<<

A Philosophy of the Screenplay

Recently, scholars in a variety of disciplines—including philosophy, fi lm and media studies, and literary studies—have become interested in the aesthetics, defi nition, and ontology of the screenplay. To this end, this vol- ume addresses the fundamental philosophical questions about the nature of the screenplay: What is a screenplay? Is the screenplay art—more specifi - cally, ? What kind of a thing is a screenplay? Nannicelli argues that the screenplay is a kind of artefact; as such, collectively deter- mine its boundaries, and both and readers of screenplays collectively determine its ontological nature. Any plausible philosophical account of the screenplay must be strictly constrained by our collective creative and ap- preciative practices, and must recognize that those practices indicate that at least some screenplays are artworks.

Ted Nannicelli is a Lecturer in Screen and Media Studies at the University of Waikato in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Routledge Studies in Contemporary Philosophy

For a full list of titles in this series, please visit www.routledge.com

15 Intergenerational Justice 23 Habermas and Rawls Rights and Responsibilities Disputing the Political in an Intergenerational Polity Edited by James Gordon Finlay- Janna Thompson son and Fabian Freyenhagen

16 Hillel Steiner and the Anatomy 24 Philosophical Delusion of Justice and Its Therapy Themes and Challenges Outline of a Philosophical Edited by Stephen de Wijze, Mat- Revolution thew H. Kramer, and Ian Carter By Eugen Fischer

17 Philosophy of Personal Identity 25 Epistemology and the Regress and Multiple Personality Problem Logi Gunnarsson By Scott F. Aikin

18 The Force of Argument 26 Civil Society in Liberal Essays in Honor of Democracy Timothy Smiley Mark Jensen Jonathan Lear and Alex Oliver 27 The Politics of Logic 19 Autonomy and Liberalism Badiou, Wittgenstein, Ben Colburn and the Consequences of Formalism 20 Habermas and Literary Paul M. Livingston Rationality David L. Colclasure 28 Pluralism and Liberal Politics Robert B. Talisse 21 Rawls, Citizenship, and Education 29 Kant and Education M. Victoria Costa Interpretations and Commentary Edited by Klas Roth and 22 Objectivity and the Language- Chris W. Surprenant Dependence of Thought A Transcendental Defence of 30 Feminism, Psychoanalysis, and Universal Lingualism Maternal Subjectivity Christian Barth Alison Stone 31 Civility in Politics and 40 Aesthetics After Metaphysics Education From to Edited by Deborah S. Mower, Miguel de Beistegui Wade L. Robison 41 Foundations of Freedom 32 Philosophical Inquiry into Welfare-Based Arguments Pregnancy, Childbirth, against Paternalism and Mothering Simon R. Clarke Maternal Subjects Edited by Sheila Lintott and 42 Pittsburgh School of Philosophy Maureen Sander-Staudt Sellars, McDowell, Brandom Chauncey Maher 33 Authenticity as an Ethical Ideal 43 Reference and Structure in the Somogy Varga Philosophy of Language A Defense of the Russellian 34 The Philosophy of Curiosity Orthodoxy Ilhan Inan Arthur Sullivan

35 Self-Realization and Justice 44 Civic Virtue and the A Liberal-Perfectionist Defense Sovereignty of Evil of the Right to Freedom from Derek Edyvane Employment Julia Maskivker 45 Philosophy of Language and Webs of Information 36 Identity, Autonomy, Heimir Geirsson and Mortality From Frankfurt and MacIntyre 46 Disagreement and to Kierkegaard Skepticism by John J. Davenport Edited by Diego E. Machuca

37 Contemporary Feminist 47 Philosophy in Schools Pragmatism An Introduction for Philosophers Edited by Maurice and Teachers Hamington and Celia Edited by Sara Goering, Bardwell-Jones Nicholas J. Shudak, and Thomas E. Wartenberg 38 Morality, Self Knowledge, and Human Suffering 48 A Philosophy of Material An Essay on The Loss of Culture Confi dence in the World , Function, and Mind Josep Corbi Beth Preston

39 Contrastivism in Philosophy 49 A Philosophy of the Screenplay Edited by Martijn Blaauw Ted Nannicelli A Philosophy of the Screenplay

Ted Nannicelli First published 2013 by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Simultaneously published in the UK by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2013 Taylor & Francis The right of Ted Nannicelli to be identifi ed as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identifi cation and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Nannicelli, Ted. A philosophy of the screenplay / by Ted Nannicelli. p. cm. — (Routledge studies in contemporary philosophy) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Motion picture authorship. 2. Motion picture plays—History and criticism. I. Title. PN1996.N25 2013 808.2'3—dc23 2012030879 ISBN: 978-0-415-52144-4 ISBN: 978-0-203-06910-3

Typeset in Sabon by Apex CoVantage, LLC For Leo and Vin, who arrived during the writing of this book. And for Aliza—I owe you. Contents

Acknowledgements xi

Introduction 1

PART I Defi nition

1 What Is a Screenplay? An Intentional–Historical Formalist Defi nition 11

2 Defending the Defi nition: Intentionality, History, and Artifact Concepts 34

PART II Art Status

3 The Historical Narrative Approach to Identifying Art: Exegesis and Defense 61

4 From Playwriting to : The Historical Narrative 79

PART III Ontology

5 Objections and Ontology I: Is the Screenplay an Autonomous Work of Art? 111

6 Instructions and Artworks: Musical Scores, Theatrical Scripts, Architectural Plans, and Screenplays 124 x Contents 7 Objections and Ontology II: Is the Screenplay Literature? 139

8 Toward an Ontology of the Screenplay 162

PART IV Appreciation

9 The Appreciation of the Screenplay as Literature 191

Notes 219 Bibliography 251 Index 263 Acknowledgements

This book began as a Ph.D. thesis and, as a result, it has benefi tted enor- mously from the support of an especially large group of people. The seeds of the argument that at least some screenplays are works of literature were fi rst planted when, as an M.F.A. student at Temple Univer- sity, I was simultaneously writing a feature-length screenplay for my thesis committee—which included Jeff Rush, Eran Preis, and Michelle Parkerson— and studying the philosophy of fi lm under the guidance of Noël Carroll. I am grateful to them for discussions that pushed me to start thinking philo- sophically about screenplays and for their encouragement. More recently, Noël was generous enough to read and offer feedback on two chapters and, even more indicatively of how supportive he has been, also commented on and encouraged me to publish a conference paper—now part of Chapter 5— that critiqued his own work. I am especially appreciative of his help. I would like to thank everyone at the University of Kent—in particular within the Studies Department and Aesthetics Research Group—who supported my thesis research. I cannot name everyone here, but would like to single out my Ph.D. cohort for subjecting my work to careful scru- tiny on a regular basis. Film Studies staff members Jinhee Choi, Peter Stanfi eld, and Aylish Wood all read rough drafts of thesis chapters, and their feedback during these early stages was very helpful. While at Kent, I benefi tted from discussions with Jerrold Levinson—a Leverhulme Visit- ing Professor in 2010—who was also kind enough to comment on a draft chapter. I was extraordinarily fortunately to have Hans Maes and David Bordwell as my examiners. Their thoughtful comments on my completed thesis were extremely helpful as I rewrote the manuscript for publication as a book. I am also grateful to Hans for allowing me to teach on his philosophy of art module and giving me the confi dence to work in what was to me an almost entirely new discipline. David’s work has served as model for me ever since my fi rst undergraduate fi lm studies course, and I am very grateful to him for taking the time out of his extremely busy schedule to serve as my external examiner. xii Acknowledgements Murray Smith, in his capacity of my thesis supervisor, not only read all of the chapters on multiple occasions, but also helped me in countless other ways too numerous to mention here. He saw the potential of my project before I was able to clearly explain what it was I wanted to write, and convinced me—in his own work and in supervisions—of the fruitfulness of working simultaneously in fi lm studies and philosophical aesthetics. From the day I arrived at the University of Waikato, my colleagues have been extraordinarily welcoming and helpful. at research seminars in the Screen and Media Studies Programme and the Philosophy Programme have pressed me to clarify and refi ne my ideas. I am especially grateful to Justine Kingsbury for her comments on two draft chapters. Thanks are also due to Willemijn Krijnen and Daniel Barron for research assistance and to the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences for funding it. I am indebted to Paisley Livingston and an anonymous referee who re- viewed my project for Routledge and offered helpful feedback, as well as to Felisa Salvago-Keyes, who commissioned the book. I presented material that eventually made its way into the book at a number of conferences: the Screenwriting Research Network conferences at the University of Leeds in 2008 and at the Helsinki University of Art and Design in 2009; the European Network for Cinema Studies Conference at Lund University in 2009; the British Society for Aesthetics Conference at Heythrop College, University of London in 2010; and the Society for Cognitive Studies of the Moving Image conferences at University of Copen- hagen in 2009 and at Sarah Lawrence College and New York University in 2012. Thanks go to all the members who attended my talks for their questions and feedback. In particular, I would like to thank Ian W. Macdon- ald and Kirsi Rinne for inviting me to the fi rst Screenwriting Research Net- work conference despite their reservations about some of my ideas. Ian and I still don’t agree on a number of theoretical points, but it would be hard for me to overstate how important his research, leadership, and generosity have been in establishing screenwriting studies as a fi eld. I am grateful to him for welcoming me into the fold and hope he won’t have second thoughts about it after reading this. Some material in the book has previously been published elsewhere. Chapter 5 appeared as “Why Can’t Screenplays Be Artworks?” in Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 69, no. 4 (Fall 2011), and is reprinted here with the permission of John Wiley & Sons. Chapter 6 appeared as “Instruc- tions and Artworks: Musical Scores, Theatrical Scripts, Architectural Plans, and Screenplays” in British Journal of Aesthetics 51, no. 4 (October 2011), and is reprinted here with the permission of Oxford University Press. I have also taken a line, here and there, from my article “Ontology, Intentional- ity, and Television Aesthetics” in Screen 53, no. 2 (Summer 2012) with the permission of Oxford University Press. Acknowledgements xiii I am extremely grateful to Su Friedich for generously allowing me to reproduce, in its entirety, her beautiful “ for But No One (1982).” I am also grateful to Steve Wilson and the Harry Ransom Center at the Uni- versity of Texas–Austin for allowing me to quote from a document in the Ernest Lehman Collection. Finally, and most importantly, I need to thank my family for supporting me during the writing of the thesis and again during the writing of the book. Introduction

