In a script how can I signal who's winning the argument?
Arguments, discussions, disagreements
In my script I have a lot of "arguments" – loose definition: long discussions where characters disagree about what to do.
These arguments don't escalate to a full-blown fight, rather they are more like sparring and establishing dominance.
It affirms characters motives (they can just say what they want), but more importantly the arguments show who is influencing whom, and in some cases what the characters are willing to compromise to get what they want.
The argument isn't the real fight
My problem is a bottleneck episode where the conflict turns on these discussions. 2 team mates are at complete odds, trying to convince a 3rd. My hero senses he's losing, which motivates off-screen destructive manipulations that are out-of-proportion to the argument. This motive only makes sense if I can show that he fears he's losing influence. It's not really about losing the argument, it's about losing control of the 3rd character, but that motive is beneath the surface.
What's the current score?
I'm looking for ways to signal the score: who is "winning" the discussion at specific 'beats'. I've tried to compress the actual argument (the points being discussed) so there's structure and progression to their positions, as well as to the subtext and powerplays. It's plotted so it all makes sense (to me, the author) but it's still a huge wall of dialog that spans the whole episode. The characters are playing their cards close to the vest and all have ulterior motives which muddy the power dynamics.
My fear is an entire episode of portentous talk that's all subtext and moral philosophy. I have a battle going on, but it's subtle and under the table.
How do I signal who's winning the argument?
What are some unambiguous signals I can give the reader to show that the 3rd character is being persuaded? After the off-screen manipulations, this dynamic shifts back the other way, so I need show it reversing too.
It's not really about the merits of the argument, it's about manipulating the 3rd character – that's the whole point by the end of the episode, but it's a slow burn and hints at a negative character arc for the hero.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/46872. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
4 answers
You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.
You need a prop.
I will explain! Somebody fighting a losing argument is typically fighting because the consequences for them of losing the argument is giving up something valuable or dear to them, or it means taking a risk they fear taking.
If the consequence is TOO awful for them (perhaps they don't have the courage to face it, or perhaps it harms or kills someone they love) they just will not give up. Often, they won't even tell you what the consequence is! The "winning" side will have to figure that out for themselves.
If it is possible to persuade them, it will be done by addressing this awful consequence, or ramification, or whatever you wish to call it. Either dissipating it, or making it recoverable, or persuading them it is unavoidable either way, or convincing them their alternative has worse consequences (that they care about).
In film, you need to show (hopefully visually) why the losing guy is arguing at all. What is the consequence he wants to avoid so badly? It isn't enough for the winners to have a logically best approach, they need an emotionally best approach to convince the other guy.
You need a prop to represent the consequence. Let me say his favorite photo of his sister at twelve. He keeps looking at this, handling the prop, looking at it, and whenever he does he makes emotional arguments, but sticks to them.
Then what you show, by body language, is he begins to understand. Less handling or viewing of the prop. Finally he puts the prop aside, he puts the picture of sister back in his top pocket (near his heart); a signal that he is done. Either he cannot find a way to protect her, or his opponents have assured him his sister will be safe.
Because arguments that are all about logic do not last very long, there must be some sort of anti-logic in play, and that means an emotional commitment that overrides the frontal cortex. You make it an emotional commitment, some sort of love or hate, that must be overcome; and you signal this commitment with a prop. Even a wedding ring could do it.
0 comment threads
I agree with @Ash's answer regarding the fact that you can show a lot with body language. I would disagree with him however regarding what "winning" and "losing" would look like.
Being excessively assertive, "attacking", losing composure in an argument - those are signs of losing. Without even understanding what the argument is about, losing control of oneself, losing control of the situation, getting goaded - those are signs of losing. The one who "wins" will be confident of his stance, he won't need to attack. He can even be dismissive.
Being defensive, as Ash describes, is also a sign of losing. If I recognise my argument is weak, but I don't want to consent defeat, I'll grow defensive. That can be shown in tone, in body language, also in using a lot of "but" in one's speech.
As for the winner, think of him for a moment as holding the Truth. He doesn't need to attack or to defend. The truth is a steady rock, an absolute, on which lies and mistakes crush. He can afford to be calm and steady. He might present facts, or he might manipulate his opponent into seeing the error in their argument. Either way, his confidence and self-control are the keys to the thing. (In reality we can only wish lies and mistakes crashed against the solidity of the truth. But we tend to respect and believe the person who remains calm. We think he's the one who holds the truth.)
Building on this, if you want to show a turn in the argument, the calm person would lose his calm, signifying he's no longer "winning", while the not-calm person would grow calm.
0 comment threads
You may want to consider using a "peanut gallery". This is similar to SpaGirl's suggestion, but these are people who are not involved in the argument directly, yet can provide some context.
Jessica says, "I've been riding this way since I taught myself as a kid!"
Barb replied, "Well, you can ride a horse like that, but you're only going to end up with a sore bum."
Josh adds, "I'm pretty sure Jessica likes a sore bum."
David interjects, "Jessica's saddle is specifically designed for the way she rides, so it's a non-issue."
This can be a "comic relief" kind of thing or it can be something to try to break up the fight, maybe while trying to save "face" for the loser. It's something to be used sparingly, especially in a serious book, but even in a comedy over using this can start to get predictable.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/46890. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
If I've understood this it is a screenplay featuring, at this point, three characters; the characters proposing opposing options and the third character they are trying to win over?
That being the case, the indications of who is 'winning' will come from the third party not the two proposers. The scenes are likely to be more interesting if the third party is undecided or swithering between the two opposing propositions.
How you stage that is likely to depend on the relative dominance of the characters, is anyone 'chairing' this discussion? Can the third party 'conduct' the discussion or is he a passive audience to this battle or the proposers?
It seems as though if you are going to spend so much screen-time on this dispute, or series of disputes, that the third party's opinion carries a lot of weight, so they have a great deal of power. You may need to demonstrate how much the 3rd party understands their own power. Are they merely receiving information or is are they asking and probing? Do they wait until the discussion is over to deliver their 'verdict' or do they play the opposers off against each other?
It seems likely that you can only show which way this lug-of-war is going is by having the 3rd party be very active in the discussion. That way they can use their words and intonation, their body language, their hand gestures and their eye contact to convey to the audience how which way their thoughts are leaning. Do they bring Proposer 1 into the conversation and turn a shoulder to Proposer 2? Do they hold up a hand to stop Proposer 2 interjecting? Are there moments where they share a look with one of the proposers that shows they think the other is off his rocker, do they roll their eyes in exasperation with them both?
How much does the 3rd party just express their own view clearly: 'Proposer 1, I'm really not convinced by your suggested action, Proposer 2's idea would avoid the problems of the whimwams fargling the obslots, don't you think?'
Does the third party try to bring everyone into agreement, or is it enough that they cast their vote one way of another? In other words, as they sway from preferring one option over the other, do they try and bring the opposing proposer with them? Does the 3rd party positively contribute to analysing the pros and cons of the propositions, do they have any element to contribute themselves?
There are so many tools you can use to show how the wheel spins and where the ball is likely to come to rest, just about the only thing that wouldn't work is the 3rd party sitting like a dummy as the two proposers argue over their head and then turn to them for a final verdict. Make them part of the conversation.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/46880. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads