1 CONTENTS Editorials 3–6 Jill Nelmes 7–10 Ian W. Macdonald Articles 11– 25 After the typewriter: the screenplay in a digital era Kathryn Millard 27–43 ‘Everybody’s a Writer’ Theorizing screenwriting as creative labour Bridget Conor 45–58 ‘…So it’s not surprising I’m neurotic’ The Screenwriter and the Screen Idea Work Group Ian W. Macdonald 59–81 Teaching screenwriting in a time of storytelling blindness: the meeting of the auteur and the screenwriting tradition in Danish film-making Eva Novrup Redvall 83–97 The protagonist’s dramatic goals, wants and needs Patrick Cattrysse 99–112 Cyber-Aristotle: towards a poetics for interactive screenwriting Jasmina Kallay 113–129 Tonino Guerra: the screenwriter as a narrative technician or as a poet of images? Authorship and method in the writer–director relationship Riikka Pelo 131–148 Creating Authorship? Lindsay Anderson and David Sherwin’s collaboration on If.... (1968) Isabelle Gourdin-Sangouard 149–173 Screenwriting strategies in Marguerite Duras’s script for Hiroshima, Mon Amour (1960) Rosamund Davies 175–196 No room for the fun stuff: the question of the screenplay in American indie cinema J. J. Murphy Research Resources 197–202 Unpublished scripts in BFI Special Collections: a few highlights Nathalie Morris Reviews 203–206 Screenwriting: History, Theory and Practice, Steven Maras (2009) 207–210 And the Best Screenplay Goes to…, Linda Seger (2008) 210–213 Authorship in Film Adaptation, Jack Boozer (ed.) (2008) 214–217 Embodied Visions: Evolution, Emotion, Culture and Film, Torben Grodal (2009) JOSC_1.1_FM_001–002.indd Sec1:1 8/26/09 2:08:43 PM ADVISORY BOARD John Adams, University of Bristol Robert Engels, California State University Adam Ganz, Royal Holloway, University of London Phil Parker, Script Developer (ex-Head of Screenwriting at LCP) Chris Walker, De Montfort University EDITORIAL BOARD Sue Clayton, Royal Holloway, University of London Ken Dancyger, New York University Jim Hill, De Montfort University Steven Maras, University of Sydney Kathryn Millard, Maquarie University, Sydney JJ Murphy, University of Wisconsin-Madison Steven Price, Bangor University Isabelle Reynauld, University of Montreal Andrew Spicer, University of West of England Kristin Thompson, University of Wisconsin-Madison Paul Wells, University of Loughborough JOSC_1.1_FM_001–002.indd Sec1:2 8/26/09 11:36:31 AM 3 JOSC 1 (1) pp. 3–6 Intellect Limited 2010 Journal of Screenwriting Volume 1 Number 1 © 2010 Intellect Ltd Editorial. English language. doi: 10.1386/josc.1.1.3/2 EDITORIAL JILL NELMES Principal Editor The Journal of Screenwriting is a timely and much needed addition to the increasing number of published works on the subject of the screenplay. As Co-Editor Ian Macdonald points out below, it is sur- prising that there appears not to have been a journal on the subject of screenwriting previously, but as a result of this lack, a journal spe- cifically devoted to the study of screenwriting has now been launched which aims to communicate and encourage the cross-fertilization of ideas in a more immediate way. There have been few arenas which allowed for writing and discussion of the screenplay with an aca- demic focus; journals such as the Journal of Media Practice and Journal of British Cinema and Television (JBCTV) have championed the cause for further research by publishing articles and special issues on the study of screenwriting; Lina Khatib (2007: 106), editor of the Journal of Media Practice, has identified this as an ‘under-researched area’. John Cook and Andrew Spicer (2008: 213), in their introduction to a spe- cial issue on screenwriting in the JBCTV, pointed out that ‘discussion of screenwriting is a notable blind spot in both British cinema and television studies’. The number of academic books published on the subject is now happily increasing; Steven Maras’s recently published Screenwriting: History, Theory and Practice (2009) is one such exam- ple and an important contribution to the field, while Steven Price’s The Screenplay: Authorship, Ideology, Criticism is to be published later this year. The first Screenwriting Conference was held in Leeds last year and this year it will be in Helsinki, and on a much larger scale, as the number of papers to be presented has tripled; the associated JOSC 1.1_5_edt_003-006.indd 3 8/22/09 5:31:15 PM Jill Nelmes 4 Screenwriters Network has also burgeoned. All these factors suggest there is a healthy, vigorous and growing interest in the study of the subject at an international level. Thus Intellect needed little convincing of the need for a journal which specifically studied the screenplay, responding to the proposal with great enthusiasm, and within a few months the first issue was being planned. In fact the conception and birth of the Journal has been remarkably straightforward. This could not have happened without the support of Ravi Butalia, Journals Manager, and the team at Intellect, especially Alanna Donaldson, who has dealt with the production stage so diligently. The tremendous support and good will provided by both academics and practitioners internationally has also been extremely heartening. This bodes well not only for the future of the Journal, but also for the subject of screenwriting as a discrete area. The Editors are pleased to have such a knowledgeable Editorial and Advisory Board associated with the project, who have given their unequivocal support to the journal. We are very grateful for their positive input during the initial stages of development and while in the process of publishing the first issue. Our thanks also go to those who gave such thorough peer reviews and their valuable time so willingly. The first issue of the Journal has greatly benefited from Ian Macdonald’s skills as Co-Editor; Ian has worked tirelessly and with great dedication, championing a system of referencing film and televi- sion which gives the writer equal placing alongside the director and is to be used for all relevant referencing in this journal – perhaps in future years this may become the accepted practice of referencing. Jule Selbo, as Reviews Editor, has dedicated herself to the task with supreme ease and efficiency. There is still a wealth of unexplored material on the subject of screenwriting and if this cannot be described as a new subject area – there have, of course, been previous academic works on the screenplay such as Wolf Rilla’s The Writer and the Screen (1973), Kristin Thompson’s Storytelling in the New Hollywood (1999) and Sarah Kozloff’s Overhearing Film Dialogue (2000) – perhaps we can view screenwriting as a subject which has been recently rediscovered, not solely with regard to the sub- ject of film writing but also the writing of television and newer media forms such as interactive media. The Journal aims to highlight the importance of the study of the screenplay, to encourage the development of this expanding area of research and to be a forum for debate on the subject. There are many aspects of screenwriting history, theory and practice still to be investigated: the Special Collections at the British Film Institute and the Margaret Herrick Library in Los Angeles, for instance, are both treasure troves of information, holding thousands of screenplays, often with many drafts and accompanying letters (see Nathalie Morris’s piece on the BFI National Library’s Special Collection in JOSC 1.1_5_edt_003-006.indd 4 8/22/09 5:31:16 PM Editorial 5 this issue). The development of new media forms such as compu- ter games and how they are written begs further research, as does the question of the relationship between screenwriting theory and practice. The Journal will be a vehicle for promoting fruitful ways of writing about and analysing the screenplay, from textual analysis to studies of the industry to discussion of practice and theory. We hope the international links will continue to