All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
I'm writing a feature and in one part I'm having a character tell a story about what happened earlier in the script.
While telling the story the character goes back and forward about who said what. He's quoting himself and another person. Retelling a previous dialogue he just had.
Off the cuff example what it would look like:
- But that won't work. - Why wouldn't it work? - Cause it just doesn't make sense. - Yes it does. - No it doesn't. It's physically impossible.
John "But that won't work". "Why wouldn't it work?" "Cause it just doesn't make sense.""Yes it does." "No it doesn't It's physically impossible."
So, he's retelling the event and doing it by quoting a previous conversation verbatim.
How should this work in the script so the reader knows he's referring to what he said and then what the other person said.
I've noticed in subtitles when there are sentences on screen where two people talk, they are usually separated it with some kind of dash. Like:
"Where's the car? - I don't know."
The dash indicates that this line is spoken by someone else and is not a continuation of the previous person's speech.
So how does this work in script form?
Do I write it like that and use the dash. Which seems practical and simple enough. Or... do I add parenthesis to specify. (in John's voice), (in his own). Or do I just leave it with quotation marks and let the reader figure it out by the context of what the character is saying.
I don't want to clog the dialogue with stupid stuff like - he said, so I said, he came back with.
How do I tell the reader that this quote is spoken by one person and the next by another. So they can differentiate the dialogue easily and figure out that it's not a monologue spoken by the character but that he's retelling a dialogue he had with someone earlier?
So it reads easy and everything is clear. Because this scene is a bit long and the story takes a while.
Any thoughts? The dash seems to be the ideal solution.
Logged
DustinBowcot
Posted: September 12th, 2015, 8:04am
Guest User
Can it work like this?
BOB Then he said, Go eff yourself. And she was like, suck an ass, bitch...
BOB Then he said, Go eff yourself. And she was like, suck an ass, bitch...
Its very long. I don't want to use the "he said, she said". I think it's going to be extremely difficult to read. Plus its going to ruin the flow of the dialogue and the way the character is saying it.
Its very long. I don't want to use the "he said, she said". I think it's going to be extremely difficult to read. Plus its going to ruin the flow of the dialogue and the way the character is saying it.
I agree with this... Film's a visual medium. If the story that the person is telling is really long, I would recommend at least peppering the dialogue with some kind of visual representation of the action being described.
I agree with this... Film's a visual medium. If the story that the person is telling is really long, I would recommend at least peppering the dialogue with some kind of visual representation of the action being described.
Everything has its place, imo.
I saw the movie Smoke when I was about 10-11 years old and I remember really liking the scene where Harvey Keitel tells William Hurt a story for like 10 min. I loved that scene when I was a kid and I rewatched the movie years later. I still loved it.
I saw the movie Smoke when I was about 10-11 years old and I remember really liking the scene where Harvey Keitel tells William Hurt a story for like 10 min. I loved that scene when I was a kid and I rewatched the movie years later. I still loved it.
In the comments below I see a lot of people also love the scene. And it's just 10 min of a guy telling a story. Everything works if its done right.
I still think that you can go the 'he said, she said' route. Obviously don't take it so literally. But as it's a guy telling a story to another person, then he's not only relating the story to another character but also the viewers. If the story is long then you can break it up with action. Even if it's lighting a cigarette, pouring a drink, scratching an armpit, just something to break up the long pieces of dialogue on the page. When it comes time to film, those actions may be taken away or changed.
What I mean by 'he said, she said', is that you can make it clear what's happening in dialogue without the need of fancy text.
The viewer isn't going to see that. The character has to relate the story to another character and also the viewer, neither of which will see the fancy text. So it's the character's job to make it clear through dialogue who's saying what and describe the setting.
This is exactly why a scene like this will be tough to write. I've just gone through a similar thing with my 7WC entry. I needed to deliver a lot of back story, and I did so through a Chinese character called Sushuo (which actually translates as exposition in English). I did part story and part drama where I placed it into visuals and went back and forth... and I've still had complaints about the large chunk of back story exposition even though the majority is visual.
