Films

Scrip, dialogue and even narrative are overrated in movies Oliver. Films are a visual media and can excite move and inspire through mise en scene.

I disagree, David. That's like saying that theatre is a stage medium and it excites through watching the actors on stage. I'm as interested in the visual side as you. I said somewhere further up that I think Ridley Scott is a very good visual director. I'll happily watch 'Blade Runner' as a visually accomplished film. I'll happily watch many a visually stunning film with a trashy screenplay (e.g., 'Metropolis'--even though that is of course miles ahead of most stuff produced today).

None of that leads me to conclude that the script (or, to give it its proper name, 'screenplay') is in any way less important than the visuals. It is merely a different component, with a different role. I think that there is great scarcity of good screenplays, and there are undoubtedly more visually good directors around than good screenplays. It seems more the case that screenplays are underrated, as no-one, from the producers to the punters (although I have sat in many a film theatre and I am firmly convinced that most people sense the absence or presence of a good story very strongly), seems to give them sufficient attention to make them count.

Why limit your interest to only a few aspects of a film? That's the thing with multimedia--in a song, you might say that it's only the music that's important, but then, couldn't you just have the music without the words? Well, no, because then it wouldn't be a song any more, and at any rate, you would miss the human voice singing. Ah, but, never mind whether it's a song, then couldn't the voice just go 'lalalala' all the time? Conceivably, yes, but why? Why not take the risk and try to sing something meaningful and moving? I don't mean to over-analyse art in which several aspects come together to create a whole, as they are obviously intended to be enjoyed together, without breaking them down into their components too much. But I simply don't see why screenplays should be fit to be ignored or rated less in films.

In the specific case of 'Alien', well-directed though it may be, I simply don't rate the work of H R Giger. At all. I find his drawings intensely boring. I find the entire artwork for 'Alien' an attention-seeking nothing. There is simply no reason for me to watch it--unlike 'Blade Runner' or 'Metropolis', I feel no need to see the artwork moving. Also, in this day and age, you get a lot of spoilers, of course.

My film heroes, (Lynch, R.Scott, Kubrick, Cronenburg, Bigelow, Greenaway, Argento) rely little on words and loads on visual power and audio atmosphere to thrill and excite.

What else can they do if they don't have decent screenplays to work from? Ridley Scott got lucky at least once, with 'Thelma and Louise', which is an excellent screenplay. The combination of that and his skill as a director, plus some very good acting, produced a unique and outstanding film. You can achieve a combination of different qualities.

I too read the scrip for alien (and Blade Runner for that matter) . Those scripts do not do justice to the beauty and terror portrayed in those films.

Please explain what you mean by 'do justice to the beauty and terror portrayed in those films'?

All I'm really saying is: Don't give up on demanding to be told a good story.