Talking Heads?

[AFS]

I've had a script of mine refered to as "talking heads". While I'm not too bothered by that, as dialogue is my favorite part of writing, I was wondering how to combat this feeling.

Do I just need more trivial action in between lines? How could I do that without over padding the script?

Any suggestions would help. Thanks.

[dpaterso]

I've had a script of mine refered to as "talking heads". While I'm not too bothered by that, as dialogue is my favorite part of writing, I was wondering how to combat this feeling.

Do I just need more trivial action in between lines? How could I do that without over padding the script?
Tough one to answer without seeing a sample, since talking heads can mean a few things... yappy characters... not enough visuals... dialogue not interesting enough... characters don't emote enough feeling via action, they're too busy talking... scene feels static... story feels as if it's not advancing... all or none of the above. The comment might point at a much bigger problem. I'd be bothered.

-Derek

[whistlelock]

Movies are about moving- doing things.

Radio is about dialogue.


It means your characters are standing still and talking to each other.

A lot.

Change that.

[Bmwhtly]

I've had a script of mine refered to as "talking heads". While I'm not too bothered by that, as dialogue is my favorite part of writing, I was wondering how to combat this feeling.

Do I just need more trivial action in between lines? How could I do that without over padding the script?

Any suggestions would help. Thanks.Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with heaps of dialogue. Look at Clerks, 90% of the film is two guys standing round talking.

But you could give it what I believe is referred to as 'scope'. If you're gonna set something in a kitchen, why not set it on a rollercoaster. That kind of thing. Maybe.

Just a suggestion.

[Puma]

Or it could also mean your readers can't visualize your characters - no hints as to physical characteristics, mannerisms, etc. Puma

[xhouseboy]

I've had a script of mine refered to as "talking heads". While I'm not too bothered by that, as dialogue is my favorite part of writing, I was wondering how to combat this feeling.

Do I just need more trivial action in between lines? How could I do that without over padding the script?

Any suggestions would help. Thanks.

As DP says, hard to tell without seeing the script.

If your characters' dialogue is mostly expositional, then the term 'talking heads' is often used to describe a script that tends to tell the audience the story rather than let them see it unfold for themselves. In this instance it's also referred to as 'lazy writing'.

If the dialogue is insightful and relevant to the development of the characters, then you might get away with talking heads (just don't have them sitting down in every scene). Keep in mind, though, this term is rarely used in a complimentary sense -- unless you're Alan Bennet.

[NikeeGoddess]

no lines of dialogue (or action for that matter) should be more than 3 or 4 lines. there are no hard rules though. if your story is more cerebral and character driven (as opposed to an action script) then of course there is more dialogue.

however:
Do I just need more trivial action in between lines? How could I do that without over padding the script?
nothing you write should be trivial. action/behavior should be relevant to the character.
probably much of what you have in your dialogue is more trivial than you think. come in late to conversations and just give the audience the core of the scene. and don't be redundant. ie - if one character just experiences something and/or tells someone something then none of that coversation should be repeated but, you can come into a scene (late) after the exchange has just been made between them. clear as mud or what?!

find a script that is similar to what you want to write and compare. notice how short the dialogue is and the scenes are in length. notice the minor action and movement made during longer conversations.

what a dialogue heavy movie and turn on the mutt button. just absorb the action.

but you should also know that talking heads can be acceptable. check out My Dinner with Andre or Tape w/Ethan Hawke -- they're all talking heads. but notice the content must be absorbing. and know that talking head scripts are made as "actor" pieces and only made by small independent producers.

[Plot Device]

The movie The Day After Tomorrow had a lot of scientific information about ice and snow and heat and flooding, etc., that needed to be conveyed to the audience via scientists who talked and talked and talked about all this scientific stuff.

Intellectally interesting.

But kinda boring to watch.

The director had the scriptwriter rewrite a lot of these admitedly critical info-dumping scenes so that the same dialogue was being delivered by the same characters, but while they were walking down streets or driving in cars, etc.

So get rid of the "drawing room scenes" where the President of the United States is in the Oval Office sitting behind his desk while the scientist tells him about the upcoming end of the world. And rewrite it so that the President is briskly waking toward his awaiting helicopter in the midst of a bunch of aides and body gaurds, and the scientist has to desperately keep up with the pace to tell the President about the upcoming end of the world.

[zeprosnepsid]

If you just have two people sitting around talking a lot - write a play. Movies are visual. People can talk, but it has to be visual. Are they doing something? Is the camera doing something? Try a different location, have them get interrupted, have them moving, give them some business -- something to make it more dynamic.

When a director is looking at potential scripts, they want to see it. Dialogue scenes can be visual depending on how you write them. The setting and action of the scene can speak to the subtext or the theme, it doesn't have to be 'padding'.

