screenplay 2[1]

8/19/2019 Screenplay 2[1]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/screenplay-21 1/27

http://lal.sagepub.com

Language and Literature

DOI: 10.1177/09639470080959612008; 17; 309Language and Literature

Dan McIntyreRichard IIIperspective on Ian McKellen's

Integrating multimodal analysis and the stylistics of drama: a multimodal

http://lal.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/17/4/309 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Poetics and Linguistics Association

can be found at:Language and LiteratureAdditional services and information for

http://lal.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://lal.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://lal.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/17/4/309Citations

by Lipa Jasna on April 2, 2009http://lal.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://www.pala.ac.uk/

http://lal.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts


http://lal.sagepub.com/subscriptions



http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav


http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav


http://lal.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/17/4/309

http://lal.sagepub.com/




http://lal.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/17/4/309





http://www.pala.ac.uk/



INTEGRATING MULTIMODAL ANALYSIS AND THE STYLISTICS OF DRAMA 309

Language and Literature 2008 17(4)

Integrating multimodal analysis and the stylisticsof drama: a multimodal perspective on

Ian McKellen’s Richard III Dan McIntyre, University of Huddersfield, UK

Abstract

Traditionally, stylistic analyses of drama have tended to concentrate on the analysis ofdramatic texts rather than dramatic performances. This has been on the basis that no twoperformances of the same text are entirely alike, and that accurate critical discussionis therefore impossible unless we can be sure that everyone concerned has seen theparticular performance we are analysing (Short, 1981). Nonetheless, some performancesof plays incorporate production elements that seem to add substantially to the originalplay script, and which arguably guide our interpretation of the play. In such cases, astylistic analysis which ignores these production elements is arguably impoverished andincomplete. There appears, then, to be some tension between being methodologicallyrigorous and producing a complete stylistic analysis of a play which takes into accountproduction and performance elements. However, in the case of plays which havebeen filmed this methodological problem can be circumvented, since the film versionconstitutes a permanent record of a particular production of the play in question. In thisarticle I demonstrate the value of taking into account the multimodal aspects of dramaby analysing the soliloquy scene from Ian McKellen’s film version of Shakespeare’s

Richard III . I argue that in order to provide a multimodal analysis of the play thatmatches a traditional stylistic analysis in terms of level of detail, it is necessary to workfrom a transcript that incorporates linguistic, paralinguistic and non-linguistic elementsof the production. As a result of my analysis, I suggest that the multimodal elementsof the production contribute to our interpretation of the play as much as the linguisticelements of the dramatic text.

Keywords: dialogue; film; mise-en-scène; multimodality; performance; play;

production; Richard III; screenplay

1 Introduction

Over the past decade or so, advances within stylistics have extended the scope ofwhat stylistics as a discipline is able to achieve. For example, the relatively recentsurge of interest in cognitive stylistics has contributed much to our understandingof the cognitive processes involved in reading and meaning-making (see forexample, Werth, 1997; Stockwell, 2002; Gavins and Steen, 2003). Similarly,

advances in computational technology and software have enabled the corpusstylistic analysis of large quantities of text (in some cases, entire novels) in a waythat was not possible prior to the advent of corpus software (see, for example,Hardy, 2004; Semino and Short, 2004; Stubbs, 2005). One consequence of

Language and Literature Copyright © 2008 SAGE Publications(Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DC), Vol 17(4): 309–334DOI: 10.1177/0963947008095961 www.sagepublications.com

ARTICLE









310 DAN MCINTYRE


theoretical and technological developments of this kind is that it is now possiblefor stylistics to deal with a much greater variety of texts than has previouslybeen possible. Nevertheless, despite these advances, one area that stylistics has

only just begun to deal with in any real depth is multimodality. That stylisticsshould concern itself with multimodal texts is important, since, as Kress and vanLeeuwen note:

Whether in the print or electronic media, whether in newspapers, magazines,CD-ROMS or websites, whether as public relations materials, advertisementsor as informational materials of all kinds, most texts now involve a complexinterplay of images and other graphic or sound elements, designed as coherent(often at the first level visual rather than verbal) entities by means of layout.(Kress and van Leeuwen, 2006: 17)

As stylistics continues to develop as a discipline, it would seem natural that itshould encompass the kinds of non-traditional texts referred to by Kress and vanLeeuwen. In doing so, it is also the case that stylisticians should consequentlyfind themselves better able to describe and explain how particular textual effectsare realized, how readers’ interpretations are constructed and how these can besupported through analysis. Some stylisticians have already begun to engage withsuch issues, providing analyses of texts which incorporate significant multimodalelements (see, for example, Boeriis and Nørgaard, 2008). Nonetheless, thereremains a substantial amount of work to be done in this area.

