El tomqfto de tas unidades de información

Screenplay researchers have not discussed the concept of a fictional narrator in much detail, but there are some exceptions. Jeff Rush and Cynthia Baughman argue that it is possible to

separate a ‘dramatic voice’ from a ‘narrative voice’ in screenplay texts.1 The dramatic voice

refers to events as they would appear even if no one would be there to account for them; it simply reports what happens in the story world. The narrative voice, on the other hand, is responsible for the shaping of the events, the overall structure of the story, and any comments on the story. Rush and Baughman acknowledge, however, that it is a ‘deeply flawed

theoretical distinction’ but that it allows them to ‘examine the differing functions of language in screenplay’ as well as ‘shifting the location of meaning from stories whose apparent center is in the working out of the events themselves to stories whose focus is on the tension

between events and their telling.’2 They refer to the opening of David Lynch’s Blue Velvet as

an example of where the two voices are clearly displayed. In Blue Velvet, the dramatic voice reports what will be seen (on the screen) while the narrative voice gives an ironic commentary on the over the top idyllic suburb, instructing the reader to question what is being shown. Rush and Baughman find that the benefits of identifying two fictional narrating voices outweigh the flaws of the distinction.

Claudia Sternberg argues that a narrating agent does not exist in screenplays but that screenplays can anticipate the presentation of a narrative agent in the potential film. Even though Sternberg does not acknowledge the existence of a narrative agent she makes a

distinction between a ‘personal narrative voice’ and an ‘impersonal narrative voice’. 3 _This

clearly shows that Sternberg, similarly to Rush and Baughman, might question the validity of the terms, but the benefit of positing the terms outweigh the setbacks. Sternberg defines the impersonal narrative voice as ‘the narrative agent that guides the choices of images (e.g.

editing, mise-en-scène) and governs the narration in the sense of “Who shows?”.’4 Sternberg

further distinguishes between a covert and an overt impersonal narrative voice. The covert impersonal voice gives no indication from what perspective a scene is shown while the overt impersonal voice does. Indications could for example be camera movements, what camera that should be used, or sound directions. The personal narrative voice ‘provides narration in                                                                                                                

1 _{Jeff Rush and Cynthia Baughman, ‘Language as Narrative Voice: The Poetics of the highly inflected}

Screenplay’, Journal of Film and Video, 49.3 (1997), pp. 28-37 (p. 30).

2 _{Rush and Baughman, p. 30.}

3 _{Claudia Sternberg, Written for the Screen: The American Motion-Picture Screenplay as Text}

(Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag, 1997), p. 133.

the sense of “Who speaks?”’ and it has a defined origin, either off-screen (as a voice-over) or

on-screen (as a character).5 _{Sternberg uses Genette’s terms heterodiegetic and homodiegetic}

to further distinguish between a personal narrative voice that participates in the narrated world as a character from one that does not. The heterodiegetic personal narrative voice exists only as a voice-over and cannot appear on screen, while the homodiegetic personal narrative voice can exist both off-screen, as a character’s voice-over, and on-screen as a character. Sternberg stresses that it is only in the dialogue sections of the screenplay that a personal narrative voice can be expressed; it is the sound of the voice (in the film to be) that distinguishes the personal voice from the impersonal.

Considering that Sternberg argues that screenplays do not contain narrative agents while defining her impersonal narrative voice as the ‘narrative agent’ that ‘governs the

narration’, her argument is inconsistent.6 Sternberg is thus unsuccessful in separating the

screenplay from a narrating agent. Even though Sternberg’s argument is inconsistent her terminology and definitions are well suited to the screenplay text and will be used as a basis when defining the impersonal and the personal fictional voice later on in this chapter.

Steven Price, similar to Rush and Baughman and Sternberg, finds that the screenplay

needs to contain a narration.7 Price emphasises, however, that the screenplay is the textual

medium that comes closest to ‘showing’ an event without narrating it, but it would be

impossible for the screenplay to truly ‘show’ an event instead of narrating it, since that would

render the screenplay a ‘medi[um] that evade[s] mediation’.8 Price concludes that narration in

screenplays is supplied through a ‘process of selection’ and a ‘corollary process’. A ‘process of selection’ refers to the fact that the events of a screenplay are specifically chosen, and a ‘corollary process’ refers to the selected events’ arrangement into predetermined sequences,

but Price does not find it necessary to connect these ‘processes’ to an agency or a voice.9

4.2.1. Concluding note on screenplay research

Screenplay researchers in general accept the existence of a personal narrative voice expressed in the dialogue section as a voice-over. The impersonal narrative voice, however, is not as readily accepted even though a narration responsible for the selection and the shaping of the                                                                                                                

5 _{Sternberg, p. 136.}

6 _{Sternberg, p. 133 (my emphases).}

7 _{Steven Price, The Screenplay: Authorship, Theory and Criticism (London: Palgrave}

Macmillan, 2010), p. 120.

8 _{Price, p. 120.} 9 _{Price, p. 123.}

events usually is identified: Rush and Baughman’s narrative voice, Sternberg’s impersonal narrative voice, and Price’s processes. The concept of the impersonal narrative/dramatic voice therefore needs to be further examined and put in relation to how the concept is defined and discussed within literary and film theory.