Discusiones sobre las mordenitas ácidas e intercambiadas con cobre (II)

The only speech representation that should exist in screenplay texts if one follows the advice given by screenwriting manuals is quoted speech displayed in the dialogue section. This was not always the case, however, as screenplay texts during the 1930s and 40s often indicated characters’ speeches through indirect discourse.

Another instance where a character’s speech is not given through direct discourse (that is, through reporting it directly) is where improvisation should be used. This still appears today as this example from Sideways (written by Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor, directed by Alexander Payne, 2004) shows:

DINNER is improvised, but includes:                                                                                                                

[…]

Miles returns to earth to find Jack and Stephanie now in their own little world – Jack explaining something to Stephanie that she finds fascinating, just FASCINATING. -- Miles converses with Maya, but it’s clear from her bemused expression that he’s being charming if not

entirely coherent.31

In the example it is not stated exactly what the characters talk about but rather what the effect of the conversation should be, that is, the effect that should be achieved, is given.

With the exception of improvisations, screenplay texts should only contain a character’s speech representations through that character’s dialogue. It is not uncommon, however, that screenplays also contain instances of free indirect discourse that convey a character’s thoughts. It is thus not only through the use of a voice-over that a character gives his or her own thoughts. The difference is, however, that the spectator of the potential film will not receive the thoughts given through free indirect discourse.

Mieke Bal states that free indirect discourse refers to instances where a ‘narrator adopts an actor’s discourse’ so that a ‘form of interference between narrator’s text and actor’s

text’ takes place.32 Bal further states that free indirect discourse is indicated through:

• The signals of a personal language situation, referring to an actor. • A strikingly personal style, attributable to an actor.

• More details about what has been said than is necessary for the course of the fabula.33

Jeff Rush and Cynthia Baughman relate the concept of free indirect discourse to the

screenplay text and the question of attribution. Rush and Baughman define free indirect discourse as instances where ‘the narrator’s voice starts to blend with the character’s voice:

the narrator starts to speak the character’s thoughts, perhaps using the character’s idiom.’34

Rush and Baughman examine the concept in relation to both the film and the screenplay, but not in relation to the character, which is the focus here.

Thought reports through free indirect discourse are seperable from thought reports given directly or indirectly through the fact that free indirect discourse is untagged. That is, it                                                                                                                

31 _{Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor, Sideways: The Shooting Script (New York: Newmarket Press,}

2004), pp. 55-56.

32 _{Mieke Bal, Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative, 3rd edn (Toronto: University of}

Toronto Press, 2009 [1985]), pp. 53-54.

33 _{Bal, p. 55.}

34 _{Jeff Rush and Cynthia Baughman, ‘Languages as Narrative Voice: The Poetics of the Highly}

is not clearly stated who the thought belongs to. Here follow three examples of thought reports where the first is a case of direct discourse, the second a case of indirect discourse and the third a case of free indirect discourse. The examples are taken from Inglourious Basterds (written and directed by Quentin Tarantino, 2009), Love Actually (written and directed by Richard Curtis, 2003), and Hugo (written by John Logan, directed by Martin Scorsese, 2012):

He smiles and heads over to her. “Oh no, not this guy

again,” she thinks.35

Sarah is taken aback - she thought this was a total

secret.36

She [Isabelle] disappears into the crowd. He [Hugo] watches her go.

Be steadfast? What a peculiar girl.37

In the first example, the impersonal fictional voice reports the character’s thought exactly as it appears through a direct quotation. In the second example, the impersonal fictional voice reports what Sarah thinks, but maybe not exactly as the thought appeared in her head. Finally, in the third example a thought is reported, which can be attributed to Hugo even though it is not clearly stated that it is Hugo’s thought.

An example that contains thoughts both reported through direct and free indirect discourse is the following from United 93 (written and directed by Paul Greengrass, 2006):

“Clockwork” Sliney thinks to himself. A thing of beauty.38

Here, the first sentence displays Sliney’s thought in direct discourse while the second sentence displays his thought through free indirect discourse. Who the thought belongs to is clearer in this example than it was in the example from Hugo.