One particular text-type that necessitates multimodal analysis is drama, sincethe multimodality of drama is one of its prototypical qualities. Despite this, thestylistic analysis of drama has tended to concentrate on the dramatic text ratherthan on specific performances of plays. It is worth briefly considering themethodological reasons for why this has been, since it is only by addressing theseissues that the multimodal analysis of drama becomes possible.

In the stylistic analysis of plays it is generally assumed that the focus ofanalysis should be the dramatic text rather than a performance of it. This position,of course, has not always been adopted by literary critics outside stylistics or by

critics within theatre studies (see, for example, the work of Styan, 1969;Wells, 1970 and Knapp, 2003). For stylisticians, the reason for concentratingon dramatic texts is that in prototypical drama the text is a more stable object ofanalysis than a performance. Short (1981) explains why this is:

Both meanings and values will change not just from one production to anotherbut also from one performance of a particular production to another. There thenbecomes no play to criticise […] critical discussion becomes impossible unlessthe two critics concerned have both seen and are arguing about exactly the

same performance. (Short, 1981: 181)Clearly this makes sense in relation to stage productions of plays, where there areusually a number of performances. But it remains the case that, with a few notableexceptions, most plays are written to be performed; and for those that are, to









ignore the performance element is to produce an impoverished stylistic analysis.The choice appears to be between being methodologically rigorous and producingan incomplete analysis, and avoiding methodological rigour and producing an

analysis which is fuller in the sense of considering performance and productionelements.Although it is not possible to circumvent such methodological issues for

all plays, a solution to this dilemma does present itself in the case of thoseplays which have been filmed. For such cases, the filmed version constitutesa permanent record of a particular production of the play in question, which,theoretically, all critics have access to. Analysing a filmed version of a playwould seem, therefore, one way to avoid the methodological issue that Short(1981) raises, thereby allowing for a stylistic analysis of the play that takes

account of multimodal elements of performance and production. In order todemonstrate the feasibility of such an approach, in this article I present ananalysis of the famous soliloquy scene (beginning ‘Now is the winter of ourdiscontent …’) from Ian McKellen’s 1995 film version of Shakespeare’s play, Richard III .1 I argue that the production and performance elements of the filmare as integral to this particular version of the play as the dialogue, and that toaccount for a reasonable interpretation of this version of the play, it is necessaryto consider the relationship between the linguistic and the non-linguistic elementsof the production, that which Elam (1980: 209) calls the ‘complex of reciprocal

constraints’ that exist between dramatic texts and performances. In so doing, I alsomake some suggestions as to a method for integrating linguistic and non-linguisticelements in the stylistic analysis of drama.

2 Approaching the multimodal analysis of drama on film

Although little research was carried out on the stylistics of drama before the 1980s(Culpeper et al., 1998: 3), the work that has been done since then has integratedresearch from several different areas to generate a number of stylistic frameworks

for the analysis of play texts. For example, tools for analysing dramatic dialogueinclude pragmatic models of implicature (Grice, 1975) and politeness (Brownand Levinson, 1987; Watts, 2003) as well as work from Conversation Analysison conversation structure (e.g. Sacks et al., 1974). Such approaches are amplydemonstrated by Burton (1980), Bennison (1993), Herman (1995), Culpeper(1998), Bousfield (2007) and Busse (2007), among others. Culpeper (2001)provides a stylistic framework for analysing dramatic character, and an approachto the more narratological aspects of drama can be found in McIntyre (2006).However, despite this growing body of work, stylistics is ill-equipped to deal with

the analysis of the multimodal aspects of drama. For this we must look elsewhereand the obvious starting point is Film Studies.

Of the considerable body of work from Film Studies, the most obviouslyappropriate for our purposes is that which has taken the insights of Russian







312 DAN MCINTYRE


Formalism as its starting point, since it was from these beginnings that stylisticsitself developed. Unsurprisingly, in terms of analytical purpose, such work showsa clear connection with stylistics and it would therefore seem apposite to try to use

the techniques developed in this area to assist in the multimodal stylistic analysisof drama. Especially influential has been the work of David Bordwell (see, forexample, Bordwell, 1986, 1989 and Bordwell and Thompson 2001), which Idiscuss in the following. Before I do so, however, it is worth briefly consideringhow a multimodal stylistic analysis differs from the kind of analysis practisedwithin Film Studies. It is important to make this clear, since there is little point instylistics trying to re-invent what Film Studies has already achieved.

