It's the Little Things: Conversation and Expression's Heightened Implication in Film and TV

In real life, people often analyze the meanings behind other's words and actions. They want to know what people really are thinking--what the subliminal messages are. Because people don't always say what they mean, other clues (nonverbals) are continually interpreted. For example, if Juan has feelings for Kate, he is not likely to immediately express these, but rather he will first "test the waters" and see how she might feel about him. He will likely do this by sometimes saying things in flirtatious tones, smiling at her more often, and dropping subtle hints in conversation. Thus, much of his testing will be based on nonverbal expression, not just verbal subtlety. With both the nonverbal and the verbal subtlety, however, his meaning is subterranean. He will also be keeping a keen eye out for similar subterranean messages sent by Kate.

How does this all relate to film and television? Film and television are dramatic productions: that is, whether they production in question is a drama or a comedy, there is nearly always plot and conflict. The plot and conflict must be advanced continually. In real life, there are many, many details that are not "advancing" a particular plot. However, in most film and television, such details would mostly be considered a waste of time: something that could risk losing the audience. Thus, most details must be important. The audience has seen enough film and television to know this, so they are always watching little details to figure out why they are important: they must be there for a reason, so what do they mean? This is true in mysteries, where people are not often saying what they mean--often hiding the truth. This is true in romantic movies: what the main characters think about each other is of the greatest interest. Since most productions have either some element of mystery or romance (or often both), hidden motives are nearly always present. They are expressed through subtle expressions, phrases, tones, and actions that take on larger meaning.

The relevance and meaning of these clues is heightened compared to reality. If the audience sees Jenna smile after Victor says something, they are quickly going to assume that she is starting to like him. They know its a likely possibility that she will develop feelings for him, simply because it happens so much in film and TV. Otherwise, their relationship would be less dramatic, and the medium demands intrigue. Also, if she is shown smiling, her smile must have significance. So her smile is not just a smile.

In real life, however, her smile could mean a lot of things. Most often, when a girl smiles at something a guy says, there is not going to be a romantic "plot-line" between them. She could be simply enjoying his conversation, but not thinking any more of it. Also, even if she did have a romantic feeling in that moment, it is likely that it will not last, or that nothing will come of it. Not so, in film and TV. It's going to come up again.

But should it be like this? That's a question worth asking. Should film be so charged with a combination of myopic interpretation and preset cliche that something that could hold many meanings often can only hold one? Are there other kinds of relationships that are worth talking about? How should directors and writers use hidden meanings, and how can they when these meanings are forced into cliche boxes?

The audience has been taught to assign a few meanings to many actions: "she likes him" and "he's a traitor/bad guy" being the to most common. Using these conventions is often useful, but it can make it tricky to film outside the box.