4 ms·

You almost get the impression that the author has just never seen a good movie before. Almost everything he said could be applied to any top film maker. Coens,

You almost get the impression that the author has just never seen a good movie before. Almost everything he said could be applied to any top film maker. Coens, PT Anderson, Wes Anderson, lots of others. If all you've seen are summer blockbusters I can see how you might be wowed by good writing and lack of special effects. Sorkin's good for sure, sometimes really good, but he too has his weaknesses. For instance the fact that every character has the diction of a Harvard English professor and the wit of George Bernard Shaw.

hugh3 16y ago
he too has his weaknesses. For instance the fact that every character has the diction of a Harvard English professor and the wit of George Bernard Shaw. Is that really a weakness? Strict realism in dialogue generally makes for pretty poor drama. Shakespeare's characters talk like nobody has ever talked, but his plays would not be improved by sticking in a bunch of "umm"s and "ahh"s and repetition and "y'know" and repetition and, uhh, stuff like that, y'know?
- mattmaroon 16y ago
  Yes and no I suppose. When it's unrelenting, ubiquitous (politicians and waiters) and in everything he ever composes, I'd consider it a weakness. Of course you don't expect anyone to talk exactly as people do, with umms and ahs and all that. But Steinbeck and Hemingway (and in film, most of the people I mentioned in my original post) prove that you can write great drama and dialogue with a good degree of realism. Also many people did speak similar to Shakespeare's characters, though of course with less rhyming since they weren't poets and Shakespeare was. There's a good explanation of that here "http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_people_really_speak_the_way_they_did_in_Shakespeare%27s_plays http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_people_really_speak_the_way_th...
  - pohl 16y ago
    Just like Claude Monet and those big, unrealistic blobs of paint. Such a weakness.
    - mattmaroon 16y ago
      Monet never feels cliche, even all these years later. Sorkin starts to after a few episodes.
- Goladus 16y ago
  Good point but to nitpick the analogy-- Shakespeare's dialogue is actually quite varied. Consider the exchange between Hamlet and Osric, for example. Hamlet mocks him mercilessly for trying to use big words. Contrast Hamlet's tasteful, intelligent, and poetic use of language vs. Polonius's elaborate, convoluted phrases. Even the two gravediggers-- one is clever the other is a bit slow.

hugh3 16y ago

he too has his weaknesses. For instance the fact that every character has the diction of a Harvard English professor and the wit of George Bernard Shaw. Is that really a weakness? Strict realism in dialogue generally makes for pretty poor drama. Shakespeare's characters talk like nobody has ever talked, but his plays would not be improved by sticking in a bunch of "umm"s and "ahh"s and repetition and "y'know" and repetition and, uhh, stuff like that, y'know?

mattmaroon 16y ago
Yes and no I suppose. When it's unrelenting, ubiquitous (politicians and waiters) and in everything he ever composes, I'd consider it a weakness. Of course you don't expect anyone to talk exactly as people do, with umms and ahs and all that. But Steinbeck and Hemingway (and in film, most of the people I mentioned in my original post) prove that you can write great drama and dialogue with a good degree of realism. Also many people did speak similar to Shakespeare's characters, though of course with less rhyming since they weren't poets and Shakespeare was. There's a good explanation of that here "http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_people_really_speak_the_way_they_did_in_Shakespeare%27s_plays http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_people_really_speak_the_way_th...
- pohl 16y ago
  Just like Claude Monet and those big, unrealistic blobs of paint. Such a weakness.
  - mattmaroon 16y ago
    Monet never feels cliche, even all these years later. Sorkin starts to after a few episodes.
Goladus 16y ago
Good point but to nitpick the analogy-- Shakespeare's dialogue is actually quite varied. Consider the exchange between Hamlet and Osric, for example. Hamlet mocks him mercilessly for trying to use big words. Contrast Hamlet's tasteful, intelligent, and poetic use of language vs. Polonius's elaborate, convoluted phrases. Even the two gravediggers-- one is clever the other is a bit slow.