Are screenplays "transitional art"?

[Ulysses]

In the following article on adaptations vs. original screenplays (thanks, clueless)...

http://artfulwriter.com/?p=540

...I found the following sentence:

Screenplays are transitional art.

This has been repeated so often that most people (even writer people) seem to accept it as true out of sheer habit.

I don't.

Nobody would think a stage play "transitional art". Shakespeare, Moliere, Schiller: writers of transitional art?

Intended for the stage, stage plays can stand on their own. A good stage play is a pleasure to read.

So is a good screenplay. Many good screenplays don't make it to the screen.
But the movie they project into your imagination may be better than some of the real productions.

A screenplay with good dialogue and written so well, that images go off in your mind:

That's not transitional art.

That's an art on its own, that can stand alone.

[cerckl]

Went and read the article and to place the sentence in a little more context:

"Books aren’t written to be movies. They’re written to be books. Same for plays and graphic novels and epic songs and video games. They are their own ends. They are, for better or worse, completed works of art.
Screenplays are not. Screenplays are transitional art. They are a theory, an imagining…but of something else."

My uneducated take on this is...well, yes, it is written to be made into a movie and yes, the movie will be different than the screenplay. Too many people touch it, change it, add their own 'vision' to what was written.

On the other hand, as a writer and as an artist, choosing this medium, it is art. It is art where the comodity aspect is more blatantly recognized than most but it is art. If I paint, the paintings are seen as the 'end product' but for me, the paintings are actually a residual, physical aspect of the process of painting, creating. To make a living as an artist, you have to make someone else believe that you have a commodity worth purchasing. That can come from being a graphic artist and making what you are paid to or as a name or by creating something which touches someone else in a manner that they are willing to purchase it. That can range from an emotional response to a "that's cool" response.

As a writer, the written work is evidence of the process of creating...the research, the rewriting, the concept, all of this is part of the process but the end result is what is shown as the final work. That can be a novel, poem or screenplay. I think that by calling it 'transitional' there is an attempt to say that this is "less than" another form but it still is a commodity. I don't care if you are a freaking Shakespeare or Dickens... both writers who were working for a market and yet wrote "literature" which still touches people or a "hack" that is writing the next ______ XI, there is still a creative process which results in an end product.

So, I feel that the author is pointing out that since a lot of what is made is made as a business decision, then the fact that adaptations are made since they are hoping for a built in audience is correct and I think that a lot of people would see screenplays as more of a bastardization of writing as art. Then again I fell that sometimes I take myself way the hell too seriously.

[wcmartell]

Art requires the test of time, so nothing is going to be art until after we are dead (like Shakespeare and Moliere). So, not even something to consider unless you own a crystal ball.

And here's the thing - nobody reads scripts. They are not published (unless a film has been produced from them). So an unproduced screenplay will dry up and disappear and no one will even remember it existed. It will never be art.

So step one is to get the script produced, anything else is some form of masturbation.

- Bill

[wcmartell]

We can't create art - we have no idea what will stand that test of time.

Three movies from 1956:
A trashy low budget B sci-fi film.
A big glossy Hollywood studio film.
A serious issues film made by a studio for artistic/social reasons.

Which one is art?

Today, INVASION OF THE BODYSNATCHERS is a classic - considered art. It is a film that changed society - looking into issues of conformity and society. The phrase "pod people" is part of current vocabulary - recently used in a news story about the mortgage meltdown (without even mentioning the film, we know what "pod people" are).

AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS isn't really remembered, and if it is - it's just a big silly Hollywood entertainment film. Not art.

TEENAGE REBEL is compeltely forgotten! You've never heard of it, and I don't think it's on DVD or even VHS... it's just vanished.

Back in 1956:
INVASION was a crappy B sci-fi movie.
AROUND THE WORLD was Best Picture winner (and winner of a bunch of other Oscars)
TEENAGE REBEL was the socially conscious art film that was nominated for a couple of Oscars but did not win. We don't even remember that this film exists 53 years later!

We can't see the future. The cruddy B genre film may be art 53 years from now and that film everyone thinks is brilliant today maybe long forgotten. We can't tell.

One thing we know for sure - not a single unproduced script from 1956 is remembered today. Name one, if you can.

- Bill

[The Road Warrior]

Originally Posted by cerckl

Went and read the article and to place the sentence in a little more context:

"Books aren’t written to be movies. They’re written to be books. Same for plays and graphic novels and epic songs and video games. They are their own ends. They are, for better or worse, completed works of art.
Screenplays are not. Screenplays are transitional art. They are a theory, an imagining…but of something else."