Dialogue should flow naturally. The character must have the right personality and presence to captivate for so long on screen. Write it how the character would say it. You could even use parenthesis to change the character's voice like this...
DAVE So, they're in this bar, the two of 'em, all loved up. (fake female voice) You're the most handsome man I ever seen. (fake male voice) Why thank you sugar, I do believe I am. (normal voice) And they start making out and shit, and then...
Never understood this thread, perhaps I read over some stuff, so please correct me if I'm completely wrong and I'll delete my post. To me, most stuff here reads more complicated as things actually are.
The situation is that a character repeats/quotes something he and other characters said before.
^^Is that right?
If so, you should cheat imo. Sometimes it is the right choice to use a trick to cover problems.
Just explain the context through the action line f.e.
Scratching his head, Marvin reminds ( or quotes, recites.... Just use your own concept here) of: <colon BIG BIG TOOL
MARVIN He was at the bus station -- No, he wasn't --
In the dialogue, I'd just use double dashes to distinguish each person. We will get it 100%. Readers are readers. They understand and follow since you're not doing shit. They remind key words, even imagining the exact situation the quotations come from and who said what...
By the way, if they cannot, the dialogue/concept is wrong imo, because things are, well, forgetable.
So, in some points I'd add my approach with the description line, to what Dustin tries to say, if I get him right, to simply trust the reader with getting connections of what's happening.
It's even a rule to not underestimate the audience, and better think they're smart snd like to be challenged. Cause they are, both of it.
Just cheat a bit in the description line and you're going to be fine IMO.
But if you want to do something different like add a funny voice then parenthesis would be the way to go. A double dash does not a mocking voice make.
Okay. In this case I'd nevertheless use the description line. If you write clear all over the script, you are not getting crucified by the reader for being a bit passive like
Sipping his beer, Marvin *(repeats the talk from earlier), imitating Carol's voice in a mocking way, and exaggerating Dave's serious replies:
MARVIN He was at the bus station -- No, he wasn't
When you're through with the above description line (used as an introduction of the situation), then the whole rest is going to be clear. No parenthesis, italics, or whatever needed. Of course my introduction is not exactly how the writer should do it; he should use his own words and describe the concept of the dialogue himself. Mine is just a lifeless pattern not worked out yet.
To me that'd be a better choice than letting us run into dialogue like what?? and presenting something odd at first sight.
* actually even no reference like that needed, ... following with "imitates" then
I'm writing a feature and in one part I'm having a character tell a story about what happened earlier in the script.
While telling the story the character goes back and forward about who said what. He's quoting himself and another person. Retelling a previous dialogue he just had.
Off the cuff example what it would look like:
- But that won't work. - Why wouldn't it work? - Cause it just doesn't make sense. - Yes it does. - No it doesn't. It's physically impossible.
John "But that won't work". "Why wouldn't it work?" "Cause it just doesn't make sense.""Yes it does." "No it doesn't It's physically impossible."
So, he's retelling the event and doing it by quoting a previous conversation verbatim.
How should this work in the script so the reader knows he's referring to what he said and then what the other person said.
I've noticed in subtitles when there are sentences on screen where two people talk, they are usually separated it with some kind of dash. Like:
"Where's the car? - I don't know."
The dash indicates that this line is spoken by someone else and is not a continuation of the previous person's speech.
So how does this work in script form?
Do I write it like that and use the dash. Which seems practical and simple enough. Or... do I add parenthesis to specify. (in John's voice), (in his own). Or do I just leave it with quotation marks and let the reader figure it out by the context of what the character is saying.
I don't want to clog the dialogue with stupid stuff like - he said, so I said, he came back with.
How do I tell the reader that this quote is spoken by one person and the next by another. So they can differentiate the dialogue easily and figure out that it's not a monologue spoken by the character but that he's retelling a dialogue he had with someone earlier?
So it reads easy and everything is clear. Because this scene is a bit long and the story takes a while.
Any thoughts? The dash seems to be the ideal solution.
It's dialogue so write it as dialogue. If the actor changes his/her voice put a wryly in (like a girl) (mimics Bob) (like a fairy).
So what do you do when there is more than one character? Use bold?
Don't be silly. Bold is used for when a word is spoken with emphasis, Dustin.
No, when the mocking speaker is mocking more than 1 character, I use italics. Nothing changes even if the character's mocking 2, and it'd occur after a conversation with either one or both mocked characters.
As an example:
Quoted Text
JOHN The board informs me that I'm up for promotion, but I need the figures in by the end of the day, so get it done, K?
CATHERINE Remember to get those party supplies into the main hall, everything has to be perfect. I'm counting on you, David.
They leave
DAVID Oh yeah, I'll get right on it. Oh, and thanks for getting those other figures in last week while I went on a bender. Yeah, no problem, John, happy to help. Yes, Catherine, I'll not only plan the party, but I'll make sure the damn thing's ready too. What am I, a freaking slave?
That's how I'd write it. Just... with better dialogue.
Richard what you've written is not a character mocking other characters, but a character placing emphasis on his own moaning. That doesn't read to me as though he is mimicking a particular voice. I prefer to keep things as clear as possible. When it is unclear what is happening then parentheses are used. I know you have an aversion to them... you believe your narrative is always good enough so you don't have to use them.
Richard what you've written is not a character mocking other characters, but a character placing emphasis on his own moaning. That doesn't read to me as though he is mimicking a particular voice. I prefer to keep things as clear as possible. When it is unclear what is happening then parentheses are used. I know you have an aversion to them... you believe your narrative is always good enough so you don't have to use them.
I disagree.
So was I, bud... descriptively sarcastic. I like detail.
Having just read your last post to make sure there isn't any sarcasm, I came across this:
When you want to add emphasis to dialogue, you underline it. Bold in dialogue would look very out of place.
To each his own. I personally enjoy making everything relevant BOLD to avoid confusion. Character intros, important locations, important props, emphatic lines, etc.
Underlining is kinda rule-book, and I threw that out the window a long time ago.
Seems a bit of a contradiction considering how you feel that parentheses are unnecessary as the dialogue should be clear without the need of pointers.
Using bold is exactly the same thing... only worse, because it isn't normal.
Bold just makes it pop off the page. No one's gonna miss a piece of text that's thicker than the rest, meaning that word presents itself clearly.
Pointers are unnecessary, yes, but making sure people don't miss the obvious is also a requirement when writing a script.
The last thing you need is for the actor playing the character to NOT say the line in the way they're meant to say it. Capitalization is another way to go about it, but I only use capitalization in dialogue when the character is annoyed and/or angry.
Typos show real passion and commitment. Grammar errors show real knowledge of the English language. Poor punctuation shows a rock solid writer who cares about what they write.
Really? WTF? Why anyone doesn't want to present themself in the best light is a complete and utter idiot.
Bold is a show. You're showing the reader that a specific word means something, rather than telling the reader a word means something. Pointers are tells.
Bold is a show. You're showing the reader that a specific word means something, rather than telling the reader a word means something. Pointers are tells.
How does bold show a reader that a voice is squeaky?
Quoted Text
As for people missing the obvious... it happens.
Pointers are used to avoid confusion on what isn't obvious. If three people are together it may not be clear who is being spoken to. Pointers are not used to point out the obvious... but the not so obvious.
And what's with the pointers are tells bullshit? With bold you would need to play a guessing game. Which of the following is more clear?
GANGSTER I've warned you over and over again. (whispers) Now, I'm going to kill your daughter.
GANGSTER I've warned you over and over again. Now, I'm going to kill your daughter.
The bold could mean anything... the reader is left to ponder the significance. Perhaps an index with all your little codes at the start of your scripts will help.
Uppercase for shouting. Bold for whispering. Italics for sarcasm. Underline for emphasis. A different colour of text for each character, therefore showing which character is being spoken to at any given time rather than having to tell the reader. Double underline for vehemence... etc, etc. Then, once your readers have learned the special code they can settle down to enjoy your script. Great plan.
And what's with the pointers are tells bullshit? With bold you would need to play a guessing game. Which of the following is more clear?
GANGSTER I've warned you over and over again. (whispers) Now, I'm going to kill your daughter.
GANGSTER I've warned you over and over again. Now, I'm going to kill your daughter.
The bold could mean anything... the reader is left to ponder the significance. Perhaps an index with all your little codes at the start of your scripts will help.
Uppercase for shouting. Bold for whispering. Italics for sarcasm. Underline for emphasis. A different colour of text for each character, therefore showing which character is being spoken to at any given time rather than having to tell the reader. Double underline for vehemence... etc, etc. Then, once your readers have learned the special code they can settle down to enjoy your script. Great plan.
You made the whole sentence bold, Dustin. I'm not talking about that kinda thing.
This is what I mean: GANGSTER I've warned you over and over again. (whisper) Now, I'm going to kill your daughter.
It's THAT word that requires emphasis. Not the entire sentence. If you bold the word "YOUR" then the actor saying the line knows he/she is meant to aim it at the character they're speaking to in the script.
That's what I meant.
You can still use parenthesis to convey the emotion, a beat, the tone of voice and whatnot, but specific words, IE what I mentioned above, can be emphasized if bold is used.
It's better than: GANGSTER I've warned you over and over again. (whisper) Now, I'm going to kill (intensely) your daughter.
You made the whole sentence bold, Dustin. I'm not talking about that kinda thing.
This is what I mean: GANGSTER I've warned you over and over again. (whisper) Now, I'm going to kill your daughter.
It's THAT word that requires emphasis. Not the entire sentence. If you bold the word "YOUR" then the actor saying the line knows he/she is meant to aim it at the character they're speaking to in the script.
That's what I meant.
You can still use parenthesis to convey the emotion, a beat, the tone of voice and whatnot, but specific words, IE what I mentioned above, can be emphasized if bold is used.
It's better than: GANGSTER I've warned you over and over again. (whisper) Now, I'm going to kill (intensely) your daughter.
That is the best explanation I can give.
You've just used parenthesis in your example. This discussion (between you and I) has been about using alternatives to parentheses. About how you believe parentheses are unnecessary and can be easily replaced with bold, or an underline, or italics... even all of them at once.
As you've just used them to prove your side of the discussion, I don't feel there is anything left to talk about. Cheers.
You've just used parenthesis in your example. This discussion (between you and I) has been about using alternatives to parentheses. About how you believe parentheses are unnecessary and can be easily replaced with bold, or an underline, or italics... even all of them at once.
As you've just used them to prove your side of the discussion, I don't feel there is anything left to talk about. Cheers.
Well, if this is how you're going to respond to someone having a friendly discussion with you, then we're definitely done here.
I'm not out to prove anything, Dustin. Maybe you are, but I never went into this with a "win" in my head. If anything, I was merely suggesting that ONE word in a dialogue block can be emphasized without the need of parenthesis.
Re: Using italics in respect to quoting dialogue within dialogue -- This is what I do. Saves all the pointless (mocking this character) parenthetical space.
For one word emphasis, it often only takes being underlined. What is the difference between underline and bold? Not a lot, aside from bold is not used in screenplays, underlining is. It's like changing the full stop for a bracket... throw the rule book out the window.
And stop crying like a baby, Lee. The fact that we're going back and forth means we're each trying to prove a point. Not to win, but to be the one that's right. My point is that parentheses have their uses.
Yours is that they are unnecessary. From single words to whole mimicked sentences. The narrative should naturally inform the viewer what's going on, so no need for pointers. But bold is OK, because it is pointing out the obvious. Still pointing though... perhaps point needs changing. Because, whether we point out the obvious or the not so obvious, we are still pointing. It contradicts your logic on not needing pointers, yes?
You actually called using parenthesis pointless. A pointless pointer. Unnecessary. Why, one can simply use bold.
You have suggested, in more than one thread at this site, that parentheses are unnecessary because the narrative should naturally inform the reader...
You have also stated that italics can be used instead to replace all tells in parenthesis.
For one word emphasis, it often only takes being underlined. What is the difference between underline and bold? Not a lot, aside from bold is not used in screenplays, underlining is. It's like changing the full stop for a bracket... throw the rule book out the window.
