How to SHOW instead of TELL?

[CJInzana]

We all know one of the first things your told as a scriptwriter is SHOW instead of TELL whenever possible.

I thought I was doing a pretty good job of this in a my first feature script I've been writing, but then I got my first response and that was the biggest flaw.

It's frustrating me to no end, because I don't really know how to fix this. I've sat here and looked at the first ten pages over and over and can't figure out how I can get rid of any of the dialogue that I'm using.

Any advice?

 

[pepper jack]

One simple thing I can think of is developing the characters through their actions, rather than their dialogue. Showing the characters do certain things translates to the audience better than having the characters say certain things. I don't know if this is exactly what you are asking but this is my take on it.

 

[Firm1]

First and foremost, it would help if you showed us the script so we would know what you're talking about.

Secondly, I had this same problem a while back when I wrote a seven page dialogue sequence. When I first wrote it I thought, "Man this is awesome.", but then I realized it was too long because every other professional screenplay I read only had dialogue sequences that were three or four pages max. And of course, when you consider the fact that one page = one minute on screen, having a dialogue sequence that exceeds three or four minutes is too long. Unless its a phenomenally interesting conversation, you'll pretty much lose the audience.

So like you, I had to figure out how to cut the dialogue down. I realized that the reason why it was seven pages long was because I wasn't adding enough scenes in the movie to show what they were talking about. For instance, the first part of the conversation was about the main character's mother and how she died and left him with a shit ton of medical bills. That pretty much made for 2 pages of dialogue. What I should have done was create a series of three or four scenes that showed this before I even got to the conversation.

Anyway, I can't give you concrete advice unless you show me the script, but if you want to to lighten up the dialogue, you have to figure out how to create scenes that show what is being said in the conversation either before the conversation takes place or during the conversation, itself. I guess it just depends on what your characters know about each other. If they're best friends and know all of their dark secrets then its possible to show it before the conversation takes place. If they're strangers, then you might need to show it while they're having the conversation. But like I said, I can't tell you unless you show me.

 

[Alcove Audio]

I've worked on a number of extremely well organized - if not well-funded - projects from preproduction onwards.

What always stands out on these productions is that during preproduction the department heads contribute a lot to the shooting script. The DP seems to be the biggest contributor when it comes to paring down the dialog. H/M-U, wardrobe, set design and set dressing also have a very large influence, and even sound does to some greater or lesser degree, depending upon the story and the genre.

What tends to happen is a discussion about the characters. Who is s/he? Why is s/he this way? What about their environment? What about their interactions with their environment and the other characters?

When the client appears at my studio with a project I always ask "What is the film about?" I don't want the story or the plot; what is the "meaning" of the movie? It can be as simple as "It's a comedy" or something a little deeper like "It's a film about making choices." But you should be able to describe the meaning your film in ten words or less. The same applies to the characters, although this can be a string of one word descriptions - he's isolated, moody, volatile... you get the idea.

But you have to be able to answer all of these questions when your department heads pose them. (Back story, back story, back story!!!) These are all very creative people, and you have chosen them for their talents. But you must provide the direction. Gee, maybe that's what they mean by being the director! You have to communicate your vision for the film; you will only do it well if you understand every aspect in minute detail and are able to communicate it all effectively.

 

[rayw]

I thought I was doing a pretty good job of this in a my first feature script I've been writing, but then I got my first response and that was the biggest flaw.

Is your first responder a credible resource for script-to-screen reading?
It isn't your family member with a normal day job unrelated to film production, right?
It's from someone who's read a few dozen screenplays, can dissect and deconstruct films intelligently, and knows what can be easily changed on set vs. what's in the screenplay, right?

Did this credible reviewer provide solutions for the first few offences he/she cited?


Frankly, if you want a talkie story maybe that's what you want.
And if you don't want a talkie then maybe the script could use a good "debarking."

 

[AnywhereButHollywood]

I have an article about just this thing at my site

It was just posted a couple of weeks ago. Look for it: "Show It, Don't Tell It: Visualizing Internal Conflict."

