Prior to this studio I hadn’t really read too many screenplays before, I mean sure I’ve come across a few online, been handed out some in class, even had to write and use some on projects before, but nothing extreme or anything that delved into the craft that much. However during this assessment, despite having read far more now,  I was prompted to go back and look at some of my favourite films’ screenplays: The Lord of The Rings trilogy. One thing I had concerns about in my own writing was my vagueness/lack of description in accurately conveying character action and emotion, but to my surprise The Lord of the Rings screenplays did exactly the same thing rather often, leaving many actions open to interpretation to the actors, (then again I’m sure at that level you’re not going to tell Ian McKellen what to do when it comes to portraying a much-loved emotional character – he’s got that down-pat). I suppose what I’m trying to say is that I now See that it’s okay for screenplays to employ a sense direct-ambiguity, aiming towards an action/emotion but allowing for a greater range/scope.
One idea that I found further reinforced in reading these was that whilst there are rules and guidelines with screenwriting, there are no set laws that are compulsory for a writer to abide by. There’s much more wiggle room than I had previously thought, thus opening up a new realm of possibilities and writing styles when it comes to creating my own screenplay. Yet I fear that that could become dangerous for me; as someone who likes to vary style and meander with concepts, I worry that having too many options will ironically restrict me and damage my style, whereas in having a more set structure that I can follow I’d be able to enforce rules on myself. Then again, I guess that such a choice is up to me in the end, I need to decide if I want to be more rigid with my writing, or open up myself, but more importantly; what style will suit the subject matter of my writing best. The Lord of The Rings is a lore heavy fantasy written by a literary and lingual genius, it would make sense for the screenplay of such a text expand on the same elements and expression, whereas you wouldn’t expect the same level of detail and passion in a screenplay say the likes of Sharkboy and Lava Girl: for a film that took two weeks to film, I doubt that someone would put THAT much effort into making the screenplay overly descriptive or to be emotionally invested as much.
All in all, one of my major observations is that there’s a major divide within the world of screenwriting in terms of writing style, nor for better nor worse, but merely in terms of what style suits what film and subject. What my writing style will be when it comes to the final assessment will be determined on what exactly I have to say and the tone of the ‘film’.

Week 4 Picture This! Class B activity

“Int. day, store

Beth, aged 21, dressed stylishly in black with vibrant blue hair peruses over a selection of CDS.
She tracks along with her fingers until she finds one that grabs her attention.
Reading over the back of the Nickelback CD she becomes delighted with her choice.

Clearly disgruntled by this choice, a fellow shopper overlooking her intervenes, quickly enacting justice by fatally shooting her point blank.

                                                                                                                                                Cut

Later

A freshly drawn chalk outline marks where Beth fell dead in front ‘popular’ music section. Markers surround the area, and detectives write intensely into their notepads. The stores’ bright lighting and vibrant colours serve as cruel juxtaposition to the recent events.

                                                                                                                                                Cut

Ext. day. 

Multiple police escort a handcuffed man outside of the camera-laden store to their van, lock him in the back, then meander outside to continue discussing details. Emerging through crowds of concerned civilians, another two cars arrive to assist in securing the area and looking over security footage.

                                                                                                                                                Cut

Adjacent to the police, a news van hastily pulls in. A reporter converses to an officer whilst crew set up for their coverage. A woman soon exits the van, joining the crew. Adjusting her hair and clothing, she clears her throat, and with the all-clear signal from her cameraman, begins live reporting.”

Unfortunately, due to my strange  habits in writing, what stands out with my writing for the better is also my largest setback (or at least a very close Venn-diagram which I should aim to separate).
While trying to be descriptive, in which I believe I can do fairly well, I fail to be concise in some areas, and fail to elaborate in others. In order ot improve I need to try and expand my vocabulary to include more precise verbs, as well as reduce the length of my sentences whilst remaining concise and coherent. This is evident within the first paragraph of the screenplay I wrote in class two weeks back; I stated Beth to be “delighted with her choice”, yet failed to exactly show how. Delight infers emotion not action. I need to be able to convey visible action; did she grin, eyes widen, jump with energy, smirk – I need to further enable myself to make definite irrefutable statements that aren’t debatable in how they’re perceived. to meander with definition is to wane the absolutes and control, and expand interpretation to a compromising extent. Whilst a screenplay is an art form and should be able to artistically express, it has a duty to be more direct in conveying information, a duty which I am yet to efficiently uphold, although I do plan to.
Cody: descriptive? Yes. Concise? No.
Hopefully the more I write I can become better at the practice, it will just take a lot more diligence than I currently have. It should be interesting and fun to compare my statements now with my final assessment piece.

