Two or more people/voices speaking at once

Question

How do you format a scene where two or more people, or voices, are heard at the same time?
I can think of two possible scenarios that I've seen in films and on TV, I'm sure there are other examples.
1) There is an argument; both people are talking at the same time to eachother, and both sides of the dialogue are important to the exposition and clearly heard.
2) There is some dialogue, or a character talking about one thing, andanother overlapping voice talking about something else. E.g. A conversation at a dinner table while the radio or TV announces some important breaking news.
Also, how do you indicate that certain phrases or words from separate characters should be 'in sync' in a sequence which is otherwise composed of their out of sync overlapping voices? E.g. In the following, Jack and Jill are talking over each other and 'Turn left.' and 'Turn right.' are said at exactly the same time.
JACK
(TO TAXI DRIVER)
Take the next left, then go another 200 yards and turn right by the bank. Turn left. Hey, why did you stop? Don't get mad.
JILL
(TO TAXI DRIVER)
No, no , no. It's down there, by the station. You want to go right first. Turn right. Go back, driver, and take that right.
Thanks for any pointers.
Simultaneously,
Matthew

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]How do you format a scene where two or more people, or voices, are heard at the same time?[/nq]
The "official" way is by using dual columns.
Jack Jill
Turn right and then Turn left and then turn
turn left. turn right.
I think most of the script formatters can do this. I know ScriptThing (Movie Magic Screenwriter) can.
[nq:1]I can think of two possible scenarios that I've seen in films and on TV, I'm sure there are other ... down there, by the station. You want to go right first. Turn right. Go back, driver, and take that right.[/nq]
I don't know if using dual columns would be the best way to set something like this up in a spec script. (Especially if both lines of dialogue are going to be this long.) I think I would explain what was going on in actions and break up the dialogue. Besides if you use the dual column method I'm guessing (I don't know) that would imply that the camera would be on both characters, but I think you could emphasize the argument better if the camera cut back and forth to each person.

Maybe something like this:
~~
Jack and Jill both yell at the Taxi Driver at the same time.

Jack
Take the next left
Jill
Take the next right
Jack
go another 200 yards and
Jill
it's down there, by the station
Jack
turn right by the bank and
Jill
you want to go right first
Jack
turn left
Jill
go back!
The taxi screeches to a stop in the middle of the road.

Jack Jill
Hey! Why did you stop? Why are you stopping? ~~
At least it's an idea. I'm sure you'll get better advice from folks who have actually done this.
Good luck.

RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]2) There is some dialogue, or a character talking about one thing, and another overlapping voice talking about something else. E.g. A conversation at a dinner table while the radio or TV announces some important breaking news.[/nq]
I was going to spread a little of my ignorance about this situation also.
~~
Jack and Jill are sitting at the table slurping clam chowder.

Jack
You think Brett will be voted off
the island tonight?
TV (O.S.)
Mormon crickets continue their march
on Phoenix after shredding Mesa... News
at 11.
Jill
No. He's too good looking. That hagbitch
Samantha
TV (O.S.)
Cricket shelters! Only two thousand dollars
INSTALLED! Call Cricket Busters...
1-800-CRICKET... TWO-DAY!
Jack
She's not a hagbitch, she's hot
TV (O.S.)
Lost a loved one to a cricket? We are Mort's
Mortuary feel the pain of your loss. For this
week only we offer our "Cricket Crisis" special...

Jill
If you like warthogs.
~~
I'm sure there is a better way of doing this also.

Good luck.

RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"

Usenet · Answer

Matthew,
Others more knowledgeable than I will doubtless answer you more fully, but in relation to...
[nq:1]1) There is an argument; both people are talking at the same time to each other, and both sides of the dialogue are important to the exposition and clearly heard.[/nq]
...I'd say you should be very wary indeed about doing it. Under most circumstances, two simultaneous passages of speech can't be equally audible or comprehensible.
Have two people talk heatedly over each other by all means: this can make a dramatic point about their relationship, or their mood, or the circumstances; but don't put anything of any importance into what either of them is saying. It might possibly be absorbed by your audience at a subconcious level, but that's a bit risky for important exposition, isn't it?
Bert
http://www.bertcoules.co.uk

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Matthew, Others more knowledgeable than I will doubtless answer you more fully, but in relation to...[/nq]
[nq:2]1) There is an argument; both people are talking at ... the dialogue are important to the exposition and clearly heard.[/nq]
[nq:1]...I'd say you should be very wary indeed about doing it. Under most circumstances, two simultaneous passages of speech can't ... absorbed by your audience at a subconcious level, but that's a bit risky for important exposition, isn't it? Bert http://www.bertcoules.co.uk[/nq]
Yes, this is something to be approached with caution, but I'd like to know how it's done. I don't imagine such a sequence would last a long time. For instance, it might be that one of the two people arguing suddenly realises that the other is saying something important, so stops and lets them talk about or go over what they've just said, and then add what they've already said when things have calmed down.
So, as you say, it's more of a dramatic device. However, although one voice might be heard above the other at a particular time, when a key point is being mentioned, the other person is obviously saying something comprehensible, not just 'rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb', so it needs to be written in the script.Another possible dramatic effect for the viewer might be one of frustration because they are, on purpose, not being allowed to hear one or either side of the conversation, but this gets resolved in the story. For example, a detective investigating a murder is looking over some homemade video of a wedding. The video has captured an argument between several suspects, some of it off screen. At first this sounds like a lot of noise, but by replaying the argument again and again, (perhaps best written in a short montage sequence of the detective scribbling down the dialogue of each person, scratching his head, crossing out words, ******** up cigarette packets, running out of coffee, attempting to lip read, etc, all to the incessant soundtrack of the argument), the detective and the viewer discern who is saying what and discover some important facts about the suspects and the crime.
Matthew

Usenet · Answer

Matthew,
[nq:1]Yes, this is something to be approached with caution, but I'd like to know how it's done. I don't imagine ... about or go over what they've just said, and then add what they've already said when things have calmed down.[/nq]
If you're going to do it, then yes, I'd say this is the best approach. One person says something vital, the other person hears it (even if we don't, consciously) and it pulls her up short.
Probably, as Ron said, the best layout is side-by-side, reverting to normal centralised speeches after the moment of realisation-and-stopping-dead. In the UK I'd say that as long as your intention is absolutely clear, the exact way you set it out doesn't matter too much; in the USA it might be a different matter.
I still don't think, though, that you can simultaneously put across important plot information from both sides using this method - though it would be fun to try.
Bert
www.bertcoules.co.uk

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]I still don't think, though, that you can simultaneously put across important plot information from both sides using this method - though it would be fun to try.[/nq]
I've seen it in some movies. It doesn't work.
jaybee

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]I've seen it in some movies. It doesn't work.[/nq]
I meant of course that it would be fun to try getting it on to the page. I've no doubt that all you'd discover at the end of the experimenting was that - as you say - it doesn't work. I certainly didn't mean to encourage anyone to try it in earnest: with today's fashionably understated delivery and multilayered sound mixes, I frequently have quite enough trouble in modern movies making out what one person is saying, let alone two sounding off at the same time.
Michael's thought was surely the right one: two simultaneous rants, one of which contains the vital new information which causes the other ranter to stop short and say "What the **** do you mean, she lost both legs playing Monopoly?" or whatever, which brings the unified shouting to an end and lets us get back to nice my-turn. your-turn comprehensible dialogue.

Bert
www.bertcoules.co.uk

Usenet · Answer

@reader2.panix.com:
[nq:2]I still don't think, though, that you can simultaneously put ... this method - though it would be fun to try.[/nq]
[nq:1]I've seen it in some movies. It doesn't work.[/nq]
Tell Robert Altman that. Like so many things, it depends on how it's done, and how well.
cd

The difference between immorality and immortality is "T". I like Earl Grey.

Usenet · Answer

RonB presented the following explanation :
[nq:1]TV (O.S.) Mormon crickets continue their march on Phoenix after shredding Mesa... News at 11.[/nq]
mdr I just had to see that again! mdr

Jeri Jo & Little Garcia Bear

Two or more people/voices speaking at once

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions