Was Denis Villeneuve Right About Dialogue?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 лют 2025
- Get Nebula using my link for 40% off an annual subscription: go.nebula.tv/b...
Watch Taboo on Screen on Nebula: nebula.tv/taboo
Denis Villeneuve had some pretty strong words about dialogue in movies. But was he right?
Thumbnail by Hannah Raine
Follow and support this channel:
Instagram: / broey_deschanel
Patreon: / broeydeschanel
Twitter: x.com/rehash_p...
edited by @BenFromCanada
/ benchinapen
Thomas's channel:
/ @thomasflight
Jamie's website:
www.jamieloftu...
SOURCES:
Todd Berliner, “Hollywood Movie Dialogue and the ‘Real Realism’ of John Cassavetes” Film Quarterly (1999).
Kai Bird, “Guest Essay: J. Robert Oppenheimer Biographer on the Nearly Impossible Adaptation” Hollywood Reporter (2024).
Charlie Chaplin, “Pantomime and Comedy" The New York Times (1931).
Jonathan Dean, “Denis Villeneuve on Dune: Part Two - young people want longer films” The Times of London (2024).
Bilge Ebiri, “An Action Movie About Scientists Talking” Vulture (2024).
Garth Franklin, “Denis Villeneuve Says “I Don’t Hate Dialogue”” Dark Horizons (2024).
Edgar Reitz, Alexander Kluge, and Wilfriend Reinke, “Word and Film” October (1988).
Conor Truax, “Against Autofiction: Two Paths for the Internet Novel” Spike (2024).
Dziga Vertov, “We: Variant of a Manifesto” (1922).
yes I am revealing all my unpopular film opinions in the vid. sorry! and sorry for all the plosives!!! new city new mic
You're talking about zack snyder?
Good video. Its worth considering though that the "Mank wrote CK on his own" is highly HIGHLY questionable. The origin being Pauline Kael - who had a major axe to grind against "aueter theory". If you chose to accept it as true, sure. but its dubious at best
@@erikbihari3625 Was thinking the same thing
@@LuisSierra42. Fellow great mind then.
Today I learned a new term: plosive!
Dialogue to film is like lyrics and meaning to music. Its just one element, but can infuse SO much into a song if thats an element that interests you
It's like Buster Keaton once said,
" "
with that in mind though, i would have a similar position to villeneuve when it comes to music, lyrics are pretty good but when they're culturally the focus i think that's dentrimental to what the music can communicate on its own
YES. I enjoy some songs without, but my favourite have lyrics that make me feel seen, sound can make you feel but lyrics can speak on another level. Lyrics are an artform to themselves, a part of music, as is a script to a movie.
Thank you for a perfect analogy
I completely disagree when it comes to music, Dialogue is important in Movies,Shows when you have to follow the story.
I remember the first time I had realized some people really care about lyrics (when i clearly didn't at all).
I was around ~16 and a friend and I heard Eminem's new album at the time, Recovery, and he said "have you listened to "25-to-life" and I said something to the effect of "it was like just ok"... he said "what it's the best song on the album.. It's more about the lyrics" and I was just like "I don't care about the lyrics really"
Even when listening to Eminem @ like 8 years, I liked the lyrics in the way they were sang but the meaning of the lyrics of them don't mean anything at all.
I know this is true for me for example coz I listen to many, Cuban, Spanish, French songs and I can't recognize the lyrics mostly.
and this also explains the rise in K-Pop (most people don't understand the lyrics)
“Movies are being corrupted by *the TVs we’re watching them on*”. That’s how I interpreted that statement. When watching at home, people struggle to remain engaged with a film that isn’t speaking to them the whole time. In the theatre, you’re compelled to sit in silence and absorb the visuals. At home, not so much.
I haven't seen that interpretation before, but it makes perfect sense.
Yeah, pretty much what i got too
@@KillahMate Thomas makes a similar point himself in the video. I just hadn’t got to that point yet when I made my comment.
That's why I love the movies. Its psychologically different. You're a captive audience, there's nothing else to do but to witness the movie before you
During screenings of Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia and Sugarland Express, on two consecutive days, I nearly got myself arrested for freaking out on multiple assholes talking throughout. Today I made a pact with myself never to be subjected to the theater experience again. Yes, the screen and sound system are great, and maybe somehow I will be able to afford my own one day and keep everyone else out. And I know that streaming doesn’t pay anyone anything, and attending movie screenings is the only way to support the industry. But people ruin everything, and they suck. You pay an egregious amount of money and you have a fifty-fifty chance that one of the innumerable assholes on the planet are going to wander into your theater. So, you’re pretty lucky if all you’ve experienced is a bunch of people sitting in rapt attention.
Having strong opinions about your field of choice (even if they seem unreasonable to others) is how you make interesting pieces of art.
I might not agree with Villeneuve absolutely on this particular opinion but I’m very glad he holds it.
This is exactly it
This such such bs
Waiting for Villeneuve to make a piece of art that isn't just dressing
@@geekyboy6875 why? impassioned creators are a good thing
I agree, though mainly think it's funny that Villeneuve frequently comes across as so pretentious in interviews (not an insult, I love when people get pretentious), when most of his actual movies, at least recently, are all pretty mainstream and accessible (still very good and artful, but not like, something mainstream audiences can't enjoy).
I interpreted Villeneuve's comment as a shot at most big budget blockbusters these days (Superhero movies), which only take advantage of the moving image when it's time for a fight scene.
Ooo never thought about marvel dialogue
I mean, Marvel dialogue grates on people because it's so meta*, but the genre has never been, shall we say, an adherent to brevity being the soul of wit. Some of it is because they're drawing from an art form where someobody will give a whole damn speech while jumping in the air. Was certainly a prevelant part of the Superman and Batman movies. I think Raimi's Spider-Mans might be the most "tell, not show" movies ever.
*To be fair, this is sort of spiritually in line with Marvel comics. "Must be some kind of publicity stunt" is sort of the "Well, that just happened" of the 1960's. I recently came across a page of "West Coast Avengers", and holy cow, there was so much verbose irony.