For many classical fi lm theorists, the screenplay—or, as they might have called it, the fi lm script, fi lm scenario, or photoplay—raised a host of sub- stantive philosophical questions. Perhaps the most central of these were thrown into sharp relief by the Russian artist, critic, and scriptwriter Osip Brik, who wrote in 1936:

The question, “What precisely constitutes a script?” is currently a sub- ject of debate. What is it? An autonomous literary work, or merely the translation into fi lm language of a pre-existent literary work (, story, ), or is it purely and simply a memorandum to the director indicating the sequence of scenes and episodes?1

For Brik and other theorists, such as Béla Balázs, Hugo Münsterberg, and Sergei Eisenstein, there were vexing questions to be answered about what a screenplay is, what kind of a thing it is, what its relationship is to the fi lm, and whether it is an autonomous work of art. The divergence in the answers the classical theorists offered suggests how knotty the questions are. Brik averred, “the script is not an independent literary work [. . .] The script is written in words. But this in no way makes the script a literary work, let alone an autonomous one.” 2 Similarly, Hugo Münsterberg wrote that in to a drama, which “is completed as a work of literature even if it never reaches the stage,” in the case of cinema, “the work which the scenario creates is itself still entirely imperfect and becomes a complete work of art only through the action of the pro- ducer.”3 Béla Balázs drew a similar contrast between the theatrical script and fi lm script, writing: “The fi lm[,] on the contrary [to a theatrical perfor- mance][,] mostly absorbs the script completely so that it is not preserved as an independent object which could be used again for a different fi lm pro- duction.”4 Yet he concluded that the fi lm script “is just as much a specifi c, independent literary form as the written stage play.”5 For one reason or another, these sorts of theoretical and philosophical questions about the screenplay disappeared from view almost entirely once the heyday of classical fi lm theory ended. From its beginnings up through 2 A Philosophy of the Screenplay the present, contemporary fi lm theory has subordinated the study of the screenplay to other concerns. Although relevant articles have been pub- lished here and there, contemporary fi lm theory has given us no systematic or sustained account of the screenplay or its place in fi lm production. Perhaps surprisingly, neither has philosophical aesthetics. I say “surpris- ingly” for two reasons. First, pretheoretically there seem to be some signifi - cant similarities between screenplays and theatrical scripts. Typically, both are verbal objects that relate that are intended to be enacted ei- ther before a camera or a live audience. So, one might reasonably have the intuition that the screenplay is, like the theatrical script, a kind of dramatic literary work, and that the screenplay sustains the same sorts of aesthetic interest and philosophical inquiry as does its theatrical cousin. Second, rela- tive to contemporary fi lm theory, the concerns and interests of philosophi- cal aesthetics have been signifi cantly more diverse, ranging from general matters regarding the defi nition and ontology of art to more local issues pertaining to all sorts of specifi c artforms. Moreover, the past decade has seen an explosion of work on the philosophy of fi lm, in particular. And yet, like fi lm theorists, philosophers of art have had very little to say about the screenplay. However, over the past fi ve years or so, scholars from a variety of dis- ciplines have begun to cluster together, slowing forming a fi eld of screen- writing studies. In addition to publishing regularly on screenwriting-related topics, Ian W. Macdonald has, with Kirsi Rinne, cofounded the Screenwrit- ing Research Network, which has held conferences in Leeds, Helsinki, Co- penhagen, Brussels, and Sydney. Jill Nelmes has led the way in establishing the Journal of Screenwriting . Of the steady stream of research that has al- ready emerged out of this new fi eld, two books, in particular, have explic- itly set out to reinvigorate theoretical debates about the screenplay—Steven Maras’s Screenwriting: History, Theory and Practice and Steven Price’s The Screenplay: Authorship, Theory and Criticism .6 This is a welcome develop- ment, and these two books make important contributions. But, as Maras and Price undoubtedly both know, the theoretical ques- tions with which the classical fi lm theorists grappled are just as thorny now as when they were fi rst broached. It would be surprising, therefore, if these recent books settled rather than rekindled old debates. And the most pro- ductive way for those debates to move forward, in my view, is dialectically. Thus, much of what follows is an attempt to critique and refi ne recent theo- retical work on the screenplay—not just that of Maras and Price, but of many other theorists and philosophers. My approach is to proceed by clarifying some central concepts—in par- ticular, our present concept of the screenplay. Inasmuch as the clarifi cation of concepts broadly falls under the purview of philosophy, what would be helpful to have, especially as screenwriting studies takes form, is something like a philosophy of the screenplay. This suggestion conceives of philosophy in a particular way, and I will say more about this shortly. First, however, let me sketch what the book attempts to do. Introduction 3 The purpose of the book is to clarify our concept of the screenplay in two central regards—in terms of what the screenplay is and what kind of a thing it is. As such, I offer a defi nition of the screenplay and some preliminary considerations on the ontology of the screenplay. Along the way, I make the more specifi c argument that at least some screenplays are autonomous works of literature, and I offer some suggestions about what is involved in appreciating the screenplay as a literary work. Thus my title, A Philosophy of the Screenplay , is, admittedly, somewhat misleading, for I do not offer a robust philosophy of the screenplay—one that would include not only a defi nition and an ontology, but also an axiology and a fuller account of our appreciative practices. Rather, the book takes some steps (hopefully sig- nifi cant) toward a philosophy of the screenplay and extends a call to other researchers to contribute to that goal. Although my main focus is specifi cally on the screenplay, I hope it will become clear that I take the term “screenplay” to refer not just to fi lm scripts, but to a rather broad category of objects, including—but not lim- ited to—teleplays and other manuscripts for screen works (i.e., fi lms, vid- eos, television shows, and the like). Furthermore, although the practice of screenwriting is not my main focus, I also hope it will be clear that it fi gures centrally in my conception of what the screenplay is and what kind of a thing it is. Of these two matters—what the screenplay is and what kind of a thing it is—the former seems important in a very practical and immediate way because screenwriting studies ought, fi rst and foremost, to have a handle on what its specifi c object of inquiry is. And if the screenplay is one of the most prominent objects of screenwriting practice, one of our fi rst questions ought to be something like, “What is a screenplay?” In addition, satellite questions ought to be asked about what other sorts of objects are produced through the activity of screenwriting—if there are any—as well as what relationships hold between screenplays and screen works. In fact, other critics have begun to address these questions in a variety of ways. In something of a contrast to the view just sketched, Steven Maras begins his recent book by claiming that screenwriting studies faces an “ob- ject problem”—that is, “the diffi culty of both defi ning screenwriting as an object, and identifying an object for screenwriting.”7 According to Maras:

[S]creenwriting is not an “object” in any straightforward sense: it is a practice, and as such it draws on a set of processes, techniques and devices that get arranged differently at different times. While this ar- rangement relates to what can be seen as an “object”—say a script or a fi lm—it is not clear that either the script or fi lm is best treated as an “object” in this context: scripts are in transition all through fi lm production, they vary in form and function across different modes of fi lmmaking; and fi lms are more than fi nal products or outputs that only exist at the end of the process. The line between where the script stops and where the fi lm starts can, furthermore, be mysterious and blurry. 8 4 A Philosophy of the Screenplay Now, some of what Maras says here is surely right: screenwriting is not an object, but a practice; scripts are, usually, in transition throughout fi lm pro- duction; scripts do vary in form and function. However, it is not at all clear that these facts warrant the conclusions at which Maras arrives. From the fact that screenwriting is not an object but a practice, it does not follow that the screenplay is not an object of screenwrit- ing (or an object at all). Painting is a practice rather than an object, yet it is clear that paintings are the objects of that practice. So, why not regard the screenplay as (at least) one object of screenwriting? How is the fact that it is constantly in transition or variable in form or function supposed to preclude it from being an object? Furthermore, is the line between script and fi lm really “mysterious” or “blurry”? How so? It is not clear how these char- acterizations are supposed to make it diffi cult to identify the screenplay as an object of screenwriting—let alone an object in general. Neither is it clear that any of what Maras has to say here is specifi c to screenwriting or the screenplay. Playwriting and the theatrical script would seem to admit of the same , but we do not suppose there is an “object problem” in that context. In short, while Maras raises interesting questions about the screenplay, concluding that screenwriting studies faces an object problem ought to be a last resort rather than a starting premise. We would do better to at least attempt to get a grip on the nature of the screenplay, as well as to characterize the relationships that hold between it, screenwriting practice, and screen works, before supposing that an “object problem” exists. Other critics have been more willing to try to describe the screenplay and its constitutive features. For example, Ian W. Macdonald, Steven Price, and Claudia Sternberg have all made suggestions about the characteristics of a screenplay or attempted to describe its distinctiveness. 9 Indeed, Macdon- ald has come close to offering something like a functional defi nition of the screenplay, suggesting that it might be characterized as “intended to convey (or at least record) the screen idea.” 10 But, as I argue in Chapter 1, such characterizations leave a more comprehensive defi nition of the screenplay to be desired. Furthermore, while generally characterizing the screenplay in terms of function seems plausible, the evidence suggests that Maras is right that screenplays vary in function. If so, a defi nition of the screenplay will need to be more inclusive. This is, in rough form, the argument made in the fi rst half of Chapter 1. The chapter opens with a lengthy consideration of defi ning the screenplay in terms of function because, I think, this is both an extremely intuitive idea and, on the face of it, a plausible one. The discussion proceeds dialectically, testing and revising possible variations of a functional defi nition, before concluding that we would do better to explore other possibilities because there seems to be no function or set of functions that is specifi c to all and only screenplays. The second half of Chapter 1 steps back and refl ects more broadly on the question of what kind of a concept “screenplay” is and, therefore, what Introduction 5 kind of a defi nition we ought to pursue. At the very least, the screenplay is an artifact concept, which has some interesting implications. Many artifact concepts can be roughly characterized in terms of function and form, so it is little surprise that, so too, can we generally characterize the screenplay in this way. However, the fact that artifacts are the results of intentional human activity means that they have an essential historicality to them and are somewhat malleable. Therefore, at the end of Chapter 1, I argue that an intentional–historical formalist defi nition of the screenplay seems most plausible because it can account for the screenplay’s essential historicality and its historical variability in function and form. Chapter 2 defends this conclusion at length by offering a characteriza- tion, borrowed from the work of philosopher Amie L. Thomasson, of arti- fact concepts and their evolution in order to bolster the argument that the screenplay is an historical concept. Following Thomasson’s work, I argue that practitioners’ intentions determine the features relevant to unifying and demarcating the boundaries of the kind, “screenplay.” In short, Part I begins to lay out an argument for a methodological approach that is strongly con- textualist, inasmuch as it sees practice as primary and a philosophy of the screenplay to be constrained by our practices. If one major task in clarifying our “screenplay” concept involves saying what a screenplay is, another entails saying what kind of a thing it is. In a broad sense, the question, “What kind of a thing is a screenplay,” is a ques- tion about the screenplay’s ontology. Part III answers the question in this broad sense, but, fi rst, Part II—Chapters 3, 4, and 5—addresses a much nar- rower construal of the question. To wit, Part II answers the question, “Is the screenplay a work of art—more specifi cally, literary art—in its own right?” Parts II and III keep the questions of the screenplay’s art status and its on- tology distinct—and, indeed, I shall argue they are distinct questions—but they are connected, inasmuch as the central objections to the screenplay as a work of art in its own right are made on ontological grounds. Before I rebut what I shall call these “ontological objections” in Part III, I fi rst make a case for an historically contextualized understanding of screenwriting as an art practice—and the screenplay as an object or product of that practice— without broaching the question of the screenplay’s ontology. However, fol- lowing on from the conclusions at the end of Part I, both Parts II and II take our practices to be central to determining the answers to both questions. Chapter 3 begins Part II by defending an intentional–historical method of identifying art that Noël Carroll has proposed. Roughly, the thought is that we need not have a working defi nition of art (or literature) at our disposal in order to successfully identify individual works or practices, which can be accomplished by relating a narrative that explains how a candidate work or practice has evolved out of some acknowledged art practice. Chapter 4 then offers an historical narrative that traces the emergence of early screenwriting practices in the United States out of various playwriting practices of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. I argue that 6 A Philosophy of the Screenplay this genetic link between playwriting and early Hollywood screenwriting allows us to identify the latter as an art practice, and suggests that many Hollywood screenplays, inasmuch as they are the products or objects of that practice, are artworks. The argument in Chapter 4 is essentially an historical argument, and some philosophers may wish to simply skip over it. Part III begins with Chapter 5, which is the fi rst of several chapters that, in some way, address objections to the idea that screenplays are art. However, because the most prominent objections are rooted in claims about the onto- logical status of the screenplay, Chapter 5 is more than a defense of the argu- ments mounted in Part II; it is also a segue to a more focused analysis of the screenplay’s ontology that constitutes the bulk of Part III. Thus, Chapter 5 simultaneously rebuts one objection and begins to explore the ontology of the screenplay by challenging the conception of it that Noël Carroll assumes in his claim that screenplays are not the kinds of things that can be works of art in their own right. As I explain in greater length in the chapter, Car- roll’s remarks come in the context of a much broader discussion of the on- tology of fi lm, so we ought to extend him as much charity as possible, but his ideas are also connected to a conception of the theatrical script and its relationship to the theatrical work that he has developed at length. There- fore, my critique is not merely of his brief remarks regarding the screenplay, but rather his broader account of the relationships between instructions for artworks and the artworks themselves. Following on from this critique of Carroll, Chapter 6 presents an alter- native account of the relationships that hold between musical score and musical work, theatrical script and theatrical work, architectural plans and architectural work, and screenplay and screen work. Drawing upon the work of Stephen Davies, I argue that musical scores and theatrical scripts are work-determinative documents—manuscripts whose existence entails the existence of musical works and theatrical works, respectively, and which determine the facts about what those works are like. On the contrary, I argue that architectural plans and screenplays are not work-determinative because they alone do not entail the existence of any architectural work or screen work. Nevertheless, I conclude that this difference has no bearing on art status: Theatrical scripts are (almost) always artworks in their own right; musical scores (almost) never are; architectural plans and screenplays sometimes are and sometimes are not. Having clarifi ed the relationship between screenplay and screen work, as well as argued that the screenplay is the kind of thing that can be art, I consider, in the fi rst part of Chapter 7, what kind of artwork the screenplay can be. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, I argue that when the screenplay is art, it is in virtue of it being a work of literature. I make this case not by assuming any one particular defi nition of literature, but by attempting to show that some screenplays can meet the conditions for any prominent defi nition or of literature in currency. In the second part of Chapter 7, I defend this argument against the other prominent ontological objection to Introduction 7 the notion that screenplays can be art—to wit, that screenplays are, by their very nature, incomplete or unfi nished. Chapter 8 attempts not to say precisely what kind of a thing a screenplay is, but rather to set some limits upon what kind of a thing the screenplay could be. That is, Chapter 8 concerns itself with the methodology of theo- rizing the ontology of the screenplay, argues for a kind of “pragmatic con- straint” upon our theories, and lays out desiderata that any account of the ontology of the screenplay ought to meet.11 In its focus on the methodology of our theorizing, Chapter 8 picks up some of the arguments made in Chap- ter 2. Specifi cally, Chapter 8 draws again on the work of Amie Thomasson to argue that the collective practices of practitioners (and other ordinary users of screenplays) determine the facts about what kind of a thing the screenplay is. This argument, if it is right, suggests that our theoretical ac- counts of the screenplay are strictly constrained by our screenwriting prac- tices. Moreover, insofar as our ordinary beliefs and intuitions about what kind of a thing the screenplay is are rooted in our practices, massive collec- tive error about the nature of the screenplay is not possible. This, I suggest, means that poststructuralist theories, which treat the screenplay as an end- lessly rewritten text, cannot be correct. In the fi nal chapter, I draw upon my discussion of the screenplay’s ontol- ogy to offer some conclusions about what is involved in the appreciation of screenplays as literary works. I suggest that reading screenplays as liter- ary works is compatible with reading them as fi lm production instructions. In both contexts, one important part of reading the screenplay is mental imaging—the same sort of mental imaging in which we engage when read- ing other works of literature such as theatrical scripts or . Finally, I conclude the book by suggesting that if my characterization of our screen- play concept as essentially historical and malleable by practitioners is cor- rect, then we must constantly refi ne and revise our theories of the screenplay as time passes and practices change. The picture that I hope emerges from this book is not only of a particular conception of the screenplay, but of an argument for going about our fu- ture theorizing in a particular way—namely, from the bottom up. There are good pragmatic reasons for theorizing in this fashion; the most obvious is that if the point of theorizing is to actually explain the data presented by our practices, then we must look at specifi c practices and the objects thereof in order to construct plausible general theories. However, if my arguments are good, we are compelled to build our theories from the bottom up because it is practitioners who determine the boundaries and the nature of the concept that we are currently investigating. Finally, I should say something about my approach, which, in many places, takes its cue from analytic philosophy. Philosophers, of course, will fi nd nothing odd about this, but I recognize that it may distress some schol- ars who have their training in, say, fi lm studies, media studies, literary stud- ies, or cultural studies. A full defense of the analytic approach and its utility 8 A Philosophy of the Screenplay in the context of fi lm (or literary) theorizing is beyond the purview of this brief introduction, but has already been mounted by more able commenta- tors.12 I will, therefore, highlight only a few points that I ask the skeptical reader to bear in mind. In the fi rst place, analytic philosophy is not a uni- form tradition, let alone a school of thought or a doctrine. On the contrary, “analytic” is commonly used these days to describe a particular approach to philosophizing or theorizing that, as Richard Allen and Murray Smith have put it, “is characterized by explicitness, precision, and clarity in argu- ment . . . [and] strives to avoid the pitfalls of both dogmatism (the subordi- nation of argumentative rigor and consistency to the defence of a particular doctrine) and uncritical pluralism (the acceptance of a range of positions with little interest in argument about their relative and particular merits, or attention to inconsistencies among them.”13 If my book does not meet this characterization, it certainly strives toward it; surely there is nothing objectionable here. More specifi cally, however, the analytic approach is, as Allen and Smith point out, characterized by the analysis or clarifi cation of concepts and the relationships that hold between them. And to the extent that, as I suggested earlier, the clarifi cation of our screenwriting concept and the analysis of the relationship between it and other concepts seems an important task for screenwriting studies, then it seems that an analytic approach toward a phi- losophy of a screenplay is not only a defensible approach, but also the most suitable one. Whether this book, the work of a nonphilosopher, meets the high standard of work set by contemporary philosophers of art and actually clarifi es any concepts is another matter. But if it does not, its methodological approach is not the reason why.