I wouldn't necessarily be more descriptive just to be descriptive. Most people skip description while reading, but if you have pages of talking with no action in between, that's not very attractive to a film director.

And there's no shame in writing plays....

[nmstevens]

I've had a script of mine refered to as "talking heads". While I'm not too bothered by that, as dialogue is my favorite part of writing, I was wondering how to combat this feeling.

Do I just need more trivial action in between lines? How could I do that without over padding the script?

Any suggestions would help. Thanks.

I've never bought into this idea that "movies are visual" and that if you have a lot of dialogue it ought to be a play. The "Maltese Falcon" is virtually all dialogue. So is "All the President's Men". So, for that matter, is "Sex, Lies, and Videotape." Very little happens in any of those movies except people talking.

But the fact that your story is conveyed through actors' speech doesn't alter the basic rule of movie story-telling -- which is sparseness. Scenes should do their story work efficiently, and when the story work of a scene is done -- the scene is over.

If the story is compelling, and every scene is doing its story work efficiently -- and is thus the right length -- no one should be bored or have the sense that a scene is too talky.

That's the impression that people get when a scene just seems to be running on and on and on, which means that it either isn't getting to the point, or it's gotten to the point and is still going on.

And it isn't only "talkie" scenes that can suffer from that. You can have purely visual scenes that are capable of doing exactly the same thing.

NMS

[clockwork]

Blake Snyder calls this the "Pope in the Pool" rule. If you have an expositionary scene to wade through, put it somewhere interesting to distract the audience. The rule is based on a script I believe Snyder was working on in which the Pope was involved in a particularly long dialogue with some Vatican dudes and to make it visually interesting, the Pope delivered his lines while swimming lanes in the Vatican pool.

[pconsidine]

...[D]ialogue is my favorite part of writing... This might have something to do with it. I might suggest going through the dialogue and trying find ways to convey the same information through action instead. Even if you keep it 90% the way it is, exploring that might help you see alternative approaches to conveying information.

As far as the rest of the comments, my take as always been that film is a unique medium, in that the entire experience contributes to the story. The dialogue is supported by the action, which can take place anywhere you choose. That's what differentiates it from other forms of drama, in my mind. A movie is the only medium where you have complete control over time and space. To not use any of those elements is to leave half your tools in the toolbox.

[Parkinsonsd]

Blow something up. That seems to work.

[zeprosnepsid]

I've never bought into this idea that "movies are visual" and that if you have a lot of dialogue it ought to be a play. The "Maltese Falcon" is virtually all dialogue. So is "All the President's Men". So, for that matter, is "Sex, Lies, and Videotape." Very little happens in any of those movies except people talking.

It's amazing to me that anyone would ever say that any movie shot by Gordon Willis is 'not visual'. In Goldman's book 'Adventures In The Screen Trade' he says one of the hard parts of adapting 'All The President's Men' was that there was almost no dialogue.

I'll only take issue with that, although I think all of your examples are bad ones, because it's the movie I've seen most recently. I think Sex, Lies is plenty visual and certainly does so in subtextual and thematic ways, but I haven't seen in it a while so I don't want to get into it at the moment.

But in All The President's Men, there's a lot of action and business going on during the dialogue in that movie. There's action in the newsroom. There's dynamic locations for some scenes. There's like one line of dialogue in the first 5-plus minutes of the film (if I remember correctly, there's the break in, Woodward getting the call and introing of the Post).

Watch 'All The President's Men' and you'll see scenes like this:

CUT TO:

WOODWARD TYPING LIKE MAD, makes a mistake, corrects it, types
on muttering to himself, and--

CUT TO:

ROSENFELD IN HIS OFFICE munching a handful of Maalox tablets
and--

CUT TO:

WOODWARD taking a sheet from his typewriter, hurrying off
and--

CUT TO:

ROSENFELD taking the sheet from WOODWARD--

WOODWARD
Here's the first take--

ROSENFELD nods, shows him out and--

CUT TO:

WOODWARD BACK AT HIS MACHINE typing faster then before, makes
another mistake, starts to correct it, glances around and--

CUT TO:

ROSENFELD IN HIS OFFICE gesturing to somebody but not WOODWARD
and--

CUT TO:

WOODWARD watching as BERNSTEIN appears in view from behind
the wide pillar by WOODWARD's desk, heads toward ROSENFELD's
office. WOODWARD shrugs, goes back to his typing, makes a
typo immediately, glances over toward ROSENFELD's office,
freezes as we--

CUT TO:

ROSENFELD handing some papers to BERNSTEIN. They look, from
this distance, suspiciously like WOODWARD's story.

