Screenwriting tip - talking heads

Charli

Charli

cool little "title"
As a screenwriter, I'd like to give you guys an important tip, probably one you
are familiar with, but since I'm learning so much from this site, I'd like to share
a writing tip if I may.

Talking Heads - this is where you have two people pretty much doing nothing but
talking. As a screenwriter I try to avoid this as much as possible.

Let's examine a scene from Erin Brockovich. Julia Roberts is in a scene with the
next door neighbor. They're just talking, but she's playing with a deck of cards.
She is engaged in an activity which makes her appear in "action." It's a simple
scene which flows rather smoothly.

If you have two people talking in the kitchen, one should make coffee, or even
spilt peas. If your scene is in the garage or outside, have one character work on
the engine of a car. A character can be painting their nails, fine tuning their guitar,
preparing a bbq, working on a website, ANYTHING.

My advice is to keep away from scenes with two Talking Heads and engage
your actors in a menial activity. It will make the scene more realistic and meaninful.

Charli
 
Hm...I wonder if this is more of a directing/peformance tip. Definitely it's a rule they teach you in Improv Acting classes: you should always be "doing something" while you're acting through a scene (washing dishes, sewing, cleaning a gun...anything active). But to add this to the screenplay, just to give them something to do "on the page"--because the reader only gets what's on the page until the film is made--well I think it's boring to write and boring to read and therefore should be left out. It doesn't make the scene more engaging on the page to have the script read "all while sewing a deftly handled drop-stitch while tapping her toe to the music coming from the old radio"...unless the sewing is some kind of element that pertains to the STORY or comes back later or informs the scene or character. The talking heads should be interesting on their own without the sewing...or the scene should be cut/re-written. The talking heads SHOULD be inhteresting enough without anything else, because of what is going on in the subtext (i.e., what's advancing the story/where the character is emotionally in the journey/what new information is being learned). Adding sewing or any other menial action does nothing to improve the scene from a writing point of view. I do agree it can add a lot visually from a directing or performance point of view however.
 
Nope...listen to Charli. Bogart has a great quote about this, something like if there are just two talking heads, there better be two camels humping in the background.

The writer writes (duh) what we see. Of course not every detail and action, but he/she paints the picture here. By the way, I writer would never write (least a good one): "all while sewing a deftly handled drop-stitch...". You would write something in a hipper way.

Also, unless your dialogue crackles, and I mean really pops, then talking head scenes are gonna fall hard. Why not give your actors something to do? This is another area where subtext can be expressed: He's pissed and expresses it while peeling carrots. And as all screenwriters know, we are all about economy: try to make each scene do as many things for you as possible (advance story, character development, etc). If you can add some action that carries symbolism or develops character or whatever to the words that are being spoken, your script will be a lot tighter. Help yer actors out...give em something to do!

Try writing a script with mostly talking head scenes and see how many agents, directors, actors flock to your script. Ain't gonna happen. Might work better on the stage, but film is visual. I love words, but story that hinges on dialogue only is boring, unfilmic, and weak. I'm not saying this is a hard and fast rule (because it is "broken" successfully sometimes), but more often then not you want to do just as Charli has stated.
 
Got to agree with Charli on this. Something a lot of screenwriters forget is that while you want to keep your script "lean" it still has to be a good read. When I'm looking at scripts, if it doesn't engage me, I'll put it down and maybe miss an interesting story that wasn't told in an engaging way.
 
Blaine said:
Got to agree with Charli on this. Something a lot of screenwriters forget is that while you want to keep your script "lean" it still has to be a good read. When I'm looking at scripts, if it doesn't engage me, I'll put it down and maybe miss an interesting story that wasn't told in an engaging way.
Click to expand...

That's what I was trying to get at. It's gotta be a good read. So describing mundane activities is probably not going to keep the reader engaged. Unless the activity is critical to character or plot, just giving them something to do doesn't engage anybody. And saying something boring and irrelevant in a "hipper" way doesn't make it more interesting either. Like I said, on film, it's more interesting to have actors DOING something...but writing about it is very different than watching it. You're selling an entirely different experience when you write about it than when you film it. Good discussion though. Sometimes not enough discussion about writing amongst these filmmaking posts.
 
Here's the thing. As a writer, you have very little (Ha! if any) control over what happens on set. I'm not talking about smaller projects, but "hollywood." Your script is the only means to express your point of view, what's in your head as far as ideas for characters. SO PUT IT IN THE SCRIPT! If an actor sees he/she is in a particular scene, but only sees lines, he/she is gonna want to know what he/she is doing non-verbally. An actor needs business, no matter how mundane or seemingly non-existent. Of course you don't go overboard and it is in the hands of the director and actor to choose to ignore what you have written. But it is a guide. If it's not in the script, someone is going to make it up for you.