Too long to quote here, but here's how the article starts:

Your main character gazes forlornly into the distance… thinking of his lost love. Or maybe he’s just hungry. Or maybe he’s just trying to remember what he was supposed to pick up at the store. Or…

How the heck do you show what he’s thinking?​

I hope you find it helpful!

Adam

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

A few examples:

Does he have to talk about his high school sports career for us to know he was a jock, or will the full trophy case in the background do the same thing....

Does he have to talk about how he hates his job or can a shot of somebody dumping a stack of work on his desk and his facial expression tell us....

Does he need to talk about being OCD or does showing him washing his hands every 5 minutes communicate the same thing...

These are easy examples of course, but you can come up with something for most situations.

 

[directorik]

In general “show don’t tell” is about the action lines not the
dialogue. Sometimes it just isn’t realistic to show an important
moment in a characters past. That needs to be done with
dialogue. Many times it’s more expedient to have a character
talk about an emotional experience with a now dead teacher
than doing it in flashback.

John walks home from his job as a press operator.
How does the viewer of the film know his job based on a shot of
John walking?

John and Bob, both carrying beat up industrial sized lunch boxes
and wearing nearly identical coveralls walk out of the gates of
a large factory.

BOB
I swear one of these days I’m going bitch slap that foreman.

JOHN
It’s the goddamned press not Mitch. If that machine didn't
break down every half hour we could finish on time.


CJInzana - long scenes of dialogue can be fine. Even ten pages. It, of
course, depends on the story and how well the characters are developed.
So you issue may not be "show don't tell" it may be your ten page
dialogue scene isn't compelling.

 

[AnywhereButHollywood]

Personally, I can get a bit extreme with the show-don't-tell mandate, but that's never failed me. I tend to think of dialog only as a supplement to the action (and by action, I mean the stuff the characters do). Would you be able to tell your story as a silent film? (Perhaps not, but it's a great exercise to try.)

Also, IMHO, you should really try to avoid flashbacks unless you're making some kind of stylistic statement.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

Personally, I can get a bit extreme with the show-don't-tell mandate, but that's never failed me. I tend to think of dialog only as a supplement to the action (and by action, I mean the stuff the characters do). Would you be able to tell your story as a silent film? (Perhaps not, but it's a great exercise to try.)

Also, IMHO, you should really try to avoid flashbacks unless you're making some kind of stylistic statement.

I am there with you. I've made couple of shorts where we are between 3 and 5 minutes in before the first real line of dialogue is delivered. It's not unusual for a 25 minute production of mine to have a 10 to 12 page script they are so sparse with dialogue.

 

[VivaChiba]

Get more feedback; if the same "problem/s" come from several sources, you have a bona fide problem. Seriously, choosing what parts to pay attention to when receiving feedback is important for your development as a writer - even if some Oscar winner said to you he'd have written a scene another way, and that this or that line didn't work, one man's opinion is still one man's opinion (albeit, the more established a writer, the better - and more valid - are opinions).

BUT, to the point:

TELLING

(For this demonstration, SIMON is the school bully - he's a foot taller than MAX with biceps of iron. He has a pack of lackeys behind him always)

Simon pushes Max over the corridor. Max gets up, vexed, everyone's looking... Simon stares Max down -
Simon: "If you got a problem you should watch where you're going."
Max walks away.
Gloria, the girl Max fancies, runs after him. He strides forwards, making it hard for her to keep up.
Gloria: "Are you okay?"
Simon: "One day, I swear I'll kick his arse."

SHOWING

Simon pushes Max over...
Max gets up, vexed, everyone's looking, anticpating his reaction.
Max gets in Simon's face.
Simon grins, glances at his mates... Max thinks about his next move.
Simon: "If you... (etc.)"
Max squeezes his fists... relaxes them.
Max walks away.
Simon and his lackeys laugh at Max's back; Gloria runs after Max...
Gloria: "You okay?"
Simon: "Fine."
He strides off.

Bad writing aside, the principal is thus: characters ACTING to convey emotions is better than characters SPEAKING to express the same things.
Next time your GF says she loves you, ask her for anal to prove it.




That was a BAAAAAD joke (but it does happen).

 

[directorik]

We each have our personal choices and our personal films/scripts.
I made a short with one line. I made a short with five lines. I made
a short that was all dialogue and almost no action. Each story has
its needs.

A script like “Twelve Angry Men”, “Glengarry, Glen Ross” or “Sleuth”
is dependent on great dialogue. A script like “2001: A Space Odyssey”,
“Once Upon a Time in the West” or “Alien” needs less.

However, in the “show don’t tell” of the original question I don’t
think the writers choice of how much dialogue is used is the question.
Or is it? Do you feel that “show don’t tell” means a script should have
less dialogue?

 

[AnywhereButHollywood]

A script like “Twelve Angry Men”, “Glengarry, Glen Ross” or “Sleuth”
is dependent on great dialogue.

Consider, though, that all three of those started as stage plays.

[EDIT: Actually, didn't realize this - but apparently the stage version of 12 Angry Men came AFTER the TV version.]

 

[icba pictures]

This ones for Alcove...
A perfect example of show... very little "dialogue".

https://vimeo.com/31963455

<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/31963455" width="500" height="213" frameborder="0" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen></iframe> <p><a href="http://vimeo.com/31963455">88:88</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/paperbeatsrock">Paper Beats Rock</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p>

 

[AudioPostExpert]

SHOWING

Simon pushes Max over...
Max gets up, vexed, everyone's looking, anticpating his reaction.
Max gets in Simon's face.
Simon grins, glances at his mates... Max thinks about his next move.
Simon: "If you... (etc.)"
Max squeezes his fists... relaxes them.
Max walks away.
Simon and his lackeys laugh at Max's back; Gloria runs after Max...
Gloria: "You okay?"
Simon: "Fine."
He strides off.

Bad writing aside, the principal is thus: characters ACTING to convey emotions is better than characters SPEAKING to express the same things.

But there's even another level beyond this:

Max is putting stuff in his locker. Max's eyes tighten and we hear from his POV: The unmistakeable sound of Simon's boots in a distant corridor getting closer.
Max closes his locker, puts his bag on the floor, plants his feet and clenches his fists.
Simon's footsteps are joined by a group of other footsteps, plus the sound from the adjacent corridor of shouting and walla as Simon is joined by his friends.
For a second max clenches his fists tighter but as the footsteps and walla are now much closer and Simon is just about to enter the same corridor.
Max, with a look of resignation, unclenches his fists, picks up his bag and leaves hurriedly.

I mention this simply because screen writers and indie filmmakers in general always tend think in terms of just the image and the script (dialogue) and miss another whole layer of the art of filmmaking, the sound design. Sound Design is a story telling tool, not just a required post production technical exercise.

I'm not suggesting you should actually create all your scenes like this, with no dialogue at all, just sound design and acting but IMHO the best films are when acting, dialogue, cinematography, editing and sound design all collaborate combine to tell the story and not so well when sound design is just bolted on as an after thought when everything else is finished. The use of sound design as a story telling tool starts with the script!

A script like “2001: A Space Odyssey”, “Once Upon a Time in the West” or “Alien” needs less.

These 3 films are also on the list of the all time greatest examples of the art of film sound design, is that just a coincidence?

G

 

[directorik]

A script like “Twelve Angry Men”, “Glengarry, Glen Ross” or “Sleuth”
is dependent on great dialogue.

Consider, though, that all three of those started as stage plays.

I did consider that. Which is exactly why I used those as my example
of scripts that are dependent on great dialogue. Some films are more
dependent on action - some more on dialogue. I'm curious; does the
fact that two of the three examples I used started as stage plays in
any way diminish my point? If so I will find other examples to illustrate
my point.

Does "show don't tell" mean dialogue? Or is that adage generally thought
of as things in a script that cannot be filmed - like the example you provided?

 

[Modern Day Myth Prod. LLC]

I'm a strong believer in learn by example, so I will give examples in this discussion.

Rules are made to be broken as long as you understand the rules.

We can have a big discussion about flashbacks too because flashback are not supposed to be done. But, they are done in films anyway.

What does more for your scene or your story? SHOW or TELL? Do you have the budget to show or the budget to tell.

Here is a classic science fiction film TELLING, rather than SHOWING.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_seKyGYlTHY

This TELLING technique is referred to as an "Off camera scene" because we are told about something rather than shown it. The are many more examples in TV shows and movies.

If they can do it in The Day The Earth Stood Still, so can we.

I would say this was done for time constraints and budget.

The way to achieve your goal to SHOW is to use words like a paintbrush in a script like a short story or novel.

My vampire short story here called THE REAL MONSTER does a good job of it. It has dialogue, but used sparingly.

http://www.cvkproductions.com/TheRealMonster.html

 

[Lucky Hardwood]

I don't generally apply the show don't tell axiom to dialog. I use it to remind myself that there is very little room for exposition in a screenplay. If you are showing a character saying lines, that is still showing. Writing a three paragraph expository slugline for things that the audience will not be able to see is what I think of as telling. Don't write what a character is thinking, write how they physically react to those thoughts. In writing prose, we are told to paint a world with our words. In screenwriting, we must use words only to describe the world painted across the screen.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

Writing a three paragraph expository slugline for things that the audience will not be able to see is what I think of as telling. Don't write what a character is thinking, write how they physically react to those thoughts... In screenwriting, we must use words only to describe the world painted across the screen.

In all honesty, I can't agree with this unless you are making a silent film or maybe for certain parts of a documentary. In fact, I don't agree at all that SHOW or TELL are the only two options. People say they are going to "watch" or "see" a film but that's just an historical legacy and not what they really want or expect for their money. Modern audiences don't want to just be "shown" or "told" what's going on and be reduced to the role of a spectator, they want to identify with, to be involved in and to "experience" the film! All the great modern filmmakers and all the great modern films don't restrict themselves to just showing or telling but frequently "show" only half (or less) of the story and manipulate the audience, through sound, into exercising their imagination to fill in the desired blanks. This is far more involving and far more dramatic and powerful than anything you can do with a camera or dialogue alone and what sets film apart from every other visual art form! In the shower scene of Psycho we are neither "told" nor explicitly "shown" what is going on, yet at the time it was arguably the most shocking and powerful cinematic scene ever realised! Think of the opening of Apocalypse Now, Clarise searching in the dark basement in Silence of the Lambs or countless other examples. In fact, try to think of any great film which doesn't use this filmmaking tool in one way or another. This use of sound doesn't start when the picture edit is locked, it starts in the screenplay!

If you limit yourself to Show or Tell, you might have fun making the film and you might even get plaudits from other indie filmmakers but the public will just see another slow, uninvolving indie film which seems to be lacking something.

G

 

[AnywhereButHollywood]

I did consider that. Which is exactly why I used those as my example
of scripts that are dependent on great dialogue. Some films are more
dependent on action - some more on dialogue. I'm curious; does the
fact that two of the three examples I used started as stage plays in
any way diminish my point? If so I will find other examples to illustrate
my point.

I just feel that films starting as plays tend to be less cinematic, more theatrical. Often, I'd prefer they simply stage the script as a play and record the performance; this would provide a more accurate record of what the piece was "meant to be."

Films conceived as films from the start tend to be more organically cinematic. There's less need to "open it up" to make it more of a movie.

There are some great examples of dialog-heavy films conceived as films, however (The Graduate, pretty much anything by Tarantino, even My Dinner With Andre...).

As with all such things, there are no real rules. There's just your taste and underlying philosophy.

As to the definition of "showing-not-telling" in film, I find many less experienced screenwriters tend to over-rely on dialog to tell the story... and the dialog is rarely compelling enough to justify it. Just IMHO.