Wednesday, March 19, 2008
On Feedback
Getting notes from people on your script is like a socially acceptable way of taking other people's ideas. What's even better is that they're actually happy that you're taking them. And you get all the credit in the end. So don't be afraid to let people critique your work.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
On Cutting Dialogue
I may have imagined this but I recall an interview with Steven Soderbergh where he was being complimented for the wonderful silences in his film "Sex, Lies and Videotape." He attributed that to his inability to write dialogue.
That little anecdote guides my approach to dialogue. There are some writers that have a natural gift for it (Richard Price, Quentin Tarantino, David Mamet, all great comedy writers, etc.) and can allow their dialogue to do a lot of the heavy lifting in a scene. I don't have that luxury, so I'm maniacal about cutting dialogue. That way, at the very least, my dialogue will be simple and efficient.
There's three ways I do this:
1. Give the characters something to do.
I always make sure the actors have something physical to do in the scene. For one thing, I think being physically active grounds them so their performance is less self-conscious. But more importantly, I can use the behavior of the characters, as they are doing these bits of business, to tell some of the story.
A simple example: Let's say a character is doing something mundane like wiping down a table. Another character says to her, "I saw Frank yesterday." Hearing this, the first character slows down noticeably before continuing to wipe the table. That behavior says something about how this character feels about Frank. And it does it much better than any dialogue that I could write.
Having the characters doing something also allows the scene to serve more than one purpose. For example, the action can help move along the plot while the dialogue explores the relationship between the characters. Or the action could explore the relationship between the characters while the dialogue delivers mundane exposition. An example of the latter: I wrote one scene where a Sikh man explains his religion to a white woman while tying a turban on her. The dialogue was very dry ("What do Sikhs believe? Sikh believe..."), but the action of the scene played up the growing attraction between the characters.
I can always tell if a scene is working by clicking on print preview. I'm not sure what it is but I can tell just from the layout of the page (dialogue interspersed with bits of action), if I'm on the right track. But, if I only see a column of dialogue running down the page, I know something's wrong. I'm relying on dialogue. And that can't be good because I'm no Billy Wilder.
2. Take the emotion out.
"On the nose" is a common phrase used to describe dialogue where the characters are saying exactly what they're thinking. This is a problem because there's no subtext. The writer is, in essence, making the subtext the text.
As a general rule, I try to look for any lines of dialogue that state what a character is feeling and take it out. "Where were you? We were worried." Well, if the actor is conveying worry than you don't really need the second part of the line.
The only time I keep lines that indicate emotion is when there's a contrast between the emotion a character is feeling and the one in the dialogue (a character saying "I'm sad," but saying it as if they were saying "I'm mad").
3. Use the least amount of syllables to say something.
"Could you bring two glasses of wine please?" can become "Two glasses of wine please" (one could even cut the "please"). I just think this makes dialogue easier to deliver. And there's that whole "less is more" thing too.
My exception to this is when the characters are making a point (or a joke) by using more (and bigger) words. For example, a character walks into a someone's dingy studio apartment and says something like, "Quite a palatial estate you have here."
These are all simple ideas but you'll be amazed at how many lines you'll be able to cut and how much better the scenes will play as a result.
That little anecdote guides my approach to dialogue. There are some writers that have a natural gift for it (Richard Price, Quentin Tarantino, David Mamet, all great comedy writers, etc.) and can allow their dialogue to do a lot of the heavy lifting in a scene. I don't have that luxury, so I'm maniacal about cutting dialogue. That way, at the very least, my dialogue will be simple and efficient.
There's three ways I do this:
1. Give the characters something to do.
I always make sure the actors have something physical to do in the scene. For one thing, I think being physically active grounds them so their performance is less self-conscious. But more importantly, I can use the behavior of the characters, as they are doing these bits of business, to tell some of the story.
A simple example: Let's say a character is doing something mundane like wiping down a table. Another character says to her, "I saw Frank yesterday." Hearing this, the first character slows down noticeably before continuing to wipe the table. That behavior says something about how this character feels about Frank. And it does it much better than any dialogue that I could write.
Having the characters doing something also allows the scene to serve more than one purpose. For example, the action can help move along the plot while the dialogue explores the relationship between the characters. Or the action could explore the relationship between the characters while the dialogue delivers mundane exposition. An example of the latter: I wrote one scene where a Sikh man explains his religion to a white woman while tying a turban on her. The dialogue was very dry ("What do Sikhs believe? Sikh believe..."), but the action of the scene played up the growing attraction between the characters.
I can always tell if a scene is working by clicking on print preview. I'm not sure what it is but I can tell just from the layout of the page (dialogue interspersed with bits of action), if I'm on the right track. But, if I only see a column of dialogue running down the page, I know something's wrong. I'm relying on dialogue. And that can't be good because I'm no Billy Wilder.
2. Take the emotion out.
"On the nose" is a common phrase used to describe dialogue where the characters are saying exactly what they're thinking. This is a problem because there's no subtext. The writer is, in essence, making the subtext the text.
As a general rule, I try to look for any lines of dialogue that state what a character is feeling and take it out. "Where were you? We were worried." Well, if the actor is conveying worry than you don't really need the second part of the line.
The only time I keep lines that indicate emotion is when there's a contrast between the emotion a character is feeling and the one in the dialogue (a character saying "I'm sad," but saying it as if they were saying "I'm mad").
3. Use the least amount of syllables to say something.
"Could you bring two glasses of wine please?" can become "Two glasses of wine please" (one could even cut the "please"). I just think this makes dialogue easier to deliver. And there's that whole "less is more" thing too.
My exception to this is when the characters are making a point (or a joke) by using more (and bigger) words. For example, a character walks into a someone's dingy studio apartment and says something like, "Quite a palatial estate you have here."
These are all simple ideas but you'll be amazed at how many lines you'll be able to cut and how much better the scenes will play as a result.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)