Week 4 Day 4 – Ironic Dialogue — IN THE LINE OF FIRE

[Mary Emmick]

Ironic Dialogue —In The Line of Fire

What makes this scene great from a writing perspective is ironic dialogue. Secret Service Agent Frank Horrogan must protect the President’s life from the threat against his life. After the shooter saves his life Frank gets a call from Mitch Leary (Booth).

Back story:

Leary let Frank escape. Frank’s dilemma: He can save the President by shooting Leary, but he will fall to his death. Frank chooses to let Leary escape to save his own life.

Interesting ironic dialogue:

Leary: “The irony is so thick you could choke on it.”

Frank: “There’s no fucking irony, Mitch.”

Mitch Leary: “Think, Frank. The same government that trained me to kill trained you to protect. Yet now you want to kill me while up on that roof I protected you. They’re gonna write books about us, Frank.”

What I learned rewriting my scene is to use ironic dialogue in my script.

[Isti Madarasz]

The irony here is that although Frank is being harsh on the phone and trying to act like a heroic bodyguard, the shooter points out that he is only faking it to fool himself, because he has not behaved as heroically as he shows or even believes himself to be. After all, if he had been willing to sacrifice his own life, the shooter would be dead by now – but Frank saved his own life. How ironic that he keeps playing macho on the phone. The situation is indeed complicated, as they have actually received the same training and now they have to fight each other.

What I have learned is that pointing out the intricacies of things can always be very interesting – and if it is not the protagonist doing it, but one of the side characters or even the antagonist himself, it is more interesting and our protagonist can learn something.

[Deb Johnson]

Mitch insists that Frank chose to “save his ass” instead of eliminating him. This underscores the irony that the one trained to protect (Frank) is now indebted to the very person trained to kill (Mitch) for his own survival.

Also, Mitch asserts, they have the same “father” so to speak – while he, Mitch was trained to kill, and Frank is trained to protect.

Frank, the protector, reacts with anger, hostility, and a threat to kill Mitch. This behavior contradicts the typical image of a heroic and composed protector, showcasing the irony in his character.

Mitch, the assassin, remains cool, calm, and collected. This behavior subverts the expectation of a chaotic and frenzied villain.

Frank’s vehement denial of Mitch’s claims and his aggressive response highlight the internal conflict within him. Mitch’s calm insistence on the choices Frank made serves as a psychological tool, emphasizing the complexity of their relationship.

The scene challenges stereotypes, blurring the lines between hero and villain, making the characters more multidimensional.

It’s a wonderful thing to be able to contrast your characters in this way. It’s a special form of “shading” so to speak. Instead of them acting in their prescribed roll, according to what their profile dictates – we have them act in the opposite manner. This is the irony of heroes and villains. A villain can act heroic, and a hero can act like a villain… in order to obtain their desired end.

While Frank seems to be “black and white” in his approach to fighting crime/protecting the President – he can act like a villainous badass.

While Mitch can plot and scheme to kill the President, he can appear to be calm, cool, collected, and in his own way, seem justified.

[Mary Dietz]

My first impression was the irony of mental states: Mitch, the villain, is calm and collected; Frank, the honorable protector, is losing his footing. These characters have a history; they knew each other on the phone merely by voice recognition. Though in opposition with each other, both save lives, and both have the urge to kill. This raises the question in the viewer’s mind of who will walk away in the end, and who may lie dead.

While Mitch kindly saves Frank a lot of trouble by letting him know he is following up on the wrong person, he also stings Frank by asking if he is really committed to his work…or more to his personal safety. That’s not just a personal question. It conjures the question of what else will Mitch attempt if he knows that Frank is a feeble opponent. Subtext suggests that Mitch feels entitled to immunity from Frank since he saved his life. While Frank denies that possibility, he is left with the haunting question of whether he has the guts to do his duty.

I also find it ironic that the initiative for the call comes from Mitch. Isn’t it Frank who should be tracking Mitch? This creates a twist for the viewer. Now we need to question who is chasing whom?