Exercise: Listen to
people talking
I decided to undertake this task in the confines of a coffee shop, as
this is an ideal place to ‘overhear’ the conversations of a wide variety of
people. I must admit that this exercise
did make me somewhat uncomfortable, knowing that the speakers were unaware that
I was eagerly listening to their manner of speech. However, I also took the opportunity to do
the same in more familiar surroundings with individuals that I know quite
well.
The main thing I noticed was the stark contrast in conversational
styles between different generations. I
noticed with the older generations, the conversation had a slightly more formal
style, but was mainly based around family, friends and common acquaintances. Each speaker in the conversation, on the
whole, remained quiet and listened to the other before making comments. On the whole, these conversations were very
private and the speakers tucked themselves away so as not be overheard.
In contrast, with the middle generations of around 25 – 50, had a
conversational style that seemed to be somewhat more open, with less worry of
others overhearing them. From my
experience, many of these conversations revolved around not only family and
friends, but also around current affairs, entertainment and cultural
issues. Within these conversations, it
was not uncommon to hear the listener(s) interrupting the speaker, seemingly
desperate to add their point. However,
they did seem to listen the points of others simultaneously.
The younger generations of around 14 – 24 tend to be even more open
and less self-aware than the middle generations. Their conversations, often in larger groups,
seemed to revolve around friends, social standing and pop culture, and are
often very loud. Many seem oblivious to
others around them and spend large chinks of time in silence whilst usually engaged
in some form of messaging or game playing on their mobile phones. From my experiences, their sentences tend
to be shorter and more direct, usually with an emphasis on try to add some form
of comedy.
Although I found that the coffee shop offered a wide range of conversations,
listening to familiar individuals was just as interesting in enabling me to
contrast the different styles. As expected, the conversations are much more
relaxed, but what I found most surprising was the difference in emotions. When speaking to family and friends I found
that we tend to be much for open and descriptive about our point. Whereas with a lesser known friend, business
colleague or acquaintance we tend to offer insight into our life in more
factual form e.g. “Yeah, Donna’s feeling
much better thanks”, with a more familiar individual, we tend to be much
more elaborate, e.g. “ Well, she’s getting
there, but it’s been a bumpy road for her…”
Exercise: Recording
what people say
I decided to record a conversation between my mother and brother as
they were unpacking the weekly food shopping.
My transcriptions of this conversation is as follows:
Exercise: Analysing
your transcript
Although this is a very short extract of a conversation, I found this
part of the conversation interesting because of its clear power shift in the
middle and, despite it being based around the mundane task of unpacking the
food shopping, we learn quite a lot about the characters which leaves the
audience questioning and wanting more.
From the beginning of the conversation things seem quite balanced, but
there are hints of John holding the power in the first few lines with phrases
such as “Julie…good girl” as he
discovered his favourite foods in the bags. Julie's response of “Well you said that you wanted them”, suggests
that the food list was, at least partially, based around John's food
preferences. This theme continues as John's
tone changes to that of a slightly more angry one, raising his voice at Julie's
food choices and demanding to know why she didn’t buy the items he wanted.
It is at this stage that we start to learn a little more about the
characters' lifestyle. Due to the more
frivolous items bought we could make an educated guess that the characters are
not in poverty, but when they mention ‘offers’ and 'expense', it become clear
that the characters are not rich. This
is where another dramatic element is introduced, giving both characters more
depth and switching the power of the conversation.
In this section of the conversation we learn that a dramatic event has
occurred resulting in a broken window and a smashed plant pot, caused by John. Julie's tone has changed significantly and John,
for the first time, refers to her as ‘Mum’,
thus revealing to the listener that they are mother and son. At this time, Julie becomes the dominant
power in the conversation, causing John to revert to more childish behaviour of
slamming doors and moodily grunting.
However, there is no resolution for the audience in relation to the
broken window and plant pot, but it does suggest a deeper layer to John's character.
The mood of the conversation changes and reflects another possible
trait to Julie's character as she quickly changes the subject, suggesting a
dislike of confrontation. John's ability
to quickly adhere to this change in mood also reflects a similarity between the
two and the subsequent conversation about going for a coffee suggests that they
are close and spend significant periods of time together.
Throughout this conversation the sentences are very short and often
sharp. The conversation lacks
grammatical correctness in a number of places, but does carry emotion despite
this. Their tones, intonation and style
of language suggests that both characters are comfortable and natural around
each other and do not need to make small talk or show politeness towards each
other.
What I found quite interesting about this conversation was the fact
that, even when all contextual suggestions and directions are removed, it is
still clear from the conversation what is happening and a lot can be ascertained
about each character. The dramatic
evolution of the broken window provides something of interest in an otherwise
everyday situation.
Exercise: Write you own
Dialogue
I wrote this scene as a short transition scene, following a dramatic
and tense ‘world board’ meeting. Whilst
this scene is relatively simple in its setting, I wanted this to display a
number of character traits of both Matt and Talia to give the audience a deeper
insight and empathy with each character.
The scene begins by giving the audience an idea of Matt’s weaknesses
at this point and his struggle to maintain his moral balance. Talia's loud and forceful entrance,
especially in the setting of the men’s toilets, instantly gives her the power
in the scene. Her tones and language
display her dislike for Matt and her tendency to interrupt shows her lack of
respect and feeling of self-importance over him and other individuals. At this stage Matt seems to almost cower at
her words, displaying his lack of self-confidence. Despite Talia’s harsh tones, she mentions “Doing what needs to be done, suggesting
that she has some care for the future of the world, but this would need further
exploration in order to examine her motives.
