I don't think subtext is just a fun addition. It's crucial. It's the space where the audience steps in and participates. Without subtext, it's not a story, but a lecture. We're fundamentally programed to look for subtext, and if it's not there, or if it's too impenetrable, we'll make up our own. Look at Room 237. People either couldn't get to the bottom of The Shining, or they became addicted to finding more and more layers of meaning, to the point they started reading subtext that isn't there. And the truth is, real life is packed with subtext, which we're constantly tuning into, whether we know it or not. We know when "bless your heart" means "F you." We know when "maybe" means "no," whether we want to admit it or not. We often deliberately ignore obvious subtext because it's telling us what we don't want to hear. Or we read subtext into things whether it's there or not, because we tend to make everything about the one particular battle we're fighting. "Everything is woke!" or else "Everything needs to be woke!" What's so great about great subtext is how much you can pack into it. Syd Field, or Robert McKee, one of them, described a screenplay as like a haiku. It's only 120 pages, with lots of blank space, but it can pack as much substance into it as a sprawling novel, because each line is carefully crafted to have the maximum of meaning. Even Tarantino's seemingly rambling scripts follow this rule. What seems to be a conversation with nothing to do with the story at hand actually has everything to do with it. Mia Wallace's seemingly incidental story about starring in a pilot that went nowhere speaks to her sense of camaraderie with Vincent. The woman who seems to have everything she wants is actually a reject from the world she really wanted. They're both failures, numbing their disappointment with their drug of choice. The subtext allows the story of Mia Wallace to bleed far beyond the runtime of the film, just as effectively as if she'd had multiple flashback chapters detailing it out. We infer all those chapters from the hints in the script, and Uma Thurman's subtly haunted performance. Even the characters' similar hair suggests a synchronistic connection. So I find subtext not just extra story in the story, but the real story beneath the story.
Tarrantino writes great dialogue but he sometimes falls so in love with it that he will sacrifice rhythm for one more bit of catchy prose. Imo, the Coen brothers perfectly mesh both to create tight character driven stories.
*Every circle begins with its end.* Reflection is both key and lock. 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ "Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins..." --DD1 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
Anakin talks and acts like this because he's trying to emulate darth vader. He's also trying not to show how angry and vulnerable he is, so he doesn't feel like a real person because he's hiding who he is. The story is about his fall to the dark side, and how bottling up his problems and the inability of those around him tonsee those problems led to him becoming who he did.
The problem with your critique of the sand dialogue is that you're only looking at the line in isolation. Anakin is actually trying to make a move on Padme by poorly directing the conversation toward his affection for her if you review the whole thing. It's completely in line with his intentions and general approach. The real problem is Padme's lack of response. It ruins their dynamic that requires her to humble Anakin whenever he imposes himself.
It's still clumsily written, redundant, and poorly delivered. It doesn't seem like an awkward teenager trying to be surreptitious, but a stiff actor. Of course, listening is just as important a skill in acting, and Natalie Portman doesn't seem to be listening at all, let alone reacting. But given her string of epic performances going all the way back to her debut at age 12, I'm a little reluctant to blame the problem on her. I think the issue is probably George. He's brilliant in so many ways, but his directing skills aren't among them. Once he became a superstar, by all accounts, including his own, he stopped listening to anyone, and his work suffered enormously. Film is a fundamentally collaborative medium. It needs to be. There are too many elements for one person to be the final expert on all of them. And when directors refuse to admit when their work isn't working, it undermines even the greatest talent. Look what happened to M. Night Shyamalan.
@@rottensquid I'm not talking about Natalie Portman. I'm specifically talking about how her character was written in that scene. Anakin's dissonant line about sand, despite being somewhat related to Padme reminiscing about her time at the beach, goes in line with his intention and general approach to things. He's impulsive, and a moment in which he could be alone with her would obviously excite him to not really think over his approach. It all goes in line with his possessive attitude that is the crux of his arc. There's a lack of self-awareness that Padme has knowingly exposed before and could be the perfect reason for her to act more distant despite having feelings for him in that situation. Instead, she submits to him. The overall problem stems from George wanting to keep the pacing more in line with Obi-Wan's mystery plot.
