Empathy in Film Thesis
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
THE WORDS THAT MAKE PICTURES MOVE An implicit theory of viewer empathy in the tacit knowledge of expert screenwriters Steven Vidler April 2015 This thesis is presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Media and Communication. Faculty of Arts, Department of Media, Music, Communications and Cultural Studies, Macquarie University, Sydney. Contents ABSTRACT: i STATEMENT OF CANDIDATE: ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: iii CHAPTER 1: FADE IN 1 Background, aims and approach of this research. CHAPTER 2: SCHMUCKS WITH MACBOOKS 15 Why consider the tacit knowledge of expert screenwriters? CHAPTER 3: CIGARETTE BUTTS, CHEWING GUM WRAPPERS & TEARS Expert screenwriters’ conceptions of viewer empathy. Introduction to interviews 48 Simon Beaufoy 51 Laurence Coriat 75 Jean-Claude Carriere 89 Guillermo Arriaga 107 CHAPTER 4: DEUS NOT-SO-ABSCONDITUS 120 Expert screenwriters’ implicit model of viewer empathy. CHAPTER 5: MIND, THE GAP 134 Cognitive theorists’ models of viewer empathy: A screenwriter’s perspective. CHAPTER 6: INSIDE THE RUSSIAN DOLL 169 Cognitive neuroscientists’ models of empathy: A screenwriter’s perspective. CHAPTER 7: THE VIEWER WITH THREE BRAINS 227 Expert screenwriters’ narrative strategies for creating and modulating viewer empathy. CHAPTER 8: FADE OUT 263 Results and conclusions. REFERENCES 272 APPENDIX - ETHICS APPROVAL 307 ENDNOTES 309 i Abstract Screenwriting is under-represented in film theory. Screenwriters conceive of their practice as deliberately communicating, through the medium of film, a coherent set of thoughts and feelings to a discriminating viewer, in order to move them emotionally and intellectually to accept an intended meaning. Thus expert screenwriters are those who consistently demonstrate, through the effective application of narrative forms and devices, their understanding of how we understand film. Yet screenwriters have been neglected by film theory as a primary source of knowledge concerning how the experience of viewing narrative film is constructed. In this thesis I argue that by directly interrogating expert screenwriters’ conceptions and practices we may develop better theories of how film is understood. As evidence, I explore screenwriters’ understanding of one aspect of narrative film: viewer engagement with character. I identify an implicit theory of viewer empathy in the tacit knowledge of expert screenwriters. I situate this implicit theory within the context of recent cognitive film theory. And I evaluate specific narrative strategies generated by this theory, with reference to current cognitive neuroscience. By doing so, I aim to demonstrate that by directly considering the knowledge of expert screenwriters we may enhance understanding of how film is understood. ii Statement of Candidate I certify that the work of this thesis entitled The Words That Make Pictures Move has not previously been submitted for any degree, nor has it been submitted as part of requirements for any degree to any other university or institution other than Macquarie University. I also certify that the thesis is an original piece of research that has been written by me. Any assistance received in my research and the preparation of this thesis has been appropriately acknowledged. All information sources used are indicated in this thesis. The research presented in this thesis was approved by the Macquarie University Ethics Review Committee, reference number: 5201200489. ____________________________________ Steven Vidler Student ID: 41948408 April 2015 iii Acknowledgements It takes a particular kind of madness to sail around the world alone. Or to write a research thesis. Both are daunting and solitary undertakings. But neither could be accomplished without the support, encouragement and knowledge of a great many committed individuals working steadfastly behind the scenes. I should like to thank those who made it possible for me to complete this voyage. I must begin by thanking Professor Catharine Lumby, who first encouraged me to believe that the observations and ideas accumulated in my years of creative practice might be worthy of academic research. Without her initial encouragement, I may never have begun. From that point onwards, through the highs and lows, through storms and doldrums, and on to the very end, Professor Kathryn Millard continued to encourage, challenge and patiently guide me, with wit, wisdom and always, of course, insight. For this I will never be able to thank her enough. I must also thank Professor John Potts for his timely interventions and succinct feedback. Dr. Kate Andrews for casting her expert eye over my discussion of tacit knowledge. And Mikael Peck for salvaging some small shred of my sanity by checking and formatting