Chris Dzialo’s statement of  “screenplays should be experienced […] as a form of cinema itself” is a difficult topic to either agree on or refute as that the two are so intrinsically connected that you cannot have one without the other. A large part of me wants to say that a screenplay should be held in different regards as that the two are of opposing mediums, and that much can be lost in translation between the two – whilst yes, the purpose of a screenplay is to infer what will later be shown on screen, many of them are written in a way that inferred actions and emotions are not set in stone and can be later adapted, expanded, redacted, even reimagined entirely. One of the guiding rules for cinema is ‘show, don’t tell’, so it is peculiar to include screenplays as a part of the filmic experience in that they themselves are almost entirely ‘tell’, being unable to show.
However, I cannot argue that the very purpose of a screenplay is to infer visual and auditory information in a cinematic sense. Screenplays themselves have shifted from the norm of literary writing formats; it is far more direct and ridged in its form, designed almost solely for expositional purposes. Screenplays are unique as they employ the language of cinema, often more than some films – even the most arthouse and loosely cinematically-structured films need a screenplay written, one of which will likely be far more direct in conveying information than its’ visual follower.  Its key importance is evident in its very name simply being a compound of ‘screen’ and ‘play’; it is designed purely for the world of film, to use its language, its rules, conventions, modes, flow, form, and so much more. The screenplay is the drawing board to which the narrative and basic setup will always refer to. Without the screenplay, there is no film, (or at least more likely a poorly structured one in its place).
I do honestly believe that screenplays should be considered as a form of cinema as that they may invoke the same thoughts and images within the minds of the reader as well as the movie could do. However I also believe that this falls within a bell-curve so to speak, and that a screenplay should held completely responsible for the cinematic result of it, nor associated with it entirely. The screenplay is both a structured document and an artform in itself, but the film is free to deviate from its proposed course. This can sometimes be for the better; not every screenplay is written in the same manner or light, some may be for direct that others, whereas some may be more novel and literary in language, thus leaving more room for interpretation, (thus the reason for the bell-curve – it’s just as easy for a film to closely follow a more direct screenplay than it is for a film to deviate from an indirect one).
It is in this thought process that I infer screenplays to be undeniably key within the world of cinema and should be considered as much a part of it than anything else, but so too an art form in of itself – separate, and can be appreciated and understood as easy as any other piece of literature. For every film made there’s a hundred screenplays that have been passed by, this does not mean they are not worthy for adaption, but for now can be enjoyed as their own form.

The first two weeks of this studio have been rather illuminating for me, as that it has branched out and delved into aspects of the screenwriting world that I hadn’t previously considered; one thing in particular being writing style and format.  The most prevalent idea to fit within and form this concept is that of highlighting difference between fictional and extrafictional scriptwriting – being the difference between what is within the world of the script (fictional), and what speaks and conveys cinematic action to the reader (extrafictional).

Extrafictional can be both beneficial and creatively limiting to a film. On one hand in inputting extrafictional lines within the screenplay a writer is able to give greater clarity tonally and cinematically, better communicating what they want with the director. For the director/cinematographer however, it can restrict their creative flair and the malleability of the project. By including so much detail in one aspect, it can limit the potential for collaboration. Although, rom a writer/director point of view, it can be seen as favourable for an auteur, allowing them to establish thoughts on framing early on – with the downsides only applying to larger creative teams.
e.g, page 3 screenplay of Her,

“We track off of Theodore, down a line of cubicles, hearing

bits of letters being written and seeing photos of who

they’re being written to on the screens.

…. We continue tracking, revealing dozens and dozens of cubicles full of letter writers. We hear someone answer the phone.”

Whilst descriptive, it sets up a slow pace and movement/close-up heavy cinematography which could channel a director in one line and limit range of thought later on. Though this is subjective, but it highly unlikely that the tracking would be fast or withdrawn from the subject given pre-set inferred tone and the subject matter.