To begin with, the general concerns of stylistics mean that a multimodalstylistic analysis will inevitably consider the linguistic elements of drama, such asdialogue and stage/screen directions. These are aspects of film that Film Studieshas barely engaged with. For instance, neither Bordwell and Thompson’s book,Film Art (2001), nor Monaco’s otherwise exhaustive How to Read a Film (2000)make any mention of character dialogue and its importance in film analysis.This is somewhat strange, especially considering Film Studies’ willingness toengage with the stylistic approach more generally (through the application offoregrounding theory, for example). Providing a linguistic analysis of the dramatictext, then, is the most obvious way in which a multimodal stylistic analysis of filmdrama will differ from a typical Film Studies analysis. Related to this, my aim inthe analysis in section 3 is to examine the interrelationship between the linguistic

and non-linguistic elements of the play, something which Film Studies does notconsider, precisely because of its lack of engagement with dialogue and stage/ screen directions. A final major difference between the approach taken by filmcritics and the analysis I present here concerns analytical methodology.Most analyses undertaken by film critics are macro-level analyses of issuespertaining to the film as a whole (e.g. narrative structure, the representation ofparticular ideologies) or are micro-analyses of specific frames of film. Whilethe best of these contain considerable insight (see, for example, Bordwell’s[1986: 84–8] analysis of the plate-smashing scene in Battleship Potemkin), the

methodological approach differs from that common within linguistics in terms ofits treatment of the data. The kind of macro-analyses practised by film critics relyto a large extent on the critic’s memory of the film he/she has watched, combinedwith the extensive notes he/she is likely to have taken through repeated viewingsof the film. While this may be adequate for the purposes of film criticism, asociolinguist undertaking an analysis of a conversation (the data equivalent of afilm to a film critic) would find such an approach inadequate for dealing with theamount of detail found in a typical dialogue. It is for this reason that sociolinguistsand conversation analysts work from detailed transcripts, since these allow them

to examine not just what was said but also how it was said, at what point into theconversation, and what else was occurring at this point. Even the most detailedmicro-analysis of specific frames of a film cannot account in the same level ofdetail for additional elements of the scene in question (music, dialogue, editing,









for instance) without a full transcript of the scene under analysis. For this reason,I find it necessary in my analysis of Richard III to work from a transcript ofthe particular scene I analyse (see Appendix 1), and it is in this respect too that

a multimodal stylistic analysis of drama differs from a Film Studies analysis.(I should make it clear that this difference in methodological approach is notintended as an attack on the practices of film critics, since it is clear that FilmStudies and Stylistics have slightly different agendas and will therefore necessitatedifferent approaches.) With all this said, we can now move on to examine whatFilm Studies has to offer to the multimodal stylistic analysis of drama.

2.1 Mise-en-scène

It goes without saying that within the confines of one journal article it isimpossible to do justice to the amount of scholarship on Film Studies which mightpotentially be valuable to the stylistician of drama. Since my analysis is of oneshort scene of Richard III as opposed to the whole film version of the play,I will restrict my discussion to elements of mise-en-scène (i.e. non-linguisticelements) which seem particularly pertinent to the extract I analyse (rather than,say, examining such larger issues as the narrative structure of film).

Mise-en-scène translates as ‘putting into the scene’ and refers to ‘those aspectsof the film that overlap with the art of the theater: setting, lighting, costumeand the behaviour of the figures’ (Bordwell and Thompson, 2001: 156). In this

respect, an analysis of mise-en-scène in McKellen’s Richard III is particularlypertinent, considering its origins as a stage play.2 Monaco (2000: 179) explainsthat the ‘codes of mise-en-scène are the tools with which the filmmaker alters andmodifies our reading of the shot’ and Bordwell and Thompson suggest that thereare four general aspects of mise-en-scène: (i) setting, (ii) costume and make-up,(iii) lighting, and (iv) staging (incorporating movement and acting).

Setting is not just a backdrop to narrative action but can affect the way weinterpret particular scenes. Bruce Robinson’s Withnail and I (1986) tells the storyof two out-of-work actors who go on holiday to the Lake District as an escape

from the dull monotony of their life in London. The settings for the Londonscenes are mostly interiors: a run-down pub, a down-at-heel cafe, Withnail andMarwood’s squalid flat. These contrast sharply with the outdoor settings in theLake District, where the sweeping panoramas appear to emphasize the distinctionbetween the drudgery of London and the freedom of the countryside. In The

Wizard of Oz (1939) setting is important in distinguishing between the real worldand the fantasy world of Oz. When the cyclone finally sets Dorothy’s house down,through the half-open door we get our first glimpse of the land of Oz and this ismade particularly salient by the fact that it is in Technicolor compared to the sepia

of Dorothy and the interior of the house. This has the effect of foregrounding Ozand reinforcing the contrast between the vitality and exuberance of that world andthe drabness of Dorothy’s reality. There is, then, a particular information valueand salience associated with the settings in Oz.








314 DAN MCINTYRE


Costume, too, can fulfil a variety of functions and have an effect on how weinterpret particular scenes. In Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) thecharacter of Charlie is dressed in slightly old-fashioned and threadbare clothes

(a home-knitted jumper, a clashing shirt), emphasizing his distinction from theother children touring the factory, who are dressed in bright, new and fashionableclothes. That the other children are spoiled perhaps also suggests an associationbetween consumerism and bad behaviour, in which case their costumes mightbe seen to further emphasize these negative traits. In Monty Python’s Life of

Brian (1979) the authentic-looking costumes of the characters add to the realisticBiblical setting, and these two elements together contrast with the anachronisticlanguage and behaviour of the characters, thereby creating the incongruitynecessary for humour. And in Fukasaku Kinji’s Battle Royale (2001) an elementof costume becomes intrinsic to the plot of the film. The schoolchildren forced tofight to the death on a deserted island are all fitted with metal collars containing anelectronic sensor. The collars are designed to explode if the wearers stay too longin a particular area. This element of costume therefore contributes to the narrativedrive as the children are forced to move in response to their collars.

Lighting is important for a number of reasons. As Bordwell and Thompson(2001: 164) point out, the way in which a scene is lit can determine what elementsof that scene the viewer focuses on. Furthermore, the quality, direction, sourceand colour of the lighting can serve to create a particular mood (Bordwell andThompson, 2001: 169). Ridley Scott’s Bladerunner (1982) makes substantial use

of such techniques as sidelighting and backlighting to create a dark and sombremood to the film.

The final aspect of mise-en-scène that Bordwell and Thompson (2001) consideris staging, which refers not just to the techniques of the actors but also to themovement of figures within a scene. The term figure refers not just to people butto animals and objects too. In this respect, the notion of a figure is the same asthat in cognitive linguistic theories of figure and ground (see Stockwell, 2002 formore detail) and a viewer’s attention may be drawn to a figure by the extent towhich it stands out against a background. Movement, size, contrast, brightness,

etc. all play a part in making an element of a scene figural and, consequently,opening it up to interpretation. Determining the significance of figures within ascene also requires an understanding of the relationship between the elementsinvolved in the composition of a shot, and so it is worthwhile considering howwe might do this. To this end, I would like to turn briefly to semiotic approachesto multimodal analysis, and particularly the work of Kress and van Leeuwen(1996, 2001, 2006), since this has generated particular discussion withinDiscourse Analysis.

2.2 Grammar and the visual image

Monaco (2000: 172) states unequivocally that ‘Film has no grammar’. Ratheroddly though, he then goes on to discuss what he calls the syntax of film, saying,









‘Like the syntax of written and spoken language, the syntax of film is an organicdevelopment’ (2000: 172). This seems entirely at odds with his statement that filmdoes not have grammar and suggests a lack of understanding of what the term

‘grammar’ actually refers to. By contrast, Kress and van Leeuwen are quite clearthat images may be syntactically arranged. Indeed, the fact that we are able tomake sense of images in terms of determining what they are intended to conveysuggests that some grammatical principles must be in operation. What is attractiveabout Kress and van Leeuwen’s work is that it attempts to go beyond the usualconstraints of semiotics by describing the syntactic structures of images as wellas their visual content. In describing their work as a ‘grammar of visual design’(1996, 2006), Kress and van Leeuwen explain that they use the term ‘grammar’not in a restrictive, rule-implying sense, but simply to contrast with the kind ofwork more commonly done within semiotics that concentrates on the ‘vocabulary’of images, i.e. the iconographical significance of people, places and things.Kress and van Leeuwen attempt to describe how these depicted images arecombined to form a meaningful whole.

Kress and van Leeuwen’s work has received considerable critical attention(see, for instance, Forceville, 1999, Bateman et al., 2004 and Machin, 2007) andit is clear that there are weaknesses in some of their proposals, as I will explain.However, there are some elements of their proposed ‘grammar of visual design’which may be useful in the multimodal stylistic analysis of drama, and so it isworth retaining these. The particular aspects of Kress and van Leeuwen’s work

that I want to focus on are their notion of transitivity in visual images, and theirconception of represented and interactive participants. I will begin with the issueof transitivity and the syntactic structure of images.

