Wild Camping

Please note the screenplay published here has been revised in response to reviewer feedback.

RESEARCH STATEMENT

In this retrospective analysis of my original feature screenplay, Wild Camping (Miller 2021), I reflect on what makes this feature screenplay “cinematic.” This is an essential task, since as part of my PhD, I shall be endeavouring to re-imagine the cinematic screenplay as a sonic cinematographic binaural audio series, attempting to transfer that “cinematic feel” to a very different modality.

The process of writing Wild Camping was a “key investigative method employed in a research investigation. The focus is on the making of the work as a vehicle for an enquiry rather than simply producing an art work” (Bell 2018, 57).

What does “cinematic” mean?

Matthew A. MacDonald notes that “Some people really like using that word — cinematic — even if they can’t explain exactly what it means” (2022). When a work is labelled “cinematic,” this goes beyond what is simply shown in the cinema, especially as many films get limited or no theatrical release at all, and are watched exclusively on computers and TV screens.

Merriam Webster dictionary defines “cinematic” as an adjective “of, relating to, suggestive of, or suitable for motion pictures or the filming of motion pictures. Cinematic principles and techniques. Cinematic special effects” (n.d.). But if we only define cinematic as the end product of the post-production process, how does that explain the concept of unproduced screenplays being labelled as “not cinematic,” a comment I heard often during my time in drama development at Channel Four Films?

I contend that all screenwriters are envisioning their work on a screen when they write. So I believe it is true to say that the “cinematic” element of a screen work begins way before the production, and takes place in the writing itself. But however the audience relate to or experience a cinematic affect, what could be some of the specifics we can pin down?

Show and Tell to Manifest Theme

In film noir cinematographer John Alton’s book Painting with Light (1995), “he explains how to back-light rain in order to make the water show off against a dark background and to create and enhance drama” (Greenhalgh 2018, 149).

In cinema, what the audience “sees” is not restricted by what is visible on the screen. Sound, dramatic tone, rhythm, can all create additional resonance and cinematic affect. Belinda Middleweek and John Tulloch write of how “Cinema’s affective aesthetic, that is, its capacity to transmit feeling across, between and within bodies in a Deleuzian ‘assemblage,’ can take various forms” (Deleuze and Guattari 1981 quoted in Middleweek and Tulloch 2018, 242).

However, the “affective aesthetic’” is ultimately expressed, it usually begins as words on a page. The opening sequence of my horror feature Wild Camping, fitting with the habitus of the genre, are scenes written to convey tone and atmosphere, with little or no dialogue. Sound effects are written into the script, to ensure that the reader creates the relevant images and sounds in their minds, so that “the screen work may be generative of thought, activating what a Deleuzian might call a ‘cinematic thought machine’” (Huygens 2007 quoted in Frankham 2018, 178).

Robin Nemesszeghy links cinematography and theme in his article on TV series True Detective (Fukunaga 2014) writing of its “striking cinematic feel, created by Arkapaw’s cinematography…delving deep into character psyches...complete with expert dialogue that never falls short of eternal depth, combine to form a masterpiece of cinema and an experience like no other” (Nemesszeghy 2022).

Consider the scene with the Nazi and the farmer in Inglorious Basterds (Tarantino 2009). “It’s the classic cat and mouse game, told from the perspective of a camera” (Prajapati 2022). It could be argued that the framing communicates the “cat and mouse game” and nothing more. But I suggest that it is because this power struggle between the two men is rooted in the themes of loyalty – will LaPadite betray his Jewish neighbours hiding beneath the floorboards? – And retribution – what will Landa do both to the Jewish family and to LaPadite’s family? – That the cinematography visualises the screenplay in ways that impact us as an audience far more powerfully. Even though we have not yet had a chance to develop any relationship with the characters and the dialogue is implicit rather than explicit about the action taking place before us.

Although the established good practice of a screenwriter is to “show” not “tell,” this does not mean that dialogue cannot play a role in cinematic affect. In the early scenes between the two lovers in Wild Camping – Alice and Sophie – their dialogue is laden with subtext illustrating the fragility of their relationship, reflecting the dysfunctional relationship between man and nature as part of the larger themes of the film. “Dramatic dialogue is, and constructs, relationships in reactive, interdependent interaction, in a constant state of responsiveness” where “The ‘action’ – emotional, psychological – is what happens ‘between’ speeches...” (Michelene 2008, 34).

