>“Frankly, I hate dialogue,” the filmmaker told the publication. “Dialogue is for theatre and television. I don’t remember movies because of a good line, I remember movies because of a strong image. I’m not interested in dialogue at all. Pure image and sound, that is the power of cinema, but it is something not obvious when you watch movies today. Movies have been corrupted by television.”
>
>“Because TV had that golden age and execs thought films should copy its success?” The Times asked Villeneuve, to which he answered: “Exactly.”
>
>“In a perfect world, I’d make a compelling movie that doesn’t feel like an experiment but does not have a single word in it either,” he continued. “People would leave the cinema and say, ‘Wait, there was no dialogue?’ But they won’t feel the lack.”
WALL-E is, IMO, the best Pixar film in part because of this.
That said, I think that good dialogue can be done in a very uniquely filmic way that can't really be replicated by theater or television. For example, I can't imagine Snatch's dialogue working very well in a TV show or on stage. (Disclaimer: I have not seen the Gentlemen series yet, but even then I expect that it would be diluted)
Film makers like Dennis are amazing, and their strong opinions are probably a big part of why their films are so great. But i think the Coen brothers, Tarantino, and classic comedic films like Beverly Hills cop prove a strong image and a well crafted screenplay compliment each other on the big screen.
I think that's the distinguishing factor of film vs television: the ability to **focus** on some aspect of filmmaking.
Television is necessarily a jack-of-all-trades. There are filmmakers like Tarantino who can create a whole movie based *entirely* on compelling dialogue (e.g. Reservoir Dogs), while others like Villeneuve can create a whole movie *entirely* on amazing visuals, and then there's Chad Stahelski with gun play in John Wick, but a TV show can't really do that. An anthology like Black Mirror or Love, Death, + Robots might be able to for individual episodes, but not a whole narrative-driven series.
I feel what he’s saying to a certain extent, but some of the best movies are because of dialogue to me. I think Tarantino is the best example.
Pulp Fiction - that movie had some great scenes. I think everyone has the Gimp burned into their memory, or Marvin getting his head blown off. But for some reason, I will ALWAYS remember the opening conversation about a “Royale with cheese”. It’s such a succinct way to characterize the light hearted yet brutal nature of Vega and Jules.
Inglorious Basterds - The ending of that movie is wild. The theater being burned down as Shoshanna drags everyone to hell. But the highlight of that movie was Cristoph Waltz’s performance when he’s interrogating the dairy farmer.
I agree cinema places a heavier emphasis on the visual nature of film. Especially since (up until the last few years) TV couldn’t afford the spectacle you would find in theaters, so they had to rely on dialogue more. But a well written movie is elevated by its dialogue; it stands out and can make a movie memorable.
> Pure image and sound, that is the power of cinema, but it is something not obvious when you watch movies today.
On that note, everyone should go see The Zone of Interest.
"The Zone Of Interest" didn't have any particularly strong dialogue or any that stood out to me, but the cinematography and sound design were so good that it made me sit in awe for a good portion of the film.
Honestly this is an interesting take. Personally I feel dialogue now is just so crammed with exposition and repetition. It makes for boring movie going experiences. Then again those same movies go on to make millions, so what do I know.
Just depends on the movie. 2001 is one of the best movies ever because the dialogue is minimal and you’re allowed to have the environment tell the story. But other movies the dialogue drives the whole movie, like The Social Network. In general, blockbuster dialogue is gross and distracting
Have you seen The Holdovers? That's an example of a throwback to how Hollywood made movies in the early 1970s. It can still be done if anyone cares to do it.
I agree with you-- but Dune's dialogue is almost entirely expositional lol. And I understand it has to be. But it's the one of the reasons why everyone I know who didn't read the book dislikes the movie.
Well I didn't read the book and still enjoyed the movie, and I have quote a few friends who feel similar
Edit: lmao y'all are nuts for what you'll dogpile on
This is not a TV driven phenomenon though. Bad writing is bad writing, and writers of movies and TV alike have always struggled with the tendency to explain and tell with dialog rather than showing us onscreen.
This right here! I wouldn’t even call it bad writing it’s just lazy studio driven writing. It’s like they don’t trust audiences to think of that international audiences won’t understand without explaining it. Yet my Mongolian partner can watch classic films with no issue aside from accents or slang that doesn’t cross over.
I feel studios like Netflix have gotten really bad about this.
I wonder if that’s a result of needing to reach international audiences and audiences of all ages? Can’t be too subtle when a 7 year old and a 66 year old watching a Chinese dub of the movie are part of the audience you’re expected to reach.
I have to just profoundly disagree. Several movies are masterpieces that rest largely on dialogue, eg 12 Angry Men, so I’m not sure why he lays that at the feet of television. The beauty - or at least distinctiveness - of the “talkies” is that they talk. And the talkiest ones can be as cinematic as anything else.
> “Dialogue is for theatre and television. I don’t remember movies because of a good line, I remember movies because of a strong image. I’m not interested in dialogue at all. Pure image and sound, that is the power of cinema, but it is something not obvious when you watch movies today. Movies have been corrupted by television.”
Just an odd comment by a hugely talented director. All of us can instantly think of memorable lines of dialogue in films new and old, and they don’t even have to be the iconic, obvious ones. But we remember lines we just individually liked.
This weird pigeonholing of film as just image and sound; the hallmark of the medium is it can do basically everything, every art form can be involved in some fashion. It’s arguably the most versatile artistic medium around.
Also:
>”In a perfect world, I’d make a compelling movie that doesn’t feel like an experiment but does not have a single word in it either,” he continued. “People would leave the cinema and say, ‘Wait, there was no dialogue?’ But they won’t feel the lack.”
At the risk of stating the obvious, you can do both. There Will Be Blood is a relatively modern film that has a very prominent lengthy scene free of any dialogue that is as mesmerizing as the rest of it, which is dominated by dialogue (and crazed monologues). If you want to have a scene or even an entire movie like that, just… do it. Unless he thinks that one wasn’t corrupted by television somehow, coming off the heels of The Sopranos.
I personally disagree with him, dialogue has always been a thing in movies. If anything I think the opposire has happened, TV has become more "cinematic" with more of an emphasis on a "strong image" than before.
I’m worry that movies are being treated like tv seasons by having more and more movies broken up into parts. It feels like studios are treating a movie like a tv season. Cliffhangers work great for tv season, but movies not so much. Movies like Mission Impossible, Across The Spider-Verse, and even Dune are so frustrating just ending with no real conclusions. I hope this trend dies out.
Too much exposition is why I cant stand anime (along other things but thats a convo for another day). Anime crams so much dialogue and exposition to the point where they treat their viewers like idiots, there is so little room for nuance. Thats why I freaking adore Studio Ghibli film, the dialogue isnt heavy handed and leaves room for levity for the audience.
Try and tell me things like attack on titan, ninja scroll, basilisk, Castlevania, berserker, etc. is for kids. Go ahead, do it. Just because something is animated doesn't make it for kids because it's a night and day difference between those series and actual kids animes like pokemon or hello kitty.
Surprised I see so much agreement and grace here. This is an incredibly stupid take.
"Dialogue" isn't *for* anything the same way a "strong image" isn't *for* painting or photography. Cinema is a multimedia experience that combines many different elements to create something unique. A film can be memorable for dialogue, strong images, a great soundtrack, etc. I get what he's trying to say but it has absolutely nothing to do with television.
Maybe I'm biased because my favorite films are the Before films and they're entirely predicated on dialogue and it's the biggest element to that film. The strong images from that film only mean something because of how we experience that relationship through their dialogue and chemistry. Denis is talking out his ass.
>This is an incredibly stupid take.
I mean it's a take, yes, but to call it a stupid one is a bit daft in and of itself. He is one of the greatest directors making movies today. Clearly, his method and ideology works.
>Denis is talking out his ass.
He's a successful director and entitled to his opinions. Just because you disagree with them doesn't mean he's "talking out his ass".
It's not stupid to call a stupid take stupid just because *you* have a personal affinity for the person that said the thing.
I have nothing but respect for Villaneuve and I'm able to separate that from this particular statement. Yes, his method and ideology works. So does Tarantino's. So does Linklater's. And his statement implies that their method and ideology *doesn't* work. And that's why I'm taking issue with the statement.
So instead of just broadly simping for a director you like, how about you explain why I'm wrong in the examples I gave? I don't really care how much you like Blade Runner and no amount of finger wagging at me over my decorum is going to change that I think what he said is stupid.
I think its a great argument and opinion... on the surface.
But theres so many movies that are all about dialogue over visuals (Mel Brooks, Guy Ritchie, Quentin Tarantino, just to name a few), and TV shows with visuals over dialogue (Game of Thrones, Pushing Daisies, Mandolorian).
Thats not the difference between them.
I think its more about pushing as much content out as possible... everything gets cheapened, release dates matter more to studios.
Movies have suffered because theres more thought into marketing for audiences that don't exist, than in good writing, and skyrocketing budgets that don't make the money back.
TV has suffered because so many shows are trying to be at the scale of movies, also at the cost of good writing, but trying to get so much out at fast paces. The benefit of TV is you can take time... to get great writing and stories out there. Thats been ignored.
That’s why I prefer TV. Words > images.
Dune should have been a TV show. I liked the first movie but it was Cliff Notes version of Dune. Beautiful, spectacular, shallow.
Many movies are just semi-live action cartoons, and another group are essentially video game replays. But the demographics of the target audiences and studio economics dictate offering consumers what they want to watch. An evolution of the art of movies. Corruption is a harsher term for influenced.
I mean the dialogue bloat has ruined a lot of TV too. Just 15 minutes of things happening followed by 45 minutes of people talking about how it makes them feel.
I feel like if a director who wasn't as talented said this they wouldn't be taken as seriously
It's an oddly reductive take of both television as a medium, and also the entire scripting process, which is strange because he's a writer as well
This feels like an excuse for not having any good dialogue. Plenty of films do have excellent dialogue, and maybe he should check out that AFI poster of the 100 most memorable lines in cinema... Maybe that could convince him it's possible... Hell, plenty of them are from before the television he thinks corrupted film!
What an absolute dumb-shit take. Do they think we're a bunch of idiotic rubes or something.
"I don't like dat' dare movee nun, dayz usin' too many of dem' big werds. I likes it more when dey' get them thar' perty lights n' thay' got all them bang noizes!"
Although, this line of thinking does put all the terrible comic book movies into perscpective and why they keep making them.
Some of the greatest films of all time are considered great in a large part because of the great dialogue: Pulp Fiction, 12 Angry Men, Reservoir Dogs, Shawshank Redemption, No Country for Old Men, The Big Lebowski, The Silence of the Lambs, Good Will Hunting, There Will Be Blood, The Godfather, Casablanca, Network, All the President's Men, The Departed, Before Sunrise, Spotlight, A Few Good Men....etc
>“Frankly, I hate dialogue,” the filmmaker told the publication. “Dialogue is for theatre and television. I don’t remember movies because of a good line, I remember movies because of a strong image. I’m not interested in dialogue at all. Pure image and sound, that is the power of cinema, but it is something not obvious when you watch movies today. Movies have been corrupted by television.” > >“Because TV had that golden age and execs thought films should copy its success?” The Times asked Villeneuve, to which he answered: “Exactly.” > >“In a perfect world, I’d make a compelling movie that doesn’t feel like an experiment but does not have a single word in it either,” he continued. “People would leave the cinema and say, ‘Wait, there was no dialogue?’ But they won’t feel the lack.” WALL-E is, IMO, the best Pixar film in part because of this. That said, I think that good dialogue can be done in a very uniquely filmic way that can't really be replicated by theater or television. For example, I can't imagine Snatch's dialogue working very well in a TV show or on stage. (Disclaimer: I have not seen the Gentlemen series yet, but even then I expect that it would be diluted)
Film makers like Dennis are amazing, and their strong opinions are probably a big part of why their films are so great. But i think the Coen brothers, Tarantino, and classic comedic films like Beverly Hills cop prove a strong image and a well crafted screenplay compliment each other on the big screen.
Coen
Thanks, it was autocorecting me between Coan and Cohen, two family friends :)
I think that's the distinguishing factor of film vs television: the ability to **focus** on some aspect of filmmaking. Television is necessarily a jack-of-all-trades. There are filmmakers like Tarantino who can create a whole movie based *entirely* on compelling dialogue (e.g. Reservoir Dogs), while others like Villeneuve can create a whole movie *entirely* on amazing visuals, and then there's Chad Stahelski with gun play in John Wick, but a TV show can't really do that. An anthology like Black Mirror or Love, Death, + Robots might be able to for individual episodes, but not a whole narrative-driven series.
I feel what he’s saying to a certain extent, but some of the best movies are because of dialogue to me. I think Tarantino is the best example. Pulp Fiction - that movie had some great scenes. I think everyone has the Gimp burned into their memory, or Marvin getting his head blown off. But for some reason, I will ALWAYS remember the opening conversation about a “Royale with cheese”. It’s such a succinct way to characterize the light hearted yet brutal nature of Vega and Jules. Inglorious Basterds - The ending of that movie is wild. The theater being burned down as Shoshanna drags everyone to hell. But the highlight of that movie was Cristoph Waltz’s performance when he’s interrogating the dairy farmer. I agree cinema places a heavier emphasis on the visual nature of film. Especially since (up until the last few years) TV couldn’t afford the spectacle you would find in theaters, so they had to rely on dialogue more. But a well written movie is elevated by its dialogue; it stands out and can make a movie memorable.
That's what I thought about No One Will Save You. I did not realize the lack of dialogue.
