Words in Action

by Paolo Braga

  The dialogue is laced with elements of humor, but it is essentially dramatic. To create the effect of a comeback within the scene (counterattack/reframing), the screenwriter gradually places the protagonist in a corner, playing on his weaknesses – the fact he is far from his family and possesses a rigid personality.

  PHASE 1: The set-up. The mistress of the house turns to Adams in search of confirmation. Her tone is naive and tinted with curiosity:

  MADAME HELVÉTIUS

  Votre nome: “Adams”… Je pense que

  vous êtes descendant du couple du

  Paradis Terrestre…

  Adams does not speak French and does not understand her. De la Luzerne, with a hint of annoyance in his voice, makes the translation. Adams misunderstands. The idiocracy of her question with reference to his ancestry makes him think that Madame Helvétius only wanted to make a witty observation. The American is thus deceived, thinking that a compliment suited to the occasion and a strained smile suffice in response:

  ADAMS

  Ah… Yes, I see… Very good, yes.

  The action is understood by Adams as “the Madame uses irony to break the ice”. Adam’s reaction is explained as “I will play your game, but with little more effort than the bare minimum”. But…

  PHASE 2: Conflict. De la Luzerne impatiently implores Adams to elaborate on his response:

  DE LA LUZERNE

  (severe)

  No?

  The line means, “So, Adams, are you or are you not a descendant of Adam and Eve’s family tree?”. Madame Helvétius was not trying to ← 84 | 85 → be witty after all… she was really interested in Adam’s biblical descent. Despite it all, he is now forced to say something a bit more pertinent. Something that does not undermine the cultural ambitions of the mistress of the house and save face:

  ADAMS

  Yes, Madame. Well, yes. My family

  resembles the first couple - both

  in name and frailty - so much

  that I have no doubt that we are

  descended from that in… in Paradis.

  Through the style of language the audience knows Adams to be proficient in and through the flattery that is not so typical of himself (paying homage by saying “Paradis” in French), Adams has struggled, but successfully put right his initial slip of the tongue. Another is soon to follow however…

  PHASE 3: Trapped in a corner. Coming to his friend’s aid, Franklin introduces de la Luzerne to Adams:

  FANKLIN

  Chevalier De La Luzerne is to be

  France’s first ambassador in the

  United States.

  The information is a shock and sparks Adam’s long suffocated sense of duty. The puritan patriot can hardly believe the opportunity to vent has risen and immediately takes on the serious and earnest attitude that suits him so well:

  ADAMS

  Oh, excellent. Well, I trust

  that you will press his majesty

  for a greater commitment on our

  behalf. The immediate support

  of the French navy is required.

  A promise of ships is all very well

  and good, but —

  ← 85 | 86 → His words are effective, but not in the way Adams had hoped. Silence falls over the table. The numerous guests that do not understand English have immediately picked up on Adam’s excited tone of voice. Through his speech, the American has violated the unspoken pact that unites them all at this banquet, where dames nibble on strawberries while batting their eyes sensuously at their gentlemen and everyone practices their skill in fostering the joy, not necessarily intellectual, of idling about. Everyone at the table is embarrassed.

  PHASE 4: Defense. Luckily, Franklin decidedly interrupts his fellow patriot before it is too late. In the interest of the other guests present, the scientist freely and diplomatically translates Adam’s small outburst:

  FRANKLIN

  Alors… Il est ravi que la

  compréhension du traité est

  encore… noigeux…

  Or rather: “Mr. Adams is pleased that the definition of the treaty” (the one they have come all the way to France for) “must still… be defined”. He lets his words be interpreted as, “Adams is pleased because now they have time to enjoy more feasts like this one”.

  Relief seems to overcome the guests.

  Having made amends, Franklin now adds, in English, a line to calm the doubts of the Madame and, most of all, to make sure Adams understands him:

  FRANKLIN

  Even in America we like to keep our

  pleasures unsullied by business…

  Adams, however, does not even have time to read beneath the lines when…

  PHASE 5: Conflict. With all of her innocence, the mistress of the house re-addresses Adams on the topic of his ancestry:

  MADAME HELVÉTIUS

  Tell me please, how did Adam and

  Eve discover the art of love?