develop and encourage further research and possibly collaborative work, while enhancing and developing academic scrutiny and scholarly activity via research networks. This is an exciting time for the Journal and also for the study of screenwriting: there certainly seems to be an upsurge in publishing in the area and an acceptance that the screenplay has been a remarkably neglected area of study; it is the intention of this journal to at least partly redress this. The first issue of the Journal has already attracted a varied and fas- cinating mix of articles, which give a sense of the depth and breadth of the subject, and we are now preparing for the second issue, with the third issue in mind! Each issue will be jointly edited by the Principal Editor, Jill Nelmes, and the Co-Editors in rotation. For this issue the Co-Editor is Ian Macdonald; the second issue will be co-edited by Jule Selbo and the third by Barry Langford. The Journal will be published twice yearly in the first instance and the Editors hope you will find this issue a stimulating and thought-provoking mix of articles. We also hope the Journal will inspire you to contribute as we are very much dependent on your research and passion for the subject in this fasci- nating and developing field. REFERENCES Cook, John and Spicer, Andrew (2008), ‘Introduction’, Journal of British Cinema and Television, 5: 2, November, pp. 213–22. Khatib, Lina (2007), ‘Editorial’, Journal of Media Practice, 8: 2, pp. 105–06. Kozloff, Sarah (2000), Overhearing Film Dialogue, Berkeley: University of California Press. Maras, Steven (2009), Screenwriting: History, Theory and Practice, London: Wallflower. Price, Steven (due 2009), The Screenplay: Authorship, Ideology, Criticism, London: Palgrave. Rilla, Wolf (1973), The Writer and the Screen, London: W.H. Allen. Thompson, Kristin (1999), Storytelling in the New Hollywood, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. CONTRIBUTOR DETAILS Jill Nelmes is a senior lecturer in film at the University of East London and a screenwriter. She has studied screenwriting at the National Film and Television School and at UCLA, is the editor of Introduction to Film Studies and is currently working on a ‘how to’ manual about writing the independent JOSC 1.1_5_edt_003-006.indd 5 8/22/09 5:31:16 PM Jill Nelmes 6 screenplay and also researching a book on British screenwriters. She is par- ticularly interested in looking at the relationship between theory and practice in the screenplay and the collaborative nature of the film industry. Contact: School of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of East London, E16 2RD. Phone: +44 208 223 7483 E-mail:
[email protected] JOSC 1.1_5_edt_003-006.indd 6 8/22/09 5:31:16 PM 7 JOSC 1 (1) pp. 7–10 Intellect Limited 2010 Journal of Screenwriting Volume 1 Number 1 © 2010 Intellect Ltd Editorial. English language. doi: 10.1386/josc.1.1.7/2 EDITORIAL IAN W. MACDONALD Co-Editor This seems to be the first peer-reviewed academic journal devoted to screenwriting in the world. Good grief! you say, are you sure? After more than a century of screenwriting? Well, not quite, I reply, though the lack of any reference to such a publication in researches so far is a strong indicator. I await a flurry of postcards from those who know better than I do… Although in the 1980s there was an occasional series of papers published in Brussels under the title Cahiers du Scénario (still acces- sible at http://www.uee.be), collections of scholarly articles on screen- writing have usually turned up as occasional special numbers of film and media periodicals like Cinémas, Film History, the Journal of British Cinema and Television and Scan: Journal of Media Arts Culture (see also Maras 2009: 187–88). The remarkable absence – until now – of a regu- lar scholarly journal is probably due to film academics frying bigger fish, focusing on New Waves, semiotics and male gazes, and only intermittently recognizing a need to consider the formation of the idea for a screenwork as something of interest. An awkward and peripheral subject then, sidelined because of its problematic relationship to the apparently more concrete final ‘text’ of the film. Considered as rough sketches or the ‘blueprint’, or as incom- plete or transitional, who would not look at the screenplay in its various forms as somehow inferior? More recent scholars have, however, begun to think of screenwriting as a practice involving more than writing a screenplay; and of the process of conceptualizing the screenwork as something more than merely part of production, or just a written text. JOSC 1.1_5_edt_007-010.indd 7 8/22/09 5:31:31 PM Ian W. Macdonald 8 Screenwriting is now a broader academic subject than the industrial process of the same name, and its analysis involves approaches ranging from the sociological to the psychological. But the realization that there is more to the screen idea than scriptwriting has caused its own prob- lems for academics, scattering potential publishing outlets right across media and cultural studies. Finally, there is now a small corner of the academic universe reserved for such work, and we all owe a debt of thanks in particular to Jill Nelmes and to Intellect for creating this space. Jill’s success in start- ing this journal has also coincided with a series of annual conferences, the first of which was held at the University of Leeds in September 2008 and which resulted in the setting up of the Screenwriting Research Network (join up at http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk). The second conference takes place at the University of Art and Design, Helsinki, in September 2009. In this issue we present a few of the issues facing screenwriting scholars at the present time, some of which surfaced at our first Leeds conference. We look at the appropriateness of current industrial prac- tice, at theorizing labour practices, at understanding how they operate, and at how re-thinking screenwriting can change industrial thinking. We ask how mainstream screenwriting might deal with the challenges of terminological vagueness, and of interactive storytelling. The com- mon assumption that the director is auteur is challenged in three arti- cles which focus on the involvement of the writer in collaboration, and we discuss the methods adopted by those in the independent sector in the United States to get round the limitations of orthodox craft skills. Kathryn Millard questions whether ‘Courier 12 point’ typescript (and by implication a range of other practices) is the ‘natural’ way of presenting a screen idea, or is due for a complete re-think. Bridget Conor presents her investigation into theorizing screenwriting as a creative labour process, and I suggest it is time to consider screenwrit- ing as the product of the Screen Idea Work Group, a common indus- trial grouping of key creative workers (and others). Eva Novrup Redvall provides a historical analysis that connects the Danish film industry’s adoption of new screenwriting practices with pioneering work around screenwriting at the National Film School of Denmark over the last 30 years. Patrick Cattrysse and Jasmina Kallay talk of mainstream indus- trial practice; Patrick on improving our understanding and use of key terms in script development, and Jasmina on assessing the merits (and difficulties) of using Aristotle’s Poetics as the basis for an interactive screenwriting poetics. Riikka Pelo, Isabelle Gourdin-Sangouard and Rosamund Davies all present studies of how renowned film directors worked with their often less well-known screenwriters. Despite being revered as ‘the greatest Italian screenwriter’, Andrei Tarkovsky’s and Michelangelo Antonioni’s collaborator Tonino Guerra is still a ‘foot- note’ says Riikka Pelo. Isabelle Gourdin-Sangouard carries forward the discussion begun by Charles Drazin in the Journal of British Cinema and