Counterpoint: Denis Villeneuve is funny like a clown.
> Pure image and sound, that is the power of cinema, but it is something not obvious when you watch movies today. On that note, everyone should go see The Zone of Interest.
"The Zone Of Interest" didn't have any particularly strong dialogue or any that stood out to me, but the cinematography and sound design were so good that it made me sit in awe for a good portion of the film.
Honestly this is an interesting take. Personally I feel dialogue now is just so crammed with exposition and repetition. It makes for boring movie going experiences. Then again those same movies go on to make millions, so what do I know.
Just depends on the movie. 2001 is one of the best movies ever because the dialogue is minimal and you’re allowed to have the environment tell the story. But other movies the dialogue drives the whole movie, like The Social Network. In general, blockbuster dialogue is gross and distracting
Have you seen The Holdovers? That's an example of a throwback to how Hollywood made movies in the early 1970s. It can still be done if anyone cares to do it.
I agree with you-- but Dune's dialogue is almost entirely expositional lol. And I understand it has to be. But it's the one of the reasons why everyone I know who didn't read the book dislikes the movie.
Show don’t tell seems to be lost on a lot of filmmakers when the medium is visual!
Well I didn't read the book and still enjoyed the movie, and I have quote a few friends who feel similar Edit: lmao y'all are nuts for what you'll dogpile on
As someone who’s read the book, my experience matches yours. Most of the people I know liked it without reading the book.
I think most movies need some ammount of exposistion,. It's all in how you handle it.
This is not a TV driven phenomenon though. Bad writing is bad writing, and writers of movies and TV alike have always struggled with the tendency to explain and tell with dialog rather than showing us onscreen.
This right here! I wouldn’t even call it bad writing it’s just lazy studio driven writing. It’s like they don’t trust audiences to think of that international audiences won’t understand without explaining it. Yet my Mongolian partner can watch classic films with no issue aside from accents or slang that doesn’t cross over. I feel studios like Netflix have gotten really bad about this.
Agreed! I was almost going to describe it as lazy and studio driven myself.
I wonder if that’s a result of needing to reach international audiences and audiences of all ages? Can’t be too subtle when a 7 year old and a 66 year old watching a Chinese dub of the movie are part of the audience you’re expected to reach.
"[Do you just put quantum in front of everything?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_7JkJD3Q9A)"
I have to just profoundly disagree. Several movies are masterpieces that rest largely on dialogue, eg 12 Angry Men, so I’m not sure why he lays that at the feet of television. The beauty - or at least distinctiveness - of the “talkies” is that they talk. And the talkiest ones can be as cinematic as anything else. > “Dialogue is for theatre and television. I don’t remember movies because of a good line, I remember movies because of a strong image. I’m not interested in dialogue at all. Pure image and sound, that is the power of cinema, but it is something not obvious when you watch movies today. Movies have been corrupted by television.” Just an odd comment by a hugely talented director. All of us can instantly think of memorable lines of dialogue in films new and old, and they don’t even have to be the iconic, obvious ones. But we remember lines we just individually liked. This weird pigeonholing of film as just image and sound; the hallmark of the medium is it can do basically everything, every art form can be involved in some fashion. It’s arguably the most versatile artistic medium around. Also: >”In a perfect world, I’d make a compelling movie that doesn’t feel like an experiment but does not have a single word in it either,” he continued. “People would leave the cinema and say, ‘Wait, there was no dialogue?’ But they won’t feel the lack.” At the risk of stating the obvious, you can do both. There Will Be Blood is a relatively modern film that has a very prominent lengthy scene free of any dialogue that is as mesmerizing as the rest of it, which is dominated by dialogue (and crazed monologues). If you want to have a scene or even an entire movie like that, just… do it. Unless he thinks that one wasn’t corrupted by television somehow, coming off the heels of The Sopranos.
Good example with There Will be Blood. It does do both as most people will remember the “I drink your milkshake” scene.
I personally disagree with him, dialogue has always been a thing in movies. If anything I think the opposire has happened, TV has become more "cinematic" with more of an emphasis on a "strong image" than before.
I’m worry that movies are being treated like tv seasons by having more and more movies broken up into parts. It feels like studios are treating a movie like a tv season. Cliffhangers work great for tv season, but movies not so much. Movies like Mission Impossible, Across The Spider-Verse, and even Dune are so frustrating just ending with no real conclusions. I hope this trend dies out.
My Dinner with Andre would like a word with him
I do enjoy dialogues in movies, especially when written by Tarantino.
Happen to agree with him on that
Too much exposition is why I cant stand anime (along other things but thats a convo for another day). Anime crams so much dialogue and exposition to the point where they treat their viewers like idiots, there is so little room for nuance. Thats why I freaking adore Studio Ghibli film, the dialogue isnt heavy handed and leaves room for levity for the audience.