Yall need to stop projecting your ego on capeshit every single time. Grow up
@ayamutakino apologies for what? For making not all men are bad garbage? Capeshit is far more tolerable than the garbage yall been glazing since the pandemic
I mean Joss Whedon wrote a lot of TV and then moved to cinema, and I think it makes sense in that regard
This reminds me of when I saw a talk from John Cleese in the early 2000s and he said that if you want creative control, you should be a writer-producer because directors are not creative. I was thinking: "that's true in YOUR movies, which sre driven by the writing, but that's not true of MOVIES in general."
This feels like the opposite side of the same coin. You can have films where the dialogue doesn't matter. There are great films like that. But it isn't a general statement about the entire medium.
Cleese also made a related comment in another talk, where someone said to him "Film is a vidual medium", to which he responded, "Life is a visual medium, yet here we are talking."
@@EphemeralTao "Life is a visual medium..."
Well for a writer, that's a terrible comeback!
Keanu Reeves says 380 words across 103 lines of dialogue in John Wick: Chapter 4. Nearly a third of Reeves' dialogue in John Wick: Chapter 4 is just one word. Reeves cut out dialogue so his character would give one-word responses.
In the first John Wick movie, which is 101 minutes long, Reeves says 484 words.
Keanu is well aware of his strengths and limitations, and he is playing on that in this franchise, and it works very well. The focus is on the choreographies and the production design. And both critics and audiences love this character.
This is a gross simplification that ignores a lot of context
I could run with that if Keanu's performance in the fourth movie wasn't one of the worst performances I've ever seen in a movie theater. Absolutely atrocious line delivery, it's obvious they cut most of his lines because they came out abhorrently. When he says "I'm gonna need a.. gun.." near the end of the movie it's almost comedic
Okay, and Keanu's performances in the sequels were far far worse then the 1st movie. He can't deliver 1 word lines that sound good. They just sound awkward.
However, in the 1st movie, there's a secene where he rants about how Vitto's son took his last bit of happiness. It's one of the best performances Keanu has ever given. It builds slowly, It's raw and has so much genuine rage in it. We needed more of that and not "yeah" over and over again.
Reeves performance in 4 was alright considering he’s playing a character that spends the entire movie being beaten and shot to death. It’s not Oscar worthy stuff but it worked and I’m not sure what anyone else was expecting going in.
Another thing I wished the public knew about is the note giving process when writing scripts. I wrote for DreamWorks for two years, and thankfully it was a great experience, but shows and movies will be ruined by studio and exec mandates because they’re often terrified of losing audiences they think are not smart enough to comprehend what’s on screen, hence the often mediocre, on the nose dialogue. That and because writers aren’t embracing the balance of subtlety and nuance in dialogue anymore. And I think it’s for the notes reason I mentioned before - because the same execs and studio heads need things spoon fed to them.
That person is my wife - it is why she loves M Night movies, because someone shows up at the end and then explains what the film is about
The irony is, the sparseness of Dune’s dialogue makes it far more memorable. Too much clever dialogue can amount to just noise. But I remember so many lines from Dune and all of Villenueve’s movies right after hearing them. I think he cares a great deal about dialogue, but to him the actor’s delivery is as important as the lines themselves. As Billy Wilder once said: “A director doesn’t need to know how to write, but it helps if they know how to read!”
I found Dune's dialogue worse than insufferable. When I saw the title/thumbnail of this video, I expected to find out that all of the dialogue was forced in by the studio. It's filled with out-of-context one liners lifted directly from the book performed by a cast of actors who have faces of marble.
I expected the Dune movies to piss all over Herbert's work, but the fact they couldn't even have satisfying dialogue is the cherry on top imo.
@JohnSearleFangirl do you feel this way exclusively for Dune PT2? Or does it include PT1?
it's not the amount but how they make it appealing to engage with the dialogue. they could make 3 hours film with a 10 minute total of dialogue and you remember it not bcs it's memorable but bcs it's that short
@@authenticNL2 I loved dune part 2 but found part 1 to be horrifically boring; perhaps that's because 80% of the story's action was in part 2, and a low-dialogue approach serves action better.
C'mon, these essays are just going from really good to great. Please keep doing what you're doing.
20:36 Herman might've conceived the plot of Citizen Kane, but his drafts (#1 and 2) were bloated 250 page behemoths with repetitive, on the nose dialogue that Orson Welles condescended into memorable images, like the dining table sequence, fleshed out Kane, and implemented the infamous elliptical structure in five subsequent drafts that he solely wrote (as Herman was writing Comrade X).
Royal Ocean Film Society has a great video about the writing of Citizen Kane.
On that note, what happened to ROFS, nothing criminal I hope?
@@kostajovanovic3711 I think he's found professional work as an editor. I heard a rumor that he's taking his time working on a project for the channel.
I think dialogue is cinematic. Yeah, I definitely get the sentiment behind the whole "I don't remember the lines, I remember the images" thing, but I, and I think most people, absolutely remember a great line of dialogue. Great lines of movie dialogue have reshaped the way people think and speak. We shouldn't give up on it.
Why should we not? I mean, you'll still have your TV for your dialog. There's not that much need to add more of dialogue into movies. Especially these days there's a lot of movies where the "filmmaking" is an afterthought, with the script being at best boring.
THIS.
Thank Gd for your statement @corbinmarley466, because I thought I was going crazy.
And for that matter, while film is a visual medium, there's a balance. Within filmmaking, there's the school of thought that once your audience has started commenting on the 'shots,' you've lost your film.
ALL of humanity understands storytelling through words, whether printed or spoken.
(And yes, in some circumstances, through visuals.)
the ppl who said that have deficiency in their brain for remembering things
"I'll have what she's having."
That's funny, as you were talking I started thinking "well a movie with absolutely incredible audiovisual wonder can still be further elevated by good dialogue, just think of Blade Runner and the tears in the rain scene" and then you mentioned just that. It's like you read my mind.
The change from silent films to 'talkies' were also explored in Babylon too, I love how during the silent era the scenes always came before the dialogue almost like an afterthought, and how the audience knew what was happening before anything was said.
Great video, love the conversation about an interesting topic! However, unfortunately, the Roy Batty's "tears in rain" line was improvised by Hauer. He actually lopped off a bunch of scripted lines and added the "tears in rain" line. This is not to undercut your larger point at all, it was just I thing I saw coming when you started talking about Bladerunner. Otherwise, thanks for the video (and providing a glimpse into Jaime's experience writing for animation).
This. Also, Batty wasn't 'defeated' by Deckard - he died. His clock was running out, which was the reason for the movie. Roy found out his incept date and went to confront his maker so he could live longer. When that wish couldn't be granted, Roy killed that man and was on the verge of killing Deckard when he rescued him instead.
Just a bit sloppier than I'm used to in these videos, TBH.
A nice addendum which, if anything, complements what she says about cinema being a collaborative art.
@@nanajp854 Yeah, reinforces the collaborative part, totally.
This essay reminded me of possibly my biggest joy in film this year: experiencing all of Mike Leigh’s filmography. His films are such an embodiment of the value of writing and also the value of creative collaboration, since so much of the characters and story are constructed with the actors in the development process. His films are well-directed and certainly have moments of visual beauty, but the detail and care paid to the scripts and the ways the performers brought them to life were what made so many of these films masterpieces. Great essay as always! :)
Mike Leigh appreciation moment!
So sad that Mike has to struggle to find funding for his movies meanwhile crap like fast n furious gets hundreds of millions of dollars greenlit
The thing about Dune the book is that it is heavy on inner monologues and that stuff is what makes it so good. Then the movie cuts all of that for visuals.
That America Ferrera speech in Barbie... It just makes me cringe so bad.
It made me die of cringe as well and I wondered If I was going insane because everyone kept praising it
Indeed
I say this as a man, but I found it pretty effective and biting. Maybe that's proof of it not being good, because you have to be fundamentally unfamiliar with those experiences for it have impact since it'll feel new.
@@rsfilmdiscussionchannel4168One criticism I saw of Ferrera's speech was that it felt "very Feminism 101." I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing - it's silly to assume everyone is on the same level of understanding when it comes to feminist topics. Still, there can be a certain amount of grace involved in the writing of such a speech, which didn't seem to be present.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
@@jaduspeaks4754 I feel like certain pieces of film criticism are often simplified and that's not always a good thing. Just reducing it down to Feminism 101 feels very buzzword rather than getting to the heart of what they're talking about. Plus, it can be misunderstood. I'd assume just saying Feminism 101 means "it's what we already know", but it could also mean "it's breaking things down and that's not a good way to get it across". Or "Oh, it's just explaining shit and breaking it down like a textbook and it doesn't work" So it's hard to work out what it means unless the person is on hand to explain it.
Not sure how that speech could have been more graceful though I do think it could have had a little bit more context and impact on the film itself.
I think what Villeneuve is getting at is that dialogue cannot carry a movie. It is an important part to most of cinematic artpieces, but movies solely driven by dialogue with a mediocre sense of visual style are not very good movies to him. And I would agree pretty much entirely with this minus maybe less than a handful of exceptions in my case. Movies that i watched and felt the power of cinema are the stories that I feel could only be explored through cinema. A movie like Sydney Lumet’s Network for example is pretty much universally acclaimed, but it’s a great piece of literary art more than it is a good movie. It has great performances and dialogue but is wholly boring visually. It could be a book or a play easily. Does that make the movie unremarkable in that sense? I think Villeneuve would say yes.
It's wild to me that Villeneuve both said he hates clunky dialogue but then praises Oppenheimer. I thought that was one of the most heavy handed, unsubtle movies I've seen in a long time.
Thank god, I'm not alone. The part where he reads the "now I have become death" line well f*cking Florence Pugh (who was playing an irl person who khs or was possibly murdered and wrote regularly about struggling with her sexuality)...I thought I was being pranked and a 13 year old wrote it.
@Emelia39 YES. I rolled my eyes so hard at that scene.
To be fair Oppenheimer looks beautiful, and communicates it's best ideas through visuals.
Me and probably 90% of the audience do not remember the amount of exposition and all that. We know what was roughly said, but we feel the images.
Nolan is a perfect example of film makers who are good visually but struggle with dialog.
@@shelleydenisonthe thing about it too was that it just felt so heavy handed but at the same time didn’t really have much of a stance or say all that much. The vibe I felt from it was just like “so, nuclear weapons, amirite? Red scare…that happened.” I ended up reading the biography this movie was based on and was even less impressed with the movie because honestly I found the real Oppenheimer to be rather pathetic.
Perfect summary of Oppenheimer! Very funny.
uploaded 3 mins ago its like i sensed there was a video i could watch to procrastinate instead of doing my work
Visuals like dialogue can be lazy. It depends on how it’s utilized. Genre also plays its part as well.
Omg Broey Deschanel and Thomas Flight, yehesssss.
Oh yeah, people love Thomas for some reason
I am definitely sick of being treated like an idiot by a films dialogue
"film's"
Ooooooh! ♫ If you want to be possessive, it's just I-T-S! But if it's supposed to be a contraction, then it's I-T-'-S ♫
The last movie I saw that had bad dialogue in one particular scene was the beginning of Smile 2; in the failed "demon transfer" process, he moans (with exposition), "Ahhh, now I have no one to transfer it to!". They didn't have to have him say it out loud; leave it be as something that people who haven't seen the 1st movie to wonder about.
I’m not super into the Smile movies, but my God that sounds like peak camp lol. I need to see this. Is it at least delivered funny?
oh boy I can't imagine you watching anime
@@Willheis93 I saw it with a friend and we had a handful of laughs but it wasn't terrible and probably more brutal than the first. The opening scene where the aforementioned dialogued occured was particularily brutal.
@@canti7951 I don't watch watch anime though I have been open to it; thanks for the warning.
He doesn't actually say that at all. The exposition in that scene is quite well done. He says stuff like "you weren't suppose to be here" & "You can't die or it won't work".
