Words in Action

by Paolo Braga

  Initial direction

  The direction the dialogue is heading in. This second phase suggests that the initial direction of the scene must change entirely. A scene that ends with two lovers breaking up should begin with everything going well between them. Maybe it even begins with them flirting with one another.

  Conflict

  The same as with the narrative structure of the entire screenplay, there is an element of instigation, or rather, an event that ignites the story. Likewise, in each scene, there is a beat that changes the scene’s initial course of direction, placing one speaker against the other. This is the first reversal of the dialogue.

  Exposition and characterization

  Characters’ motivation is revealed within conflict.

  Information essential to understanding these motives (previous facts, fears, present disposition) is revealed. Anything not specifically related to the conflict reduces the audience’s level of tension and must be avoided.

  The way the character reacts to the pressure conflict creates, however, tells the audience a lot about his real nature.

  ← 28 | 29 → Reversal/climax

  The culmination of conflict, with the ultimate reversal of the situation between the characters.

  Follow up and bridging out

  A very brief phase to end the scene that focuses on the consequences of the dialogue. This sets up the protagonist’s next actions. The cop forced to face a past he would rather forget gives into the other speaker. In the next scene, we find him seeking out advice from an old, ex-cop – his mentor who helped him out of the trouble he had gotten himself into years before.

  The end of a scene is rarely written in a screenplay. The end of a scene is not made up of extra lines, but rather is resolved by the director and the actor with a reaction shot, or rather, a close-up of the character whose expression reveals the state of being the conflict has left him in.

  Three scenes

  The characteristics of dramatic dialogue in film can be seen in the analysis of three scenes from the films Munich, Lethal Weapon and The Best of Youth.

  These are three, well-written scenes that meet their objective, but do not provide any fundamental plot twists, which is useful in demonstrating how the law of drama always invigorates a good film even in events of lesser importance. This is where the “expertise” of the screenwriter, through specific writing techniques for film, truly emerges.

  Moreover, not one of these three scenes reveals open, verbal conflict, which demonstrates that drama does not depend on aggressiveness, but on the opposition of different objectives, values or psychological positions. Dramatic dialogue is thus open to the most various types of relationships and the greatest variety of expression, not being limited to ← 29 | 30 → offensive tit for tat. Saying that a character is a “winner” or a “loser” at the end of a scene is simply a way of representing his state of progress towards the exterior objective that motivates him (the specific goal of his action) and towards the interior objective that animates him (the basic need of bettering oneself). A verbal tug-of-war is, thus, only one of the possible alternatives.

  Munich. “Mazeltov”

  At the 1972 Olympics in Munich, eleven Jewish athletes die at the hands of the Palestinian Black September terrorist group. In the face of such savagery, the Israeli prime minister Golda Meir opts for bloody revenge and assigns Avner (Eric Bana), a Mossad agent and son of a war hero, to the job. Young Avner leaves the office job he has always known, prohibited from saying anything about the mission to his wife, who is pregnant with their first child, to lead a squad on a mission to identify and kill the organizers of the massacre in Munich. The operation is so top secret that none of the four men in the squad, like Avner, are operating agents. They are all in the reserves, dormant agents catapulted into a plan that makes them killers for the first time in their lives, an experience that will put their patriotic and ethical convictions to the test. They will verify, in fact, that revenge does not bring about justice, just more revenge.

  This is the plot of Munich, a film adaptation of the book by George Jonas, screenplay by Tony Kushner and Eric Roth and directed by Steven Spielberg in 2006.

  THE SCENE. Each time Avner organizes and carries out the killing of another Palestinian, a deeper shadow is cast within himself. This dialogue comes just before the agents’ third assassination ‒ an activist is blown to pieces when the bomb the Israeli squad planted underneath his bed in his hotel room in Cyprus explodes.

  The scene lasts one minute and a half. The squad is in the victim’s hotel room, planting the bomb that will be set off later on by a remote control. The Mossad men move unbothered and in secret. They are on the alert, but not anxious. There is no danger that they may be caught.

  ← 30 | 31 → Avner’s objective is to coordinate his men and prepare for attack.

  His inner need is to maintain a balance of mind, to possess the moral confidence that what they are doing is for the good of themselves and of their nation. It is not easy for a man whose hobby is to cook, who just a few weeks ago worked as an office clerk, to have been hurled into this new life as the leader of a murderous ambush. What’s more, back in Germany, Avner’s wife has just had their baby, a fact known to both the agent’s companions and the audience.

  PHASE I. Robert, an expert on explosives, is busy working on the bomb. Avner enters the room to give the men instructions. He tells them he will direct the assassination from the room next door. Carl (Ciarán Hinds), a calm man with great self control, who is never aggressive and is the most expert of the group, talks to Avner. Carl loves to use disillusioned irony to prod his boss.

  AVNER

  I’ve checked into the room next door.

  CARL

  Why?

  AVNER

  There are balconies. When he gets

  into bed, I give the signal by

  switching off the light.

  Avner knows what to do. He made autonomous decisions that motivate cognitive constructs. Everything seems to be going in the right direction until…

  PHASE 2. Carl pounds on the wall that separates the two rooms and asks a second question:

  CARL

  And if the bomb’s too powerful and

  you’re in the next room?

