Let's talk about what the director meant when he declared he hates dialogue and, in doing so, explore the oft-forgotten narrative power of silence in screenwriting
Great post. I struggle with the note that I shouldn't direct on the page when writing, but it's my instinct to describe images falling past the eye. As I'm deaf, dialogue seems far off. I've lived an entire life without access to dialogue. Subtitles didn't show up on all media until I was late into my thirties.
I read your post expecting you to mention Fury Road at some point. A whole film without even a script, just storyboards! I am reading the book BLOOD, SWEAT & CHROME at the moment. Love it
See, as a screenwriter, I would expect being deaf would provide some limitations for certain kinds of films, but also be a kind of superpower to blow up the way they're typically written/made. I watch a lot of "quiet" to silent films, and so do a lot of people around the world today. As for "don't direct on the page", I think that's the stupidest rule people have fallen for. Every working writer is doing it. I don't know why aspiring/emerging writers aren't doing the same...except, of course, some writing guides said don't.
I've been noticing the writers you've highlighted directing on the page a lot as well, which gives me hope that maybe I can break into the industry at some point, if I ever finish any of my half-assed ideas enough!
I only highlight screenwriters who write exciting things. The fact that many of them are directing on the page is certainly more of a coincidence than an endorsement - though I love this observation. It says something about my tastes, I guess.
All of the great movies have stretches of silence that put you right there. Hidden Fortress, My Neighbor Totoro (anything by Hayao Miyazaki), Rear Window, Lawrence of Arabia, especially Omar Sharif's debut, and then my favorite: Blood Simple's 10 minutes of silence where you become an accomplice to murder. About 5 minutes in the audience started looking around to see who else is seeing what they're seeing. One guy kept mumbling "what the fuck? Is the sound off!?" and a few others told him to shut the fuck up.
Personally, dialog sucks. Directors need to direct and actors have got to act to silently convey their experience. Dune II sucked because you really need dialog to understand what's going on. I've resumed watching movies without captions like I did in the 1980s because back then movies were really enjoyable to watch. And some like Stand By Me were memorable, with Wil Wheaton telling Kiefer Sutherland, Suck my dick you cheap dimestore hood." Sutherland's expression was priceless. Enough said!
For a different perspective, my nine-year-old kid didn't have any problem understanding what was happening in DUNE: PART TWO. DUNE: PART ONE was easier for him by contrast, but, for the most part, he could follow everything. I, as a fan of the book, recognized greater depth in between the dialogue. We each have our own experiences of these things, of course. Certain films even speak to people in different age groups difference. I love all of the films you cited. LAWRENCE is my favorite film of all time - but as much for the brilliant dialogue that's wielded by the actors playing the British officers and, of course, Claude Rains.
A friend of mine made her first feature as writer-director a couple years ago. She said she knew discussing film with production companies and finances was a different beast than discussing with filmmakers when the first note back from her script was that when a preteen girl awakes from a nightmare, the note asked, "Could the character here say, 'Oh, it was only a dream!' to help make it more clear?" My friend said at that moment she realized she was going to have to learn how to talk their language to explain in their terms how to trust audiences and visual storytelling.
I think what I got about your description of less experienced writers outraged by Villaneuve's comment is that many of them are learning these executive notes as formal technique rather than learning how to communicate with the executives.
I think they're two very different problems. One is how generations have come to understand and discuss screenwriting and what that does to the films being produced. The other, which you've alluded to, is about how poorly most writers can navigate producers and executives - which is a political skillset most don't possess. Some learn, most don't.
Whether or not the scene has dialogue or not, what matters is how well the sequence is constructed: does it do its job in being memorable in and of itself while still advancing the plot? Silent filmmakers like Eisenstein did it with images because they had no other choice. Whereas ever since the 1930s filmmakers can decide if they want dialogue or not. But the key point is that, whether it's dialogue or a string of images that attracts the audience, they need to remain attracted somehow and some way.
Yes. Dialogue is just another way to bring a scene to life. Not the scene itself. Everything is in service of the story, which can be told any number of ways. The obsession with doing it with words alone ignores a long history of the opposite.
