) had to translate a Black male passenger’s (Norman Gibbs) ‘Jive’ for a flight attendant, with her iconic line, Ah, Stewardess, I speak Jive’. Ms. Billingsley is even listed as ‘Jive Lady’ in the IMDB credits. Heck, they even put up subtitles on the screen to translate it. This, of course, was before being Politically Correct came along. Fat chance pulling this off today. Can’t even use the term ‘Stewardess’ without ruffling a feather or two.


​

​

A snippet from the screenplay



Airplane screenshot with the subtitles

What he really said was …

​
Shi’ mo cain ma foh mess wi’ ain


​
For those of you who may not know, Jive is an old term once used for Black English, now sometimes referred to as Ebonics. In the case of this scene, using exact words makes sense. When it is not so imperitive to be verbatim, I would be more inclined to let casting, the perfomers and direction work it out. If for example, if you have a character that is introduced as Gloria Harper, 17, a rough and tumble girl that grew up on the streets of Brooklyn, she is not going to speak like a polished finishing-school grad, or at least it’s not likely, unless that is part of your story, of course.

​
To be clear, do not write such a character’s dialogue in grammatically-perfect English – or whatever language you may be writing in. Let it be natural to the character, but don’t lose the reader in the same stroke of the pen. Use it where it works to make a point or set a tone, then ease up.

​
If there is a concern, one can always use an ASIDE, that script note that lets a reader know something important before jumping into a scene, like ASIDE: ‘The following conversation is in Japanese, subtitles’. I sometimes do this to avoid putting (in Japanese, subtitles) under every bit of dialogue in a long exchange. That chews up valuable lines.

​
In a period piece, using bits of the language of the time is important. If, for example, you are writing a screenplay about the upper society of 1840′s Europe, or even a 1940′s Detective flick, you want to make sure your character is speaking with the right vocabulary. Again, use enough to set a tone without losing your readers.

​
Being authentic is vital, of course, but a lost, or even a bored audience is a damage one wants to avoid.


Films such as To Kill a Mockingbird, 1962, is well worth a listen. I would suggest giving a comparative listen to Boyz ‘n the Hood, 1991, as well to get a feel for the depth, beauty and flexibility of language used in dialogue to define characters and the stories they are in.​
By listen, I mean go black screen and just listen to the dialogues.

​
I think research is important for developing your voice. Mixed-language films such as La Bamba need a clever toggling of both languages, and even a mix, in this case, Spenglish. Dances With Wolves is another with a clever use of more than one language, and indeed adds much to the story. Wasabi is another, with English and Japanese.

​
Keep in mind, films started out as Silent Films, and stayed so for nearly 30 years – at least before sound made it to commercialy-released feature films. This was followed by on-screen titles, and eventualy sound, which became the standard. Not overnight, mind you. It is a recommended excercise to watch a few old silent films, then write a short film or two without dialogue. In fact, some argue dialogue should be the last consideration when writing a screenplay, and only added in when a particular scene needs depth and clarification, or a little double intendre is needed. As film is a visual medium, I somewhat agree. Let the action do the heavy work, then add in the dialogue for the finesse.


​
​

Helen Monday in the silent film, Stark Love, 1927



Before the ‘Talkies’ came along in 1923 (not from the same flick as Ms. Monday)

In the film To Kill a Mockingbird, I cannot imagine it without the sound of Gregory Peck’s voice, and the polite, educated vocabualry and tone he delivered. It is, indeed, the finess for the film. Same goes for The Color Purple, an excellent and well-crafted film whose dialogue fits the characters spot on.

​
Another film where I believe the language and character voices is top notch is Fried Green Tomatoes, 1991, with Kathy Bates and Jessica Tandy. The accent is elegant and believable, and adds a lot of depth to the authenticity of the story. Equally important, these two chracter have their own voice, with very clear backstories in them.

​
I’ll toss in Jermey Iron’s The House of the Spirits, with his polished-gentleman accent used in comparison to Antonio Banderas’ field-worker dialogue. And who can forget Geoffrey Rush’s impeccable dialogue as Javert in Les Misérables – the 1998 version.​
But wait, there’s more …

​
Gone with the Wind, arguably the finest screenplay ever written, needs no introduction here. Excellent use of dialogue, accent and delivery start to finish.


​
​

Vivien Leigh and Hattie McDaniel, both of whom walked away with Academy Awards for their work in Gone With The Wind

By a speaker’s tone, I mean both the way in which one speaks, be it suave and measured, or with quick and short sentances, and by the sound of their voice. Again I will reference To Kill a Mockingbird. Compare that with Joe Pesci in Lethal Weapon 2, and you can see a clear power of convition conveyed through a character’s tone and delivery. Both films also show vastly different ways how one character addresses another. This kind of information must be spelled out in your character’s intro and development.

​
I’ll toss in Denzel Washington’s character in Philidelphia. His character was a great choice, but also the sound of his voice fit the very taks he had. It was not one of those chalkboard voices. It was clear, with a soothing, reverberant nature. It’s the voice I’d want to hear if I were dying.

​
How your character addresses one person as opposed to another can change as well. In the film Scent of a Woman, Al Pacino’s character, Lieutenant Colonel Frank Slade, speaks to a male adversary one way, and to a woman he is about to dance with quite another. This speaks volumes about his character. In the film Five Corners, John Turturro’s character, Heinz, was a dick to pretty much everyone.

​
All that said, the writer will rarely, if ever, have a say in casting – unless you work closely with a crew, or write and film your own material. It is a challenge to match a voice with a face on paper – a voice a reader cannot hear and a face they cannot see – which is essencially what you are doing. Your intro needs to be clear, and your character development needs to support it, whether you lay out everything we need to know up front, or pay it out over the course of the screenplay.


