MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W76513265

Writing in Pictures: screenwriting Made (mostly) Painless by Joseph McBride (review)

2013· article· en· W76513265 on OpenAlex
Shahin Izadi

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Film and Video · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScreenwritingCraftStorytellingArtVisual artsPeck (Imperial)LiteratureAestheticsNarrative
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

WRITING IN PICTURES: SCREENWRITING MADE (MOSTLY) PAINLESS Joseph McBride. New York: Vintage, 2012, 365 pp.Joseph McBride has produced a novel, well- written, and entertaining guide to screenwrit- ing for fiction film. Perhaps best known as an accomplished film historian, McBride also has professional screenwriting experience, including cowriting Rock 'n' Roll High School and working with Orson Welles on dialogue for a character he played in Welles's unfinished film The Other Side of Wind. McBride also teaches screenwriting at San Francisco State University and states that this book arose out of his frustration with field of screenwriting guides: I couldn't find a book that actually gets into nitty-gritty of what's required to learn screenwriting craft in a systematic way and that does so concisely and without telling you how to write formulaic screenplays (4). Al- though one might dispute claim that there are no such books, McBride's guide should be counted a success by his own criteria.The book is divided into three parts. The first part deals with a number of preliminary top- ics, including a refreshingly upfront admission about how unwise it is to pursue screenwriting as means to money or fame. Parts 2 and 3 are where this book really distinguishes itself from other screenwriting guides. McBride believes that beginners should learn screenwriting by adapting a short story. He reasons that freeing students from burden of coming up with an original, workable idea allows them to focus on craft of storytelling for screen. This approach does not preclude creativity because of distinctive requirements of cin- ematic storytelling and because adaptations can be more or less faithful to their original sources.McBride breaks down process of writing an adapted half-hour screenplay into five steps. Steps 1 through 4 are presented in second part of book. The first step is to select a short and write a two-page prose sum- mary of it. This story is a condensed retelling of original literary work from begin- ning to end. A helpful feature of book is that McBride presents a completed example of each step after he describes its requirements; he then provides instructive critical analysis of his example as a setup for introducing next step. McBride chooses to adapt Jack London's To Build a Fire, of a brazen young man whose arrogance to trek without human company during a harsh Yukon winter in early 1900s leads to his death (the is in- cluded in one of book's appendices).The second step is the adaptation outline, which is similar to outline except that it presents as it will be adapted for screen. Here one has freedom to alter setting, time period, and characters as long as deviation is not so radical that becomes unrecognizable as an adaptation. The third step is to produce a character biography. Doing so paves way for fourth step of fleshing out adaptation outline into treatment, a detailed recounting of adapted that gives a clear sense of scene-by- scene structure of film. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.283
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it