Q: Why is dialogue so tricky, especially for new writers?
A: I think it's because they try to make dialogue carry things that it is not meant to.
Q: "Telling" the plot instead of "showing," right?
A: Yes.
Q: What about 12 Angry Men? It's a very, very, very talky script where the jurors "tell" the defendant's story.
A: Yes, but that is not what the story is really about.
Q: What do you mean?
A: It's really about the jurors' beliefs and attitudes. It's not about what they say, but how they say it, when they say it, and how they persuade or defend.
Q: How did the writer do that?
A: Structure! Here, the juxtaposition of dialogue revealed more than the words did.
Notice in the scene below:
- #8 (our hero) argues with juror #6 --> It reveals #6's faulty reasoning
- #4's comment reveals his beliefs --> #8 identifies an opponent
ex. "#6: I don't know. I started to be convinced, uh...you know, very early in the case. Well, I was looking for the motive. That's very important. If there's no motive where's the case? So anyway, that testimony from those people across the hall from the kid's apartment, that was very powerful. Didn't they say something about an argument between the father and the boy around seven o'clock that night? I mean, I can be wrong.
MEDIUM SHOT #11, #10, #9, #8 FROM ACROSS THE TABLE
#11: It was eight o'clock. Not seven.
#8: That's right. Eight o'clock. They heard an argument, but they coulen't hear what it was about. Then they heard the father hit the boy twice, and finally they saw the boy walk angrily out of the hosue. What does that prove?
CLOSE UP #6
Any time he is working on his own ideas he feels himself on unsteady ground, and is ready to back down. He does so now.
#6: Well it doesn't exactly prove anything. It's just part of the picture. I didn't say it proved anything.
MEDIUM SHOT CENTERING ON #'S 6, 7, 8
#8: You said it revealed a motive for this killing. The prosecuting attorney said the same thing. Well I don't think it's a very strong motive. This boy has been hit so many times in his life that violence is practically a normal state of affairs for him. I can't see two slaps in the face provoking him into committing murder. [#8 discredits #6]
MEDIUM SHOT #4
#4 (Quietly): It may have been two too many. Everyone has a breaking point.
CLOSE UP #8
Looking across at #4, and realizing instantly that this will probably be his most powerful adversary. #4 is the man of logic, and a man without emotional attachment to this case." [#8 recognizes opponent]
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Juxtaposing Character A's dialogue against Character B's can reveal more unspoken things (ex. strategy, attitudes) than their words could.
12 Angry Men (1957)
Story and screenplay by Reginald Rose
No comments:
Post a Comment