CUT TO:

BERNSTEIN hurrying out of ROSENFELD's office, and--

CUT TO:

WOODWARD watching BERNSTEIN until he disappears out of sight
behind the pillar. WOODWARD hesitates, finally goes back to
his typing, makes another mistake, fixes it, makes still
another, his temper is shortly to make itself known--

CUT TO:

ROSENFELD as WOODWARD hands him another sheet of paper.

WOODWARD
This is all of it, Harry.

ROSENFELD NODS, takes it, immediately starts to read as we--

CUT TO:

WOODWARD AT HIS DESK watching as ROSENFELD gestures again.
There is a pause. Then BERNSTEIN appears from behind the
pillar and--

CUT TO:

ROSENFELD handing BERNSTEIN another sheet of paper. BERSTEIN
nods, takes it, walks back toward his desk, disappears behind
the pillar again. WOODWARD is starting to steam. Now--

CUT TO:

BERNSTEIN AT HIS DESK typing magnificently, his hands rising
and falling like Rubinstein's. Behind him is the pillar and
for a moment there is nothing--then, very slowly, a figure
peers out from behind the pillar--it is WOODWARD.

He watches. BERNSTEIN continues to type, then after a moment,
rests, thinks, shifts around in his chair and as his glance
starts toward the pillar--

CUT TO:

THE PILLAR. WOODWARD is gone.

CUT TO:

BERNSTEIN typing madly away.

THE PILLAR. WOODWARD is visible again, eyes very bright...
now--

CUT TO:

BERNSTEIN finishing typing, his hands moving majestically.
WOODWARD comes up behind him, stands looking a second.

Then--

WOODWARD
We have to talk.

BERNSTEIN nods, grabs the papers both that he's been typing
and that he's been copying from.

And as he rises--

PAN TO:

WOODWARD AND BERNSTEIN walking silently out of the newsroom
then turning left down a darker corridor, passing bulletin
boards and wall lockers and it's all nice and quiet as they
amble on, nodding to the few people they pass on their way
and after a while they turn right and enter the coffee lounge
which is empty; the walls are lined with Norman Rockwell
reproductions and various kinds of vending machines are
visible, selling coffee or milk or fruit or sandwiches and
there are some plastic tables and chairs and the minute they
are alone, the silence ends.

WOODWARD
What the hell were you doing rewriting
my story--

--

Not visual????

[clockwork]

Now do His Girl Friday. :)

[zeprosnepsid]

Now do His Girl Friday. :)

His Girl Friday is a play =)

[clockwork]

His Girl Friday is a play =)

:rolleyes:

[AFS]

OK, my fault. I should have elaborated more.

The script in question is a concept script. It all takes place in one setting, so the whole "scope" thing doesn't work, with the possible exception of a flashback, maybe.

It's based around dialogue, not action. It's people talking to people. You could say "write a play, instead", but I don't want to write a play. I want to write a film.
Upon hearing some of these comments, I've come to the conclusion that the "talking heads" comment I received was in reference to the fact that almost everyone is sitting down. Easily correctable.

Thanks for the help, and keep posting if you have anything else to say.

[dgl]

Watch 12 Angry Men. One room (two if you count the bathroom), and no talking heads in that thing.

[AFS]

Good flick. But they were unveiling a mystery, I don't have anything so universal for every character in my script.

[Plot Device]

I've never bought into this idea that "movies are visual" and that if you have a lot of dialogue it ought to be a play. The "Maltese Falcon" is virtually all dialogue. So is "All the President's Men". So, for that matter, is "Sex, Lies, and Videotape." Very little happens in any of those movies except people talking.

But the fact that your story is conveyed through actors' speech doesn't alter the basic rule of movie story-telling -- which is sparseness. Scenes should do their story work efficiently, and when the story work of a scene is done -- the scene is over.

If the story is compelling, and every scene is doing its story work efficiently -- and is thus the right length -- no one should be bored or have the sense that a scene is too talky.

That's the impression that people get when a scene just seems to be running on and on and on, which means that it either isn't getting to the point, or it's gotten to the point and is still going on.

And it isn't only "talkie" scenes that can suffer from that. You can have purely visual scenes that are capable of doing exactly the same thing.

NMS

This poster has been here over six months and racked up only 8 posts. Judging by this one, I suspect the other 7 are probably worth digging for. http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif

One word from this post jumps out at me here: "sparseness"

Seems to be his/her overall style. :cool:

[Plot Device]

OK, my fault. I should have elaborated more.

The script in question is a concept script. It all takes place in one setting, so the whole "scope" thing doesn't work, with the possible exception of a flashback, maybe.

It's based around dialogue, not action. It's people talking to people. You could say "write a play, instead", but I don't want to write a play. I want to write a film.
Upon hearing some of these comments, I've come to the conclusion that the "talking heads" comment I received was in reference to the fact that almost everyone is sitting down. Easily correctable.

Thanks for the help, and keep posting if you have anything else to say.