my references. Of course I must also thank the screenwriters who agreed to be interviewed for this research - Simon Beaufoy, Laurence Coriat, Jean-Claude Carriere and Guillermo Arriaga - without whom I should have very little to say. And finally, and forever, I want to thank my family, who endured many days and nights of neglect as a result of my obsession. Their patience, love and belief kept my little boat afloat. Without them I truly could not have lasted the journey. Chapter One 1 Chapter One FADE IN: Background, aims and approach This research project has grown organically from my creative practice. I have been making narrative film, in one capacity or another, for over twenty-five years. In that time I have had the good fortune to work with many expert screenwriters and filmmakers - luminaries like Terrence Malick, George Miller, Jane Campion and Peter Bogdanovich. I have enjoyed the privilege and the pleasure of discussing their practice with them, and observing them at work. Twenty-five years is a long time watching.1 Throughout that time, I noticed that expert screenwriters share a consistent set of foundational conceptions and practices concerning viewer engagement. I also noticed that these conceptions and practices have never been fully articulated. They remain part of expert screenwriters’ tacit knowledge. It occurred to me that if I could make this knowledge explicit, it might make a welcome contribution to film theory’s investigation into how the viewer’s understanding of narrative film is constructed. But the conceptions and practices I observed proved to be more controversial than I anticipated. In this chapter I briefly outline the nature of these conceptions and of the controversies attached to them. I do not intend to rehearse my full argument here. I’ll let that unfold naturally as we proceed through the research. My aim here is simply to provide the reader with a context for the argument - and some clue as to why it is an argument at all. The best place to start is with the assumption that underpins my thesis: the idea that screenwriting is an act of intentional artistic communication. Chapter One 2 Screenwriting and contemporary film theory Screenwriters and film theorists share common aims. Christian Metz said the project of the film theorist is “to understand how film is understood” (Metz 1974, p74). This is also the project of the screenwriter. Cognitive film theorist David Bordwell defined this project further when he wrote that, “A full theory of narration must be able to specify the objective devices and forms that elicit a spectator’s activity” (Bordwell 1985, p48). Here too, screenwriters would agree. The screenwriter, in order for her work to communicate as she intends, must possess just such a “full theory”. Indeed, she must not only be able to “specify” the “devices and forms that elicit a spectator’s activity”, she must be able to apply them. She must have a working knowledge of how an individual viewer engages emotionally and intellectually with a screen character, how a viewer derives a coherent, holistic meaning from the fragments of image, sound and event that make up a screen narrative, and how a discriminating (and often resistant) viewer is swayed to accept this meaning (Price 2010, Moyer-Gusé 2008). In short, in order to become expert, a screenwriter must “understand how film is understood”. It would seem logical to assume that the film theorist’s project to “understand how film is understood” may therefore benefit from directly interrogating expert screenwriters’ understandings. This assumption, however, is not shared by most contemporary film theorists. In his book A Philosophy of the Screenplay (2013), Ted Nannicelli points out that while early film theorists such as Eisenstein, Munsterberg and Belazs were exercised by lively and robust debate concerning the nature and status of the screenplay, in contrast contemporary theorists have largely overlooked the screenwriter and the screenplay as valid primary sources of knowledge about how the experience of viewing film narrative is created: contemporary film theory has subordinated the study of the screenplay to other concerns. Although relevant articles have been published here and there, contemporary film theory has given us no systematic or sustained account of the Chapter One 3 screenplay or its place in film production (Nannicelli 2013, p3). The notion that screenwriting is an intentional act of artistic communication is so fundamental to the expert screenwriter’s practice that for many screenwriters unfamiliar with film theory it comes as a great surprise that anyone might think it could be otherwise. Contemporary film theorists, however, have argued vehemently against the “communication theory” model of cinema. For many decades they have been successful in marginalising