Writing Subtext. Linda Seger

      You did just perfect.

      CLYDE

      I did, didn’t I?

      It’s not unusual for sexual information about a character to be hidden in the subtext, as it is in Bonnie and Clyde. The truth usually comes out with more clarity later in the story. This information still needs to be implied so we can begin to guess about what is going on. It’s layered throughout – a little here, a little there. Another hint here. A bit of nuance there.

      In Thelma and Louise (1991, by Callie Khourie), Louise reacts with rage to Harlan’s attempted rape – she kills him. As the story goes on, we get hints that Louise was raped in Texas some time before, and that clearly justice had not been served. Before shooting Harlan, she tells him that when someone is crying, she’s not having any fun. When she tells Thelma that she’ll head to Mexico, she also explains that she won’t go through Texas. She says, “I’m not talking about it.” She understands a great deal about how the law works, and about the lack of evidence to indicate that the killing was done in self-defense. She understands the deep trouble they’re in. Finally, Thelma mentions the word “rape,” as she clearly adds up the subtext:

      THELMA

      It happened to you, didn’t it?… You was raped!

      As the story proceeds, even the detective is clear about what happened, and feels sympathy for both women.

      Just as underlying sexual problems can be in the subtext, so too can underlying attraction. True, most of the time the attraction between two people is fairly clear – to them and to the audience. It’s in the text. But, sometimes it’s in the subtext. Perhaps two characters seem to dislike each other, but we know that they’re truly attracted to each other. Maybe there’s an underlying conflict, but we know it’s really because there’s so much electricity between them.

      Or, sometimes the attraction is clear, but it’s expressed in both the text and the subtext. Sometimes we sense the meaning of the subtext in a scene between two attractive people, even though they’re talking about everything but their attraction to each other. In Up in the Air (2009), the initial flirtation consists of two people showing each other their credit cards in their wallets, a scene suggestive of “You show me yours, I’ll show you mine.”

      In many James Bond films, the initial meeting, as well as some of the repartee in other get-togethers, clearly contains subtext. In the remake of Casino Royale (2006, by Neil Purvis, Robert Wade, and Paul Haggis), James Bond meets Vesper Lynd in the dining car of the train. She’s attractive (of course) and has been assigned to work with him and be the money source so he can take part in a high-stakes poker game. The scene moves between text and subtext, with James Bond usually lacing his lines with subtext. I’ve inserted the subtext throughout the scene, which begins as she joins him at his table:

      VESPER

      I’m the money.

      Note: This is a straight statement. It seems to be text without subtext. She’s stating the reason for their meeting, but the text is still slightly provocative. She doesn’t say “I’m in charge of the money,” but “I’m the money,” which is more personal and gives Bond entry into the subtext.

      BOND

      Every penny of it.

      James immediately turns the scene into subtext. Yes, she looks like a million – every inch of her. He clearly is attracted.

      VESPER

      The Treasury has agreed to stake you in the game.

      Vesper now moves back to the text. This is why she’s here – to explain these details. She tries to be no-nonsense, to-the-point, but it isn’t going to work with James. She hands him her business card, which re-emphasizes the text of the scene.

      BOND

      (examining the card) Vesper? I hope you gave your parents hell for that.

      James won’t stick to the text. He starts with text, noticing her name, but immediately begins to imply subtext. He first implies there’s something wrong with her name. He’s implying, “Who would want to be saddled with the name Vesper?” But the writer, in this case, Ian Fleming, has chosen the name, partly for its subtextual meaning. What does “vesper” mean? It implies evening, which can be filled with possibilities. In the Catholic Church, vespers is the evening service, although we can be reasonably sure James has nothing religious in mind when he examines Vesper. Vespers can imply twilight, a time when things aren’t always seen clearly, or are meant to be secret. It’s an evocative name.

      Vesper continues to speak the text – ten million dollars was wired to his account and he can get five million more if necessary. She asks about the menu and they begin to eat. As the meal proceeds, Vesper is clearly not convinced that James can be trusted to win at poker. She’s not sure their money is in good hands. Bond tries to show he knows the game well.

      BOND

      … in poker you don’t play your hand, you play the man across from you.

      Bond continues to show his knowledge, giving her information in the text, while trying to convince her of his abilities in the subtext.

      VESPER

      And you’re good at reading people.

      It sounds as if Vesper is doing straight text, but Bond catches the subtext.

      BOND

      Which is why I’ve been able to detect the undercurrent of sarcasm in your voice.

      Now Bond is saying outright that he has understood the subtext all along – he understands she doesn’t trust him.

      VESPER

      I am now assured our money is in good hands.

      BOND

      From which one might surmise you aren’t overwhelmingly supportive of this plan of action.

      Bond is now reading another subtext here – it isn’t just about distrust of him, but distrust of the whole plan. We might not have understood the subtext, but he did – because he’s good at reading people. In case we missed it, he explains the subtext to us very clearly.

      VESPER

      So there is a plan? Excellent. Somehow I got the impression we were risking ten million dollars and hundreds of people’s lives on a game of luck. What else can you surmise?

      The sarcasm is there, but now something else is coming out. If Vesper wanted to keep this business-like, she wouldn’t be engaging him by asking a personal question. We might think she’s still talking about the plan, but most likely not. She is probably asking him to surmise something personal. She must admit she’s attracted also. And, as we can see from her last comments at the end of the scene, she has noticed all along he’s an attractive and charming fellow.

      BOND

      About you?

      He got the subtext of her question, and puts it into the text; he studies her, enjoying this turn in the conversation.

      Well, your beauty is a problem.

      You worry that you won’t be taken seriously… ???

      Now, the whole conversation becomes personal. He guesses that she overcompensates for her beauty with her clothes, that she uses arrogance to compensate for her insecurity, and that she’s an only child or an orphan. She guesses he went to Oxford and didn’t have money, and that he is also an orphan. Then she zings him once more:

      VESPER

      … you think of women as disposable pleasures rather than meaningful pursuits, so as charming as you are,

      Ah, she noticed!

      I will be keeping my eye on our government’s money and off your perfectly formed ass.

      BOND

      You noticed.

      Yes,