POV and tone

Joshua James brings a unique perspective to craft issues, probably because he comes at it from a screen writing perspective. Until now, my favorite was his article on "static characters". But the other day, he posted one of my favorite scenes done two ways.

I didn't enjoy Miami Vice, but when I think about hostage/leverage situations, I think of the brilliant way Mann dissected the concept. It wasn't a fun movie, but it was a good movie. Heat--another brilliant Mann film, is like walking step by step through cause and effect. A Mann film is like a tech-manual.

In his post, James talked about how the right actor can make or break a scene, and after watching both versions, the made for tv pilot, and the actual scene from Heat. I have to agree with him.

But...being a writer, I could see how "voice" changed what was essentially a "blah" scene into a powerhouse. In the first video clip, there are two guys sitting at a table. The scene starts with them...er, sitting.

They talk, the camera angle doesn't move beyond a brief description, and they talk. Honestly, I got bored about three minutes in. I know this scene. I like this scene--but it sucks. The actors are not fully fleshed, the setting is as close to white room as a film can get, and the dialog plods along. The actors don't move, they have very little expression--in short, it's a horrible book.

The second scene explodes off the page. It opens with Pacino setting up for the coming talk. It's night, there's a car out on the street, Pacino is threatening. And they talk...but this time, the camera moves. Pacino moves his face, his eyes, his shoulders--he swears, he ad-libs. I watched the whole seven minute clip, and it wasn't boring. Not once.

In example one: The opening was lost. They open in the restaurant. Two guys sitting.
In example two: They open with action. Close-in shot of a gun, pounding music, it's night. Good foreshadowing.

One: They talk. The camera stays in omni pov, almost like it's fixed or something.
Two: It moves, focusing on the person with the most reaction, and the reaction is understated, letting the watcher see the subtext. Mutual respect, muted anger.

One: the dialog is as written. Sure it's workmanlike, but--it's wooden.
Two: they take it and run. They add movement, put it in their own words--Pacino drops the f-bomb constantly, but it's okay, because you know, this is the way this guy would talk.

One: the biggie Instead of developing subtext and characterization, the scene cuts to the next without explanation. Like in music, when a singer can't reach that high note, she breaks in mid-breath and pretends that's the effect she was going for.
Two: Pacino is still talking. It's a good scene. There's substance, there's tone and voice. It opens well, ends well.

Watch the scenes...

here

...and think about, opening hooks--fully developed characters, dialog that accurately reflects the way your character--in the context of this story--would talk, and dialog tags/action beats.

You can almost see--when Pacino is in the middle of a sentence, the invisible tag--he shrugged, mouth tight.