That's (above) Mildred's smarmy boyfriend kissing her neck again. Boy, he can't keep his hands off her!Actually this isn't about "Mildred Pierce," it's about something written in the dialogue style of that film. The site I swiped it from didn't mention the source but I'll bet it was written by James Cain who wrote the Mildred Pierce novel, or Ranald MacDougal who wrote the screenplay. Maybe this scene was in the film and I just forgot it.
The person who put it up did two versions of the same dialogue, as a teaching tool. I love bad and better comparisons! See what you think:
THE VIEW: Bad
Mary: Look, Cliff, at that beautiful sky and the fluffy white clouds. Aren't they lovely?
Cliff: Why yes, Mary, they are truly lovely. Almost as lovely as you, my darling, in that magnificent emerald green dress that brings out the color of your eyes.
M: Oh, Cliff.
C: I knew the moment I met you that I would want to bring you here one day, to this special place. It's always meant a great deal to me, Mary.
M: Oh, Cliff.
THE VIEW: Better
M: Look at that sky! Those clouds! This place is terrific. I'm so glad you brought me here.
C: Not half as glad as I am, lady. (With a leer, perhaps)
M: There you go again. I can't trust you for a minute, can I?
C: Me? You can't trust me? I'm wounded. Injured. Deeply hurt.
M: I'll bet! Seriously, though, how did you ever happen to find this place?
C: Well, let's see. I was first brought here by a spirit guide. No? How about a gypsy fortune teller? A very small Cub Scout?
M: Can't you be serious for half a minute?
C: Maybe. (Dubiously)
M: Give it a try, why don't you?
C: All right. Half a minute's worth of serious. The truth is, I've been coming here since I was a kid. My granddad showed me the way, one of the last hikes he took me on before he died. It's always been kind of a special place. (Pause) Actually, you're the first person I've ever brought here.
M: Oh, Cliff! That makes me feel really special, too.
C: You are, kiddo. Don't you know that?
Wow! Well, the second is obviously the better version! It's a cliched style, I admit...but it works! The question is, why does it work?
Maybe cliches aren't as fatal as we've been taught. The books tell us to avoid them but I've seen them work time and time again when they're combined with inventive ideas and good word music. In my opinion the how-to-write authors did everyone a disservice when they emphasized total stylistic originality. You wonder if a lot of otherwise good authors stopped writing because of advice like this. The truth is that you can be very creative and musical within an existing style.
Hey Eddie where are you working right now? Like what do you do all day when youre not updating the blog.
ReplyDeleteI think its crazy that you and John arent working on your own show right now
Pyrotechnic wording are almost always best- the second style's cliches work beacuse they are renewed, used in a fashion that you extract their meaning rather than glazing over and hearing just another series of noises you've heard before. Renewal and enrichment is always the goal.
ReplyDeleteI'm... not sure the second version is better. In fact, I'm fairly sure it's worse, not that the first version is anything to celebrate. The second pass, though, leaves no room for nuance in the (eventual) performances, and the writer makes the mistake of attempting to shoulder the weight of the flirtation/innuendo/romance all on their own. Not that I'm an expert, but it seems to me that this is a mistake less-experienced writers often make, thinking that the subtext needs to be right on the surface of their dialogue. Notice even the way they attempt to control the performances-- "With a leer, perhaps." This demonstrates no faith in the ability of an actor-- through their own choices of expression, inflection, and presence-- to imbue simple, concise words and phrases with all their necessary, interesting meaning. It's easy for a screenwriter to forget that these will be motion pictures, and that it's almost always more interesting to depend on the face, and the eyes, and the physicality than it is to depend on the dialogue. It sounds strange, maybe, but I think the most effective film writing is that which capitalizes on the medium's greatest strengths, and often simplicity and straightforwardness are the best ways to do this. As written, that second version would eat up valuable storytelling time, and in the end, won't do anything but call attention to the writer's "pyrotechnics," as it were. The first, while obviously no great shakes, at least gives the director and actors something to work with. Just my opinion. Love your blog, Eddie.
ReplyDeleteeek
ReplyDeleteA well placed loud Fart at the end of the dialogue would make it even more entertaining ;)
ReplyDeleteI love your blog! Is super cool clean fun with occasional nudes! Awesumness. :D
ReplyDelete-Or you could use this example from Tex Avery's "HAMATEUR NIGHT":
ReplyDeleteJULIETTE:
"Romeo, Romeo, where for art thou, Romeo?"
ROMEO:
"Here, my love, in the bushes at the bottom of the garden..."
I agree with Eddie. In style, originality is not necessary. What is necessary is that the style be suitable to its subject and the author's purposes. In fact, if we absolutely insist on originality, we get style that does not suit its subject or purpose. We get eccentricity, in other words.
