Visuals vs Dialogue

Still shiny? Good. Now, where was I? Ah yes, I was about to post about 12 Angry Men when I... well, didn't. Yes, extraciricular work has yet again prevented me from blogging like it's 2004. But fear not - I will make up for it with numerous extra posts. Like this one.

So, first on my agenda, I think I had better discuss my response to 12 Angry Men, which was a pretty unusual film. It was certainly well-directed, and the performances were far more intricate than those in most films of that time, but it did suffer from a looming sense that it was based on a stage-play. Nothing wrong with that, plays are good. But this brings up an interesting argument which I've been having with myself for a while. And, as most of you know, I can argue both sides of an argument pretty well. 'Tis a curse.

Does a film necessarily have to be led by visuals, or can the visuals supplement the dialogue-driven story? What I mean is, do films need to be told almost exclusively through visuals, as Richard pushes for? Often when I pitch ideas, they can be put to one side as either for theatre or radio. The trouble is I've no interest in writing for these platforms at the moment, so that ever-growing "stage pile" is just a nuisance. And, in fairness, I think a few of these ideas would make good short films. Okay, they require dialogue to be told, and some lack a strong visual drive, but that doesn't stop them from working as films. Very few films, and even fewer TV shows, take advantage of the visual medium in the same way that is expected of short films.

I would argue that films should use a healthy balance of visuals and dialogue (or sound, in general) to tell their story. Richard always says that if you can shut your eyes and still follow the story, then it isn't visual enough. I agree, but I also think that if you can cover your ears and still follow the story, then it's possibly too visual. Unlike radio, which is exclusively sound, film has both visuals and sound, and it should use both. And, unlike theatre, film and TV can reach much wider audiences, and are far more diverse in their ability to tell a story. That's why stage adaptations are okay - they may not be visually driven, but if it's a good story, told well, then the film will reach a much wider audience than the play could.

Since I'm more interested in writing for TV than film, this applies even more. A show like House is driven entirely by its dialogue. You'll have visual moments, but the show depends on the interaction of the characters, and the result of such interaction is dialogue. I'm currently looking forward to watching In Treatment after having it recommended by several different parties, and from what I've heard, this is even more like a play. One location, two characters, all dialogue. But that's okay. As I've said, TV can reach a much wider audience. And In Treatment seems to have been well received, proving that there is a place for such work.

To further my comparison of the two mediums, I'd add that both film and TV seem limited to Stanislavski's approach to theatre - realism. I don't think I've ever seen a film where it tries to remind you it's a work of fiction, or draw attention to the artifice, much like the theatre of Brecht. I've not seen it, but I think Dogville may be an example of this. But this approach doesn't seem to work in our industry. It can come across as cheap, and doesn't fit in with the escapism attached to film and TV.

Anyway, that was quite probably a long post which lost its way, but I hope some sense is presented. I may return to these thoughts to clarify them at some point, particularly because I don't want to be seen to oppose visual film-making. I'm merely trying to acknowledge that it's not actually as common in mainstream work as we may think.