My uneducated take on this is...well, yes, it is written to be made into a movie and yes, the movie will be different than the screenplay. Too many people touch it, change it, add their own 'vision' to what was written.

On the other hand, as a writer and as an artist, choosing this medium, it is art. It is art where the comodity aspect is more blatantly recognized than most but it is art. If I paint, the paintings are seen as the 'end product' but for me, the paintings are actually a residual, physical aspect of the process of painting, creating. To make a living as an artist, you have to make someone else believe that you have a commodity worth purchasing. That can come from being a graphic artist and making what you are paid to or as a name or by creating something which touches someone else in a manner that they are willing to purchase it. That can range from an emotional response to a "that's cool" response.

As a writer, the written work is evidence of the process of creating...the research, the rewriting, the concept, all of this is part of the process but the end result is what is shown as the final work. That can be a novel, poem or screenplay. I think that by calling it 'transitional' there is an attempt to say that this is "less than" another form but it still is a commodity. I don't care if you are a freaking Shakespeare or Dickens... both writers who were working for a market and yet wrote "literature" which still touches people or a "hack" that is writing the next ______ XI, there is still a creative process which results in an end product.

So, I feel that the author is pointing out that since a lot of what is made is made as a business decision, then the fact that adaptations are made since they are hoping for a built in audience is correct and I think that a lot of people would see screenplays as more of a bastardization of writing as art. Then again I fell that sometimes I take myself way the hell too seriously.

I think Paul Schrader said -- a screenplay is an invitation to make art.

[The Road Warrior]

Originally Posted by wcmartell

We can't create art - we have no idea what will stand that test of time.

Three movies from 1956:
A trashy low budget B sci-fi film.
A big glossy Hollywood studio film.
A serious issues film made by a studio for artistic/social reasons.

Which one is art?

Today, INVASION OF THE BODYSNATCHERS is a classic - considered art. It is a film that changed society - looking into issues of conformity and society. The phrase "pod people" is part of current vocabulary - recently used in a news story about the mortgage meltdown (without even mentioning the film, we know what "pod people" are).

AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS isn't really remembered, and if it is - it's just a big silly Hollywood entertainment film. Not art.

TEENAGE REBEL is compeltely forgotten! You've never heard of it, and I don't think it's on DVD or even VHS... it's just vanished.

Back in 1956:
INVASION was a crappy B sci-fi movie.
AROUND THE WORLD was Best Picture winner (and winner of a bunch of other Oscars)
TEENAGE REBEL was the socially conscious art film that was nominated for a couple of Oscars but did not win. We don't even remember that this film exists 53 years later!

We can't see the future. The cruddy B genre film may be art 53 years from now and that film everyone thinks is brilliant today maybe long forgotten. We can't tell.

One thing we know for sure - not a single unproduced script from 1956 is remembered today. Name one, if you can.

- Bill

How about THE GRADUATE, or ALL THE PRESIDENTS MEN, Bill ? Curious, as to what you think ?

It's interesting how [as Samuel Johnson] says the rule or test is for art to make it past the 100 years racing line. He didn't add those last two words of course.

Shakepeare, according to some had an uneven reputation amongst his comtemporaries, but does anyone out there care or even recall who Middleton or Dekker or Lyly were today, or many of the other talented members of that group. Marlowe perhaps.

And then after the Romantics, for the last 300 years our Will has been on an inexorable climb.

It's interesting to think, could any other writer, film or otherwise do this today + 100 ? Probably not. I don't think cinema has the potential, it's cast in celluloid for a start, whereas Shakespeare is endlessly reinterpreted for each age into many forms, art, cinema, literature, and so on. One of the arguments about the strength of great art. And all that.

Will all films be forgotten a hundred years form now, other than as film history - Star Wars ?

[Ralphy W]

http://www.wordplayer.com/forums/scr...cgi?read=38890

[jonpiper]

If a movie stands the test of time, it will be considered an artistic masterpiece by critics, screenwriters and the public. But much more than a screenplay is needed to create a movie. Director, set director, actors, editing, etc.


A screenplay that stands the test of time can be considered an artistic masterpiece by other screenwriters and film critics who read it.

[Jake Schuster]

Once upon a time "Casablanca" was just another B-picture from Warner Bros.

[Charli]

What comes to mind - "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" I can't believe I actually saw that movie, a true "B" movie, but what is art? Isn't art subjective?

So, is screenwriting a 'craft' because the definition of craft is considered: an art, trade or occupation requiring special skill.

So let's go back to the definition of writing: that which is written. I think this best describes a script. What Shakespeare accomplished was truly amazing, passing the test of time, but we're not him (sigh).

I'm not sure a script can be considered 'art' at all.