Screenwriting : Subtext versus what the hell? by Phillip E. Hardy, Prolifique

If you're not a writer-director, keep the pages simple. Use all the tools of the trade-; twist, mcguffin, reversals.

We're telling stories with a camera and whatever is on the screen. Early scene of John Wick movie, John and car mechanic are drinking a brand of liquor where it's a name a latin phase repeated by the hotel owner at the end of movie. The liqour brand is never mentioned in script but someone did the research of the world they creating.

Too much is a show killer. This leaves the audience trying to figure out what the heck is being said, and if they're in a state of confusion, or ambiguity, then they'll be missing more and more each minute, each scene, each sequence ...

No way, I think much is done in post production, where some movies tend to market some things, for me usually focus on hearing what the dialogues are and if I can't hear them, then I dash aside the movie, it all goes back to post production to me.

I think it's almost never seen but can be done.

Lindbergh: I"m with you. What you described has been happening to me as I watch it. I will view the last episode, but I may jump ship if this show has a second season.

Dan M: The things you describe in John Wick work beautifully. But it's not hard to follow the plotline.

But if you compare Deadwood to The English you'll note that the machinating characters like Al Swearengen and Cy Toliver that populate Deadwood have loads of subtext in their dialogue. Still, I never had any trouble understanding their intent. This is a testimony to the brilliance of showrunner and creator David Milch. https://slate.com/culture/2004/05/deadwood-s-linguistic-brilliance.html

Though The English possesses great qualities, particularly the cinematography, the storyline is often difficult to follow. Plus, that issue is compounded by how much the story jumps around without setting up characters and plot points.

This is such a great question. My opinion is that subtext should be bare bones in the script so-to-speak. There, but not heavy-handed. The implementation of subtext should be given to the actors and director, even the cinematographer. Those are the best places to take the subtext and turn it into choices, give it life, and make it complex. I think if the subtest gets out of control in the writing, it becomes very difficult for directors and writers to make creative choices aligning with their vision.

Niki: Good post and great points. Thanks for your sharing your thoughts.

Phillip E. Hardy, Prolifique yes, while I don't think that's an error I often make, it can be tempting and I've certainly taken pages of dialogue too far in that direction while rewriting and then realized and put them back the way they were!

If it makes it into a production script, the material can feel out of reach instead of being the nice tapestry of both overt and concealed elements that seems optimal.

I do think there are times when I've tried to obfuscate my ignorance about my own story by piling on the faux-subtext and it's a fail. Hopefully I'm past that but you never know, as I tackle new genres I am sometimes lost at sea and my subconscious will reach for any kind of coping devices to pretend I know what I'm doing.

I'm like you, Phillip. "When I write dialogue, I aim to convey information about the characters and to create realistic ping-pong conversations while avoiding on-the-nose dialogue." I do think, however, that a screenwriter can write too much subtext and fail to convey the essence of a story. It's a balance.

One thing I do is a "Does this Make Sense?" rewrite." I'll read through a script and ask myself things like, "Does this scene make sense?" and "Does this dialogue have too much subtext?"

Another thing I do is get feedback. If there's a note that my dialogue or scenes have too much subtext, I rewrite the dialogue/scenes, then I get feedback on them until the reader understands what's happening in the script.

Considering all the changes that happen to a script by a director or performer, or producer, or some different cutting idea by an editor, in the end I think something as nuanced as subtext is pretty subjective.

Maurice: Thanks for sharing. I don't think much about subtext. I merely endeavor to craft realistic conversations. Since real conversations have subtext, then screenplay dialogue should have them too. The biggest mistake I see writers make is having their characters talk at rather than to each other.

You're welcome, Phillip E. Hardy, Prolifique. "The biggest mistake I see writers make is having their characters talk at rather than to each other." I notice that in early drafts. I read my dialogue and think, "That sounds so wooden." Haha

Undertones. That medical episode of whatever medical show sure had a holistic sense of wellness more than just treating health conditions. Honestly Philip to convey an essence of a story probably not but to tell the story probably so. However, we are showing the story so our skillset will most likely naturally balance if we're mindful of that. Can the overall work just not work? Sure.

But the script got made nevertheless since uve been watching the show...telling us having "on the nose" or "subtext" lines it's not really an issue in choosing whether one story get's made or not...like many other "rules" it is to be considered merely as a service point...one big "revelation" I had in my line of work so far is - don't mess with the problems that ain't really there...work is where creativity meets the deadlines and that's it...otherwise I'm all in favor of each artist having all the eons of time to craft a perfect script with a perfect dialogue in it...

That's a great question indeed ! I guess it's all about balance. Just like many said above, real life conversations have subtext and it does give depth to both your characters and story but too much will probably get your viewers lost. That's our job to find the right amount of it :)