“screenplays should be experienced […] as a form of cinema itself” whereby “both, although via opposite polarities, are audio-visual (the screenplay cueing the images and sounds in our mind)” (2009, p. 109).

Reference: Dzialo, C 2009, ‘“Frustrated Time” narration: the screenplays of Charlie Kaufman’, in W Buckland (ed.), Puzzle films: complex storytelling in contemporary cinema, Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, pp. 107-28.

This post will be dedicated to discussing the quote above.

To make it simpler for me, I think what this quote is trying to say is that screenplays should be experienced as an audio-visual just like cinema, despite being different mediums. Screenplays are like the written form of audio-visual, whereas cinema is the physical form of audio-visual.

One of the first things I’ve learned about the screenwriting process is that the screenplay should remain in present tense. Even flashbacks are written in the now (and of course, if a sequence is a flashback, that is clearly indicated/labeled in the screenplay). This is similar to films because when you watch a film, despite the time within the story being condensed to fit into a certain time frame of 1-2 hours, everything that is happening in the story of the film is depicted as though it is happening in real time with reality. The only time that a film loses that certain level of realness is when the visuals are overlaid with non-diegetic sounds, such as sound effects and music. Likewise, reading screenplays are like watching films because they are also in that state of being. Things are constantly changing because they are written in the present.

In saying this, I think the best way for me to talk about how screenplays ‘cue[ing] images and sounds in our minds’ as Dzialo (2009) states, is to refer to Ann Ingelstrom’s chapter in Screenwriter and Screenwriting: Putting Practice into Context (2014) where she discusses the different ways a writer can direct the visualisation of a text for a reader¹.

She explains the three different voices that a writer can use: extrafictional, fictional (personal and impersonal) and, what she likes to call we-formulations.

Extrafictional voice can be defined as ‘being inside the text but outside of the fiction’ ¹⁽³⁵⁾. It basically uses technical directions such as camera cues. It takes the reader away from the story a little bit and the cues are more for the production crew’s benefit. Something that Ingelstrom mentions somewhere in the reading is that scripts go through multiple stages, and that the application of the extrafictional voice can be added in the development stage once the screenplay has been green-lit. An example of this is production notes and the addition of this makes readers visualise the making of a film instead of simply being immersed in the fictional world of the story. Readers become more aware of the world outside the fiction.

Fictional voice refers to ‘describing a scene’s actions and objects in specific ways’ ¹⁽³⁸⁾ and this voice is ‘inside the fiction as well as inside the text’ ¹⁽³⁹⁾. Its specificity in scene descriptions allow for technical terms to be alluded to but not explicitly stated, all the while still depicting the story’s fictional world within that fictional world. She explains two forms of fictional voice: personal and impersonal.

Personal fictional voice is used in the dialogue. The example Ingelstrom uses, and I think the best example to give for this type, is the addition of Narrators in the story. They can be considered as characters in the story even if you don’t see them. They are part of the fiction and they give information related to the story and the characters.

Whereas, impersonal fictional voice is used in the scene text. It’s a way for the visualisations of readers to be directed by the screenwriter. Here, scenes are described in specific ways without using any technical terms. It allows for readers to imagine the story as is in their minds, but again, as mediated by the writer.

And lastly, Ingelstrom calls the final voice as We-formulations. It gives readers ‘certain emotional responses; or, at least, the responses that the screenwriter wants from the reader and the future spectator can be implied’ ¹⁽⁴⁰⁾. We-formulations uses ‘we’ instead of ‘camera’, and it’s a form of impersonal fiction since it still gives information about the story in the scene text. The reading also becomes more inclusive which, like extrafictional voice, can distract the reader from the story as it makes them feel like they’re already ‘watching’ the film ¹⁽⁴³⁾.

Reference:

¹ Ingelstrom, A (2014). Narrating Voices in the Screenplay Text: How the Writer Can Direct the Reader’s Viualisation of the Potential Film, in Batty, C (ed.) Screenwriter and Screenwriting: Putting Practice into Context. Palgrave MacMillan. Basingstoke, New York. pp. 30-45.