Bibliography

Adajian, Thomas. “On the Prototype Theory of Concepts and the Defi nition of Art.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 63, no. 3 (Summer 2005): 231–236. Allen, Richard, and Murray Smith. “Introduction: Film Theory and Philosophy.” In Film Theory and Philosophy , edited by Richard Allen and Murray Smith, 1–35. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. Allen, Robert C. “Vaudeville and Film, 1895–1915: A Study in Media Interaction.” PhD diss., University of Iowa, 1977. Andrews, Charlton. The Technique of Play Writing . Springfi eld, MA: The Home Correspondence School, 1915. Archer, William. Play-Making . Boston: Small, Maynard, and Company, 1912. Azlant, Edward. “The History, Theory, and Practice of Screenwriting, 1897–1920.” PhD diss., University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1980. Bach-y-Rita, Paul, Mitchell E. Tyler, and Kurt Kaczmarek. “Seeing with the Brain.” International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 15, no. 2 (2003): 285–295. Baker, Lynne Rudder. “The Ontology of Artifacts.” Philosophical Explorations 7, no. 2 (2004): 99–112. Balázs, Béla. Theory of the Film: and Growth of a New Art . Translated by Edith Bone. London: Denis Dobson, 1952. Ball, Eustace Hale. Photoplay Scenarios: How to Write and Sell Them . New York: Hearst’s International Library Co., 1915. Barthes, Roland. S/Z . Translated by Richard Miller. London: Jonathan Cape, 1974. Barthes, Roland. “From Work to Text.” In The Rustle of Language , translated by Richard Howard, 56–64. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989. Bartolomeo, Paulo. “The Neural Coordinates of Visual Mental : On Ongo- ing Debate.” Cortex 44, no. 4 (2008). Bauerlein, Mark. : An Autopsy . Philadelphia: University of Penn- sylvania Press, 1997. Beardsley, Monroe. Aesthetics: Problems in the Philosophy of Criticism , 2nd ed. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, 1980. Beardsley, Monroe. “The Concept of Literature.” Reprinted in Philosophy of Lit- erature: Contemporary and Classic Readings , edited by Eileen John and Dominic McIver Lopes, 51–58. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2003. Bennett, M. R., and P.M.S. Hacker. Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience. London: Blackwell, 2003. Bensmaia, Reda. “Readerly Text/ Writerly Text (Barthes).” In The Routledge En- cyclopedia of Narrative Theory , edited by David Herman, Manfred Jahn, and Marie-Laure Ryan, 483–484. New York: Routledge, 2005. Beranger, Clara. “The Photoplay—A New Kind of Drama.” Harper’s Weekly 56 (September 7, 1912): 13. 252 Bibliography Bloom, Paul. “Intention, History, and Artifact Concepts.” Cognition 60, no. 1 (1996): 1–29. Bloom, Paul. “Water as an Artifact Kind.” In Creations of the Mind: Theories of Ar- tifacts and Their Representation , edited by Eric Margolis and Stephen Laurence, 150–156. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Boon, Kevin Alexander. Script Culture and the American Screenplay . Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2008. Bordwell, David. The Way Hollywood Tells It . Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006. Bordwell, David. “Grandmaster .” Observations on Film Art (blog). January 27, 2009. Accessed January 6, 2011. http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/?p=3253. Bordwell, David, Janet Staiger, and Kristin Thompson. The Classical Hollywood Cinema: Film Style and of Production to 1960 . New York: Columbia Uni- versity Press, 1985. Borges, Jorge Luis. “Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote .” Reprinted in Philoso- phy: Basic Readings , 2nd ed., edited by Nigel Warburton, 550–556. London: Routledge, 2005. Bowser, Eileen. “Toward Narrative, 1907: The Mill Girl .” In Film Before Griffi th . Edited by John Fell, 330–338. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983. Bowser, Eileen. The Transformation of Cinema 1907–1915 . New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1990. Boyd, Richard. “Homeostasis, Species and Higher Taxa.” In Species: New Interdis- ciplinary Essays . Edited by Robert Andrew Wilson, 141–185. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999. Brewster, Ben. “Periodization of the Early Cinema.” In American Cinema’s Transi- tional Era: Audiences, Institutions, Practices , edited by Charlie Keil and Shelley Stamp, 66–75. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004. Brewster, Ben, and Lea Jacobs. Theatre to Cinema . New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Brik, Osip. “From the Theory and Practice of a Script Writer,” reprinted in Screen 15, no. 3 (Autumn 1974): 95–103. Bulson, Eric. The Cambridge Introduction to James Joyce . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Cameron, Ross P. “There Are No Things That Are Musical Works.” British Journal of Aesthetics 48, no. 3 (July 2008): 295–314. Camille. “A Blast From the Future.” Charmed: Reset Reality . Season 6, episode 17, November 15, 2009. Accessed June 27, 2012. http://resetreality.proboards.com/ index.cgi?board=s6&action=display&thread=964. Camille. “Reset Reality Check.” Charmed: Reset Reality . Season 6, episode 22, December 13, 2009. Accessed December 14, 2011. http://resetreality.proboards. com/index.cgi?board=s6&action=display&thread=969. Carr, David. “Getting the Story Straight: Narrative and Historical Knowledge.” In The History and Narrative Reader , edited by Geoffery Roberts, 197–208. London: Routledge, 2001. Carr, David. “Narrative Explanation and Its Malcontents.” History and Theory 47, no. 1 (February 2008): 19–30. Carroll, Noël. “Danto, Style, and Intention.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 53, no. 3 (Summer 1995): 251–257. Carroll, Noël. A Philosophy of Mass Art . Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998. Carroll, Noël. Philosophy of Art: A Contemporary Introduction . New York: Rout- ledge, 1999. Carroll, Noël. “Art, Practice, and Narrative.” In Beyond Aesthetics , 63–75. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Carroll, Noël. “Historical Narratives and the Philosophy of Art.” In Beyond Aes- thetics , 100–118. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Bibliography 253 Carroll, Noël. “Identifying Art.” In Beyond Aesthetics , 75–100. Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press, 2001. Carroll Noël. “Interpretation, History, and Narrative.” In Beyond Aesthetics , 133– 156. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Carroll, Noël. “Interpretation, Theatrical Performance, and Ontology.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 59, no. 6 (Summer 2001): 313–316. Carroll, Noël. “The Paradox of Junk .” In Beyond Aesthetics , 343. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Carroll, Noël. “Defi ning the Moving Image.” In Philosophy of Film and Motion Pictures , edited by Noël Carroll and Jinhee Choi, 113–133. Malden, MA: Black- well, 2006. Carroll, Noël. “Philosophy and Drama.” In Staging Philosophy: Intersections of Theater, Performance, and Philosophy , edited by David Krasner and David Z. Saltz, 104–121. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2006. Carroll, Noël. “Narrative Closure.” Philosophical Studies 135, no. 1 (2007): 1–15. Carroll, Noël. The Philosophy of Motion Pictures . Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2008. Charlton, Carl. How to Write Photoplays . Philadelphia, PA: Royal Publishing Com- pany, 1916. Chrimes, Lee. “Buffy: Original Syn,” MZP-TV website, draft dated July 25, 2005. Accessed June 27, 2012. http://mzptvfanfi c.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/buffy-the- virtual-continuation-seasons-8–9-and-original-syn/. Coen, Joel and Ethan. A Serious Man . London: Faber and Faber, 2009. Cole, David. “The Visual Script: Theory and Techniques.” The Drama Review 20, no. 4 (December 1976): 27–50. Collingwood, R. G. The Principles of Art . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1958. Crane, Mary Thomas. Shakespeare’s Brain: Reading with Cognitive Theory . Prince- ton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001. Croce, Benedetto. Aesthetic , translated by D. Ainslie. London: Noonday, 1909. Currie, Gregory. An Ontology of Art . London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1989. Currie, Gregory. “Work and Text.” Mind 100, no. 3 (July 1991): 325–340. Danto, Arthur. Trans fi guration of the Commonplace. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981. Davies, David. Art as Performance . Oxford: Blackwell, 2004. Davies, David. “Works and Performances in the Performing Arts.” Philosophy Compass 4, no. 5 (2009): 744–755. Davies, David. “Ontology.” In The Routledge Companion to Philosophy and Film , edited by Paisley Livingston and Carl Plantinga, 217–226. London: Routledge, 2009. Davies, David. Philosophy of the Performing Arts . Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2011. Davies, Stephen. De fi nitions of Art . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991. Davies, Stephen. “Is Architecture Art?” In Philosophy and Architecture , edited by Michael H. Mitias, 31–47. Atlanta, GA: Rodolpi, 1994. Davies, Stephen. “Non-Western Art and Art’s Defi nition.” In Theories of Art Today , edited by Noël Carroll, 199–216. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2000. Davies, Stephen. “Defi nitions of Art.” In The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics , edited by Berys Gaut and Dominic McIver Lopes, 227–239. New York: Rout- ledge, 2001. Davies, Stephen. Musical Works and Performances: A Philosophical Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Davies, Stephen. “Notations.” In A Companion to Aesthetics , 2nd edition, edited by Stephen Davies, Kathleen Marie Higgins, Robert Hopkins, Robert Stecker, and David E. Cooper, 441–443. Oxford: Blackwell, 2009. 254 Bibliography Davies, Stephen. “Performance Interpretations of Musical Works.” Nordic Journal of Aesthetics 18, no. 33–34 (2006): 8–22. Davies, Stephen. “Trying To Defi ne Art as the Sum of the Arts.” Research Journal of the Iranian Academy of Arts 8 (Spring 2008): 12–23. Dean, Jeffrey T. “The Nature of Concepts and the Defi nition of Art.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 61, no. 1 (Winter 2003): 29–35. Decherney, Peter. “Inventing Film Study and Its Object at Columbia University, 1915–1938.” Film History 12, no. 4 (2000): 443–460. De Mille, William C., “Twenty Years in Hollywood.” Unpublished notes dated September 1935, held in the William C. De Mille Papers, New York Public Library, 25. De Mille, William C., and Cecil B. De Mille. “After Five : Scenario.” Unpublished manuscript dated May 30, 1912, in the William C. De Mille Papers, New York Public Library. Detels, Claire. “History and the Philosophy of the Arts.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 51, No. 3 (Summer 1993): 363–375. Devitt, Michael. “Resurrecting Biological Essentialism.” Philosophy of Science 75, no. 3 (July 2008): 344–382. Devitt, Michael, and Kim Sterenly. Language and Reality . 2nd Edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999. Dimick, Howard T. Modern Photoplay Writing: Its Craftsmanship: A Manual Dem- onstrating the Structural and Dramatic Principles of the New Art as Practiced by the Modern Photoplaywright . Franklin, OH: James Knapp Reeve, 1922. Dodd, Julian. “Musical Works as Eternal Types.” British Journal of Aesthetics 40, no. 4 (October 2000): 424–440. Dodd, Julian. Works of Music: An Essay in Ontology . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Dodd, Julian. “Defending the Discovery Model in the Ontology of Art: A Reply to Amie Thomasson on the Qua Problem.” British Journal of Aesthetics 52, no. 1 (January 2012): 75–95. Emerson, John, and Anita Loos. How to Write Photoplays . New York: The James A. McCann Company, 1920. Ereshefsky, Marc. “What’s Wrong with the New Biological Essentialism,” Philoso- phy of Science 77, no. 5 (December 2010): 674–685. Esenwein, J. Berg, and Arthur Leeds. Writing the Photoplay . Springfi eld, MA: The Home Correspondence School, 1913. Esenwein, J. Berg, and Arthur Leeds, Writing the Photoplay, Revised Edition. Springfi eld, MA: The Home Correspondence School, 1919. Esrock, Ellen J. The Reader’s Eye: Visual Imaging as Reader Response . Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994. Fludernik, Monika. An Introduction to . New York: Routledge, 2009. Friedmann, Anthony. Writing for Visual Media , 3rd ed. Burlington, MA: Focal Press, 2010. Friedrich, Su. “Script for But No One (1982).” Su Friedrich’s homepage, un- dated draft. Accessed December 10, 2010. http://www.sufriedrich.com/content. php?sec=scripts. Gabler, Neal. “A Special Angle of Vision: An Interview with Richard Price.” In Three Screenplays , by Richard Price, v-xx. Boston: Houghton Miffl in Company, 1993. Gallois, Andre. “Identity Over Time.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , edited by Edward N. Zalta. Spring 2011 Edition. Accessed June 27, 2012. http:// plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-time/. Ganis, Giorgio, William L. Thompson, Fred Mast, and Stephen M. Kosslyn. “The Brain’s Mind’s Images: The Cognitive Neuroscience of Mental Imagery.” In Bibliography 255 Cognitive Neurosciences 3rd ed., edited by Michael S. Gazzaniga, 931–942. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2004. Gaut, Berys. A Philosophy of Cinematic Art . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Goff, Ivan, and Ben Roberts. “White Heat.” In White Heat , edited by Patrick Mc- Gilligan. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1984. Goodman, Nelson. Languages of Art , 2nd ed. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, 1976. Goodman, Nelson, and Catherine Z. Elgin. “Interpretation and Identity: Can the Work Survive the World?” Critical Inquiry 12, no. 3 (Spring 1986): 564–575. Green, Robin, and Mitchell Burgess. “The Knight in White Satin Armor.” In The Sopranos: Selected Scripts from Three Seasons . New York: Warner Books, 2002. Gunning, Tom. “An Aesthetic of Astonishment: Early Film and the (In)credulous Spectator.” Reprinted in Viewing Positions: Ways of Seeing Film , edited by Linda Williams, 114–133. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1995. Hamilton, Clayton. The Theory of the Theatre and Other Principles of Dramatic Criticism . New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1910. Hamilton, Clayton. “The Art of the Moving Picture Play.” Studies in Stagecraft , 225–229. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1914. Hamilton, James R. The Art of Theater . Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007. Haynes, Todd. “ Far From Heaven ,” “ Safe ,” and “ Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story ” : Three Screenplays . New York: Grove Press, 2003. Heck, Thomas, Commedia Dell’Arte: A Guide to the Primary and Secondary Sources . New York: Garland, 1988. Henry, Buck. “The Graduate.” Final Draft (March 29, 1967). Unpublished manuscript. Herbert, George. “Easter Wings.” Reprinted in , edited by Paul D. Moliken, 142. Clayton, DE: Prestwick House, 2006. Hick, Darren Hudson. “When Is a Work of Art Finished?” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 66, no. 1 (Winter 2008): 67–76. Hill, Walter, and David Giler. “Alien.” Revised fi nal (October 4, 1978), unpublished. Hilpinen, Risto. “On Artifacts and Works of Art.” Theoria 58, no. 1 (April 1992): 58–82. Howell, Robert. “Ontology and the Nature of the Literary Work.” Journal of Aes- thetics and Art Criticism 60, no. 1 (Winter 2002): 67–79. Ingarden, Roman, The Literary Work of Art . Translated by George G. Grabowicz. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1973. Ingarden, Roman. The Work of Music and the Problem of Its Identity . Edited by Jean Harrell, translated by Adam Czerniawski. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986. Ingarden, Roman. The Ontology of the Work of Art . Translated by Raymond Meyer with John T. Goldthwait. Athens: Ohio University Press, 1989. Irvin, Sherri. “Theatrical Performances and the Works Performed.” Journal of Aes- thetic Education 43, no. 3 (Fall 2009): 37–50. Jackson, Frank. “Epiphenomenal Qualia.” Philosophical Quarterly 32, no. 127 (April 1982): 127–136. Jenkins, Keith, ed. The Postmodern History Reader . London: Routledge, 1997. Kania, Andrew. “The Methodology of Musical Ontology: Descriptivism and Its Im- plications.” British Journal of Aesthetics 48, no. 4 (October 2008): 426–444. Kania, Andrew. “New Waves in Musical Ontology.” In New Waves in Aesthetics , edited by Kathleen Stock and Katherine Thomson-Jones, 20–40. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. Keil, Charlie. Early American Cinema in Transition: Story, Style, and 1907–1913 . Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2001. 256 Bibliography Keil, Charles. Urban Blues . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991. Kemp, Gary. “The Croce-Collingwood Theory as Theory.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 61, no. 2 (Spring 2003): 171–193. Kivy, Peter. “Platonism in Music: A Kind of Defense.” Reprinted in Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art: The Analytic Tradition , edited by Peter Lamarque and Stein Haugom Olsen, 92–102. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004, 92–102. Kohn, Nathanial. “The Screenplay as Postmodern Literary Exemplar: Authorial Distraction, Disappearance, Dissolution.” Qualitative Inquiry 6, no. 4 (2000): 489–510. Koivumäki, Marja-Riitta. “The Aesthetic Independence of the Screenplay.” Journal of Screenwriting 2, no. 1 (January 2011): 25–40. Korstvedt, Benjamin. “Bruckner Editions: The Revolution Revisited.” In The Cam- bridge Companion to Bruckner , edited by John Williamson, 121–137. Cam- bridge, Cambridge University Press, 2004. Kosslyn, Stephen M. “Mental Images and the Brain.” Cognitive Neuropsychology 22, no.3/4 (2005): 333–347. Kosslyn, Stephen M., William L. Thompson, and Giorgio Ganis. The Case for Men- tal Imagery . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Koszarski, Richard. An Evening’s Entertainment: The Age of the Silent Feature . Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990. Kripke, Saul. Naming and Necessity . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980. Lamarque, Peter. The Philosophy of Literature . Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2009. Lamarque, Peter. Work and Object . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Lamarque, Peter, and Stein Haugom Olsen. Truth, Fiction, and Literature: A Philo- sophical Perspective . Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. Laurence, Stephen, and Eric Margolis. “Concepts and Cognitive Science.” In Con- cepts: Core Readings , edited by Stephen Laurence and Eric Margolis, 3–81. Cam- bridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999. Lauretis, Teresa de. Alice Doesn’t: Feminism, Semiotics, Cinema . Bloomington: In- diana University Press, 1984. Lee, Spike. “She’s Gotta Have It.” Third Draft (March 1985). In Spike Lee’s Gotta Have It: Inside . New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987. Lehman, Ernest. “Sweet Smell of Success : ‘Final Version of the Lehman Script.’ ” Dated 1956. In the Ernest Lehman Collection, Harry Ransom Center, University of Texas–Austin. Levinson, Jerrold. “Artworks and the Future.” In Music, Art, and Metaphysics , 179–214. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990. Levinson, Jerrold. “Autographic and Allographic Art Revisited.” In Music, Art, and Metaphysics , 89–106. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990. Levinson, Jerrold. “The Concept of Music.” In Music, Art, and Metaphysics , 267–278. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990. Levinson, Jerrold. “Defi ning Art Historically.” In Music, Art, and Metaphysics , 3–25. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990. Levinson, Jerrold. “Refi ning Art Historically.” In Music, Art, and Metaphysics , 37–59. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990. Levinson, Jerrold. “What a Musical Work Is.” In Music, Art, and Metaphysics , 63–88. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990. Levinson, Jerrold. “What a Musical Work Is, Again.” In Music, Art, and Metaphys- ics , 215–263. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990. Levinson, Jerrold. “Extending Art Historically.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criti- cism 51, no. 3 (Summer 1993): 411–423. Levinson, Jerrold. “The Irreducible Historicality of the Concept of Art.” British Journal of Aesthetics 42, no. 4 (October 2002): 367–379. Bibliography 257 Levinson, Jerrold. “Intention and Interpretation in Literature.” Reprinted in Aesthet- ics and the Philosophy of Art: The Analytic Tradition , edited by Peter Lamarque and Stein Haugom Olsen, 200–222. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004. Levinson, Jerrold. “Artworks as Artifacts.” In Contemplating Art , 27–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Lewens, Tim. Organisms and Artifacts: Design in Nature and Elsewhere . Cam- bridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005. Liepa, Torey. “Entertaining the Public : The Popular Film Writing Movement and the Emergence of Writing for the American Silent Cinema.” In Analysing the Screenplay , edited by Jill Nelmes, 7–23. London: Routledge, 2011. Livingston, Paisley. Art and Intention . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Livingston, Paisley. “When a Work Is Finished: A Response to Darren Hudson Hick.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 66, no. 4 (Fall 2008): 393–395. Livingston, Paisley. “History of the Ontology of Art.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , edited by Edward N. Zalta (Fall 2011 Edition). Accessed July 12, 2012. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/art-ontology-history/. Lock, Graham. “ ‘What I Call a Sound’: Anthony Braxton’s Synaesthetic Ideal and Notations for Improvisors.” In Critical Studies in Improvisation 4, no. 1 (2008). Accessed January 2, 2011. http://journal.lib.uoguelph.ca/index.php/csieci/article/ view/462. Lopes, Dominic McIver. “Shikinen Sengu and the Ontology of Architecture in Japan.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 65, no. 1 (Winter 2007): 77–84. Loughney, Patrick. “In the Beginning Was the Word: Six Pre-Griffi th Motion Pic- ture Scenarios.” In Early Cinema: Space, Frame, Narrative , edited by Thomas Elsaesser, 211–219. London: BFI Publishing, 1990. Loughney, Patrick. “Appendix: Selected Examples of Early Scenario/Screenplays in the Library of Congress.” Film History 9, no. 3 (1997): 290–299. Loughney, Patrick. “From Rip Van Winkle to Jesus of Nazareth : Thoughts on the Origins of the American Screenplay.” Film History 9, no. 3 (1997): 277–289. Lyotard, Jean-François. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge . Min- neapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984. Macdonald, Ian W. “Finding the Needle: How Readers See Screen Ideas.” Journal of Media Practice 4, no. 1 (2003): 27–39. Macdonald, Ian W. “Disentangling the Screen Idea.” Journal of Media Practice 5, no. 2 (2004): 89–100. Macdonald, Ian W. “Forming the Craft: Play-writing and Photoplay-writing in Brit- ain in the 1910s.” Early Popular Visual Culture 8, no. 1 (February 2010): 75–89. MacDonald, Scott, ed.. Screen Writings: Scripts and Texts by Independent Filmmak- ers . Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995. Machery, Edouard. “Concepts Are Not a Natural Kind.” Philosophy of Science 72, no. 3 (July 2005): 444–467. Machery, Edouard. Doing Without Concepts . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Malick, Terrence. “The Tree of Life.” First Draft (June 25, 2007). Unpublished manuscript. Mamet, David. “ State and Main ” : A Screenplay . London: Methuen Drama, 2001. Mamet, David. “State and Main ”: The . New York: New Market Press, 2001. Manos, James Jr. “Dexter.” 2nd Rev. Draft (June 24, 2005). Unpublished manuscript. Maras, Steven. Screenwriting: History, Theory and Practice . London: Wallfl ower Press, 2009. Martin, Adrian. “Making a Bad Script Worse: The Curse of the Scriptwriting Manual.” Australian Book Review 209 (April 1999). Accessed May 7, 2010. http://home. vicnet.net.au/˜abr/April99/mar.html (site discontinued). 258 Bibliography Mayer, Carl. “Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans.” Undated, unpublished draft. Eureka Video Masters website. Accessed July 12, 2012. http://eurekavideo.co.uk/moc/ catalogue/sunrise/. Mayer, David. Stagestruck Filmmaker: D.W. Griffi th and the American Theatre . Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 2009. McGinn, Colin. Mindsight . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004. McKeon, Michael. Theory of the Novel: A Historical Approach . Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000. McMackin, Archer. “How Moving Picture Plays Are Written.” Nickelodeon 2, no. 6 (December 1909): 171–173. Meskin, Aaron. “From Defi ning Art to Defi ning the Individual Arts: The Role of Theory in the Philosophies of the Arts.” In New Waves in Aesthetics , edited by Kathleen Stock and Katherine Thomson-Jones, 125–149. Houndsmill, Basing- stoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. Meskin, Aaron, and Jon Robson. “Videogames and the Moving Image.” Revue In- ternationale de Philosophie 254, no. 4 (2011): 547–564. Millikan, Ruth Garrett. Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories . Cam- bridge, MA: MIT Press, 1984. Millikan, Ruth Garrett. “In Defense of Proper Functions.” Philosophy of Science 56, no. 2 (June 1989): 288–302. Millikan, Ruth Garrett. “Historical Kinds and the ‘Special Sciences.’ ” Philosophical Studies 95, no. 1–2 (August 1999): 45–65. Millikan, Ruth Garrett. On Clear and Confused Ideas: An Essay About Substance Concepts . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Millard, Kathryn. “After the Typewriter: The Screenplay in a Digital Era.” Journal of Screenwriting 1, no. 1 (2010): 11–25. Millard, Kathryn. “The Screenplay as Prototype.” In Analysing the Screenplay , ed- ited by Jill Nelmes, 142–157. London: Routledge, 2011. Minh-Ha, Trinh T. Framer Framed . New York: Routledge, 1992. Morey, Anne. “ ‘Have You the Power?’ The Palmer Photoplay Corporation and the Film Viewer/Author in the 1920s.” Film History 9, no. 3 (1997): 300–319. Mowat, Barbara A. “The Reproduction of Shakespeare’s Texts.” In The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare , edited by Margreta De Grazia and Stanley W. Wells, 13–29. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2001. Münsterberg, Hugo. The Photoplay: A Psychological Study . New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1916. Murphy, Brenda. Congressional Theatre: Dramatizing McCarthyism on Stage, Film, and Television . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Murphy, Gregory L. The Big Book of Concepts . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004. Musser, Charles. The Emergence of Cinema: The American Screen to 1907 . New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1990. Musser, Charles. Before the Nickelodeon: Edwin S. Porter and the Edison Manufac- turing Company . Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991. Musser, Charles. “Pre-Classical Cinema: Its Changing Modes of Production.” Re- printed in Silent Film , edited by Richard Abel, 85–108. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1995. Nannicelli, Ted. “The Early Screenwriting Practice of Ernest Lehman.” Journal of Screenwriting 1, no. 2 (May 2010): 237–253. Norman, Andrew P. “Telling It Like It Was: Historical Narratives on Their Own Terms.” History and Theory 30, no. 2 (May 1991): 119–135. O’Regan, J. Kevin, and Alva Noë. “A Sensorimotor Account of Vision and Vi- sual Consciousness.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24, no. 5 (2001): 883– 917. Bibliography 259 Orgel, Stephen. The Authentic Shakespeare and Other Problems of the Early Mod- ern Stage . London: Routledge, 2002. Orgel, Stephen. “What Is a Text?” In The Authentic Shakespeare and Other Prob- lems of the Early Modern Stage , 1–5. London: Routledge, 2002. Page, Brett. Writing for Vaudeville . Springfi eld, MA: The Home Correspondence School, 1915. Palmer, Frederick. Palmer Plan Handbook: Photoplay Writing: Simplifi ed and Ex- plained . Los Angeles, CA: Palmer Photoplay Corporation, 1920. Palmer, Frederick. Authors Photoplay Manual . Hollywood, CA: Palmer Institute of Authorship, 1924. Pasolini, Pier Paolo. “The Screenplay as a ‘Structure That Wants to Be Another Structure.’ ” In Heretical Empiricism , edited by Louise K. Bennett and Ben Law- ton, 187–196. Washington, D.C.: New Academia Publishing, 2005. Patterson, Frances Taylor. Cinema Craftsmanship: A Book for Photoplaywrights, 2nd ed. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Howe, Inc., 1921. Patterson, Joseph Medill. “The Nickelodeons: The Poor Man’s Elementary Course in Drama.” Saturday Evening Post 180 (November 23, 1907): 10–11, 38. Pearson, Roberta. “The Menace of the Movies: Cinema’s Challenge to Theater in the Transitional Period.” In American Cinema’s Transitional Era: Audiences, Institu- tions, Practices , edited by Charlie Keil and Shelley Stamp, 315–331. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004. Phillips, Henry Albert. The Photodrama . Brooklyn, NY: The William G. Hewitt Press, 1914. Piccinini, Gualtiero, and Sam Scott. “Splitting Concepts,” Philosophy of Science 73, no. 4 (October 2006): 390–409. Poggi, Gregory. “From Dramatic to Cinematic Standards: American Silent Film The- ory and Criticism to 1929.” PhD diss., Indiana University, 1977. Price, Richard. “The Color of Money.” In Three Screenplays . New York: Houghton Miffl in, 1993. Price, Richard. Three Screenplays . Boston: Houghton Miffl in Company, 1993. Price, Steven. The Screenplay: Authorship, Theory and Criticism . London: Palgrave MacMillan, 2010. Price, Steven. “The First Screenplays? American Mutoscope and Biograph Scenarios Revisited.” Journal of Screenwriting 2, no. 2 (2011): 195–213. Price, W. T. “The Philosophy of Dramatic Principle and Method: Chapter XXVII. SCENARIO.” American Playwright 2, no. 10 (October 15, 1913): 332–336. Prinz, Jesse. Furnishing the Mind: Concepts and Their Perceptual Basis. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2004. Putnam, Hillary. Mind, Language and Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975. Pylyshyn, Zenon W. “Mental Imagery: In Search of a Theory.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25, no. 2 (2002): 157–182. Quine, W. V. “Two Dogmas of Empiricism.” The Philosophical Review 60, no. 1 (January 1951): 20–43. Radnor, Leona. The Photoplay Writer . New York: Leona Radnor, 1913. Randel, Don Michael (Ed.). The Harvard Dictionary of Music , 4th Edition. Cam- bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003. Raynauld, Isabelle. “Screenwriting.” In The Encyclopedia of Early Cinema , edited by Richard Abel, 834–838. London: Routledge, 2004. Ribeiro, Anna Christina. “Intending to Repeat: A Defi nition of Poetry.