Screenplays as literature?

[Chilly]

If plays are considered literature why aren't movies considered literature as well? In the same way that plays are meant to be seen, but are adapted from paper, movies are meant to be seen but are adapted from paper as well, so what makes them so different that they shouldn't be considered literature while plays are? Is it some sort of difference between how the script for a play and the script for a movie are done? No, they're basically the same, and the differences shouldn't be enough to suggest that movies can never be well written. If movies can be well written, which is the case, then it's wrong to cast them aside as inferior to poetry, novels, plays, essays and other accepted forms of literature. There may be a few differences between screenplays and other forms of writing, but that doesn't mean that the written-down form of movies, at least some, aren't good enough to be considered literature.

It's incredibly presumptuous and arrogant to say that every single movie is badly written and doesn't deserve to be considered worthwhile as literature. Many movies may have incredible directing, acting, cinematography, special effects, music, sound editing and everything else that makes a movie worthwhile, and obviously these things don't apply to books, or the contents of books, but movies and creative fiction have enough in common for movies to be seen as a form of creative fiction. The characters, the plotline, the theme, the setting, the symbolism, the irony, the complex hidden meanings, and everything that has been put together to create artistic unity, the stuff that makes fiction powerful and memorable, the stuff that brings us insights about life in general, these things exist in movies. If a movie achieves all these things incredibly well then why shouldn't it be considered literature? People think no movies have all these things in them, but that is not the case.

A person's knowledge of movies is often restricted to what Hollywood suggests, and Hollywood doesn't necessarily produce or promote literary movies, so it's as if such movies don't exist, but that's not true. They're often pushed aside by the hugely-hyped movies with little literary value, or their literary value isn't noticed, but in and out of Hollywood, they exist. Charles Kaufman, the Coen Brothers, Wes Anderson, Stanley Kubrik, Robert Altman, Christopher Guest and Alfred Hitchcock all make very intelligent, very thought-provoking films with strong themes. In fact, I'll list out such movies:

Charles Kaufman:
Adaptation, Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind, Being John Malkovich, among others
The Coen Brothers:
Barton Fink (my brother spent a long time studying this film and came to the conclusion that it was about the death of creative fiction), The Man who wasn't there, A Serious Man, and many many more
Wes Anderson:
The Royal Tenenbaums, Rushmore, and others


The fact is that movies by directors such as Charles Kaufman and the Coen brothers are incredibly well done and overflow with strong characters, symbolism and other techniques. Watch these films and you will see that they have immense literary value, are completely original and are incredibly brilliant. The only thing that should stop us from considering them as literature is the fact that we never see their written-down copies (but we get a glimpse of them at the Oscars when they're announcing the Academy Award for Best Writing (Original Screenplay). It is, however, a fact that such written down copies exist, because without them the movies wouldn't have been produced. The literary values that we see on screen are really adaptations of the literary values on the original scripts. Without the written down copies, the literary values wouldn't exist, and in fact no part of the movie would exist for that matter. So the writers who originally created the stories of the movies, the screenplays (which are hardly different from the plays we love to consider as literature), are authors, and their works are written-down pieces of creative fiction that represent the language, culture and period of the author (which is the definition of literature).

Although the movies themselves aren't literature, their screenplays are, and we shouldn't degrade and ignore them just because they're presenting themselves in a different way. Obviously, most screenplays wouldn't be rich enough for you or me to consider as literature, but some are and it's not fair to them, or their authors, to automatically shaft them as inferior.

[Chilly]

opinions? thoughts? Anyone?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

If plays are considered literature why aren't movies considered literature as well?

Are plays considered literature? I mean the actual performance. I know when you have a script to read, such as Shakespeare, that is literature, but the actual performance is an entirely different art form, no? So, movies aren't literature. A better question may be why screenplays aren't considered literature.


If movies can be well written, which is the case, then it's wrong to cast them aside as inferior to poetry, novels, plays, essays and other accepted forms of literature.

Does this happen with much regularity? I haven't seen many people condemn the very medium of film as a lesser art form. It's possible the medium produces more crap that the other mediums you listed, but not by much. I think the only major difference would be that it's much easier to make horrible movie popularly and even critically accepted (Avatar), though, a series like Twilight gives that assertion a run for its money.


It's incredibly presumptuous and arrogant to say that every single movie is badly written and doesn't deserve to be considered worthwhile as literature.

Again, who has said this?


Many movies may have incredible directing, acting, cinematography, special effects, music, sound editing and everything else that makes a movie worthwhile, and obviously these things don't apply to books, or the contents of books, but movies and creative fiction have enough in common for movies to be seen as a form of creative fiction. The characters, the plotline, the theme, the setting, the symbolism, the irony, the complex hidden meanings, and everything that has been put together to create artistic unity, the stuff that makes fiction powerful and memorable, the stuff that brings us insights about life in general, these things exist in movies. If a movie achieves all these things incredibly well then why shouldn't it be considered literature? People think no movies have all these things in them, but that is not the case.

I really don't see how anyone could make an argument against this.


A person's knowledge of movies is often restricted to what Hollywood suggests, and Hollywood doesn't necessarily produce or promote literary movies, so it's as if such movies don't exist, but that's not true. They're often pushed aside by the hugely-hyped movies with little literary value, or their literary value isn't noticed, but in and out of Hollywood, they exist. Charles Kaufman, the Coen Brothers, Wes Anderson, Stanley Kubrik, Robert Altman, Christopher Guest and Alfred Hitchcock all make very intelligent, very thought-provoking films with strong themes.

Film is no different than any other art form. Most of it is crap, and like I said, the crap is usually more popular. It is ironic though that the names you listed aren't really Hollywood outcasts. The Coens, Anderson, Kubrick, Guest and Hitchcock are all well-known film-makers who make/made movies that make/made good profits. Even Kaufman and Altman have made popular movies. A better example of one firmly outside of Hollywood doing very artistic things in film would be Wener Herzog.


I don't think many would argue that screenplays and scripts of movies aren't literature. It's more a matter of why they aren't read. I think one of the largest reasons is that it's so easy to see a film, unlike a play. You can always just rent or buy a movie, but with a play this isn't always possible.

[cyberbob]

Well you hit the nail on the head when you said most people don't see the written copies.

Everyone sees written copies of plays because they're necessary to put on the play, but no one re-enacts movies.

A screenplay or movie may be adapted into a play, but then it's no longer the actual screenplay. Since the screenplay itself isn't used by the general public it'll remain obscure.

And when people want to read a movie's story, it's usually novelized to make it more digestible. Screenplays themselves aren't widely accessible except via the internet.

Besides, screenwriters write for professionals. Screenplays include language and abbreviations that laymen don't just know. Play jargon is more common sense. (i.e. enter stage left)

But like the guy above me said, I don't think many people see movies as inferior. I like them as much as books.

[hanzklein]

The screenplays are meant to be adapted to the screen specifically. Its pointless to read it when you can watch it for half the effort. Also, most movies are shallow in comparison to 'real' literature. The intellectualism and real depth in the latter is what sets it apart from other forms of entertainment.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Also, most movies are shallow in comparison to 'real' literature.

Of course "most" movies are shallow compared to "real" literature (whatever that term means, really--I prefer the term "high literature"). There's no comparison between crap of one medium to the best of another. What should be compared is high-quality film with high-quality literature. I don't really see how it would be possible to categorically say one os better than the other, though.

[hanzklein]

Of course "most" movies are shallow compared to "real" literature (whatever that term means, really--I prefer the term "high literature"). There's no comparison between crap of one medium to the best of another. What should be compared is high-quality film with high-quality literature. I don't really see how it would be possible to categorically say one os better than the other, though.

Well, I would go so far as to say not a single movie - or maybe only a very select few can compare to canonized literature. I mean, just compare Inception and Finnegans Wake. That's not to say movies can't be good, they are even preferable to books I think when entertainment is the main factor, but I really can't ever say that Apocalypse Now engaged my mental facilities more than reading Heart of Darkness.

