I think all too often, when people talk about the best screenplays, they talk about the most screenplays.

"Hey, what's your favorite script?" "Social Network"

It's an excellent script, but is it a better screenplay than that of something like... I don't know, Eraserhead, for example?

Eraserhead is a movie with a focus on the audiovisual rather than necessarily what little dialogue there is in it, so stacked up against the Social Network, with its plentiful, rapid-fire dialogue, a Sorkin staple, if you're just talking about the screenplay, it looks like there is more of it.

The Social Network is certainly very screenplay-ey, isn't it? You have an easier time buying into it just by reading the script than by reading Eraserhead's, because the visual aspect is so important in the latter.

But they are still both excellently crafted and yes, written, movies.

I get the idea that people all too often take a superficial reading of these things and go for the most dialogue rather than the best structured, paced, imaginative script, a lot dialogue or not. (This is not a comment on the example movies in question, which I think are both excellent in different ways).

At the same time, some movies are elevated by great directing and acting, while others shine more in the script. When you average a movie with good-but-not-great writing, but great directing, versus the opposite, you might put one into "Best Screenplays" and other into "Best Directing Performances".

I tend to think that a great movie cannot be done without a great screenplay, there's just a few scripts which are subtler than others, but the case definitely may be where the other aspects of filmmaking elevate the movie.

What are your thoughts on this?

​

​