Jump to content

dialogue


Jim Nelson

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

I understand that in each scene, the character has a goal and a motivation for that goal. But does each line of dialogue in a scene have a motivation of its own? And if so, when you direct the actor should you tell him: ok for this line, this is your motivation to say it, and for the next line, this is your motivation?

 

 

Thanks for your help :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Not necessarily. I don't think I've ever seen a director give motivations for every line. Some key lines, sure. Each line should serve a purpose in the film, but it doesn't necessarily have to be related specifically to goals in the scene or in the film- many of them can be related to get an idea of "person," or better put, to inform the audience and other members in the film on the character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dialogue can exist for a number of reasons, badly written it can be pure exposition, on other hand the character can be trying to meet a particular need or some other purpose or they could just be lying.

 

Directors tend not to direct line by line, it's more over all feel or feedback to the actors (who should be bringing something to the role), as to where their particular character is coming from and going to and how they're pitching their performance in the scene. If the director has to do it line by line, there can be something going wrong somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, I thought that in each scene, the character has a goal and a motivation for that goal. And therefore everything he does (his actions) and says (his dialogue) must be to fulfill that goal. Isn't this correct?

 

Also, how would you recommend me to direct the actors in terms of their actions and what they say?

 

Thanks so much :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Depends. Each scene has a point to it, but it may not have a specific goal. Some scenes can exist just to inform us on a character, or the story world, or be expository to give us background information etc. Other scenes are motivated by a person, and yet in others the person is motivated by the scene (for example, something acts upon someone and they need to do something). Why not try taking a film you know very well and deconstructing it scene by scene and shot by shot and figure out how they all interrelate. which ones inform of character, on story, on history (of the story world) and which ones are motivated by what.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But in the scenes involving characters, shouldn't you tell them what their objective is and why they do each of their actions (for example, in scene A: why he picks up the phone, why he goes to the living room, why he puts on some music etc), in order for us to get the right emotion out of them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Tell whom? the actor? not necessarily. Hopefully the actor will have read the script and realize why he's doing what he's doing. In terms of the audience, a lot is left to interpretation. You can try to inform and direct their interpretations (or not if you so choose) but there is no way to guarantee all viewers will come to the same understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, in the book an Actor Prepares, Stanislavski says that "If the actor believes in the purpose of an action, the movement will be more believable." So that's why I'm confused whether you have tell him the motivation behind each of his actions.?

 

- I also learned that everything that happens and is said in a scene must be according to the purpose of that scene. So I'm kinda confused here too.

Edited by Jim Nelson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Well the purpose of a scene could by myriad. as the for actor, hopefully they can innately understand why they are doing what they're doing, once they get into the mind of the character, the director then shapes that, and I'm certain, in those instances, where a particular line or action is of tantamount importance, then the director will work on it with the actor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

There really isn't, I don't think, one hard and fast way to direct and actor. you spend a lot of time rehearsing and speaking with them, and you need to know what you want from the scene as a director, and you have to know how to talk with that specific actor to get that result (for example, some director will insult the hell out of an actor to really get 'em mad in a scene, if that's necessary and works for that specific actor. others will let the actor do what they want to do with the scene, and then move them towards how the director wants the scene.) Directing actors, like lighting a room, and anything which is a creative endeavor has many paths to many different ends and now two people really will approach it the same way. There isn't a set formula (thank god!) as that would lead to very formulaic results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, in the book an Actor Prepares, Stanislavski says that "If the actor believes in the purpose of an action, the movement will be more believable." So that's why I'm confused whether you have tell him the motivation behind each of his actions.?

 

- I also learned that everything that happens and is said in a scene must be according to the purpose of that scene. So I'm kinda confused here too.

 

A good actor researches their character and tries to understand where they're coming from, the director may discuss the character, but the actor has to invest in the character. What happens in scene depends on what is in the script and its importance to the story. Everything lies within the script, although sometimes (or often) it's not fully developed and the actor can bring their skills to enhance what's there.

 

Unfortunately, all this doesn't always work in a logical manner, it can be organic, with the actor bringing things from their own lives to the character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert McKee in Story explains it:

 

"A BEAT is an exchange of behaviour in action or reaction. Beat by Beat these changing behaviours shape the turning of the scene"

 

In a way they're the building blocks that build the scene, what the beats consist of will depend on the characters and their actions and what they're trying to achieve. Of course, it's entirely another matter if these characters succeed or or fail by the end of the scene and if this is good or bad for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also how they react to the other characters, they may not achieve their own personal objective in the scene, but (for example) may do something "for the greater good". You need more complexity than everyone trying to fulfill their own objective.