  ← 86 | 87 → Given Adam’s Puritanism, the question could mark a point of no return. His response, in fact, initially comes with some resistance from his own embarrassment, until his own intuition comes to his aid just as he is about to fall:

  ADAMS

  (a beat)

  Well, I suppose it was simply

  by instinct, no? Whenever a man

  and woman would approach within

  striking distance of each other,

  I suppose that they would simply

  fly together, no?

  (a short beat)

  Like two objects in one of Dr.

  Franklin’s electric experiments,

  yes?

  Adams is struck with the idea for his last line as his eyes suddenly glance down at the plates depicting Franklin’s profile. The metaphor is a success. The others at the table pick up on both the irony of the comment as well as the allusion to the intimacy between Adam and Eve:

  MADAME HELVÉTIUS

  I know not how it was, but I know

  it must have been a very happy

  shock.

  DE LA LUZERNE

  Boom!

  Adams, however, will put to good use this narrow escape. He has finally understood that, to get out alive, he must blend in with the environment and use the pitfalls to his benefit.

  PHASE 6: The counterattack. Madame Helvétius speaks to de La Luzerne in French. De la Luzerne translates for Adams. They are still on the topic of leisure, intellectual leisure activities, but, as implied, that’s not all:

  ← 87 | 88 → DE LA LUZERNE

  Madame Helvétius wishes to inquire

  if you have had occasion to attend

  the opera and… les danceuses…

  The ballerinas… provoking once again Adam’s puritan instincts. His response begins completely on the wrong foot by disassociating himself from high society life, which foretells the worst is yet to come:

  ADAMS

  No no no. I regret to say I have

  no ear for “la musique”. No, I’m

  afraid my occupation allows me

  little time for the finer arts.

  Adams speaks, once again bringing the other guests into silence. Franklin scowls ‒ his friend insists on ignoring the ABCs of diplomacy! Adam’s tone, however, becomes calm and reflexive. Sentence after sentence, thought after thought, his words (never ceasing to proclaim the sacredness of work and commitment with dangerously increasing emphasis) suddenly embrace an unexpected and winning frame. His ode to dedication, without contradicting himself, ends up praising the leisurely life:

  No, I must study politics and

  war, you see, so that my sons

  will have the liberty to study

  mathematics and philosophy. My sons

  must study navigation, commerce

  and agriculture, so that their

  children… will have the right to

  study painting, poetry and music.

  Adam’s eyes shine with the knowledge he has just pulled off a difficult stunt
. Franklin is visibly pleased with his response while the other guests wait for de la Luzerne to finish translating. Finally the general buzzing of agreement is heard. Madame Helvétius breaks out in applause and speaks for everyone in French:

  ← 88 | 89 → MADAME HELVÉTIUS

  Bravo, Mr. Adams!

  The climax embraced every single element touched upon in the dialogue – duty and pleasure, Adam and Eve and his own descendance, Adam’s own rhetorical psychology and the mission that has inspired him – all within a different point of view (the dream of founding a nation) that places values in their right place, in a correct order, in harmony with the context43. ← 89 | 90 →

  _______

  23The characteristics of film dialogue illustrated herein can be attributed mostly to McKee, Story, cit., Chapter 10; John Truby, The Anatomy of Story. 22 Steps to Becoming a Master Storyteller, Faber & Faber, New York 2007, Chapter 10; William M. Aakers, Your Screenplay Sucks! 100 Ways To Make It Great, Michael Wiese Productions, Studio City, CA 2008, pp. 80-105. The writing of a scene is covered at great length in these handbooks. Other interesting lines of reasoning can be found in Karl Iglesias’ Writing for Emotional Impact. Advanced Dramatic Techniques to Attract, Engage, and Fascinate the Reader from Beginning to End, WingSpam Press, Livermore 2005, Chapter 8; Alex Epstein, Crafty Screenwriting. Writing Movies That Get Made, Henry Holt and Company, New York 2002, Chapter 5 and Idem, Crafty Tv Writing, Henry Holt and Company, New York 2006.