And stop crying like a baby, Lee. The fact that we're going back and forth means we're each trying to prove a point. Not to win, but to be the one that's right. My point is that parentheses have their uses.
Yours is that they are unnecessary. From single words to whole mimicked sentences. The narrative should naturally inform the viewer what's going on, so no need for pointers. But bold is OK, because it is pointing out the obvious. Still pointing though... perhaps point needs changing. Because, whether we point out the obvious or the not so obvious, we are still pointing. It contradicts your logic on not needing pointers, yes?
You actually called using parenthesis pointless. A pointless pointer. Unnecessary. Why, one can simply use bold.
Let's go about this another way, so I can remember what I said (I forget a lot). I, personally, don't use parenthesis unless it's absolutely necessary.
As examples: GUY Hi (beat) Bye.
Like so. When it comes to emotion, I leave it blank. If I need to say they're whispering, I'll use "NOTE: They whisper", rather than:
GUY (Whispering) Hey.
CHICK (Whispering) Hey.
GUY (Whispering) How you been?
CHICK (Whispering) Fine, you?
See how that could be annoying? Having to tell the reader they're whispering in every single line of dialogue would become infuriating to the reader after a while.
So: NOTE: They whisper
And the proceeding discussion would occur without the use of parenthesis, clearing 4 lines off the page immediately, creating room for action and/or more dialogue on that specific page rather than moving it to the next one.
BOLD WORDS.
This is for words that require the actor/actress to emphasize them, without resorting to the use of parenthesis, therefore saving more page space.
Example (with parenthesis) GUY I swear, I'm going to - (intensely) murder that woman.
Example (without parenthesis) GUY I swear, I'm going to murder that woman.
This allows the actor/reader to interpret that the line is meant to be spoken in a specific way, but if the line is being spoken in a scene with other characters:
GUY (Whispering) I swear, I'm going to murder that woman.
Or if it's in his head, as we all know: GUY (V.O.) (RE: Woman) I swear, I'm going to murder that woman.
--------------------
Parenthesis is useless, sometimes. A pointless pointer if you're pointing out the obvious, but if used correctly, if used in a way that isn't O-T-T, is useful.
--------------------
That's the point I wanted to make originally, but as I can't find the words sometimes, it usually takes a wake up call or two to get my brain functioning past zombie status.
Apologies if I sounded like a child earlier. I hope this clears up the confusion.
Lee, IMO, you're overdoing it if you feel the need to "note" how the character says certain words.
Using a wrylie for "yells" or "whispers" is perfectly acceptable, but you're slipping hairs if you really think you need to emphasize a portion of the dialogue.
No one will understand what your intent is with the bold stuff.
Saving lines is great, but not when you lose clarity, which is what you'll do here.
Lee, IMO, you're overdoing it if you feel the need to "note" how the character says certain words.
Using a wrylie for "yells" or "whispers" is perfectly acceptable, but you're slipping hairs if you really think you need to emphasize a portion of the dialogue.
No one will understand what your intent is with the bold stuff.
Saving lines is great, but not when you lose clarity, which is what you'll do here.
Moot point, man. I'll know what it means, but most people won't.
But I will "note" them if a conversation takes place entirely with whispering, rather than 5-10 (whispering) brackets before each dialogue block.
I mean, if I did a "whispering" thing before only 1 block for each character, then for all everyone knows, the rest of the conversation could be spoken in a louder voice.
As stated by Jeff, Lee... one word emphasis is not handled by parenthesis unless it is an unusual case. Parenthesis has a few different uses. I like to use action in mine.
Bold replaces the underline, not parenthesis. Where you have emboldened, I would underline... in fact, I wouldn't. Mostly, I leave things like that up to the actors, but if your examples were deserving of being emboldened then I would prefer to underline. The reason for that is that it is the correct way to do things. Bold is for titles and other stuff that doesn't really involve the story. Scene headings or camera directions. I don't mind bold with those because they aren't part of the narrative and simply serve to inform in some way.
Bold does work, but so does underline... so why change it?
I mean, if I did a "whispering" thing before only 1 block for each character, then for all everyone knows, the rest of the conversation could be spoken in a louder voice.