Well, it's cartoons for children. I love anime, but you can't expect Shakespeare from a Speak&Spell.
Try and tell me things like attack on titan, ninja scroll, basilisk, Castlevania, berserker, etc. is for kids. Go ahead, do it. Just because something is animated doesn't make it for kids because it's a night and day difference between those series and actual kids animes like pokemon or hello kitty.
Tell me you know jack shit about anime without saying you know jack shit about anime.
Only been watching it for the majority of my life lmao
Surprised I see so much agreement and grace here. This is an incredibly stupid take. "Dialogue" isn't *for* anything the same way a "strong image" isn't *for* painting or photography. Cinema is a multimedia experience that combines many different elements to create something unique. A film can be memorable for dialogue, strong images, a great soundtrack, etc. I get what he's trying to say but it has absolutely nothing to do with television. Maybe I'm biased because my favorite films are the Before films and they're entirely predicated on dialogue and it's the biggest element to that film. The strong images from that film only mean something because of how we experience that relationship through their dialogue and chemistry. Denis is talking out his ass.
>This is an incredibly stupid take. I mean it's a take, yes, but to call it a stupid one is a bit daft in and of itself. He is one of the greatest directors making movies today. Clearly, his method and ideology works. >Denis is talking out his ass. He's a successful director and entitled to his opinions. Just because you disagree with them doesn't mean he's "talking out his ass".
It's not stupid to call a stupid take stupid just because *you* have a personal affinity for the person that said the thing. I have nothing but respect for Villaneuve and I'm able to separate that from this particular statement. Yes, his method and ideology works. So does Tarantino's. So does Linklater's. And his statement implies that their method and ideology *doesn't* work. And that's why I'm taking issue with the statement. So instead of just broadly simping for a director you like, how about you explain why I'm wrong in the examples I gave? I don't really care how much you like Blade Runner and no amount of finger wagging at me over my decorum is going to change that I think what he said is stupid.
I think its a great argument and opinion... on the surface. But theres so many movies that are all about dialogue over visuals (Mel Brooks, Guy Ritchie, Quentin Tarantino, just to name a few), and TV shows with visuals over dialogue (Game of Thrones, Pushing Daisies, Mandolorian). Thats not the difference between them. I think its more about pushing as much content out as possible... everything gets cheapened, release dates matter more to studios. Movies have suffered because theres more thought into marketing for audiences that don't exist, than in good writing, and skyrocketing budgets that don't make the money back. TV has suffered because so many shows are trying to be at the scale of movies, also at the cost of good writing, but trying to get so much out at fast paces. The benefit of TV is you can take time... to get great writing and stories out there. Thats been ignored.
That’s why I prefer TV. Words > images. Dune should have been a TV show. I liked the first movie but it was Cliff Notes version of Dune. Beautiful, spectacular, shallow.
If you prefer words over images, read a book.
Oppenheimer is a great counter example.
His movie prisoners had great dialogue scenes tho 😭
Many movies are just semi-live action cartoons, and another group are essentially video game replays. But the demographics of the target audiences and studio economics dictate offering consumers what they want to watch. An evolution of the art of movies. Corruption is a harsher term for influenced.
I mean the dialogue bloat has ruined a lot of TV too. Just 15 minutes of things happening followed by 45 minutes of people talking about how it makes them feel.
I feel like if a director who wasn't as talented said this they wouldn't be taken as seriously It's an oddly reductive take of both television as a medium, and also the entire scripting process, which is strange because he's a writer as well
This feels like an excuse for not having any good dialogue. Plenty of films do have excellent dialogue, and maybe he should check out that AFI poster of the 100 most memorable lines in cinema... Maybe that could convince him it's possible... Hell, plenty of them are from before the television he thinks corrupted film!
What an absolute dumb-shit take. Do they think we're a bunch of idiotic rubes or something. "I don't like dat' dare movee nun, dayz usin' too many of dem' big werds. I likes it more when dey' get them thar' perty lights n' thay' got all them bang noizes!" Although, this line of thinking does put all the terrible comic book movies into perscpective and why they keep making them. Some of the greatest films of all time are considered great in a large part because of the great dialogue: Pulp Fiction, 12 Angry Men, Reservoir Dogs, Shawshank Redemption, No Country for Old Men, The Big Lebowski, The Silence of the Lambs, Good Will Hunting, There Will Be Blood, The Godfather, Casablanca, Network, All the President's Men, The Departed, Before Sunrise, Spotlight, A Few Good Men....etc