Even as a screenwriter with credits, I still feel that movies work more effectively on an emotional level from the specificity of strong images and a thoughtful soundscape.
The tricky thing is, this is the hardest aspect of screenwriting to convey on the page (especially sound, NO ONE wants you to write sound effects or indicated what might be filtering in the soundscape; shit, people tell you not to put music cues in scripts).
I'm not one who can easily remember lines of dialogue, but I can and do remember shots, edited sequences, color palettes, and music far more readily. I remember seeing JOHN WICK 4 at the Los Feliz 3, and before the movie started, there's music playing inside the theater. I immediately recognized it -- it was the "Everybody Runs" cue from MINORITY REPORT. I couldn't quote a line from that film, but I do remember - visually the major sequences and some of the blocking - and Kaminski's unique light.
I know this isn't the case for most people, but I've asked writers, "do you remember a shot or a sequence from a TV show that had the similar kind of memory imprint and associated emotional impact as a film?' And TV, by it's very nature and truncated production, can't make the visual design a film. Even the biggest budget TV shows don't have the flair of its film cousin.
Television certainly struggles to achieve the same visual impact as "cinema", though I've seen enough exceptions to know it's possible when the will is there. I just think most audiences don't care if they view it as TV or even straight-to-TV films. Look at so many of the films shot specifically for streamers today. They're visually depressing. Nothing about them could imprint themselves on you because they all look like each other. They're all shot like each other. Like '80s sitcoms all had the same look, so do all these films. I watch them and despair, but that's another story for another day.
Excellent essay on the value and power of silent storytelling in cinema!
I started out making silent movies as a teenager because it was better than using crappy audio of the in camera microphones with early digital cameras, but I really fell in love with this form of storytelling.
It is my belief that silent cinema is cinema in its purest form. Yes we can use dialogue, but cinema is a visual medium and it is best when we "Show, don't tell".
Thanks for reading, Zach. I love cinema in all its forms, but silent films certainly are wondrous. Have you seen HUNDREDS OF BEAVERS yet? Very excited to check that one out.
No dialogue: This is why I admired "All Is Lost", the 2013 film by J. C. Chandor. There were about two words of dialogue, but I was on the edge of my seat throughout the film.
ET - nine minutes----Yes! the images, but please do not overlook the powerfully expressive score.
A score is still silence when it comes to screenwriting, but yes, Williams' score is great. ALL IS LOST is a brilliant film. I still remember how gripped I was by it. The screenplay is about 40 pages long compared to the normal 90 to 120 pages.
i think it was McKee (speaking of writing “gurus”) who said something like, one should (try to) write the entire script without dialogue — and then go back and only add dialogue where it’s absolutely necessary to convey the story
someone else somewhere noted, the less dialogue is used to to *tell* the story (because the visual storytelling is doing most of the work), the more fun you can have with the dialogue – i suspect that most, if not all, the great lines of movie dialogue were *not* required to tell the story — We’re gonna need a bigger boat. — Game over, man. Game Over. — Here’s looking at you kid. — et cetera
personally, i tend to use this “cheat” to avoid adding unnecessary dialogue — i find it feels more natural – plus, it saves me a line on the page, when compared to the usual character/dialogue format — example:
She glares at him: *I’ll handle this*
for those of you unfamiliar with Fountain syntax, the asterisks indicate *italics*
An interesting recent example that Illustrates your point, Cole, is Femme (Sam H. Freeman & Ng Choon Ping, 2023). In it, a victim of a hate crime while dressed in drag discovers the perpetrator is himself a closeted gay man, and the former, outside his drag persona, attempts to seduce the latter in an effort to out him to his toxic, misogynist friends. So much of the film's tension comes glances and glares between the characters that are meant to "speak" silently. Would love to hear your and your readers' thoughts if any have seen the film.
Great post. I struggle with the note that I shouldn't direct on the page when writing, but it's my instinct to describe images falling past the eye. As I'm deaf, dialogue seems far off. I've lived an entire life without access to dialogue. Subtitles didn't show up on all media until I was late into my thirties.