Matt’s personality shifts when Talia begins to mock him and his
upbringing and really gives the audience the sense of Talia's more spiteful and
vindictive side. Her snobbish attitudes
become more obvious at this point, particularly when she mentions ‘slum babies’, but her lack of intelligence
bleeds through when she states that his vote counts for something. This leads Matt to begin to use his superior
intelligence to gain the upper hand and begin a power shift. This is where Talia's moral convictions
begin to unravel and she threatens the life of Matt’s girlfriend, thus quickly
switching the power dynamic back to Talia.
At this stage we learn of Matt’s apparent feeling for Orainia and his
desire to keep her from harm. His
persona changes and he displays signs of weakness when she is mentioned. Talia quickly brushes aside this threat when
she believes she has won the argument, suggesting that she is experienced at
manipulation techniques.
This is where Matt’s more forceful side comes through and the power
shifts completely to him as he reveals that he knows about Talia's drug
addiction. This suggests to the audience
the beginning of Matt abandoning his moral convictions and using ‘dirty tricks’
and breaking the law in order to achieve what he wants. Talia’s whole persona changes at this point
too and we begin to see cracks in her exterior, suggesting a deeper, more
wounded and insecure character. Her threats
to report him are in vain and her quick and tearful exit shows her
unfamiliarity with losing an arguement.
In this scene I wanted to make sure that both characters had very
clear motives throughout, but with subtle undertones. Talia’s motive is to force Matt to change his
vote but at the same time, she is trying to exert her power over him and ‘show
off’ her capabilities. Matt’s motive
however, doesn’t become apparent until later.
It is clear from the beginning that he is involved in some kind of
internal conflict which we later find out revolves around the future of the
world, but as the scene continues we see that Matt’s overall motive seems to
have something to do with his upbringing and trying to prove himself amongst
higher society.
Throughout this scene I tried to use quite realistic language, keeping
each line relatively short and snappy.
However, at points, there are a number of lines of text per character,
suggesting a longer and more speech-like quality. However, I think within the context of this
scene, these longer sections work quite well as they display the weakness of
the other character. I believe that,
even without the stage directions, the text remains quite solid and entertaining
– giving the audience hints of the life and personality of both
characters. There are a number of
unanswered questions set out in this scene which beg resolution, thus keep the
audience interested.
Exercise: Recognising
Effective Dialogue
There is a stark contrast in these two scenes, despite them including
the same basic idea. From both versions,
we can clearly see that Janice is an individual on probation and is late for
her meeting with her probation officer.
The first thing that struck me about version 1 was how unbelievable
the dialogue was, given the situation.
From very early on we have ascertained that Janice is frequently late,
but none of the expected frustrations are even hinted in the dialogue of
probation officer. Throughout this
version, the probation officer Mr. Simm, appears very tolerant and
understanding, despite Janice not securing a job and requiring further loan
funding. Not once does the probation officer
question where the previous loans have gone and, given the mention of drugs, this
would be a more believable reaction.
In version 1 we find out a little about the character of Janice. We know that she has committed some form of
crime, has a daughter in care, knows someone called Steve and has/had a problem
with drugs. We find out nothing about
the character of the probation officer except for his unbelievable tolerance
and understanding.
Overall I consider version 1 to be quite boring and stale. There is no dramatic effect during this scene
and it becomes very static, making it hard for the audience to relate to either
character.
Version 2 provides a massive contrast to version 1. From the very beginning we are introduced to
a receptionist character that, although remaining silent, adds some
believability to the situation and provides another texture to the script.
In this version the probation officer meets Janice in the reception area
as opposed to meeting her in the office in version 1. It is clear to the audience that the
probation officer is rushing off somewhere, suggesting a busy and hectic
diary. This time the probation officer’s
dialogue carries some of the frustration I mentioned earlier, giving short and
sharp answers throughout. Already this
carries more of a believable element and becomes more dynamic as it takes place
‘on the move’.
The tone that Janice uses in this version gives more of a feel of
desperation that helps to back up her story of losing money and needing
more. The situation of her daughter
being in care becomes more believable in this version too. Pleading with the probation officer not to ‘tell the social worker’ gives the
audience the opportunity to relate with Janice’s desperation to get her
daughter back. This time Mr. Simm
questions Janice about the money situation and asks where the money has gone.
Throughout version 2 we learn much more about the characteristics of
both Janice and Mr. Simm. As I mentioned
earlier, there is a definite sense of desperation to Janice’s dialogue and
there is much more dramatic effect, feeding the audience more and more throughout. By the end of the scene this sense of
desperation seems to crescendo when she almost pleads with Mr. Simm to sort out
money for her. This suggests to the
audience that there is some pressure of Janice to produce the money and asks
the question, what does she need the money for.
Similarly, Mr. Simm’s dialogue is much more believable in this
section. His short and sharp answers
suggest that he is frustrated with Janice and the ‘moving scene’ gives his job
role more definition for audience. By the
end we have learnt that Mr. Simm may have been harsh with Janice, but he
displays a softer and more understanding side by offering to help Janice as
soon as he returns.
I found this exercise really interesting in identifying some of the
key mistakes made in writing dialogue.
Version 1 made it very difficult to understand and empathise with each
character and their motives remained quite unclear. However, the simple changes made in Version 2
turn the script into something more plausible and believable. There was also a major difference in the
dramatic effect of including movement in the scene. The static nature of version 1 doesn’t allow
the audience to learn any new depths of the characters, but the simple act of
suggesting a rush to a court appearance and having the characters moving
throughout, helps to keep the scene interesting.
Version 1 offers a resolution at the end by telling the audience that
Janice has got what she came for, with no problem. Although we learn a little about Steve and
Anna, the audience has little need to further question these subsidiary
characters. However, in version 2 we are
left with a number of questions, begging the continuation of the script. Who is Steve?
Why is Anna in care? Why was
Janice in prison? Why does she need the money so quickly?
