Film came to the narrative power of images inductively. In the infancy of the film industry, there was almost no instance of what is called "point-of-view editing," which is best defined with reference to its opposite number, "single-take, theaterlike scenes" (Messaris, 1994, p. 84). Either technique may function narratively; the relevant point is that from its first usage, point-of-view editing never particularly confused film viewers' ability to follow the story. Rather, it tended to supply what has been described as "dramatic coherence," (Naaman, 2002, p. 133) despite--or because of--such technical devices as "jump-cuts and other visual and audio inconsistencies that . . . we perceive but dismiss for the overriding needs of the fabula" (Naaman, 2002, p. 133). Naaman points out that various "disruptions to cinematic convention" (the jump cutting and camera angles in New Wave films, for example) can also operate as a critique of conventional cinema (p. 134).
It is perfectly possible, of course, to misapply the nonverbal elements of film. Visual effects that are striking chiefly or only because of their value as spectacle may add nothing to a narrative on one hand or on the other may be the only interesting part of a film that is otherwise barren in theme, character, plot, or other pesky elements of elementary narrative. One thinks of Mars Attacks!, which was said to have "attitude, goodness knows; it has stars by the fistful; and it certainly was made with technical skill. What it doesn't have is enough of a story to fill an hour and 46 minutes" (McGurk, 1996).
"Talky," however, is more often and more generally meant as a negative criticism of a movie. Less recognized is that even a film replete with dialogue and plot points is made more or less satisfying
...