On The Substance - I felt like the dialogue was only an extension of the sound design (loved it). Tone, inflection and volume of voices were penetrative when the main character felt frenzied, desperate or fearful. The neighbor across the hall... loved how the tone of that character switched when the main characters perception of him switcperceiwe heard it as she perceived, kind of a faulty narrator. Like The Shining, but only from Wendy's persepctive and auditory lense.
Still one of the best film channels on UA-cam. Great work here. Thank you for bringing in people who actually have something to say in this topic, instead of people who have no connection to the industry. Amazing video, please keep this up. It’s needed.
I wouldn't read too much into the Villeneuve quote apart from that it's just his preference of how he likes to make movies. Especially since he clearly liked Oppenheimer. I would also guess that he's trying to get at how in many blockbuster movies, the dialogue scenes tend to be shot in a really boring way that doesn't utilize the visual language a lot. I don't think he's trying to talk down the importance of writers.
This video made me think about how so much of my Letterboxd reviews of late are "the images were beautiful, but the film is incoherent" or "the film looks great but the screenplay needs polish". You are absolutely right that film is such a collaborative art form. I can see how some artists from screenwriters to cinematographers to composers, do their best work with a certain director and the director does their best work with them. Park Chan-Wook is a great example of a director who does his best work with writer Jeong Seo-kyeong who started working with him from Lady Vengeance (and she brings in a much needed female perspective to his films). When she writes with other directors, it's never as good as her work with Park. And when Park is not directing a screenplay co-written with her, it's not as good as well.
I think Villeneuve was talking about both the overexplanatory nature of contemporary film dialogue AND the use of "perfectly rendered imagery" with little to no meaning at all. He's advocating for better visual *storytelling* - not spectacle - and more efficient dialogue, not dissing at screenwriters or dialogue itself. (edit) Plus, he's talking about HIS approach to movies and his own taste...he for sure enjoys some silent ambience.
I think you ultimately agree with him, you just maybe read his comment a little too much at face value (that's my read of course)
The "tears in the rain" line from Blade Runner was ad libbed by Rutgar Hauer by the way. It was not featured in the written script. Proving once more the complementary essence of collaboration in cinema.
As someone who doesn't like talking most of the time, I think that's really where Denis comes from. He's just kind of a quiet dude.
Roy Batty's line wasn't even something that was written, it was something the actor improvised
Actually Rutger Hauer's line in Blade Runner is product of the actor's improvisation, not written by the scriptwritters. (The "Like tears in the Rain" part, I suppose there was a dialogue part on the original script").
I think there are many examples of films with great dialogue, such as Casablanca, All About Eve, and Some Like it Hot. What makes film unique is that it is a medium that encompasses all the other mediums. Pure cinema wouldn’t have music, but music is integral to many films. I honestly wish more films had intelligent dialogue that probed the inner depths of characters, but we live in an anti-intellectual culture where people are afraid of being challenged. To me, the best directors can make dialogue cinematic. Shakespeare has been adapted brilliantly by people like Oliver and Branagh because they were able to take his language and combine it with compelling visual imagery. Directors who can’t do that obviously have limitations.
That's why the "sound" in "image and sound" means score and other non-dislogue audio.
And now we've got a medium that encompasses film, too - video games.
I kinda get what Villeneuve means. I'm a musician, but personally, I don't care about lyrics, only that they fit the rhythm and don't get in the way of the instruments, just that. And my personal frustration is how, when talking about music, lyrics are what most people notice, but what about the instrumental work?
True, a great movie experience is more than the sum of its parts, but what Villeneuve was really saying is that the strength of cinema is visual story-telling (on the grand screen), not some dialogue-heavy chamber play.
Thank you for sticking up for the writers, Maia! Love this essay.
1:17 This movie that Dennis Villeneuve described is like what watching Robot Dreams was to me, I didn't feel the lack of dialogue until an hour in.
Bro needs to watch before sunrise
Yes!!! I am in love with the film. And the opposite, Mr Robot series 4 episode five, which is 45 minutes of television, with no dialogue, where you do not feel the lack
@@d.sfilms7677good shout! I'd completely forgotten that that episode had little to no dialogue.
But that’s Richard Linklater making a Richard Linklater movie.
Yet my favourite scene is when they are in the store listening to music, stealing glances at each other without a word.
27:30 Jamie talks about not thinking visually first. Really made me take a step back and think about how all the English majors in my life (I teach digital arts at a high school) hate movies that I love, because they are truly driven by dialogue and literary framing devices over the visual. Dialogue obviously does a lot of the heavy lifting in many films, but I'm in the visuals over everything basic ass "2001 is the greatest film ever" camp.
Do you have examples other than 2001?
I was very out of the loop of cinema when I was in high school, very into English, and one film that interested me at that time was The Squid and the Whale, because of literary milieu. The directors I bookmarked to look into were the most writerly ones I could think of: David Mamet, Woody Allen and Paul Schrader. The first Art house film I went to alone was Enter the Void, and didn’t have the frame of reference to find it particularly visually extraordinary.
I associate ‘literary’ in film with character study - and films like Spencer, Carol, The Master, Tar etc. etc. are both visuals and literary movies.
Here are my favorite great-written words films of the year which also marry that dialogue to visual style: Anora, Kneecap, I Saw the TV Glow (holy cow that monologue at the end), Love Lies Bleeding. I think Denis just happens to be an image-heavy dude. As a dyed in the water of life Dune fan, I love his adaptations but I feel like a lot of really cool parts of the world were ignored because of the more minimal dialogue. There's a lot that's important in the lore that is word-based. And I think sometimes non book readers ask me questions that I can answer as a hardcore fan and they go "WOAH". But a few words might have done Denis well (though I would not change a thing about his adaptations, they're a satisfying trippy dream.) I'm a SAG-AFTRA actor auditioning for a lot of different kinds of projects so I'm getting sides and scripts all of the time. And it's not uncommon for me to go check out a filmmakers reel and see gorgeous images while being given the most poorly written dialogue to perform. My coach is often like "look, this one is really bad. just change it, give them a vibe." and there's this general rule I go by right now: if the writing is clearly bad and there was no instruction to be "absolutely word perfect", then I change what I want to in order to make it more natural and connected. And then there are scripts I get where someone clearly knows what they're doing, writing-wise, and the audition auditions itself. Even when the dialogue is more sparse, you can tell when someone knows how people talk and is shaping the scene, and when it is Sparse-Just-To-Be-Sparse. I think there's definitely an opinion floating around that "less is more" with a lot of young filmmakers---but I think there are some people who do that arbitrarily. I love seeing how a character things and who they are through when/how they're finding their words. I really feel what Jamie is sayin' with School of Rock.
100% agreed and I'm just excited that someone else is talking about Kneecap! No one I know has seen it and I'm not seeing people talk about it very much. That movie was so fun and unique and moving. I knew nothing going into it and was really pleasantly surprised.
I had such a kneejerk "lol yes queen" reaction to Villeneuve's hot take because I'm a sucker for hot takes, but on reflection, where would Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure be without its endearing dialogue? TIL Bill and Ted screenwriter Ed Solomon also wrote on Men in Black, Charlie's Angels, and the Super Mario Bros movie.
Yes, but I think the point isn't "are there good films with emphasis on dialog" but rather "is that better served on TV". Because for my money, each and every dialog heavy movie works just as well on TV in the background, whereas truly epic film masterpiece requires a huge screen and a majestic sound system.
@@nomindseye That's just not how I watch movies. I don't really have access to the ~true cinema~ fancy sound system experience, but I also wouldn't put a movie on and then not give it my full attention. Movies are pretty hard to make, so I tend to want to show a bit of respect. That isn't to say that I respect all movies, but I usually just won't watch a movie whose existence I don't respect.
Thanks to the notification for this video, I just had a flood of memories of the discourse surrounding it. Now, I’m forgetting what my stance was lmao
Pretty sure Villeneuve was taking shots at MCU.
I thought the "I am become death, destroyer of worlds" scene in Oppenheimer was cringey when I first watched it, but I couldn't put my finger on why. I agree, it's redundant and too on the nose
I completely agree. Additionally, if there was any scene that was "like television", it was this - specifically Game of Thrones. Here's some sexy people and some exposition.
Just fyi, you know theres a video of oppenheimer actually saying that right
@@blehface3000it's only his most famous quote that everyone knows? yes and that makes it even more terrible.
she jumps off his dick to grab a totally random book 'read me something oppie to make me cum' and randomly opens the book to the page with the destroyer of worlds passage lmfao. are we to infer that this experience made oppie commit that to his speech?? hahah
i swear nolan has the brain of a 13yo, he has some great talent and makes some incredible films yes, but he's also fucking stupid.😂
that moment in the film made me squirm, might have even groaned loudly. sorry fellow movie goers
It's one of Oppenheimer's most famous quotes, which is why I think Nolan wanted to fit it in somewhere. But it's not an easy piece of dialogue to fit in.
@@blehface3000 I mean yeah but he didn't say it when prompted during an intimate moment, that's what makes it redundant.
Imagine being the director behind movies like Sicario and Prisoners, and telling people that you don't like dialogue, and thet you don't find it important. Go take the dialogue out of Prisoners and then come back and tell me that its still a good movie. I dare you.
I love Denis' process for writing scripts. He writes a script, and then he storyboards the images, and then he rewrites the script, based on what he drew up in the storyboard. He believes that since film is a visual medium, the visual is the most important thing. I appreciate that view personally because I'm a visual learner.
Villeneuve is overrated. People only like his films because of the cinematography. His films would be nothing without the cinematographers he worked with. His directing is just mid.
@petermj1098 Hard disagree.
@ayamutakino Denis stands on Roger Deakins shoulders. Roger Deakins already a prolific cinematographer before he teamed with Denis. Denis’ “style” is just Roger Deakins’ “style”.
A director’s style needs to stand out from their cinematographer. It seems Denis is just emulating what Roger Deakins does all the time.
@ayamutakino Sam Raimi and Edgar Wright have their own unique styles. They also both worked with a cinematographer named Bill Pope.
A Sam Raimi film feels like a Sam Raimi film with or without Bill Pope. A Edgar Wright film feels like an Edgar Wright film with or without Bill Pope.
A Coen Brothers film feels like a Coen Brother films with or without Roger Deakins.
A Denis film always feels like Roger Deakins imitation to me.
@ayamutakino I have no problem with director and cinematographer collaborations but it is not good if that a director just lets the cinematographer do everything for him to make a film appealing. Denis doesn’t really have any unique directing techniques or framing techniques. What are his techniques?
A film is a film!
It's a combination of a script, direction, photography, music, actors, sound, VFX, great production and every other part of that project.
There are no geniuses!
It's a collaborative project!
The best pieces of movie art are always a thunder in a bottle!
To me it's just a style thing. Villeneuve's style is very heavy on the visual language, and definitely doesn't take as much advantage of dialogue as a "tool of expression" as other directors do. That's not to say that dialogue can't be utilized effectively and artfully by other directors with different styles of filmmaking. I guess it depends on whether you read his comment as a condemnation of dialogue in film in general, or just that his preference/style is to go much heavier on the visual language.
Anyway, excellent analysis!
I only saw The Revenant once and I honestly don't really think it's that great or that important of a film, but I distinctly remember being shocked, when there starts to be actual dialogue on screen, because I truly hadn't realized that the character hadn't really spoken up until that point. I didn't miss it one bit, it hadn't hurt my understanding of what was going on or what the character was feeling/meaning to convey, etc. I love dialogue on film and I love how some writers have very distinctive styles. But he's not wrong in saying that the language of cinema is so much more than that.
