Given Aaron Sorkin's talent at writing dialogue, this exercise is like swimming in a tsunami of…

Given Aaron Sorkin's talent at writing dialogue, this exercise is like swimming in a tsunami of possible choices. I'll select three because of their precision in terms of revealing character and world view. Here is the first:

Abbie Hoffman: Winning elections, that's the first thing on your wish list? Equality, justice, education, poverty and progress, they're second?

Tom Hayden: If you don't win elections, it doesn't matter what's second. And it is astonishing to me that someone still has to explain that to you.

In a nutshell, this explains the divergent ways in which these two key figures see the world. It's the philosophical text of their discord. The *subtext* is the fact both have big egos and do not like the other to hog media limelight. As one of the key emotional throughlines of the story, the evolution of their relationship in which they acknowledge each other's value to the movement and more than that mutual respect, this exchange provides a marker against which to measure that transformation.

The next dialogue I would highlight is this:

Richard Schultz: Do you have contempt for your government?

Abbie Hoffman: I think the institutions of our democracy are wonderful things, that right now are populated by some terrible people.

Richard Schultz: Please answer the question.

Abbie Hoffman: Tell me again?

Richard Schultz: Do you have contempt for your government?

Abbie Hoffman: I'll tell you, Mr. Schultz, it's nothing compared to the contempt my government has for me.

The fact Hoffman takes the witness to testify, not Hayden provides Sorkin an opportunity to explore the intelligence of Hoffman's character. Not just a yippie, not just someone looking to disrupt norms, this is a reflective character who has a deep understanding of politics.

If you watch the scene in the movie, note the times the camera shifts from Hoffman to Hayden, Hayden to Hoffman. In my view, the emotional subtext is Hoffman is using this opportunity to convey to Hayden: "I get you. We're on the same team." Hoffman quite literally says that, while looking at Hayden: "I think Tom Hayden’s a badass of an

American patriot."

So, Hoffman does *his* part - again, looking at the emotional subtext of the scene, the evolving relationship between these two "sibling" rivals. How does Hayden respond?

Having been found guilty by the jury, Hoffman addresses Hayden from the bench:

JUDGE HOFFMAN

In spite of your actions during the

convention, you are the one

defendant who has shown during this

trial, respect for this court and

for this country and remorse for

your actions. I truly believe--I

mean this--I truly believe that one

day you could be a very productive

part of our system. I’d like you to

make your statement brief and

without any political content of

any kind. If you make your

statement brief, if you make it

respectful, remorseful and to the

point, I will look favorably upon

that when administering my

sentence. Do you understand what I

just said?

Hayden rises and we assume he's going to act in accordance with his more pragmatic political instincts, as noted in the exchange with Hoffman above. Instead:

TOM

Your Honor, since the day this

trial began, four-thousand seven

hundred and fifty-two U.S. troops

have been killed in Vietnam.

(pause)

And the following are their names.

Hayden engages in an act of civil disobedience, but - again in terms of the relationship with Hoffman - his way of acknowledging, "I get *you*. We're on the same side." Indeed, the line of scene description in the script just after Hayden begins to read the names of the killed soldiers is this:

"ABBIE leads the other DEFENDANTS in CHEERING as the GALLERY ERUPTS and stands for this final moment of defiance."

These dialogue excerpts point out a structural dynamic in the script: There is the Big Story, the Plotline - the dispensation of the trial - and there is the Small Story - the evolution of the relationship between Hayden and Hoffman.

Dialogue is spoken word with a purpose. Sorkin gets that in a big way.