“Nowadays I seldom go to the cinema, and this isn’t only because there are few where I live. It’s because, judging from reviews, there is very little I want to see. It’s also partly because I have the impression that directors now despise dialogue, or resent the need for it, and so often have it muttered just out of earshot, or smothered by music. But the real reason goes deeper, and is also why cinema is in terminal artistic decline.”
Is he right? I would be interested if commenters could give examples of where they think there are still films getting made that are packed with dialogue. As Brian Micklethwait wrote earlier this year about the film, Margin Call, there are still films getting made that are designed for intelligent people who don’t require lots of car chases to hold their interest. (Not that there is anything wrong with a car chase or a straightforward race, such as when Steve McQueen is involved.)
To make a more philosophical point, assuming that Massie is correct – and I think he probably is – does the decline in dialogue mainly reflect the changing demographics of film audiiences? It might do so. The sort of more intelligent material that holds lots of dialogue, credible plots and so on is now increasingly getting made for television, especially in the US. Think of shows (I am not saying they are all good, by the way) such as Mad Men, The West Wing, CSI, 24, Grey’s Anatomy, The Sopranos, etc. And of course another factor is how, as humans, we tend to remember the good stuff and forget, or try to forget, the old 80-20 rule: 80 per cent or so of most stuff that ever gets made is utter crap. Even most Elizabethan plays were probably not all that good. But we remember Shakespeare.
The problem is not that dialog per se has vanished, it is that it has been relegated to “Indie” films, which are mostly dreary weapers with leftist politics, all trying to recapture the lost glory of Ordinary People. I find myself drawn to simple stories with heroes and (invariably) CGI styling, if only to watch something that isn’t twisted in some inventively disgusting way. Sad that I have no appetite for the admittedly high quality but morally insipid prime time soaps that attract the part of the audience that hungers for intellectual stimulation and is willing to put up with anything to get it.
Lack of dialogue is not necessarily bad, and abundance of it is not necessarily good – it mostly depends on the genre. Think of some of the best action/adventure/mystery movie classics: very many of them contained very little dialogue. Cinema is – for the most part – a visual medium, first and foremost. You are right though that much of the dialogue-based content has now been moving to TV – simply because that medium is better suited for it.
BTW, Jonathan: I started watching Mad Men on your recommendation back when it premiered, and I am very happy I did.
I was rather happy that Moneyball did so well. That movie was all about showing how a baseball team tried to use a new concept in valuing players. I’m pretty sure that most of the people who watched it had never read the book, or even knew the concept the book was based on. You want to yell at Hollywood “more movies like this please, we’re smart enough to enjoy them”.
(“Moneyball” trailer.)
A probable factor is the increased internationalization of the movie market. US movies* make a good portion of their revenue from foreign markets. Not only are fewer words cheaper to translate, but there is less likely to be cultural issues with the translation.
* I only write of what I know
He thinks film quality has dropped since the 80’s? What about all those films with the expendables crew?
I don’t go to the cinema much but of the recent films I’ve seen I’d say “Black Swan” was up to Kubrick standards. I’m sure just as much crap was being released at the time he was making movies as is today.
As for the dialog thing, the last big hit here in South Africa was “Think like a woman act like a man” (or something to that effect), which was basically nothing but dialog between about 10 people
I agree with the Allan Massie completely, although I still go to the cinema whenever I can. As I said on this thread, good dialogue is almost entirely absent from modern films, and an awful lot of films dispense almost entirely with a script and simply shunt the viewer from set-piece to set-piece (each either action-packed, or emotion-filled ham acting) with very little by the way of character development, suspense, intrigue, or any other plot device. I guess films these days are made for teenagers, not adults.
The most recent film I have seen with great dialogue was Charlie Wilson’s War, but excellent dialogue and good scripts are pretty common in TV series – especially those from HBO. I guess either film producers are chasing a different, less patient target audience or writing for TV just attracts better writers.
The “80-20” rule is solemnized here in the US as “Sturgeon’s law,” after science-fiction author Ted Sturgeon, who supposedly originated it. The short form is “Ninety percent of everything is crap.”
Sturgeon’s law would a be corrollary of Pareto’s Law (“the 80/20 rules”) named after Vilfredo Pareto but coined by Jospeh Juran, an early management consultant.
I’m turning 60 this year and my hearing is going. Scheisse.
One of the things I notice is the decline in technical standards, both in Hollywood and the UK. It is increasingly rare to find a new film where I can hear and understand the dialog, mumbled or overpowered by background noise or music.
And yet there are films from the 1930s where every word is perfectly enunciated and rings like a bell.
Indeed, 90% of everything is crap, probably more, and that includes the technical stuff, not just the artistic.
I stopped going almost entirely because of the people around me. The reason the dialog is drowed out is that my fellow movie goers are screaming at the screen, screaming into their phones or screaming at each other. And then screaming at me when I tell them to be quiet. Who wants that for $15.00 .
A few things:
Why is it the 80/20 law if its 90% (and not 80%) of everything is crap?
If I may speculate wildly, could the fact that the frame of reference of the younger audience is to a greater degree shaped by the films they saw when they were young, whereas those of an older generation have a a frame of reference shaped to a greater extent by, well, life (and possibly also movies of an earlier age, theatre, etc), be a factor? So there is a lot of dialogue in films made today that only the younger generateion ‘hear’. Its not a perfect analogy: my wife is no older than I, but her mother tongue is not English and she did not grow up in this country. I find it funny that she can’t understand fast paced movies, whereas I find Shakespear difficult to follow even though everything is spelled out (given the lack of visual aids when the plays where written).
Quite a lot of modern films do have an irritating habit of not having the actor who is speaking facing the camera.
“But in real life, several people speak at once – and also one often hears someone without seeing them”.
Yes but it is not real life – it is a film.
I am not deaf.
So I expect to be able to hear what the actors are saying – over the background noise and so on.
And if I can not hear what they are saying (clearly and without straining) – the film maker is doing something wrong.
I’m with Paul. I prefer the sharp, witty, unrealistic dialogue of Hollywoods golden era, and I appreciate a filmaker who is proud enough of his dialogue to not cover it up with a bunch of background realism.
I love the dialogue of the 30’s in films like “Philadelphia Story” and “Lady for a Day”. Katherine Hepburn and Cary Grant delivered “elevated” dialogue very humorously and naturally. I don’t know why this has fallen out of fashion. You can still hear a bit of elevated unrealistic talk in Tarantino movies, though not nearly to the same extent.
I doubt most of the audience at the Globe theater spoke the way Shakespeare wrote, but you Englishmen never cease to surprise me, what with your fancy talkin’ accents and all.