Kress and van Leeuwen explain that ‘when a narrative visual proposition hastwo participants, one is the Actor, the other the Goal’ (Kress and van Leeuwen,1996: 62). They suggest that propositions in an image can be recognized by theexistence of vectors, which are essentially lines that connect participants. Anexample will make this clear. István Szabó’s 1999 film Sunshine deals with theturbulent history of Hungary during the 20th century and follows the fortunes of

one family across three generations (see Cunningham, 2004: 179–80 for a fullsynopsis). In a scene from mid-way through the film, Ádám Sors, caught up inthe Second World War, is taken to a concentration camp and tortured by beinghung naked from a tree and sprayed with ice-cold water. In this scene there is aclear example of a narrative proposition that is signified by the vector that existsbetween two participants: the guard who is spraying water on to Sors and Sorshimself. The vector is created by the line of water going from the guard to Sors,thus connecting the two participants. Using Kress and van Leeuwen’s terms,the guard is the Actor (i.e. the agent of the action) and Sors is the Goal (the

entity being acted upon). Our understanding of the scene rests on our ability todetermine the connection between these two participants in the image.Kress and van Leeuwen further state that when a vector in an image is created

by an eye-line between two participants, we should refer to ‘Reacters’ and







316 DAN MCINTYRE


‘Phenomena’ rather than Actors and Goals. An example from Sunshine comesin a shot from the part of the film set in the 1950s. Sors is now an officer in theÁVO (the Hungarian secret police) and one particular scene shows him being

addressed by his superior. In this scene Sors’ superior is looking at Sors, and thegaze direction of the superior officer creates an eye-line vector between the twomen. Because of this, we can see Sors’ superior as the Reacter and Sors himselfas the Phenomenon. However, it should be apparent that there are issues with thisanalysis. The problem, of course, is that this is a dynamic structure; hence theReacter will always be changing. In effect, the two characters in this scene areboth Reacters and Phenomena at the same time. Kress and van Leeuwen (1996)describe this as an ‘interactive transaction’.

A further problem with Kress and van Leeuwen’s approach is that it appearsnot to take full account of the context of a scene. For example, the next shot inthe torture scene described above depicts Sors hanging from a tree while watercascades over him. We know from the previous scene who is spraying him withwater but this is not visually apparent in this particular shot. Hence, Sors is theGoal, the action is that of Sors being sprayed with water, but the agent of theaction is deleted. This, though, reveals one of the issues with Kress and vanLeeuwen’s work, and this is the absence of contextual information from theirmodel. Part of the problem with applying the notion of transitivity in the analysisof film is that inevitably we end up discussing still images from films. But film,of course, is a dynamic medium and the relationships between participants are not

necessarily what a still image would suggest. So, for example, although the imagedescribed appears to be a passive structure, our contextual knowledge ofthe shot immediately prior to that one allows us to infer who the agent of theaction is. Hence, our online processing of the image is likely to be different fromour post-processing of it. While Film Studies attempts to take account of thedynamic nature of film, Kress and van Leeuwen’s model does not. Forcevilleexemplifies this most clearly in his criticism of Kress and van Leeuwen’s analysis(1996: 62) of a shot from Ben Hur , showing Ben Hur racing a chariot. Alongsidehim and in the background are other chariots. Ben Hur’s chariot is clearly moving

towards the camera, from the left of the screen. Kress and van Leeuwen (1996)explain that the Actor in the process is Ben Hur (played by Charlton Heston),and that the process itself is non-transactional (equivalent to an intransitive verbphrase), since the vector (the line of the race-track) does not connect with anotherparticipant. Taking this to its logical conclusion, they say that ‘Ben Hur “races”,but he does not race anything or anyone, at least not so far as we can see in thispicture’ (Kress and van Leeuwen, 1996: 62). However, as Forceville (1999: 169)points out, it is obvious that Ben Hur is racing the other charioteers. Because ofthe contextual information we have acquired from watching the previous scenes of

the film it is perfectly clear who Ben Hur is racing. This knowledge comes aboutas a result of pragmatic inferencing rather than grammatical analysis of theparticipants in the image. Our schematic knowledge of the represented text worldtells us that Ben Hur must be racing the other charioteers. (Significantly, the









Ben Hur example is not included in the second edition of Kress and vanLeeuwen’s book [2006], but neither is a discussion of contextual informationand its relevance to transitivity analysis.) What this example demonstrates is

the importance of taking context into account when analysing images and,particularly, examining the pragmatic links between shots (something that filmcritics are especially good at). As Forceville explains:

A film frame tolerates even less decontextualization than static pictures.Not only does a frame acquire meaning and significance only in combinationwith text (dialogues, voice-overs) and non-verbal sounds (music, sound-effects), its meaning crucially depends on the shot and sequence in whichthe frame occurs. (Forceville, 1999: 172)

