Screenwriting tip - talking heads

Really? Ok, Brian.

But for the sake of argument, let's read that post. Very first sentence says she tries to avoid scenes "where you have two peope pretty much doing nothing but talking." Now are you telling me this is bad advice? That the writer should write the slug line and then, buckle up kiddies, cuz you get nothin but primo dialogue here to carry the entire scene? No. I read your posts too. You say that a character's actions or activities should move story ahead, reveal character, etc. Where has this been contradicted...in anyone's post? Not only has it been explicitly stated that no one is fighting you on this, but it's been inferred as well.

What are you disagreeing with, brother? Seriously, what is the hangup?

I'm not gonna rehash the Erin Brockovich example anymore...have you even read the scene in the script?

So now we're in the kitchen. It was suggested that one character should be making coffee or something. You really think that's bad advice? Good golly man, what do your scene descriptions look like? Again, it has been stated, in a variety of ways, that what actions a character takes should be truthful, motivated, etc etc. Does this contradict giving them some business to do if it meets that criteria? You better believe I'm not letting some director I probably don't know have carte blanche freedom to make whatever he/she feels fits that scene without at least putting in my two cents...by writing it. I ain't gonna put two people in a kitchen and not say what the hell they're doing there. Will my actions be truthful, reveal character, move the story forward, etc? Well, she-oot, that's the goal, right?

Last paragraph. Two words pop for me: "Menial" and "Meaningful." So, it's bad advice to engage your characters in some activity that is meaningful? Ugh.

Again, yes, I think you are misrepresenting both the "spirit" (c'mon, it's really not that difficult to understand) and the explicit words contained in the original post. Check out post #24...it's yours. Or another one of yours, #56. You brought it up again after admitting it was a misrepresentation.

Seriously. You offer great advice: Direction and character action should move the story forward, reveal character, etc. No one is disputing this. Not even the original post.

And of course, I love each and every one of you.

Besties,

Mischief
 
I just rewatched Usual Suspects last night. There are plenty of talking head scenes that work really well because the actors performances are great. The actors aren't playing with knifes, playing cards, they're just sitting around in a jail cell shooting words back and forth and it works beautifully.

Wong Kar Wai's In the Mood for Love is another film composed of mostly talking heads and it works beautifully. I know what Charli's saying about talking heads, but I just wanted to reiterate that there are plenty of exceptions of films using talking heads and working well. I take Charli's advice more as a warning than a guideline to write by. No absolutes, except citron. :beer:
 
For Your Perusal...
http://www.premiere.com/article.asp?section_id=6&article_id=2723&page_number=1

Notice what is given as an example for each of the best 101 screenplays. Is it stage direction (motivated or otherwise)? No, it is a snippet of the script's dialogue. Unless things have changed after 7+ decades, what a reader/Jr exec/producer/other studio personal looks for first and foremost is dynamite dialogue. Beautifully-written dialogue that is the cat's meow. Great dialogue that walks the tightrope between moving the story along flawlessly, and falling off into the "exposition net".

Also, technically there are many of what some would call "talking head" scenes in basically every film listed in the link above...the same scenes I would call "well-written dialogue".

One final thought:
I think sometimes (& this is in no way directed at anyone here) the term "talking heads" is used as something of scapegoat for bad or poorly written dialogue. If the dialogue (hands down the most important element in a script...there's not even a close second) is phenomenal, then one has nothing to worry about (especially from a studio reader.)

I agree that I enjoy reading well-rounded scripts as well. But, keep in mind that those screenplay editions (of the films we have seen) that we purchase/download/get in a libraries usually have been passed through the hands of several writers under the close supervision of the producer/director (who have both given their input.) In other words, some (usually lots) has been changed since it was written by the eager scribe whose brainchild it was in the first place...again, I am only referring to those of us who are that eager scribe, selling our wares. If you wanna write for yourself, disregard everything (except, of course, for the part about great, flowing, dynamite dialogue that is the cat's meow...that is crucial across the board.)
 
Last edited:
These boards are read by those who use their minds to learn new things.
There is indeed a great level of intelligence here (geeks that we are) and
I believe each individual will either absorb advice or toss it out the window.

If this thread has provoked thought in how to construct a scene, for that it
was intended. Good luck on your scripts!

Charli
 
Isaac: Totally agree with you. I have some talking head scenes in some of my scripts...when it serves the story and me better. It was only suggested that these types of scenes not become a pattern throughout your screenplay. Know when they work and when they don't. Again, if you can write dialogue that snap, crackles, and pops like the examples given, then you've given yourself a great chance to make the scene work on many levels. It's just a lot harder because it's just the character's words carrying the scene.