When a character goes beyond simply conveying information, but instead embodies a theme through their dialogue – that is a style associated with being cinematic, because good cinema is grounded in themes that connect us all, a universality that goes way beyond the plot and character personalities.

The themes are what allow an audience to connect on a fundamental human level. Yes, that can happen in a good theatre play, but the tools to convey that story through imagery are more limited, and the suspension of belief required from the audience to engage with those themes, much greater.

Themes in Wild Camping are designed to go beyond “good versus evil” themes and to also connect with a modern audience by tapping into contemporary fears. Lies versus truth, science versus nature.

Because True Detective (Fukunaga 2014) is narratively entwined with major themes and the human condition, that is why it was so appropriate for it to be shot on 35mm, enhancing the cinematic style. You could film an episode of a Television Soap on 35mm, but that alone would not make it feel “cinematic.”

Not only does the screenwriter develop and express their work using themes, but the genre in which the screenplay is situated can enhance the cinematic impact of the writing.

Genre

A horror film is effective because it does more than make you jump. It connects on a primal level with our fears. Themes that connect with audiences internationally, inclusive to the human experience. The familiarity of the genre can shortcut the audience into a place of emotional compliance as they voluntarily enter the world of the unknown.

In Wild Camping, the true “horror” is conveyed through a parody of the corrupt relationship between governments and big Pharma, and the almost ludicrous negligence of the medical establishment in allowing and perpetrating the continued use of drugs that ultimately were causing more harm than good (as current legal cases attest). All in the name of commerce.

The horror genre has often been a vehicle for addressing social issues: “The work becomes an experience in itself but no less able to address social issues and other elements of the lived world” (Frankham 2018, 186).

In the case of my cinematic feature Wild Camping, the intention is to invite a deeper reflection on our society and political systems. Although being entertained comes first, a close second is a substantial impetus to connect with the audience on an emotional level and to encourage them to think for themselves, and not blindly believe in the authoritarian dictates of governments and corporations.

The elements of “otherworldly” combined with universal themes of good versus evil, are not only often an intrinsic part of a horror film that would be considered cinematic, but they spring from the writing, not the production process.

In Wild Camping, the mystical mycelium imbued with the spirit of the central character’s deceased mother ultimately becomes a force for good as the supernatural world triumphs over corporate greed.

It is this connection with the audience on an emotional level that I believe is key to understanding the true meaning of “cinematic.” It is “heart” not “head.” It is why a cinematic film can influence our emotions and also, our view of the world, because it can circumvent our ingrained beliefs and dogma and get straight to our “gut feeling.” It is the trinity of these three elements that could be said to create a “cinematic feel” in the feature screenplay – Universal Themes plus Habitas of the chosen genre plus Gut Connection.

My own definition of “cinematic” is through the lens of the screenwriter, rather than from a dictionary or a film researcher:

Cinematic: where the narrative is interwoven with universal themes that engage a wide audience, connecting them both consciously and unconsciously to the outer world beyond the characters on the screen, whilst simultaneously, also connecting that same audience to their own inner worlds 

(Miller 2023)

Which is why I prefer the word “connection,” rather than “authentic” when describing the impact of cinematic film on an audience. And it is this “connection” that I will be attempting to recreate using immersive binaural sound in my audio adaptation of Wild Camping.

PEER REVIEW 1

Which aspects of the submission are of interest/relevance and why?  

The definition of “cinematic” in regards to the screenplay, how the “cinematic” is inherent within the text form, not only through visual writing of the action but through the combination of the three interconnected elements presents an interesting and important addition to screenwriting scholarship. This could be a fruitful area for further exploration. The affective aesthetic, demonstrated by screenplays is a fascinating area to explore and fits within the trend in screenwriting studies in envisioning the ability of the screenplay to move its readers in ways similar to how the audience will react to the produced film. The literary techniques used in creating this affective response through combination of theme, genre, action and dialogue to generate a sensory experience that is perceived as “cinematic” has the potential to bring something new to the field of screenwriting studies.

Does the submission live up to its potential?

There are aspects of the screenplay, Wild Camping (Miller 2021), that speak effectively to the research question of what makes a screenplay cinematic. This is particularly evident in the opening sections of the screenplay and the interactions of Alice, the protagonist and her girlfriend Sophie, and sections across the screenplay where the mycelium is exposed through the infrared camera. In these sections, there is a combination of universal themes, genre expectations and gut connection which starts to get to the core of what makes something cinematic.

However, there are other aspects of the screenplay which do not meet the potential of the research question. While the overall themes of family, whether blood related or chosen, acceptance and mortality are present within the screenplay their execution is heavy handed. There are many tropes, both expected and subverted, for this type of horror story, although there are so many different and competing ideas that things become overwhelming and the story logic doesn’t always hold true. Due to this, the pursuit of “cinematic” is hindered, although with further drafts this piece has the potential to fully display the three interconnected aspects that the writer posits as the heart of what makes a screenplay “cinematic.”

How does the submission expose practice as research?

The submission exposes practice as research through the application of a clear research question, “what makes a screenplay cinematic?’” with a methodology and approach for its definition through the establishment of three clear interconnected elements, universal theme, genre convention and gut connection. It would have enhanced the statement, and overall argument, if these were tied more robustly to moments within the screenplay or if they were more evident for the reader throughout the whole screenplay, rather than in certain moments. Unless the argument is that a “cinematic” screenplay has moments where these three elements coalesce in harmony, but every scene does not need to demonstrate this harmony as it would overwhelm the reader/viewer.

There is evidence of innovation, and the potential for new knowledge, the writer’s developing definition of what might make a screenplay cinematic, although this does need further critical underpinning, situating this more robustly within existing theoretical frameworks perhaps also drawing from work around writing prose, which readers might also refer to as “cinematic.” 

PEER REVIEW 2

The author states that her focus was on making the work/the screenplay a vehicle for an enquiry rather than simply the production of an artwork. The main objective being to investigate what makes a screenplay cinematic, and one of the main points to state and justify this is that the opening sequence of the film is constructed by scenes with little or no dialogue.

Whilst the statement about the opening is correct, the rest of the screenplay relies mostly on dialogue to convey and communicate conflict and move the action forward. The structure of the screenplay is not necessarily conducive to the step-by-step construction of subtext. The characters express their feelings and state their purposes in a direct way. The genre is not necessarily that of pure horror, but more of campy horror. As the reading of a screenplay is also a visioning or envisioning, we as readers construct the images as indicated by the text – Shaun of the Dead (2004) written by Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright, and directed by Wright, came to mind as a reference in terms of style, visuals and mix of humour and horror. The inner conflict of the protagonist shifts and moves as she is distraught trying to find proper employment as an academic, but is faced with the discovery that the research she is connected to is actually totally immoral and can lead to the utter destruction of humankind. The basic situation reflects a view of the recent world as overtaken by pharmaceutical corporations, an immoral and even diabolical contamination of the whole of academia and even science. But as the author states, in the end, the backstory of the mother, a force for good, moves in and the supernatural world triumphs over corporate greed. So again, the classical paradigm is renewed, and even though the criticism regarding corporate greed has permeated the entire story, the characters fail to engage, or make us care about their efforts and their journeys. Wild Camping (Miller 2021) works within the confines of classical narrative continuity (Bordwell 1985), and the restorative nature of the story reinforces the paradigm of a logical, close-ended structure.

In the end of the statement, the author uses the word “connection” as her vision of what cinematic means. Such connection would be achieved by use of binaural sound in an audio adaptation of Wild Camping. If achieving “cinematic” is the goal, why restrict the transposition of the screenplay to a sound only experience? It seems that such an experiment would demand a different approach to writing, one specific to that medium. A new transposition would have to be created, one where Wild Camping, the screenplay, would be the source material for another play, one relying on sound only.

Which aspects of the submission are of interest/relevance and why?

The subject matter reflects contemporary angst especially after the COVID-19 pandemic. Big Pharma has been exposed and different points of view have populated the internet, the media, and most of all, the question of the side effects of vaccines and modern pharmaceutical drugs is ever present. The screenplay does not innovate in terms of structure, form or language. It is done in the classical continuity paradigm.

Does the submission live up to its potential?

There is potential, but the characters are somewhat schematic, they don’t bring about an appreciation or depth and emotional involvement. We are thrown off by the constant shifting of the main character, and the one-dimensional design of them all.

How does the submission expose practice as research?

Is there evidence of a particular question, issue or problem that is explored? 

The question is that of the relevance of social issues. 

