I Hate Dialogue

Not in books. In books, it's important. See, books are woven words (shocker), but those words don't exist on one plane; they work in harmony to knit a picture. They construct dimensions, and allow the reader to view a story through the framework of their own life. Dialogue is personal there.

Not in conversations - those are good. Especially the sticky ones where you say the opposite of what you mean. Dialogue is real there.

I'm talking movies. Television. Short film applications for really expensive schools in California. I hate dialogue, generally, but voice-overs are the greatest offenders. Ugh. I hate a voice-over because authenticity and realness go down the drain.

There is no way Jennifer Aniston's inner-voice uses the term 'prebiotic oat.'

Actually, scratch that last.

Don't think me pretentious, please, because I know it sounds that way: but I think voice-overs are lazy. That doesn't mean I won't use them, because I'm certain I have, do, and will continue to. Laziness is good sometimes, healthy even. So is dialogue. It can also work really well; consider Perks of Being a Wallflower. Logan Lerman's narration of Charlie's letters are integral to the film. They tie the movie back to the source material, and I think that's a beautiful thing. It's also a very, very clear indication of Stephen Chbosky's alma matter, if I do say so myself.

But please, goodness gracious me, I implore you - do not tell me you think you're falling in love. In a movie. Show me.

I think pictures have a habit of underestimating the audience: The Office. Episode One (I think?), Season One - Michael apologizes fervently (as fervently as Michael can) for referring to the person on the other end of the phone as a gentleman... and he could've left it at that. Did he need to look at the documentary team and clarify that the other caller was a woman? Your call (haha, get it?). Maybe it was meant to be character development. For me, it was a needle in a halfway decent balloon. By decent, I mean a day-old, ceiling-bumping balloon, if you could buy those like bread. Static-y, too - probably messes up your hair.

Film has a magic literature simply doesn't; stories are fleshed out rather than envisioned. Do something with all that flesh, please. Don't squawk all over it, because if you do that, maybe it should've just been a book in the first place.

My order tonight is a close-up, with that one kind of shot that gets a bad rep. The one that focuses on a single eyelash that all the DSLR kids use. A shallow-depth something.

I'm afraid I don't know the jargon.

Make me feel something without telling me what to feel. Leave the ends loose - let us braid them, infuse them with all our own spectrums and stories. Because stories shouldn't be stagnate, should they? We shouldn't leave a theatre (if they open up again) feeling entirely satisfied. If I'm satisfied by a movie, ready to tuck it into a dusty corner of my mind, then it's not wrong, per say. Just not what it could be.

I think movies should be built in half walls. They can start off contained and structured, but don't be too frightened when they grow too big for their boxes. Let them bleed. Let them mingle.

Messy, rushing, interlacing stories. Intimate camera work. Hazy lights. It's doesn't need to be perfect. It doesn't need to be spoon fed. I can appreciate Parasite, but it will never, ever be my favorite film because I didn't feel anything.

Leave me in the dark, inexplicably raw. Leave me. Don't lecture me.

Photo by Dima Pechurin on Unsplash