  ← 31 | 32 → This time Carl needs no clarification. He expresses doubt, but his line does even more. Carl’s tone of voice expresses only plausible concern (the actor masks his typical insinuating self that the audience knows so well), but his words are a test to see how prepared and knowledgeable Avner is, considering he’s a novice on dynamite attacks. Thus, the question relates to something new (“put him to the test”). The line begins a new beat, and not only. The line triggers conflict. It places an obstacle between them and begins to qualify Carl as the antagonist, even if not openly.

  Avner reacts, assuring Carl by getting a guarantee from Robert, the expert on explosives:

  AVNER

  (to Robert)

  Well, that won’t happen. Right?

  Robert, however, doesn’t respond… maybe the bomb really is too powerful! Avner is taken aback and becomes insistent:

  AVNER

  Robert!?

  Fortunately, the specialist was only concentrating on the bomb and didn’t hear the question:

  ROBERT

  (now listening)

  It won’t. No.

  AVNER

  Okay.

  That’s all Avner needs to hear. His concealed insecurities are dramatically revealed for a brief second, given the specialist’s late response.

  If Robert’s silence had admitted Avner’s life were at risk, a new beat would have begun. It would have marked the beginning of a new action (maybe an invitation to change plans all together or a warning to renounce all that is contrary to his way of being) and would have forced ← 32 | 33 → Avner to react conformingly. But this did not happen. Robert excluded all risk and Avner can now leave the room with assured composure, with the idea that everything is oka
y.

  But the dialogue takes a turn…

  PHASE 3. Taking advantage of the fact that the situation seems to be under control, Carl stops Avner. He asks an unexpected question in an affectionate tone:

  CARL

  Avner, boy or girl?

  Avner’s mind is unexpectedly turned to what makes him happy. All concentration disappears from his face and he smiles helplessly:

  AVNER

  A girl.

  CARL

  Mazeltov!

  In Hebrew, Mazeltov means “Congratulations” and the line is said in a warm tone of voice.

  Thus, the beat seems to be without conflict. Carl congratulates Avner and Avner accepts his congratulations and, despite the situation, Carl even adds emphasis.

  It is obvious the dialogue cannot finish on this note. The “mazeltov” would remain a superfluous happy line with little to do with what the scene had set up thus far. The beat would lack tension, except for the tension associated to the protagonist’s inner journey, which is inappropriate for a climax.

  For this reason, to upset the relaxed beat and give sense to the entire scene, the dialogue takes another turn…

  PHASE 4. Avner is now at the door to the room. He has even opened it, but is forced to stop once again. Carl approaches him and before Avner has a chance to turn around, he speaks to him, almost in a whisper. He suddenly remembers he has some news to give his boss. The victim from their last attack, who had survived but was in serious condition, died.

  ← 33 | 34 → CARL

  Ah… News from Paris. Dr. Hamshari

  succumbed to his wounds.

  (a short beat)

  So, again, mazeltov, Avner.

  Again “mazeltov”. Congratulations. This time however, it’s not for the birth of a child, but for his success in carrying out an assassination. There is a hint of provocation in Carl’s voice. The association created by repeating the Hebrew word gives it great dramatic significance. Until now, the leader of the squad was a normal person called to become an assassin. Now he is a father and an assassin. Happiness has been turned into an accusation. It’s as if Carl had said, “Congratulations, you’re a father and an assassin”.

  Avner becomes serious and turns to look Carl straight in the eye. Here the scene ends with a cut.

  The suspense, the hesitation in Carl’s voice before repeating “mazeltov”, the behavior implied by someone who wants to see what effect the word has on the other speaker, the close-up of the faces of both men to suggest that one (Carl) is, in this moment, the conscience of the other (Avner). All of it emphasizes the allusive density of the last line.

  By repeating the phrase “mazeltov” in two different contexts within such a short lapse of time, Carl connects life and death in a way the audience knows the protagonist will find unbearable. One word that had momentarily brought Avner joy, exacerbates his painful inner wound just seconds later, bringing conflict to a climax. The verbal confrontation was obviously created around this one word that would bring the scene to a climax, resounding painfully in the mind of the protagonist and leaving him troubled, a very different feeling from the self-assurance he demonstrated at the beginning of the scene.

  At first he confidently gives instructions, then makes a huge effort to remain leader of the situation and transmit confidence to the others (a new beat). Then come the unexpected congratulations (another beat) that end up bringing ethical and existential suffering. Through an articulate dialogue that makes precise turns, the scene pushed the drama a step forward.

  ← 34 | 35 → This example is quite similar to the sequence of phases mentioned above. The set-up is brief and has apparent direction (Avner gives instructions). There is conflict (the risk of being in a room next to the one with the bomb), exposition, characterization (paternity, news of the last victim’s death) and reversal (self-assurance that reverses into a crisis, what he is fighting for ends up being a huge weight on his conscience).

  Lethal Weapon. “You really like my wife’s cooking?”

