Book Reviews 217

on Gadamer but going a bit further than him, wants is. Is the screenplay a blueprint akin to a musical
to argue that “gesture” fundamentally structures the score or an architectural plan, merely a constituent
authentic opening of our ethical being-in-the-world. of the creative development of an artwork, or ought
And as visual artworks stand as the visible trace of we to regard screenplays as autonomous works
“gesture,” their experience ought to engage us in di- of art in a unique aesthetic category, as we regard
rection of a better understanding of our ethos and its theatrical scripts? According to Nannicelli, this foun-
true demands. This last line of thought, however, is dational question and the related puzzles exposed
offered only as a “promise.” That is, Schmidt is found by any answer to this question have been largely
to say that the artistic image could help us in that di- disregarded by contemporary film theorists and,
rection once philosophy has properly reflected on the perhaps surprisingly, philosophers of aesthetics. In
true significance of the image, but Between Word and film studies, the recent publications of Steven Maras’
Image is only meant to indicate the intellectual space Screenwriting: History, Theory, and Practice
where that reflection should begin. (Wallflower Press, 2009) and Stephen Price’s The
The analytic reader ill disposed toward Continen- Screenplay: Authorship, Theory, and Criticism
tal philosophy will likely not find much in this book (Palgrave-Macmillan, 2011) have begun to once
to change her view of that field. That being said, the again bring ontological issues that pertain to the
first half of Between Word and Image stands as a fairly screenplay to the fore, because these works focus on
comprehensive and accessible overview of Continen- the screenplay as a product in itself as opposed to
tal philosophies of art and may thus aptly serve as an the film a screenplay produces. Nannicelli sees his
introduction to some of its central themes and prob- book as a contribution to this dialogue. The title of
lems. On the other hand, Schmidt will likely prove Nannicelli’s book is misleading, as he does not offer
most interesting to the continental reader in his anal- a full-blown philosophy of the screenplay (a fact he
ysis of Heidegger’s reaction to Klee’s paintings and readily admits). Instead, he focuses his attention on
his propositions on furthering Gadamer’s hermeneu- two foundational ontological and epistemological
tic of the image. On this subject, however, I must questions: what exactly is a screenplay, and what sort
repeat my worry that Schmidt works at too great a of thing is a screenplay?
distance from the images that “spoke” to Heidegger. Nannicelli defends an “intentional-historical for-
While the book contains twenty-one figures, eleven malist” definition of the term screenplay. He ably—
of which present paintings by Klee, the references to and rightly, I think—rejects functionalist, essentialist
these images are sparse and often laconic. For exam- definitions of the term, as they do not adequately
ple, while Schmidt tells us there is reason to believe account for all the features that screenplays seem
that Heidegger was “deeply affected” (p. 96) by three to possess. Instead, Nannicelli claims that an object
particular paintings by Klee, his comments touching counts as a screenplay if it “repeats, modifies, or re-
on these images hold in the space of a rather modest pudiates” the ways in which plot, characters, scenes,
paragraph. Meanwhile, his interpretation of Klee’s effects, and so forth have historically been suggested
words is extensive and absolutely central to his argu- by the existing practice of screenwriting. Such a def-
ment. As a result, what was meant as a hermeneutic inition bears a deliberate resemblance to historical
of the image rather often takes the appearance of an approaches of identifying art proposed by Noël Car-
intelligent and promising dialogue with the philoso- roll and Jerrold Levinson. Nannicelli affirms Levin-
phies of Heidegger and Gadamer. son’s claim that most definitional categories we use
to identify things in the world are historical; therefore
a definition of the screenplay must make reference
OLIVIER MATHIEU to the historical practices from which the screenplay
Department of Philosophy arises. If one takes this approach seriously, she is able
McGill University to characterize an object that appeared sixty years
ago as a screenplay though its form, style, and content
differ significantly from a contemporary screenplay,
nannicelli, ted. A Philosophy of the Screenplay. because the definition of the category is closely tied
New York: Routledge, 2013, xiii + 270 pp., $125.00 to the sociohistorical moment in which that category
cloth. appears.
