Most films end up doing away with substantial portions of their script’s dialogue. The director eventually finds that lots of the story’s meaning is communicated or implied visually. The dialogue has become extraneous, unnecessary.
Consider:
From TALES FROM THE SCRIPT, Edited by Peter Hanson and Paul Robert Herman, HarperCollins, 2010, p. 170, screenwriter Andrew W. Marlowe described an example of how the script differs from the movie:
"There was this experience on AIR FORCE ONE, where I’d written this little speech. Harrison came up to me and he said,
"'It’s a great speech.'
"'I said, 'Oh, thank you.'
"He said, 'I’m not gonna do it. All this, I can do with a look.'
"And he could."
And there’s this from Alex Garland in SCREENWRITERS’ MASTERCLASS, Edited by Kevin Conroy Scott, Faber & Faber Ltd. 2005, p. 164:
"One of the things I definitely learned (from drawing cartoons) was how redundant dialogue can be at times. What you can do is rely on the image; (successful) comic books and films do this the whole time."
And later, on p. 165:
"There’s a terrific urge to overstate because you’re afraid that people will miss something, and when I look at 28 DAYS LATER, for example, which is the only screenplay I have ever written that went straight through to being made into a film, one of the things I think is tonally wrong about it is that it spells stuff out at times when it really doesn’t need to."
The problem is, screenplays, in their pre-film state, can’t rely on Harrison Ford’s “look.” They can’t always get things across that the eventual film, with ease, will do from within its visual, directorial, and performance arsenals. Worse, “spec” scripts from unproven screenwriters must get their stories across to an agency or studio reader already biased by the writer’s lack of experience. Yet those specs are held to the same standard.
Screenplays must communicate their meaning fully and clearly or risk losing their reader and the sale because of the potential casting of somebody like George Spelvin (non-actor extraordinaire), rather than Harrison Ford, not to mention other deficiencies like insufficient information, critical logic lapses, or merely a lack of emphasis. It may look like a duck, it may walk like a duck, but on the page, until it talks like a duck, it ain't a duck!
It recalls that old story about the blind men and the elephant: each man identified a different object as he touched some part of the beast. None “saw” the elephant. At least in the movie version of the fable, until they get Harrison Ford or Steven Spielberg, they’ll have to rely on the script. And, to all the spec writers out there, if that doesn't work, may the Ford be with you!
2 people like this
Mike Childress Yeah, a lot of directors are way too glib for their own good. Take the dialogue out of a Tarantino script, or a Sorkin. See what you get.
4 people like this
Lee Matthias Excellent point. At the end of the day, films are collaborative efforts, for better or worse. When it's for the better, it means a good actor or director can communicate with "a look" that can't be captured in a script.
Also, I never understood why some people say, "Only write dialogue if you have to; Communicate visually only." Name me one human being who doesn't love to hear good dialogue!
2 people like this
One size doesn't fill all. Great writing trumps all theories and rules.
3 people like this
"All this, I can do with a look." is why Harrison Ford is the GOAT
2 people like this
If you wonder how much Harrison Ford can do with a look, watch Shrinking! It's the difference between a script you sell to people who have read it, and a shooting script for sure. I'm not one of those writers who's offended if an actor comes up with a better line on set. I love the production process.
5 people like this
That is why I love Valhalla Rising where the main character never says one word in the whole film!
2 people like this
Mike Childress you gotta watch Withnail & I (think it's on Max right now). High-key an amazing movie, one of those diamonds in the rough not nearly enough people have seen. Random but pretty sure it's one of Jonah Hill's favorite movies which is why I watched it back in the day
2 people like this
I agree. It's always been less is more. I love the amount of interpretations I can give to silence instead of words. They're words, most of the time didascalic. I don't want that at all. Unfortunately, storytellers are losing touch with it
2 people like this
I think it depends on the content of what the character is saying. You couldn't have made Talk Radio with just looks or have the the comedy genius of When Harry Met Sally without setting up the punchline without some kind of set up. Falling down, while most of William Fosters rants were pretty obvious, they still needed context to really hit home.
I like Harrison Ford, but he is getting paid to act so if I'm directing and he doesn't want to do what's written, I'd tell him, "That's too bad. We'll do it both ways, because I'd rather have the footage and not need it then need it and not have it."
I don't give a flying rat's rump who you think you are.
1 person likes this
Drongo Bum Back then, I'm sure you're right, but if Ford can't be professional enough to do the job he's being paid for, who's fault is that? He became a primadonna because everyone allowed him to become one. Without Star Wars, where would he be right now? He had 22 gigs before Star Wars and until the role of Hans Solo, of which his acting wasn't that great in A New Hope either, no one cared about him.
3 people like this
i've heard experienced screenwriters share the fact that they often write dialogue knowing full well it will be cut – either on the day or in the edit – but write it any way so that the scene functions on the page