Callaghan: I know you and me see eye to eye on a lot of film things just by reading your posts (musicals, Casablanca and some of the other classic talkies). I love dialogue...is my favorite part of the writing process. But of course a list is gonna include bits of snappy dialogue exchanges in a popular magazine. Most actions aren't that exciting for your average joe public. But...not sure what the point is. Again, giving your characters some action in the scene was never intended to mask bad dialogue. Everything should sizzle. Just because a non-verbal aspect of writing was stressed in this thread doesn't automatically mean that dialogue should suffer. This has come up a few times now and I'm not really sure why.

For me dialogue is extremely important...love it...I'm a dialogue guy, but I thinks it's debatable to say that it's hands down the most important aspect to a screenplay, especially for Hollywood reader. Again, I'm agreeing with you on the importance I place on it, but this is only MY preference. One of my old screenwriting instructors tried to hammer this out of me: "It's a visual medium, son." Know what he's saying, but I'll still take that pingpong Bogey/Bacall any day. I know which part I like, but I see his point and know that A LOT of people feel the exact opposite of you and me (Non-verbal aspects are more important). Anyways, fun discussion, yo.
 
Isaac_Brody said:
I just rewatched Usual Suspects last night. There are plenty of talking head scenes that work really well because the actors performances are great. The actors aren't playing with knifes, playing cards, they're just sitting around in a jail cell shooting words back and forth and it works beautifully.
Click to expand...

Yeah, great movie and great acting. But as i said, only those great actors could pull it off. With the kind of actors that we indie's have to work with, I would take the same scene and give them something meaningful (but menial so it doesnt over power the scene) to do. Not all of our actors are Benicios or Spaceys you know...
 
Not for nothing, but I am beginning to feel as though we are all going around in circles. I tried three different ways in this thread to make a point...
Myself said:
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).
Click to expand...
Myself said:
Callaghan's
emoticon-14.gif
...


I think some wires are being crossed here that are causing unneeded confusion. I don't think everyone is disagreeing quite as much as is being represented in this thread. In other words...

There are three types of screenwriters around these here parts:

#1. Filmmakers Who Write
Those who are writing either a short or a 90 page script that they themselves are planning on making into either an ultra-low budget or a no budget indie.

#2. Screenwriters Who Write
Those who are writing a script intended for selling/optioning (spec); or that they already have (on some level) a deal already in place to complete (commissioned).

-and-

#3. Overly-Ambitious Bastards Who Write
Those of us (of which I am guilty) who are attempting to juggle both #1 & #2.

The way one approaches EVERY bloody aspect of the writing process is going to be dependent on if one is embarking on a #1 or a #2 type o' script. Obviously #1-ers are going to write in a more personal, descriptive, rules-be-damned style. While #2-ers have to conform on some level to that less-is-more, let-the-director-direct, formal structure that has been with us sense the late 1920's (and which ain't going away any time soon.)

Some of the posts I have read sound like they are referring to #1, and work in that context. Likewise for other posts, which make poy-fect sense in relation to #2

The two approaches are ♪Day & Night - Night & Day♪, baby.
Click to expand...
Myself said:
For Your Perusal...
http://www.premiere.com/article.asp?section_id=6&article_id=2723&page_number=1

Notice what is given as an example for each of the best 101 screenplays. Is it stage direction (motivated or otherwise)? No, it is a snippet of the script's dialogue. Unless things have changed after 7+ decades, what a reader/Jr exec/producer/other studio personal looks for first and foremost is dynamite dialogue. Beautifully-written dialogue that is the cat's meow. Great dialogue that walks the tightrope between moving the story along flawlessly, and falling off into the "exposition net".

Also, technically there are many of what some would call "talking head" scenes in basically every film listed in the link above...the same scenes I would call "well-written dialogue".

One final thought:
I think sometimes (& this is in no way directed at anyone here) the term "talking heads" is used as something of scapegoat for bad or poorly written dialogue. If the dialogue (hands down the most important element in a script...there's not even a close second) is phenomenal, then one has nothing to worry about (especially from a studio reader.)

I agree that I enjoy reading well-rounded scripts as well. But, keep in mind that those screenplay editions (of the films we have seen) that we purchase/download/get in a libraries usually have been passed through the hands of several writers under the close supervision of the producer/director (who have both given their input.) In other words, some (usually lots) has been changed since it was written by the eager scribe whose brainchild it was in the first place...again, I am only referring to those of us who are that eager scribe, selling our wares. If you wanna write for yourself, disregard everything (except, of course, for the part about great, flowing, dynamite dialogue that is the cat's meow...that is crucial across the board.)
Click to expand...
Again, I am not referring at all to an indie script that is to be made on a shoestring budget. I am referring to those of us who are shopping our scripts around with various big fish...and for these type of scripts, "dialogue is king" is the commandment that should be lived and died by.

I don't think saying, "Oh, that film had so-and-so the big name actor" passes muster. Mr. so-and-so is going to be attracted to great scripts with great dialogue that really crackles. Write the great script, if you want the great actor attached eventually to you work.

I have nothing against writing for your own indie endeavor, either. But in my experience, there is much, much more freedom in stage direction in this scenario (which only makes sense due to the "director's hat" that you have to wear alongside your "screenwriter" one.) That was my point all along. However, I still think that "dialogue is king" rules supreme even on indies. Hell, I got Brett Rice http://brettrice.com/main.html to star in my no-budget short film for no pay simply because he loved/ believed in my script and its dialogue (even though , to say the least, he is quite far from the point in his acting career where pro bono work is taken.)

Cheers, fellow scribes.
 
Last edited:
CineMischief said:
Callaghan: I know you and me see eye to eye on a lot of film things just by reading your posts (musicals, Casablanca and some of the other classic talkies). I love dialogue...is my favorite part of the writing process. But of course a list is gonna include bits of snappy dialogue exchanges in a popular magazine...
Click to expand...
Granted it was published in a pop culture magazine...but this whole list + writeup was orchestrated/composed in a collaborative effort between the East & West branches of the WGA. I feel that this list can act as a reminder to all of us of the crucial importance of dialogue in a classic script (and in turn to a classic film itself.)
 
CineMischief said:
Really? Ok, Brian.

You better believe I'm not letting some director I probably don't know have carte blanche freedom to make whatever he/she feels fits that scene


Mischief
Click to expand...

I that's how you feel I'd say you're in the wrong business. When you sell a script , guess what? It's no longer your script...
 
CallaghanFilms said:
For Your Perusal...
. Unless things have changed after 7+ decades, what a reader/Jr exec/producer/other studio personal looks for first and foremost is dynamite dialogue. Beautifully-written dialogue that is the cat's meow. Great dialogue that walks the tightrope between moving the story along flawlessly, and falling off into the "exposition net".


.)
Click to expand...

I've heard this too, even William Goldman said it. In fact, some readers, and some producers and studio heads apparently ONLY read the dialog on scripts--which is wierd considering they're about to bet their reputations and about 100 million dollars on that little 120 page pile of paper. You think they'd take the time to read the freaking stage directions.

On another level, scripts are always supposed to be about visual story telling, show don't tell, blah blah blah. So one would think that if anything got read, it'd be the stage directions. Go figure.

I'm fond of a story about Sergio Leone who wrote the first 45 minutes of "Once Upon A time In The West" and realized he was in trouble because he didnt have a single line of dialog yet. THAT'S film! The finished film remains a masterpiece of spartan dialog--among other things. And the Dialog that made it to the screen causes even the likes of Tarentino to genuflect.
 
Last edited:
Brian- If you're going to quote me, don't leave off the second half that puts my statement in context. I'm very familiar with the business which is why I wrote what I did. Reading the entire sentence, you'll see my point was to write MY vision of the film in the script (including the non-verbal aspects) in order to give the story that I wrote its best chance of being seen as the final product. If I don't write a detail that is important to me in the script, then someone else is going to fill in his/her own details. That was the whole reason for saying what I did: after the script is handed over, someone is gonna change it. See? We actually said the same thing. :)

HA! Nice story 'bout Leone. I also heard that Melville tried unsuccessfully a few times to persuade Alain Delon to star in Le Samourai. Finally, Melville sat Delon down and read him the script. After 7-8 minutes, Delon stopped him and accepted the part because up until this point, his character had no lines...all action.

I think both you and Callaghan bring up good points. For me, dialogue is the most fun, most rewarding, most everything. If you can write slammin' dialogue, you're well on your way. And if your visuals are copacetic, then you got some fun.
 
CineMischief said:
HA! Nice story 'bout Leone. I also heard that Melville tried unsuccessfully a few times to persuade Alain Delon to star in Le Samourai. Finally, Melville sat Delon down and read him the script. After 7-8 minutes, Delon stopped him and accepted the part because up until this point, his character had no lines...all action.