I read your post expecting you to mention Fury Road at some point. A whole film without even a script, just storyboards! I am reading the book BLOOD, SWEAT & CHROME at the moment. Love it
See, as a screenwriter, I would expect being deaf would provide some limitations for certain kinds of films, but also be a kind of superpower to blow up the way they're typically written/made. I watch a lot of "quiet" to silent films, and so do a lot of people around the world today. As for "don't direct on the page", I think that's the stupidest rule people have fallen for. Every working writer is doing it. I don't know why aspiring/emerging writers aren't doing the same...except, of course, some writing guides said don't.
I've been noticing the writers you've highlighted directing on the page a lot as well, which gives me hope that maybe I can break into the industry at some point, if I ever finish any of my half-assed ideas enough!
I only highlight screenwriters who write exciting things. The fact that many of them are directing on the page is certainly more of a coincidence than an endorsement - though I love this observation. It says something about my tastes, I guess.
All of the great movies have stretches of silence that put you right there. Hidden Fortress, My Neighbor Totoro (anything by Hayao Miyazaki), Rear Window, Lawrence of Arabia, especially Omar Sharif's debut, and then my favorite: Blood Simple's 10 minutes of silence where you become an accomplice to murder. About 5 minutes in the audience started looking around to see who else is seeing what they're seeing. One guy kept mumbling "what the fuck? Is the sound off!?" and a few others told him to shut the fuck up.
Personally, dialog sucks. Directors need to direct and actors have got to act to silently convey their experience. Dune II sucked because you really need dialog to understand what's going on. I've resumed watching movies without captions like I did in the 1980s because back then movies were really enjoyable to watch. And some like Stand By Me were memorable, with Wil Wheaton telling Kiefer Sutherland, Suck my dick you cheap dimestore hood." Sutherland's expression was priceless. Enough said!
For a different perspective, my nine-year-old kid didn't have any problem understanding what was happening in DUNE: PART TWO. DUNE: PART ONE was easier for him by contrast, but, for the most part, he could follow everything. I, as a fan of the book, recognized greater depth in between the dialogue. We each have our own experiences of these things, of course. Certain films even speak to people in different age groups difference. I love all of the films you cited. LAWRENCE is my favorite film of all time - but as much for the brilliant dialogue that's wielded by the actors playing the British officers and, of course, Claude Rains.
This post could not have been better timed. Thanks Cole 🙏🏻 a good reminder for us all to put some trust in the other tools the medium provides.
I'm glad it helped in any way, mate. Look forward to seeing you in the flesh soon instead of just on my screen. My kids just tore through "HARDBALL"!
Get them onto SPOOKY FILES next!
Oh no, they already got through that - two or three times, I think. They're craving more.
It’s coming… see you soon mate!
A friend of mine made her first feature as writer-director a couple years ago. She said she knew discussing film with production companies and finances was a different beast than discussing with filmmakers when the first note back from her script was that when a preteen girl awakes from a nightmare, the note asked, "Could the character here say, 'Oh, it was only a dream!' to help make it more clear?" My friend said at that moment she realized she was going to have to learn how to talk their language to explain in their terms how to trust audiences and visual storytelling.
Your friend is wiser than I am. I've never quite developed this skill, though I'm improved...some.
I think what I got about your description of less experienced writers outraged by Villaneuve's comment is that many of them are learning these executive notes as formal technique rather than learning how to communicate with the executives.
I think they're two very different problems. One is how generations have come to understand and discuss screenwriting and what that does to the films being produced. The other, which you've alluded to, is about how poorly most writers can navigate producers and executives - which is a political skillset most don't possess. Some learn, most don't.
Whether or not the scene has dialogue or not, what matters is how well the sequence is constructed: does it do its job in being memorable in and of itself while still advancing the plot? Silent filmmakers like Eisenstein did it with images because they had no other choice. Whereas ever since the 1930s filmmakers can decide if they want dialogue or not. But the key point is that, whether it's dialogue or a string of images that attracts the audience, they need to remain attracted somehow and some way.
Yes. Dialogue is just another way to bring a scene to life. Not the scene itself. Everything is in service of the story, which can be told any number of ways. The obsession with doing it with words alone ignores a long history of the opposite.
