Hello there! :-) I’ve never seen Fleabag, and watching this scene makes me really, really, really want to.
Here to report that I did pick up on most of the subtext, but I questioned whether the priest saying “I love you” back came from him having feelings for her and denying them for his loyalty to God.
Hello there! :-) I’ve never seen Fleabag, and watching this scene makes me really, really, really want to.
Here to report that I did pick up on most of the subtext, but I questioned whether the priest saying “I love you” back came from him having feelings for her and denying them for his loyalty to God.
I tried to figure it out with the body language as the scene played out. For a second it almost seemed like he was close to kissing her and then turned his head the other way to stop himself. And his emotion when he said he loved her too made me wonder.
Those are my initial takes — a case study if you were at all interested. It wasn’t totally clear to me, but I guess that’s the good thing about our books: our readers aren’t just dropped into the ending. They’ve been studying our characters the whole time. If we’ve done a good job of dropping breadcrumbs of subtext all throughout, our character arcs can prove delicious!
Ooh that's such an interesting point about body language also — how that might affect what your character is saying and how it comes across. Layers, layers layers...
Definitely! I think the way to think about it in a script is: the dialogue informs the acting/body language when its subtext is clear & accessible to the actor (and actors are geniuses at decoding this stuff—that’s their job). The writer can write gestures, turns towards or away, and basic physicality into a script, but the general wisdom is you don’t want to give the actor too much direction around small movements. That’s really the actors domain and choice. So I think the BEST way to accomplish a dynamic convo that incorporates the additional layering of body language is to work *within the dialogue* to make the scene *move* in all the ways it can move. With physicality, eyeliners avoided, eye contact, drooped heads, etc. By acing the dialogue and knowing your subtext.
In fiction, it’s a bit different of course. We have more space & permission in prose to write physicality into the conversation (because the HOW of how we write it in can add beauty & poignance or wit—whereas that’s not the goal in the screenplay.)
Yes! I do think the scene is a fascinating case study even if someone hasn't seen the show, but to give some supportive backstory: the Hot Priest *definitely* loves her. They have fallen in love. Here he is stepping into his decision to keep god above any one person ... so he *NOW* must love her, as he loves all humans, with his allegiance to god at the helm.
When he says (ugh, dagger through the heart!) "it'll pass" he's talking to himself too.
I saw some but not all of Fleabag, but I still can't see the priest without also seeing Moriarty from Sherlock (played by the same actor) which somehow heavily undermines my ability to believe anything the priest character says and, I think, detracted from my ability to appreciate Fleabag.
Hello there! :-) I’ve never seen Fleabag, and watching this scene makes me really, really, really want to.
Here to report that I did pick up on most of the subtext, but I questioned whether the priest saying “I love you” back came from him having feelings for her and denying them for his loyalty to God.
I tried to figure it out with the body language as the scene played out. For a second it almost seemed like he was close to kissing her and then turned his head the other way to stop himself. And his emotion when he said he loved her too made me wonder.
Those are my initial takes — a case study if you were at all interested. It wasn’t totally clear to me, but I guess that’s the good thing about our books: our readers aren’t just dropped into the ending. They’ve been studying our characters the whole time. If we’ve done a good job of dropping breadcrumbs of subtext all throughout, our character arcs can prove delicious!
Ooh that's such an interesting point about body language also — how that might affect what your character is saying and how it comes across. Layers, layers layers...
Definitely! I think the way to think about it in a script is: the dialogue informs the acting/body language when its subtext is clear & accessible to the actor (and actors are geniuses at decoding this stuff—that’s their job). The writer can write gestures, turns towards or away, and basic physicality into a script, but the general wisdom is you don’t want to give the actor too much direction around small movements. That’s really the actors domain and choice. So I think the BEST way to accomplish a dynamic convo that incorporates the additional layering of body language is to work *within the dialogue* to make the scene *move* in all the ways it can move. With physicality, eyeliners avoided, eye contact, drooped heads, etc. By acing the dialogue and knowing your subtext.
In fiction, it’s a bit different of course. We have more space & permission in prose to write physicality into the conversation (because the HOW of how we write it in can add beauty & poignance or wit—whereas that’s not the goal in the screenplay.)
Yes! I do think the scene is a fascinating case study even if someone hasn't seen the show, but to give some supportive backstory: the Hot Priest *definitely* loves her. They have fallen in love. Here he is stepping into his decision to keep god above any one person ... so he *NOW* must love her, as he loves all humans, with his allegiance to god at the helm.
When he says (ugh, dagger through the heart!) "it'll pass" he's talking to himself too.
Sorry for my spoilers!!!
I saw some but not all of Fleabag, but I still can't see the priest without also seeing Moriarty from Sherlock (played by the same actor) which somehow heavily undermines my ability to believe anything the priest character says and, I think, detracted from my ability to appreciate Fleabag.