  24According to McKee, writing and, in retrospect, the analysis of a scene begin by identifying the different actions carried out by the character through each step of the dialogue (cfr. Idem, Story, cit., pp. 257-259). Actions should be identifiable and mentionable through an action verb (i.e. the character “is offering consolation”, or “is alluding to something”, etc.). To say it in the perspective of the pragmatics of language, it is important to identify the sequence of speech acts that constitute the dialogue. For an overview on this theoretical approach, see Stephen C. Levinson, Pragmatics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1983. McKee encourages a writer not only to identify the obvious action the character is involved in, but also the one that is not so obvious, but has deep, emotional implications for the character (i.e. the “deep” action of consoling someone could be carried out through an entirely different action that is more superficial and immediate, such as publically blaming oneself for something a friend did so that the friend feels relieved). Here, however, McKee takes for granted a key aspect in film dialogue – subtext. In other words, the more action there is through “indirect” and “implied” words, the better (which will be covered in more detail in the next two chapters).

  25The basis for scene analysis, that McKee faithfully recaps almost in its entirety, was proposed by Constantin Stanislavski in his famous method for preparing actors. Stanislavski urged performers to break scenes up into minimum units of action, also referred to as beats. Each unit is oriented towards an objective, or goal, that must be expressed through an action verb. According to Stanislavski, each objective is part of the larger objective of fulfilling the character’s ultimate personal need within the theme of the story. Sonia Moore offers a more systematic and concise explanation of Stanislavski’s method in her book The Stanislavski System, New York, Penguin 1984.

  26A beat, thus, could be conceived in the perspective of conversation analysis (CA) as a couple of conversational moves. For this particular approach see Harvey Sacks, Lectures on Conversation, Volumes I and II, edited by Gail Jefferson, with Introduction by Emanuel A. Schegloff, Blackwell, Oxford 1992.

  27Some screenwriting handbooks highlight the difference between pause and beat, the first being a choice acted out by the actor and the second being a narrative/dramaturgical unit, a constitutive part of the action told. When action changes direction, however, this change is often followed by a pause (of surprise, of reflection, etc.), in which case, the two notions are similar in meaning. Likewise, handbooks encourage writers not to write “beat” in the screenplay so as not to impose a “pause” upon the actor, but the reading of screenplays reveals that this advice is constantly forgotten by many well-known American screenwriters. Some practical suggestions on the best way to indicate a beat in a script can be found in Denny Martin Flynn, How Not to Write a Screenplay. 101 Common Mistakes Most Screenwriters Make, Lone Eagle, New York 1999, pp. 68-69.

  28Quite often, the opening of a new beat coincides with a reversal in the distribution of power between the two speakers. Using Paul Watzlawick’s categories, it could be said that the character who was in the “one-up” position loses it, leaving it to the character who was in the “one-down” position. See on this topic Paul Watzlawick, Janet Beavin Bavelas, Donald D. Jackson, Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies, and Paradoxes, W. W. Norton and Company, New York 1967, p. 69.

  29The late John Furia, screenwriter and president of the Writers Guild of America, distributed a series of notes about dialogue to his students. A note on the importance of the last word is particularly effective. “Don’t step on your best lines. Nothing blunts the impact of a good line more than the oblivious character who keeps on talking. A bore in a movie is just as much fun as a bore in real life. A strong, punchy, telling, or moving line at the end of a scene give resonance to the story.” (John Furia, A Few Notes About Diaolgue, lessons held for the Master Program in Writing and Production for Cinema and TV at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan, April 2007, mimeo).

  30These phases are based on Aakers book, Your Screenplay Sucks!, cit., pp. 85-93.