Is there evidence of innovation (in form or content for example)? 

No.

Is the work contextualised within specific social/artistic theoretical fields? 

Somewhat.

Is there evidence of new knowledge, interpretation, insights or experiences? 

No.

PEER REVIEW 3

The screenplay is the outcome of a practice-based enquiry into the process of writing a cinematic screenplay. The screenplay itself explores themes of Big Pharma, petrochemical industries and products, and social control. The choice of the Cornish woods in autumn as the location promises a cinematic aesthetic. The screenplay itself is written in a conventional way. The story arc drives the actions and reactions of the characters. The two main characters are lovers and hold different positions about what to do about climate change and what constitutes ethical consumption, much of the dialogue exposes these differences. The story arc itself follows a classic horror genre story.

Which aspects of the submission are of interest/relevance and why?

The screenplay engages with contemporary post-COVID issues and conspiracy theories about Big Pharma, the side effects and long term safety of drugs as well as the origins of pandemics. It has strong resonances with the recent series The Last of Us (Mazin and Druckmann 2023) which in turn is based on a popular computer role playing game. However, the screenplay is written in a conventional way and is set in a closed world.

Does the submission live up to its potential?

The statement suggests that the author is reflecting on what makes Wild Camping (Miller 2023) a cinematic screenplay. The creative statement provides a good discussion of the term “cinematic.” She elaborates her position by saying that cinematic elements come into being through the process of writing the screenplay itself.  She points to the dialogue between the two lovers – Alice and Sophie as evidence. The dialogue moves much of the action as well as the themes, but the film remains within the bounds of a science fiction horror. There is not much new here. There is potential but the issues-based approach overshadows the development of the central characters and their emotional arcs through their responses to events.

How does the submission expose practice as research?

The submission does not really engage with screenwriting practice itself as research. Insights and considerations about dialogue and scene and action description are largely absent from the creative work statement and there is little evidence of innovation in the screenplay itself as it follows a well-worn story trajectory concerning discourses surrounding corporate greed in the form of Big Pharma and a child following in the footsteps of a doomed parent. Both form and content are conventional.

The dialogue between the two central characters explicitly discusses the tensions between scientific research and big business. The characters themselves are familiar stock characters, however there is a clear attempt to include LGBTQI discourses. There is a missed opportunity here to draw on Queer Theory to contextualize the creative work. 

I would have liked to see more discussion of process in the creative research statement. 

RESPONSE TO PEER REVIEWS

The feedback was incredibly valuable and I made good use of suggestions to check out “Plant Horror,” to strengthen my “exploration of cinematic in terms of its ties to genre.” I also clarified the purpose of the examination of the screenplay, to define “what is cinematic writing?,” creating a more “robust definition up front of ‘cinematic writing” and how this is observed in the screenplay.”

I have been more rigorous with my “analytical argument,” and included further research, exploring the “ideas around ‘cinematic’ from other areas of film production…which defines the nature of screenplay, beyond the formatting, as a distinctive writing form” by going deeper into comparing cinematic screen work with theatre and novels. 

I have also clarified and expanded the exploration of the three key elements – Universal themes plus Habitas of the genre plus Connection through containment – that I propose clarifies “what is cinematic writing” in the feature screenplay, so it can then be adapted into an immersive audio drama as sonic-cinema. I have given more specific examples, so these concepts are “tied more robustly to moments within the screenplay.”  I was confused about the suggestion that “There is a missed opportunity here to draw on Queer Theory to contextualize the creative work” and that is something I will need to look into further. Two of the main female characters being lovers is simply a reflection of a character caught between different worlds – half South Asian, bisexual, caught between the worlds of science and nature, and there is no theoretical concept intended to be behind that character’s situation.

The screenplay had already undergone extensive work and I believe the comments about the screenplay benefiting from a “tightening of the story logic” have been addressed, and I also elevated the central mother/daughter theme. There seemed to be some confusion over the purpose of the screenplay which I hope I have now clarified in the new research statement.

Although it does have original aspects as a contemporary “eco-horror” and the use of mycelium and deaf characters, my script is specifically written to “not innovate in terms of structure, form or language. It is done in the classical continuity paradigm.” The screenplay’s only job is to be used as a definable example of cinematic writing and the basis for a later adaptation to immersive audio, though it did reach the Semi-finals of Stowe Story Labs Studio Skyfire Fellowship and Buffalo 8 liked the script enough to want to come on board as executive producers.

