Craig Batty

Screenwriting studies, screenwriting practice and the screenwriting manual

ABSTRACT The important roles played by screen creators, writers, showrunners, storyliners and script editors are increasingly acknowledged and celebrated by the academy. However, most current screenwriting research is about historical contexts, theoretical readings and ethnographic studies, rather than screenwriting practice. Such research has the potential to speak to practitioners, but it falls short of really connecting with those for whom screenwriting is a practice. The ‘how to’ books written by ‘guru’ authors are usually of more value to screenwriters, yet they sit uncomfortably in the academy and are seldom considered as research. As both an academic and a screenwriting author, I understand that critical texts serve a different purpose to those driven by craft, yet I also have a desire to be relevant to and have impact on creative practice. In this article I discuss how we might expand our understanding of ‘screenwriting studies’ to foreground concerns of practice. Screenwriting is an activity, not an end product, and I argue that we should both understand and offer insights for practicing the discipline. I draw on my own experiences to outline approaches I have used to frame my work as research that contributes knowledge and practice-based insights to the academy and beyond.

Re-conceptualising screenwriting for the academy: the social, cultural and creative practice of developing a screenplay

ABSTRACT In the last decade screenwriting as a profession has changed significantly, with the writing of a screen idea no longer a singular individual pursuit. Screenwriting has become a truly collaborative practice, and even though the screenplay is considered by some as being ‘authorless’ or a ‘signpost not a destination’ , it is also an activity that inherently recognises writers as the creators of novel and original content. This re-examination of screenwriting situates the practice inside the academy as a place where future practitioners can understand the industry they aspire to work in, and the contexts within which it operates. To this end, the screenwriter steeped in the traditions of creative writing can become more creatively responsive to the industrial and economic factors driving the processes of screen production. By re-conceptualising the screenwriter as a creative and conditioned agent who plays a specific part in the realities of the contemporary screen industry, we can better prepare students for professional practice scenarios that will enable them to make creative contributions that shape and change the industry.

A screenwriter's journey into theme, and how creative writing research might help us to define screen production research

Although critical works relevant to screen production research exist, they are often fragmented (screen production placed alongside general media production) and, I want to suggest, not brave enough to embrace the term screen production research. With ‘dirty’ connotations to an industry some see far removed from the academy, screen production research has not yet been able to justify its existence, unlike, for example, the discipline of creative writing, which has achieved a lot in regard to its research agenda and footprint. This article thus proposes definitions and examples from which we might build the foundations for a better understanding of screen production research and its future potential in the academy. This will be achieved by offering a critical and reflective discussion of how theme can be used as a creative and collaborative tool for use in the development of a screenplay. By doing this, the article seeks not to theorise practice per se, but rather to intellectualise it for the benefit of practitioner-academics with interests in screen production research specifically, and creative practice research more broadly. As an important aspect of screen production, screenwriting is a useful lens through which to consider this type of research, partly because of how it is often positioned between creative writing and screen production. For example, the practice of screenwriting might be understood as creative writing, and the development of a screenplay might be understood as screen production. Similarly, the processes undertaken by the screenwriter might be understood in relation to other types of creative writer, and the role played by the screenwriter might be understood in relation to the role played by the producer or director. Furthermore, because the discipline of creative writing has a highly developed understanding of creative practice research, discussing the ‘sub-discipline’ of screenwriting allows us to draw from its rich literature, which as a result helps to define some of the parameters by which we might understand screen production research.