[Chilly]

Mutatis-Mutandi, my point was that if we see the scripts for plays and call it literature, we could in theory do the same thing with the scripts for movies. Obviously the performance itself isn’t the literature and I tried to make that clear in my second paragraph. Your same argument about the performance could be said about plays. So in the same sense, I can say that plays aren’t literature.
I’m saying that it’s the script that could be literature. If the scripts for movies were as readily available as the scripts for plays, and more often read than seen, the difference would disappear. Of course that would never happen though.

And your right, I never hear anyone say that movies are inferior but I often feel as if that’s what others, such as on this forum, feel. Not because they say it but because it just seems like something they would believe. In a way, what I was doing was defending movies from a literary point of views from those who might secretly think they’re inferior. I was pointing out literary value in movies.

I knew the names I listed weren’t real Hollywood outcasts, which is why I said “but in and out of Hollywood, they exist”. You’re right, it’s very ironic that I said that, but not as ironic as you think because I wasn’t trying to bash Hollywood. I wasn’t saying that Hollywood doesn’t produce literary movies, (which is why I put the word necessarily there) I was saying that it’s possible that they don’t, and that most of the movies that they produce aren’t very literary but some are.

And you make an excellent point about how they’re not read, but instead watched, and that’s what makes the difference. That along with everything Cyberbob said answers my question. Thank you. I guess no matter what happens, screenplays will never be considered literature.

Except there is one thing. At the start of your response you say that “movies aren't literature” but at the end of your response you say that “I don't think many would argue that screenplays and scripts of movies aren't literature”. Are you in the minority, or is that a typo? I’m curious to know what you mean.

[Chilly]

Well, I would go so far as to say not a single movie - or maybe only a very select few can compare to canonized literature. I mean, just compare Inception and Finnegans Wake. That's not to say movies can't be good, they are even preferable to books I think when entertainment is the main factor, but I really can't ever say that Apocalypse Now engaged my mental facilities more than reading Heart of Darkness.

I think you should watch the films I listed. Honestly, the movies made by those directors are quite mentally engaging, you should watch them and find out how deep they are. In terms of depth of meaning, they are a thousand times better than Apocalypse Now and Inception, so I agree with Mutatis-Mutandi. In the same way that there is "high" literature, there are "high" movies, and those are what you should be comparing.

[YesNo]

I never knew that anyone questioned that screenplays were literature. I've always assumed they were and that they are best "read" by watching the movie.

Regarding Shakespeare's plays, should I want to "read" one I would go to the library and rent a DVD performance of the play and watch it. So from my perspective a play and a movie are really the same thing. Of course, I'm not a Shakespeare scholar and have no need to study the text in any greater detail.

[JCamilo]

Scripts are literature, be it comic books script, movies, plays, etc. People do read them, some are published. However, a good movie does not necessarily have a good script as reading experience. And, I have read some, by writers as Borges, Bradbury or Arthur Clarke and they are just interesting. We read more plays only due to tradition and because plays have a long story of poetry and language experience, so our reading is much more interesting. Scripts (while there is no pattern of writting of any, and some scripts are just like plays) deal more with audio-visual concern, so their texts are less interesting. That is all.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Except there is one thing. At the start of your response you say that “movies aren't literature” but at the end of your response you say that “I don't think many would argue that screenplays and scripts of movies aren't literature”. Are you in the minority, or is that a typo? I’m curious to know what you mean.

I just meant that the actual movie, the end product, is not literature, but another medium. But since the scripts are actually written, they are.

[kelby_lake]

Well, I would go so far as to say not a single movie - or maybe only a very select few can compare to canonized literature. I mean, just compare Inception and Finnegans Wake. That's not to say movies can't be good, they are even preferable to books I think when entertainment is the main factor, but I really can't ever say that Apocalypse Now engaged my mental facilities more than reading Heart of Darkness.

Ouch.

I agree with the OP that there is an unspoken feeling that people believe that literature is for the most part intellectual and stimulating where as movies are for the most part undemanding fluff.

Films may be predominantly aesthetic but what's wrong with that? It doesn't mean that there is nothing behind them.