Maybe you should post an excerpt in the SYW forum then.

[NikeeGoddess]

The script in question is a concept script. It all takes place in one setting

i'll repeat this because it's definitely worth checking out
Tape http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0275719/
rent it, watch it, read it

[nmstevens]

His Girl Friday is a play =)

No. The Front Page is a play. "His Girl Friday" is most definitely a movie, and one of the fastest paced screwball comedies you're ever likely to see -- but also one that is very much dependent on dialogue.

That's not to say that it doesn't have visual story-telling -- but most of it's story-telling is dialogue dependent.

NMS

[nmstevens]

It's amazing to me that anyone would ever say that any movie shot by Gordon Willis is 'not visual'. In Goldman's book 'Adventures In The Screen Trade' he says one of the hard parts of adapting 'All The President's Men' was that there was almost no dialogue.

I'll only take issue with that, although I think all of your examples are bad ones, because it's the movie I've seen most recently. I think Sex, Lies is plenty visual and certainly does so in subtextual and thematic ways, but I haven't seen in it a while so I don't want to get into it at the moment.

But in All The President's Men, there's a lot of action and business going on during the dialogue in that movie. There's action in the newsroom. There's dynamic locations for some scenes. There's like one line of dialogue in the first 5-plus minutes of the film (if I remember correctly, there's the break in, Woodward getting the call and introing of the Post).

Watch 'All The President's Men' and you'll see scenes like this:

CUT TO:

WOODWARD TYPING LIKE MAD, makes a mistake, corrects it, types
on muttering to himself, and--

CUT TO:

ROSENFELD IN HIS OFFICE munching a handful of Maalox tablets
and--

CUT TO:

WOODWARD taking a sheet from his typewriter, hurrying off
and--

CUT TO:

ROSENFELD taking the sheet from WOODWARD--

WOODWARD
Here's the first take--

ROSENFELD nods, shows him out and--

CUT TO:

WOODWARD BACK AT HIS MACHINE typing faster then before, makes
another mistake, starts to correct it, glances around and--

CUT TO:

ROSENFELD IN HIS OFFICE gesturing to somebody but not WOODWARD
and--

CUT TO:

WOODWARD watching as BERNSTEIN appears in view from behind
the wide pillar by WOODWARD's desk, heads toward ROSENFELD's
office. WOODWARD shrugs, goes back to his typing, makes a
typo immediately, glances over toward ROSENFELD's office,
freezes as we--

CUT TO:

ROSENFELD handing some papers to BERNSTEIN. They look, from
this distance, suspiciously like WOODWARD's story.

CUT TO:

BERNSTEIN hurrying out of ROSENFELD's office, and--

CUT TO:

WOODWARD watching BERNSTEIN until he disappears out of sight
behind the pillar. WOODWARD hesitates, finally goes back to
his typing, makes another mistake, fixes it, makes still
another, his temper is shortly to make itself known--

CUT TO:

ROSENFELD as WOODWARD hands him another sheet of paper.

WOODWARD
This is all of it, Harry.

ROSENFELD NODS, takes it, immediately starts to read as we--

CUT TO:

WOODWARD AT HIS DESK watching as ROSENFELD gestures again.
There is a pause. Then BERNSTEIN appears from behind the
pillar and--

CUT TO:

ROSENFELD handing BERNSTEIN another sheet of paper. BERSTEIN
nods, takes it, walks back toward his desk, disappears behind
the pillar again. WOODWARD is starting to steam. Now--

CUT TO:

BERNSTEIN AT HIS DESK typing magnificently, his hands rising
and falling like Rubinstein's. Behind him is the pillar and
for a moment there is nothing--then, very slowly, a figure
peers out from behind the pillar--it is WOODWARD.

He watches. BERNSTEIN continues to type, then after a moment,
rests, thinks, shifts around in his chair and as his glance
starts toward the pillar--

CUT TO:

THE PILLAR. WOODWARD is gone.

CUT TO:

BERNSTEIN typing madly away.

THE PILLAR. WOODWARD is visible again, eyes very bright...
now--

CUT TO:

BERNSTEIN finishing typing, his hands moving majestically.
WOODWARD comes up behind him, stands looking a second.

Then--

WOODWARD
We have to talk.

BERNSTEIN nods, grabs the papers both that he's been typing
and that he's been copying from.

And as he rises--

PAN TO:

WOODWARD AND BERNSTEIN walking silently out of the newsroom
then turning left down a darker corridor, passing bulletin
boards and wall lockers and it's all nice and quiet as they
amble on, nodding to the few people they pass on their way
and after a while they turn right and enter the coffee lounge
which is empty; the walls are lined with Norman Rockwell
reproductions and various kinds of vending machines are
visible, selling coffee or milk or fruit or sandwiches and
there are some plastic tables and chairs and the minute they
are alone, the silence ends.

