I think the key difference is intentionality.
When visuals truly carry the story, every decision has weight: blocking, framing, lens choice, negative space, rhythm. Dialogue often takes over when those visual decisions aren’t fully trusted or fully resolved.
A good example of visual storytelling working at its best is “No Country for Old Men.”
Large stretches of the film rely on framing, silence, and spatial tension rather than explanation. The audience is asked to observe, infer, and participate. Dialogue exists, but it never replaces what the image already communicates.
On the other hand, there are films where dialogue ends up compensating for visual uncertainty. “Tenet,” for instance, leans heavily on explanatory dialogue to clarify rules and mechanics that the visuals alone struggle to carry. While the ambition is undeniable, much of the emotional and narrative work is pushed into words rather than images.
This isn’t about rejecting dialogue. At its best, dialogue adds a layer it doesn’t carry the scene.
The strongest films treat dialogue almost like sound design: precise, purposeful, and sometimes deliberately absent.
The balance you mention is essential. But I’d argue visual storytelling is not only more powerful, it’s also more fragile. When it fails, there’s nowhere to hide. Dialogue can patch cracks; images can’t.
That’s probably why truly visual storytelling feels rarer and more rewarding when it works.
