----------------------------Original message---------------------------- I forwarded a few quotes from this thread to the Scrnwrit list. The following was posted there by that list's moderator, with permission that I could forward it to this list: Sun, 6 Nov 1994 10:29:49 -0600 >Reply-To: Screen Writing Discussion List <[log in to unmask]> >Sender: Screen Writing Discussion List <[log in to unmask]> >From: JackS <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Re: Screenplay as Literature >X-To: [log in to unmask] >To: Multiple recipients of list SCRNWRIT <[log in to unmask]> > >Steven, > >This is an interesting discussion. > >>From my own department I know the theatre folks are pissed at the English >department people because they do look at plays as literature and not as >"performance text." The main point with them seems to be that a script >is NOT a play. > >An excellent example of this is Molier's (sp?) Learned Ladies. To read >this script you will get no sense of the comedy a well staged version of >the play will provide. In the time it was written, little more than >entrances and exits were included as stage directions. Everything else >was dialogue. The production just staged here was a laugh riot -- but it >came from what the director did with what was not provided instead of >relying only on the script. We know from reviews of the period that the >original plays by Molier were wonderfully received and considered very >funny. You can't, however, get that from the text of the plays. > >This lead to an exam of the plays which do make it into the lit books. >Such dull plays as Molier are difficult to understand as comedy, or as >much of anything else, without an active imagination. Thus the reader >must make a considerable contribution to the script in order for it to >come across well. > >Willy Shakes's plays, on the other hand, have a little more in the way of >stage directions, but no much. He put a lot of his stage directions in >the dialogue. And, of course, his dialogue was excellent. > >Modern stage script writers know that while "the play's the thing," the >only sacred part of the text is the dialogue. The stage directions of >the author are still altered --- but stage directors and actors feel a >very strong loyality for the written dialogue. What this means is that >if the writer wants a "green raincoat" to be used as a prop, he/she must >write it in the dialogue to insure it. This, in turn, has an impact of >the way dialogue is written. > >As for screenplays --- any beginning screenwriter understands that a >screenplay is first of all a reading experience before it has any prayer >of becoming a movie. Thus the screenplay is written to move the reader, >be that reader a script reader, a producer, director, or actor. It is by >having the emotions of these people as readers affected by the written >word that the screenwriter moves his/her work up the feeding chain to the >big screen. > >By virtue of the way scripts are written for the screen today, the >position that screenplay are literature has a lot of validity. I can >remember in junior high having to read a television script for The >Pharmistist Mate. It was a story which leaped off the page into the >reader's mind as good screenplay still do. > >So, since scripts are definitely written to be read (spec scripts >even more so than shooting scripts), I concur with the "screenplays as >literature" position. > >(P.S. Steven, feel free to forward this to the other discussion list if >you feel it makes a contribution) > > >Jack R. Stanley, Ph.D. >Chair >Communication Dept. >The Univ. of Tex-Pan American >Edinburg, TX 78539 >[log in to unmask] _________________________________________ Steven M. Blacher / Wellfleet Productions 13910 Old Harbor Lane, Suite 209 Marina Del Rey, California 90292 Tel: 310.821.8867 Fax: 310.827.7878 Email: [log in to unmask]