WOODWARD
What the hell were you doing rewriting
my story--

--

Not visual????


There seems to be here, and in some of the other posts, what I consider to be a basic misunderstanding of what it means when we talk about a scene being "visual" as distinct from being "dialogue-based."

Hitchcock made this point very succinctly when he distinguished between doing things like "opening a scene up" -- taking a scene that could be shot at a table and shooting it on the side of a mountain or while the characters gallop on horseback -- as if that made somehow made the scene "visual." This is what Hitchcock called merely "photography." It didn't, as he considered it, have anything to do with the medium of film.

That's because whether the characters are talking while on horseback, walking, climbing a mountain, or on the backs of humpbacked whales -- none of that is conveying the *story information* of the scene. It is all simply decoration.

If the characters are walking and the fundamental "action" of the scene -- the stuff that's in the scene that is advancing the story -- is happening in what the characters are saying -- then that's a dialogue scene. And it would be a dialogue scene if they were shouting it at one another whilst skydiving or whispering it to one another across a kitchen table.

And that is the real test of whether you are dealing with what is, fundamentally, a dialogue movie. As you move through the story, are the key story points, from scene to scene to scene, being conveyed mostly through actors talking to one another. If the answer is yes -- it's a dialogue movie.

Now -- it's still action -- because in dramatic terms "action" is anything that a character does to advance his objective, or an antagonist does to impede it. And that can all happen though people talking (as clearly it does in something like 12 Angry Men).

All movies today are a combination of both. Some, like Die Hard, convey much more information in strictly visual terms. You can turn off the sound and watch that movie and you'll know pretty much what's happening (not everything, but you'll get most of it).

A lot of movies -- including All the President's Men -- you turn off the sound, you are simply not going to have any idea what's going on in a majority of the scenes in that movie. On the other hand, you turn on the sound and look away from the screen -- you'll find that you will be able to follow that movie perfectly well.

Does that mean that it is, in essence, sort of a filmed radio play?

Not really -- because clearly there's much more to a movie than simply following the plot.

But I really think that the time has come to accept that movies are *not* simply a visual medium, that they are, and have actually been for almost eighty years -- an *audio-visual* medium in which both speech, sounds and images work together to produce a cohesive finished whole.

Some movies, by virtue of the stories they tell, will rely more on visuals to tell their stories, others will rely more on speech.

But they're both movies and each is just as much a movie as the other.

NMS

[zeprosnepsid]

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree NMS! I do believe that movies are and should be a visual medium. And just because they're dialogue heavy doesn't mean you can't tell what's going on.

A scene that comes to mind is in House of Mirth, where Gillian Anderson and Eric Stolz are having a conversation in a sitting room. They both stand on opposite sides of the room. There are only two shots, one on him and one on her that are cut back and forth. And they talk for maybe 3 minutes or so. But, if you watch it without the sound on, you can still tell what's going on. Because in those two shots, the camera varies in how close up or far away the subject is and is sometimes pushing in and out. When the conversation starts, there are lots of close ups on Gillian Anderson as she is strong and assertive. Stolz is in medium, holding his own, but clearly she is dominating the conversation. Then, as it goes on, the camera pulls farther and farther away from her, while Stolz stays in medium and eventually into close up. By then, she is in a full wide, no longer in command of the frame. By the end of the scene it's clear who won the argument.

Stephen Frears does this really well in general. Watch Dangerous Liaisons without the sound and you can always tell who is in control in any scene by the shot choice alone. This is directorial as much as it has anything to do with the writer, but is certainly visual.

Only bad directors make movies where you can't tell what's going on visually. I watch most TV by sound alone, sitting here at the computer and listening to it. And I can tell what's going on. And yes, it's essentially a radio play. I love Gilmore Girls but I wouldn't ever claim it to be a visual masterpiece. But that's not real cinema either.

A movie should need to be a movie in all senses, or why else bother making a movie at all? That's just my personal belief though, clearly many other people have lower standards....

[AFS]

Only bad directors make movies where you can't tell what's going on visually.

In response to my original post, it shouldn't matter, then, if a screenplay is essentialy "talking heads", because a good director would do something with it. Is that the argument?

Can't say I see it that way.

[NikeeGoddess]

can't say i ever heard house of mirth as an example of anything before LOL

anyhoo - an entire of movie of talking heads (my dinner with andre) vs a single scene in a movie is entirely different. but whichever it is the content of what they're talking about is the most important. it must be so interesting, so intriguing (which has nothing to do with the visuals and background) that no one would think of taking a restroom break in the theater during that most significant conversation. it would have to be a scene that without it the movie would be lost.

[pconsidine]

In response to my original post, it shouldn't matter, then, if a screenplay is essentialy "talking heads", because a good director would do something with it. Is that the argument?

Can't say I see it that way.I think the bottom line is you can do anything you please, if you don't care at all about the reception it gets.

Which makes me wonder - have you shown the script to anyone else? And did they have a similar reaction? Also, what are your characters talking about when they're talking? All these things are useful tools in judging the feedback we get on scripts.

I tend to say this a lot, so here's once more. There aren't any rules in screenwriting as a whole. But there are most definitely rules for various parts of screenwriting (different genres, big studio vs. independent vs. DTD, etc.). If you want to take this script someplace where "No Talking Heads" is a rule, then you have to fix it. Otherwise, don't bother.



(I'm sure I'll get a lot of flak for that statement, but I stand by it.)

[AFS]

No flak here.

[zeprosnepsid]

In response to my original post, it shouldn't matter, then, if a screenplay is essentialy "talking heads", because a good director would do something with it. Is that the argument?

Can't say I see it that way.

Yes =)


Now the problem is getting a visually exciting director interested in your not visually exciting script.

[Nahotep]

My two cents - if it's talky, then the talk better be fricking amazing. His Girl Friday is heavy on dialogue, but it's all hilarious, insightful, and loaded with subtext.

Side note - there is one long moment in the movie completely without dialogue, after the girl Molly throws herself out a window. Hildy looks at the newspaper men who pushed Molly to such extremes with disgust and says "Gentlemen of the press..." And the usually fast-talking group of men sits in shamed silence for about a minute, which is huge in screen time. Director Howard Hawks knew when to pile on the dialogue and when not to. He also avoided "telling" people anything via dialogue. The feelings people have for each other are conveyed through subtext and visual cues like body language, the type of shot, etc. This type of intelligent direction is essential to keeping a talky script interesting. Twelve Angry Men is another great example. Also note - no one's come up with any recent examples of movies that were successful and talky. Times have changed. The more visual you make your script, the more appealing it will be to industry folk.

I work in the industry, and I've seen people (not folks I admire, mind you) reject scripts because they looked at the first few pages of a script and saw long blocks of dialogue - monologues, really. They do the same with long patches of description. Keep in mind that you are not often dealing with geniuses who love to read flights of fancy. Keep in mind that a lot of money is at stake, even for smaller, independent features. You need your script to appeal to a director, and s/he's the one who turns your words into something visual.

It all goes back to the same old adage - SHOW whenever you can. Talking heads can sometimes feel like a lot of "tell." Can't say more without reading a sample. You may just have been read by people with a bias against stage-like movies. Find someone whose sensibility is more in line with your own and see what they say.

[pconsidine]

I think Mamet would qualify to me as a very talky writer, yet many of his films have done quite well. Even Tarantino has his talky moments, but those are usually couched within otherwise very fast-paced stories.

But that's probably a very subjective view.

[nmstevens]

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree NMS! I do believe that movies are and should be a visual medium. And just because they're dialogue heavy doesn't mean you can't tell what's going on.

A scene that comes to mind is in House of Mirth, where Gillian Anderson and Eric Stolz are having a conversation in a sitting room. They both stand on opposite sides of the room. There are only two shots, one on him and one on her that are cut back and forth. And they talk for maybe 3 minutes or so. But, if you watch it without the sound on, you can still tell what's going on. Because in those two shots, the camera varies in how close up or far away the subject is and is sometimes pushing in and out. When the conversation starts, there are lots of close ups on Gillian Anderson as she is strong and assertive. Stolz is in medium, holding his own, but clearly she is dominating the conversation. Then, as it goes on, the camera pulls farther and farther away from her, while Stolz stays in medium and eventually into close up. By then, she is in a full wide, no longer in command of the frame. By the end of the scene it's clear who won the argument.

Stephen Frears does this really well in general. Watch Dangerous Liaisons without the sound and you can always tell who is in control in any scene by the shot choice alone. This is directorial as much as it has anything to do with the writer, but is certainly visual.

Only bad directors make movies where you can't tell what's going on visually. I watch most TV by sound alone, sitting here at the computer and listening to it. And I can tell what's going on. And yes, it's essentially a radio play. I love Gilmore Girls but I wouldn't ever claim it to be a visual masterpiece. But that's not real cinema either.

A movie should need to be a movie in all senses, or why else bother making a movie at all? That's just my personal belief though, clearly many other people have lower standards....

There's a very big difference between conveying *no* information visually and conveying all information visually.

What you have described above isn't fundamentally different from the sort of thing that any decent stage director does all the time through blocking -- is one actor standing and the other sitting, one actor up stage, the other down stage, one actor in the light, the other in shadow.

All of those things can convey exactly the same sorts of information *visually* -- who is dominating in a scene, who's winning an argument, losing an argument, etc.

