Dialogue Suggestions for Script-Writing Class

[dreamdead]

So this semester I'm teaching a Script-Writing class at a local uni. I'm looking to gather up good (or bad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOdjtiOMGbA)) youtube clip examples of how a film communicates dialogue, character, or motivation.

We're reading Raising Arizona, and will also be discussing how archetypal Pitch Perfect is in structure and character, but if there's good scenes that you think demonstrate excellence in how a film unveils its information (Touch of Evil (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yg8MqjoFvy4) opening), please post them here. I'll keep people informed on how the various examples go...

[Ezee E]

So this semester I'm teaching a Script-Writing class at a local uni. I'm looking to gather up good (or bad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOdjtiOMGbA)) youtube clip examples of how a film communicates dialogue, character, or motivation.

We're reading Raising Arizona, and will also be discussing how archetypal Pitch Perfect is in structure and character, but if there's good scenes that you think demonstrate excellence in how a film unveils its information (Touch of Evil (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yg8MqjoFvy4) opening), please post them here. I'll keep people informed on how the various examples go...
Vertigo's opening scene does it all really.

[Qrazy]

Touch of Evil and Vertigo openings for dialogue suggestions? Wut?

Just show them some Billy Wilder.

[Watashi]

Anything by David Mamet.

[Dead & Messed Up]

A good recent example of dialogue is the opening of The Social Network. Predictable, maybe, but a good way to show how dialogue is rarely just about what's being said.

[Ezee E]

Touch of Evil and Vertigo openings for dialogue suggestions? Wut?

Just show them some Billy Wilder.
Please, the opening for Vertigo is one of the best intros to a character there is. I'm not even a big supporter of the movie.

[dreamdead]

Touch of Evil and Vertigo openings for dialogue suggestions? Wut?

In terms of quickly introducing people and a central conflict, I think either is effective enough. Part of the key in this class is how to integrate conflict that is immediate, so these kind of openings have value.


Just show them some Billy Wilder.

This, however, is also vital. I was thinking of Lubitsch as well, but am looking for some of the contemporary films that build out the Wilder/Lubitisch flow. The best of the Coens do it, some of Sorkin does it (although it may be a little too arch), but I'm looking for others.

I'd especially welcome foreign films concerned with quality dialogue, since I want to integrate some of that into the mix.

[Fezzik]

What about the opening of Inglourious Basterds in the farmhouse? I think it uses dialogue in a masterful way to establish Lanza's motivations as well as using language itself as a plaything.

[Qrazy]

In terms of quickly introducing people and a central conflict, I think either is effective enough. Part of the key in this class is how to integrate conflict that is immediate, so these kind of openings have value.


They're both great openings. Neither is a great example of an excellent use of dialogue, I thought that's what you wanted.




This, however, is also vital. I was thinking of Lubitsch as well, but am looking for some of the contemporary films that build out the Wilder/Lubitisch flow. The best of the Coens do it, some of Sorkin does it (although it may be a little too arch), but I'm looking for others.

I'd especially welcome foreign films concerned with quality dialogue, since I want to integrate some of that into the mix.

Also, don't do Sorkin. He's garbage.

Ace in the Hole
Sweet Smell of Success
Baby Doll
The Verdict
La Haine
Underground
Werckmeister Harmonies

[Grouchy]

I think Vertigo's opening is a great example of dialogue setting up conflict. Not so for Touch of Evil. That's a great example of virtuoso camera-work.

The first couple of scenes of Chinatown do a great job at explaining all you need to know about Jake Gittes, mostly through dialogue.

Apocalypse Now briefing (the scene with Martin Sheen and Harrison Ford) is also a mouthful of great dialogue.

The dialogue in Network, although a bit exaggerated for some tastes, is usually great at expressing character and conflict. I'm thinking particularly of the relationship between Faye Dunaway and William Holden, some great moments in there.

[Ezee E]

12 Angry Men is a good one obvs.

Thinking of some foreign ones... It's been a while since I've seen High & Low, but that came to mind first. Might be better direction though.

[D_Davis]

Before Sunrise and Before Sunset
Slacker
A Scanner Darkly

I really like Linklater's dialog.

[Ezee E]

Amour's screenplay is probably worthy for its opening dialog scene.

