Operación de la máquina cosedora

As a conclusion on how and what the implied writer communicates, the implied writer communicates extrafictional information as well as its interpretations and evaluations. It also reports on the action and the characters. This is communicated along four axis of

communication: the axis of indication and visualisation; the axis of perception and

understanding; the axis of ethics and evaluation; and the axis of facts, characters, and events. The most easily identified communication takes place along the axis of indication and visualisation, since the allusions are stated directly throughout the screenplay text.

It is also the implied writer’s allusions to the potential film that makes the screenplay

text unique, as they appear directly throughout the text. Even if a screenplay does not contain any camera indications the implied writer still communicates along the axis of indication through the scene headings. All scene headings can be regarded as extrafictional since they contain technical abbreviations (EXT, INT) that are directed toward the production process of the potential film in the real world. It is therefore impossible for the reader of the screenplay to forget that the screenplay is an artificial product created by screenwriters.

Phelan finds that readers particularly respond to three components of the narrative: the

‘mimetic’ component, the ‘thematic’ component, and the ‘synthetic component’.30 Responses

to the mimetic component indicate that the readers respond to the characters and the story world as real and comparable to our own. Responses to the thematic component indicate that the readers respond to characters, events, and the story world as representatives of cultural, ideological, philosophical, or ethical standpoints. Responses to the synthetic component indicate that the readers respond to the characters and the story as an artificial product written by an author. Phelan concludes that the different components can be more or less

foregrounded, and that realistic fiction tries to be as mimetic as possible while works of a metafictional nature foreground the synthetic component.

The saying that a screenplay should only contain what can be seen in the potential film

is repeated in most screenwriting manuals, which was seen in the introduction to the present

study.31 This indicates that screenplays should foreground the mimetic component, which, in

turn, is backed up by the fact that a narrator in a screenplay mainly reports the events instead of interpreting and evaluating them. The screenplay is, however, always forced to foreground the synthetic component to a certain degree. This is due to the format of the screenplay text,                                                                                                                

30 _{Phelan, Living to Tell, p. 20.}

which for example prescribes that a screenplay has to have scene headings and should indicate a new character in capital letters. Being forced to follow these formatting rules the screenplay cannot maintain a mimetic illusion. In addition to the formatting rules, the

screenplay also contains multiple allusions to the potential film. These allusions are often of a technical nature, and they often appear in an abbreviated form (e.g. CU, POV, etc.). There are, however, some ways in which screenwriters try to lessen the synthetic effect.

One way is to use the term ‘cut to’, instead of a scene heading when indicating a cut

within a scene to allow for time passing. Screenwriter William Goldman uses the ‘cut to’ indication not only when time passes within a scene but also between different scenes, and he actually refrains from using scene headings most of the time. Goldman finds the form of the screenplay unreadable, and he states that ‘[e]verything brings your eye up short. All those numbers on both sides of the page and those Christ-awful abbreviations and the INT.’s and

the EXT.’s.’32 Here is an example of how Goldman uses ‘cut to’:

CUT TO

HARPER, out of bed now. He goes to the blank tv set, turns it off. Now he moves to the window, lets the shade fly up. WE CAN SEE his office more clearly now --- it doesn’t look a bit better.

CUT TO

HARPER, still in his underwear, running water in the sink, splashing it on his face, coming to life.

CUT TO

THE TINY KITCHEN AREA.33

Goldman is successful in lessening the synthetic component’s foregrounding by the use of ‘cut to’ indications, and he accomplishes a greater sense of mimetic illusion for the reader through letting the reader experience the story as it unfolds. However, even though the synthetic component might be lessened it is not gone completely. The ‘cut to’ indications are still of a technical nature, reminding the reader of the text’s artificiality.

When intercutting between two locations in The Hurt Locker the scene headings are

avoided through only giving the character’s name in the heading instead of the complete location:

32 _{William Goldman, Adventures in the Screen Trade: A Personal View of Hollywood, 2nd edn}

(London: Abacus, 1996 [1983]), p. 169-170.

JAMES

James sprays the extinguisher into the roaring fire. Flames lick his suit.

SANBORN

Sanborn pounds up a long flight of stairs.

JAMES

Gaining control of the fire.

SANBORN

Charges through the rooftop door and runs to the edge of the roof.

JAMES

The fire is nearly out, the car a smoking ruin, dusted with white fire retardant powder.

SANBORN

At the edge of the roof, looking down over James and

Eldridge.34

Similar to Goldman, Mark Boal is able to lessen the synthetic component but not take it away completely.

These examples lead to the conclusion that the screenplay text is unique in

simultaneously being forced to foreground both the mimetic and the synthetic component. Another conclusion is that an implied writer is most apparent in narratives that foreground the synthetic component since the synthetic component reminds the reader of the fact that the narrative is an artificial product created by a writer.