Aaron Sorkin on ‘Steve Jobs’ and the Secret to Great Dialogue

[@Adamdow95]

Best dialogue: 1) Apparently he's very happy down here because he's written letters to everyone but Santa Clause asking for a transfer. 2) You WANT me on that wall, you NEED me on that wall. We use words like Honour, Code, Loyalty we use these words as a backbone of a life spent defending something, you use them as a punchline! 3) You seconds you had three weeks, the universe was created in a third of that time. 4) Two days ago we ran a Superbowl ad that could've won the Oscar for Best Short Film. 5) That thing looks like Judy Jettson's Easy-Bake oven. 6) Let me tell you something about Time Magazine, I believe its a training facility for paid assassins. 7)

[@camilleholle1538]

#6 is my fave hahaha

[@SteveHovland]

Great dialog serves the story.

[@SteveHovland]

Excellent advice from someone who actually does it successfully. Deserves a lot more hits than it as gotten. On the other hand, his "voice" seems to be people arguing all the time, which gets tiresome. If the numbers on imdbpro are accurate, this has not been a very profitable approach to writing screenplays.

[@bobpolo2964]

it's very limiting when you think about it, people don't argue all day

[@mcmanpa]

+bob polo & + SteveHovland I think Sorkin’s film scripts show his roots as a playwright, writing dialogue for actors to be spoken on a stage where there is limited scope for physical action; which is not to say he doesn’t like and employ the comic pratfall quite often to break the tension, but it’s not his main concern. Sorkin, I believe, feels characters reveal themselves in their words rather than their actions, or at least when they talk about their actions; he is not a writer of action films. Even in The West Wing, when director/producer Thomas Schlamme came up with the idea of the camera following actors talking non-stop through the set, this was camera action intended to support the energy of the dialogue. I would be surprised if Sorkin writes camera directions in his scripts; yet look at a Terrence Malick film, by comparison, to see how much information is given to us, the audience, through the camera filming scenes often with actors who don’t say a word. Yes, it’s true, people don’t argue all day; but film is not reality, it is dramatised reality. (To see reality, watch Warhol’s 5hour film “Sleep” of a man sleeping.) Film is 90 or 120 concentrated minutes of characters introduced, established, conflicted and resolved. Sorkin does that process as good as anyone in the history of film. A good director, imo, will let that script shine on screen, and put his own thoughts about auteur filmmaking into the project that he does next after shooting Sorkin’s.

[@bobpolo2964]

mcmanpa I somewhat agree with everything above. And cinema is inherently fake, from the actors to sets to the plot. All false. But that's the great paradox of fiction: we often find truth through an artistic medium full of lies. I'm an aspiring screenwriter myself and I tend to write more sorkin-like character studies, but to just focus on excessive dialogue is very limiting for me. People don't just reveal themselves through mostly dialogue. I would say it's a subtle balance between action and dialogue, with the action working as a supplement. Wes Anderson is a filmmaker who exploits cinematic fiction to its full potential, but he also values visual expression unlike sorkin's talking head dramas. And cinema works effectively when used as a visual medium

[@mcmanpa]

bob polo I agree with you in part, though I think to describe film as a medium full of lies is a bit harsh. Drama on film is an artistic representation of reality, a concentration of metaphor, symbol or example. I believe the one piece of equipment essential to filmmaking, on which all the other contributors and equipments are based, is the camera. No camera = no film. The rectangular image is the world the drama inhabits, so when I think of memorable films, I think of Fellini’s images in “8½” or Kurosawa’s landscapes in “Dersu Uzala”, and when I think of dramatic dialogue climaxing in physical action I think of Scorsese’s “Raging Bull”, and when I think of wordless action in an almost silent scene delivering effective drama I think of Angelopoulos’ “Reconstruction”. In a sense, it’s possible to argue that Sorkin, by contrast, is not a writer for film, but rather a writer for the stage who reaches his biggest audiences on the small and big screens, because his dramas are so un-cinematic, yet nonetheless very satisfying.

[@bobpolo2964]

mcmanpa No light=no film. A camera can provide images, sure, but without the script, all you have is improvisation. And staged productions beat a movie full of improv any day of the week. And sorkin is a cinematic writer because his dialogue is mostly devoid of exposition unlike stage plays. He does a great job revealing sharply drawn personalities through dialogue with little action. It's his niche

[@doctorfritznoel]

The interviewer style is a bit grating and you can see Aaron looking down avoiding eye contact at 1:45, which I sense reflects that.

[@UltimateKyuubiFox]

... I get the feeling, even though it's literally impossible, that Jeff Goldblum's persona is inspired by this man.

[@MikeRoberts1964]

"Yeah...I see where you're going there but...uhhh. can I just say...that...uhhh. I see it as well."

[@yeshwanthashok8032]

worst lighting for an interview.

[@RafaelBenedicto]

I take what he says very seriously. But I can't ignore the fact that he stutters almost throughout the interview.

[@Moonawrathic]

I'm pretty sure the sith is Luke, just listen to his voice a few times

[@19River96]

Kim Jong Un*

[@jqyhlmnp]

Leonardo DiCaprio*

[@zexx1lion]

bad sound

[@willrich3908]

pulled from 2,072 cinemas in the United States. a flop. so much for 'great dialogue'. so called experts know sweet FA.. they just get lucky, simple as.

[@IAteFire]

So? Shawshank flopped too, that doesn't make it a bad movie. Social network was a hit, how do you explain that?

[@biggestronald]

You’re a dumbass will

[@bennozoid1]

A fantastic movie. Cinemas pull movies for purely commercial reasons. this was intelligent and emotional and fresh.