I remember both, but a good line beat tf out of you emotionally 😭. There's something about a great actor delivering a good line. If you've ever seen the movie Doubt, I won't spoil it, but there's that one scene with Merryll Streep and you expect the person she's talking to have a specific reaction the information they're receiving. The other actor just delivers a curt but shocking response, and it's like a car crash. You just go on this emotional roller coaster of confusion to anger to sadness but then to empathizing with this character that has suggested something so horrible. I couldn't help but wonder what kind of life did this person live to get to this point. All because of a 4 word sentence lol.
nobody is doing it like you so consistently. your analysis is actually thought provoking and original, which i feel like youtube essayists have just forgone recently
he’ll never realize his best film could never be unmarried from its dialogue - Arrival
Oh my god, that's so true !
Been looking for this comment!
Is he saying that films should be unmarried from dialogue? Or that that visuals should be the primary focus, and dialogue can be there, can be very good itself as long as it doesn't get in the way! Maybe that's why he liked Oppenheimer?
This again feels like Scorsese's MCU comments drama all over again, but more needless!
Exactly, an incredible film that is telling it's story so naturally with visuals IN ADDITION to a fantastic script and characters. It'd be a shell of the film it is if there was no dialogue. It'd lose so much complexity, impact and specificity if it was just pretty pictures and music
and, as she said, the Dune films (which i do generally like) really needed better writing. It's blunt and stiff and even great actors have a hard time breaking through it to create characters worth remembering. Without great characters your film is kneecapped from the word 'Go'
@@andrewt9128 But less dialogue doesn't mean a bad script, or no focus on script! There's more to a story and script than dialogue.
I don't agree with Denis that a movie shouldn't be dialogue driven, but people are misinterpreting his comments and bending them to something else entirely!
The Silence, Persona, Hour of the Wolf, Powaqqatsi, Naqoyqatsi, Baraka, Requiem for a Dream, Koyaanisqatsi, WALL-E, The Artist, Drive, Under the Skin, All Is Lost, The Revenant, The Tribe, A Quiet Place, The Substance.
The Before trilogy is pure dialogue and True Romance, Her, The Wizard of Oz, Dead Man Walking, The Godfather, 25th Hour, Heat, Phantom Thread, Million Dollar Baby, Good Will Hunting, Locke, Django Unchained, No Country For Old Men, A Few Good Men, Jerry Maguire, The Wolf of Wall Street, Collateral, Signs and The Shawshank Redemption are remembered equally for their standout dialogue exchanges. Then you have barely any dialogue in movies like The Road Warrior, By the Sea, A Quiet Place, Drive, The American, All is Lost and Duel that also work so it depends what best serves the narrative. I can't stand unwarranted or wasted dialogue for scenes that aren't improved by it (show don't tell as a golden rule) and a lot of movies today have far too much exposition-spouting characters that can sometimes make scenes feel lazy or unnatural.
I think writing itself is the most important element, not dialogue exactly but without good writing i dont think you can get far from there imo ❤
If you take anything away from this video, it's that film is a collaborative art form.
My main problem with auteur theory is that it undermines the collaborative art of filmmaking. It's also an outgrowth of great man theory, but that's a whole other can of worms.
Both visual storytelling and dialogue are essential for a great film.
To say dialogue is unimportant, ignores why films like "When Harry met Sally" or "The Thin Man" and countless other movies where the most memorable elements of the film are the dialogue.
I personally think Denis Villeneuve's statement about dialogue is his own insecurity about not being able to write quality dialogue.
I find it hard to believe that auteur theory has its roots on great man theory as they speak on different purpose.
At the end of the day, these directors are gonna be different and they're gonna be outspoken about how they are different. You don't go asking one director what makes a good film. Everytime I hear an artist speak about their process and vision, I can usually come up with contradictions from other artists but that doesn't really matter. I think that's just the way it is, artists have to believe in their way of doing things.
Fantasia is another example of a brilliant movie with no dialogue because it is animation following the sequences of iconic orchestral scores.
Dialogue refers to things that are not there - the camera can only show (or reference) things that are there. The camera, then, is fascistic, in the sense of not needing anything outside of its own control and presence. Dialogue is a way to traverse space and often time, it's a form of magic. A true end to dialogue would be an end to needing anything that is not present. Dialogue is the shaping of the local, of "what exists in this time and place" toward something that does not exist locally. Opposing this shaping is fascistic fantasy.
So glad to see you mention Tár! First film I thought of that demonstrates the power of strong dialogue
Another great video essay, I am really enjoying these. I studied film about 30 years ago at University when it wasn't really taken seriously. I wish all of this material was available then, what an absolute goldmine of information and opinion.
I generally like your videos, but feel like this one missed the mark. The fundamental truth is you can have a movie without dialogue, you however can not have a movie without visuals. ...that would be a radio-play.
Screenwriting does not equal dialogue. Dialogue is one piece of a script (important, yes)... however significantly more goes into a well written script, so much more is written on the page and so much more is created by the overall team of artists and craftspeople involved, including the director.
So to assume he's degrading all writing/writers because he feels too much dialogue doesn't make for good movie-making is pretty reductive.
Absolutely yes
Definitely noticed some bad dialogue in DUNE 2 which is so funny considering Villeneuve's quote. It was especially obvious in Florence's scenes and she did her best with the script!
I think that's the very point Villeneuve rises that somehow has been forgotten in this video: as an artist, if Villeneuve doesn't like dialogues it is very natural that he struggles with them and tend to focus on aspects of filmmaking that he loves more.
The reason Villenueve holds stance like that stems from his inability to work with actors, work in dialogue driven scenes. The very reason people will get tired of him sooner than they got tired of Snyder
Great video, there is just one thing i wanted to comment: at 4:55 , Dziga Vertov was not actually against talkies. He actually predicted non-silent movies in his writings, and endorsed its use in latter films of his.
What Vertov was commenting on his essay wasnt actually talkies, it was fictional movies: He understood fictional movies to be the tiranny of artforms such as literature and theather over cinema, and that movies should look for their own essence as a medium instead of relying on the assumptions created by the other arts.
Dialogue scenes, interspersed with cinematic set-pieces. In other words: Brian DePalma
I think you made a great point that people tend to respond to feeling threatened. People seem threatened by DV’s comment to the point of willfully misrepresenting his words to create more powerful self serving rhetoric in defense of something DV was never actually attacking.
