7 Answers
Whenever I read a script aloud, 'furthermore' makes me pause — not because it's wrong, but because it wears a suit to a backyard barbecue. It’s one of those Latinate, multi-syllable words that carries a certain weight and ceremony. In everyday speech people usually lean on shorter, punchier connectors: 'also,' 'plus,' 'and,' or even a casual 'what's more.' So when a character drops 'furthermore' in dialogue it tends to signal something deliberate: a formal tone, a pompous personality, or a period piece where people actually spoke that way.
Beyond its formal baggage, the cadence of 'furthermore' matters. It’s three syllables with stress on the first—FUR-ther-more—which slows the line slightly and draws attention. In scripts and on screen, that attention can be useful if you want the audience to notice a character's pretension or intellectual distance. Directors and actors are always listening for those beats — a line that disrupts natural rhythm will be delivered differently, sometimes humorously or sometimes with cold authority. That’s why you’ll spot 'furthermore' more often in stage directions, academic monologues, legal speeches, or villainous asides rather than in kitchen-table chatter.
If I’m writing or polishing a script I’ll choose it very intentionally. Use it as a costume piece for a character — let a nervous professor or a showy politician use it, and the audience gets immediate shorthand for their world. But swap it out for a shorter connector if you want naturalism. I still enjoy it when a writer sneaks it in at the right moment; it’s like a tiny, theatrical flourish that either makes me laugh or sit up straighter, depending on the scene.
Late-night rewrites taught me that 'furthermore' behaves like a formal costume: it can make a character step onto the stage with a forehead wrinkle and a ledger. The reason it sounds formal in scripts is a mix of history and sound — it’s Latinate, less common in speech, and rhythmically heavy compared to colloquial alternatives. In a screenplay, every word is also an actor’s cue; a heavier connector alters breathing and pacing, so directors and performers notice it immediately. That means using it will either give your character a certain educated arrogance or make them sound stilted, which can be perfect for satire or terrible for realism. Personally, I reserve it for moments when I want the audience to feel a slight distance from the speaker — sort of like putting on a tie for one scene only.
I get a little nerdy about dialogue rhythm, so when I see 'furthermore' in a screenplay I read it like a cue: someone wants to sound official. In everyday speech people almost never reach for 'furthermore' — it's stiff and a touch archaic. On set, actors will either overplay it (bringing a pompous cadence) or replace it with something snappier. When you watch shows that strive for realism, like mockumentaries or slice-of-life dramas, they avoid Latinate connectors because they break the illusion of spontaneity.
Another angle I think about is audience processing: films communicate visually and economically. One long, formal transition word can weigh down a scene that otherwise relies on subtext or visual beats. Conversely, if the script calls for courtroom testimony, historical narration, or a villain's monologue, 'furthermore' becomes a terrific flavor choice — it immediately telegraphs authority and distance. Personally, I love spotting those intentional tonal choices; they tell me what the writer wants me to feel about the speaker.
I actually notice 'furthermore' popping up in readings of old courtroom scenes or political speeches, and it always reads like stage etiquette. People don’t talk like that much anymore, so when a script gives that word to a character it tends to mark them as educated, pompous, or from another era. That contrast is useful: the word itself becomes shorthand for class, schooling, or antiquated formality.
There’s also a practical, almost scientific reason it feels formal. 'Furthermore' shows up far less in conversational corpora than plain words like 'also' or 'besides.' Our brains flag low-frequency, Latinate vocabulary as high-register. Actors instinctively treat it as a different instrument — diction tightens, intonation flattens, and the delivery gets more rhetorical. Subtitlers and translators even face a choice: keep the elevated tone or domesticate it for modern viewers. I find it fascinating because the word can either distance the audience or deepen a character, depending on how it’s used. I like when writers play with that expectation, using 'furthermore' for comedic contrast or as a clue to a character’s background, rather than defaulting to it out of habit.
That clipped, Latinate ring of 'furthermore' is what tips me off every time — I hear it and picture someone in a suit delivering exposition. I think the main reason it feels formal in movie scripts is register: film dialogue aims to mimic natural speech, and 'furthermore' belongs to written, academic, or legal registers rather than casual conversation. When I read a screenplay, my ear expects quick, punchy lines that actors can inhabit; 'furthermore' is a heavy, deliberate connector that slows rhythm and lights up the sentence as staged or scripted.
Beyond register there's function and history. 'Furthermore' evolved from Latin-rooted conventions used in essays, judicial opinions, and stagey monologues. In cinema, it often shows up in stage directions, voice-over narration, or characters meant to be pompous or old-fashioned. Directors and actors will either lean into that formality for effect — making a character seem pompous, authoritative, or comedic — or swap it for more colloquial options like 'also', 'and', 'what's more' to preserve naturalism. For me, spotting 'furthermore' in a script is a small red flag that the writer is signaling exposition or elevated tone, which can be brilliant on purpose or jarring if accidental. I usually prefer dialogue that breathes; that word tells me the scene has a different aim, and I find that contrast interesting.
I think of 'furthermore' as a costume word — it dresses a line up and tells the audience the speaker is being formal. In casual conversation or most modern films, people use shorter connectors: 'also', 'and', 'plus', 'what's more'. Those are faster and let actors ride the emotional beat. If you want a character to sound smug or old-school, drop in 'furthermore' and watch the scene change; it signals distance or authority immediately.
For writers aiming for naturalistic dialogue, I recommend swapping it out or cutting it entirely; often the next sentence can stand on its own. For comedic or period pieces, keep it and exaggerate. Personally, I like words that do double duty — carry meaning and rhythm — and 'furthermore' usually tips the scales toward meaning at the expense of rhythm, which can be fun when used intentionally.
In scripts I've read for fun and critique groups, 'furthermore' stands out as an artifact of written logic trying to masquerade as spoken language. I often find it in action lines or narration where the writer is doing the job of an essayist, layering argument atop argument. Screenwriting favors verbs and beats — you want images and choices, not academic transitions. So when 'furthermore' appears in dialogue, it usually marks a character who is formal, educated, or writing-from-the-head rather than speaking-from-the-heart.
There’s also the auditory factor: actors perform for ear and mouth. 'Furthermore' is three syllables with stress patterns that can throw off conversational tempo. Substitutes like 'also', 'plus', or 'and' are punchier and sit better in quick exchanges. Historically, theater and early film inherited rhetorical flourishes from 19th-century playwriting; some of those flourishes survive as color, intentionally archaic. When I teach or coach reading scripts aloud, I encourage testing different connectors — drop in 'also', 'besides', or even silence — to see how pacing and subtext change. That experimentation usually reveals why 'furthermore' feels formal: it isn’t how humans naturally cascade thoughts in dialogue. I tend to steer toward more natural phrasing unless the script deliberately wants that elevated tone, in which case it can be wonderfully specific.