Constellations and connections: the playful space of the creative practice research degree

The academic space for creative practice research is dynamic and ‘is always in the process of being made. It is never finished: never closed’ [Massey, D. 2005. For Space. London: Sage, 9]. It is a research space filled with constellations of connections, which serves as a vital incubator for risk taking, reflexivity and fearless critical thinking. Higher degree by research candidates working in this space move fluidly between thinking and making, allowing their creative practice to become informed and innovative. They draw on a community of practice – of thinkers and makers – to make connections that form constellations in order to extend and expand what they would usually do. Their practice thus becomes their methodology in an environment that is responsive to new concepts and customs. Supervising research degree candidates involves being there with them in that messy space. When candidates try to organise ideas and practices into neat boxes, and those boxes leak, supervisors play an important role in making sure the content does not collapse. Often creative practice researchers themselves, supervisors are both the guardians of academic standards and the ones who dare candidates to ‘go there’. The result is the creation of a dynamic space for play, where boundaries can be pushed. In this paper we present a series of ideas about and reflective experiences of supervising creative practice research degree candidates, namely in the disciplines of screen and media production, and creative writing. We discuss the nature of the creative practice research space – philosophically, metaphorically and practically – and we discuss the role of the supervisor in creating and navigating this space. We end by reflecting on and how this type of space is not only important for creative practice research, but is also a vital component of the contemporary academy.

The problem of peer review in screen production: exploring issues and proposing solutions

ABSTRACT With traditional academic work, the process of peer review is seemingly clear – work is refereed as a way of gatekeeping ideas and research contributions, to ensure it is not publicly available until it has passed a test of rigour, originality, clarity and significance to the field. Those with assumed knowledge of the discipline are the said gatekeepers, tasked with assessing the work on the basis of disciplinary knowledge and general research expertise. This often rests on the notion that the research and knowledge are made explicit in the writing. This is problematic for non-traditional academic work, such as screen production and media art, because a key value in this kind of work is the ability to communicate implicitly and differently from what can be articulated within the parameters of written, academic language. This tension between implicit and explicit knowledge claims has been one source of difficulty for evaluating and therefore rewarding creative practice research. In this paper, we draw on a recent gathering of screen production academics, the two-day Sightlines: Filmmaking in the academy festival and conference, to help us discuss the complexities of peer reviewing screen production works for the academy, and to help us point towards possible solutions. We focus specifically on where and in what form the articulation of research might happen to assist the peer reviewing process, where the common approach is to write a research statement that makes explicit the methodologies undertaken and the new knowledge being claimed. This has incited some protest from within the screen production community: for example, how do we account with language for the very thing that is in excess of language, the contribution that finds its unique place outside of language and within the moving image? We therefore also discuss the dialogic relationship between art and writing, and the kinds of relationality that might be created to help make room for the ‘in-articulable’. In short, how research and new knowledge in a screen work might be illuminated, and how an academic peer might therefore evaluate it. We conclude by discussing an approach we are currently taking to develop an online, refereed publication for screen production works, the Sightlines Journal, in response to both the current literature on the topic and the gathering of discipline academics. Given the various contexts in which these questions arise in relation to screen production research (during the writing of a PhD, in the examination process, and in professional environments), we address them accordingly as individual yet interwoven discussions driven by the shared need to find workable solutions to recurring problems.

Script development and the hidden practices of screenwriting: perspectives from industry professionals

ABSTRACT This article contributes to the emerging body of research on screenwriting practice by drawing together perspectives from industry that reveal an often hidden aspect of the creation of a screen work – script development. Using the same set of interviews that informed a previous work, this article mines those same discussions for insights relating specifically to what is to date a largely unexplored element of screenwriting practice. The perspectives we draw together – from our pool of screenwriters, script editors, script executives and script consultants – serve to both highlight the ambiguity that troubles the term ‘script development’, and also contribute to wider research seeking to define both the concept and the practice for screenwriting scholars and practitioners from an industry outlook. It has been 10 years (at the time of writing) since Peter Bloore wrote of his research that, ‘none of the books available about the film industry and scriptwriting really covered the reality of development [and none] really dealt with the development process as I knew it’. His book is still one of only a few attempts to address this gap in screenwriting research, and so by focussing specifically on the people who experience it, the intention of this article is to try and articulate how we might better understand extant practices of script development.