One thing about t.v. is auteur writers. people know the showrunner of Dr. Who. have an idea of what Brian Fuller shows are like and the writing and directing can be connected to a sitcoms writing room and if their cast or showrunner are the same we have these discussions of the personality and skills at play on something like Always Sunny. Film directors are rarely the same and it adds to this conversation to see how that could be a sticking point to a director who doesn't screenwrite.
The Lighthouse comes firmly into my mind when I think about this. It is obviously motivated by strong visuals, but the dialogue in that film is so beautiful as well. It doesn't just color it with information, it brings a sense of time and place and raw emotion through very specific words and poetic dictation that elevate the film. When Willem Dafoe does his monologue, combined with the stark lighting, saying things like "Bellow, bid our father the Sea King rise from the depths full foul in his fury!" it is such a sensory experience, almost tactile.
And if we're talking about TV shows being like movies, I'll just say Twin Peaks (which came out in the 90's!) and leave it at that.
Seeing these debates about cinema's one primary "tool of expression" is funny to me, as someone working in video games. We have similar debates in our industry. There was a narrative vs gameplay argument. People talk about "interaction" as the one thing that's unique to games (and therefore should be pursued over everything else ?). There are arguments about the need for graphical fidelity and realism. I personnally am not too fond of "games that try too hard to be movies" (think anything by Naughty Dog or, even moreso, Quantic Dream) but that would be my own preferences and biases and I see no point in dismissing these games' unique merits.
Your video does a good job dissecting these kinds of argument and I have the same conclusions you do on the topic.
Films and games are both composite art forms, combining several other art forms to create their own unique kind of experience. There's no one true way of doing it. Animation is a completely different way of doing movies, one-shot films can't use traditional editing, there are films without music, without dialogue, and fully abstract experimental films. Likewise there are games with no story and games that are all story, some games that are all text, all sound, and some that use live action footage. So we can argue all day about what films and games should and shouldn't be or... we could just keep experimenting more and see where it leads us.
Regarding Villeneuve's comments. I think reactionary-sounding sentences like "X is worse nowadays" never mean "I have used my expertise and extensive research to conclude that X is indeed worse". They're subjective feelings expressed as a generalization, something we unfortunately all do. I think you've done a great job of exploring what Villeneuve's comments may be hinting at. From his own personal preferences and style as a filmmaker to perhaps his frustrations, worries and biases in regard to the current state of the film industry. I especially appreciate how you explained how this intersects with the context of the writers' strike. Purely theoretical arguments about the form of an art medium are fun but can often err on the side of gatekeeping and can become ideological weapons in a wider political context. In video games a very infamous example of that would be how gamergate suddenly got very passionate about the narrative vs gameplay 'debate'. This was of course an excuse to harass specific 'woke' female and minority game devs making narrative-heavy games on progressive topics.
I'm with you about the "film type" games. I love Tlou not as a game, but because I didn't have a ps3 (or was it 4?) and could just watch the whole gameplay on youtube to still enjoy the story, but not as a "gamer" but as a "viewer".
But now, as a casual gamer, I don't find it fun when the game doesn't incorporate gameplay to the narrative. My recent experience has been Mouthwashing, I tried playing it but I got frustrated quickly that the game didn't let me have power over anything and just had to follow from A to B, so I just ended up watching a 2 hour gameplay video again lol.
I’m so happy you posted 😭😭
One of my favorite movies, Quest For Fire, had zero understandable dialogue but expressed and said so much.
And Anthony Burgess invented a language for it. Basic as it was, every grunt had thought put to it.
read the original script Sheridan wrote for Sicario and then watch the film they shot and i think his comments are based on well earned experience. if they shot that screen play as written, that film would have zero legacy and is probably just considered a b-movie that came and went.
dude was already in his mid 40's before he was invited to hollywood to make a studio film in america. then he had to prove himself to the studios that he could work in their ecosystem. when your only route into studio films before 50 is reading scripts that studios are considering funding with the right director, i think you can understand that he was not "railing against screenwriters" as you put it. he finds dialogue difficult. he has praised screen writers in the same conversations he laments how difficult it is the please them when they watch the film he makes out of their words. theres so much nuance lost as you frame it as big bully bashing struggling screenwriters lmfao. that ain't it.
such a similar discussion for musicians and whether you're a 'lyrics' person or 'sound/ production' nerd. Answer is both!
For me, this is the best channel on youtube.Thoughtful, well-constructed presentations from someone who is both passionate and knowledgable about the subject matter.
And I agree with you
You need to expand your horizon
@@nalday2534suggestions?
@@kostajovanovic3711 Maggie Mae fish for starters tries to derives meaning rather than just the surface level analysis that broey often does. You'll get to know alot about a filmmaker's intention based on her analysis of shot compositions, editing and all other forms visual cues
@@nalday2534 Dude shut up. No one cares about your snarky negative comment. I like this channel a lot. It's not a big deal, it's fine.
Yes, visual storytelling is the backbone of cinema and makes up most of it's story (or lack thereof). But it depends on the person, some people prefer auditory storytelling.
"Nobody remembers a good line..."
*me, quoting the Big Lebowski 47 times a day...*
It's confusing to me that a movie like Lebowski or anything by Tarantino isn't mentioned in a video about dialogue... Tarantino's oscar collection has a word to say about Denis' opinion (ba dum tss)
to clarify. The new sound movies used static frames and set because of the limitations of microphones who were big and bulky and needed to be close to the actors. Shots like Eisenstein made such as the ones in your example were impossible to make with sound since there were not portable microphones.
Do...do people think Aaron Sorkin films are boring
38:10 I've been struggling to put into words why I didn't react to Dune and Dune 2 the same way other people did, but "formally brilliant but unenjoyable" describes how I felt about them perfectly
"pure form internet literature" sounds like reading lore on a wiki
That's essentially what the SCP Foundation is, yes.
ironic how video about importance of dialouge has no subtitles for someone from non-english background
There is this old Indian film called Pushpaka Vimana that was all film and no dialogue. It is so good, you should all check it out
A great marriage of visuals, sound, and dialogue is the "I can carry you" scene from Return of the King. The scene cannot exist without all three working together, and is one of the most universally affecting moments in all of cinema.