REVISED RESEARCH STATEMENT

Defining “cinematic screenwriting”

In this retrospective analysis of my feature screenplay, Wild Camping (Miller 2023), I reflect on what makes writing “cinematic.” The importance of defining those cinematic elements is imperative due to my intention to reimagine this screenplay as a “sonic cinematic” binaural audio series. By answering the question: “What is cinematic writing?,” only then can the screenplay be adapted and defined as “sonic-cinema.”

Merriam Webster dictionary defines “cinematic” as an adjective: “of, relating to, suggestive of, or suitable for motion pictures or the filming of motion pictures” (n.d.). Bellardi notes that “features of cinematic writing include: present-tense narration, the montage in general, a ‘certain’ visual quality of the texts, the camera-eye narratorial situation, a ‘dry’ dialogue, and the use of specific cinematic techniques” (2018, 25).

I contend that the “cinematic” element of a screen work begins way before the “specific cinematic techniques,” with three key elements that are more useful than Bellardi’s vague list of features. A trinity of modes – Universal themes plus Habitus of the genre plus Connection through containment - which clarify “what is cinematic writing” in the feature screenplay.

Universal themes

“The primary purpose of a theme is to shed or add new light to the common experience of humankind” (Brady 1994, 20),” as the writer “guides the audience through an emotional journey, where action is used to orchestrate feeling” (Batty 2015, 117).

The “emotional journey” in Wild Camping is essentially a mother/daughter central narrative, a thematic foundation where our heroine deals with abandonment through suicide; feeling betrayed by her mother’s work being used for harm; having to accept that parents and science can let you down. It is from this central mother/daughter theme that the plot-line is derived.

Themes are universal. They go beyond plot and characterisations, often portrayed through “Show not Tell” (Martin 2014; Noble 1991), in ways that “may be generative of thought, activating what a Deleuzian might call a “cinematic thought machine” (Huygens 2007 quoted in Frankham 2018, 178). Apart from visual moments that progress the plot: the rabbit in the blender (Miller 2021, 30); when John drinks his aftershave (Miller 2021, 44), it is the moments where the visual images express a universal theme, that a sense of a film as “cinematic” is enhanced.

The use of infrared as a creepy way to build on the narrative of the mycelium imbued with the spirit of the protagonist’s dead mother, is a clear cinematic device which also furthers the mother/daughter theme. This would be difficult to replicate with the same impact in a theatre or a novel, as the screenplay writer leverages “Cinema’s affective aesthetic, that is, its capacity to transmit feeling across, between and within bodies in a Deleuzian ‘assemblage’” (Deleuze and Guattari 1988 quoted in Middleweek and Tulloch 2018, 242).

Relationships are established using visual cues which underpin the themes of family disharmony with John and Alice obstinately folding their arms (Miller 2021, 5-6); the fragility of the main protagonist’s relationship with her new girlfriend visible when Alice thoughtlessly makes it hard for Sophie to lip-read (8), and falls asleep during sex (16).

Dialogue also has a role to play in expressing theme. Subtext allows “the reader to experience the scene actively rather than passively” and it makes characters more authentic and complex as it is their “underlying fear that leads them to speak indirectly through subtext” (Iglesias 2005, 212).

In the early conversations between the two lovers in Wild Camping, the subtext both indicates the fragility of their relationship, and also reflects the dysfunctional relationship between man and nature. Alice tells Sophie to buy apples from Waitrose instead of picking them herself (Miller 2021, 6). “Dramatic dialogue is, ... in a constant state of responsiveness” where “The ‘action’ – emotional, psychological – is what happens ‘between’ speeches…,” and also, through telling lies (Wandor 2008, 134).

Subtext underpins John’s lie to stop Alice thinking badly of Aishia (Miller 2021, 5); and Alice pretends not to understand Sophie when asked if John knows about their relationship (7).

The theme of trust/honesty is embodied through dialogue where the immoral Petrochemic Exec rants: “Honesty matters man. Honesty matters” (35) and Sophie tells Alice that “Just because science is your God, doesn’t mean you should trust all his foot soldiers” (73).

Not only does the screenwriter develop and express their work using themes, which can impact the “cinematic” feel of the writing, but the genre in which the screenplay is situated can also significantly enhance the cinematic impact.