[My2cents]

It may be (that screenplays aren't literature) because a typical screenplay undergoes such a drastic editing from the first to the final drafts that there's no real basis to give credit where credit is due. It's such a cut throat business anyway, I would think screenplay writers are grateful just to get steady work.

Having said that, there are two exceptions that comes to mind. David Mamet and Sam Shephard.

[JCamilo]

Screen are literature, suffereing editing is commun in books and autorship is irrelevant.

[My2cents]

Screen are literature, suffereing editing is commun in books and autorship is irrelevant.

Yeah, in a perfect world.

[JCamilo]

In a normal world. Authorship is a modern invention and obviously suffering a big down with the e-book. Noboby knows who wrote the bible, the first faery tales, etc. Autorship or several authors is just normal.

Obviously, one reason you pointed can affect the publishing: scripts do not translate well without audio-visual references. So, their reading for enjoyment can a pain in the ***. But the reason why literature looks down to cinema (not script) is just that literature looks down to anything. Politically wise, language - text - speech - is more powerful than many other languages, so literature adquired a status which the newborn (100 years or so is just too little time) art cann't fight. Drama, Music, painting can "swallow" the pride due their age, but overall, literature imposes itself.

[stlukesguild]

Well, I would go so far as to say not a single movie - or maybe only a very select few can compare to canonized literature.

Little Hans talking out his backside again :ciappa:... and he wonders why nothing he has to say is taken at all seriously.:frown2: This sounds like the same sort of lame criticism directed at the early novels by champions of "serious literature" (ie. poetry).

Film is a whole different art form unto itself... as is opera... painting... sculpture. Any one of these may employ literary or narrative elements, but they are not literature and I truly cannot understand the continual obsession with dissecting such art forms into parts. The libretto of an opera or the screen play of a film is but one element of the whole. The music, the costumes, the stage sets, the lighting... all the visual elements are equally important and to suggest that the finest films (let alone the finest operas, paintings, etc...) cannot hold their own along side the finest works of literature is simply inane. Of course one expects individuals who have invested a degree of effort in one artistic genre to believe that for them no other art form speaks quite as deeply... but I don't know that many would take it to the point of suggesting that other art forms are somehow inherently inferior to their personal art of choice.

[stlukesguild]

Screenplays are literature. End of story. Only in a very few instances, however, are they truly great literature. In part, I think this is due to the strengths of film as a media. Unlike a stage play, film allows for an endless array of special effects and visuals, music, sound effects, close ups of actors and actresses, etc... all of which go toward conveying the overall whole. Most playwrights do not have access to as many visual and auditory effects (at least not until more recently) as the filmmaker and as such they are far more reliant upon the actual text... the spoken dialog... to carry the whole play. By way of comparison, one might look at a film like Streetcar Named Desire based upon Williams play and compare the importance of dialog vs a movie such as 2001: A Space Odyssey, where we go long stretches without any dialog and the visuals, sound, music, and action carry the film.

[My2cents]

In a normal world. Authorship is a modern invention and obviously suffering a big down with the e-book. Noboby knows who wrote the bible, the first faery tales, etc. Autorship or several authors is just normal.

Obviously, one reason you pointed can affect the publishing: scripts do not translate well without audio-visual references. So, their reading for enjoyment can a pain in the ***. But the reason why literature looks down to cinema (not script) is just that literature looks down to anything. Politically wise, language - text - speech - is more powerful than many other languages, so literature adquired a status which the newborn (100 years or so is just too little time) art cann't fight. Drama, Music, painting can "swallow" the pride due their age, but overall, literature imposes itself.

I see what you're saying about authorship and all -- and I agree.

But as to literature looking down on cinema, it's probably more accurate to say that non-writers, the director and the producer, have a better understanding of how words translate visually so that literature looking down on cinema is actually non-writers who know more about movie writing taking to task "writers" who know how to write for the page but hardly for the screen.

[JCamilo]

Yes, the writting is hardly a reading experience that we are used. But this happens wtih great writers too, at least those I read (Borges or for example, the script of 2001). The best script I read was Monty Python and the Holy Grail, still funny. But watching the movie before hand helped.