Why is dialogue in today’s television and film unbearable?

Jena Salem, Contributing Writer

There has been a drastic shift in the quality of screenwriting in the past few years. Whenever I bring myself to tune into the latest hit show or critically-acclaimed movie, it ends with me switching off the television. It has left me wondering — what happened? 

I put together a list of popular shows currently airing and another with beloved programs that premiered decades ago. After rewatching them all, the former shared one common denominator — quality dialogue. 

Compared to their predecessors, listening to the conversations written in modern-day television and film is insufferable. Each show falls under the two extremes of a spectrum. 

On one end, there are the overcompensating “intellectuals.” Every line out of a character’s mouth is pretentious, as if they’re competing over who can sound the smartest. Nothing about what they say depicts realistic, digestible discussions. 

It becomes tiresome for an audience to sit through, and eventually, we lose interest. A telltale sign of poorly-written dialogue is when the literary pendulum swings too hard in one direction. In other words, if an author feels the need to exaggerate how people talk to each other, this industry is the wrong fit. 

Screenwriters should be able to understand how real people interact with each other and replicate that visually. After that is achieved, factor in the characters’ demeanors. Think about how they could blend into, or clash against, one another. On-screen interactions that are convincing stay with the audience. Any writer that can’t follow this formula should consider another medium for their creativity. 

Several films fall into this category, “Saltburn” and “Honey, Don’t!” being two that come to mind. Both are masterclasses in depicting abstract concepts that translate terribly onto paper. The dialogue is like a riddle we’re supposed to solve, and once deconstructed, the answer is often so boring that it leaves us unsatisfied. 

The other end is the stark opposite. In this category, we have the oversimplistic trendhoppers. These projects rely heavily on vulgarity and incorporating teenage slang to come off as hip and relatable. 

A heavy hitter with this issue is “Euphoria” — especially season two. It’s hard to deny the drastic tone shift. Once well-rounded, sympathetic characters suddenly became shells of who they were before. Every interesting aspect was stripped away in favor of molding them into the superficial personality types popularized online. It doesn’t help that they can’t get past one sentence without using crass or suggestive language. 

I hate to say it, but these characters are on the fast track to flanderization. That occurs when a character’s defining traits are oversimplified to the point where they become caricatures of their former selves. 

There isn’t anything inherently wrong with either of these forms of dialogue — in small doses, that is. Sometimes, both are appropriate in the context of a project’s main theme. 

The mistake is making them your bread and butter. Of course, no one is claiming that every show has to be the next “Mad Men,” or that each movie must hold a candle to “Reservoir Dogs.” Just fill the writer’s room with employees that can string together a sentence without using obscenities or inappropriate slang.

If an aspiring scriptwriter comes across this piece, take this into consideration before picking up a pen. It’s true that film is supposed to provoke thought and reflect the viewer. However, you must go about it in a particular way. Dialogue that paints characters as snobbish or “too on the nose” alienates whoever is watching. 

Media of this nature should be digestible —  but also sustainable. To maintain relevance writing must stand the test of time. With the current standard of quality, modern-day media seems destined for a legacy of mediocrity.