[Raiders]

Before Sunrise and Before Sunset
Slacker
A Scanner Darkly

I really like Linklater's dialog.

I was just about to say that whether for the "good" or the "bad" side, I think Waking Life is well worth a look.

Obviously the sexual encounter monologue from Persona is an elegant passage of dialogue that gives off many different levels of character and visual qualities:

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/mv-kBqJp/persona_film_sexual_past

[Robby P]

Preston Sturges? I think he would be great if you're looking for examples of comedic dialogue.

[Wryan]

+1 for Sweet Smell of Success. It inspires some awe.

[Qrazy]

The Virgin Spring
Ashes and Diamonds

[Ezee E]

Does The Virgin Spring even show what's at stake in the first fifteen minutes?

[Qrazy]

Does The Virgin Spring even show what's at stake in the first fifteen minutes?

Are you on drugs in this thread? What does the first 15 minutes of the film have to do with the film's use of dialogue?

Personally I was thinking about Von Sydow's monologue about 2/3's through the film.

[Ezee E]

Are you on drugs in this thread? What does the first 15 minutes of the film have to do with the film's use of dialogue?

Personally I was thinking about Von Sydow's monologue about 2/3's through the film.
Apologies. I was convinced DD was looking for opening passages that set everything up perfectly.

[Derek]

Q - Dreamdead mentions Dialogue in the thread title but clarifies multiple times, including his initial post.

E - The openings of films only came up with the mentions Vertigo and Touch of Evil. Don't do drugs.

You're welcome for preventing future confusion here. :)

As for contributing to the thread, I'd say Lubitsch is gold. You can't go wrong with Trouble in Paradise.

[baby doll]

Does The Virgin Spring even show what's at stake in the first fifteen minutes?Is there really anything at stake in the script, period? Spoilers: I mean, it's not important if the girl doesn't take the candles to the church, and the father's revenge is just to make himself feel good rather than to prevent them from raping other girls (hence, the little boy gets it too). As far as I can tell, it doesn't really fit into the Syd Field/Robert McKee three act template, yet as storytelling, it seems to me far in advance of anything by Rian Johnson or Christopher Nolan (for starters, it actually has characters).

[Qrazy]

Q - Dreamdead mentions Dialogue in the thread title but clarifies multiple times, including his initial post.


If he's looking for any good examples of dialogue, character or motivation then we may as well just all post lists of our favourite films.

[Qrazy]

Apologies. I was convinced DD was looking for opening passages that set everything up perfectly.

I also meant to put an emoticon in my last post. :)

[Qrazy]

Is there really anything at stake in the script, period?

Real?

[baby doll]

Real?I'm not an expert on script theory, but it seems to me that the guys who write these books look for movies that illustrate their theory and ignore those that don't. (Then again, I suppose one might be able to impose a three-act template over The Virgin Spring in the same way that certain academics view Alfred Hitchcock movies through a prism of Marxism and Lacanian psychoanalytic theory.)

[Qrazy]

I'm not an expert on script theory, but it seems to me that the guys who write these books look for movies that illustrate their theory and ignore those that don't. (Then again, I suppose one might be able to impose a three-act template over The Virgin Spring in the same way that certain academics view Alfred Hitchcock movies through a prism of Marxism and Lacanian psychoanalytic theory.)

It has a fairly simple three act structure.

1. Girl sets out to bring candles is raped and murdered.
2. Father discovers murderers and murders them himself.
3. Search for body and resolution.


Hitchcock is one director who should be viewed through a prism of psychoanalytic theory given how clearly informed his films are by such symbolism.

---

All this aside there is very OBVIOUSLY something at stake in the script.

The RAPE and MURDER of a woman followed by the subsequent MURDER of her three MURDERERS. And what all this means in relation to the question of goodness, God and existence. This is what is at stake.

[baby doll]

It has a fairly simple three act structure.

1. Girl sets out to bring candles is raped and murdered.
2. Father discovers murderers and murders them himself.
3. Search for body and resolution.


