Improvised Dialogue?

cameronproductions

cameronproductions

Hi all!

Ok so I've got a question on improvised, ad-lib dialogue in with respect to screenplay writing.

I want some scenes improvised, both actions and dialogue, while some 'key' scenes will be more or less totally scripted. There is a reason for doing this, I'm not just being idle. The vast majority will be filmed in the style of a documentary - so I want to keep the bulk 'unscripted' and natural. I appreciate you can still make a scripted film appear natural, but for now, this is the route I want to take - and the actors are happy and comfortable to do things this way - they all have a good ability and are confident improvisers, which of course is essential!

I'm just looking for any ideas, or perhaps experiences people have of this kind of situation? I imagine, 20% will be scripted - although for the remaining 80% there are points, quotes, actions which are included in the screenplay and are vital to the forward movement and the discipline of the plot. I want the actors to express there own emotions and have the freedom to interact with eachother, as the plot develops.

I'm very happy with this approach, as it is the most suitable way, in my opinion, of getting the end result that I want. But I'd love to hear peoples views - bad and good - with this kind of approach :)

Cheers!
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
First of all, I'm glad that you have actors who are comfortable improvising. That's very necessary, as you know.

I think one thing you need to consider is how incredibly difficult it is to edit unscripted dialogue. It's also a tremendous waste of time, production-wise, because you're going to need to shoot WAY WAY WAY more footage than you'll actually use.

Your audience doesn't want to watch 100% raw unedited unscripted dialogue. I don't care how good your talent is, it is impossible to improvise something, in one take, that will come even close to matching your potential with something that has been written and rehearsed. It's more of a trial & error type thing, and you need a whole lot of takes to get the gold.

That's not to say that I'm against the idea. I just think you should heed precaution -- this thing that you want to do is actually MUCH more difiicult to pull off successfully than the alternative -- using a script. So, I'm not saying you shouldn't do it, but I think you should change that ratio you have in your head. My opinion is that 20% scripted will result in a horrible movie.

I think you need a solid script. 100%. Make the script as best you can, for the entire duration of the movie. During production, you have all the freedom in the world to alter/improvise/add/subtract, but I think you really need a solid foundation to stand upon. If you're using this method to produce authenticity in your talents' performances, I don't see how partially-improvised is any less authentic than completely improvised.

I know you're not being lazy. But I think you're making a mistake. Screenwriting is a very crucial step that you should not skip. I'm speaking from experience, with a couple of failures and a couple of really successful experiences in improvised filmmaking, and the successful attempts were more structured.

Best of luck, and cheers!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Cracker Funk said:
I think you need a solid script. 100%. Make the script as best you can, for the entire duration of the movie. During production, you have all the freedom in the world to alter/improvise/add/subtract, but I think you really need a solid foundation to stand upon. If you're using this method to produce authenticity in your talents' performances, I don't see how partially-improvised is any less authentic than completely improvised.

I know you're not being lazy. But I think you're making a mistake. Screenwriting is a very crucial step that you should not skip. I'm speaking from experience, with a couple of failures and a couple of really successful experiences in improvised filmmaking, and the successful attempts were more structured.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the great advice, CF!

You've raised some really important points, and I was hoping for somebody with experience to contribute. You have cemented my feelings in terms of the scripting i.e. get everything onto paper, then at least there is a backbone and provides structure to which an improvisation element can be included.

I think thats what I am looking for - I don't want the actors to be 'tied down' to every line in the script, but I want them to be creative, and spontaneous - I am flexible, but of course for the benefit of 'sticking to the plot', having a 100% structured screenplay is what I need.

Then, as you say, in production we can play around with a few ideas, have a few takes, safe in the knowledge that we have a good script to refer back to!

Thanks again for your advice!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
cameronproductions said:
I'm very happy with this approach, as it is the most suitable way, in my opinion, of getting the end result that I want. But I'd love to hear peoples views - bad and good - with this kind of approach :)
Click to expand...
This is the key statement in my opinion. You are happy with this
approach - that will go a long way to making it work.

I know that Guest/Levy use a similar approach with their scripts.
They also have skilled, talented actor/writers who then improvise.
In my opinion the only "bad" would be the actors. If they aren't
very skilled at improve for movies this could be a very difficult
shoot.

As far as writing the screenplay is concerned, I can't see even one
"bad" for giving this a try.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
directorik said:
This is the key statement in my opinion. You are happy with this
approach - that will go a long way to making it work.

I know that Guest/Levy use a similar approach with their scripts.
They also have skilled, talented actor/writers who then improvise.
In my opinion the only "bad" would be the actors. If they aren't
very skilled at improve for movies this could be a very difficult
shoot.

As far as writing the screenplay is concerned, I can't see even one
"bad" for giving this a try.
Click to expand...

Another great point of view which I'll take on board, thanks for the input Rik!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Why not do the improvising during a long rehearsal period? That way the actors can still write their parts so they 'work' 'emotionally' but you can walk away with actual written dialog to make your shoot easier.

It's sort of like the Second City approach. The first half of the show is prepared. All the sketches have been done before, but they were developed through improv and written by the current cast. The second half of the show is where they try a bunch of stuff out, and whatever works eventually gets fine tuned and put in the first half of the show.
Just some food for thought. :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Lots of good points here. :)

Dready's "improvising during rehearsal" seems like a great way to get the gears greased and ideas flowing.

I think you need a solid script. 100%. Make the script as best you can, for the entire duration of the movie. During production, you have all the freedom in the world to alter/improvise/add/subtract, but I think you really need a solid foundation to stand upon.
Click to expand...

I like what CF is saying here and tend to agree. It isn't wise to build a house without a proper foundation in place and the same could be said for shooting a feature film without a fully-realized script. As long as the/your vision is on paper, everyone can refer to it to get started, THEN they can take it in all sorts of directions with improvising, but the thrust of the scene, the story, the characters, the setting... I'd say these all need to be pretty solid before diving in too deep.

I recently heard Kevin Kline on NPR talking about his experience with A Fish Called Wanda and apparently a lot of the well-known lines weren't scripted but totally improvised on the spot. And then Kline went on to mention Robert Altman saying something to Gary Trudeau about his script and how the actors on set weren't reading what was written at all, but the screenplay (and I'm paraphrasing here) "allowed the actors to find the truth of the scene and characters..." more or less. You can check out NPR for the archived interview. * actually, here's the link
http://www.npr.org/2011/03/25/134830391/kevin-kline-has-a-queen-to-play-en-francais

and here's his quote from the interview:

Along with plenty of life lessons, Kline's years on stage and screen have given him many insights into acting — particularly about the power of ad-libbing. He is famous for improvised lines from his 1988 film A Fish Called Wanda. "A lot of the lines that have stuck to people have been ad-libbed," he says. "[They] have just sort of emerged out of a loose directing style ... allowing the actors a kind of leeway."

Kline has a theory that ad-libbed lines mean more to actors and to audiences. "Those little improvisations ... they're more personal, and therefore more universal and therefore have more sticking power," he explains. Rather than sticking to the script, "it's a different kind of authenticity, because you own it, because you just blurted it out."

Although screenwriters can be frustrated when actors stray from their written words, the script is more like a blueprint, he says. Kline says that director Robert Altman once told screenwriter and cartoonist Garry Trudeau, "The reason you write these lines is so that the actors know who they are. The rest is up to them."
Click to expand...

I'd say have your script and vision 100% then tinker and play and experiment til your heart's content. There is something to be said for the spontaneity of production and the surprises that can happen on set.

Good luck with it!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Dreadylocks said:
Oh but for more info on going the unscripted route, check out Lord Haden-Guest's interview on Charlie Rose. http://www.charlierose.com/guest/view/1937

It's interesting to note that while he pulls it off so well, it's not an easy task for him. Especially the editing.
Click to expand...