​
​

Elizabeth Montgomery, one of the most elegant and eloquent women to ever grace television and film.

Some folks just emote refined elegance. With a face like that, would you dare make her speak like a poorly educated laborer? Would it fit? I suppose, if the story were to support it somehow. A rags to riches story, possibly. Yes, I know about her gritty roles. But still …​
Let’s try a few …


​
INT. INDUSTRIAL LAUNDRY ROOM – DAY

​
Several women sweat over heaps of laundry. Postman enters with a letter in hand, scans the room. He sees CARMEN GLASS, early 30′s, with a worked-hard-all-my-life edge to her. She strikes a pose as Postman approaches.

​
CARMEN​
What cha’ got for me?

​
Or …

​
INT. UPSCALE RESTAURANT – NIGHT

​
A live classical quartet plays, Maître d’ watches over the tables. LILIAN ADAMS, early 30s, a finishing-school polish to her every move, enters. She strikes a sublime pose as Maître d’ greets her.

​
MAITRE D’​
Good evening, Ma’am.

​
LILIAN​
Good evening. A table for one, please. Something close to a window, if I may.

​
Another pet peeve of mine is giving idiotic or dumbed-down dialogue to child characters. Children are very inventive and expressive when speaking, and this really should be exploited. Early Shirley Temple stuff was good, and I think was successful in giving a child intelligent dialogue. I will again cite A Bronx Tale, and Francis Capra’s character Calogero. It was a solid kid role with no stupid goo-goo dialogue.

​
Other considerations when choosing your character’s voice are the ability to speak and hear. Do they use sign language? Do they communicate by means other than words? Telepathy maybe? If your character is a robot or an apparition of some sort, how do they communicate, and how is that communication received or processed by others.

​
Jim Carey, in the Truman Show, had a line he repeated again and again – ‘Good morning, oh and in case I don’t see ya, good afternoon, good evening, and good night.’ Which of course came full circle to make the ending so fricken wonderful. Al Pacino in Scent of a Woman had a habit of saying ‘Woopa!’. Consider giving your character something they repeat, be it a noise, a word or two, or a phrase.

​
This part of your character development is no small task, so consider every word -or whatever you use – seriously. While film is cetainly a visual media, it is also very much a sound media, with music, effects such as doors closing and cars crashing, and the sound of a character’s voice, and the words they speak. When reading, we imagie what a character might sound like. In film, we are fed that information. This is big.
​
 
Last edited:
To me there is a spectrum between naturalism and formalism. On the extreme end of naturalism, the characters are basically improvising with very little content. On the other extreme is a literary-sounding way of speech, like out of an old novel. Foreign films often have this literary style of speech, because the subtitles don't convey the subtleties of speech like 'um.' I'm thinking of films like Bergman. Woody Allen, a huge Bergman fan, has said that he sometimes writes his dialogue to sound too literary and intellectual, and he thinks it's because he's so in love with Bergman films, where he only reads the subtitles.


So on this spectrum, it's up to the writer to decide how the characters sound. There is no correct answer. I try to write so that it's mainly on the side of naturalism, with occasional heavy punches of literary-sounding speech. Those lines often accompany a close-up. Imagine a casual conversation about the weather, then the camera punches in on a character who recites a snippet of poetry. Films are about emotions over logic, and often the best dialogue has an ethereal quality to it. A writer should at least feel permission to go this direction.


Now, to actually distinguish characters, use grammar! Study the rules of grammar and give each character certain ways of speaking. Do the rough draft all in your own words, then go through each character and figure out how they would form their sentences grammatically. There is a -huge- range in this.


I've been doing some extensive journalism this past year with use of tape recorder and transcribed notes. I've learned a lot about how people really speak. Movie dialogue is a semblance of speech. People, in person, sound s*%tty. You don't want to go for pure naturalism. But in my experience, dealing with college students--most of them actually do sound pretty similar when transcribed. The differences are in their volume and in their rate of speech. You can distinguish people by giving them 'markers,' which are just signifiers of individual speech. One character might say "you know?" a lot. Another might say 'dude' a lot or something along those lines.


tl;dr
There's no right or wrong.
 
Last edited:
Mile Bozicevic said:
I see and read a lot of shorts and features where every character sounds alike.

In these, protagonist usually speaks directly and is over-exposing the thoughts of a writer. Other characters are often awkwardly placed there just to push the story forward, but it feels like they are puppets on strings, without anything real about them. I just recently read an indie script, and while reading it I couldn't imagine any of the characters feel real at all. I mean, people don't talk like that. It just felt empty. I thought if I randomly switch the names in a scene, no one would notice the difference. That's not good, right?

Now, I'm in the middle of my own feature. I'm trying to get my 2 main characters have their unique voice. I can hear their voice, I know their past upside down, I know what they're afraid of and why some of the stuff they say is kinda out-of-the-place at the specific moment. I know what they think when they say or don't say something. They are combinations of real-life and fiction characters, which helps me to have a strong vision of them in a scene. Psychical appearance, way of walk, accent and for a female character, I have a vague thoughts about a scent. It's kinda hard to imagine a scent really - not sure if this really helps but it does associate her with someone I know.

I'm still not 100% sure are their voices unique or not.

What are your methods? How to make characters sound real, so audience dives into the story without noticing writer's work behind it? How do you handle characters who won't get that much dialogue lines sound believable and real? Do you also think of real people or you create completely new ones? Any tips on how to distinguish characters?
Click to expand...

I'd make each character a certain archetype and give each a particular intention and goal. Neo is an archetype with a particular intention and goal, so is Morpheus. You're making them different just by doing things like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top