ReplyDeleteThe second one actual SEEMS like a conversation two people might actually have, except it's been streamlined to be absorbed readily by an audience. In fact i think i've heard similar dialogue in more modern movies that doesn't work quite as well as this, where the illusion of the characters playfully jabbing at each other is more transparent. In fact it's pretty transparent in this case, but maybe only by comparison to the straightforward version. Or perhaps because it is clichéd. If that's the case then this is a very artful use of the cliché.
ReplyDeleteI really like the idea of of utilizing clichés and pushing them to their limits. I think a true genius would realize that all styles are useful for something, and that' there's no sense in avoiding something useful just because others rule it out. In lesser hands, this style would have flopped hard, but in this case the writer has polished it into gold.
kalen:
ReplyDeletei hear what you're saying about simplicity, but i don't agree with your argument for keeping it short to conserve "valuable storytelling time." Squeezing in plot points works on the premise that moving the story is most important aspect of a film. However, as you said, the performance of the actors is of equal if not greater entertainment value than the story. I prefer movies that are paced patiently enough to allow for little diversions like this. In fact mot of my favorite movies are full of scenes that have almost nothing to do with the plot, but have everything to do with the characters' personality. It's almost like picking your friends based on how they could serve you best rather than choosing the ones whose company you enjoy most.
If i were acting out this scene I'd be much more excited to play around with the second version. The only draw the first would have to me would be in challenge of trying to breath life into that hokey dialogue.
man, i wish blogger had some sort of automated system of responding directly to comments, notifications and all. Like the way you can in livejournal, and most forums.
ReplyDeleteAnon: I'm just freelancing now, that and writing a live-action comedy script on spec. You can see why I'm interested in the subject of dialogue.
ReplyDeleteKalen: Interesting ideas! The Mildred Pierce dialogue I posted was definitely dialogue heavy, but the whole film wasn't like that. Some of the scenes in the picture were visual, some were acting intensive and some played off different kinds of rhythym in the writing.
Minimal scripts that are acting intensive run the risk of self-indulgent performances, but I wouldn't be surprised if some people managed to pull it off. If you know of a good example why not post about it?
Nate: I like that analogy about choosing friends!
ReplyDeleteSorry..."Rhythm".
ReplyDeletehey eddie!
ReplyDeleteI posted my Jim Tyer comic! Go check it out!
I fear I'm about to go on too long, and I apologize sincerely. This is really fun, though!
ReplyDeleteWell, "story" and "characters" aren't necessarily contrasting things, I don't think. I certainly wasn't advocating that this scene be shorter in aid of cramming as many story twists in as possible. How about "Jackie Brown" as a semi-recent example-- there are a whole lot of words flying around in that movie, and a whole lot of stylized and "extraneous" dialogue plot-wise, but none of them are misplaced or redundant. They're always informing the characters, or the situation, or whatever. It's a very, very tough balance to maintain, and it's why Tarantino deserves all his accolades. In our example, look at the way that the woman character has to say "Seriously, though," just to get the story-- in this case, the progression of the dialogue-- back on track. Again, "story" being different than "plot."
What I mostly meant was that everything that the second one tries to do with words and stage direction can be done with far fewer words and a greater reliance on inflection, physicality and shot selection, plus you'd save a little time to accomplish other things (almost always a desirable thing to do). There's no reason to keep an audience stuck in a scene that's just spinning its wheels... and I say that being a guy who loves Cassavetes!
I think you could get the same (and probably a more resonant and realistic) effect without all the cute stuff. In the first version (again, not that it's "good"), the characters could be played as cunning, menacing, romantic, cute, sober, etc., and in the second they're pretty boxed into fixed personalities. It's work that the writer needn't and shouldn't do. David Mamet likes to talk about the way that every single scene in a script, and even every single line within every single scene, ought to move things forward somehow. And this is Mamet, Mr. Style-Talk himself.
Eddie, I love what you said about "word music," and notice even that one of your favorite movies is Clash by Night. That's a great example of heavily stylized dialogue that's perpetually in service of the characters AND the story. I love every scene in that movie, and especially love the way everything Robert Ryan says in the first half of the movie is endearing to one character and completely irritating to the others. That's tricky writing and tricky acting working in a completely harmonious way.
Anyway... sorry again for going on and on! It's great to have a format for this stuff.
Speaking of Joan Crawford, I'm curious: you must have seen "Humoresque"--what are your impressions of that one? It's got some great scenes, in fact pretty much is one great scene.
ReplyDeleteeddie, good luck with your comedy script. god willing it will get made!!!
ReplyDeletei like the second version because it is entertaining. the man is using humor to charm the woman and then he switches to sincerety in the revelation about his grandad... that turns to sentiment and vulnerability, all interesting emotions. the actor could even play against them in subtext, the humor could have either melancholy or lustful subtext and the sentiment could be played be the guy secretly knowing he's not telling the truth...
the woman doesn't get a whole lot to play in this scene, though. that's the chauvanistic 40's for you i guess...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI certainly wasn't advocating that this scene be shorter in aid of cramming as many story twists in as possible.