@@lazedreamor2318 Fair enough. It certainly grows more awkward being taken from context. But yeah, her experience of sand vs us, ultimately, paints a dramatic picture of the two characters' conflicting life-experiences, with her coming from privilege, even the privilege of social responsibility, and him coming from a complete lack of it. As is very often the case, there's a rich, nuanced story in there, but the redundant dialog choice, the awkward delivery, don't quite nail that story. I understand and agree about how Anakin's delivery is meant to be awkward. But it just doesn't imply the character's true intention. And that's kinda the job of acting, and of directing, to guide the actor so that the audience can really feel the true intention beneath the distracting words. The subtext, in other words. We can guess at the subtext from context clues, but we need to feel the actor say "I want you," beneath his actual words. And we don't. But of course, a single ineffective line delivery isn't a catastrophic failure of the movie. I think this is a case where the internet dogpiles on a scene because it's fun to jump on the bandwagon of negativity. But it's such a tiresome, short-sighted kind of fun. I'd much rather enjoy things than tear them down. So I agree there's far more virtue in seeing the good in the film, and even the scene, than calling out any flaws.
There's no defending the actual lines he's speaking though. It gets everywhere .... yeah that's so great to use when flirting lol. It's just a bad analogy is all
@@film_magician If you're going to refute my argument as if I'm wrestling against some kind of axiomatic law, then it's better to treat me like I'm crazy by not replying at all tbh.
Weird question, do you think subtext can be too on the nose? We can clearly see what (trinity killer) is talking about, which is great, but can that ever be TOO ham fisted or on the nose?
I think subtext is a double-edged sword. It’s easy to overdo, and not everyone enjoys reading between the lines. You can’t just assume the reader will catch the hidden meaning-more often than not, they won’t. In fact, if you take me as an example, you can be damn sure I’ll miss it. Even if I do pick up on something, I’ll probably interpret it in a way you never saw coming.
Why should you assume that the reader is an idiot by default? I do agree with you from a different angle: current screenwriters make every-EVERY character into a subtext and one-liner master. They all talk in cutting wit and word puzzles that gets old really fast. But beyond that, misunderstanding and secondary meaning are the beauty of subtext: not only can it be misunderstood, it MUST be misunderstood.
it's okay lines, but Annokin should be spittin game right here, get in those draws son. Sand gets everywhere could close with them close together, like he is some kinda sand even if he hates it. he could be telling her in a way he feels low, like sand, and he is trying to tap this princess for a minute. the subtext is gettin in her pants. this kid is a bad actor, and the director is bad for letting him ruin the movie
✍ Write the best screenplay of your life ➤ tuckerberke.com
I don't think subtext is just a fun addition. It's crucial. It's the space where the audience steps in and participates. Without subtext, it's not a story, but a lecture. We're fundamentally programed to look for subtext, and if it's not there, or if it's too impenetrable, we'll make up our own. Look at Room 237. People either couldn't get to the bottom of The Shining, or they became addicted to finding more and more layers of meaning, to the point they started reading subtext that isn't there.
And the truth is, real life is packed with subtext, which we're constantly tuning into, whether we know it or not. We know when "bless your heart" means "F you." We know when "maybe" means "no," whether we want to admit it or not. We often deliberately ignore obvious subtext because it's telling us what we don't want to hear. Or we read subtext into things whether it's there or not, because we tend to make everything about the one particular battle we're fighting. "Everything is woke!" or else "Everything needs to be woke!"
What's so great about great subtext is how much you can pack into it. Syd Field, or Robert McKee, one of them, described a screenplay as like a haiku. It's only 120 pages, with lots of blank space, but it can pack as much substance into it as a sprawling novel, because each line is carefully crafted to have the maximum of meaning. Even Tarantino's seemingly rambling scripts follow this rule. What seems to be a conversation with nothing to do with the story at hand actually has everything to do with it. Mia Wallace's seemingly incidental story about starring in a pilot that went nowhere speaks to her sense of camaraderie with Vincent. The woman who seems to have everything she wants is actually a reject from the world she really wanted. They're both failures, numbing their disappointment with their drug of choice. The subtext allows the story of Mia Wallace to bleed far beyond the runtime of the film, just as effectively as if she'd had multiple flashback chapters detailing it out. We infer all those chapters from the hints in the script, and Uma Thurman's subtly haunted performance. Even the characters' similar hair suggests a synchronistic connection.
So I find subtext not just extra story in the story, but the real story beneath the story.
Tarrantino writes great dialogue but he sometimes falls so in love with it that he will sacrifice rhythm for one more bit of catchy prose. Imo, the Coen brothers perfectly mesh both to create tight character driven stories.
Nice vid bro! I am an author but the same rules apply.
*Every circle begins with its end.* Reflection is both key and lock.
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
"Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins..." --DD1
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
Anakin talks and acts like this because he's trying to emulate darth vader. He's also trying not to show how angry and vulnerable he is, so he doesn't feel like a real person because he's hiding who he is.
The story is about his fall to the dark side, and how bottling up his problems and the inability of those around him tonsee those problems led to him becoming who he did.
