Abstract
This book has explored a range of different kinds of text in the attempt to show which forms of writing became normative at particular times in Western film history, why they attained that status, and what caused the adoption of new, alternate or hybrid forms that would challenge or replace those norms. A project like this entails certain assumptions, especially about the formal definition of different kinds of screenwriting. There is also a more acutely political problem, which is well articulated by Steven Maras as ‘a tendency to define a particularly dominant model of industry practice as a normative form of practice that others must either follow or situate themselves against. Thus, exciting possibilities in the realm of screenwriting practice are pre-positioned in the space of “the alternative”’.1
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Steven Maras, Screenwriting: History, Theory and Practice (London: Wallflower, 2009), p. 171.
Ibid.
Ray Carney, The Films of John Cassavetes: Pragmatism, Modernism, and the Movies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), p. 187.
Tom Charity, John Cassavetes: Lifeworks (London: Omnibus, 2001), p. xi.
Quoted in Raymond Carney, American Dreaming: The Films of John Cassavetes and the American Experience (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), p. 111.
John Cassavetes, Faces (New York: Signet, 1970), p. 8.
Quoted in Dan Fainaru (ed.), Theo Angelopoulos: Interviews (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 2001), p. 142.
Ibid., pp. 141–42.
Ibid., p. 74.
Andrew Horton, The Films of Theo Angelopoulos: A Cinema of Contemplation (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton UP, 1997), p. 183.
Peter Brunette, Wong Kar-Wai (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2005), p. 126.
Ibid., p. 124.
Ibid., p. 125.
Quoted in J. J. Murphy, Me and You and Memento and Fargo: How Independent Screenplays Work (New York: Continuum, 2007), p. 4.
Steven Price, The Screenplay: Authorship, Theory and Criticism (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2010), pp. 22–23.
Kathryn Millard, ‘The Screenplay as Prototype’, in Jill Nelmes (ed.), Analysing the Screenplay (London: Routledge, 2011), p. 156.
Casablanca: Inside the Script (Burbank, CA: Warner Bros. Digital Publishing, 2012), p. 17.
Ibid., p. 19.
Claudia Sternberg, Written for the Screen: The American Motion-Picture Screenplay as Text (Tübingen: Stauffenburg, 1997), p. 28.
See also Maaret Koskinen, ‘Out of the Past: Saraband and the Ingmar Bergman Archive’, in Maaret Koskinen, ed., Ingmar Bergman Revisited, (London: Wallflower, 2008), pp. 19–34.
Anna Sofia Rossholm, ‘Tracing the Voice of the Auteur: Persona and the Ingmar Bergman Archive’, Journal of Screenwriting 4.2 (2013), p. 135.
Ibid., p. 136.
Ibid., p. 137.
Daniel Ferrer and Michael Groden, ‘Introduction: A Genesis of French Genetic Criticism’, in Jed Deppman, Daniel Ferrer and Michael Groden (eds), Genetic Criticism: Texts and Avant-texts (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004), p. 2.
See Steven Price, ‘The Screenplay: An Accelerated Critical History’, Journal of Screenwriting 4.1 (2013), pp. 94–95.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2013 Steven Price
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Price, S. (2013). Screenwriting Today and Tomorrow. In: A History of the Screenplay. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137315700_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137315700_12
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-230-29181-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-31570-0
eBook Packages: Palgrave Media & Culture CollectionLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)