Right, I get that. But your starting premise is incorrect. You are assuming that scriptwriting is a linear process, it isn’t. It is a process of winnowing down to completion, where dialogue is typically the last element created. The overall storyline is created, then the individual scenes necessary to tell that story, then the moments within those scenes that create the scenes drive, then the words that are used to fuel those moments. Dialogue serves structure, it’s the structure that is important to the storytelling process.
You say
And this is true. But in order to have a coherant story you have to know what comes next in order for the character to say the right thing to get you there. Acting then goes one futhrer layer inward and extrapolates the motive for why the line is said which then creates the next line, which then moves the scene which then moves the story along it arch. But the endpoint of each individual beat is planned in advance. Dialogue is window dressing.
It isn’t a matter of sitcom vs drama, it is whether the show is filmed in front of an audience. The show I was at was a comedy, but it shot on location with only one camera. The only exception was for a complex gag that they only wanted to do once.
In addition, these shows are filmed out of order, so too much improv might screw up scenes already filmed. The actors went exactly according to script, but they were mostly kids.
Just wanted to say that, NAF, you’re quite good at explaining this. The interplay between dialogue, structure, acting, directing, etc. is hugely complicated, so it’s always fun to see a pretty clear elucidation on it. Awesome points all around. Eventually, be it in theatre or film, the final product doesn’t really “belong” to any one person. The problem most reviewers face is that it’s much easier to say “Heath Ledger creates a harrowing Joker” as opposed to going into the various and sundry contributions that led to his final performance.
Bizarre…a half hour ago I was reading through this, and I thought “Hmm…I wonder if 30 or 40 years from now, when Lucas is long gone, if someone will remake I-III and get them right.”
Then I decided to catch up on PvP, where I came across this. Odd timing…
Thanks! This is one of the few areas that I can really claim some level expertise in; it’s good to know the explinations are making sense. These are complicated issues that can be hard to understand without first hand experience.
Exactly. Your mistake is in comparing a script to real life. In real life, you don’t know what’s going to happen next, or how the story is going to end. Whatever you do, and whatever you say, will influence and possibly change that outcome, moment-to-moment. In a completed script, you already know both. The dialogue is developed as one of the tools to get you from one pre-determined moment to the next, and from the pre-determined beginning of the story, to the pre-determined end. A well-written story/script looks like real life, especially to someone reading or seeing it for the first time, but it’s actually far from it. In real life the next moment isn’t pre-determined, much less the end of the story.
Missed the edit, so also: what Jester said. I don’t know what your role is in the film-making business, but you’ve got a nice perspective on things that I can totally geek on endlessly. I come at this mainly from an actor’s perspective, though I also have a writing background, and listen to enough DVD commentary to have some idea from a director’s POV.
I am enough of a geek on this that I’d love to sit in a room and watch WhyNot demonstrate all of her 50 versions of “I love you.”
A small business point: The standard SAG contract requires actors to be paid extra if they are asked to ad lib and a substantial amount of their improvisation makes it into the final product. So there’s a financial incentive in many productions to have the actors stick to the script.
The DVD extras on Pulp Fiction have the actors talking about how everyone stayed true to the script.
Of course, other times you have to keep them in line. The script in The Sopranos had to be followed word for word. Chase was very particular with his language. There was dissent at first, but eventually the actors went along.
If the script is really good then actors will follow along, if not, then they might try to make it better. After all, their careers are on the line. If they can’t have a good performance because of the script, the audience is not going to blame the script.
A guy like Chase can make actors fall in line because everyone knows he’s good. If Lucas makes another film, he’s going to have trouble.
Let’s not forget Lucas’ love of the Wilhelm scream. When was the last time he made a movie without one? Fortunately I don’t notice them during viewing usually, but it is not a fun call out, like 1138.
In Goodfellas the scene where they visited Tommy’s mother to get a shovel to bury Billy Batts was all unscripted except for the part about the painting.
Tommy’s mother was played by Martin Scorsese’s mother who was not an actress.
The scene in Good Will Hunting where Robin Williams’ character tells Will about his wife’s nuances like farting in the bed… that was all adlibbed. I later read that during this scene, the camera man laughs so hard that you can noticeably see the view shake. And Matt Damon is truly laughing his ass off because he wasn’t expecting it. Good stuff.
