During my candidacy period, I came to the realisation that my methodology would have to be flexible, adaptable, and repetitive, meaning it would have to be able to change in response to the knowledge and ideas coming from my research, that it had to be able to incorporate a wide variety of media (audio, visuality, writing), and that it would have function in such a way that it could be repeated but with slight changes, both returning and moving forward, as my research informed my knowledge and changed my understanding.
The result was a modified version of Lyle Skains’s “Practitioner Model for Creative Practice-based Research” (2016) and Hazel Smith and Roger T. Dean’s “Iterative Cyclic Web” (2009) as a methodological framework. This combined methodology outlines a multi-step process, with iterations of key steps where the most useful realisations derived from each step are selected and re-processed.
While I did not come to this realisation until late in my candidacy (around draft 6 I think), I now realise that one of the reasons it appealed to me was that I had, unwittingly, been applying it all along, as I changed, adapted, repeated and re-iterated the thesis title from draft to draft, slowly, cyclically, moving towers the end-point.
So here, is the tale of ten titles.
“Title 1 - The Screenplay as Haibun: Haiku poetics as screenwriting methodology”
The first title reflects my original research idea and interest in haiku poetry, particularly this form’s ability to join A and B, and not simply get AB, but create and provide C, a new idea that is more than the combination of its parts. The idea that two, often trivial and every-day concepts combined through strict rhythmic and formatting principles produced a result that not only opened and reoriented your mind, but also had the potential to cross and intermingle sensory experiences, was an alluring concept to apply to screenwriting. Itself a written form following strict rhythmic and formatting principles, applying the idea of Haiku to the screenplay is not new, but can be found in the work of American screenwriter Walter Hill (often referred to as haiku style screenwriting) which becomes apparent when you read, for example, the opening sequence in Hill’s and David Giler’s screenplay for Alien (1977).
The seed for this initial research question came from my Master Thesis, and my interest in Sergei Eisenstein’s montage theory, which operate by the same idea that A + B is not equal to AB, but to C, a new idea that produces affect and knowledge.
“Iteration 2 - Audiovisual Screenwriting: bringing literary images to the cinematic process”
In the second iteration I moved away from poetry and haiku, but kept the idea of ‘literary images’ and ‘screenwriting’ but changed the notion of haiku to ‘audiovisual’, a reiteration of the cross-sensory modalities available in the reading of haiku. The focus was very much on the ‘literary image’ aspect, as I was still clinging on to the idea of poetry as a screenwriting methodology, still trying to keep that idea alive despite my research and my supervisor pointing me in a different direction.
“Iteration 3 - Lyrical Audiovisuality: the phenomenology of affective cinema as a function of writing”
The third iteration has several changes and new directions, a bit too many perhaps. ‘Audiovisuality’ is still in contention, but the literary/poetic aspect has been exchanged for ‘lyrical’. Again, this comes from research and finding the word lyrical as an extension of poetry, possibly more fitting to what I thought I was doing. I was also heavily influenced by the work of Torben Grodal, especially his book Embodied Visions: evolution, emotion, culture, and film (2009), and Bruce Isaacs’ article on the phenomenology of cinematic writing, so much so that I lifted several concepts directly from these two. Thus, ‘phenomenology’; ’affect; and ‘function of writing’ became part of this cycle.
“Iteration 4 - The Affective Screenplay: A poetics of embodied screenwriting as practice-based process”
In the fourth title iteration, ‘lyrical’ has been replaced by ‘affective’ in an attempt to get closer to the idea that the screenplay itself will have an emotional, embodied effect on the reader, which is then translated into cinematic audiovisualty. Again, this comes from Grodal and Isaacs, who also inspiried the inclusion of the notion of ‘embodiment’. At this point I had also (re)discovered the Russian Formalists and the idea of ‘poetics’, the theory of literary forms and literary discourse, as well as the idea of ‘active making’ as formulated by David Bordwell. I also started to consider the idea of writing a screenplay as part of the thesis, and so introduced the notion of ‘practice’ and ‘process’.
“Iteration 5 - Writing for Others: The poetics of affective screenwriting”
This iteration was a shuffling around of some of the active words, and adding the idea that writing a screenplay (and writing in general) is often done for others. I wanted to introduce the idea that screenwriting is the first stage of a long process involving a large number of people working to create a film. This was probably inspired by Ted Nannicelli’s work on the philosophy of the Screenplay.
“Iteration 6 - Writing Film Metaphor: A poetics of the practice-based process of screenwriting”
Again, this iteration is made up of a reshuffling of active words from previous iterations, as well as the addition of a new concept: metaphor. I had been searching for something that could both replace the concepts of affect/phenomenology/embodiment, which I felt was more connected to the viewing experience of cinema, and stand in for the concepts of poetry/literary images. The metaphor seemed to do both these things. ‘Poetics’; ‘practice-based’ and ‘screenwriting’ is still maintained.