.
Click to expand...

Yet another example of this paradox. And it pisses me off to be honest. Not only is dialog likely the only thing that'll get read, but good dialog should also be seamless, in other words, it should be so natural and well crafted that you don't notice it--kind of like scoring. In other words, your lines shouldn't sound like lines.

Sure Tarentino is great and his dialog dazzling, but there's only ONE QT. Riffing on Madonna and Cheeseburgers in Paris is great, but it's only great when he does it.
 
Unless things have changed after 7+ decades, what a reader/Jr exec/producer/other studio personal looks for first and foremost is dynamite dialogue. Beautifully-written dialogue that is the cat's meow. Great dialogue that walks the tightrope between moving the story along flawlessly, and falling off into the "exposition net".
Click to expand...

Although I can confirm that I've had an Exec once say almost the say thing to me, lets not get our ducks out of line here.

Dialogue, no matter how great it is, will not sell your screenplay if your STORY sucks.

STORY is what sells screenplays. Plain and simple.

Dialogue helps. But STORY is King.

EJ
 
EJ Pennypacker said:
Although I can confirm that I've had an Exec once say almost the say thing to me, lets not get our ducks out of line here.

Dialogue, no matter how great it is, will not sell your screenplay if your STORY sucks.

STORY is what sells screenplays. Plain and simple.

Dialogue helps. But STORY is King.

EJ
Click to expand...

As much as I agree in principle with this--I'm afraid I have to disagree. Reason? I've just heard so many stories of producers and agents stumbling across a single wierd yet intriguing idea or "thing" in a script that otherwise sucked in every way. These aren't just Hollywood urban legends. A friend of mine sold a script a long long time ago that sucked in every way. I think he wrote it in about 3 days. A real dog. But guess what? it was one of the first scripts in Hollywood about Ninjas. The script sold. He's WGA. He still sucks as a writer thougn.

Fundamentally though, EJ is dead on target. Except not.

Now, some of you by now might think I disagree with everything here merely for the sake of being disagreeable. I disagree with that assessment.
 
So Brian,

Are you basically advising people, who are interested in selling material to H-Wood, by saying "you can write a script that sucks in every way, and it will sell"?

Because I think we both know that is nuts.

There is something to be said about writing a script that has a unique concept that can help sell it.

But the idea of someone writing a script that they know sucks, and to expect to sell it - is like asking someone to win the lotto without buying a ticket.

EJ
 
Last edited:
No EJ, I agree with you completely, I'd only add that you could probably substitute "character" for "story" in your main point and it'd still be true. Story and character, the chicken and egg of storytelling.

A key point you missed is that these greate/unique ideas/angles/thingees are often not of any import to the writer. It's the savvy Agent or producer that spots and exploits the novelty.

One thing though, no one thinks their script sucks. I know all of mine are brilliant and were they novels instead of screenplays I'd undoubtedly be a Nobel Prize winner by now. But unfortunately all those execs that pass on my scripts are ignorant buffoons who don't recognize true genius.
 
Last edited:
brianluce said:
No EJ, I agree with you completely, I'd only add that you could probably substitute "character" for "story" in your main point and it'd still be true. Story and character, the chicken and egg of storytelling.

A key point you missed is that these greate/unique ideas/angles/thingees are often not of any import to the writer. It's the savvy Agent or producer that spots and exploits the novelty.

One thing though, no one thinks their script sucks. I know all of mine are brilliant and were they novels instead of screenplays I'd undoubtedly be a Nobel Prize winner by now. But unfortunately all those execs that pass on my scripts are ignorant buffoons who don't recognize true genius.
Click to expand...

I think everything I write sucks eggs...but they keep paying me. Idiots.
 
I'd only add that you could probably substitute "character" for "story" in your main point and it'd still be true. Story and character, the chicken and egg of storytelling.
Click to expand...

People often argue STORY and STRUCTURE are the same thing - but a great STORY will sell - STRUCTURE won't.

Same goes with CHARACTER DRIVEN STORIES, versus STORY. A great CHARACTER, without a great STORY, will only be just that. But a great STORY can sell if the characters are POOR.

If there's any leading second element in 'getting work off your spec', that's DIALOGUE. Because if you write great dialogue, and your script isn't up to scratch in the other depts, then there's a chance your work will be flagged - and a possible gig as a dialogue polish might materialize.

Then we can talk about how of all these elements, the one that got your script read in the first place - PREMISE/CONCEPT/HOT IDEA...

EJ
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top