Foreword: After completing the first part and realizing I could not upload the script I had been working on during the class, I decided to take a simpler approach for part 002: keeping track of my thoughts throughout the course and sharing them as a project. To me, a project is about putting knowledge into action—testing whether you truly understand the material. And what better way to do that than to write down my thoughts as a way of processing it? From an application perspective, I was writing a script while following along.

Project 002

The superobjective is the driving force behind the story, with each scene acting as an expression of or journey toward the subgoals that ultimately connect to the superobjective. This concept resonates with me—it’s what keeps a story coherent and impactful. If every scene pursued an unrelated goal, how could the audience stay engaged?

I must confess, I’m still at the stage in my scriptwriting journey where the thought of fully embodying a character as I create them brings on mild anxiety. As the facilitator aptly put it, this process involves “creating the character from the inside out.” But how do I, as a Black African female, make myself feel at home in the mind of, say, a fictional Caucasian European man? Why does he do what he does?

The tip from lesson 2 (on objectives) was to transpose myself into the character’s current situation – ask myself: What would I do? How would I feel? What would drive me to make the decisions this character makes? Yet, I can’t help but wonder – how do I do this without turning every character I create into an egotistical version of myself, the writer?

---

Understanding action means recognizing the physical, mental, and emotional steps the character takes to reach their goal. It seems simple enough. As a scriptwriter, the importance of action feels like a given, but I appreciate the emphasis on the connection between action and the superobjective. It is not enough for a character to act; they must be acting with purpose, moving toward the superobjective while using their allies and opponents to achieve their goals.

This applies not only to the overall story but also to the action within each individual scene. This section reminds me how careful I need to be as a writer, scrutinizing every scene and every action, trimming unnecessary actions that do not serve the story. My goal is to constantly evaluate how the cycle of action, outcome, reassessment, and further action drives the story forward toward the climax and, ultimately, the resolution.

---

Subtext. What is said versus what is meant. How do I create compelling subtext without writing dialogue that becomes nonsensical or fails to convey the essence of the scene? If I am trying to capture the essence of real-life dialogue, where people often do not say what they mean, how do I even keep track of what the character truly means? These are the thoughts on my mind as I begin this section. Subtext has always seemed elusive to me.

Knowing when to use subtext also seems crucial. Perhaps it is not about making every line have subtext, but rather about identifying key inflection points where the arc of the scene or character is about to shift. One example I can think of: A wife might be straightforward when asking her husband to do something the first time, and I would write it that way (e.g., "Can you please take out the trash?"). She might still be direct the second time she asks (e.g., "I asked you to please take out the trash"). Using subtext on the third request, however, would have more impact (e.g., "I live with pigs in this house!" storms out and slams door).

This use of subtext not only conveys her repeated request but also communicates her frustration without her explicitly saying, "You are making me feel ignored" or "You are pissing me off." I imagine the audience would feel that moment more viscerally because of the subtext, as if to say, "Oh, buddy, she is really mad now."

Always keep the message in the subtext.

“Dialogue should only serve to tell what cannot be construed physically from [the] scene” ­– Fredrik Hiller.

Bars!! But I’m still mulling over this one. What do you mean only?

I don't have much to say about dialogue here, because dialogue - for me - understanding dialogue is such an intuitive evolving process. I appreciate the points made in the class, i.e., 

1. Dialogue is not information
2. Information should not be given and received freely
3. Strive to write a silent film as an exercise of sharpening dialogue - "the less dialogue you write, the better dialogue you write"

I can only know if I truly grasp these concepts once I apply them - actively write dialogue. I will note, that I have to go back to two scripts I've completed and sharpen the dialogue, because I was found guilty of some of the novice mistakes highlighted in class, mainly that information should not be given or received freely.

Question: How do I use dialogue as verbal weaponry amongst characters that are best friends for example. Yes, there could be the proverbial tug-of-war to give information the other might not want to share, but can I sustain this kind of interaction and energy in all their scenes? Why can't one just give information freely the same way I'd be keen to call my best friend to tell her about a guy in real life? Simply put, am I not just writing dialogue that's always defensive, tense, etc., or is that the point?

Side note: I used to watch a TV show called "This is Us" which is probably 60% dialogue. The entire time during the course I kept thinking about how I need to rewatch it to see how they made so much dialogue so engaging over multiple seasons.