Hitchcock is one director who should be viewed through a prism of psychoanalytic theory given how clearly informed his films are by such symbolism.Field and McKee recommend a much shorter first act (roughly twenty to thirty minutes) and a much longer second act with a turning point in the middle. My main point is that a screenwriter can master this template and still have no idea how to create believable characters, and there are certainly alternatives to the classical goal-oriented plot (check out David Bordwell's essay "The Art Cinema as a Mode of Production," and his book on Ozu).

With regards to Hitchcock, I was thinking in particular of Žižek's claim in The Pervert's Guide to Cinema that the bird attacks in The Birds represent repressed incestuous desire (or something along those lines), which is a bit of a stretch. Obviously Hitchcock was aware of Freud but to use psychoanalytic theory as a kind of master key to explain everything in his films doesn't strike me as very illuminating. At best it illuminates the theory but not the movie.

[baby doll]

All this aside there is very OBVIOUSLY something at stake in the script.

The RAPE and MURDER of a woman followed by the subsequent MURDER of her three MURDERERS. And what all this means in relation to the question of goodness, God and existence. This is what is at stake.What I meant BY "something at stake" WAS that the protagonist had TO meet a PARTICULAR deadline or FACE certain consequences (i.e., the TICKING bomb), not any philosophical ISSUES.

[Qrazy]

Field and McKee recommend a much shorter first act (roughly twenty to thirty minutes) and a much longer second act with a turning point in the middle. My main point is that a screenwriter can master this template and still have no idea how to create believable characters, and there are certainly alternatives to the classical goal-oriented plot (check out David Bordwell's essay "The Art Cinema as a Mode of Production," and his book on Ozu).

Okay, I am with you here, but the cadence of your initial post just seemed to be disparaging The Virgin Spring (even though it complimented it's characters) along with your standard arbitrary jabs at contemporary populist cinema (Nolan and Johnson). You brought up McKee completely out of the blue without establishing why you were doing so.


With regards to Hitchcock, I was thinking in particular of Žižek's claim in The Pervert's Guide to Cinema that the bird attacks in The Birds represent repressed incestuous desire (or something along those lines), which is a bit of a stretch. Obviously Hitchcock was aware of Freud but to use psychoanalytic theory as a kind of master key to explain everything in his films doesn't strike me as very illuminating. At best it illuminates the theory but not the movie.

Yes, you are right and I agree. Freud isn't particularly interesting (aside from being a forerunner) in the field of psychology either.

[Qrazy]

What I meant BY "something at stake" WAS that the protagonist had TO meet a PARTICULAR deadline or FACE certain consequences (i.e., the TICKING bomb), not any philosophical ISSUES.

McKee is good for novices writing hack work, that's about it.

[Dead & Messed Up]

McKee is good for novices writing hack work, that's about it.

I think this depends on your definition of hack work. If you don't see any value in traditional Hollywood story technique, then sure, and I know many on this forum are burnt out on that method and pursue more esoteric cinema (and evaluate movies in a less story-based way). I respect that. But I think McKee points out some valuable tips about how to move a film forward, and how a film can communicate a story in three acts, and those are tips many novices need to learn somewhere, so they can internalize some kind of structure and advance with their writing.

So I agree that he's good primarily for novices, but I disagree that only hack work can come from his methodology.

I think (and we'd probably agree) that it's on the skill-set and diligence of the writer to take McKee's rubric and develop it into something valuable. Obviously someone trying only to meet his bullet-points for story will create hack-work. Someone following Blake Snyder to the T will be even worse.

[megladon8]

I really like the dialogue in To Be Or Not To Be. That would be my recommendation.

[Qrazy]

I think this depends on your definition of hack work. If you don't see any value in traditional Hollywood story technique, then sure, and I know many on this forum are burnt out on that method and pursue more esoteric cinema (and evaluate movies in a less story-based way). I respect that. But I think McKee points out some valuable tips about how to move a film forward, and how a film can communicate a story in three acts, and those are tips many novices need to learn somewhere, so they can internalize some kind of structure and advance with their writing.

So I agree that he's good primarily for novices, but I disagree that only hack work can come from his methodology.

I think (and we'd probably agree) that it's on the skill-set and diligence of the writer to take McKee's rubric and develop it into something valuable. Obviously someone trying only to meet his bullet-points for story will create hack-work. Someone following Blake Snyder to the T will be even worse.

Fair enough.