Dialogue Paradigm

One of the great aspects of the screenwriting courses I teach is the contributions of the writers involved. Case in point, John Hörnschemeyer recently took my Core V: Dialogue class which led him to this epiphany:

Another intense, thought-provoking, and dare I say, inspiring week, the fifth, of Scott’s Screenwriting Master Class, and we hit the wall of, “Dialogue”.

Dialogue… what exactly does it constitute in the whole of a medium that vaunts ‘showing’ rather than ‘telling’? It is not, as Scott likes to stress, a simple question of conversation, but rather one of communication; a tool to be used with parsimony and precision, in order to move a plot forward through insights and revelations. This said, and despite the fact that plot will invariably impose a particular tone or direction, dialogue is nothing without the characters and their individual voices. Scott pushes us to explore deeper. Do we know our characters? What lies behind the mask? What made them who they are? Why are they in this situation? What are their needs? Abandoning the comfort of our certitudes, we delve into the shadowy alcoves of our characters’ psyche… opening our own minds to an evidence: Only by totally identifying with a character’s persona can we hope to express their voice in terms that impose both uniqueness and credibility.

There still remains, however, the small matter of applying the voice to a realistic dialogue that corresponds to the needs of a scene. Over and above the simple requirement of the plot, imposing an identifiable goal, why do characters express themselves in a specific manner at a specific moment in a scene? A character’s persona will not only impose an internal need, be it consciously or at the level of the subconscious, but it will also influence the nature of the character’s dialogue, balancing somewhere between the extreme limits of explicit directness and oblique subtext, and not forgetting, of course, silence.

Taking example from other paradigms that Scott had proposed during the course, I suggested the following paradigm for dialogue. It may appear simplistic, yet at the same time, I think that it clearly identifies the major components that influence realistic dialogue in the context of a screenplay. A character’s voice may remain constant, but the type of dialogue within the paradigm is constantly shifting, responding to the pull of the influences, reinforcing the writer’s need to have a clear and deep understanding of not only the requirements of the plot, but also, and perhaps more importantly, the persona of the character.

Paradigms can be helpful as visual metaphors. Not rules, but tools. And one thing John’s paradigm puts into view is the elasticity of dialogue. It’s not just text. It’s not just subtext. Rather there are multiple layers of potential ‘stuff’ going on with every line.

Sometimes a character’s words are more ‘realistic,’ their intent clear and up top.

Sometimes a character’s words are more ‘subtext,’ their meaning shrouded by the character’s interior feelings and thoughts.

Sometimes a character’s words are more directly tied to events as they happen in the External World, helping to drive events as they unfold in the physical realm.

Sometimes a character’s words are more reflective of what is happening in the Internal World, originating from the character’s psychological core.

And all points in between.

As a writing tool, one could use this paradigm to ask any character in any scene, Where are they emotionally and psychologically at this precise moment? In other words, if you could place a dot on the graph, where would you put it?

Then you can bring that awareness of the character to the feeling-state you have when you write the scene, helping you to shape the dialogue to be more of a reflection of where the character is in connection to the story universe in that moment.

As with all ideas about writing, if you find it helpful, great. If not, no sweat. Move onto the next thing. But in my view, John’s paradigm is a helpful visual reminder that dialogue can originate from multiple layers of a character’s being.

Comment Archive