Christopher Ball shows common bad dialogue habits in screenplays, like “What!?”, with a before-and-after scene rewrite that shows how to fix them.
Jeremy and Emily lie in bed. It is late morning.
JEREMY
It just seems that you never loved me. Ever since you finally left Jamie after those first few years of secrecy, you’ve been really hard to connect with… and I keep wondering why you’ve been so cold.
Well, you’re not so easy to connect with either.
When I met you the first time, and we went on that cruise down the St. Lawrence that was so boring and you spent all night doing emails on what was to be a romantic evening together, I thought there might be a problem.
JEREMY
So you don’t love me?
Of course I do; it’s just that… JEREMY
What?
It’s just that, I’ve been thinking. It’s time for me to move on.
We had fun together, but I need something new.
JEREMY
You’re joking right? We’ve invested a lot in this relationship. I didn’t want to tell you before, but…well, I’ve been seeing Jim. JEREMY
What!?
I’ve been seeing Jim…and I think I need to move on.
Jeremy looks at Emily, unbelieving.
JEREMY
I can’t believe this.
Yikes!!! Bad dialogue or what!?
Scriptwriting is a tough go, and good scripts take a great deal of time to master. There is the structure (the beginning, middle, end), the motivations, the character arcs, the reversals, the “point of view” (what is the story trying to say?), the settings, the details and the dialogue, all of which have to dovetail into one grand masterpiece where every component makes organic sense and where ultimately, everything flows to a masterful, logical conclusion.
What makes structure good? A coherent story arc with strong motivations for the characters and plot points that organically relate to the narrative and lead inexorably to the conclusion. Everything must be there for a reason.
What makes characters good? Interesting, dynamic personalities we can relate to, that have clear motivations that grow organically out of the narrative and lead them inevitably to the plot’s conclusion.
What makes dialogue good? Minimal, dynamic, unpredictable verbal communication that is an element of the larger picture, but doesn’t supersede it.
“As little of it as possible” might be another good answer. I have read a lot of scripts, from short films to small budget independents to multi-million dollar Hollywood blockbusters where frequently, the dialogue sucks! Why? There is simply too much of it! Screenwriters, especially inexperienced ones, often use dialogue as a crutch to get information out, to reveal back-story, to make sure “the audience” knows what the characters are thinking and doing, and to make sure “the audience” knows what the storyline is. Good dialogue does not do any of the above.
Dialogue should support the story, but not tell it. Dialogue should reveal character, not describe characters. The unspoken is much more important than what is actually said! Dialogue should only be one part of many clues that make up a complete picture. Dialogue almost always fails when it explains, describes, gives answers or repeats known facts. Whenever I look at dialogue, or edit scripts, I spend a lot of time slashing the dialogue, trying to find its absolute essence. I try to think of an action that could replace it or, even better, a sound effect, piece of music or image that can substitute for the spoken word.
Dialogue should be only one part of the whole structure: The dialogue alone without the image, sound effects, and music should not have any meaning. Conversely, the sound effect, without the dialogue should have no significance and the image without the dialogue shouldn’t tell you everything, either. It’s the specific combination of all the elements in concert that imparts the meaning. If you can remove one element and it doesn’t change anything, it shouldn’t be there in the first place. If you can watch a movie with your eyes closed, and you know exactly what’s going on…it’s time for a rewrite. It’s not a movie any more; it’s a radio play with pictures.
It takes pretty good actors to make bad dialogue work, and even then it’s sometimes hard to rise above it. Watch most ongoing series television dramas carefully and you’ll see what I mean. If it weren’t for the caliber of the actors, the dazzling special effects and the slick cinematography, most TV drama would be unbearable because, generally speaking, the writing is not particularly stellar, and incredibly dialogue heavy.
So, what do I mean by the “What!?” in the title of this article? It’s the classic moment when one character says something (usually a piece of back-story or a blatant plot point) that shocks the other character, at which point they look incredulous and say, “What!?” I have never, absolutely ever, seen an actor of any caliber, master the “What!?” without it sounding just plain bad. It never works, yet it is rife in screenplays.
I started to think about why that exclamation never works, and I realized that it is a classic example of what dialogue should not be. First of all, it is the character telling us what they think and feel… and they should show us, not tell us. It crudely expresses or highlights a plot point, which we as an audience should already understand (if we don’t, then the story is not working and dialogue won’t help us). Finally, it is something people never say in real life (another thing to think about when writing dialogue). The only time people say, “What!?” is when they didn’t actually hear what you said and want you to repeat it. If you were to drop a bombshell in real life, the reaction is far more likely to be speechlessness, a counter-attack, a deflection, or an attempt to make a joke of it, to ignore it or to move on. When I see a script with the inevitable “What!?” in it, I know that there are going to be dialogue problems. Re-read the scene above and try to imagine that “What?!” working performance-wise, without making it sound like a soap opera. I can’t.
The sample scene, which relies entirely on unnecessary dialogue and is chock full of back-story, needs to be mercilessly slashed! Why would Emily talk in detail about the first cruise they took; telling him that it was on the St. Lawrence, that he ignored her and did emails on their first romantic encounter? He knows all this. Why does Jeremy blab on about their illicit relationship and her split with Jamie? Well,… the screenwriter thought it necessary to get all his carefully planned back-story on screen,… but it isn’t. Back-story is a useful tool that helps the writer formulate and flesh out the characters and figure out what motivates them emotionally, but it rarely needs to be revealed in the script. The only thing that’s important is the character’s current motivations, feelings and desires. What happened in the past (unless it’s an actual plot point within the organic structure of the story itself) is irrelevant to us, “the Audience”.
The characters also repeatedly say exactly what they are thinking, and a character should never say what they are thinking. In real life, we don’t do that. We always hover around what we are trying to say, but we are very rarely direct. In fact, we usually don’t realize what it is we’re trying to say, or work up the courage and presence of mind to say what we want to say, until it’s too late. That’s real life! That’s interesting, unexpected and dynamic! That’s what we should be aiming for in scripts.
So let’s re-write that scene, and see if we can get it down to its essence. This will only be the second draft, so several more drafts beyond this would probably get it to something that’s actually ready to shoot, but here goes….
After Scene Re-Write
It is cold, rain spatters on the window. The trees outside are bare. Jeremy sits cross-legged on the floor, tapping away on a laptop. It is late morning. Emily lies in bed awake, facing away from Jeremy, staring at the wall; there is quite a space between them. There’s a chill in the room. A cell phone rings. Jeremy hesitates on the keyboard. Both sit there for a moment, neither making a move. It’s mine.
Jeremy focuses on his computer screen, but his fingers are still. Emily grabs the phone from a pocket in her clothes.
Hello?
Emily glances at Jeremy, who does not acknowledge her. The muted male voice on the line is cheery, bright. She grabs her clothing and walks out of the bedroom, trying not to look as if she’s rushing, and closes the door.
Yes… Yeah, sure… Her voice gets muffled. Jeremy sits unmoving, looks up towards the window. The patterns of water make intriguing designs on the glass, but Jeremy is focused on Emily’s voice. Laughter intersperses her brief exchange.
A moment later, Emily opens the door.
I’ve gotta run.
JEREMY (unmoving)
Yeah.
She closes the door.
It’s pretty minimal, but it encapsulates what needs to be told: It’s an icy, unfriendly relationship… It’s not exactly bright, happy times… They are in the autumn of their relationship… They’re evidently not getting along, and may not have been for some time (how long doesn’t really matter)… Jeremy is focused on his computer, not on Emily and it irritates her… Emily is probably seeing someone else, though we’re not 100% sure… In the end, Jeremy’s reaction tells us that she is. The art direction will give us clues as to how long their relationship has lasted. (They obviously live together, here could be some photos on the walls and other memorabilia… maybe of their St. Lawrence cruise). The actors will put a lot into this scene, in terms of how they react, their looks, their posture. There’s no need for back-story. The narrative plays in the performances, in the sound effects, in the mise-en-scene, in the lighting, the editing… and in the four brief lines of dialogue!
Close your eyes and listen to this scene, and you wouldn’t really get it. Turn the dialogue off and you’d get the gist, but not the nuances. Turn the sound effects off and you wouldn’t know she’s talking to another man and you wouldn’t hear the cheerfulness in her off-screen voice. The lack of keyboard tapping tells you that Jeremy’s focus is on Emily, without him saying anything or looking at her. All the elements are necessary to tell the complete story here, so it works much better than the first draft! It’s gone from verbose to visual… from a radio play to a film.
Keep it simple: Everything in the scene must be necessary or it goes! With some time and thought, I’d like to take this to another draft. I’d like to find something more visual than the phone to convey the boyfriend plot point. I’d love to get this down to one line of dialogue and have everything else told with images and sounds, because I know it would work even better!
Christopher Ball, CSC has shot eight theatrical feature films, including Stolen Heart (1998), which he shot and co-produced. He has also produced, shot, assistant directed and directed award winning dramas, TV series, documentaries, commercials, short films and music videos. Christopher’s body of work has toured numerous festivals, aired on HBO, TMN, CBC, VISION TV and several foreign broadcasters and played in theatres worldwide.
Related filmmaking guides
Keep learning filmmaking
Want more lessons like this? Join StudentFilmmakers free for live webinars with working pros, and stream on-demand filmmaking classes in cinematography, directing, screenwriting, sound and post.