Nonetheless, the notion of vectors to explain the connections that existbetween participants in an image seems useful, even if there are problemswith Kress and van Leeuwen’s application of this concept. Another importantelement of their model is their distinction between represented participants (theparticipants in the image) and interactive participants (the viewers of the image).In another scene from Sunshine, Sors is shown facing the camera but lookingdown at a book he is reading. The grammatical structure of this image depends onwhether we are referring to the viewpoint of Sors (the represented participant) orthe viewer (the interactive participant). From the point of view of the interactiveparticipant, the viewer is the Reacter and Sors is the phenomenon, connected by

the eye-line vector created when the viewer concentrates on the image of Sors(notice that this is not an interactive structure since Sors himself creates no eye-line vector with the viewer). However, analysing the grammatical structure withinthe image is still problematic. For example, are we to see Sors as a Reacterand the letter as a Phenomenon, with Sors’ eye-line creating the vector betweenthem? This seems reasonable until we consider how the intransitive proposition‘Sors was reading’ would be represented visually. If this were to be done simplyby not showing the book within the frame then how would we know whataction Sors was engaged in? This again emphasizes the importance of context in

interpreting dynamic film images.

3 A multimodal stylistic analysis of the soliloquy scene from Ian McKellen’s

Richard III (1995)

Having outlined some of the means by which the multimodality of drama maybe analysed, in this section I analyse the soliloquy scene from Ian McKellen’s Richard III (1995), taking account of both the linguistic and non-linguisticfactors involved in its interpretation. Bearing in mind the importance of context

in analysing film, it is worth beginning with some background informationconcerning the film in general.

The 1995 film version of Richard III stars Ian McKellen as Richard anddiffers from more traditional productions of the play by setting the action in a







318 DAN MCINTYRE


fictionalized 1930s Britain where fascism is rife. This updating of the storyis a powerful way of bringing to the fore the unsettling characteristics of Richardand the film received many positive reviews in the press at the time of its release.

One of the most obvious differences between McKellen’s film version and thetraditional stage play is in the staging of the famous opening soliloquy. Ratherthan Richard performing this alone, in McKellen’s version he addresses thesoliloquy to an audience at a glamorous party held in a palace ballroom. Thesoliloquy comes immediately after the opening credits of the film, which appearover a variety of shots of partygoers dancing and laughing. Jazz music is playingand the party is in full flow. Having greeted several of the guests, Richard limpsto the stage and signals for the band to stop playing. He then steps up to themicrophone and begins his speech. At just 34 lines the soliloquy is shorter than

that of the Folio text but incorporates three lines from Henry VI Part III (lines26 to 28 in the following extract). The soliloquy as it appears in McKellen andLoncraine’s (1996) screenplay is reproduced here (dialogue lines are numbered forease of reference and screen directions are indicated in italics):

Scene 16

Int. Ballroom – The Palace – Night.

[…] The whole company turns toward Richard, as he clears his throat and

scratches the mesh of the singer’s microphone.

Richard

Now is the winter of our discontent [1]Made glorious summer by this sun of York!

Richard toasts the smiling, new King. King Edward regally acknowledges the

laughter and applause of his family, friends and national leaders from

politics and commerce.

Richard (continuing)

And all the clouds that loured upon our houseIn the deep bosom of the ocean buried.Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths; [5]Our bruised arms hung up for monuments;Our stern alarums changed to merry meetings,Our dreadful marches to delightful measures.

Applause as Richard smiles. The popular war-leader is working well in these

civilian surroundings.

Hastings smiles, satisfied; the Archbishop looks benignly content.

The appreciative audience misses Richard’s irony, with the exception of









Buckingham, who listens intently and quizzically, puffing on his Havana

and sipping his Napoleon 5-star.


Grim-visaged war has smoothed his wrinkled front:And now, instead of mounting barbed steeds, [10]To fight the souls of fearful adversariesHe...

Scene 17

Int. Washroom – The Palace – Night

Richard flings open the door of the stately lavatory and makes for the WC cubicle,

past the ornate, carved mirrors above the deep washstands, with theirgold taps and luxurious selection of towels, brushes, soaps and lotions.

In the distance, the Dance Band plays ‘A Delightful Measure’.


...capers nimbly in a lady’s chamber,To the lascivious pleasing of a lute.But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks, [15]Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass,

I, that am rudely stamped –Deformed, unfinished, sent before my timeInto this breathing world, scarce half made up,And that so lamely and unfashionable [20]That dogs bark at me, as I halt by them:

Richard pulls the chain and emerges to wash his hand.


Why, I, in this weak piping time of peace,

Have no delight to pass away the time,Unless to spy my shadow in the sun,And descant on my own deformity. [25]

Richard looks in the mirror at his blasted, sagging, left profile, the Brylcreemed

hair smooth over his alopeciaed dome. He dries his right hand...

