Dispatch from The Quest: Jordan Earls

Last week as we did here on GITS, the Quest writers focused on the subject of Dialogue. Today’s dispatch: Jordan Earls analyzes one of her favorite movies to explore the idea of dialogue as manipulation:

There are times I think that, if it weren’t for writing, I would’ve trodden down a rocky (possibly sociopathic) road. I mean, I was turned onto writing after my love for “story telling” resulted in my kindergarten teacher recommending my mom take me to therapy for my father’s death (he wasn’t dead). At a very young age, I discovered the power stories hold and their ability to manipulate certain reactions from people. A dangerous realization for a six-year old. I’m disturbed by my younger self’s zeal for making poor Mrs. Zolo cry as I falsely recounted my still-living-father’s “last” words. Yet, it was my first taste of the satisfaction writing would bring me later in life.

As I found myself thinking about dialogue and my morally questionable childhood during week five of The Quest, I had another epiphany: manipulation is an intrinsic aspect of dialogue.

There are many things that impact how a character speaks. Place, age, time, social status, education, gender, race and other sociological factors are the primary foundation. That’s where crafting great dialogue starts, with your character. You must know him holistically to know how he speaks. That isn’t the end of the process, though.

Behind every scene, is an objective. Each character has his own personal goal. He may hide that from others, but he has a goal. What happens in the scene is how he tries to achieve that goal. More specifically, when a character is interacting with another, what he says is how he tries to achieve that goal through others. Manipulation.

I want to consider the climax of one of my favorite movies, SE7EN. Go Into The Story has the scene online, here.

First things first, what are the character goals in this scene?

1. Somerset and Mills both want to bring John Doe to justice.

2. John Doe wants to finish his work.

Figuring out how a character works to achieve his goal is the fun part. This is where the manipulation comes in. What determines what a character says? Why does a character choose to say one thing and not another in trying to achieve his goal? Because the character has knowledge and opinions about the person he’s speaking with.

John Doe knows Mills is young and eager to prove himself, which means his reactions are more explosive. This causes John Doe to correctly believe Mills will distribute retribution for personal injustices.

Somerset knows his partner just as well. He knows Mills covets his job. He pleads with Mills, relying on what he knows will work.

That’s the brilliance of this climax. Somerset and John Doe both have conflicting goals and a deep understanding of Mills. Somerset and John Doe both fight for what they want. Mills’s reaction is the effect of this. He’s pulled in two directions. He wants vengeance on John Doe, but he also wants to do the right thing for his job. Somerset and John Doe each successfully manipulate him — that is until John Doe reveals Tracy was pregnant.

I’ve found this method for constructing dialogue useful:

1. Determine each character’s goal and how their goals conflict.

2. Interview the characters about each other. What does he think the other character’s goal is? What does he think of the other? What does he believe the other thinks of herself?

Understanding the knowledge and opinions your characters have of each other will greatly inform what they say and how they go about getting what they want.

Nobody says precisely what they mean, which is what makes crafting good dialogue so difficult. I think that’s also what makes crafting good dialogue so fun. If anything, I’m glad my compulsive tendencies as a child translated into my writing. Someday in the future, I imagine Mrs. Zolo in the audience of one of my films, perfectly reacting with the rest of the viewers. I don’t think there could be any sweeter satisfaction for a writer — going to a showing at the local cinema and listening to everyone laugh or cry at the exact moments intended. The mischievous six-year old still residing in me would (better yet, will) be in heaven.

If we consider the principle Dialogue = Purpose, then we can see how manipulation is an innate dynamic. As Jordan points out, characters have goals, even from scene to scene. The meaning of their dialogue, whether text or subtext, is tied to those goals. And those goals necessarily involve attempting to sway events in their favor, i.e., manipulation.

Next week: More dispatches from The Quest.

About Jordan: Portland based writer. Connoisseur of film with an affinity for Nolan, Boyle and Jackson. Twitter: @jordanpaige00

Comment Archive