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.