But that can't begin to tell you what the argument in question is about. John Huston is probably one of our greatest directors and there's no question that he uses visuals well in The Maltese Falcon -- but turn the sound off and watch that movie and you will not have any idea, really, what's going on.

A girl shows up at a detective's office. They talk. Later, one of the Detectives is shot. Talk with the police. About what? Who knows? Another woman shows up. Who is she? Who knows? More talk. Some other guy shows up. He pulls a gun. More talk. About what? Who knows? He goes to some fat guy. There's a creepy assistant. A lot more talk. About what? Who knows? Twenty minutes before the end, a dying guy walks in with a bundle. Who is he? Who knows? At the very end, the bundle reappears and there's a carved falcon in it. The fat guy, who also did a lot of talking along the way scratches at it and he's unhappy about it. Why? Who knows? Then they leave and he talks to the woman and she's unhappy. Why? Who knows? Then the cops come in and take her away. Why? Who knows?

Without the dialogue that movie -- which is one of the great classics of cinema, as far as I'm concerned -- makes absolutely no sense.

This is a movie that, however well photographed and to whatever extent it depends upon cutting and camera moves and what have you to help tell the story, primarily tells its story through dialogue and performance.

Why we're supposed to think that this somehow makes it less of a movie or less "cinematic" I don't know.

NMS

[Nahotep]

The Maltese Falcon is a bit talky, but it involves murder, fist fights, and guys with guns and it changes location several times. And the dialogue rocks. There's no way anyone would call it a movie filled with talking heads. The dialogue is quick, funny, tight, says what it needs to without belaboring the point.

To belabor the point - it all depends on the quality of the dialogue. Dialogue can show and not tell too.

If someone's saying a movie has too many talking heads, it implies that folks are yammering on a lot without saying much that's interesting or fun. Tighten, brighten, give it subtext. Tarantino's characters do yammer on, but it's fricking fun as hell, and usually involves guns, drugs, or sex. If you're brilliant enough, you can make a lot of dialogue work. So be brilliant. Revise. Make it better, and folks won't tell you there are too many talking heads.

[WarrenP]

... Also note - no one's come up with any recent examples of movies that were successful and talky....




Can we call Phone Booth a recent example of a talky-almost-one-set movie?

I was going to suggest Panic Room as well, but even though the room is the main location, that flick moves around the house pretty well.

That's all I have right now....

[DanielD]

No matter how dialogue - centric a story is,film is a visual medium.
If the dialogue is great ,and all the other structural elements are in place,the story should hold.
The fact that your story is to take place in one location(a room),would be quite interesting.
I imagine that the characters, would have to be well written and indepth. Especially if your wishing to focus the story, predominantly on the dialogue.
As some of the other posters have mentioned,there are a few films ,whether old or new,which are dialogue heavy,yet, they are still great films.
Great camera work, lighting ,sound ect, is essential in bringing the film to life, though, Good dramatic structure,helps to make a great story.
Whether it's filmed in one room,or shot in a hundred locations,a great story is a great story.
And, it's all about the story.
Daniel.

[Bmwhtly]

Also note - no one's come up with any recent examples of movies that were successful and talky.No, I mentioned Clerks.

[NikeeGoddess]

Originally Posted by Nahotep
Also note - no one's come up with any recent examples of movies that were successful and talky.


In the Bedroom
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0247425/
and
The Straight Story
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0166896/

both talky and both had oscar nominations which i consider "a success"

Tape that i mentioned earlier was not a success but it was definitely all talky - entire flick in a motel room

[Nahotep]

I guess I don't consider In the Bedroom and Straight Story talky. (Didn't see Tape, but it wasn't much of a success.) Sure, they have dialogue and are character oriented, but that doesn't make them talking heads films. Guess it's subjective on whether a film is "talky" or not.

I didn't think Phone Booth worked. Just my opinion. Not by any measure was it successful financially.

Panic Room talky? Not in my opinion. It's limited as to location, but that doesn't make it a talking heads film.

Clerks is talky, yes, in my opinion. Sorry I missed that eariler mention. And that was a bit of a fluke. (Liked the movie a lot, actually.) But the filmmaker had to finance it himself. If you want other people to finance, you have to think about the amount of talkiness. Also, Clerks is not THAT recent. 1994 is ages ago in movieland.

[zeprosnepsid]

His Girl Friday - It may be talky, but it doesn't mean it's not visual. The gags about people coming in and out of the room (and in and out of desks) are all sight gags and are some of the funniest bits in the movie.

Clerks - The thing about Clerks is that whether or not it is a visual movie, it will be looked at visually. Kevin Smith tells a story about Clerks where a reviewer or interviewer or something mentioned the brilliant use of high angles to mimic a convenient store security camera. And he was like - oh, yeah, I totally did that on purpose - in his most humorous sarcastic tone. Whether or not he meant it visually, the movie is consumed visually.