Television (2008) on the collaboration between Lindsay Anderson JOSC 1.1_5_edt_007-010.indd 8 8/22/09 5:31:31 PM Editorial 9 and his screenwriter David Sherwin; and Rosamund Davies offers some insights into the way that the experienced and respected writer Marguerite Duras approached her first screenplay for Alain Resnais, Hiroshima, Mon Amour (1959). J. J. Murphy starts with Gus van Sant’s observation that the screenplay does not leave a lot of room for ‘the fun stuff’, and explains how US independent film has negotiated its way around (or without) the script. I hope it is clear from this range of contributions that our definition of screenwriting is a very wide one. It is not restricted to the written word, and is unconstrained by industrial demarcation. We are inter- ested, in fact, in redefining the research and study of screenwriting in ways suggested by our contributors and our readership over succeed- ing issues. We now have the opportunity for a regular and sustained debate around screenwriting, a focus point for scholars who until now have been somewhat isolated. It is a great opportunity for us to think seriously about this neglected area, and to do something about grounding and cultivating it. It is with much appreciation of and grateful thanks to my colleagues Jill Nelmes and Jule Selbo, to Alanna Donaldson and Ravi Butalia at Intellect, to our hard-working contributors, and to the anonymous peer reviewers without whom this process is impossible, that I admit to being delighted and proud to have had the opportunity to start the ball rolling, as Co-Editor of this first issue. REFERENCES Cahiers du Scénario (c.1985–89), 1–3, 6–15. Brussels: Université Européenne d’Ecriture, http://www.uee.be. Accessed 25 June 2009. Cinémas (1999), 9: 2/3, Spring, Montreal, University of Montreal. Film History (1997), 9: 3. Sydney [?]: John Libbey. Hiroshima, Mon Amour (1959), Wr: Marguerite Duras, Dir: Alain Resnais, France/Japan, 91 mins. Drazin, Charles (2008), ‘If… before If…’, Journal of British Cinema and Television, 5: 2, November, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 318–34. Journal of British Cinema and Television (2008), 5: 2, November, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Maras, Steven (2009), Screenwriting: History, Theory and Practice, London: Wallflower. Scan: Journal of Media Arts Culture (2006), 3: 2, October. Sydney: Macquarie University, http://www.scan.net.au/scan/journal/. Accessed 26 June 2009. CONTRIBUTOR DETAILS Ian W. Macdonald is the research director of the Louis Le Prince Research Centre for Cinema, Photography and Television, in the Institute of Communication Studies at the University of Leeds. His own research work has concentrated on aspects of screenwriting, a subject he has taught since 1993, both during and after his time as head of the Northern Film School at Leeds Metropolitan University (1992–2001). Most recently he has investigated the changing and establishing practices of early British screenwriters during JOSC 1.1_5_edt_007-010.indd 9 8/26/09 11:39:32 AM Ian W. Macdonald 10 the silent era. He is also Convenor of the Screenwriting Research Network, and encourages anyone interested in screenwriting research to log on to www.jiscmail.ac.uk and join up! Contact: University of Leeds, LS2 9JT. Phone: +44 113 343 5816 (incl. voicemail) E-mail:
[email protected] JOSC 1.1_5_edt_007-010.indd 10 8/22/09 5:31:31 PM 11 Journal of Screenwriting | Volume 1 Number 1 © 2010 Intellect Ltd Article. English language. doi: 10.1386/josc.1.1.11/1 JOSC 1 (1) pp. 11–25 Intellect Limited 2010 KATHRYN MILLARD Macquarie University After the typewriter: the screenplay in a digital era ABSTRACT This article aims to contribute to contemporary debates about screenwriting as a process of developing the screen idea; about the ways in which for- matting conventions from an earlier era of cinema may restrict innovation in screenwriting; and about shifting practices of screenwriting in a digital era in which images and sound play a potentially more significant role. Additionally, it questions the use of terms such as ‘blueprint’ to describe the relationship between the screenplay and the proposed film that it repre- sents. The article draws on the author’s body of practice-led research as a writer and director of feature films and documentaries, as well as histories of screenwriting, film production, comics and the graphic arts. INTRODUCTION In 2003, I directed a feature film Travelling Light (2003) which was loosely inspired by Allen Ginsberg’s visit to Australia to participate in Adelaide Writers’ Week in the 1960s. The script, which was in devel- opment for approximately six years, was funded draft by draft through the Australian Film Commission, the national film-funding agency KEYWORDS screenwriting scriptwriting screen practice research digital cinema independent film script development JOSC 1.1_5_art_Millard_011-026.indd 11 8/22/09 5:31:00 PM Kathryn Millard 12 then responsible for script development. The project was conceived as a multi-stranded narrative with an ensemble of characters at pivotal moments in their lives, all connected via their relationship to televi- sion; in particular, to a fictional 1960s variety show Adelaide Tonight, hosted by the equally fictional Ray Sugars. The screenplay utilized motifs of light and electricity to be played out across the film’s image and soundtracks. As is so often the case, however, as the project pro- gressed down the financing route there came increased pressure for the screenplay to conform to a more classic, protagonist-driven, three- act structure. I, together with the script editor and producer, was advised by assessors and readers that we should complete the set-up more quickly, snip out those scenes about early television they deemed unnecessary, and focus more on a central character (thereby ensuring sufficient screen time to retain the prominent young Australian actress who was attached to the project). We were also encouraged to fill out the soundtrack with hit songs of the 1970s to ensure audience acces- sibility. These pressures did not come from the film distributors who were providing a distribution guarantee, but from the public broad- caster and government screen-funding agencies who would form a vital piece of the financing jigsaw if the script was to make it to the screen. Needless to say, my talk of independent cinema with its ambi- guity, internalized character conflict and visual motifs as structuring devices did not go down well. Over the third, fourth and fifth drafts, the film was re-structured and pruned to fit a template more closely aligned to those promoted by the screenwriting manuals. In the process, temporal, stylistic and thematic complexity was significantly minimized. Finally I made enough changes to steer the film through the two state agencies, the Australian theatri- cal distributor, the Australian public broadcaster, the Australian pay-TV broadcaster and the European-based sales agent, who were all needed to secure the balance in federal film funding. The additional plot intro- duced at the last moment to provide the narrative closure demanded was undoubtedly the most ‘undercooked’ aspect of the script, introduc- ing a false note to the characterization of Lou, our beat poet/trickster character. Despite a number of nominations, awards and enthusias- tic responses, critical reactions to the film were sharply divided, and Travelling Light had difficulty finding its cinema audience in the nar- row time-span within which even specialized, limited release films are expected to perform. While the claim is frequently made that Australian feature screen- plays are under-developed, I would argue the opposite. My experi- ence with Travelling Light, and my background as a script reader and assessor for various funding bodies, leads me to the conclusion that many scripts are over- rather than under-developed. The handful of screenplays and film projects chosen for development through gov- ernment programmes all too often lose momentum and energy as a consequence of this selection. A selection which almost invariably subjects them to drawn-out rounds of assessment, reports, required JOSC 1.1_5_art_Millard_011-026.indd 12 8/22/09 5:31:00 PM After the typewriter: the screenplay in a digital era 13 revisions and yet more revisions – all justified in the name of criti- cal rigour and industry imperatives. Along the way, screenwriters and their collaborators struggle to retain or re-inject into their screen ideas what social psychologist Abraham Maslow called in his diaries a qual- ity of ‘aliveness’ (Lowry 1982: 37); an attribute that Maslow consid- ered fundamental to works of art if they were to connect with their intended audiences. Early in his career, Atom Egoyan observed that many script-devel- opment and film-funding mechanisms seem aimed at delaying the pro- duction of the film as long as possible in the belief that this was a good thing (Burnett 1988). In all the many and various deliberations about Travelling Light it was invariably words on a page that were discussed, dissected and analysed, rather than images, sounds, gestures, rhythm or the cinematic qualities of the script. Yet the work of many innova- tive screenwriters and film-makers has long favoured audio and visual expressivity over plot and narrative drive, and their approaches pro- vide a wealth of alternative scripting methodologies and structures for analysis. Scripts can be inspired by still photographs, visual art, sense memories, location pictures, video footage or popular songs. Acclaimed writers and film-makers, including Gus Van Sant, Jim Jarmusch, Tony Grisoni, Michael Winterbottom, Wong Kar Wai, Wim Wenders and Chantal Ackerman, have all developed methods of shifting between writing and production, working with both words and images. These writers and film-makers embrace cinematic scriptwriting. Some of the terms used to describe the resulting story designs include the road map, the open screenplay, the visual scenario and the ars combinataria screenplay (Millard 2006). As film-maker and screenwriting theorist J.J. Murphy suggests, ‘real innovation in screenwriting […] comes not from ignorance of narrative film conventions but from being able to see beyond their limitations’ (Murphy 2007: 266). SCRIPT DEVELOPMENT AS A PROCESS, NOT AN END IN ITSELF Increasingly I find myself interested in screenwriting and development processes aimed at realizing films within specific production contexts and parameters, rather than free-floating script-development pro- grammes that can so easily become ends in themselves. As Australian playwright and dramaturge Noëlle Janaczewska notes in her blog entry ‘The Development Sceptic’, the most useful development of new playscripts is undertaken in contexts where the writer works with the company and collaborators who are committed to producing the play. Janaczewska is particularly wary of development programmes influ- enced by the development practices of film. She argues: Film has a whole host of development initiatives, most of which seem to exist to (a) provide an income stream for assessors, script editors, program directors, administrators and others, presumably JOSC 1.1_5_art_Millard_011-026.indd 13 8/22/09 5:31:00 PM Kathryn Millard 14 while they try to get their own projects up, (b) generate activity and create the illusion that your project/screenplay is progress- ing, and (c) to explain why things can’t or won’t happen. (Janaczewska 2007) Many development processes simply shape screenplays to pre-existing templates, so that the distinctiveness of works can be gradually eroded, assessment by assessment, draft by draft. As Ian Macdonald argues in his discussion of the ‘screen idea’ as the basis for the proposed screen- work, development processes such as those held by CILECT involve writers in workshops in which ‘the screen idea was being shaped, altered and drawn towards what the professionals thought of as right, based on internalized experience and expressed as craft or lore’ (Macdonald 2004b: 91). Although the workshop Macdonald discusses was specifically aimed at screenwriters collaborating with directors and producers as part of their studies at film school, the methods used appear to be modelled on those used within the subsidized sectors of the film industry. That is, screenplays and projects are often selected on the basis of attributes such as originality and innovation, only to have these very qualities systematically minimized through the workshop- ping and script-development process. As Lewis Hyde suggests in his book about the archetypes of creativity, ‘works proceed according to their own logic […] Premature evaluation cuts off the flow’ (Hyde 2007: 187). BEYOND THE BLUEPRINT The screenplay is often referred to as a ‘blueprint’ for the film to come, but perhaps it is time to reconsider this term? After all, blueprints derive their name from the cyanotype photographic process devel- oped by John Herschel in the 1840s (Ware 2008). Herschel coated paper with photosensitive compounds and then exposed it to strong light. In the process, areas of paper were converted to Prussian blue. The cyanotype, one of the tantalizing byways of early photography, did not find wide acceptance because many viewers were unable to accept the world rendered in shades of blue and white. The process, however, was widely used to reproduce architectural and engineering technical drawings until replaced by less expensive printing methods in the 1940s and 1950s and, more recently, by digital displays. Given the term ‘blueprint’ still carries with it this residue of technical draw- ing and specifications rather than fluidity and flux, it seems a less than ideal metaphor for the screenplay. The development of the screen idea inevitably involves collaboration, and therefore to concentrate solely on the screenplay as a source for the film-to-be seems unnecessarily restrictive. Collaboration involves reading and re-reading, notes, discussion and redrafting, creating and recreating something that represents JOSC 1.1_5_art_Millard_011-026.indd 14 8/22/09 5:31:00 PM After the typewriter: the screenplay in a digital era 15 1. Cultural historian Thomas Hine uses the term ‘populuxe’ to describe a trend within architecture and design in the United States of America in approximately 1955–64: the design of everyday spaces and consumer goods aimed at a combination of populism and luxury. Hines suggests that ‘populuxe’ simultaneously looked back to the myths of the frontier whilst anticipating the coming space age. For more information about populuxe see Hine (1989). a common understanding. The readers of the screenplay and other documents inevitably construct a version of the screen idea in their heads, which (unlike readers of novels) they then have to contribute to (Macdonald 2004b: 91). This process, too, has only intensified with the proliferation of digital technologies and the working methods they enable. In this era of digital cinema, previously discrete stages of pre- production, production and post-production tend to get collapsed into a single more fluid stage, in which images and sounds can be reworked to a much greater degree. Increasingly, elements of post- production and pre-production can be happening simultaneously. Surely then, more than ever, the screenplay needs to be a flexible doc- ument? Film editor Walter Murch observes that ‘digital technologies naturally tend to integrate with one another’ (Murch 1999). Perhaps in this environment it is more appropriate to consider the screenplay as an open text that sketches out possibilities and remains fluid through the film-making process? COURIER AND THE SCREENPLAY ‘The screenplay […] is