Richard (continuing; his lips scarcely move as he addresses both himself and the

camera through the mirror )

Why, I can smile; and murder while I smile;And wet my cheeks with artificial tearsAnd frame my face to all occasions!








320 DAN MCINTYRE


And, therefore, since I cannot prove a lover,I am determined to prove a villain [30]And hate the idle pleasures of these days.

Plots have I laid...Scene 18

Int. Walkway – The Palace – Night

As Richard returns to the celebrations he looks down from the cast-iron walkway

that leads back to the ballroom.

Richard (continuing to camera)

To set my brothers, Clarence and the King,

In deadly hate, the one against the other. [34](McKellen and Loncraine, 1996: 59–65)

Appendix 1 contains an audio-visual transcript detailing the main linguistic,paralinguistic and non-linguistic elements of the soliloquy scene. As can be seenfrom this transcript, one major difference between McKellen’s version of thesoliloquy and that of the Folio text is that the former takes place in three differentsettings while the latter is performed by Richard alone in one location. Followingline 12 in McKellen and Loncraine’s (1996) screenplay, there is a cut from thePalace ballroom to the interior of the men’s washroom in the palace, where

Richard continues the soliloquy. In the screenplay, the final two lines of Richard’sspeech take place on a palace walkway, though in the film performance, this sceneoccurs outside, overlooking the landing stage where Clarence is being taken onboard a military launch which will take him to the Tower of London.

The scene in the washroom of the palace is where Richard becomes awareof the implied presence of an audience, apparently noticing them in the bathroommirror. This has the effect of changing the addressee of the soliloquy which,combined with a number of different camera techniques, has the consequenteffect of enhancing Richard’s deceitful and dangerous character. In the following

sections I provide first a linguistic stylistic analysis of the soliloquy section ofthe screenplay and then an analysis of the multimodal aspects of it in McKellen’sfilm. My aim here is to demonstrate that a solely text-based stylistic analysis doesnot capture the range of interpretative effects that the film version generates.

3.1 The soliloquy: a linguistic analysis of the screenplay

If we concentrate solely on the linguistic aspects of the opening soliloquy, astylistic analysis raises a number of interesting interpretative issues. Lines 1 and 2comprise perhaps the play’s most famous metaphor: ‘Now is the winter of ourdiscontent/Made glorious summer by this son of York’.3 Critical discussion of thisline has often focused on who ‘this son of York’ actually is. Is Richard making areference to himself, or does the phrase refer to one of his brothers? In the foliotext, the fact that the soliloquy is intended to be performed by Richard while alone









in a London street would seem to suggest that the reference is to himself. Supportfor this would be the fact that the demonstrative ‘this’ is a proximal deictic termwhich, when spoken by Richard, would suggest that the referent of the noun

phrase is something close to Richard’s deictic centre; in effect suggesting athird-person reference to himself. If we assume this to be the case then the logicalconclusion we must come to is that Richard is responsible for the transformationof ‘the winter of discontent’ into ‘glorious summer’. If this is the case, we mustalso assume that he has effected this purposefully and must consequently bepleased with the results. This, though, does not fit with Richard’s later descriptionof the situation as a ‘weak, piping time of peace’ (22). An alternative explanationis that ‘this son of York’ is a reference to either Edward or Clarence. This seemsmuch more likely when we consider Richard’s later behaviour in the play, sinceif we make this interpretation then Richard’s attitude to the ‘glorious summer’ hedescribes becomes much more ambiguous. On the surface it would appear thathe is happy about the change in fortunes for the York family, but when contrastedwith his reference to a ‘weak, piping time of peace’, it seems that the referenceto a ‘glorious summer’ is instead a sarcastic remark. This has the effect ofcharacterizing Richard as scornful and sardonic as opposed to the straightforwardegotist that is suggested if we assume that ‘this son of York’ is a reference tohimself and his own achievements. Hammond (1981) believes the pun on thehomophone ‘son’ to be instrumental in defining who ‘this son of York’ refers to.He explains that this is likely to be Edward because ‘Edward IV assumed the

device of a sun as his emblem in consequence of the vision of three suns whichappeared to him during the battle of Mortimer’s Cross’ (Hammond, 1981: 125).The two potential interpretations of line 2 give rise to different characterizationsof Richard. As I have suggested previously, one seems more probable than theother and this is likely to be brought out in a film (or stage) performance.

From line 14 onwards Richard explains his discontent with the peace thatcurrently prevails. The contrastive ‘but’ of line 15 suggests that the personificationof ‘grim-visaged war’ (9) cannot refer to Richard himself and is thus likely torefer to his brothers, Edward and/or Clarence. Clemen (1957: 3) believes it to be

Edward. The implicature deriving from the metaphor in line 9 is that Richard isnot well disposed towards his brothers (assuming it is indeed Edward or Clarencewho are responsible for the peace).

