One-sided dialogue
I’m writing a script in which a main “character” is invisible and the audience will never see or hear him. The character (Bob) is built from his interactions with the lead character in the story (Jane).
My question is, what is the best way to write dialog between the real and invisible character, when it appears as if the lead character is talking to herself?
Here are a couple examples of what I mean:
- JANE
- I’ve gotta get some food in me. You hungry…? You know I’m a vegetarian– Yeah, so…? Pork rinds are not made of real pig… Fine. You buy me a bag and I’ll read the label.
or:
- JANE
- I’ve gotta get some food in me. You hungry?
- (beat)
- You know I’m a vegetarian–
- (beat)
- Yeah, so?
- (beat)
- Pork rinds are not made of real pig.
- (beat)
- Fine. You buy me a bag and I’ll read the label.
or:
- JANE
- I’ve gotta get some food in me. You hungry?
- (Bob answers)
- You know I’m a vegetarian–
- (he cuts her off)
- Yeah, so?
- (Bob won’t shut up)
- Pork rinds are not made of real pig.
- (he begs to differ)
- Fine. You buy me a bag and I’ll read the label.
Do you think one of these options is better than the others? Do they all suck? I’d appreciate any suggestions from your own experience.
– Michael
Los Angeles, CA
You’re bumping up against one of the limitations of screenwriting: it’s hard to capture some things on paper that make perfect sense on screen. You’re trying to balance clarity with annoyance, so the reader will understand what’s happening without being aggravated by the technique.
Option one is just too dense. Option two is much easier to read, but you’re beating us to death. And option three provides more detail than we really need.
So my suggestion would be to try a combination of options two and three. Use (beat) or another short, meaningless filler such as (listens) or even (. . .) for most breaks, then provide more details (such as “he begs to differ”) on lines that need the setup.
Also, consider how often you really need to break up the lines, and look for occasions when it makes as much sense to keep them together.
It’s never going to be ideal. But if your dialogue is sharp enough, the reader will ignore the parenthetical awkwardness and enjoy the rhythms you’re setting up. That’s all you need.
Articles
April 1st, 2008 at 9:11 am
“I’ve gotta” …?!
April 1st, 2008 at 9:13 am
Great advice, as always.
As a reader, I hate parentheticals with a passion as 9/10 they’re really not necessary and just seem way too prescriptive or obvious.
However if you have an invisible character (and funnily enough, I’ve read quite a few with invisible characters or ones like in DROP DEAD FRED where a character is seen by the protagonist, but no one else), you do need them.(Beat) on its own is pretty dull though to read and quite distracting; UK readers are sometimes taught this is “American” and to avoid it on this basis too (something I always thought quite strange), so little “fillers” as John suggests could really help there.
I think another place where paretheticals are useful is when the line is ambiguous: sarcasm sometimes needs to be pointed out for example, else the focus of the scene or character motivation could change meaning.
April 1st, 2008 at 9:13 am
A fourth options could be to cut it up into seperate dialog elements:
Probably not ideal either, but this way it becomes very clear that there’s some “inaudivisible” dialog missing. If you indicate some explanation for the unusual dialog the first times it appears, it should be quite understandable later on. In the least, this may be the easiest way to write it if you’re actually typing out Bob’s response and then deleting it later.
April 1st, 2008 at 9:43 am
I’m not sure how to format it, but it seems that it would be similar to the scenes in which you only hear one half of a phone conversation.
April 1st, 2008 at 10:07 am
What about the humble ellipsis…? At least in combination with some of the other techniques.
April 1st, 2008 at 10:15 am
What’s wrong with “I’ve gotta”? In dialogue, I mean. Maybe it’s regional, but I say “I’ve gotta” in casual conversation.
April 1st, 2008 at 10:24 am
Funny enough, I love seeing “beat” in a script, specifically because I don’t have to read it. It seems boring and ubiquitous enough that I just accept it as a form of punctuation.
April 1st, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Would it be crazy to put Bob’s lines in italics?
April 1st, 2008 at 1:39 pm
I’m confused. Was this post deliberately published on April 1? Because basically, John is suggesting a combination of options one, two and three.
;)
April 1st, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Maybe you should indicate actions between the dialoge lines. You know, something like:
“I’ve gotta get some food in me. You hungry?
(She turns her head as if waiting for an answer)”
Or something like that.
By the way, great idea the one you’re working with!
April 1st, 2008 at 5:04 pm
I’m with Matt. There’s nothing wrong with “I’ve gotta” in dialogue, as long as it’s a reflection of how the character is supposed to sound. Poor or inexperienced dialogue writers often seem to err on the side of what’s “correct,” no matter how little it sounds like actual speech. For instance, I’m always amazed when I see scripts about average, contemporary American characters in which no one uses contractions. “Where are you going, Billy Bob?” “I am going to the store, Cletus. Would you like to come with me?” There really are people who can write that kind of stuff and not see (or hear) the problem. Of course, you can go too far in the other direction, especially with accents (”Come viz me to ze Caz-bah”).
April 1st, 2008 at 6:57 pm
For “I’ve gotta”, my vote goes for completely fine.
As for the script, here’s my example. I don’t know if Bob is an entity that can be seen, but not heard.