When I say "hipper" I don't mean write "boring and irrelevant" trash in an interesting way. I would never suggest writing anything that met the above criteria. So giving the actor something interesting and relevant not only makes an actor fall in love with the part you have written, but it should (hopefully) give them a purpose (why the hell am I in this scene to begin with? etc.), give them business, give them a tool to express subtext (It's the intent and emotion behind what they are doing that counts. No one is gonna watch a scene and say: "How stupid. She's cutting onions and I can't concentrate on the fact her husband is leaving her now." No. Maybe she's chopping the onions very hard, or very gently, and now she's crying, but is it the onions or the fact she has just been left?).

This is what I mean by "hipper." You write that your character is cutting onions. Seems stupid on the surface, but you've given a chance for your actor to discover all kinds of subtext and meaning from this seemingly boring task. It's all about tools. Of course this isn't the best example and you should aim to make everything in your world truthful and unique, but the filming part comes from the writing part.

In short, yeah, describing mundane activities won't keep your reader engaged. Hopefully, your witty banter and awesome plot does. What you are doing is creating a world the reader (actors, directors, etc) can see...which engages them.
 
I agree with Blaine's take...but the other posts aren't 100% totally off base either.

What I am saying, is that I am assuming that Charli is referring to a spec script, which if and/or when is optioned and/or sold will more often than not be out of the creative hands (to one degree or another) of its writer. Much of the visuals that end up on screen won't be set in stone until the shooting script stage...which can and will be passed through the word processor(s) of another scribe(s).
 
Last edited:
I agree and... agree with all points. Actors act, action, thus do. But also do not forget the "Pope in the pool". A memorable place and event can make everything. Personally I always love scenes that take place in a restuarant, I love actors eating and talking, that atmosphere. MAy be done a lot but if well and right place can never get enough of that personally.

Spec scripts, well I mean that's the deal especially if you are a nobody. But anyone selling and has a chance should already know the deal there, but still should write it as though you will have control. And don't get too attached.
 
Aspiring screenwriters write spec scripts, until they have made it, once in Hollywood
they will find they are not hired to write scripts, but hired to rewrite scripts. Funny
how that works.

As a spec writer, one thing I have learned is to AVOID talking heads. This makes
for a very flat and uninteresting scene. What happens in production is another
animal, however, if you write a scene where, "Betty kneads bread" that gives the
actor and director a jumping off place. How they both interpet or change that
scene is up to the director.

The reason for this post - I've popped open a lot of shorts here in which actors
are in a "Talking Head" scene.

The small mundane activities bring a sense of reality to the movement of the actors.
It helps. Again, you guys have given me much information about the tech side
of filmmaking, only fair I share what I've learned over the last few years about
screenwriting. Maybe it will help.

Charli
 
Charli, good advice all around.
And while we're on the subject of talking heads: I have similar dislike for talking heads in documentaries. Personally prefer to SEE some action, as opposed to have someone TELL about some action. It's necessary, sure. But I've seen documentaries that are 80%+ talking heads....yikes!

Oh, and on another TALKING HEADS point: "Remain In Light" is the BEST album ever! :)
 
A random selection from Pulp Fiction:

JULES
There's a passage I got memorized.
Ezekiel 25:17. "The path of the
righteous man is beset on all sides
by the inequities of the selfish
and the tyranny of evil men.
Blessed is he who, in the name of
charity and good will, shepherds
the weak through the valley of the
darkness. For he is truly his
brother's keeper and the finder of
lost children.
And I will strike down upon thee
with great vengeance and furious
anger those who attempt to poison
and destroy my brothers. And you
will know I am the Lord when I lay
my vengeance upon you." I been
sayin' that **** for years. And if
you ever heard it, it meant your
ass. I never really questioned
what it meant. I thought it was
just a cold-blooded thing to say to
a motherfucker 'fore you popped a
cap in his ass. But I saw some
**** this mornin' made me think
twice. Now I'm thinkin', it could
mean you're the evil man. And I'm
the righteous man. And Mr. .45
here, he's the shepherd protecting
my righteous ass in the valley of
darkness. Or is could by you're
the righteous man and I'm the
shepherd and it's the world that's
evil and selfish. I'd like that.
But that **** ain't the truth. The
truth is you're the weak. And I'm
the tyranny of evil men. But I'm
tryin'. I'm tryin' real hard to be
a shepherd.

Talking heads?
 
When I was trained as an actor, this was common advice, largely to get the actors out of their heads. Of course, we had many actors so busy with their menial activities, they forgot to play the scenes, and a lot of scenes became about making coffee. Talk about boring.