 

Perhaps need would be a better way of putting it, an objective may be different to a character's underlying need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry I don't want to be a pain, but I still don't quite get it :(

 

I understand now that a scene can have various purposes. But I still don't get how to direct an actor :(

 

I know how you feel - I was in the same boat once.

Judith Weston´s books "Directing-Actors" and "The Film Director's Intuition: Script Analysis and Rehearsal Techniques" where a real help and eye opener for me.

 

best, Frank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends. I was talking with Peter Bogdanovich a while back and asked him about directing Cybil Shepard on The Last Picture Show, see Cybil was a model and had never acted before so Mr. Bogdanovich basically gave her a line reading on almost every line. She took direction very well and the performance speaks for it's self. I'm a proponent of letting a good actor find his owe way and pulling them back when it is called for. Actors can come up with some amazing interpretations of your work and that can be incredibly satisfying. I even have an unofficial rule that they can change a line as long as what they come up with is better than what I wrote.

 

IF you did a good job on the script, your actors will find their motivation, the trick is to let them find their own truth and reality in the scene so they can bring those essential subtle touches that make the difference between a competent performance and a work of genius. CASTING is 99% of the job. You find the right actor for the right role and your life gets infinitely easier and given the thousand and one things a director has to focus on at any given time, making your life easier is a Godsend. There WILL be those occupations when you and your star just plain DON'T see eye to eye so you'll have to do whatever it takes to get the performance you need and remember if it ain't in the can, it don't exist make it happen. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

The objective of the scene is what the character is trying to get, and the beats are TACTICS to try and get that thing. Each beat lasts a few lines before the character tries a new tactic.

 

beat- asking directly

 

A: gimme ten dollars.

B" why?

A: Just do it.

B: Not till you tell me.

 

beat- explaining

 

A: I owe someone money.

B: Who?

A: Joey.

B: hows that my problem?

 

beat- guilt tripping.

 

A: Was it my problem when I saved your ass from so and so blah blah

B: That's not fair etc etc

 

Get "Practical Handbook for The Actor".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert G Andrews

Jim, really, you need the right tools for the right job! Writers write... that’s their job and what they are paid for eh?

 

...however, as a suggestion you may consider basing your dialogue on real life conversation/events that you can film with a video camera and transcribe. It may give you a head start in doing your dialogue. That way the whole thing may be more realistic, including the reactions ‘an all that.

 

Alternatively, do the entire scene (in a room with props) with video cameras first, and then do a critique for the actors themselves.

 

Cheaper no? :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Maybe check out The Film Director's Intuition by Judith Weston and take an acting class. Just my 2 cents... Trained actors will know their own motivation for each line, beat and objective in the scene and should not have to ask the director for his/her motivation. I have some acting training and I think if a director was dictating each line, it isn't the collaboration anyone is looking for. It could maybe smash the performance down to the ground and there might not be any organic moments, or the actor could loose trust in the director's overall vision and do his/her own thing, from an actor's perspective, it would be too overbearing. I've heard the advice that anyone interested in filmmaking should take an acting course, and I would have to agree!

Edited by Jenna Whitney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I learned that 80% of directing is casting. This is 100% true. The correct actor, cast accordingly, will not need expository information. You should not have to explain motivations to your actors unless you are dealing with something subliminal. The actor should know why he/she picks up the phone, why they walk across the room, and when to shout. If they cannot decipher the information contained in the script and use it effectively within their performance then they should be fired or not hired to begin with. The actor should surprise you with their performance...every time.

 

It's all about suspension of disbelief. You have to believe the actor is who he/she says they are. It's gets tricky when you're (the director) dealing with the aesthetics of a picture i.e. moving the camera around the actor and framing shots. This may disrupt the actors train of actions, but depending on their skill and professionalism they will work around it.

 

It's all about communication. You can effectively direct your actors if you know how to talk to them correctly, or you can let them run free. John Cassavetes let his actors run free and the camera followed. Hitchcock made the actors follow the camera and would manually position them in the frame. It just depends on how you visualize the story and how you want to interact with the talent.

 

I think for an amateur production it is best to let the actors move naturally and frame the camera accordingly around them. Amateurs have a tendency to be more conscious of the crew. You have to find their comfort zone to get their best performance and never be afraid to improvise...in fact you should encourage it.

 

I also think the less dialog there is in a scene the better it will be, because the viewer is forced to fill in the gaps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...