If that’s the case:
JANE I’ve gotta get some food in me. You hungry? -Bob's responses, and Jane rolls her eyes. JANE You know I’m a vegetarian... -He rudely cuts her off mid-sentence. JANE (irritated) Yeah, so? -Bob rambles on. JANE Pork rinds are not made of real pig. -Bob begs to differ, continuing the argument. JANE Fine. You buy me a bag and I’ll read the label.If not, and he’s completely invisible, it might be best to work off of her response actions.
JANE I’ve gotta get some food in me. You hungry? -Jane rolls her eyes. JANE You know I’m a vegetarian... -She becomes irritated. JANE Yeah, so? -Jane palms her face, shaking her head in frustration. JANE Pork rinds are not made of real pig. (beat, then sharply) Fine. You buy me a bag and I’ll read the label.Just a couple of suggestions.
April 1st, 2008 at 7:02 pm
“I’ve gotta” is how people speak.
Hopefully it’s not the only dialogue related nuance in your script — in which case it’s most likely just bad grammer.
Oh, and I hate writing non-audible characters in scenes (almost as much as I hate writing audible ones).
April 1st, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Thanks John and everyone else for the responses. Keep them coming. The character in this particular case will never be seen by the audience, and the only person who can interact with him is Jane. It’s sort of a “Harvey”-type character, in which the audience isn’t quite sure if he’s real or just in the head of the protagonist.
April 1st, 2008 at 10:39 pm
What about :
JANE I’ve gotta get some food in me. You hungry…?
JANE (BOB) You know I’m a vegetarian…
JANE Yeah, so?
JANE (BOB) Pork rinds are not made of real pig…
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:37 am
It may be worth the letter writer’s time to track down a script from “Harvey” and see how they did it there.
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:21 pm
I did an adaptation of Harvey, and while it’s not as good of an example as you’d think (just going from the play, you can see that often Elwood is talking to Harvey and not necessarily with), this is how I did it in one simple exchange.
In this bit, Elwood is driving a car. There are two real characters in the back seat. The passenger seat is empty. That’s for Harvey, of course.
ELWOOD (to Harvey) No, this is the best way. I disagree. Because I’ve driven it. No, that’s a horrible idea, the traffic is much worse there…
As you can see, I did away with all of the beats and implied responses. In short, I used option #1.
The one that John doesn’t like. :)
On the other hand, as I said, there weren’t too many instances of actual dialogue between Elwood and Harvey.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:25 pm
From an acting and directing standpoint, I’m wondering…
1) Can Jane see Bob? 2) Does Jane hear Bob only in her head? 3) Does Bob communicate with Jane telepathically, and if so, why doesn’t it work both ways? 3) Is Bob a spirit or ghost of some kind, or is Jane just nuts? 4) Can Jane make “eye contact” with Bob? Can she physically touch him?
The answers to these questions would determine how the actress would “interact” with Bob, and therefore how you’ll write the scenes.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:51 pm
what exactly does “beat” mean? i’m reading some screenplays online and they all have “beat”. when is it used and what for?
-amateurwriter
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:50 pm
John’s suggestion looks good to mean (and by that I mean, I like the way it looks on the page :-)
The only addition I’d make is that every once in a while, mainly to avoid driving your reader (and yourself) crazy, that you have Jane do something extensive enough to warrant breaking-up the dialog-parenthetical-dialog chains with an action block.
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:43 am
@ amateurwriter
A beat indicates a passage of time. An example:
He takes a long drag off of his cigarette while staring through the blinds into the pasture beyond. After a beat, he extinguishes the butt. He puts on his hat and makes for the door.
All a beat means here is a pause. You could say “After a long beat…” to indicate a long pause, or passage of time.
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:37 am
Firstly, Hello to all on John’s fab website. Spot the new girl…LOL.
To business:
Is Bob, Jane’s invisible self? If so why can’t Bob be a character in his own right even if we don’t see him on screen and have his own lines labelled ‘BOB’?
Or simply label lines INVISIBLE JANE? or JANE (V/O)? The cleaner the page, the more happy the reader.
I wish you luck, because it’s quite a difficult one. Ultimately, if you know the rules you can break them because it’s your screenplay… which is a liberating, but scary thought.
April 4th, 2008 at 2:40 am
I’m with ANDY – (the occasionally italicized action/presence)
If you know you’re in a new frontier, and it shows… (or at least passably resembling someone in a new frontier,) there’s nothing wrong with declaring yourself the expert on invisible-speak & adapting the technology to show it in a new way. Form Follows Function. So if your UN-PERSON happens to make it through the whole thing without being italicized… I’d think you might have skipped one of the million ways to jazz him up. (Maybe. I’d certainly look at it.)
Because John’s right… (as is his custom) you’re at war with annoyance and rhythm… so the only right way, is to use a combination of instruments, playing the dudes theme.
I’d look at it as an opportunity to find a multitude of notes, and play ‘um all… play the “I’m so clever” game till the actors wish they could have the role of “the dude who isn’t there” — and my claim is… that THAT orchestrated chaos, (which may at the outset make it seem non-commercial,) will be the exact thing that makes it commercial.
Reading recommendations: STRANGER THAN FICTION, and DROP DEAD FRED - just a thought.
-Synthian
April 5th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
The second one.
April 6th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
@ H.I. Beane Thank you for the explanation. You’ve been very helpful. :)