But I would be careful of:

a) Arbitrary activities. If you're going to go to the trouble of writing them, I think you should make them specific and use them to add some sort of meaning to a scene. If the character is making coffee, then what does that say about the character? They make the coffee in the morning, thus run the house? Get up earlier? Are more responsible? Addicted to caffine? I firmly believe that NOTHING in a script should be there without a reason.

b) Confusing these "activities" with character action. The words were used interchangably above. They are two different things.

Making a character make coffee is not putting that character "in action." Giving that character a meaningful objective, something they are trying to get from the other character puts them in action. A character action is not "peel potatoes." It is: "Make the bastard tell you where the Gold is." "Get her to love you." "Put him in his place." "Break up with him." Making coffee might make it more interesting because the character has to deal with the mundane activity WHILE trying to get his objective. But I think it's important not to confuse the two.
 
Last edited:
sorry, wrong scene. But sean90291, that scene would have been WAY better with Sam Jackson peeling a carrot.

:)
 
Last edited:
Yeah Sean, I think you're stretching a bit.

-

Charli

This is a great tip all the way around. Run over the grabs section and its talking head central. I like the idea of someone doing something

Bogart has a great quote about this, something like if there are just two talking heads, there better be two camels humping in the background.
Click to expand...

That's great! LMAO!
 
Looking back, the scripts I've managed to sell only contained action that was pertinent to the story or character. When I deviated from this rigorous approach, people got bored. I think we're saying the same thing: people talking with nothing going on is boring. But peeling carrots or camels humping are not what I consider dramatic action. Get them doing something that propels the story and character (and I guess in a love story about camels, that might include them humping) then I'm all for the action.
 
Seems pretty obvious that some form of intriguing action should be taking place through your entire script. However direct, concise dialogue without action, if used correctly can be quite effective. Take a look at 'My Dinner with Andre' as an example.

Still a good point though. Can't argue with fundamentals.
 
There's all kinds of common wisdom with writing scripts. The problem is that so many times we are stiffled by the rules. Realistically, if Tarantino was trying to sell Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs to a faceless executive, it wouldn't happen. His scripts don't fit the paradigm. That's neither good nor bad, it's just a fact. Rules are set in place to provide a product that can be produced by the "studio" system. Rules can be broken but when they are, you'd better have a compelling story. Personally, I love Tarantino's dialogue. I love the way he gets to characters talking and sees where it goes.

When I write, I write for me, planning to produce it myself. My goal is to make a story interesting enough to attract talent, be it director, actors or crew. Knowing, at least for the time being, that my project is going to be low budget, I want to be able to attract the best talent available within obvious budgetary constraints.
 
Couple things...don't think we're confusing character activities with character goals. Making coffee is "business", "make the bastard tell you where the gold is" is a goal. Two different things for sure. That's not what's been discussed. You can have the above goal coupled with the activity. It's been said a few times now, that a character's goals and emotions can and should be played through his/her activity. I.e. you're makin' coffee for your girl and want her to put out. How does that goal shape the way he makes coffee?

The Pulp Fiction scene takes place at a restaurant...where people are doing things like eating. Again, peeling carrots is not the best example as I said, but if you can write dialogue as crisp as Tarantino and make it pop (like I did say), then sure, you can get away with a lot more. And yes, this is not a hard and fast rule as has been stated by a few of us now, but it's very good advice.

Of course everything should have a purpose (as has been said). Yes, propel the story and character. But can't this be accomplished by giving them something to do? All the better if it's unique and interesting, etc. But why can't we see a woman making a cup of coffee and using that to propel these things? Her husband is telling her he is going to leave her. The screenwriter puts in the script that she is making coffee. Even better to add a layer and show that she takes it black now instead of in other scenes that we have seen her put ridiculous amounts of chocolate syrup in it. Now we're saying something (both to the other characters and to the audience). Maybe she feels like she needs to grow up by not making it sweet or that she doesn't deserve it sweet, or whatever.

I think this is kinda turning away from Charli's original intent. Aint gonna speak for someone else, but I think her point is being missed here. It's an extra layer, an opportunity to play subtext, give a sense of character, etc. It doesn't necessarily matter what the activity is (routine or off the wall)...each has the same capabilities to propel the story, set the tone, and all that other fun stuff.

But hey, every cat should write the way they wanna write. Don't dig it? Don't write it that way. As you all know, I love each and every one of you. Carrots and coffee for breakfast tomorrow...
 
How about this for a great dialogue scene with talking heads that does NOTHING to propel the story forward; the Reservoir Dogs scene around the restaurant table. That was a great scene that did nothing to move the story forward. It was an incredible scene and could only have been done by someone directing his own movie.

I loved that scene and it would have been the first to go by conventional Hollywood.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top