Habitus of the genre

The story arc of Wild Camping follows a classic horror genre narrative, and the setting of Cornish woods in autumn promises a cinematic aesthetic. There is also a trope of old fashioned morality in horror films, where “Horror films also invariably present a Manichean view of the world, where good battles evil” (Martin 2019, 4).

The familiarity of the genre can shortcut the audience into a place of emotional. compliance as they voluntarily enter the world of the unknown, which enhances the cinematic experience. Conventions and horror tropes are exploited as part of the genre. The shock of Alice seeing someone behind her in the mirror (Miller 2021, 67); the crashing of the canoe through John’s car window (13); the ugly clown doll.

Some tropes are so familiar they can be satirised: making fun of the use of animals for “jump scares” (Miller 2021, 15 and 62), Aishia telling the tale of her husband’s death (66) which is a nudge at the classic USS Indianapolis Monologue in Jaws (Spielberg 1975; McLachlan 2023).

The mycelium inhabits the sub-genre or mode of “Plant Horror,” where “There is no gore, yet we are horrified,” and the plants behaviour “turns counter to the established order of nature which human beings have concocted” (Keetley 2017, 251). But unlike the “Plant Horror” of The Day of the Triffids (Wyndham 1951) even though both stories involve “challenging of identity, custom, and established order” (Keetley 2017, 251), the mycelium in Wild Camping is revealed to be a benevolent force.

Inviting a deeper reflection on our society and political systems, and our addictive relationship to oil, is congruent with the horror genre being “no less able to address social issues and other elements of the lived world” (Frankham 2018, 186), and creates a contemporary edginess to the universal and cinematic themes of the screenplay.

Connection through containment

The confined and controlled nature of the way cinema is consumed has an important part to play in augmenting the emotional connection with the audience, and directly impacts the pacing and rhythm of the writing.

For example, the slow and mysterious opening sequence establishing the woodland mycelium in the feature Wild Camping is “cinematic” in its luxury of having a level of attention from an audience not assumed for a television audience. The gradual building of tension and a sense that something bad is afoot, is reflective of the idea of “Connection through containment” because it would be written very differently if the story was in a fast-paced web series to be watched on a phone on the bus to work. “Connection through containment” is also created through the sparsity of cinematic writing compared to a novel, because it engages the viewer “as co-conspirator,” treating them “as an intelligent and willing participant on whom demands of attention could be placed” (Frankham 2018, 180).

By being emotionally engaged to themes, expectations of the genre and contained and focused on the physical experience of viewing, we are emotionally triggered in ways that “largely eludes our conscious direction and control by the fact that all of the same effects occur (and with no less intensity) even when we are completely aware that the stories being told are pure fiction” (Rosa 2019, 157).

Cinematic Screenwriting

Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger’s 1948 The Red Shoes “contains a breathtaking ballet sequence” that “morphs from a front-on view of a proscenium arch stage to dazzling cinematic montage” and “reveals a profound understanding of the natures of theatre and film. Here, the representation of a theatre event is transformed into the artifact that constitutes a movie” (Markham 2023).

However, I argue that lighting and camera angles do not account for the full cinematic affect achieved. It is instead derived at the writing stage, through a trinity of the modes that combine to make the film cinematic in ways that theatre, novels and conventional radio fail to match.

The power of film fully exploited in The Red Shoes that moves from theatrical performance to “dazzling cinematic montage,” illustrates the fusion of Universal Themes of Love versus Art plus Habitus of the genre “Horror Ballet” (Sengupta and Chowdhury 2024, 86-87) and Connection through containment, where the cinema audience becomes immersed “through an emotional journey, where action is used to orchestrate feeling” (Batty 2015, 117).

With the harmony of Universal themes plus Habitus of the genre plus Connection through containment now defined within my screenplay, I can now consciously use those cinematic writing modes to adapt “Wild Camping: The Feature Screenplay,” into “Wild Camping: Sonic-Cinema”.

REFERENCES

Batty, Craig. 2015. “A Screenwriter's Journey into Theme, and How Creative Writing Research Might Help Us to Define Screen Production Research.” Studies in Australasian Cinema 9, no. 2: 110–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/17503175.2015.1059991.

Bell, Desmond. 2018. “The Primacy of Practice: Establishing the Terms of Reference of Creative Arts and Media Research.” In Screen Production Research, edited by Craig Batty and Susan Kerrigan, 47-66. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62837-0_4 47. 