  While celebrating his fiftieth birthday, sergeant Roger Murtaugh (Danny Glover) is worried that he’s getting old. He would never imagine that he is about to face the most dangerous days of his life. Teaming up with him to hunt down an unscrupulous drug-trafficking group is his new partner, Martin Riggs (Mel Gibson). On the verge of suicide, as reckless as someone with nothing left to lose, as aggressive as a Vietnam veteran and a former Green Beret, Riggs is truly a “lethal weapon”, to be handled with extreme caution.

  This is the concept of Lethal Weapon, a milestone of action films that came out in 1987 and was directed by Richard Donner and written by Shane Black. A brilliant plot that unites drama and humor, assigning complementary needs to both protagonists. Murtaugh is a good father and a good policeman who deep down, despite his love for a peaceful life, is afraid of being pushed off the front line. Since he is getting older, he would like to demonstrate that he still has stamina. Riggs is a deeply wounded man, an individualistic maverick who clings onto his job to prevent his own suicide and has a strong need for human relationships. The two become friends and help each other out, but with such different personalities, their friendship obviously only comes about after a great deal of strife.

  THE SCENE. This dialogue was written to put an end to the friction in the relationship between the two protagonists. After Riggs distinguishes himself as being reckless, forcing his partner into ruthless situations where the younger policemen ends up saving the life of the older one, this dialogue marks a truce.

  ← 35 | 36 → The scene lasts two minutes and reveals the beginning of their real, sincere friendship. It takes place after a dinner in which Murtaugh introduces his partner to his wife and children, offering Riggs a slice of humane, family routine. Murtaugh’s wife Trisha burns the pot roast, his eldest, adolescent daughter is grounded for smoking dope and the head of the family has a boat and loves boating as a hobby, even though he isn’t that much of an expert.

  At the end of the evening, the two of them are alone in the front yard.

  PHASE 1. Riggs says goodbye and Murtaugh walks him to his car. The pleasant atmosphere created during the evening indicates that the older policeman should bring up the delicate topic of their friendship.

  RIGGS

  I’m gonna go home.

  MURTAUGH

  Did we resolve anything here

  tonight?

  RIGGS

  Yeah, we resolved plenty. We know

  your wife takes out the garbage,

  your daughter smokes grass and it’s

  illegal, and you don’t know a lot

  about boats. And… you got a hell of

  a nice family there.

  MURTAUGH

  Thank you.

  RIGGS

  I enjoyed the meal. Thanks a lot.

  MURTAUGH

  Bullshit. But thanks anyway.

  ← 36 | 37 → Action: Murtaugh asks for sincerity and offers his friendship, a relationship that goes beyond their partnership. Reaction: Riggs pretends to evade the question (hence the irony about Murtaugh’s family) then agrees to enter into the personal realm by setting up their relationship with different grounds (“you got a hell of a nice family there”, a real compliment that is difficult to make because in saying it he admits his own solitude; “I enjoyed the meal”, a thank you spoken through a compliment that is easier to put into words).

  The set-up beat has ended and now conflict begins…

  PHASE 2. Riggs reaches his car, but doesn’t get in. He pauses, then turns towards Murtaugh, who has stopped a few feet behind him. In a straightforward tone he says:

  RIGGS

  You don’t trust me at all, do you?

  MURTAUGH

  I tell you what. You make it

  through tomorrow without killing

  anybody, especially me or yourself,

  then I’ll start trusting you.

  RIGGS

  Fair enough.

  New action: provoking Murta
ugh on the biases the cop has towards him, Riggs sets the conditions for their “new” relationship (total sincerity and trust). Murtaugh’s reaction: he agrees (he is sincere, he admits his preconceptions), but sets down his own conditions as well (he wants a peaceful life).

  Riggs agrees. Murtaugh’s reaction seems to close the dialogue in his favor, but…

  PHASE 3. Riggs doesn’t get into the car. He pauses, briefly reflecting on what was just said, then:

  RIGGS

  I do it real good, you know.

  ← 37 | 38 → MURTAUGH

  (hesitating)

  Do what?

  RIGGS

  When I was 19, I did a guy in Laos

  from 1000 yards out. A rifle shot in

  high wind. Maybe eight or even ten

  guys in the world could have made

  that shot. It’s the only thing I

  was ever good at.

  (a beat)

  See you tomorrow.

  “If you want to be my friend, you must accept me for who I am. I can’t change everything”. Accept him for who he is…a lethal weapon. This is what Riggs is saying. A new action corresponds to Rigg’s lines. He sets down one last condition (Riggs wants to be appreciated for who he is) and sends out a warning (his friendship is incompatible with a peaceful life).

  Murtaugh is confused. While Riggs finally gets into his car, Murtaugh is at a loss for words:

  MURTAUGH

  Yeah, see you.

  Then he shakes his head and reacts, trying to escape the difficulty. Murtaugh changes the subject to play things down. An attempt that is both comical and improbable:

  MURTAUGH

  Hey, Riggs… you really like my

  wife’s cooking?

  Riggs’ response creates one last turn in the conversation and brings us to the climax…

  PHASE 4. Riggs, silently, stares at Murtaugh with excessive seriousness. Then, in a very serious tone, says:

  ← 38 | 39 → RIGGS