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 65, no. 2 (Spring 2007): 189–201. Ridley, Aaron. “Not Ideal: Collingwood’s Expression Theory.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 55, no. 3 (1997): 263–272. 260 Bibliography Rudner, Richard. “The Ontological Status of the Esthetic Object.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 10, no. 3 (1950): 380–388. Rush, Jeff, and Cynthia Baughman. “Language as Narrative Voice: The Poetics of the Highly Infl ected Screenplay.” Journal of Film and Video 49, no. 3 (Fall 1997): 28–37. Ryle, Gilbert. The Concept of Mind: 60th Anniversary Edition . London: Routledge, 2009. Saltz, David. “What Theatrical Performance Is (Not): The Interpretation Fallacy.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 59, no. 3 (Summer 2001): 299–306. Sargent, Epes Winthrop. Technique of the Photoplay , 2nd edition. New York: Chalmers Publishing Company, 1913. Sargent, Epes Winthrop. Technique of the Photoplay , 3rd Edition. New York: Chalmers Publishing Company, 1916. Scarry, Elaine. Dreaming by the Book . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001. Schrader, Paul. “Taxi Driver.” Undated draft. Unpublished manuscript. Scott, Adam. “Stormfront,” Walker (Christmas Special, 2011), in Walker-The Ulti- mate Catch-up Pack virtual DVD. Accessed July 13, 2012. http://www.mzp-tv. co.uk/2012/walker-the-ultimate-catch-up-pack/. Singer, Ben. Melodrama and Modernity: Early Sensational Cinema and Its Contexts . New York: Columbia University Press, 2001. Silvester, Richard. “The New Art of the Photoplay-Dramatist.” The Drama 8, no. 29 (February 1918): 96–102. Slevin, James. On Picture-Play Writing: A Hand-Book of Workmanship . Cedar Grove, NJ: Farmer Smith, 1912. Slezak, Peter. “The Tripartite Model of Representation.” Philosophical Psychology 15, no. 3 (2002): 239–270. Sloboda, John. “Experimental Studies of Music Reading: A Review.” In Exploring the Musical Mind , 27–42. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Smith, Murray. Engaging Characters . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. Staiger, Janet. “Blueprints for Feature : Hollywood’s Continuity Scripts.” In The American , Revised Edition , edited by Tino Balio, 173–192. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985. Staiger, Janet. “The Hollywood Mode of Production to 1930.” In The Classical Hol- lywood Cinema: Film Style and Mode of Production to 1960 , edited by David Bordwell, Janet Staiger, and Kristen Thompson, 85–153. New York: Columbia University Press, 1985. Starr, Frederick. “The World Before Your Eyes.” Chicago Sunday Tribune , Special Features section (February 7, 1909): unnumbered. Starr, G. Gabrielle. “Multisensory Imagery.” In Introduction to Cognitive Cultural Studies , edited by Lisa Zunshine, 275–291. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Uni- versity Press, 2010. Stecker, Robert. “The Boundaries of Art.” British Journal of Aesthetics 30, no. 3 (July 1990): 266–272. Stecker, Robert. “Is It Reasonable to Attempt to Defi ne Art?” In Theories of Art Today , edited by Noël Carroll, 45–64. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2000. Stecker, Robert. “What Is Literature?” In Philosophy of Literature: Contemporary and Classic Readings , edited by Eileen John and Dominic McIver Lopes, 65–72. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2003. Stecker, Robert. “Methodological Questions about the Ontology of Music.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 67, no. 4 (Fall 2009): 375–386. Sternberg, Claudia. Written for the Screen: The American Motion-Picture Screen- play as Text . Tübingen: Stauffenberg-Verlag, 1997. Bibliography 261 Stock, Kathleen. “Sartre, Wittgenstein, and Learning from the Imagination.” In Phi- losophy and Conceptual Art , edited by Peter Goldie and Elizabeth Schellekens, 171–194. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Sturges, Preston. “The Great McGinty.” Draft dated November 28, 1939. In Five Screenplays by Preston Sturges , edited by Brian Henderson, 31–183. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986. Sutrop, Margit. “The Death of the Literary Work.” Philosophy and Literature 18, no. 1 (April 1994): 38–49. Swirski, Peter. Literature, Analytically Speaking . Austin: University of Texas Press, 2010. Tarantino, Quentin. “Inglourious Basterds ” : A Screenplay . New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2008. Taylor, Donald. “Afterword.” In The Doctor and the Devils , by Dylan Thomas (New York: Time Reading Program, 1964), 174. Thomas, Dylan. The Doctor and the Devils . New York: Time Reading Program, 1964, Thomas, Nigel J. T. “Mental Imagery.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , edited by Edward N. Zalta. (Winter 2011 Edition). Accessed March 23, 2012. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/mental-imagery. Thomasson, Amie L. Fiction and Metaphysics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Thomasson, Amie L . “The Ontology of Art.” In The Blackwell Guide to Aesthetics , edited by Peter Kivy, 78–92. London: Blackwell Publishing, 2004. Thomasson, Amie L. “The Ontology of Art and Knowledge in Aesthetics.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 63, no. 3 (Summer 2005): 221–229. Thomasson, Amie L. “Debates about the Ontology of Art: What Are We Doing Here?” Philosophy Compass 1, no. 3 (2006): 245–255. Thomasson, Amie L. “Artifacts and Human Concepts.” In Creations of the Mind: Theories of Artifacts and Their Representation , edited by Eric Margolis and Ste- phen Laurence, 52–73. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Thomasson, Amie L. Ordinary Objects . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Thompson, Kristin. “The Formulation of the Classical Style, 1909–28.” In The Clas- sical Hollywood Cinema: Film Style and Mode of Production to 1960 , by David Bordwell, Janet Staiger, and Kristen Thompson, 155–240. New York: Columbia University Press, 1985. Thompson, Kristin. in the New Hollywood . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999. Tibbetts, John C. The American Theatrical Film . Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University Popular Press, 1985. Trivedi, Saam. “Against Musical Works as Eternal Types.” British Journal of Aes- thetics 42, no. 1 (January 2002): 73–82. van Loan, Herbert Hartwell. How I Did It . Los Angeles: The Whittingham Press, 1922. Walton, Kendall. “Categories of Art.” The Philosophical Review 79, no. 3 (July 1970): 334–367. Weiskopf, Daniel. “The Plurality of Concepts.” Synthese 169, no. 1 (July 2009): 145–173. White, Hayden. The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Rep- resentation . Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987. White, Hayden, and Robert Doran, eds. The Fiction of Narrative: Essays on His- tory, Literature, and Theory, 1957–2007 . Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010. Williams, Neil E. “Putnam’s Traditional Neo-Essentialism.” The Philosophical Quarterly 61, no. 242 (January 2011): 151–170. 262 Bibliography Wollheim, Richard. Art and Its Objects , 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980. Wolterstorff, Nicholas. “Toward an Ontology of Artworks.” Noûs 9, no. 2 (May 1975): 115–142. Wolterstorff, Nicholas. Works and Words of Art . Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980. Woodruff, Paul. The Necessity of Theater . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Zagorin, Perez. “History, the Referent, and Narrative: Refl ections on Postmodern- ism Now.” History and Theory 38, no. 1 (February, 1999): 1–24.