Dialogue-Heavy Films are Movies Too

Through my almost three and half years in Park, I've been told over and over again that film is a VISUAL medium, and that it should be treated as such when you're writing a script. For the most part, I would agree with this: when at all possible, you should tell a story visually instead of spelling something out with pointless, expository dialogue. Let the viewer figure stuff out for themselves instead of having characters broadcast it. I get it. That's all good.

So my question is, after watching something like the fantastic "The End of the Tour," how can movies consisting of mostly dialogue be compelling? End of the Tour follows Rolling Stone columnist David Lipsky (Jesse Eisenberg) as he goes about interviewing David Foster Wallace (Jason Segel, in an uncharacteristically good role) during the last stop of his book tour for the novel Infinite Jest.

And that's pretty much all there is to it.

Nobody dies (I mean, teeeeechnically DFW does in the intro, but it's barely part of the plot). There's no big twists or turns. At times, it can seem like there's barely any conflict. Just two dudes named David, talking about everything from sex to junk food. So where's the hook? What's the elevator pitch there? If I had tried to write something like this for my advanced screenwriting class, I probably would have been immediately shut down. It didn't help when I discovered that the writer was Donald Margulies, a guy that normally writes plays (albeit, really great, compelling plays). Then THAT got me thinking: what's the difference between a play and a film? Is a play also not a visual medium? Why is ok for a play to be talky, but not a movie?

Turns out, even though they're visual, stage plays are a different creature altogether, mainly for some obvious reasons. Plays don't have cameras, for one: they work with a single stage, and whatever you see is going to be determined by your place in the audience and your particular view of that stage. Many times, all you'll be able to work with is a couple actors and a bare bones set, so compelling dialogue is the one thing that you have to really focus on.

Sometimes, this can be translated over into film. Take Glengarry Glen Ross, for instance. It's a super talk-y movie, one of those films that I would have absolutely hated as a kid, but it's compelling, and it's adapted for the screen from what was originally a stage play. If you're able to translate the intensity and keep the dialogue tight and interest-keeping, then you're set.

And that's more or less what Margulies is able to do with End of the Tour. He takes a book about a long conversation and turns it into a movie about a long conversation. I'd like to say that framing and shots help the movie stay interesting as well, but from a technical standpoint, it's fairly average and forgettable (apart from this one shot in a parking lot that makes the physically imposing Wallace look like a child). Sure, you can go the route of David Fincher/Aaron Sorkin in the Social Network and also make it super visually appealing, but you also, surprisingly enough, don't need to. Sometimes a good script is a good script, and musings about masturbation, Alanis Morissette, and television are all you need. Which is kind of both inspiring and strangely depressing. Oh well. I guess that's David Foster Wallace for you.

Why That 70's Show Beat Freaks and Geeks

Freaks and Geeks is a comedy/drama from 1999-2000 that takes a look at the lives of an “average” family in 1980.

Starring Linda Cardellini and John Francis Daley, Freaks and Geeks has a cast of secondary characters that would go on to become some of the biggest names in television in movies. The crew of “Freaks”, the high school kids who party and break all the rules, features James Franco, Seth Rogen, and Jason Segel.

While 1999 may have been before these big name actors really broke out, it’s surprising that the show only aired one season and did not get picked up for another. The main reason for this was probably the show’s competition with That 70’s Show, which started around the same time. The two shows are very similar; both show a group of high school kids that are a mix between news and rule breakers. Both shows featured high school aged kids smoking weed, and both shows had characters who would freak out over all the developments in the “nerd community”.

 While Freaks and Geeks had many characters who would go on to be well known actors, they didn’t gain any advantage over That 70’s Show because of this. That 70’s Show featured Ashton Kutcher, Mila Kunis, and many more successful actors.

Probably the biggest reason That 70’s Show was picked up for 8 seasons and Freaks and Geeks only got 1 was because of the length of the shows. That 70’s Show consisted of quick, 22 minutes episodes full of cheap laughs and minimal overarching storylines. Freaks and Geeks, however, took more of the “dramedy” route, requiring viewers to watch each episode in order to really understand what’s going on. Following a series of hour long episodes before the era of online streaming was difficult, and thus it was easier for That 70’s Show’s viewers to follow along. Even still, Freaks and Geeks is an entertaining show with likable characters that deserved more than the one season it got.

Freaks and Geeks: The Best Cancelled Television Show in History

Freaks and Geeks is probably one of the best, well scripted television shows that our generation has had the pleasure to see. It was THE show that launched a lot of their cast into fame: James Franco, Seth Rogen, Jason Segal, John Daley, Linda Cardellini, and Martin Starr, just to name a few. And if the cast wasn't enough to prove why this show was great, here's just some other reasons.

