Until now, we have insisted on the characteristics of different artistic media and on the specificity of the cinematographic or audiovisual medium. It is as though the scriptwriter (or director in general) had to adapt and to limit oneself to a medium in which one works, nothing is less reasonable. It is necessary for one to know the medium in which one works, without eclipsing what happens beyond it. Thus, Rudolf Arnheim warns us of the “fascination for the tool”, referring to technique as such, to which art lovers are inclined, but that can lead them to be limited in their creations:
“Any significant technological discovery creates a wave of exploratory interest, which could only be satisfied with the creation of a pretext for this exploration. In the while, what is communicated is less important than the medium with which it is communicated. On the long term, once the change has been done, the new technology is assimilated and the content restores its primacy (5)”.
This article is a selection of passages taken from my book, The scriptwriter’s paradoxes: rules and exceptions in the practise of a scenario (Las paradojas del guionista, Alba Editorial, 2007) aimed at people interested in scriptwriting, and narration in general. The book explores the different theories and manuals existing on the subject, while listing forty paradoxes with which a scriptwriter might be faced.
Original content here is published under these license terms:
X
License Type:
Non-commercial, Attribution, no Derivative work
License Abstract:
You may copy this content, and re-publish it in unmodified form for non-commercial purposes, provided you include an overt attribution to the author(s). You are not permitted to create derivative works.