This entry was a post on the screenwriters group, so if you've come here from there, pass on.

If not, this was written in response to a group member, Kip, who asked about the film "Lost in Translation," which, in his opinion, was no good , and he " was disturbed (bored) by how slow the film went and that only two characters had any real development." Especially bad according to Kip, there were whole scenes where there wasn't much dialogue. He also felt Bill Murray was totally miscast.

On the other hand, Kip's date, an artist, liked the film quite a bit, she "liked the nuances, lack of dialogue and visual images that made the viewer imagine the unspoken middle ground." In short, she had the exact opposite opinion of the film as Kip did.

So Kip wanted to know if he had missed something, and if scripts can be good without any "interesting dialogue." This is my reply:

I haven't seen this film, so I cannot comment on the screenwriter's intent, nor whether or not the film lived up to that. However, I will mention that you might remember the old saw to "show, not tell" when it comes to writing of all kinds, whether screenplay or novel. If you can show something happening through action, or show that a character is like x, without saying that the character is like x, it's better to do so than to hit the audience or reader over the head with too right on-the-nose dialogue or exposition.

For example, having the character say "I feel nervous," is not as good as showing us that he is nervous by showing us his shaking hands, his rapid breathing, or his jittery legs. It's obvious by the visuals that he's anxious about something, and it allows the audience to participate, thereby drawing them more into the action, and into identifying with what the character is going through. At least that's the theory.

And casting against type is another way of not being on-the-nose, in my opinion, and, done well, is far more compelling for the audience than casting someone we all expect, in this case, to be a sad sack. Kind of like casting Russell Crowe in "A Beautiful Mind." We have to throw out our expectations that Russ will be stomping someone to death in the lion's den, and really pay attention to the small details he's using in that film to convey his character's inner struggle.

So, maybe the screenwriter wanted to convey something through what was being sung, or through how the characters were looking at each other, or through some other body language, rather than tell us that same something through straight-on dialogue, I don't know, as I said, I haven't seen the film.

Remember that since film is a visual medium, and that since we can see the characters in action, then a good script will let us intuit what else is really going on in the scene. And that same good script will have been enhanced by good directing, good lighting, cinematography and editing, in order to show us what else is important in the scene, and what we should be looking at, as in directing our attention via lighting, pacing of edits, and closeups. Perhaps that's one reason your friend, an artist who would be accustomed to interpretting a strictly visual medium, liked it.

To answer your question about can a script be good without "interesting dialogue," I would ask you to remember that all films were silent and sans dialogue before the advent of sound. Yes, there was "dialogue" written at the bottom of the screen, but for the most part, the movies showed us what was going on through the use of action. I can't cite any at the moment, just woke up, haven't had enough caffeine, but I can assure you there were many good films from that era.

Last, to your question "Can an artistic/interpretative film be good without an interesting/compelling script?" Probably not, unless you have some VERY strong improvisational actors and a great director who knows how to motivate them. "Curb Your Enthusiasm" comes to mind, but then Larry David's a very funny guy.

Otherwise, for the most part, "if it ain't on the page, it ain't on the stage!"

---------------------
© 2003 m. lucas