Project: Dialogue

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?