Even as a screenwriter with credits, I still feel that movies work more effectively on an emotional level from the specificity of strong images and a thoughtful soundscape.
The tricky thing is, this is the hardest aspect of screenwriting to convey on the page (especially sound, NO ONE wants you to write sound effects or indicated what might be filtering in the soundscape; shit, people tell you not to put music cues in scripts).
I'm not one who can easily remember lines of dialogue, but I can and do remember shots, edited sequences, color palettes, and music far more readily. I remember seeing JOHN WICK 4 at the Los Feliz 3, and before the movie started, there's music playing inside the theater. I immediately recognized it -- it was the "Everybody Runs" cue from MINORITY REPORT. I couldn't quote a line from that film, but I do remember - visually the major sequences and some of the blocking - and Kaminski's unique light.
I know this isn't the case for most people, but I've asked writers, "do you remember a shot or a sequence from a TV show that had the similar kind of memory imprint and associated emotional impact as a film?' And TV, by it's very nature and truncated production, can't make the visual design a film. Even the biggest budget TV shows don't have the flair of its film cousin.
Television certainly struggles to achieve the same visual impact as "cinema", though I've seen enough exceptions to know it's possible when the will is there. I just think most audiences don't care if they view it as TV or even straight-to-TV films. Look at so many of the films shot specifically for streamers today. They're visually depressing. Nothing about them could imprint themselves on you because they all look like each other. They're all shot like each other. Like '80s sitcoms all had the same look, so do all these films. I watch them and despair, but that's another story for another day.
Excellent essay on the value and power of silent storytelling in cinema!
I started out making silent movies as a teenager because it was better than using crappy audio of the in camera microphones with early digital cameras, but I really fell in love with this form of storytelling.
It is my belief that silent cinema is cinema in its purest form. Yes we can use dialogue, but cinema is a visual medium and it is best when we "Show, don't tell".
Thanks for reading, Zach. I love cinema in all its forms, but silent films certainly are wondrous. Have you seen HUNDREDS OF BEAVERS yet? Very excited to check that one out.
No haven't seen HUNDREDS OF BEAVERS. First time I've heard about it. Watched the trailer though and looks like an amusing contemporary silent film!
Everything I've heard about it is that it's a masterpiece. We'll see...
No dialogue: This is why I admired "All Is Lost", the 2013 film by J. C. Chandor. There were about two words of dialogue, but I was on the edge of my seat throughout the film.
ET - nine minutes----Yes! the images, but please do not overlook the powerfully expressive score.
A score is still silence when it comes to screenwriting, but yes, Williams' score is great. ALL IS LOST is a brilliant film. I still remember how gripped I was by it. The screenplay is about 40 pages long compared to the normal 90 to 120 pages.
Another great post. Thanks for sharing!
Thanks, John!
i think it was McKee (speaking of writing “gurus”) who said something like, one should (try to) write the entire script without dialogue — and then go back and only add dialogue where it’s absolutely necessary to convey the story
someone else somewhere noted, the less dialogue is used to to *tell* the story (because the visual storytelling is doing most of the work), the more fun you can have with the dialogue – i suspect that most, if not all, the great lines of movie dialogue were *not* required to tell the story — We’re gonna need a bigger boat. — Game over, man. Game Over. — Here’s looking at you kid. — et cetera
personally, i tend to use this “cheat” to avoid adding unnecessary dialogue — i find it feels more natural – plus, it saves me a line on the page, when compared to the usual character/dialogue format — example:
She glares at him: *I’ll handle this*
for those of you unfamiliar with Fountain syntax, the asterisks indicate *italics*
I tend to write scriptments without dialogue myself, then expand later where necessary. It does help.
An interesting recent example that Illustrates your point, Cole, is Femme (Sam H. Freeman & Ng Choon Ping, 2023). In it, a victim of a hate crime while dressed in drag discovers the perpetrator is himself a closeted gay man, and the former, outside his drag persona, attempts to seduce the latter in an effort to out him to his toxic, misogynist friends. So much of the film's tension comes glances and glares between the characters that are meant to "speak" silently. Would love to hear your and your readers' thoughts if any have seen the film.