I don't remember much dialogue in the Straight Story at all. I mostly remember long scenes of vistas and a man riding a lawnmower.

I think the point is that film is a visual medium no matter what and that two heads is not usually visually interesting.

[nielsty]

What about "Before Sunset" and "Before Sunrise"?

[pconsidine]

How about Stop Making Sense?





(There's a generational joke if ever I saw one.)

[Nahotep]

Ha! I love you, pconsidine! :D

[Plot Device]

Gosford Park

[Bmwhtly]

Clerks - The thing about Clerks is that whether or not it is a visual movie, it will be looked at visually. Kevin Smith tells a story about Clerks where a reviewer or interviewer or something mentioned the brilliant use of high angles to mimic a convenient store security camera. And he was like - oh, yeah, I totally did that on purpose - in his most humorous sarcastic tone. Whether or not he meant it visually, the movie is consumed visually.
I disagree. Almost all of the films (and probably all of the memorable scenes) are shot in static two-shots; two guys standing talking. In a set-up like that, it's the dialogue that people notice.

But I think we're drifting off the point.

[AFS]

What was the point, again?

Oh, wow, this is my thread, isn't it? You people got far. Not that I mind.

I have to cast my vote against the "film as only a visual medium".

Says who? The masses? Where would we be today if it wasn't for groundbreakers? Not just in life, but in film?

And, if it helps, I plan to finance filming myself. That is to say, not to "film myself" But... I'll pay for it. Clear?

[DanielD]

To AFS.
My point being, a film is visual,as opposed to a novel.
With film, the visuals are created for us(unless it's our film,of course),with a Novel,we create the visuals through our own, unique interpretations.
For example:
People don't go to a cinema to read a book.
Though it's nice to read a book,then see it unfold(visually) at the cinema.
Daniel.

[pconsidine]

Ha! I love you, pconsidine! :DMy work here is done.

[nmstevens]

The Maltese Falcon is a bit talky, but it involves murder, fist fights, and guys with guns and it changes location several times. And the dialogue rocks. There's no way anyone would call it a movie filled with talking heads. The dialogue is quick, funny, tight, says what it needs to without belaboring the point.

To belabor the point - it all depends on the quality of the dialogue. Dialogue can show and not tell too.

If someone's saying a movie has too many talking heads, it implies that folks are yammering on a lot without saying much that's interesting or fun. Tighten, brighten, give it subtext. Tarantino's characters do yammer on, but it's fricking fun as hell, and usually involves guns, drugs, or sex. If you're brilliant enough, you can make a lot of dialogue work. So be brilliant. Revise. Make it better, and folks won't tell you there are too many talking heads.

We have to distinguish two separate questions. That is a distinction between "action" and "talk" in a dramatic sense and between "visuals" and "dialogue" -- which is a different question altogether.

Radio shows are, clearly, nothing but dialogue and sound effects -- but they, as works of drama, can have as much "action" -- in a dramatic sense, as any movie, or stage production. People can get shot in radio dramas, climb mountains, have fist fights, the earth can invaded, there can be murders and Normandy can be invaded. Anything can happen. It's just that all of the action is conveyed through characters speaking and through sound.

Dramatic action in a movie may be conveyed through visuals, through dialogue, through sound effects, even through the score.

And since all of these elements -- sound, dialogue, music, effects -- have been part of motion pictures for the last ninety years or so, I don't exactly understand why anybody has a hard time accepting each of them and all of them as an integral part of the movie-going experience.

You can have movies that have virtually no talk and all visuals -- and they can be boring and drag and the visuals can be devoid of action -- action in a "dramatic" sense - in the sense that the visuals fail to engage the audience and advance the story -- just as you can have movies in which dialogue fails to do the same thing.

Nobody thinks of movies that consist mostly of people talking to one another, but in which that talk consistently engages us and advances the story as "talky" -- because when dialogue does this -- it *is* action.

That's because "action" in a dramatic sense, whether in a movie, or on a stage, or on TV, or in a radio drama, is that which advances the story.

So long as dialogue, or visuals, or sounds, or even the music, is being used effectively to engage us, to involve, to draw us into the lives of the characters and to move the narrative forward -- then it's all part of a co-equal cinematic experience.

Visuals that fail to do this are just pretty pictures, irrespective of any claims of movies being a "visual" medium. All of the cute angles and fancy cutting and beautiful cinematography and high end CGI - that fails to advance the story effectively is just so much visual junk.

And characters talking at one another, however clever, or arch, or funny -- if it's not moving the story forward -- ditto -- at a certain point, it's just talk.

And I have to say again - cinema as a basically visual medium -- not since 1927 -- and even then, since they started showing movies in theatres, it was a medium that consisted almost always of sound accompanied by music.

NMS