Words in Action

by Paolo Braga

  When did you last eat?

  NASH

  Currency exchange…

  CHARLES

  You know, food…

  NASH

  You have no respect for cognitive

  reverie, you know that?

  Charles motions for Nash to follow him:

  ← 162 | 163 → CHARLES

  Yes. But pizza… Now, pizza I have

  enormous respect for. And of course

  beer.

  The scene ends on the two walking across the library to go and get something to eat.

  For the purposes of exposition, this dialogue achieves the following results:

  •It calms the audience, revealing a character (Charles) that embodies and shares the point of view of those that lack Nash’s genius. The audience feels like someone is conducting them and feels understood in its effort to understand the subject matter it is asked to deal with.

  •The negative connotations inspired by daunting mathematical concepts are dislodged by Charles’ reference to common things that everyone can understand. Pizza and beer make quite an amusing contrast to the algorithms on the windows. Additionally, any misgivings about the complicated subject matter are put to rest by a skeptical comment on the obviousness of Nash’s premise (the line about Charles’ niece is an important piece of information as it announces a character that will be presented later on in the movie and who will have a fundamental role in triggering the final plot twist).

  •Nash’s translation of the algorithms (football players, pigeons, the woman whose purse was stolen) gives visual consistency to complex concepts and turns them into daily events that are easy to imagine. It also gives them unexpected significance. Surprisingly, Nash is in search of something that is greatly associated to our daily lives and to varying and frequent circumstances that occur.

  •Emphasis on the theme fuels curiosity. Nash says he is working on something that could have world-wide repercussions.

  Now that the library dialogue has prepared the audience, real exposition arrives inside a pub. The following scene was contrived to offer a realistic example of Nash’s mind-set.

  THE SCENE: A beautiful blonde walks inside the pub along with four brunettes who do not compare to her beauty. The protagonist and ← 163 | 164 → his four university friends, who are sitting at his table, are immediately attracted to the blonde. The young men decide to hit on the blonde. They joke that since they are all attracted to the same girl, four of them will lose. The risk of being the one left without the blonde (“And those who strike out are stuck with her friends.” “Shall we say swords, gentlemen? Pistols at dawn?”) generates irony in the dialogue (“Recall the lessons of Adam Smith, the father of modern economics.” “In competition individual ambition serves the common good.” “Every man for himself, gentlemen”).

  Just then, something is triggered in Nash’s mind. His friend’s references to Adam Smith have sparked an idea. Nash is suddenly illuminated. He stares at the group of girls and begins to explain. Meanwhile, the image on the screen helps comprehend his words.

  His reasoning is visualized through Nash’s point of view shot. The director gives the audience a first-hand look into Nash’s mind. The camera follows his thoughts through his eyes. Thus, each mathematical hypothesis voiced corresponds to an explanatory and engaging representation on the screen:

  NASH

  Adam Smith needs revision. If we

  all go for the blonde, we block

  each other. Not a single one of us

  is gonna get her…

  Nash speaks and we “see” what he says. His hypothesis is made visual and his thoughts are made real. The young blonde suddenly stands out all alone in the pub. A high-angle shot shows the blonde as Nash’s four friends stand around her in a semi-circle, like at the beginning of a dance. They each take a step forward, contemporaneously. As she refuses them, thanks to digital special effects, their image disappears in a puff of dust.

  NASH

  …So then we go for her friends,

  but they will all give us the cold

  shoulder because nobody likes to be

  second choice…

  ← 164 | 165 → Another visual example. Nash’s four friends stand in a row and walk towards the four brunettes, who also stand in a row. The brunettes refuse the four young men then dissolve into the picture.

  NASH

  …Well, what if no one goes for

  the blonde? We don’t get in each

  other’s way, and we don’t insult

  the other girls. That’s the only

  way we win. That’s the only way we

  all get laid…

  A new and conclusive visual example. The blonde disappears while each of the young men dances with one of the brunettes.

  NASH

  …Adam Smith said the best result

  comes from everyone in the group

  doing what’s best for himself,

  right?…

  His friends agree.

  NASH

  …That’s what he said, right?

  Incomplete. Incomplete, okay?

  Because the best result will come

  from everyone in the group doing

  what’s best for himself and the

  group.

  Nash is much too satisfied with himself to be bothered by Hansen’s sarcastic response:

  HANSEN

  Nash, if this is some way for you

  to get the blonde on your own, you

  can go to hell.

  ← 165 | 166 → NASH

  Governing dynamics… Governing

  dynamics… Adam Smith was wrong.

  The scene ends on Nash’s contentment as he refers to his own studies using the technical term “governing dynamics”. These are the obvious strengths of exposition:

  •The situation created by Goldsman turns Nash’s dilemma into a simple, but apparently irresolvable problem of approaching a blonde knowing that the amount of competition increases the probability of no success. When it becomes obvious that Nash has found the solution, curiosity is triggered.

  •His hypothesis is made visually concrete, and even physical, given that his example is based on primitive instincts. Instincts that have been refined through a metaphor (a ballroom dance).

  •The scene is amusing because it unexpectedly unites highs and lows (mathematics and courtship, algorithms and making love).

  •Each of Nash’s lines of reasoning end with an ironic and carnal line: “that’s the only way we all get laid” (the solution to the problem) and “some way for you to get the blonde on your own” (a general conclusion). Thus, the audience’s full concentration is rewarded with an element of humor.

  •Arriving progressively at the conclusions that contradict Adam Smith builds suspense, suspense that is fueled with each individual line. When the key conclusion (“for himself and the group”) arrives last and at the end of the scene.

  The audience feels satisfied. It has understood the problem Nash gave the solution for and it got to taste the thrill genial intuition can bring57.

  ← 166 | 167 → A dialogue in The Devil Wears Prada shows another example of how the use of metaphors can ease exposition when dealing with more technical subject matter.

  In order to make the conflict compelling, the antagonist, Miranda, needed to be given depth. In other words, there needed to be more reasons for which she is so evil. In a film in which the female protagonist is afflicted by all that working in the world of fashion entails – a world that has to do with beauty, but also passing trends, appearances, eccentricities and nonessentialities – the audience also needed to get a look at the serious and professional side of the same world. This frenetic environment had to be given meaning. It had to be made known that there are odds at stake, risks to be taken, that people need to be highly competent and skilled because they are involved in a complicated and important game. Basically, a block of exposition was necessary to explain the workings of the fashi
on world without stealing time from the comedy or Andy’s life experience. Without this exposition, all the stress and mania the characters undergo would have made the audience smile, but without fully grasping the themes of the story (innocence, the conflict between work ← 167 | 168 → and personal relationships). In fact, the audience would have shown less faith in the film’s capacity to develop real and profound subject matter.

  The screenplay responds to this rhetorical-narrative need with just the right amount of information. With regards to the world of fashion, the script explains that:

  •it is a key area that pervades modern culture and society;

  •it covers all ranks of society. New trends filter down into all circles until they are adopted by the masses, which no one is excluded from;

  •there are many circles that involve many people, a massive amount of money and jobs;

  •the system is based on the thin balance between imitation and differentiation. Creativity is found within trends, but must mark a trend with original traits for brand recognition;

  •there is a fine line between what is fashion and what is not. One must be skilled and trained to understand this difference, following closely and taking note of developments in fashion. This is also because the time factor is fundamental. Whoever works in the world of fashion must always be anticipating future trends and must make sure they catch the wave in order to ride it for all it’s worth;

  •catching the wave also means obtaining visibility. People like Miranda, who decide what will be displayed in print and what will be “on display” in shop windows, contribute just as much to the success of a new fashion as a stylist does. Something beautiful does not become successful on its own;

  •Miranda is powerful, but her power is founded on her reputation, and thus her skill. An inability to grasp even the tiniest detail would make those in the business lose respect for her and stop asking her opinion on what is fashion and what is not.

  Miranda says all this in one single monologue, with a concrete and enjoyable (for the audience) example, as she reprimands Andy in the first act of the film.

  Miranda cannot decide which accessory, of two very similar ones, to insert in a photo shoot. Andy looks at the two “almost identical” accessories and lets out a little laugh that Miranda will not let go unpunished:

  ← 168 | 169 → MIRANDA

  Oh… Okay. I see, you think this

  has nothing to do with you. You

  go to your closet and you select

  - I don’t know - that lumpy blue

  sweater, for instance because

  you’re trying to tell the world

  that you take yourself too

  seriously to care about what you

  put on your back. But what you

  don’t know is that that sweater is

  not just blue. It’s not turquoise,

  it’s not lapis: it’s actually

  cerulean. And you’re also blithely

  unaware of the fact that in 2002,

  Oscar de la Renta did a collection

  of cerulean gowns. And then I think

  it was Yves Saint Laurent - wasn’t

  it - who showed cerulean military

  jackets?

  Miranda motions to Nigel about what is missing on the outfit (“I think we need a jacket here”) and interrupts her lecture for a brief moment. Her brief parenthesis is spoken in an irritatingly cold tone and expressed with humiliating indifference. Then she begins her lecture again:

  MIRANDA

  … And then cerulean quickly showed

  up in the collections of eight

  different designers. And then

  it, uh, filtered down through

  the department stores and then

  trickled on down into some tragic

  Casual Corner where you, no doubt,

  fished it out of some clearance

  bin. However, that blue represents

  millions of dollars and countless

  jobs and it’s sort of comical how

  ← 169 | 170 → you think that you’ve made a choice

  that exempts you from the fashion

  industry when, in fact you’re

  wearing a sweater that was selected

  for you by the people in this room…

  from a pile of stuff.

  This is an excellent example of case history that serves as a fast-flowing narrative frame – the story of an invention, a detailed account of the evolution an item takes through the fashion cycle, the parable of a success story from the debut of a high-end fashion item to its end into the casual spheres of everyday society. From the beginning to the end, this piece enables the audience to visualize a concrete and tangible object – Andy’s sweater. The conflict present in the situation and the sarcastic irony in Miranda’s tone do the rest.

  The right moment for exposition

  There is a four-minute scene in The Insider where Wigand and Lowell sit inside a car, sheltered from the pouring rain. This is the scene where Wigand tells Lowell his story. He explains how a multinational tobacco company has been modifying the chemical composition of cigarettes. He justifies himself for having worked for that same company for years and explains the reasons he has been recently contracted out. This lengthy block of exposition is no burden at all on the audience. True, Al Pacino can’t be beat in the close-ups of him listening and he is talking to the infamous Russell Crowe, but there is an element of greater importance. Throughout the film, so many references have been made to the secret the protagonist is about to reveal that the audience knows the stakes are high and can’t wait to find out what he is going to say.

  Delaying the moment a block of information is revealed to instill and arouse curiosity (“the need to know”) in the audience is another way to smooth exposition. This technique creates suspense and emphasizes the importance of a certain piece of information, preparing the audience to finally receive it. In this case, the dialogue in which the ← 170 | 171 → information is finally delivered is fundamental, but not as important as the gradual progression of scenes that lead up to the moment it is all explained. This last dialogue is the final step of a narrative construction designed specifically to boost interest.

  A good example of gradually arriving at an explanation, slowly increasing the audience’s desire to know, is found in Moneyball.

  Billy (Brad Pitt), the protagonist, is a sport manager determined to transform his minor league baseball team into a team capable of winning the World Series. In his efforts to achieve his goal, Billy gets some advice from Peter (Jonah Hill), the chubby young assistant he met by chance and who has a passion for sabermetrics – statistical models applied to baseball.

  Sabermetrics examines objective data (a player’s base percentage, positions played and the strategies applied by his team) to obtain indicative percentages about which athletes are worth buying and which tactics to adopt in a game. The film – based on a true story – had to make the audience understand these studies, or at least give them the impression of having understood the logic of the methods adopted. If this hadn’t been done, and the statistics had remained an incomprehensible magic ace in the hole, the audience would have been disoriented and the twists in the story would have lost credibility.

  Disregarding the scenes in the first part of the film that concern the protagonist’s private life, the statistical method is explained through the sequence of scenes shown below. I will highlight the question the audience obviously raises at the end of each scene. Each new question is related to the previous one, developing a concatenation of interest. In the end, the expository dialogue on sabermetrics fully answers the audience’s questions.

  SCENE 1. Given the team has sold its best players, Billy asks the president of the team for money to buy new players in a re-launching campaign. The president refuses. There is no money.

  THE QUESTION: So what is Billy going to come up with now?

  SCENE 2. Billy vents in a meeting with a robus
t group of older observers – the team’s talent scouts – who are very concentrated as they ← 171 | 172 → go through an old and tiresome ritual. They are discussing who they can buy with the little money the owner has made available to them. Billy is annoyed. There’s nothing they can do. The professional baseball system penalizes minor league formations like theirs. Every year, teams with a lot of money come along and pillage the poorer teams. The poorer teams have already lost before the season begins. They need to change the rules of the game.

  THE QUESTION: Billy is thinking about radically changing the system. How will he do it?

  SCENE 3. Billy goes to the headquarters of a first-string team and negotiates to buy a first-class player, but, as is always the case, he’s too expensive. The manager who has the same role as Billy on the rival team then agrees to give him a second-class athlete. The numerous assistants on the other team all discuss the matter then whisper to the rival manager to refuse. Billy leaves with nothing obtained.

  THE QUESTION: Are we going to get through Billy’s still vague and revolutionary aspirations after yet another one of the system’s disheartening letdowns?

  SCENE 4. But Billy notices something… During the negotiations, the rival manager’s suggestion arrives from a series of whispers passed down from one assistant to the next ‒ like in the telephone game. The suggestion was originally made by a robust and clumsy young man.

  Thus, after Billy leaves the office and before leaving the rival team’s headquarters, he goes and looks for the young man. Once he has found him, he enthusiastically asks who he is and why he called a no deal on a deal that already seemed sealed. What’s more, a deal for a second-class player. The young man, Peter, feels uneasy and refuses to speak there, yet agrees to follow Billy to the parking lot where they can speak freely.

  THE QUESTION: Billy has sensed that something unusual happened during the negotiations, what?

  SCENE 5. In the parking lot, off to the side, the young man explains. This is the first block of exposition on the key, technical topic of the film.

  ← 172 | 173 → Peter is convinced that professional baseball managers are all victims of a collective hallucination. He uses the example of a first-class player that Billy’s team was forced to give up in the past because they couldn’t offer him the same amount of money a wealthier team was offering. Peter observes that enormous amounts of money are invested to buy players. No one ever stops to think, however, if these stars of the sport are really worth the high prices paid. In fact, the system is based on squandering money on overvalued players.