Aaron Sorkin is a highly acclaimed American screenwriter, playwright, producer, and director known for his sharp, rapid-fire dialogue, and compelling storytelling. Born on June 9, 1961, Sorkin gained widespread recognition for his work in both television and film.
Aaron Sorkin’s storytelling often follows a structure that resembles music in its pacing, rhythm, and tonal variations. His “story theory” revolves around the idea of creating narratives that are akin to musical compositions.
Let’s first look at why Sorkin’s storytelling technique is compared to writing a piece of music, and then let’s dissect in detail one of the most striking dialogues of his cinematic pictures — The Newsroom S01E01, the speech monologue by character Will McAvoy.
Why music is often associated with Sorkin’s storytelling
1. Rhythmic Dialogue: Sorkin’s scripts are known for their rhythmic and melodic quality. The dialogues have a specific cadence, similar to musical notes in a score. Characters engage in rapid, back-and-forth exchanges that resemble a musical duet, with precise timing and tempo.
2. Emotional Beats: Similar to music, where certain notes or sequences evoke specific emotions, Sorkin’s storytelling employs “beats” or moments in the narrative that intensify emotions. This could be a crescendo of tension, a soft interlude of reflection, or a staccato burst of humor.
3. Allegro and Andante: Sorkin’s scripts often move through different tempos. He uses slower, reflective moments (Andante) to delve into character depth or thematic exploration, juxtaposed with faster, high-energy sequences (Allegro) that heighten drama or tension.
4. Musicality of Monologue: Sorkin’s monologues are structured like arias in operas or solos in musicals. They start softly, build up in intensity, and often culminate in a powerful resolution. The speech from “The Newsroom” exemplifies this, with its gradual escalation and emotional depth.
5. Resolution and Recapitulation: Just as musical compositions resolve on the tonic or dominant note, Sorkin’s stories often return to their starting point, offering closure or a reiteration of the initial theme, creating a harmonious narrative arc.
Harmony in Discourse:
Aaron Sorkin’s Symphony of Dialogue in Scriptwriting
First of all, let’s check the Russian translation:
And here is original:
In the realm of scriptwriting, few wield words as deftly as Aaron Sorkin, crafting narratives that resonate like symphonies of dialogue. Renowned for his rhythmic banter, rapid-fire exchanges, and the orchestration of conversational interplay, Sorkin’s scripts unveil a distinct “Harmony in Discourse.”
In Aaron Sorkin’s iconic series “The Newsroom,” the inaugural episode opens with a captivating monologue delivered by news anchor Will McAvoy. Far beyond mere words, this speech ingeniously dissects the notion of America’s exceptionalism, meticulously illustrating its flaws and dormant potential. Crafted with the precision of a musical composition, it expertly crescendos through layers of raw emotion and stark statistics, challenging the audience’s perception of their nation’s greatness.
At a college panel, Will initially evades the query on America’s preeminence with flippant responses. However, pushed to the edge by relentless prodding, he unleashes an unfiltered, soul-baring exposé on the country’s standing. He slams the shortcomings of both liberal and conservative ideologies, casting a harsh light on the nation’s education, health, and societal metrics.
Begin gently. Firstly, remove the two noisemakers:
Question: Can you say why America is the greatest country in the world? Sharon: Diversity and opportunity.
Lewis: Freedom and freedom. So let’s keep it that way.
Will McAvoy: The New York Jets.
Moderator: No, I’m going to hold you to an answer on that. What makes America the greatest country in the world?
Will McAvoy: Well, Lewis and Sharon said it, diversity and opportunity and freedom and freedom.
Moderator: I’m not letting you go back to the airport without answering the question.
Will McAvoy: Well, our Constitution is a masterpiece. James Madison was a genius. The Declaration Of Independence is, for me, the single greatest piece of American writing. You don’t look satisfied?
Moderator: One’s a set of laws and the other is a declaration of war. I want a human moment from you. What about the people? Why is America…
And here comes the rumble, the shock, the emotional beats are starting to emerge, and the intrigue begins to swirl:
Will McAvoy: It’s not the greatest country in the world, professor, that’s my answer.
Moderator: [pause] – You’re saying
Will McAvoy: Yes.
Moderator: Let’s talk about
Inappropriate language serves a purpose here — the filter’s turned off:
Will McAvoy:
Fine.
[to liberal panelist]
Sharon, the NEA is a loser.
Yeah, it accounts for a penny out of our paychecks, but he [gesturing to the conservative panelist] gets to hit you with it anytime he wants. It doesn’t cost money, it costs votes. It costs airtime and column inches. You know why people don’t like liberals?
Because they lose.
If liberals are so friggin’ smart, how come they lose so GODDAM ALWAYS!
And [to the conservative panelist] with a straight face, you’re going to tell students that
America’s so starspangled awesome that we’re the only ones in the world who have freedom?
Canada has freedom, Japan has freedom, the UK, France, Italy, Germany, Spain, Australia,
Belgium has freedom. Two hundred seven sovereign states in the world, like 180 of them
have freedom.