the record of an idea for a screenwork, writ- ten in a highly stylized form. It is constrained by the rules of its form on the page, and is the subject of industrial norms and conventions’ (Macdonald 2004b: 81). When I began writing screenplays in the 1980s (assembling images and text with scissors, paste and colour Xeroxes to construct the treatment for my first production) I was astonished to discover the degree to which scriptwriting formats were rigidly pre- scribed. Even now, the Nicholl Fellowships Guidelines, sponsored by the US Academy of Motion Pictures, warn that you can create a nega- tive impression of your script through the following list of foibles and indiscretions: ‘Art on the script cover; Hard, slick Acco covers; Plastic spine binding; Commercial, College paper covers; Wimpy brads; Long “dangerous” brads; Cut “dangerous” brads’ (Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences 2008). Reading this list, a trip to the local stationery shop is beginning to sound surprisingly complex. The pit- falls awaiting the writer seeking professional acceptance and eventual production are many. The Nicholl Guidelines go on to advise against ‘a clipped or rubber-banded script on non-three hole paper, overly thick scripts, thin scripts, three-ring binding, color of card stock cover that inadvertently bugs a reader’ (Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences 2008, my emphasis). The number one convention, however, is that the screenplay must be presented in Courier 12-point font. Similar advice can be found in screenwriting training manuals and submission guidelines around the world. Why must it? Is it because this font conveys a sense of timelessness, thanks to its association with the typewriter? Yet the Courier font was designed not in the early twentieth century along with the first mass-produced typewriters, but much later, in the 1950s Populuxe era. 1 It rapidly became one of the most popular JOSC 1.1_5_art_Millard_011-026.indd 15 8/22/09 5:31:00 PM Kathryn Millard 16 2. In typography, kerning refers to the process of adjusting the spaces between letters. fonts around, with versions available for almost every typewriter on the market. One of the first advertisements for the ubiquitous Courier claimed ‘a letter can be just an ordinary messenger, or it can be the courier which radiates dignity, prestige and stability’ (Vanderbilt 2004). Of course, this message is exactly what many screenwriting manu- als and funding guidelines have long been trying to drum into aspir- ing screenwriters. Present your scripts in the approved formatting, and you not only imbue your work with ‘dignity, prestige and sta- bility’, but announce your status as an insider in the film industry. In What Happens Next: A History of American Screenwriting (Norman 2008: 190–96), Marc Norman reports that Preston Sturges was initially hired to write dialogue in 1930s Hollywood on the basis of his stage plays. Producer Jesse Lansky initially dismissed Sturges as an amateur when he offered to take Lansky’s idea straight from pitch to first draft (bypassing the conventional ten-page treatment common at the time). When, a month later, Sturges turned in a script, Lansky was forced to eat his words: [It was] a complete screenplay of proper length, complete to every word of dialogue, the action of every scene blueprinted for the director, and including special instructions for the camera- man and all the departments […] I was astounded. It was the most perfect script I’d ever seen […] I wouldn’t let anyone touch a word of it. (Norman 2008: 193) There are several ways to read this but it is hard to go past the view that, in Lansky’s eyes, it was Sturges’s command of screenplay for- matting that accorded him the status of the true professional. THE PERSONAL COMPUTER AND THE RISE AND FALL OF COURIER One of the main reasons that Courier was able to migrate successfully from the typewriter to the first personal computers in the 1980s was that it did not require much memory. This is because Courier is a fixed pitch font, in which every character has the same width, and therefore requires no kerning. 2 Although perhaps even more important to note is that the packaging of Courier with the first PCs ensured that users would be able to replicate typewriter-looking documents, enabling a smooth transition to the new era of word processing and personal computing. By 2004, however, Slate writer Tom Vanderbilt reported that the US State Department was replacing Courier 12 as its official font-in-residence. Courier 12, created in 1955 by IBM, is perhaps the most recog- nisable typeface of the twentieth century – a visual symbol of JOSC 1.1_5_art_Millard_011-026.indd 16 8/22/09 5:31:01 PM After the typewriter: the screenplay in a digital era 17 3. Noted in personal communication with Ian Macdonald, June 2009. typewritten anonymity, the widespread dissemination of infor- mation (and a classification of documents), stark factuality, and streamlined efficiency. (Vanderbilt 2004) Exiled from bureaucracies, the film industry remains one of Courier’s last strongholds. But for how much longer? Conventional wisdom in the film and television industries sug- gests that the screenplay is not only a creative document, but also one that encompasses production planning; providing information about locations, actors, sets, props, time of day and, most vital of all, timing. If the usual film formatting conventions are followed, then a page of screenplay equals one minute of screen time. I suspect, however, that the equation has never been as easily calculated as this convention might imply. Tom Pevsner, who started as second assistant director with Ealing Studios in the 1950s and completed his career in the 1990s as executive producer on the Bond films, says that the ‘rule’ of a page per minute has not always applied exactly; the duration of any section of the screenwork will depend on the director (Macdonald 2004a: 44–45). Pevsner mentions the example of the screenplay of One Two Three (Wilder and Diamond, c.1961) which was planned to increase in pace; it changed from a duration of about 50 seconds per page to about 20 seconds per page by the end. Macdonald notes that the unpublished script of One Two Three includes a message as a frontispiece which states ‘This piece must be played molto furioso – at a rapid-fire, breakneck tempo, suggested speed: 100 miles an hour – on the curves – 140 miles an hour on the straightaway’ (Macdonald, 2004a: 44n, original emphasis). This anecdote refers of course to standard film format, which is only one screen script format. There are other variations, particularly in TV where styles also differ between companies, and many (possibly most) of these TV formats do not conform to the ‘page-a-minute’ rule, always starting a new page with every new scene, however short. 