There's exposition and then there's EXPOSITION. How many times have you been watching a movie where a character or characters explain every detail of the film? More to the point how many "reader" evaluations have responded with “needs more character development”, or “the narrative needs to be flushed out, not enough plot”. Of course, it's there in droves. Screen writing is visual storytelling, somewhat of a contradiction when writing however; there seems to be a desire to have every detail spelled out. Do they, do we, not trust the audience’s ability to put it together or to draw their own conclusions? Are there any examples of a film that or script you've written where the art of visual story telling is lost on the reader/viewer or where exposition in dialog is used as an excuse to ignore visual elements that could just as easily, and more naturally, tell the story? No one talks by explaining every detail of their life or what’s happening to them. How do you respond? What adjustments do you make?
2 people like this
Since film is visual medium, use flashbacks in the script to explain actions, rather than plain tirade. As for the "let the viewer decide" type-of-movie uve got plenty on European cinema...
2 people like this
I never liked the ending of Psycho, where the cop does a 5-minute monologue explaining Norman Bates' mental state. But it's Hitchcock; he got about 98% of a perfect movie
3 people like this
I think a smart development team factors in the audience's desires and attention spans. I joked after seeing Pokémon Detective Pikachu that it should have been called Pokémon Exposition Pikachu but, in all fairness, it's a kid's film and needs to keep reminding its viewers what's in play.
The Fast & Furious films often have these scenes mid-way (usually done with voice overs) where a character will being saying something like, "Wait, so why are we hiding in this box truck again?" and another character will remind them of the plan, the stakes, the boon, etc.
If I'm watching a movie and it feels dumbed down, I don't blame the movie, I just assume it's not targeted at me specifically.
This is a balancing act. I have seen a post here (or Reddit) about don’t put in useless action lines to break up big chunks of exposition. For me that action can be the other thing the scene should be about.
But there are some great exposition scene “Usual Suspects” is an example. There is nearly always a naive or newbie character in story to act as a “stand in” for the audience. “What are they doing that for ?” Queue the exposition.
I try not to do it. I think it is fine to leave people with unanswered questions. Life is full of them.
1 person likes this
Great points gents, Dan MaxXx, I look at a classic like that and take it for what it is, in terms of the era (would he make the same decision today?) The French Connection is considered one of the greatest movies of all time. It's also one of the first movies shot after the invention of the zoom lens, maybe the first. Zoom shots were a big thing in the 70s, now if I see a zoom shot I cringe (in a modern film). CJ Wally, I can't tell you how many times I've called out a 40 something complaining about a kids movie. I loved Detective Pikachu, but I watched it with a child's perspective. Same with Transformers etc. Nick Assunto, there are those films that need an "exposition" guy, but I'm speaking more to films that are meant to challenge the audience's ideas and how readers seems to push against that. The Fountain or Mother,, Hereditary... Lady Bird and Little Miss Sunshine did exposition without "EXPOSTION" very well. The characters actions and how they interacted with those around them spoke to who they were. How would those scripts fair on a Blacklist, or InkTip?
1 person likes this
Not a lot of people realize it, but 50% of the Lord of the Rings movies are exposition.
There is good exposition which rips the bandaid off fast and smooth, not deterring from the story itself. Maybe through a brief flashback (Gamora's childhood in Infinity War) or maybe giving a reveal (The Matrix's Duracell battery) or visual aid to explain something complicated (Jurassic Park's Mr. DNA).
And then there is sitting on the toilet, taking a slow long info-dump, like explaining the history of characters (The first third of Suicide Squad) or explaining why the characters are getting the plot moving (2014 Godzilla's Bryan Cranston explaining why he must go into a nuclear zone).
In the Matrix Reloaded, do you think the Wachowski's could show how Neo's destiny is preordained without the Architect explaining the philosophy of Freewill and Determinism for ten minutes?
2 people like this
The Pope in the Pool.
There are certainly genre's where exposition through dialog are staples (and necessary), particularly in Science Fiction and in Noir it's part of style. Blade runner seems to be a mix of both. A. S. Templeton I agree about Blade Runner, but it does work on some levels however; image if at the end they included a line like, and "Deckard left never realizing he too was a replicant". The ambiguousness of the ending is what makes the movie so great! People still talk and debate about it. The real issue for me is from "readers", there seems to be this expectation that everything needs to be explained. A lack of imagination as if audiences don't enjoy a little mystery. The best movies are the ones you leave the theater with your friends debating the "bigger" meaning/concept.
Great reference Rutger Oosterhoff, Save the Cat is probably the best feedback I've gotten based on their form structure. I've included
https://savethecat.com/tips-and-tactics/swimming-with-the-pope-in-the-pool