Cheers Dreadylocks!

Some really interesting ideas - having an extended improvised rehearsal - that would guarentee some though provoking script ideas for sure!

Will check out the link aswell ;)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Flicker Pictures said:
I recently heard Kevin Kline on NPR talking about his experience with A Fish Called Wanda and apparently a lot of the well-known lines weren't scripted but totally improvised on the spot. And then Kline went on to mention Robert Altman saying something to Gary Trudeau about his script and how the actors on set weren't reading what was written at all, but the screenplay (and I'm paraphrasing here) "allowed the actors to find the truth of the scene and characters..." more or less. You can check out NPR for the archived interview. * actually, here's the link
http://www.npr.org/2011/03/25/134830391/kevin-kline-has-a-queen-to-play-en-francais

and here's his quote from the interview:


I'd say have your script and vision 100% then tinker and play and experiment til your heart's content. There is something to be said for the spontaneity of production and the surprises that can happen on set.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the input FP! Will check out the link as well :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Just goes to show you how different we all are in our approach. Even the thought of doing something like this makes my flesh crawl. I'm a "every line is delivered verbatim how it's written in the script with not a single syllable changed" guy. Not saying that's better or worse, just a different aesthetic.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
We've got two (and very different) thoughts going here. The
script and the production.

On every set dialogue is improvised - no exceptions. That's
different than writing a script with the intent of improvisation.
I'll restrict my comments to the writing of the script.

It seems you have exactly the right idea; 20% will be scripted
80% will be just the foundation - "points, quotes, actions" - to
keep the actors and director facing in the proper direction. Once
the script is finished you will have what's needed to make your
movie.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Gonzo_Entertainment said:
t once we hit the set I want it delivered as written.
Click to expand...

Of course you WANT every line to be delivered exactly
as written. Are you telling me you have NEVER allowed
an ad-lib to happen while on set? And that you have
NEVER used an on set ad-lib in a movie you directed?

I gotta tell you that in my experience, some great moments
have happened because I encourage exploration by the
actors.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
directorik said:
Of course you WANT every line to be delivered exactly
as written. Are you telling me you have NEVER allowed
an ad-lib to happen while on set? And that you have
NEVER used an on set ad-lib in a movie you directed?

I gotta tell you that in my experience, some great moments
have happened because I encourage exploration by the
actors.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, small changes, I have let pass, but mostly because of time constraints. The process of the actor creating the character, including their input on dialogue is pre-production. On set I don't have time for experimentation.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I would say that I'm inclined to fall closer to the Gonzo Entertainment school of thought.

I worked on a couple of short films recently where the dialogue was 80% improvised, not because the respective directors particularly wanted that but because the actors just started riffing off the material and they decided it sounded more 'natural'.

That can sometimes be good but when I write I try and be fairly lucid and to the point, communicating the essential information rather than a great deal of superfluous dialogue that might sound good on set but once you're in the editing suite and need to very quickly come to the point, is going to be a nightmare.

I don't think it's good to be too strict either. If an actor isn't comfortable with a line (and I've applied this in theatre a lot as well) then it's better just to change it because they have to be totally in command of the delivery. The same applies if they've come up with a better idea. In both cases I'd be happy to change the line so long as they run it by me first so that I can make sure it doesnt interfere with the flow or direction of the scene.

But on the whole I'd prefer they sticked to the script. To address the OP: I don't think there's a single person on this forum who'd recommend you don't write a screenplay. Even if you want it to be totally improvised you should still write a screenplay. There are technical reasons (helping your DP, sound man and editor) but also actors aren't like little toy cars that you just wind up, release and see where they go. They're like scaleelectrics that you don't have total control over but you make sure that they go round and round the course that you've set up for them.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Some great input again, thanks guys.