3 Different genres and styles of film-making, as well as indi- vidual director’s preferred patterns of coverage are likely to result in a much greater range of page to screen ratios than the idealized one minute of screen time per page of screenplay. Moreover, one cannot help but wonder if the enforcement of this equation does not nudge the screenplay towards a production and budgeting document, rather than a creative record of a screen idea – an idea in flux and transition, an idea on the way to becoming a film. Indeed, the insist- ence on a single method of writing and presenting a range of screen ideas across genres may primarily owe its existence to the need to efficiently process large numbers of speculatively written screen- plays. This may be a response to the growing number of screenplays (fuelled in part, at least, by the growing number of screenwriting manuals and workshops), rather than a response to the needs of the development process. JOSC 1.1_5_art_Millard_011-026.indd 17 8/22/09 5:31:01 PM Kathryn Millard 18 4. In his ‘evolving systems’ theory of creativity Howard Gruber proposes that each creative practitioner is a complex, organized and knowing system. His phenomenological approach to studying creativity involves taking individuals’ self-reports as points of departure and studying them within the historical, social and institutional frameworks within which they operate. For more information, see Gruber and Wallace (1989). FLUIDITY: IMPROVISING THE SCREENPLAY Cognitive psychologist David Perkins is noted as saying that ‘a lively interplay between the developing work and the mind of the artist’ is an important factor in crafting large writing projects (John-Steiner 1997: 128–29). Novelist Anthony Burgess, for example, describes the early stages of new work as follows: ‘I chart a little at first […] lists of names, rough synopses of chapters, and so on. But one doesn’t over-plan; so many things are generated by the sheer act of writing’. Similarly, Nelson Algren is quoted as referring to a book finding its own shape in the process of creation (John-Steiner 1997: 128–29). Wong Kar-Wai ‘typically allows his stories to evolve as he films them; he simply sketches an outline of the story, finds locations, and begins shooting’ (Bosley 2001: 24 in Geuens 2007: 413). As Wong puts it, he does not really know what he wants at the writing stage, thus ‘making the film is actually a way for me to find all the answers’ (Tizard 2002: 197 in Geuens 2007: 213). The ‘evolving systems’ theory of creativity 4 proposes that major innovations across the arts and sciences are usually the result of extended periods of focused work on multiple, overlapping projects. Gruber terms this the ‘network of enterprises’, arguing that such a way of working increases the likelihood of cross-fertilization across projects (Gruber and Wallace 1989: 11–13). Canadian film-maker Guy Maddin uses just such a process. He describes the genesis of his mockumentary Brand Upon The Brain (2006), explaining that he was approached by Seattle’s not-for-profit The Film Company. They were willing to fund a low-budget feature providing that it was based on an original idea. Or as Maddin explains, ‘you can’t use an old pre-existing script that’s got the producer’s breath all over the title page’ (Douglas 2007). He was asked to write something new within a month. Since Maddin’s films typically revisit his autobiography, it was a given that some such scenes would be included: I didn’t have time to make up a lot of stuff, so I took some episodes from my childhood, one key sort of pivotal coming-together. I knew I didn’t have time to write dialogue, but I knew I had time to wing a film poem together […] especially if I started writing it later in the editing process, using title cards or narration. (Douglas 2007) In fact, his script never really existed as a traditionally presented and for- matted screenplay. Instead, Maddin and his collaborators worked from a story outline with lists of sets and props. He also describes gradu- ally introducing other elements into the mix. Fascinated by sound post- production he invited the film’s team of Foley artists to contribute to a live performance, and his narration was partly inspired by benshi, the film explainers of Japanese silent cinema. Maddin’s work presents one possible model for opening up the screenplay, due to his insistence on working with cinematic elements from early in the process. JOSC 1.1_5_art_Millard_011-026.indd 18 8/22/09 5:31:01 PM After the typewriter: the screenplay in a digital era 19 Maddin and Wong’s methodologies also have parallels with the improvisational processes of performers and musicians. Social psy- chologist and creativity theorist Keith Sawyer observes that improvisa- tional theatre groups that do ‘long form improvisation’ almost always prepare a loose structure in advance; ‘good jazz improvisers have years of experience […] they build a repertoire of phrases, overall forms, and memories of other musicians’ famous solos and recordings […] When improvising, they draw on this material’ (Sawyer 2007: 170). In other words, they draw on these phrases and forms, modifying and embel- lishing them to suit the demands of specific situations. Yet in the film and television industries it is usually only actors who are given the latitude to improvise. Research conducted in the IT industries also sug- gests that successful innovators build on limited structures: ‘the critical balance for innovation is at the edge of chaos; not too rigid to prevent emergent innovation, but not too loose to result in total chaos’ (Sawyer 2007: 169). COMICS AND GRAPHIC NOVELS Screenwriter Jim Taylor (Election (1999) and Sideways (2004)) argues that screenplays could draw more on comics and the graphic novel in their formatting and layout. ‘I’m hoping to figure out a new way to make screenplays more expressive,’ he says (Kretchmer 2006). Taylor points to the work of comic artist Chris Ware as one of his own inspi- rations for experimenting with the look of screenplays, since in Ware’s comics text is often more prominent than pictures. Taylor’s own experiments in creating visual interest include using a number of fonts and letterforms. In a sample page from Sideways he delineated charac- ters with the use of different fonts and typefaces, formatting all of the Miles character’s lines in Comic Sans, and all of Jack’s in Chalkboard (Kretchmer 2006). Paul Wells’s Scriptwriting (in a series on Basic Animation) focuses on the role of narrative forms and concepts, images, sounds and music in the development of screen ideas (Wells 2007). Wells’s wealth of beginning points for generating audio-visual narratives include iconic images, sounds, sense memories, emotions, concepts and re-narra- tions of established myths and fairy tales. Similarly, structuring devices and methods of analysis include storyboards, friezes and ladders which combine sketches and hand-drawn text and event analysis. Many of these methods are drawn from the working methods of a diverse range of writers and directors. While Scriptwriting is aimed at those begin- ning to write for animation, it is the openness of this approach that makes it a valuable source of ideas for screenwriters more generally. In Comics as Literature (2007) Rocco Versaci notes that comics of all kinds are increasingly being adapted into films. While mainstream superhero films have long drawn on comics, less well-known and edgy mate- rial has been successfully adapted into high profile films too; Versaci (2007: 11) cites Sin City (2005) and V for Vendetta (2005) as examples. His analysis of comics suggests, though, that the form has considerably JOSC 1.1_5_art_Millard_011-026.indd 19 8/22/09 5:31:01 PM Kathryn Millard 20 more to offer cinema than simply a stockpile of stories ripe for adapta- tion. For him, they are a form of graphic language that operates within a unique poetics. Comic narration blends and modifies features shared by other art forms – especially literature, painting, photography and film. Like literature, comics contain written narrative and dialogue, and they employ devices such as characterisation, conflict and plot […] comics blend words and pictures […] Unlike film, the images in comics are ‘read’ more like paintings and photographs rather than ‘watched’ like movies. (Versaci 2007: 13) Versaci contends that reading the interplay between the written and the visual is complex, and that comics do not happen in the words or the pictures but ‘somewhere in between’, in a process that requires the active participation of the reader to fill in the details between the panels. It is this filling in the space between the words and the pictures, he suggests, that fosters an intimacy between creator and audience (Versaci 2007: 14, my emphasis). For me it is this dynamic mix of words and images, the fact that images as well as words (and the