The forthcoming torrent of facts serves multiple functions. It bolsters his argument, showcasing his exceptional depth of knowledge (a rarity for most individuals to have such statistics readily available), yet primarily, it functions akin to a musical allegro — a swift and spirited movement.
And you. sorority girl, yeah — just in case you accidentally wander into a voting booth one
day, there are some things you should know, and one of them is that there is absolutely no
evidence to support the statement that we’re the greatest country in the world.
We’re seventh in literacy, twenty-seventh in math, twenty-second in science, forty-ninth in life expectancy, 178th in infant mortality, third in median household income, number four in labor force, and number four in exports.
We lead the world in only three categories: number of incarcerated citizens per capita, number of adults who believe angels are real, and defense spending, where we spend more than the next twenty-six countries combined, twenty-five of whom are allies.
None of this is the fault of a 20-year-old college student, but you, nonetheless, are without a doubt, a member of the WORST-period-GENERATION-period-EVER-period, so when you ask what makes us the greatest country in the world, I don’t know what the hell
you’re talking about?!
Yosemite?!!!
At this juncture, the pace decelerates, offering a peek into his inner turmoil. Employing the oratorical technique of “floating opposites“, he oscillates between conflicting notions — what was achieved and what was lost. However, it’s crucial to maintain a rhythm that doesn’t hit too precisely. It’s not merely about testing auditory reception; the aim is for the audience to truly comprehend the essence of his words.
We sure used to be.
We stood up for what was right!
We fought for moral reasons, we passed and struck down laws for moral reasons. We waged wars on poverty, not poor people.
We sacrificed, we cared about our neighbors, we put our money where our mouths were, and we
never beat our chest. We built great big things, made ungodly technological advances,
explored the universe, cured diseases, and cultivated the world’s greatest artists and the
world’s greatest economy.
We reached for the stars, and we acted like men.
We aspired to intelligence; we didn’t belittle it; it didn’t make us feel inferior. We didn’t identify ourselves by who we voted for in the last election, and we didn’t scare so easy. And we were able to be all these things and do all these things because we were informed. By great men, men who were revered. The first step in solving any problem is recognizing there is one — America is not the greatest country in the world anymore.
In musical terms, concluding a melody typically involves ending on either the tonic or the dominant note. Think of it like humming “Mary Had a Little Lamb” but skipping the “snow” part—leaving a sense of anticipation.
It’s akin to a sneeze you can’t quite release. Similarly, Will wraps up his impassioned aria by circling back to his initial stance. And to acknowledge the rarity of such a vocal performance in an ordinary conversation, he casually turns to the moderator who had been prodding him and poses a nonchalant query:
Will McAvoy: [to moderator] Enough?
Curtain up.
Oscar to the studio!
But stop! Wait a minute…
Need some conclusion.
When considering the notion of America being the greatest country with a robust economy, it’s imperative to challenge this premise. Can an economy built on imperialism and hegemony truly be labeled as great? Capitalist economies often breed aggression, speculation, and deceit.
While it may provide prosperity for a select few, it comes at the expense of the vast majority. The conversation extends beyond foreign interventions, detailed eloquently in works like “Confessions of an Economic Hitman” by John Perkins. Even for its citizens, America presents an illusion of democracy and freedom, veiling a reality of manipulative practices. The staggering inequality and the undue influence of financial capitalist entities in elections undermine the genuine voice of the people, perpetuating a system that is fundamentally unjust.
There are no greatest and no exceptional, we all live on the Earth and still have not learned to negotiate without wars, violence and speculation. Having such high technologies, we still cannot overcome horrific poverty, disease epidemics, environmental disasters and political instability.
Буржуазный и буржуазно-демократический национализм, на словах признавая равноправие наций, на деле отстаивает (часто тайком, за спиной народа) некоторые привилегии одной из наций и всегда стремится к достижению больших выгод для «своей» нации (т. е. для буржуазии своей нации), к разделению и разграничению наций, к развитию национальной исключительности и т. д. Толкуя больше всего о «национальной культуре», подчеркивая то, что разделяет одну нацию от другой, буржуазный национализм разделяет рабочих разных наций и одурачивает их «национальными лозунгами»
Bourgeois and bourgeois-democratic nationalism, while paying lip service to the equality of nations, in reality defends (often secretly, behind the backs of the people) certain privileges of one of the nations and always strives to achieve greater benefits for “its” nation (i.e., for the bourgeoisie of its nation), to divide and delimit nations, to develop national exclusiveness, etc. Talking most of all about “national culture”, emphasizing what separates one nation from another, bourgeois nationalism divides the workers of different nations and fools them with “national slogans”
Lenin, vol. 24, p. 236
I totally agree with the statement ‘The first step in solving any problem is recognizing there is one.‘ Moreover, it is crucial to recognize it deeply and objectively.
Well, perhaps for now, that’s enough.
It might be time to mull over these thoughts
and delve into some insightful books.
References: