Dialogue is a very important part of film. It is used to give us important information about the characters and elements of the story. The average viewer's expectation of dialogue is for it to be properly delivered as to say it should feel "natural," like a conversation that would be had in real life given (x) situation as opposed to it being "forced," where something is said only for the sake of plot or exposition.
Expositional dialogue is no fan favorite. It is always criticized as boring, lifeless/devoid of character, and worst of all, abnormal. Every once in a while, cinematic explanations are 100% necessary and therefore do nothing to harm to overall experience but most of the time it's out of place and famously irritating so why does it never fail to appear in today's media?
I used to think that it was just difficult to convey incredibly detailed information. For instance communicating the rules and duties of a secret agency when all the characters have been there for years and don't intend to narrate anytime soon. I also thought that it was just a form a lazy writing. When you're on top and people will see your movie regardless of the quality, you start going through the motions. No need to be clever with exposition when some guy in a trench coat can just stand around and explain what's happening for 2 hours. But at the same time, this trend is even found in good movies so where exactly is this coming from?
Well, now that I'm working on a script of my own, I believe I have an answer to this question. First, I want to be clear that I'm not speaking for every writer. It's really just a theory based on my experience today.
I think writing dialogue is just a tough thing to do. You know where the lines are going to be placed: on screen in front of a countless amount of people. It's basically public speaking, except it's your work of art on display. And even though you know that through a proper performance the dialogue is likely to sound natural, you don't know who exactly is going to be representing your characters so for the time being the dialogue, in your head, sounds like complete nonsense. Every word you write that is meant to be a part of a normal conversation sounds like a poorly delivered line in a sitcom so you second guess everything.
My husband and I came across this theory thinking of how dialogue sounds to us when reading books. We agreed that the dialogue bits of the book are the worse parts even when nothing embarrassing is being said. In a way, it comes off as an incredibly corny joke, like the writer thought they were constructing witty comments when it's really a scenario sealed in plastic. Because of this, reading and writing regular interactions feels equivalent to humiliating yourself on stage or watching it happen.
So what does any of this have to do with expositional dialogue? The exposition is still dialogue. Yes it is, however, it is the best kind of dialogue to read. Books are almost entirely made up of explanations so when a character starts to explain something in a book, it feels "natural" because it's in a book! Of course he's explaining things. So I believe what happens to people when they're writing screenplays is that because they're reading, the overly explanatory parts do feel natural. And when it comes down to the actual shooting, the staleness appears to be an acting problem as opposed to a line problem. I plan to still try and put some natural conversation into my script but I figured that I would share this train of thought on MoFo to give some insight on what may or may not be happening in Hollywood.
Thoughts?
Expositional dialogue is no fan favorite. It is always criticized as boring, lifeless/devoid of character, and worst of all, abnormal. Every once in a while, cinematic explanations are 100% necessary and therefore do nothing to harm to overall experience but most of the time it's out of place and famously irritating so why does it never fail to appear in today's media?
I used to think that it was just difficult to convey incredibly detailed information. For instance communicating the rules and duties of a secret agency when all the characters have been there for years and don't intend to narrate anytime soon. I also thought that it was just a form a lazy writing. When you're on top and people will see your movie regardless of the quality, you start going through the motions. No need to be clever with exposition when some guy in a trench coat can just stand around and explain what's happening for 2 hours. But at the same time, this trend is even found in good movies so where exactly is this coming from?
Well, now that I'm working on a script of my own, I believe I have an answer to this question. First, I want to be clear that I'm not speaking for every writer. It's really just a theory based on my experience today.
I think writing dialogue is just a tough thing to do. You know where the lines are going to be placed: on screen in front of a countless amount of people. It's basically public speaking, except it's your work of art on display. And even though you know that through a proper performance the dialogue is likely to sound natural, you don't know who exactly is going to be representing your characters so for the time being the dialogue, in your head, sounds like complete nonsense. Every word you write that is meant to be a part of a normal conversation sounds like a poorly delivered line in a sitcom so you second guess everything.
My husband and I came across this theory thinking of how dialogue sounds to us when reading books. We agreed that the dialogue bits of the book are the worse parts even when nothing embarrassing is being said. In a way, it comes off as an incredibly corny joke, like the writer thought they were constructing witty comments when it's really a scenario sealed in plastic. Because of this, reading and writing regular interactions feels equivalent to humiliating yourself on stage or watching it happen.
So what does any of this have to do with expositional dialogue? The exposition is still dialogue. Yes it is, however, it is the best kind of dialogue to read. Books are almost entirely made up of explanations so when a character starts to explain something in a book, it feels "natural" because it's in a book! Of course he's explaining things. So I believe what happens to people when they're writing screenplays is that because they're reading, the overly explanatory parts do feel natural. And when it comes down to the actual shooting, the staleness appears to be an acting problem as opposed to a line problem. I plan to still try and put some natural conversation into my script but I figured that I would share this train of thought on MoFo to give some insight on what may or may not be happening in Hollywood.
Thoughts?
Last edited by Yoda; 11-18-19 at 10:24 AM.
Reason: Added some paragraph breaks. :)