relationship between the two) take centre stage from the beginning, that makes comics and graphic novels one particularly apt model for the screenplay. One artist/illustrator whose work I have found especially inspiring is John M. Muth. In his graphic novel M, Muth restaged Fritz Lang’s film (1931) about the investigation of a child murder with a neighbour- hood cast and a collection of borrowed costumes (Muth 2008). He then produced watercolours based on stills from these re-enactments. His blurred, defocused images of his characters help convey the sense of an everyman’s version of M. His graphic novel juxtaposes stills of dramatic action and evidence from the investigation – maps, memos, bars of haunting music and dialogue bubbles. Muth’s M suggests yet another possible pathway for the screenplay, perhaps with collected and assem- bled images for those of us who do not have his skills as a visual artist. In her account of ‘breakthrough thinking’ across the arts and sci- ences, Notebooks of the Mind, cognitive psychologist Vera John-Steiner argues that images are a more nuanced form of representing ideas than words (John-Steiner 1997: 109). This is not to suggest, of course, that words such as the scene description within a screenplay cannot evoke images for readers. Indeed, in his discussion of the evolution of screen- play, Kevin Boon argues that the trend towards less technical informa- tion within screenplays, and a more distilled, literary style has been particularly pronounced over the last thirty years (Boon 2008). Boon describes this transition as cinema and television shaking off the influ- ences of staged theatre and developing its own distinct literary form. He regards Robert Towne’s influential screenplay for Chinatown (1974) as a significant marker in this evolution. For Boon, though, the object of screenplay analysis is always this written documentation rather than JOSC 1.1_5_art_Millard_011-026.indd 20 8/22/09 5:31:01 PM After the typewriter: the screenplay in a digital era 21 the processes and collaborations that are part of both the development of the screen idea and its transformation into the screen work. Perhaps this arises from the fact that in charting the transitions in the formatting of the screenplay over the last century and more, Boon is primarily con- cerned with making a case for the film script as a distinct literary form. JUST ADD WORDS: FORMATS Since perhaps the early 1990s, the film industry’s standard software for screenwriting has been the Final Draft computer program, marketed with the slogan ‘Just add words’ (Final Draft 2009). While Final Draft’s main function is to assist writers in formatting screenplays to indus- try standards, it also contains an expert problem-solver based on Syd Field’s three-act structural paradigm. This generates reports and sugges- tions about how the screenplay could more closely fit Field’s paradigm. Other software programs such as Dramatica also include restrictive story paradigms (Dramatica 2009). Ironically, just as digital technologies and networked media are opening up new methods of sketching screen ideas and collaborating with others, much of the scriptwriting software may be serving to restrict the range of possible storytelling strategies on offer. Story templates from the likes of Syd Field, Christopher Vogler and Robert McKee have migrated across to digital platforms, along with Final Draft and its Courier font. On the other hand, some individuals and communities are developing shareware computer programs like Celtx, which allows writers to add ‘assets’ to conventional script layouts (Celtx 2009). These ‘assets’ can include video, stills, music and sound. Celtx also aims to build online communities who can respond to each other’s work. The potential source of innovation is when these features are seen as aids to screenwriting as well as pre-production and produc- tion. While programs like Celtx still have a long way to go in enabling a more fluid use of imagery, sounds and words in the development of screen works and ideas, they do perhaps point towards one new set of possibilities for the screenplay. Similarly, pre-visualization (‘pre-viz’) software such as Frameforge 3D (Frameforge 3D 2009) suggests new possibilities when used as a tool for generating writing and scenarios rather than as a director’s tool for the pre-production phase. CROSS-PLATFORM WRITING Want some screenwriting advice? Add drawings to your script. And then put your dialogue in bubbles. If recent studio acquisi- tions are any evidence, then the fastest way to get a movie deal these days may just be to turn your next Big Idea into a graphic novel. (Fernandez 2008) Thus wrote Jay Fernandez in The Hollywood Reporter. A new generation of screenwriters who have grown up in a networked world saturated JOSC 1.1_5_art_Millard_011-026.indd 21 8/22/09 5:31:02 PM Kathryn Millard 22 with YouTube, TiVo, instant messaging, MP3s and cell phones as well as graphic novels are abandoning the idea of writing only for the mov- ies. Instead they are embracing a more elastic, cross-platform approach. According to some commentators, the era of the speculative script with its armies of gatekeepers may have passed. US-based manager/pro- ducer Paul Young, for example, encourages his comedy clients to film excerpts from their speculative scripts and post them online. He sees producers, studios and distributors looking beyond the printed page for material to film. Many people are now used to watching material online and do not expect it to have high production values, Young suggests (Fernandez 2008). CONCLUSION We are all subject to what Susan Stewart calls the ‘self-periodisation of popular culture’, to the ways in which shifts in technologies and viewing platforms shape our experiences of viewing and watching (Straw 2002: 313). Courier, a product of the 1950s, could perhaps be regarded as the film industry equivalent of the Ploughman’s Lunch. If the Ploughman’s Lunch was a fake heritage item devised in the 1980s to bolster lunchtime trade in British pubs, then might we see Courier as a font maintained by a nostalgic film industry to keep itself aligned with the era of classic Hollywood? Media theorists Henry Jenkins and David Thorburn challenge the assumption that new technologies displace older systems with decisive suddenness. ‘Media change is an accretive, gradual proc- ess, always a mix of tradition and innovation, in which emerging and established systems interact, shift and collude with each other’ (Jenkins and Thorburn 2003: x). So much of cinema did not begin with film, but migrated across from earlier art forms and entertain- ments. Consequently, cinema’s histories can be found in photog- raphy, painting, portraiture, music, the fairground, the peep show, picture palaces, vaudeville, theatre, the nickelodeon, magic shows, travelogues, the illustrated lecture, the public science experiment, the book, the typewriter and the architectural sketch. Digital cinema continues to transform, to adapt and reconfigure itself. So much of the current era, with its proliferation of digital technologies, returns us to the beginnings of cinema and creates spaces to investigate the paths that were not followed, the possibilities not explored; the branching lines and loops, or the byways of cinema as Guy Maddin describes them (Marlow 2007). Film theorist Robert Stam notes: ‘Pre-cinema and post-cinema have come to resemble each other. Then, as now, everything seems possible’ (Stam 2000: 318). I think the same is true for the screenplay. As Lawrence Lessig argues, the most interesting ways to write are increasingly with images and sounds in addition to text (Korman 2005). The processes of screen- writing and film-making have been separated since the early years of cinema when Thomas Harper Ince, Hollywood’s answer to Henry JOSC 1.1_5_art_Millard_011-026.indd 22 