I would handle that in the action. If the scene has them whispering throughout dialogue, then rather than use parenthesis or underline, or even bold, I would simply state in the action that the characters are whispering and then write the dialogue normally.
What a thread. Without weighing into right or wrong - My personal preferences:
BOLD
I would never use to add emphasis (I actually would not use the bold anywhere). I underline for emphasis - the genesis seems pretty clear to me - you are underscoring a word. e.g.,
DICK You're wrong.
DAVE I'm wrong?
In terms of the original question of quoting dialogue within dialogue. IMO, the first question to be answered has to be - how pervasive is this going to be in the script? If it is infrequent then simple quotation marks with the occasional explanation would do just fine.
DICK What did he say?
DAVE He said that I - "don't know shit about writing."
Or use a descriptor:
DICK What did say?
DAVE That I ... (making air quotes) Don't know shit about writing.
If the quoting of dialogue is going to be pervasive throughout the script then I think you need some kind of trick to keep it from being monotonous and the exact form of the trick probably doesn't matter as long as it is clear to the reader. e.g.,
DICK What did he say?
DAVE You don't know shit about writing.
NOTE: throughout the script Dave will be directly quoting xxxxxx. This will be indicated by italics. - Or you could use brackets or italics and quotes - whatever floats your boat. It just needs to be clear.
Let's also keep in mind, that in dialogue, pretty much anything goes.
What I mean by that is that if someone is quoting someone and he comes right out and makes it clear that he's quoting someone, does anything at all need to change about that quoted dialogue?
Quotes would be the "correct" way of doing it in terms of literary writing, but again, this ain't literary writing...no one will see the dialogue (other than script readers)...they'll just here the guy talking, and in reality, you could very easily get away without doing a single thing about it being quoted.
I think I actually had some peeps quoting others in an old script - "Screwed", and I highly doubt I did anything to make it look different.
Let's also keep in mind, that in dialogue, pretty much anything goes.
What I mean by that is that if someone is quoting someone and he comes right out and makes it clear that he's quoting someone, does anything at all need to change about that quoted dialogue?
Correct - if he makes it clear that he's quoting someone then there is no issue and this entire thread is moot. However, I believe that the gist of his question was - how do I make it clear that I am quoting someone?
Quoted Text
Quotes would be the "correct" way of doing it in terms of literary writing, but again, this ain't literary writing...no one will see the dialogue (other than script readers)...they'll just here the guy talking, and in reality, you could very easily get away without doing a single thing about it being quoted.
Yes, in literary writing you would use quotes. In script writing you do not since the format has implied quotes. e.g.,
DAVE The format has implied quotes.
In literary writing = Dave said,"the format has implied quotes."
Are poster would face the same challenge in literary writing. i.e., how do I show that what someone is saying is a direct quote from something someone else said in this story?
To beat the horse completely to death - the poster is not asking about how to use quotes or italics or bold or anything else. I assume he knows. He is asking how to I make it clear throughout this script that my character is quoting the dialogue from someone else in the script.
My point is that you really don't need to use quotation marks, underlines, bolds, italics, or anything.
And let's go 1 step further...
Usually, when "quoting" dialogue, the person doesn't literally quote someone else, they paraphrase.
JEFF So, I'm standing there in the pool, and this beautiful blonde babe walks in, and asks if I'm horny.
DAVE She literally asked you if you were horny?
JEFF Yeah, then, she says that she's got a scratch she can't quite itch, and walks into the women's restroom, and gives me the eye to follow her ass in.
DAVE And?
JEFF I popped wood before I even got out of the pool and scratched that itch for her like she ain't never been scratched before.
My point is that you really don't need to use quotation marks, underlines, bolds, italics, or anything.
And let's go 1 step further...
Usually, when "quoting" dialogue, the person doesn't literally quote someone else, they paraphrase.
JEFF So, I'm standing there in the pool, and this beautiful blonde babe walks in, and asks if I'm horny.
DAVE She literally asked you if you were horny?
