Drawn to its distinctive narrative style and length, in this article I examine writer-director S. Craig Zahler’s third feature screenplay, Dragged Across Concrete. I focus on Zahler’s authorship and creative writing, which flouts many screenwriting conventions. Zahler’s screenplay, totalling 157 pages, is considerably longer than the recommended length of 90‐120 pages and it is examined and contextualized here via discussion of length, style, character, scenes, genre and dialogue. This analysis contributes to the formal study of the screenplay as a source text and aims to counter what Steven Price has termed the ‘screenplay’s near-invisibility in critical analysis’.
{"title":"‘I wasn’t open to notes’: S. Craig Zahler, Dragged Across Concrete (2018) and the 157-page screenplay","authors":"Lee Goodare","doi":"10.1386/josc_00080_1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1386/josc_00080_1","url":null,"abstract":"Drawn to its distinctive narrative style and length, in this article I examine writer-director S. Craig Zahler’s third feature screenplay, Dragged Across Concrete. I focus on Zahler’s authorship and creative writing, which flouts many screenwriting conventions. Zahler’s\u0000 screenplay, totalling 157 pages, is considerably longer than the recommended length of 90‐120 pages and it is examined and contextualized here via discussion of length, style, character, scenes, genre and dialogue. This analysis contributes to the formal study of the screenplay as a\u0000 source text and aims to counter what Steven Price has termed the ‘screenplay’s near-invisibility in critical analysis’.","PeriodicalId":41719,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Screenwriting","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47828250","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A hauntological reflection on the theoretical and practical approaches to developing Render, a feature-length conspiracy screenplay written to discern whether and how it is possible to present viable justice in a conspiracy film amidst a twenty-first-century technological and conspiracy culture. Alongside the introduction of new narrative techniques such as ‘corruption of the protagonist’, ‘emergence of the inner voice’, ‘many-headed monster’, and genre-appropriate classifications such as the ‘seen/unseen threat’ and surveillance capitalism as the logic behind the conspiracy genre’s new behemoth ‘Big Technology’, this article blends academic analysis with personal reflection to involve the reader in the liminal space between theory and practice, the tension between objective and subjective and the intuitive and at times designless process that perpetuates each subsequent draft of a feature screenplay. Here, the application of hauntology as a lens through which to view the screenwriting process is explored to characterize the ebb and flow between that which is no longer (the previous draft) and that which is still not yet (the next draft).
{"title":"Hauntological screenwriting: Reflections on writing Render","authors":"Tracy Mathewson","doi":"10.1386/josc_00083_1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1386/josc_00083_1","url":null,"abstract":"A hauntological reflection on the theoretical and practical approaches to developing Render, a feature-length conspiracy screenplay written to discern whether and how it is possible to present viable justice in a conspiracy film amidst a twenty-first-century technological and\u0000 conspiracy culture. Alongside the introduction of new narrative techniques such as ‘corruption of the protagonist’, ‘emergence of the inner voice’, ‘many-headed monster’, and genre-appropriate classifications such as the ‘seen/unseen threat’\u0000 and surveillance capitalism as the logic behind the conspiracy genre’s new behemoth ‘Big Technology’, this article blends academic analysis with personal reflection to involve the reader in the liminal space between theory and practice, the tension between objective and subjective\u0000 and the intuitive and at times designless process that perpetuates each subsequent draft of a feature screenplay. Here, the application of hauntology as a lens through which to view the screenwriting process is explored to characterize the ebb and flow between that which is no longer (the\u0000 previous draft) and that which is still not yet (the next draft).","PeriodicalId":41719,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Screenwriting","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46315584","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In November of 1926, Eugene O’Neill (1888‐1953) wrote photoplays of two of his most successful and ambitious dramas of the 1920s, The Hairy Ape (1922) and Desire under the Elms (1924). O’Neill was motivated in part by the journalist and screenwriter Ralph Block’s promotion of the ‘little cinema’ movement, the prestige model of authorship that accompanied it as well as the movement’s actual momentum in New York in the late 1920s. Thus, optimism about the growth of an increasingly sophisticated audience as well as accounts of the innovative possibilities for film form promoted by the likes of Block and Victor O. Freeburg seem to have encouraged O’Neill to imagine a potential cinema in harmony with his own commitments to experimentalism and aesthetic autonomy. Although neither photoplay was ever produced, both bear the traces of O’Neill’s attentiveness to contemporary, intermedial theories of film and drama as well as the playwright’s own history of film viewing.
{"title":"Little cinemas: Eugene O’Neill as screenwriter","authors":"Bennet Schaber","doi":"10.1386/josc_00082_1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1386/josc_00082_1","url":null,"abstract":"In November of 1926, Eugene O’Neill (1888‐1953) wrote photoplays of two of his most successful and ambitious dramas of the 1920s, The Hairy Ape (1922) and Desire under the Elms (1924). O’Neill was motivated in part by the journalist and screenwriter Ralph Block’s promotion of the ‘little cinema’ movement, the prestige model of authorship that accompanied it as well as the movement’s actual momentum in New York in the late 1920s. Thus, optimism about the growth of an increasingly sophisticated audience as well as accounts of the innovative possibilities for film form promoted by the likes of Block and Victor O. Freeburg seem to have encouraged O’Neill to imagine a potential cinema in harmony with his own commitments to experimentalism and aesthetic autonomy. Although neither photoplay was ever produced, both bear the traces of O’Neill’s attentiveness to contemporary, intermedial theories of film and drama as well as the playwright’s own history of film viewing.","PeriodicalId":41719,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Screenwriting","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45055856","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Review of: Screenwriting is Filmmaking: The Theory and Practice of Writing for the Screen, Brian Dunnigan (2019)Marlborough: The Crowood Press Ltd., 168 pp.,ISBN: 978-1-78500-609-8, p/bk, USD$22.88
{"title":"Screenwriting is Filmmaking: The Theory and Practice of Writing for the Screen, Brian Dunnigan (2019)","authors":"Misty Brawner","doi":"10.1386/josc_00089_5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1386/josc_00089_5","url":null,"abstract":"Review of: Screenwriting is Filmmaking: The Theory and Practice of Writing for the Screen, Brian Dunnigan (2019)Marlborough: The Crowood Press Ltd., 168 pp.,ISBN: 978-1-78500-609-8, p/bk, USD$22.88","PeriodicalId":41719,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Screenwriting","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45864654","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Review of: Robert De Niro at Work From Screenplay to Screen Performance, Adam Ganz and Steven Price (2020)London: Palgrave Macmillan, 212 pp.,ISBN: 978-3-03047-960-2, p/bk, $29.99, digital $23.98
{"title":"Robert De Niro at Work From Screenplay to Screen Performance, Adam Ganz and Steven Price (2020)","authors":"Laura Kirk","doi":"10.1386/josc_00086_5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1386/josc_00086_5","url":null,"abstract":"Review of: Robert De Niro at Work From Screenplay to Screen Performance, Adam Ganz and Steven Price (2020)London: Palgrave Macmillan, 212 pp.,ISBN: 978-3-03047-960-2, p/bk, $29.99, digital $23.98","PeriodicalId":41719,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Screenwriting","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47316333","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
P. Russo, Rosamund Davies, A. Ksenofontova, Rafael Leal, Ian W. Macdonald, Steven Maras, Claus Tieber
This is an abridged and partially elaborated version of a roundtable discussion that took place via Zoom on 17 September 2021 as part of the SRN2021 Research Seminar Series Online and of a follow-up session held via Zoom on 15 November 2021. In keeping with the theme of SRN2021, ‘Pushing Boundaries’, this discussion was an opportunity to raise a few questions about whether and how, as Screenwriting Research Network (SRN), over the years we have defined our own boundaries in terms of scholarship and as a field, as well as how we can keep challenging ourselves when looking at the future. Involving both veterans and younger members of the SRN, it sets forth by taking stock of some significant achievements of the past fifteen years or so to then focus on issues of global outreach as well as methodological openness and rigour. After acknowledging some of the most pressing obstacles and opportunities within and outside academia, the discussion wraps up by looking at the distinctiveness of the SRN as an arena for research and discussion.
{"title":"Roundtable: Pushing the boundaries of the Screenwriting Research Network","authors":"P. Russo, Rosamund Davies, A. Ksenofontova, Rafael Leal, Ian W. Macdonald, Steven Maras, Claus Tieber","doi":"10.1386/josc_00085_1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1386/josc_00085_1","url":null,"abstract":"This is an abridged and partially elaborated version of a roundtable discussion that took place via Zoom on 17 September 2021 as part of the SRN2021 Research Seminar Series Online and of a follow-up session held via Zoom on 15 November 2021. In keeping with the theme of SRN2021,\u0000 ‘Pushing Boundaries’, this discussion was an opportunity to raise a few questions about whether and how, as Screenwriting Research Network (SRN), over the years we have defined our own boundaries in terms of scholarship and as a field, as well as how we can keep challenging ourselves\u0000 when looking at the future. Involving both veterans and younger members of the SRN, it sets forth by taking stock of some significant achievements of the past fifteen years or so to then focus on issues of global outreach as well as methodological openness and rigour. After acknowledging some\u0000 of the most pressing obstacles and opportunities within and outside academia, the discussion wraps up by looking at the distinctiveness of the SRN as an arena for research and discussion.","PeriodicalId":41719,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Screenwriting","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47910782","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：