NickClapper said:
To address the OP: I don't think there's a single person on this forum who'd recommend you don't write a screenplay. Even if you want it to be totally improvised you should still write a screenplay. There are technical reasons (helping your DP, sound man and editor) but also actors aren't like little toy cars that you just wind up, release and see where they go. They're like scaleelectrics that you don't have total control over but you make sure that they go round and round the course that you've set up for them.
Click to expand...

Not sure if you understand what I am saying, or if I've explained it clear enough :idea:

I intend on writing a screenplay with the flexibility to be partially improvised - I do not want it fully (even majority) improvised as such. I have previously used the ratio of 20% fully scripted dialogue to 80% partially scripted - but, as previously said, this is along with points, directions, further dialogue, quotes - as opposed to having 80% totally improvised. It may not be an orthodox route to take, but it is one which I am comfortable taking, and more importantly, my cast are happy with. It fits this specific project well! But thats just my opinion. Thanks for your contribution, NickClapper, I appreciate it.

To further Riks point, surely allowing (even encouraging) your cast to be spontaneous with there lines, emotions, how they really feel in that characters situation on set is beneficial to the production? If you think something doesn't work, you an always scrap the idea, and go back to the script. I feel giving them the flexibility, and the opportunity to indulge in there character and have control over what they say, do, and convey their emotions is equally important. I respect the fact that these people are Actors, not writers or directors - but if they are able pull it off, and comfortable doing so, then for the right project I think it could work!

Not that I'm sure any of you need reminding about some of the classic improvised actions, scenes and dialogue, but I just had a good laugh at some of these :D

http://www.rankopedia.com/Best-Unscripted-Movie-Scene,-Moment-or-Line/Step1/21547/.htm
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
cameronproductions said:
Not that I'm sure any of you need reminding about some of the classic improvised actions, scenes and dialogue, but I just had a good laugh at some of these :D

http://www.rankopedia.com/Best-Unscripted-Movie-Scene,-Moment-or-Line/Step1/21547/.htm
Click to expand...

That's awesome. I didn't know all of those great moments were unscripted. Frankly, though, I'm not surprised, just because of my own experiences. Listening to audience reactions (and in conversations afterward) at our first screening of my debut feature, it was fun to hear that people reacted positively to some moments that were 100% scripted, some that stayed fairly close to the script but were altered during rehearsal, and some that were 100% on-the-spot improvisation. Some actors and actresses really flourish when allowed to be spontaneous, and it can be a lot of fun to allow them to explore that creativity.

One other thing I forgot to mention -- I really like the Judd Apatow school of improv. As I understand it, it really helps to have a multi-camera setup. Not so practical, for low-budget filmmakers like us, if you're using top-shelf cameras. But if you're shooting DSLR, surely you can find a few friends to loan their cameras for a multi-cam improv shoot.

Maximum coverage, all in one take, allowing the talent to go wherever they want. Though, it does help immensely, if you can get them to allow each other to finish their lines before chiming in. As a minimum setup, a closeup of each character is very necessary. After that, I think I would want a master.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
What a great discussion. I'll just add a few points:

I saw Eugene Levy on a talk show after "Best in Show" came out and he was incensed at the perception of improvisational performance/filmmaking. He felt popular public perception ("they just make it up as they go along") diminished their roles as some of the best improvisational performers ever, and said something like (this is a paraphrase) "it's not as if they just hand over the keys to the asylum to the inmates. We are trained professional artists." He makes a good point. I wouldn't trust a true cameras-rolling improv scene to anyone but the best. If I wanted to explore characters through improv, I would do it during a rehearsal process, where we could do our explorations and hammer them down before rolling.

As I understand it, it really helps to have a multi-camera setup.
Click to expand...

I think I read somewhere that Kubrick always used 2 cameras on Peter Sellers in Lolita and Dr. Strangelove.

There is a great making-of doc on the DVD for Coppola's "Tetro" where Star Vincent Gallo and Coppola go back and forth on the notion of rehearsal vs. improv. Very highly recommended and addresses the original poster's questions in depth.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top