Other examples of how free indirect discourse are found in United 93, The Queen (written by Peter Morgan, directed by Stephen Frears, 2006), The Savages (written and directed by Tamara Jenkins, 2007), Cold Mountain (written and directed by Anthony

Minghella, 2003), and The Hurt Locker (written by Mark Boal, directed by Kathryn Bigolow, 2009):

35 _{Quentin Tarantino, Inglourious Basterds (London: Faber and Faber, 2009), p. 48.}

36 _{Richard Curtis, ‘Love Actually’, in Six Weddings and Two Funerals, by Richard Curtis (London:}

Penguin Group, 2006), pp. 217-363 (p. 242).

37 _{John Logan, Hugo (New York: Newmarket Press, 2012), p. 28.} 38 _{Paul Greengrass, United 93 (London: Nick Hern Books, 2006), p. 3.}

She [Bradshaw] replaces the receiver. Looks at her shaking hands. Why me? Why this flight. I want to see my family

again.39

The Queen closes her eyes. All around her, silence except for the sounds of the great outdoors. Privacy at last. The first moment in what feels like months. The Queen breathes deeply. It’s all been a bit much. No time to think. One

shock after another. Everyone shouting.40

Wendy looks at him. Huh?41

ONE OF THE FEDERAL CAVALRY THINKS HE HEARS SOMETHING. He

listens, yes, a shout.42

Thompson twists to get his chest protection on. Eyes tight, brow furrowed, squints into the far distance. That’s going to be a mean motherfucker.43

All of these examples contain reports of a character’s thoughts. How easily the thoughts are attributable to a character differs, however. The thought report in the extract from The Hurt Locker, for example, is more clearly attributable to Thompson than the thoughts presented in The Queen are to the Queen. This is mainly due to the fact that the thought report in The Hurt Locker is presented in italics.

Even though characters’ thoughts are not meant to be displayed in the scene text, since they cannot be transferred to the potential film, they do fulfil a purpose in that they can

highlight an event and clarify what it means to the character. In the foreword to the screenplay Hugo, the author of the source text, Brian Selznick, especially comments on one scene.

Selznick was disappointed when he read a scene in the screenplay that was particularly shortened from how it appeared in the book. In the scene in question Hugo tells Isabelle where he lives, information that she in the book really has to fight for. Selznick writes that:

In the screenplay, however, Isabelle simply says, “Hugo, where do you live?” while the two characters are standing on the bridge. Hugo points toward the train station and says, “There.”

What?? I thought. That’s it??

39 _{Greengrass, p. 68.}

40 _{Peter Morgan, The Queen (London: Faber and Faber, 2006), p. 70.}

41 _{Tamara Jenkins, The Savages (New York: Newmarket Press, 2007), p. 94.} 42 _{Anthony Minghella, Cold Mountain (London: Faber and Faber, 2003), p. 96.} 43 _{Mark Boal, The Hurt Locker (New York: Newmarket Press, 2009), p. 7.}

I was really disappointed by this scene as written on the page. But I happened to be on the set in London when Scorsese filmed it with Asa Butterfield and Chloë Grace Moretz. […] Chloe(spelling?) gently asked the question, “Hugo…where do you live?” and Asa paused. You could see him making a thousand decisions in his mind, deciding whether or not to trust her.

John had actually provided these directions in the script, which at first I’d overlooked: “He stops. Looks at her. Should he tell her? Should he trust her? Yes.” Slowly Asa lifted his arm and pointed behind him. “There”, he said very quietly. Tears came to my eyes as he pointed towards the train station. It was so simple and yet so

moving. And it was perfect for the screen, just as John knew it would be.44

Maybe the actor would have got his thoughts across to the audience without having read it in the screenplay but, if the line helped the actor (and reader) to understand the character’s struggle to tell the truth, why should it not be made clear? Again, Price’s emphasis that ‘even if the script contains material that cannot be filmed, it can still be read’ highlights the fact that some information might be too important to leave out of the script even though it may appear

to be ‘unfilmable’.45 _{The amount of screenplay texts that contain free indirect discourse}

clearly indicates that many writers find the technique beneficial and helpful in their communication of the potential film to the reader.