  31It is interesting to note that, until more recent revisions of the screenplay available on line, this last line was not present in Lethal Weapon’s script. The dialogue ended with Riggs highlighting his belligerent nature. Evidently the screenwriter and the director, maybe even the actors, ended up feeling the need for a more effective end with a climax that reflected the entire dialogue in the complexity of its different styles – ironic, confidential and frank. Murtaugh’s extreme change of subject to his wife’s cooking and Rigg’s “no” reactivate, in only two lines, each component of the confrontation, anchoring it to the new stage of the co-protagonists’ relationship. Without this climax, the dialogue would have only responded to the dramatic demands that had inspired it, bringing the relationship between the protagonists to a new phase. With the payoff that was set-up at the beginning, and thanks to some technical ability, the dialogue was greatly enhanced.

  32For an overview on the studies about aggressiveness in real life dialogue see Marina Mizzau, E tu allora? Il conflitto nella comunicazione quotidiana, Il Mulino, Bologna 2002 and Emanuele Arielli, Giovanni Scotto, Conflitti e mediazione. Introduzione a una teoria generale, Mondadori, Milan 2003.

  33For a direct attack in a film to be good, there should be some allusiveness with regards to the inner needs of the characters involved. Both considerations can be seen in the examples cited here. Erin works so hard to earn respect, but ends up losing the respect of her companion. Bertie needs authentic, equal relationships to get over his stammer. The three young male protagonists of The Social Network hide the typical insecurities of young men behind their competitive spirit.

  34The audience is naturally brought by the story to interpret this last message: “careful you do not betray my trust, be betraying the Stasi”. Yet at this phase of the story, Grubitz would never suspect that his subordinate has begun to empathize with the special artists he is spying on.

  35The exposure of a negative unspoken thought can also be found in dialogue when momentum is gained instinctively, but when the twist is calculating, negativity obviously produces more resent because the motive behind the emotional explosion is well thought.

  36The image of jumping off a cliff was suggested by Niccolò Dal Corso, a young creative producer.

  37A protagonist that “escapes” by simply affirming his position with greater force is not as effective.

  38Frames are the cogni
tive schemes whose sum makes up the whole of our consciences. They function as instinctive criteria for the recognition and understanding of reality, situations and discussions. The notion of frame is key in many theoretical approaches to the study of human communication: in sociology of communication, for instance, see Erving Goffman, Frame Analysis. An Essay on the Organization of Experience, Haper & Row, London 1974 and Idem, Forms of Talk, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadephia 1981; in semiotics see Umberto Eco, Kant Kant e l’ornitorinco, Bompiani, Milan 1997; trans. Kant and the Platypus: Essays on Language and Cognition, Harvest Book Harcourt, San Diego 1999), where the author discusses the connection between the notion of frame and the one of “cognitive type”. In cognitive linguistics the importance of mental frames and their functioning in the organization of our mental landscape is analyzed thoroughly in George Lakoff, Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1980 and, with focus on the role of frames in political debate, in George Lakoff, Don’t Think of an Elephant!, Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Jct., Vermont 2004. Also in negotiation theory frames are relevant. For instance, the win-lose approach to negotiation and the win-win one differ because of the opposite schemes the negotiator applies to evaluate the problem at stake and his counterpart: in the first case, the approach is conditioned by a competitive perspective, in the second one, it stems from a collaborative vision. For an overview on this topic, see Rino Rumiati, Davide Pietroni, La negoziazione. Psicologia della trattativa: come trasformare un conflitto in opportunità di sviluppo personale, organizzativo e sociale, Cortina, Milano 2001. Finally, in cognitive film studies, the frames activated by a movie, especially with its first images (“primacy effect”), are considered a crucial factor in the construction of the meaning of the story. See for example David Bordwell, Narration in the Fiction Film, Routledge, London 19902 (1985).

  39It is a case of retorsio argumenti. For a synthesis on the main rhetorical moves in debating, see Sorin Stati, Principi di analisi argomentativa, Pàtron, Bologna 2002.