8/22/09 5:31:02 PM After the typewriter: the screenplay in a digital era 23 Ford, devised his industrial system of the continuity script as a basis for pre-planned productions (Staiger 1985: 191 in Geuens 2000: 83). Over ninety years later, the digital era offers the possibility of re- uniting screenplay and film production in an expanded notion of the screenplay. REFERENCES Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (2008), A Few Notes on Formatting, http://www.oscars.org/nicholl/format.html. Accessed 31 August 2008. Boon, K. (2008), Script Culture and the American Screenplay, Detroit: Wayne State University Press. Bosley, R. (2001), ‘Infidelity in the Far East’, American Cinematographer, 82: 2, pp. 22–33. Brand Upon the Brain (2006), Wr: Guy Maddin, Louis Negin, Dir: Guy Maddin, Canada, 95 mins. Burnett, R. (1988), ‘Atom Egoyan: An Interview’, http://www2.cruzio.com/~ akreyche/aeai1.html. Accessed 24 May 2009. Celtx (2009), http://celtx.com/overview.html. Accessed 24 May 2009. Douglas, E. (2007), ‘Guy Maddin’s Brand Upon the Brain!’, interview with Guy Maddin, http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=20244. Accessed 24 May 2009. Dramatica (2009), http://www.dramatica/com. Accessed 8 June 2009. Election (1999), Wr: Alexander Payne, Jim Taylor, Dir: Alexander Payne, USA, 103 mins. Fernandez, Jay A. Evolution of a Screenwriter, Hollywood Reporter, 24 th July, 2008. http://vivicardoso.blogspot.com/2008/08/evolution-of-screenwriter. html Accessed 3 rd August 2009. Final Draft (2009), http://www.final draft.com. Accessed 8 June 2009. Frameforge 3D (2009), http://www.frameforge3d.com. Accessed 3 rd August 2009. Geuens, J-P. (2000), Film Production Theory, New York: State University of New York Press. —— (2007) ‘The Space of Production’, Quarterly Review of Film and Video, 24: 5, pp. 411–20. Gruber, H. and Wallace, D. (eds) (1989), Creative People at Work: Twelve Cognitive Case Studies, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hine, T. (1989 [1986]), Populuxe, London: Bloomsbury. Hyde, L. (2007), The Gift: Creativity and the Artist in the Modern World, 2nd edn., New York: Vintage. Janaczewska, N. (2007), ‘The Development Sceptic’, Outlier-NJ, 19 December, http://outlier-nj.blogspot.com. Accessed 24 May 2009. Jenkins, H. and Thorburn, D. (eds) (2003), Rethinking Media Change: the Aesthetics of Transition, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. John-Steiner, V. (1997), Notebooks of the Mind: Explorations of Thinking, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ketchner, Andrea (2006), Screenwriter Jim Taylor Talks Comics, http://www.tsl. pomona.edu/index.php?article=1371. Accessed 3 rd August 2009. Koman, R. (2005), ‘Remixing Culture: An Interview with Lawrence Lessig’, O’Reilly Network, http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/policy/2005/02/24/lessig. html. Accessed 24 May 2009. JOSC 1.1_5_art_Millard_011-026.indd 23 8/22/09 5:31:02 PM Kathryn Millard 24 Lowry, R. J. (ed.) (1982), The Journals of Abraham Maslow, Lexington, MA: Lewis Publishing. M (1931), Wr: Thea von Harbou, Fritz Lang, Dir: Fritz Lang, Germany, 117 mins. Macdonald, Ian W. (2004a), ‘The presentation of the screen idea in narrative film-making’, Ph.D. thesis, Leeds: Leeds Metropolitan University. —— (2004b), ‘Disentangling the Screen Idea’, Journal of Media Practice, 5: 2, pp. 89–99. Marlow, J. (2004) ‘The reconfiguration of film history: Guy Maddin’ GreenCine, 28 April, 2004 http://greencine.com/article?action=view&articleID+118. Accessed 3 rd August 2009. Millard, K. (2006), ‘Writing for the Screen: Beyond the Gospel of Story’, Scan, 3: 2, http://scan.net.au/scan/journal/display.php?journal_id=77. Accessed 24 May 2009. Montage (2009), http://www.marinersoftware.com. Accessed 8 June 2009. Murch, W. (1999) ‘A Digital Cinema of the Mind? Could be’, New York Times, http://filmsound.org/murch/murch.htm. Accessed 24 May 2009. Murphy, J. J. (2007), Me and You and Memento and Fargo: How Independent Screenplays Work, New York: Continuum. Muth, J. (2008), M: A Graphic Novel Based on the Film by Fritz Lang, New York: Abrams. Norman, M. (2008), What Happens Next: A History of American Screenwriting, London: Aurum. Sawyer, Keith (2007), Group Genius: The Creative Power of Collaboration , Cambridge, MA : Basic Books. Sideways (2004), Wr: Alexander Payne, Jim Taylor, Dir: Alexander Payne, USA, 126 mins. Sin City (2005), Wr: Frank Miller, Dir: Frank Miller, Robert Rodriguez, Quentin Tarantino, USA, 124 mins. Staiger, Janet (1985), Blueprints for Feature Films: Hollywood’s Continuity Scripts in Balio, Tina (ed.), The American Film Industry, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Stam, R. (2000), Film Theory: An Introduction, Oxford: Blackwell. Straw, W. (2002), ‘Re-Inhabiting Lost Languages: Guy Maddin’s Careful’, in E. Walz (ed.), Canada’s Best Features: Critical Essays on 15 Canadian Films, Amsterdam: Ropodi. Tizard, L. (2002), Moviemakers’ Master Class, New York: Faber and Faber. Travelling Light (1993), Wr/Dir: Kathryn Millard, Australia, 84 mins. V for Vendetta (2005), Wr: Andy Wachowski, Larry Wachowski, Dir: James McTeague, USA, 132 mins. Vanderbilt, T. (2004), ‘Courier Dispatched’, Slate, 20 February, http://www. slate. com/id/2095809/. Accessed 24 May 2009. Versaci, Rocco (2007), This Book Contains Graphic Language: Comics as Literature, New York: Continuum. Wells, P. (2007), Scriptwriting, Singapore: Ava Publishing. Ware, M. (2008), ‘Alternative Photography’, http://www.mikeware.co.uk/ mikeware/John_Herschel.html. Accessed May 24 2009. Wilder, Billy and Diamond, H. A. L. (c.1961), One, Two, Three, [Based on a one- act play by Ferenc Molnar]. [Munich?] [The Mirisch Company?] 179 pp., (unpublished screenplay, Thomas Pevsner collection, Leeds Metropolitan University). JOSC 1.1_5_art_Millard_011-026.indd 24 8/22/09 5:31:02 PM After the typewriter: the screenplay in a digital era 25 SUGGESTED CITATION Millard, K. (2010), ‘After the typewriter: the screenplay in a digital era’, Journal of Screenwriting 1: 1, pp. 11–25, doi: 10.1386/josc.1.1.11/1 CONTRIBUTOR DETAILS Kathryn Millard is a writer and film-maker and is Associate Professor at Macquarie University, Sydney. Her credits as writer, producer and director include award-winning features, documentaries and essay films. Kathryn publishes on topics including screenwriting, screen history, colour, pho- tography, creativity and collaboration. She is currently carrying out further research on the increasingly blurred boundaries between screenwriting and pre-visualization software, and the creative possibilities that this represents for screenwriters. Her feature-length essay film about Chaplin imitators, The Boot Cake, was released in 2008. Contact: Department of Media, Music and Cultural Studies, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia, 2109. E-mail:
[email protected] JOSC 1.1_5_art_Millard_011-026.indd 25 8/22/09 5:31:02 PM Transnational Cinemas ISSN 2040-3550 (2 issues | Volume 1, 2010) Aims and Scope Transnational Cinemas has emerged in response to a shift in global film cultures and how we understand them. Dynamic new industrial and textual practices are being established throughout the world and the academic community is responding. Our journal aims to break down traditional geographical divisions and welcomes submissions that reflect the changing nature of global filmmaking. Call for Papers Transnational Cinemas covers a vast and diverse range of film related subjects. It provides a new and exciting forum for disseminating research. The editors are seeking articles, interviews, visual essays, reports on film festivals and conferences. Articles should be up to 6,000 words in length and should be written in English, with all quotations translated. Editors 9jea\Y\]dY?YjrY Yjea\Y&\]dY_YjrY8fgllaf_`Ye&]\m&[f ;dYm\aYEY_YddYf]k%:dYf[g [dYm\aY&eY_YddYf]k8aZ]jghm]ZdY&]\m&ep