If you want to understand what he's talking about in his comment, just compare the early marvel movies with the current ones. (That's the industry "category" he is operating in)
There is a saying: "The TV is the center of the living room." Which means that people go about their day while the TV is on. So maybe the audience is folding the laundry or they prepare a meal in the adjacent kitchen or whatever.
That's why it is "important" for TV shows to have exposition-heavy dialog: People are not actively watching the TV screen. So in order to ensure audience engagement it is imperative to also deliver an audio book. Think of that what you will but I'm pretty sure that is what Villeneuve is getting at.
What comes to mind for me hearing Villeneuve say that is that Buster Keaton interview that I encountered long ago in Every Frame a Painting's video The Art of the Gag - Keaton remarks that he aimed to have drastically less title cards in his pictures than the average film during the silent era. I am a big time silent film buff, and often do i find myself frustrated that a film is breaking up its action with title cards that could have been communicated visually, or were just totally superfluous.
The Last Laugh (1924) and Robot Dreams (2023) are among my favorite films. They are completely dialogue free, and thats amazing. I think they are proof that dialogue is not a critical ingredient to cinema. If Villeneuve was meaning that we should have more films like those, then I agree.
very interesting point comparing good dialogue with lacking dialogue between the blade runner movies, because i agree that 2049 is one of my favorite movies because the cinematography is superb and i don't remember any dialogue either, but rutger hauer also improvised all of his speech at the end. that does still serve the greater theme of how important dialogue is in making a production though, regardless of how the dialogue itself was produced
I believe thinking in shots as complex structures is fundamental when thinking about filming matter. What i mean is, a monologue is a shot, a discussion is a shot, an epiphany kind of situation is a shot, their complexity depends on the affection sought from the spectator (or whatever word conjugates audio-visual experience). Being art, the information presented should always take that into consideration as well as the plasticity of the experience, meaning, the affection caused could deviate greatly from what's expected, and that should open discourse or dialogue around the film and the world interpretation it presents. Purity is a limitation, art should embrace liberation, collective expression by whatever means possible, enriching life and its relations. Love the work/art, bye!
Maybe it’s just me, but I totally get what he’s trying to say. It’s not that he hates dialogue-it’s more that he finds it tedious to include in his creative process. Honestly, that’s kind of funny, especially since I remember him mentioning in an old interview that he doesn’t even like his own writing.
That’s probably why he hasn’t written a script since Incendies (arguably his best movie). The guy only came back to writing because of some sandworms, lol.
Anyway, I’m a little bummed I didn’t enjoy this video as much as I usually do, but that’s how it goes sometimes. For the record, I did watch the whole thing. I just think the video could’ve been more balanced, maybe by bringing in a guest with an opposing perspective. It felt a bit one-sided at times.
That said, I still appreciated the discussion overall-it just could’ve used a little more variety in viewpoints.
PS: I don’t really have a strong stance on this topic, but I personally tend to gravitate more toward strong visuals than dialogue anyway, so I kind of get where he’s coming from.
Filmmaking is alchemy. The films that we remember are combinations of the talents and skills of a multitude capturing not only what they had prepared but what was actually produced at the moment, and then chosen, edited, sequenced into something we see as a complete product that if seen under the right conditions, and I am not only delineating between being in a cinema, or at home, watching on a big screen or a very small mobile screen, but for us, the viewer, being in the right place and time emotionally, psychologically, to connect with the film.
Sometimes this is simple, it just works, no matter where you encounter the film, no matter how it was made, no matter the characteristics of those who worked on it.
But some things, like Escape From New York, hit a generation at the right time, were made at the right time, with the right people, and go one to influence so many creators across the artistic spectrum.
The simple rules of what works is that there are no simple rules.
What I love you might hate, you might like, or you might wonder what the hell am I thinking.
But when something works, when it really works for so many of us, it's truly something wondrous.
And often unrepeatable, no matter how many involved try again, and again, and again.
I think it could also be the expectations of studios to have more and more movies be compatible with becoming like pilot episodes to franchises, especially for a lot of the high budget productions.
On my knees begging screaming crying for more Broey x Jaimie content
Seeing Thomas Flight pop up in this considering I literally just watched a video of his right before watching this is too 4th wall break. This is getting too real.
One of my favourite films this year was the animated film Flow !! no dialogue at all and an absolutely amazing cinema experience - watching it at home I probably would've gotten distracted but it was just amazing to see something with no dialogue for once and just bask in the visuals - worth being appreciated too, I felt like I was less inclined to over anylse and interpret and rather just enjoy and vibe.
There should be the option to discard dialogue and offer a completely visual experience. You mention Tár and that’s a great example of what dialogue can accomplish in a film. But on the other hand, a dialogue free film made for large audiences would be seen as completely inaccessible. There should be options for filmmakers, if Denis wants to make a film without a single spoken word with a budget, that should be possible.
I would argue even your examples further illustrate Villeneuve's perspective. Sure, the "Tears in the Rain" monologue is iconic, and perhaps you could conjure up a few more lines from Blade Runner, but it's a few from hundreds? When you recall a movie, even with great lines, like Thomas was saying, it's more about mood, framing, images, visuals. Or look at it this way: dialogue is incidental to film, but image is not. And perhaps that's why, say, Tarkovsky's musings on the human condition are more memorable and I'd argue more poignant, than Baumbach's.
Hit it out of the park with this video essay 👏👏👏
Novelisations are great for revealing a characters' inner monologue that the filmmaker deliberately left out.
(this is off topic but here we go)
Well this may sound conversa but I think just like dialogue, cuts are also ruins the natural flow of a scene. Walter murch's book states blinking is like cuting but we don't immediately move to next part of the moment. They instead should go with akira kurosawa direction in terms of flow of the scene. I love stranger things show but its standard coverage of shot are the worst for me. Yes it is easier to make a scene in a faster way but you can use his techniques to still convey emotions without cutting back in forth and obviously without dialogue.