The problem with your critique of the sand dialogue is that you're only looking at the line in isolation. Anakin is actually trying to make a move on Padme by poorly directing the conversation toward his affection for her if you review the whole thing. It's completely in line with his intentions and general approach. The real problem is Padme's lack of response. It ruins their dynamic that requires her to humble Anakin whenever he imposes himself.
It's still clumsily written, redundant, and poorly delivered. It doesn't seem like an awkward teenager trying to be surreptitious, but a stiff actor. Of course, listening is just as important a skill in acting, and Natalie Portman doesn't seem to be listening at all, let alone reacting. But given her string of epic performances going all the way back to her debut at age 12, I'm a little reluctant to blame the problem on her.
I think the issue is probably George. He's brilliant in so many ways, but his directing skills aren't among them. Once he became a superstar, by all accounts, including his own, he stopped listening to anyone, and his work suffered enormously. Film is a fundamentally collaborative medium. It needs to be. There are too many elements for one person to be the final expert on all of them. And when directors refuse to admit when their work isn't working, it undermines even the greatest talent. Look what happened to M. Night Shyamalan.
@@rottensquid I'm not talking about Natalie Portman. I'm specifically talking about how her character was written in that scene. Anakin's dissonant line about sand, despite being somewhat related to Padme reminiscing about her time at the beach, goes in line with his intention and general approach to things. He's impulsive, and a moment in which he could be alone with her would obviously excite him to not really think over his approach. It all goes in line with his possessive attitude that is the crux of his arc. There's a lack of self-awareness that Padme has knowingly exposed before and could be the perfect reason for her to act more distant despite having feelings for him in that situation. Instead, she submits to him.
The overall problem stems from George wanting to keep the pacing more in line with Obi-Wan's mystery plot.
@@lazedreamor2318 Fair enough. It certainly grows more awkward being taken from context. But yeah, her experience of sand vs us, ultimately, paints a dramatic picture of the two characters' conflicting life-experiences, with her coming from privilege, even the privilege of social responsibility, and him coming from a complete lack of it. As is very often the case, there's a rich, nuanced story in there, but the redundant dialog choice, the awkward delivery, don't quite nail that story. I understand and agree about how Anakin's delivery is meant to be awkward. But it just doesn't imply the character's true intention.
And that's kinda the job of acting, and of directing, to guide the actor so that the audience can really feel the true intention beneath the distracting words. The subtext, in other words. We can guess at the subtext from context clues, but we need to feel the actor say "I want you," beneath his actual words. And we don't.
But of course, a single ineffective line delivery isn't a catastrophic failure of the movie. I think this is a case where the internet dogpiles on a scene because it's fun to jump on the bandwagon of negativity. But it's such a tiresome, short-sighted kind of fun. I'd much rather enjoy things than tear them down. So I agree there's far more virtue in seeing the good in the film, and even the scene, than calling out any flaws.
There's no defending the actual lines he's speaking though. It gets everywhere .... yeah that's so great to use when flirting lol. It's just a bad analogy is all
@@film_magician If you're going to refute my argument as if I'm wrestling against some kind of axiomatic law, then it's better to treat me like I'm crazy by not replying at all tbh.
Tell that to André Gregory and Wallace Shawn.
Great analysis
Nah bro, you actually are Pro Pepper that shits crazy🤣 hope you are doing well bro, good vid
"Subtext." Yeah, sure. If only. I know some people who were utterly baffled by such an obviously profound sentence as, "I live here now."
Good tips, friend
Weird question, do you think subtext can be too on the nose? We can clearly see what (trinity killer) is talking about, which is great, but can that ever be TOO ham fisted or on the nose?
I think subtext is a double-edged sword. It’s easy to overdo, and not everyone enjoys reading between the lines. You can’t just assume the reader will catch the hidden meaning-more often than not, they won’t. In fact, if you take me as an example, you can be damn sure I’ll miss it. Even if I do pick up on something, I’ll probably interpret it in a way you never saw coming.
Why should you assume that the reader is an idiot by default? I do agree with you from a different angle: current screenwriters make every-EVERY character into a subtext and one-liner master. They all talk in cutting wit and word puzzles that gets old really fast. But beyond that, misunderstanding and secondary meaning are the beauty of subtext: not only can it be misunderstood, it MUST be misunderstood.
yeah if your characters are nasty to each other that seems realistic...how sad
Personally I always found Anakin's cringy dialogue to be perfectly fitting. He is a teenager in an extremely convoluted situation.
Is that pro pepper from those fortnite troll videos?
it's okay lines, but Annokin should be spittin game right here, get in those draws son. Sand gets everywhere could close with them close together, like he is some kinda sand even if he hates it. he could be telling her in a way he feels low, like sand, and he is trying to tap this princess for a minute. the subtext is gettin in her pants. this kid is a bad actor, and the director is bad for letting him ruin the movie