>>7553951 A lot of classical literature includes stageplays (Sophocles, Shakespeare, etc.) and so I think when we think of the genealogy of literature in most literary traditions, stage plays and poetry is where you usually start and the two are usually intertwined (stage plays written in meter not prose).
>>7554007 No. In the past many notable English playwrights would have their scripts published (Shakespeare being the most famous example). The need for having multiple scripts distributed is due to multiple theatre companies wanting to perform these plays, or for austerity on the author's own behalf. For this reason, the stageplay has more presence in terms of something being written down and distributed.
Compare that to screenplays where the script is distributed to one company who can film one movie and distribute it to multiple venues. While many screenwriters (Quintin Tarintino, Kevin Smith) also publish their screenplays with annotations, but the distribution is not as wide as the movies themselves, and so there isn't much interest in them apart from people interested in reading/writing screenplays since you can just watch their movies.
Still the most important is that stageplays, especially classical ones, are an important part of a language's literary geneology, because it's generally one of the earliest genres from which other genres emerge (novels, screenplays, etc.).
For most people the screenplay is an extension of the stageplay, and when it comes to contemporary writers, neither stage or screen are discussed in terms of the script, but instead in terms of the product of the script.
See, I agree with you that film has usurped the position of literature in the popular imagination, but I disagree that many films achieve a superior form of art than most of the western canon, at least, so far.
I think it's just so young that people haven't even realized its potential yet.
And don't even get me started on the potential of what happens when video games and film combine, particularly the future of VR.
But that's leads to another question. Why should a screenplay be limited to distribution by one company filming one movie and sending it to multiple venues? Why has the screenplay not evolved to the point where multiple companies produce different products of the same screenplay?
Is it just because that's the way it's always been done? Or is the form a product of its time, in that, it's young enough to fall under copyright laws, etc., and a screenplay has this potential and it's just never been tried because of these laws?
>all art is a delirious waste of time and a sublimated form of masturbation
Well, duh. That's not a new thought. But not everyone can do STEM all day every day and be happy or feel like life is worth living. Even then, I can agree with the argument that if this is the case, then life isn't worth living, but we can't all just up and kill ourselves now, can we?
>>7554077 Movies are expensive to make, even low budget ones, you can't expect every movie to be made with any kind of budget. Lawrence of Arabia requires a desert and costumes and all that. You need a budget for that stuff ontop of the excellent talent.
The other thing is if multiple versions of the same film hit theatres at around the same time, it splits the revenue. It creates unnecessary competition. It's the reason why large production companies like Paramount or Time Warner or whatever purchase the rights to scripts so that other production companies can't compete. And why is this a bigger problem in movies than theatre? Because again you can film one movie and put it in multiple venues while you can only produce one play and put it in one venue at a time (usually, a production company could theoretically have multiple productions of the same play in different venues and it does happen Spamalot, We will rock you etc.)
In the end it is business reasons which controls why you don't get multiple films from the screenplay around the same time.
I hear you about the production budget and business reasons.
I guess I'm still confused as to why a playwright is (generally) considered superior to screenwriter, or why a screenplay couldn't be considered a major form of literature. I guess I'm not confused so much as I'm just trying to reconcile the two in my head.
The argument is always because a film relies on far more senses and can't be defined or appreciated by its script alone. Yet a stageplay relies on almost all of these factors also. The visuals, the music, the actor's performance, the direction, all factor into it just as much as a film does.
The only thing that seems different between the two is that one was around longer and the technology we have now wasn't invented yet.
But it is hard to understand. The text being the mass produced product in the theatre/play setting and bought/read as a commodity isn't the answer. If that's the case then, like I said before, if I were a screenwriter and made my script available to any production company that wanted it, and two (for example) different production companies make a film and it's interpreted in two different ways, do I have a screenplay or a stageplay? Why is that different from two different production companies producing a play?
Because people are still producing the play exactly as Shakespeare and others wrote their today. It's different repeated performances using the same script.
There's also the fact that we couldn't preserve a performance (we obviously can now with cameras) in the past, so the written play was the only thing to survive. With film it's different. We can preserve films in their entirety so their is no need to separate the script from the performance. When people remake a film, they don't use the previous script writers script, they write a whole new one.
But they could use the same script of a screenwriter exactly as was written.
To use Shakespeare, there are different interpretations all the time. Modern interpretations like Baz Luhrman's Romeo & Juliet or the recent Coriolanus, and the historical versions like the latest Macbeth or Branagh's Hamlet.
But I'm saying that could be the case in film, too. The exact same script doesn't produce the exact same production. There's still a director, a set designer, costume designer, etc. The words are the only thing that's the same.
I agree with the other guy that the cost of production is the biggest factor, but as technology becomes cheaper and more prevalent, I can see a screenplay taking on the same form as the stageplay where the exact same script is used in other productions. Different director, different cinematographer, costume designer, editor, etc. The words are the only thing that's the same.
Film can be "literary", and I would consider directors like Tarkovsky, late Welles, etc. to work within in the realm of "poetic" film, and others like Fassbinder and Kieslowski to have worked within extending actually good theatre to film. I think most people here read and watch film and consider them similar.
>>7554187 >>7554221 It's not about interpretations, you stupid fuck. It's about what aspect of the whole shebang is mass produced.
For theatre, it is the play. For cinema, it is the VHS/DVD.
This whole thread is you being an intentionally obtuse retard. It's like asking why people buy CDs and MP3s but not sheet music. Sheet music was the mass produced commodity until they could record it sound. Now, it's rare. There is no mystery here, and it's not difficult to understand, even for dumbfucks.
Fuck off, you faggot ass dumbfuck wonky queer. You're missing the point of the entire question.
I didn't ask what people are buying, I'm asking what people are respecting, you literal shit for brains.
A musician/composer creates a piece and it's put on sheet music. It's now distributed via cd/mp3. A playwright writes a play. It's now distributed via paper/digital and it is performed. A screenwriter writes a screenplay. It's now distributed via paper/digital and it is performed.
What the fuck do you not understand about the question you intentionally obtuse fucking retard.
Go back to your hole where you're stupid and you should feel stupid.
Thread replies: 40 Thread images: 2
Thread DB ID: 411082
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.