Is It What You Say Or What You Do? Dialogue VS Performance

For the most part, I don’t enjoy films that are monologue-heavy. Much of Hollywood seems to be rather fond of them, but there is something that feels false about them. It is like you are being talked at rather than talked to. A filmmaker needs to respect a viewer’s ability to understand and appreciate nuance.

I do need to remind myself that films rich in such monologues often come from books and plays, so it would make sense that there is a lot of talking and, therefore, it is a necessity rather than lazy filmmaking. So, I want to take a look at two iconic and often-cited monologues from similarly-styled films with a similar context. One comes from a bestselling novel and the other a hit Broadway play. The main idea, or rather question, I am wrestling with is: does the success and impact of a monologue depend on its performance or what is says?

Let's look first at A Few Good Men (AFGM), a 1992 legal drama directed by Hollywood legend Rob Reiner and starring some of the most well-known and decorated actors of all time. This 90s classic comes from the play by Aaron Sorkin, who also wrote the screenplay for the film. This makes sense, as when you watch the film it is very much like a play. Action has little role in its narrative progression. What advances the narrative in this film is dialogue.

The story and the emotive connection in AFGM comes from talking. It is exactly what it is; a story being told to the viewer. A tale filled with questions of morality, loyalty and ethics that is designed to challenge the viewer and cause them to queasily question their own opinions of such matters.

There is a reason some of the finest actors in the world do a lot of theatre acting. It is because the stage requires the best. It is up to the actor to keep the audience engaged and make them invested in the story. Plays are long and, for the most part, have little to no activity, bar characters talking to one another, so performance is all the viewer can focus on, which therefore needs to be something special.

There are many famous faces in AFGM, but in this particular monologue, there are some of the most talented actors in Hollywood, as well as some of the most famous: Jack Nicholson and Tom Cruise. I know everyone has their own opinion of Tom Cruise and I have mentioned in a previous post (which I will tag) that he can be an extremely talented actor and has proven his skills outside of the mainstream world, particularly in Magnolia.

This is really Nicholson’s character’s monologue, but Cruise plays a very important role in it. Nicholson rarely gives a mediocre performance. He is on the stand in the courtroom, explaining his side and his questioning will make or break the case. Throughout his speech, his anger and frustration come across clearly and directly, but he also manages to remain very eloquent, which is key to his character and his character’s point. What is great about this monologue is that it allows the other side to be heard, in a very concise manner. Until now, we had been seeing the perspective of the ‘good guys'. Here, the ‘guilty’ party gets their chance. This is a wonderful aspect of this film and a great use of monologue, giving both sides a chance to be heard.

Tom Cruise’s interjections feel very natural. They don’t just talk. They interrupt each other or talk over each other, which is a much more natural way of arguing. It is rare that everyone just sits and waits for the other to be finished, especially in a courtroom. It is this natural pushing and provoking that leads to the film’s most famous line: “You can’t handle the truth”. All these little touches create a natural argument. We feel the pursuit building between the two. It is just a matter of who cracks first.

I would imagine that learning all those lines is difficult and their length is probably what could lead to them coming across as stagnant and lifeless. They could be over-rehearsed and feel as though the actor is just regurgitating, whereas Nicholson just allows it to roll off his tongue. There are no hesitations or pauses. It looks like what is happening is real and natural, which is what makes the words being said so convincingly.

Now looking at A Time To Kill (ATTK), coming from the very famous John Grisham novel. It is another 90s political drama with perhaps even bigger stars. It is one of those films everyone knows comes from a book as it was so popular and well-known. This film is more action-based as it doesn’t require just dialogue to progress the storyline.

Matthew McConaughey’s monologue is incredibly famous, but nowhere near as quotable. It is more true to the traditional idea of what a monologue is because nobody else speaks except McConaughey’s character. The only interjections from other characters are facial expressions reacting to McConaughey’s speech.

There is something about this homily that seems so hollow in comparison to AFGM. It feels forced and the emotion feels totally staged. Part of this staged emotion is down to the ease at which McConaughey can turn on and off the waterworks. Once his speech is over or his rehearsed lines are over, the tears stop dead. I know he is considered to be a good actor but if I was to go off this scene, I wouldn’t believe that. In AFGM, its flow is so natural. It feels like a genuine thought. It is spontaneous. In contrast, ATTK feels rehearsed, studied; like reading from a sheet in front of you, with some emotion thrown in for good measure.

The question that brought me to discuss these scenes is: it is the words or the performance that give the moment power? I think I already thought that if the words are emotive and impactful, it won’t matter who says them, but now I think it does. Yes, words can be very powerful, but they can be even more so when said by the right person in the right way. Words don’t mean much without having something powerful and genuine behind them.