ReplyDeletethat's what I thought you meant when I "eeked".
I still think your argument is tantamount to saying that the first version is better because it is under-written, therefore the actors have more room for discovery. that might even be true, but the language is no fun to listen to.
What I like about old movies is they were not really interested in projecting reality with all its banalities. They pretended that almost everyone was witty or entertaining. It's not true, it's not like real life, and I don't care. Somehow it was usually believeable. I miss it. Find me a modern film that crackles like MALTESE FALCON or THE BIG SLEEP. I bet you can't.
Jenny, I think "Humoresque" was one of the few "classical musicals" that were really good. Maybe the only one. Great use of Wagner in the suicide scene!
ReplyDeleteAgain, I'm having a blast with all this.
ReplyDeleteBut in quick response, i.d.r.c., how about Glengarry Glen Ross, one of the best movies of the '90s? Or Do the Right Thing, one of the all-time great dialogue/character pieces? Or something more contemporary... how about Deadwood? Flashy wordplay in tandem with deep and penetrating social/character insights.
Or even The Big Lebowski (which, admittedly, borrows some of its language patterns from those very movies you referenced... but not entirely), or Fargo. Or Pulp Fiction, which someone could conceivably use to blow my entire argument back into my face (though I'd argue back, that's a movie where the whole story IS the style). Or Out of Sight, which has as much style as The Big Sleep, and even manages to up the ante in terms of flat-out sex appeal. Gosford Park, too.
I'll get out of the way after this post, as I'm probably becoming a nuisance... I definitely respect everyone's opinion here, and I'm really loving considering these arguments-- but I really believe that the second version reads better than it would actually play. In my minimal experience, I've been in situations where a scene I've written-- which seems to soar on the page-- plays like a lead balloon on film. I think those great dialogue movies APPEAR to be free-flowing, but are actually quite a bit tighter than we may remember them. It's all about the power of suggestion, and choice phrases.
Again-- that first version is BAD. There's no flavor at all, and who wants to listen to cardboard dialogue? I simply find the second to be a sugar overload, which is worse, as there's no nutrition at all, and no space left to build.
Whew... okay! Thanks again for the room to talk, Eddie. By the way-- it occurred to me. Do you love Clash by Night because the wonderful Paul Douglas reminds you of yourself, you ol' bear, you?
I'm the one who made it a challenge, so I guess you win.
ReplyDeleteYou cite some pretty good examples, and I almost excepted Glengarry from the deal... but not many of them are really recent. They are also few and far between, and as you acknowlege yourself, the Cohen brothers are already playing on my team. Everything they do is conscientiously either straight-up or semi-homage to the screen values of the ancient past.
I simply find the second to be a sugar overload, which is worse, as there's no nutrition at all, and no space left to build.
It's out of context. It could easily be from a very bad or a very good film. But whether it actually works when the cameras are rolling, I just don't see how the first one has a better chance of success, unless the actors find things in it to express that are not even implied.
And there we totally, totally, totally agree. Either scene would depend completely on the intent and quality of the film around it. As with any narrative, the overall success depends on the snowball effect.
ReplyDeleteHats off... we both win.
Kalen: Paul Douglas!!??? He reminds you of ME!!!???? For Pete's Sake, I'm nothing like Paul
ReplyDeleteDouglas! For me picture the young Sean Connery combined with Jim Carey, a cosmopolitan man with flair. Very suave, very continental!
I like Clash because the writing, acting and directing are all terrific. I tried to read some other Odetts plays but they didn't come off well on the page.
Will: Nice analysis! I'll add to that the observation that people in this scene seem to be very upright and dignified. Even their love life is constrained by a sense of duty and ritual. People are social and philosophical creatures and I like dialogue that reflects that.
ReplyDelete"the woman doesn't get a whole lot to play in this scene, though. that's the chauvanistic 40's for you i guess..."
ReplyDeleteAh but Will--the 40s were arguably woman's great era for strong parts in film stories. i.e., For all the mixed messages in "Mildred Pierce", it's Mildred's and Crawford's movie all the way.
You're right, though--the woman gets short shift in the dialog here--and usually does in films today. I saw 'The Bourne Whatever' last night(richly enjoyed it btw) and Julia Stiles, a terrific actress with an especially terrific, unusually deep voice is in it as "the girl". She's playing a crack secret agent but has little to do but look worried. Of course it's not supposed to be an Ibsen play, but... ; )
Will, Jenny: I can think of lots of films where women's roles were over-done. How did you like the way thin little boulemic Knightley bossed around the pirates in the "Pirates of the Carribean" pictures or the way so many recent James Bonds had to have a Sally Bond?
ReplyDelete