Scenario ontology, part 1

Cinema, according to André Bazin, captures reality through mechanical recording, creating a fascinating trace of what has existed. In contrast, the screenplay, crafted with words, does not rely on this ontology of reality. Yet, cinema can film a screenplay, transforming it into an autonomous form of expression. Thus, the screenplay becomes a work in itself, preserved and immortalized by cinema.

What is Cinema?

What is cinema? This foundational question was notably posed by André Bazin in his eponymous book, *What is Cinema?* (1958). Bazin explores, among other things, the ontology of the cinematic image, that is, the original essence of cinema. He explains that cinema is the trace of a reality that once existed, and this is its absolute specificity, as well as what generates the fascination we feel for cinematic images. He argues that this stems from the mechanical recording of what is in front of the camera or microphone. Photography already distinguishes itself from painting for this same reason, but cinema adds time and duration, which are also captured by the machine.

The intrinsic nature of cinema lies in its ability to capture reality, which sets it apart from animation. The power of cinema thus primarily resides in its capacity for capture.

The Screenplay, the Opposite of Cinema?

The screenplay, on the other hand, stands in direct opposition to this intrinsic nature of cinema as an ontology of what it represents—that is, as proof of the truth of what it shows. The screenplay is crafted with words. It has absolutely nothing to do with the proof or capture of something that truly existed. Cinema is unique among all arts for this reason, and it is also capable of representing all other arts. One can film a painting, a performance, a dance...

Through its relationship to the ontology of reality, cinema allows us to experience an intensity almost as strong as if we had been present in the real moment of which we see only the trace. The screenplay, which aims to create stories, is not of the same nature. It therefore, a priori, has nothing to do with cinema. However, cinema can film a screenplay, just as it can film a performance. This leads us to consider the screenplay as one of the forms of expression that cinema can capture. This prompts us to reconsider the nature of the screenplay.

The Autonomy of the Screenplay as an Art Form

The screenplay would thus no longer be a provisional object solely intended for making cinema; it would become a form of expression in its own right, of which cinema could preserve a trace, just as it can preserve traces of many other forms of expression. The traces that cinema preserves are indeed reductive and partial, but they exist, and their power lies in their very existence.

This also leads us to redefine cinema itself. What is commonly referred to as “cinema” often designates films made from screenplays. Yet, the filmed screenplay is only one form of cinema among many others. A filmed live performance, filmed daily life, or even filmed nature also represent forms of cinema.

There is, therefore, an essentialization of cinema to one of its most widespread forms, particularly the one that has long been the most lucrative: the filmed screenplay. The filmed screenplay is not filmed theater. The aim of this article is not to minimize the importance of the screenplay or its construction but to better understand what we are working with.

I propose the following concept at this stage: the screenplay is an object whose sole purpose is to be filmed, and in a specific way. It is not about filming directly as one would for a performance. In reality, the screenplay is designed to be represented by cinema. However, it should not be considered central to the definition of cinema. The screenplay does not define cinema; it is one of its possible subjects.