There is, on Nannicelli’s account, an intentional
In the introduction to A Philosophy of the Screen- component to the construction of a screenplay. He
play, Ted Nannicelli recalls that in the “classical” contends that in order for an object to be properly re-
era of film theory, important philosophical concerns ferred to as screenplay, the author of that object must
were raised about the nature of writing for film. Osip be deliberately attempting to participate in, modify,
Brik, Hugo Müsterberg, and other early film theo- or subvert the sociohistorical practice of screenwrit-
rists puzzled about what sort of thing the film script ing. Here, Nannicelli follows Annie L. Thomasson’s
218 The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism

work on artifact concepts to make this claim, arguing serts that in order to appreciate a script for a film, an
that “those speakers who ground the reference of an important component of that appreciation is what
artifact kind term actually establish what sort of fea- he terms “mental imaging,” using the mind’s eye
tures are relative to unifying that kind” (p. 43). This to construct the scenes through imagination. Per-
approach is particularly interesting because of its im- haps one might evaluate the quality of a screenplay
plications not only about defining the screenplay, but based upon its capacity to elicit clear mental im-
other sorts of artifacts as well; if Nannicelli’s char- ages from the reader regardless of how such images
acterization of how artifact kinds are identified and are ultimately displayed (if they are displayed) on a
defined is successful, this means that practitioners of screen.
each respective artifact-producing cultural practice Perhaps A Philosophy of the Screenplay’s greatest
(not philosophers or theorists!) define what counts strength is its careful use of analytic philosophy to an-
as the product of that form. alyze concepts and refine its argument. This feature
Assuming that Nannicelli’s conception of what may be off-putting to readers unfamiliar with ana-
counts as a screenplay best characterizes what sorts lytic methods or unsympathetic to the often pedantic
of object ought to be referred to as such, can one con- nature of the discipline, but for those who find value
clude that the screenplay, on its own, counts as a work in such an approach, this book is quite impressive.
of art? It is this question that Nannicelli addresses in Though Nannicelli claims in the introduction to the
the second half of the book. To answer this question, book that he is not a philosopher, his careful method
Nannicelli argues that screenwriting is an “art prac- and modest but defensible arguments suggest oth-
tice,” again drawing from Carroll’s understanding of erwise. Nannicelli carefully surveys and responds to
art as emerging from a narrative of cultural practice. objections to each position he asserts, and this rigor
According to Carroll, if one can tie a particular arti- ultimately provides a very compelling case for the
fact as a product of a cultural practice that has been screenplay as a potential work of literature for aes-
regarded as art, it is fair to identify that artifact as a thetic evaluation.
work of art. If one can establish that screenplays are
products of a cultural practice regarded as art, then JEREMY KILLIAN
it is fair to regard a screenplay as a work of art, apart Department of Humanities
from its instantiation within a film. University of Louisville
In Chapter 4 of the book, Nannicelli presents such
a historical account of the screenplay as emerging
from the preexisting art practice of playwriting in the mag uidhir, christy, ed. Art and Abstract Objects.
United States during the late nineteenth and early Oxford University Press, viii + 310 pp., $75.00
twentieth centuries. He describes, in some detail, how cloth.
prescriptions and theories applied to early screenplay
writing arose from the conventions of playwriting, Guy Rohrbaugh, in his contribution to this volume,
and he uses historical evidence such as “scenario” writes that we are living through “a golden age for
writing guides produced by the early film industry the ontology of art” (p. 30). Rohrbaugh is certainly
to validate his claims. He shows that even in the era right, and this volume is a testament to the high
of the kinetoscope, actors and playwrights conceived quality of philosophical work being done in ontol-
of staging theatrical events for film and wrote brief ogy of art. (This epoch has come upon us suddenly.
scripts accordingly. Given the veracity of the histori- As recently as 2001, the first edition of The Routledge
cal narrative Nannicelli constructs, it is certainly rea- Companion to Aesthetics did not have a chapter on
sonable to conclude that screenwriting emerges from ontology of art. The most recent edition does.) The
the art practice of playwriting. This chapter not only volume is noteworthy for other reasons. Mag Uidhir
makes a compelling historical argument, but it also has recruited a number of philosophers who are not
provides an excellent model for how one might estab- primarily known for their work in philosophy of art.
lish the art status of an artifact kind utilizing Carroll’s These new voices can only enrich the debate. As well,
narrative method. there is a dialogue among some of the papers, and
Nannicelli further argues that not only is a screen- this enhances the value of each paper participating
play a work of art but it might be additionally re- in the dialogue. Finally, several of the papers in this
garded as a work of literature. He surveys competing volume address meta-ontology of art. These meta-
definitions of literature and demonstrates, using di- ontological reflections are timely given the flourish-
verse examples from film history, that screenplays ing of ontology of art.
can meet the criteria that each of these definitions Mag Uidhir’s introduction identifies two attitudes
claims essential. In the final chapter of the book, toward the ontology of art on display in the litera-
Nannicelli discusses how one might appreciate and ture. According to the first, which he calls the Defer-
evaluate a screenplay as a work of literature. He as- ence View, ontology of art ought to defer to general