“Iteration 7 - Writing Moving Images: Metaphor, metonymy and the poetic language of screenwriting/the screenplay”
Again, a reshuffling of words, and an addition to, or more accurately an expansion of, some of the concepts. My research took me deeper into the realm of metaphor, and it became clear that the different forms of metaphor had to be acknowledged. Furthermore I found the concept of ‘poetic language’ appealing, again letting the idea of poetry resurface (hard to kill this particular darling). While not there yet, I am clearly approaching something good, as this title made it through two drafts (as opposed to all previous titles that only lasted one draft).
“Iteration 8 - Writing for Ears and Eyes: The formulation of audio-vision as screenwriting practice”
At this stage, I felt my title was not clever/poetic enough, so I started playing around with the idea of the cross-modality of the senses again, which had formed the spine of master’s research. While not entirely successful, it did mean the resurface and rediscovery of the research of Michel Chion, particularly his concept of audio-vision, which was a big ‘a-ha’ moment. This was the cross-modal concept I had been searching for, the concept that connected my research and thesis directly to cinema, while still maintaining the notion of A+B=C. The word ‘formulation’ also made its appearance, as a more formalist idea than writing.
“Iteration 9 - Writing Cinema: The formulation of cinematic audio-vision as screenwriting practice”
Finally, I am starting to really close in on something solid. Simplicity and clarity is getting to the forefront. Rather than ‘eyes and ears’, clearly inspired by Chion’s concept of cinema being audio-vision, and coming to terms with the idea that the process of creating a screenplay is the process of writing, the opening part of the title has now become: ‘Writing Cinema’, which is the clever, poetic way of saying writing for eyes and ears (thanks to my supervisor for pointing this out) and is beautifully simple. ‘Formulation’ is retained, as is ‘audio-vision’ and ‘practice’ This title was so strong it stayed for four full drafts, a clear indication that the synthesis of my research was coming to fruition.
“Iteration 10 - Writing Cinema: Audiovisual phrasing and screenwriting practice.”
The tenth and final iteration. Finally, simplicity rules supreme. ‘Writing Cinema’ is retained, as it should. It clearly shows the direction of the thesis, and neatly summarises one of my main ideas: that cinema is ultimately written before it becomes film. Chion’s concept of ‘audio-vision’ is replaced by his concept of ‘audiovisual phrasing’ which came as a result of my methodology finally becoming clearer and more precise and, more importantly, that ‘audio-vision’ pertains more to the viewing experience, while ‘audiovisual phrasing’ pertains to the way in which the ‘audio-vision’ is constructed, connecting it to the concepts of formalism, practice, and poetics, and therefore to the process of screenwriting.
While at the surface, radically different from my first title, this final title is actually a clearer, more distinct essence of the first iteration. In way, I felt that I had finally come back, full circle, to what my original intention was, after wandering the wilderness for some time.
But rather than being a circle, this process is an upward spiral. I have returned to where I started, the cycle is complete, but I am now one level up, or to the side if you will. The process of re-iteration has maintained the notion of cross-modality and A+B=C, the essence of Haiku poetry, which instigated this whole process, but now more clearly and distinctly encompass the concept of screenwriting, as well as the conglomeration of ideas and concepts that relate to the other main idea driving this thesis, namely that the screenplay has lyrical/poetic/literary origins and inclinations, which is passed through, into, and onto, the final iteration fo the screenplay, namely the film itself.
The process of cyclical re-iterations, informer by research and the synthesis of ideas and concepts, is definitely a fruitful approach. By constantly evolving the title, I kept moving forward and upwards, while still retaining the original inspiration, that foundational spark, that inspired this ongoing journey. It is clearly a functional methodology.
Bordwell, D. (2008). Poetics of cinema. New York: Routledge.
Chion, M. (1994). Audio-vision: sound on screen. New York: Columbia University Press.
Eisenstein, S. M. (1968). Synchronization of the Senses. In J. Leyda, (Trans. Ed.). The Film Sense. (pp. 3-65). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Grodal, T. K. (2009). Embodied Visions: evolution, emotion, culture, and film. New York: Oxford University Press.
Isaacs, B. (2016). Literary images: towards a phenomenology of cinematic writing. Screen, 57(4), 431-445
Nannicelli, T. (2013). A Philosophy of the Screenplay.New York: Routledge.
Skains, L. (2016, June 30). Creative Practice as Research: Discourse on Methodology. [Blog]. Retrieved from http://scalar.usc.edu/works/creative-practice-research/index