Bellardi, Marco. 2018. “The Cinematic Mode in Fiction.” Frontiers of Narrative Studies 4, no. s1: s24–s47. https://doi.org/10.1515/fns-2018-0031.

Brady, Ben. 1994. Principles of Adaptation for Film and Television. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Deleuze, Gilles, and Félix Guattari. 1996. What Is Philosophy?. Columbia University Press.

Frankham, Bettina. 2018. “Fragments, Form and Photogénie: Using Practice to Research the Intersectional Work of Poetic Documentary.” In Screen Production Research, edited by Craig Batty and Susan Kerrigan, 177-194. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62837-0_11.

Greenhalgh, Cathy. 2018. “Cinematography: Practice as Research, Research into Practice.” In Screen Production Research, edited by Craig Batty and Susan Kerrigan, 143-159. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62837-0_9.

Huygens, Ils. 2007. “Deleuze and Cinema: Moving Images and Movements of Thought.” Image [&] Narrative, no. 18. http://www.imageandnarrative.be/thinking_pictures/huygens.html

Iglesisas, Karl. 2005. Writing for Emotional Impact. Livermore, CA: WingSpan Press.

Keetley, Dawn. 2017. Plant Horror: Approaches to the Monstrous Vegetal in Fiction and Film. Palgrave Macmillan. http://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57063-5.

MacDonald, Matthew A. 2022. “Four Unexpected Examples of What Makes a Movie ‘Cinematic’.” Medium (blog). December 27, 2022. https://medium.com/@matthew_macdonald/four-unexpected-examples-of-what-makes-a-movie-cinematic-cbd603c4dcf0.

Markham, Peter. 2023. “Filmed Theatre or Cinema?” Medium (blog). September 3, 2023. https://pmarkhamca.medium.com/filmed-theatre-or-cinema-3ca1959ed93b.

Martin, G. Neil. 2019. “(Why) Do You Like Scary Movies? A Review of the Empirical Research on Psychological Responses to Horror Films.” Frontiers in Psychology 10 (October). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02298.

Martin, Jane. 2014. “‘Show Don’t Tell’: Teaching the Elements of Film Production.” In Buffy in the Classroom: Essays on Teaching with the Vampire Slayer, edited by Jodie A Kreider and Meghan K Winchell, 126-135. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.

McLachlan, Ryan. 2023. “The True Story Behind Quint’s Indianapolis Monologue in ‘Jaws’.” War History Online. August 31, 2023. https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-ii/jaws-monologue.html.

Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary. n.d. “Cinematic.” Merriam Webster. Accessed October 12, 2024. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cinematic.

Middleweek, Belinda and Tulloch, John. 2018. “Afterword: Tacit Knowledge and Affect—Soft Ethnography and Shared Domains.” In Screen Production Research, edited by Craig Batty and Susan Kerrigan, 233-248. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62837-0_14.

Nemesszeghy, Robin. 2022. “Four Ways Adam Arkapaw Showcases His Cinematographic Genius.” Medium (blog). June 24, 2022. https://robinnemesszeghy.medium.com/four-ways-adam-arkapaw-showcases-his-cinematographic-genius-90247477fce5.

Prajapati, Rajiv. 2022. “Inglourious Basterds: What Makes the Opening Scene So Intense?” MovieWeb. September 24, 2022. https://movieweb.com/inglourious-basterds-opening-scene-hans-landa/.

Noble, William. 1991. Show Don’t Tell: A Writer’s Guide. Sanger, CA: The Write Thought.

Rosa, Hartmut. 2019. Resonance : A Sociology of Our Relationship to the World. Translated by James C. Wagner. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Sengupta, Sarada, and Anindita Chowdhury. 2024. “Distorted Reflections: Gender and Horror in ‘Black Swan’.” International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences 9, no. 2: 085–088. https://doi.org/10.22161/ijels.92.14.

Spielberg, Steven, dir. 1975. Jaws. Zanuck/Brown Productions, Universal Pictures.

Wandor, Michelene. 2008. The Art of Writing Drama: Theory and Practice. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Wright, Edgar, dir. 2004. Shaun of the Dead. Universal Pictures, StudioCanal, Working Title Films.

Wyndham, John. 1951. The Day of the Triffids. London: Penguin.