Looking back in order to look forward: re-scripting and re-framing screen production research

Filmmakers who are also academics want to make creative works as research. This has proven to be a challenging and time-consuming objective for practitioner-academics, despite governmental policy (namely, Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA)) advocating non-traditional research outputs. For example, it is one thing to make a film as research – but it is another to have it recognised as research within an institution, which usually includes the need to provide evidence of peer review or its equivalent. This topic among many has been hotly debated at Australian Screen Production Education and Research Association (ASPERA) annual conferences, and occasionally in some of its publications. But the debates are still ongoing, and given that soon after this special issue is published Australian universities will receive their ERA results, these debates are also likely to continue. ASPERA celebrated its 10th year as an organisation in 2014, and given the growing number of research qualifications amongst the ASPERA community and the formation of a research committee, it seems like now is the time to give support and direction to what is a vibrant community of screen practitioner-academics by not only generating but also recording debates about screen production research. With this we hope to advocate and raise awareness of screen production as a legitimate and important mode of research in the academy. Other research topics hotly debated through ASPERA have been the screen production doctorate and the day-to-day expectations and pressures brought about by ERA. For example, while many of those teaching screen production have research interests in creative practice, there has been a significant increase in the number who are capable of publishing more traditional works too, such as journal articles, book chapters, refereed conference proceedings and in some cases, monographs. This special edition of Studies in Australasian Cinema – the first of two dedicated to ASPERA – reflects the increase in screen production academics who are also publishing more traditional scholarly works, though importantly, scholarly works that are about and/or for practice. Building a cohesive and constructive community of practice is essential for any academic discipline, perhaps even more so for those in creative arts areas where ‘makers’ as well as ‘theorists’ play an important role in defining the scope and nature of research. In relation to ‘makers’ who are also ‘theorists’, such as those who have successfully completed creative practice doctorates, we might usefully conceive them as ‘thinkers’ – people whose work, whether creative or critical, is informed by ideas and wider contexts. In this way, conceptualising a screen production community of thinkers is both useful and productive. For one, it negates any complicated and

Screenwriting as a Mode of Research, and the Screenplay as a Research Artefact

Screenwriting practice is now a flourishing mode of research within universities internationally, whereby the act of writing a screenplay or developing screenplay works is not only understood but also celebrated as a legitimate form of knowledge discovery and dissemination. The resulting work of this creative practice research, which we might call the ‘academic screenplay’, thus functions simultaneously as a method of research enquiry and a ‘non-traditional’ research artefact. In this chapter, we explore what it means to develop and write a screenplay in the academy, under the conditions of and for research. By positioning screenwriting alongside and in between the disciplines of creative writing and screen production, we reflect on how it can draw from both disciplines at different times and for different purposes and can be influenced by their specific—and sometimes contradictory—discourses. By doing so, the chapter provides a comprehensive overview of screenwriting as a growing mode of research, and its practice as an important addition to the academy.

Digital Development: Using the Smartphone to Enhance Screenwriting Practice

In his chapter “Smartphone Screenwriting: Creativity, Technology, and Screenplays-on-the-Go”, Craig Batty argues that while technological advances might seemingly be breeding new types of screenwriting practice via apps and digital tools, in fact they are almost exclusively responding to market demands and facilitating existing, rather than inspiring new, practices: “every tool and app is still reliant on what the screenwriter brings to it” (Batty, p. 113, in: Berry and Schleser (eds) Mobile Media Making in an Age of Smartphones. Palgrave, New York, 2014). The question still remains: if technology can determine the type, style and form of screen media being produced (e.g. smartphone filmmaking, the web series), can it also influence the ways these works are written, beyond replicating what happens in the analogue world? How might the capabilities of mobile media shape and enhance the story-making practices of a screenwriter?

A morning coffee in Melbourne: Discussing the contentious spaces of media practice research

Abstract This is a conversation that took place between three practitioner-academics one morning in Melbourne. All three work and practice in the field of the moving image: from screen production to audiovisual installation to screenwriting. Our conversation is underpinned by previous research we have undertaken in this field, namely the launching of a moving image journal, Sightlines, and a companion journal article on the process of setting it up, which focussed on the issues presented when trying to establish peer review protocols and guidelines for moving image works.