1. You can relate to it and it's realistic. 

One of the reasons why the show got cancelled was because Garth Ancier (former NBC executive who cancelled the show) thought that the problem with the show was that neither the freaks or geeks win. But that's what made the show amazing. The freaks are the outcast in the schools, the nobodies, the kids who probably won't go to college. The geeks were the kids that got bullied, all the girls were at least a foot taller than them, and they sometimes tried to hard to fit in. The issues that the show dealt with were issues that everyone could relate to, or know someone that went through that experience: being picked last for a team in gym, crushes, puberty questions, cheating on a test, and even being too old to go trick or treating on Halloween.

The dialogue in the show is another reason why it's so good. Everyone that was in the show were teenagers to begin with, and they spoke like actual teenagers. None of the lines ever felt forced. And all the characters have flaws, like REAL flaws. And they deal with those flaws realistically, which means sometimes you can't have what you want. There weren't any miracles in the show to save them, and that's why I think as an audience, we were okay that the freaks and geeks didn't win.

2. The cast & cameo appearances are great.

You can't really have a better cast than the ones that are already in the show. And it's no surprise, almost everyone in the show has gone off to do big things in the film industry. The actors all fit their characters spot on, and they're all unique in their own way. Linda Cardellini plays the sweetheart, stuck between the freaks and geeks Lindsay Weir. She struggles in high school with not knowing what she wants to do, balancing life between being smarter than everyone else but choosing to be friends with the kids who struggle themselves with grades. Her dorky brother Sam Weir played by John Francis Daley is the subject of bullying in high school and gets asked a lot, "Are you a middle schooler?" James Franco, Seth Rogen, Jason Segal, and Busy Philipps are considered the 'freaks' in the high school, and even though they may look like they don't care about their grades, they still have real feelings and emotions we can relate to. There's even some pretty cool cameo appearances like Ben Stiller who plays Agent Meara, Shia LaBeouf who plays Herbert or the high school's mascot, and Jason Shwartzman. 

3. It's hilarious.

With witty lines and character flaws, the show is guaranteed laughs. If you don't believe me, just take a look at this clip:

 

The Muppets.. AGAIN?!

Yeah, you heard it! The rumor is true. Kermit, Miss Piggy, Beaker, and the rest of the Muppets gang will be returning to the big screen in 2014 for The Muppets… Again. This film will include Kermit and Frog and the rest of the team travelling across Europe attempting to solve a case of a stolen identity. 

With the success of The Muppets, the 2011 movie, director James Bobin has decided to create another rendition of this film for its avid followers.  This new film has an assortment of great additions that promise another exciting presentation of our favorite lineup. While it is sad to see Jason Segel and Amy Adams not return for the sequel, the new cast, including Tina Fey, Christoph Waltz, and Ricky Gervais, is sure to make you laugh. In addition, the movie will be tugging on the heartstrings by setting big milestones for some of our favorite members of the Muppet crew. For instance, Miss Piggy will finally fulfill her love life goals by getting married. It has not been disclosed that she will be marrying her long time co-star Kermit the Frog, so it will remain a secret until 2014.

After seeing the 2011 comedy, I can say I believe this movie will be as great a success, if not better than the original. The cast has grown, adding more humor than just Jason Segel, and with Tina Fey as one of the main characters, I believe it could be very entertaining. In addition, the Muppets team never gets old because we have grown up with these characters. We enjoy their humor, no matter how many times we have seen it, so I think it will be a fun film for all viewers.  

Jeff, Who Lives At Home

This week I watched the film Jeff, Who Lives at Home starring Jason Segel, Ed Helms, and Susan Sarandon. Jeff (Segel) is a 30-year old stoner currently living in the basement of his mother's (Sarandon) house. With his life lacking direction, Jeff receives an angry phone call from a man asking for a someone by the name of "Kevin". Rather than ignoring the phone call, Jeff decides to spend that day chasing all things related to the name "Kevin".

Pat, (Helms) Jeff's older brother, is a overzealous businessman who is having a troublesome relationship with his wife. Jeff coincidentally runs into Pat and decides that destiny brought them together in order to solve each others life problems. Pat however is much more skeptical to his brother's mindset and insists that he is just high and not thinking correctly. 

The film does a very good job at viewing life in a different sort of perspectives. The opposition between Jeff, who views life in a mystical perspective and his brother Pat, who treats life much more seriously creates a great parallel for the audience. 

I think it's important to always stop and live in the moment and I believe this film did a great job conveying that message. I would recommend the film to all.