I have a lot of respect for Andrew Grant and Benten Films, but Grant's piece for Salon about the Oscar nominations for screenwriting really misses the mark.
The problem with Grant's argument is that he overemphasizes the role dialogue plays in screenwriting. Like directing, screenwriting is primarily a visual craft. That sounds counterintuitive, but let me be clear: screenwriting is about creating a blueprint for the director to make the film. It's not playwrighting, where the script is an end unto itself and can be considered a separate aesthetic object from the produced play. Screenwriters, especially the sort of screenwriters who are in the Academy, write in visual terms, and in many great screenplays, the dialogue serves to emphasize only those qualities which can't necessarily be communicated visually.
Of course, not all screenplays are the same: My Dinner with Andre is obviously very dialogue-heavy, and it's a great script. So is Days of Heaven, which has very minimal dialogue and mostly relies on an unreliable narrator. They're also both terrifically directed films, each with a visual sensibility that fits the script perfectly. So when Grant uses this very prescriptive notion of 'good screenwriting' he's excluding this whole tradition of visually-minded, immaculately structured narrative that forms much of the basis of solid cinematic storytelling.
Grant singles out as an example of great screenwriting In the Loop, a film I've brought up a few times recently, and I agree with him. It is a great screenplay. But as funny and rapid-fire as the dialogue is, what makes In the Loop great is that it's a masterpiece of structure. Armando Iannucci and his cowriters balance at least twelve major actors whose words and deeds shift the narrative of the film in dozens of small ways over the course of the feature. That they're able to keep all these characters in balance and interesting in a way that's realistic (within the terms of the film's universe) is, for me, a much greater accomplishment than Peter Capaldi saying "horse cock."
Ironically, two recent scripts Grant cites as subpar winners for the screenplay category are ones whose primary schtick is an overemphasis of 'good' dialogue over visual storytelling and structure, Juno and Little Miss Sunshine. Now, the dialogue in those films isn't my bag, and I doubt it's Grant's, either - Benten, after all, is largely known for distributing films by so-called 'mumblecore' directors like Joe Swanberg and Kentucker Audley - but they appealed to a lot of Academy voters because the dialogue in these films passes for wit. And as much as I don't like these scripts, they're both models of classical Hollywood structure.
Let's be clear: I'm not dismissing dialogue as a vector of quality in a screenplay. Certainly, as in the case of Crash, a screenplay's dialogue can be enough to sink the entire venture (I'd make this same argument for Juno). And it's absolutely something that can elevate a script. Like Grant, I worship at the altar of Wilder/Diamond and Chayefsky - the greatest craftsmen of screen dialogue of their respective eras - but again, these are writers whose talents lie not only in their capacity for dialogue but in their phenomenal command of structure and creating terrific visuals on the page.
Words on the Page
I have a lot of respect for Andrew Grant and Benten Films, but Grant's piece for Salon about the Oscar nominations for screenwriting really misses the mark.
The problem with Grant's argument is that he overemphasizes the role dialogue plays in screenwriting. Like directing, screenwriting is primarily a visual craft. That sounds counterintuitive, but let me be clear: screenwriting is about creating a blueprint for the director to make the film. It's not playwrighting, where the script is an end unto itself and can be considered a separate aesthetic object from the produced play. Screenwriters, especially the sort of screenwriters who are in the Academy, write in visual terms, and in many great screenplays, the dialogue serves to emphasize only those qualities which can't necessarily be communicated visually.
Of course, not all screenplays are the same: My Dinner with Andre is obviously very dialogue-heavy, and it's a great script. So is Days of Heaven, which has very minimal dialogue and mostly relies on an unreliable narrator. They're also both terrifically directed films, each with a visual sensibility that fits the script perfectly. So when Grant uses this very prescriptive notion of 'good screenwriting' he's excluding this whole tradition of visually-minded, immaculately structured narrative that forms much of the basis of solid cinematic storytelling.
Grant singles out as an example of great screenwriting In the Loop, a film I've brought up a few times recently, and I agree with him. It is a great screenplay. But as funny and rapid-fire as the dialogue is, what makes In the Loop great is that it's a masterpiece of structure. Armando Iannucci and his cowriters balance at least twelve major actors whose words and deeds shift the narrative of the film in dozens of small ways over the course of the feature. That they're able to keep all these characters in balance and interesting in a way that's realistic (within the terms of the film's universe) is, for me, a much greater accomplishment than Peter Capaldi saying "horse cock."
Ironically, two recent scripts Grant cites as subpar winners for the screenplay category are ones whose primary schtick is an overemphasis of 'good' dialogue over visual storytelling and structure, Juno and Little Miss Sunshine. Now, the dialogue in those films isn't my bag, and I doubt it's Grant's, either - Benten, after all, is largely known for distributing films by so-called 'mumblecore' directors like Joe Swanberg and Kentucker Audley - but they appealed to a lot of Academy voters because the dialogue in these films passes for wit. And as much as I don't like these scripts, they're both models of classical Hollywood structure.
Let's be clear: I'm not dismissing dialogue as a vector of quality in a screenplay. Certainly, as in the case of Crash, a screenplay's dialogue can be enough to sink the entire venture (I'd make this same argument for Juno). And it's absolutely something that can elevate a script. Like Grant, I worship at the altar of Wilder/Diamond and Chayefsky - the greatest craftsmen of screen dialogue of their respective eras - but again, these are writers whose talents lie not only in their capacity for dialogue but in their phenomenal command of structure and creating terrific visuals on the page.