JEFF Yeah, then, she says that she's got a scratch she can't quite itch, and walks into the women's restroom, and gives me the eye to follow her ass in.
DAVE And?
JEFF I popped wood before I even got out of the pool and scratched that itch for her like she ain't never been scratched before.
DAVE What she'd say?
JEFF She said, Thanks, let's do it again.
DAVE BS...
Sorry for the confusion Jeff- but I modified my comment to be more specific.
Again - I feel that you are changing the framework here. Yes - they normally paraphrase. But again - that is not what the original poster is asking. In other words - to his question of how to you quote dialogue within dialogue you are saying the answer is don't do it. Okay - fair enough - but it really doesn't answer his question. IMO anyway
Sorry for the confusion Jeff- but I modified my comment to be more specific.
Again - I feel that you are changing the framework here. Yes - they normally paraphrase. But again - that is not what the original poster is asking. In other words - to his question of how to you quote dialogue within dialogue you are saying the answer is don't do it. Okay - fair enough - but it really doesn't answer his question. IMO anyway
Fair enough as well, Dave.
Maybe, what I'm saying without actually saying it, is that continually "quoting" dialogue within another character's dialogue is a mistake in itself....because, unless you're going to go for a FLASHBACK and V.O., it just isn't going to work over and over again...because peeps just don't talk like that, or if they're going to, you should jump into a FLASHBACK with V.O. to make it more visually interesting.
I don't mean to be argumentative or anything of the sort here. I just don't see how or why anyone would seriously want to set their script up like this, as it's not going to work,,,IMO, of course.
Maybe, what I'm saying without actually saying it, is that continually "quoting" dialogue within another character's dialogue is a mistake in itself....because, unless you're going to go for a FLASHBACK and V.O., it just isn't going to work over and over again...because peeps just don't talk like that, or if they're going to, you should jump into a FLASHBACK with V.O. to make it more visually interesting.
I don't mean to be argumentative or anything of the sort here. I just don't see how or why anyone would seriously want to set their script up like this, as it's not going to work,,,IMO, of course.
Maybe, what I'm saying without actually saying it, is that continually "quoting" dialogue within another character's dialogue is a mistake in itself....because, unless you're going to go for a FLASHBACK and V.O., it just isn't going to work over and over again...because peeps just don't talk like that, or if they're going to, you should jump into a FLASHBACK with V.O. to make it more visually interesting.
I don't mean to be argumentative or anything of the sort here. I just don't see how or why anyone would seriously want to set their script up like this, as it's not going to work,,,IMO, of course.
Fully agree. How hard can it be to find another way of writing this without a quote in a quote?
Every movie has its own tone. In some movies realism is not the goal. The way people speak isn't supposed to be "realistic". The whole argument "people don't speak like that" is weak, IMO. There are tons of people out there, there could be a few that DO speak like that and those could be the subject of the movie/scene. When writing most of the time one isn't looking for the most common ways of presenting everyday reality.
I want to have my character to quote another character while telling a story. This is because I want to show that this character is a great storyteller and that he's a manipulator. What he's actually quoting never happened. He's making up a lie. So I want to show that he is a very smart individual who can come up with a complicated lie on the spot. I want the audience to see him tell the story, so they can get a feel for the lengths this guy will go to. I don't want to use flashbacks and VO. It's not about being super dynamic. I want a shot on an actor's face while he speaks to the audience. So they can feel that he's manipulative, sinister, clever, just by watching him converse. That's the point of that scene.
I get what you guys are trying to say but nothing is valid across the board.
David Mamet's dialogue while quirky and weird works in his plays/movies.
I don't know if anyone here has seen some Hal Hartley movies but his dialogue isn't "realistic" but it works in his movies.
It has 38 likes and no dislikes and the movie has 7.5 on IMDB. So, a lot of people GET what Hartley is trying to do.
There's no one way to write things. Different scenes need different approaches. It all varies on what you're trying to accomplish. What's the tone you've set, what are you trying to get across. Flashback and VO may work for a movie like lets say Trainspotting but it won't work for a movie like Before Sunrise.
Pages: 
Author
Quoting dialogue within dialogue
Logged
Locked Board