Richard’s description of his physical appearance (lines 15 to 21) breaksthe Maxim of Quantity (Grice, 1975) in that it provides more than enoughinformation about how Richard looks. In terms of the discourse structure of theplay-text (see Short, 1996) this can be read as a flout at the level of playwright-to-reader, thereby acting as an intra-dialogic stage direction from which the actorand director can make a series of inferences about Richard’s physical appearance.

At the level of the character, however, this looks more like an infringement ofthe maxim. In a performance, the audience would be well aware of Richard’slooks, therefore the infringement of the Maxim of Quantity would seem to conveyRichard’s extreme bitterness about his appearance, as well as a narcissistic







322 DAN MCINTYRE


quality, thus revealing another aspect of his character. Further aspects of Richard’scharacter and appearance are conveyed in the screen directions. For example,he ‘flings’ the lavatory door open, the verb suggesting an overly violent action

and hence an outward display of extreme emotion. His physical appearance isdescribed using negatively charged evaluative adjectives (italicized): ‘Richardlooks in the mirror at his blasted, sagging, left profile, the Brylcreemed hairsmooth over his alopeciaed dome.’

Finally, we can note that the status of lines 1 to 34 as a soliloquy give riseto certain expectations on the part of the reader. Culpeper and McIntyre (2006)suggest that:

The main purpose of the soliloquy is to provide an outlet for self-expressionon the part of the speaking character. This self-expression comes about partly

because of the absence of other characters from the communicative act. Theresult of this is that characters are able to speak freely (without discountingeffects), and this means that we can make a strong assumption that whatcharacters say within a soliloquy is the truth as they believe it to be. In otherwords, most soliloquizers uphold Grice’s (1975) maxim of quality.(Culpeper and McIntyre, 2006: 784)

For these reasons, we are to assume that in the folio text, all of what Richard saysin the soliloquy is likely to be a true reflection of his feelings. As a multimodalanalysis reveals, though, this is not necessarily the case in the McKellen version.

3.2 The soliloquy: a multimodal stylistic analysis

The opening scenes of Richard III show Richard’s car moving through Londonand arriving at the palace, and these non-linguistic contextual cues effectivelyact as visual world-building elements (Werth, 1997) for our construction ofthe fictional world, which is a dystopian 1930s London. The time period isinstantiated through aspects of mise-en-scène such as costume; the style ofRichard’s uniform is likely to trigger associations with Second World War Nazi

uniforms. Such fascist connotations are further triggered by aspects of the setting.For example, as Richard approaches the palace we see banners draped on theoutside of buildings that are reminiscent of Nazi flags (a black boar’s head in awhite circle on a red background).

The soliloquy in the film is unusual in that, initially, Richard is not alone ashe recites it,4 rather he makes the speech as an address to a crowd of party-goersin the plush palace ballroom. The scene is brightly lit and colourful, with an airof opulence. There are a number of elements of mise-en-scène that affect howwe are likely to interpret the soliloquy, and these include setting and staging. The

syntactic structure of the shots is also important and I will consider this onceI have discussed aspects of mise-en-scène.

To begin with the issue of staging, the opening soliloquy is instrumental indefining the complex character of Richard. In the previous section I noted the









ambiguity concerning who Richard is referring to when he mentions ‘this son ofYork’. In the film performance this is made explicit. As Richard speaks thesecond line he extends his hand towards his brother, Edward (shot 4 in the

transcript). Following this there is a shot of the crowd as they turn to look atEdward, who smiles and acknowledges them as they applaud (shot 5). There is,then, irony in the fact that later on in the soliloquy Richard bemoans the ‘glorioussummer’ that he initially appears to praise. Richard’s later comments (line 13onwards) reveal his opening lines to be a violation of the Maxim of Quality(Grice, 1975). For viewers already familiar with the play this will be apparentfrom the beginning of Richard’s speech; for those unfamiliar with it, lines 13 to 34are likely to cause them to re-evaluate their initial impression of Richard generatedby his opening lines. What is clear is that Richard’s opening speech does not havethe same status as a traditional soliloquy, in that we cannot assume that Richard isobserving the Maxim of Quality and telling the truth as he believes it to be.

The next unusual feature of the film version of the soliloquy is that as soon asRichard delivers the line, ‘To fright the souls of fearful adversaries/He –’(shot 11), there is a sharp cut to a men’s lavatory in the hotel (shots 11/12).Richard enters and picks up the soliloquy at the second word of line 12: ‘capersnimbly in a lady’s chamber’. From this point on until line 28 it appears thatRichard is initially talking to himself, thereby restoring the status of the speechto that of a soliloquy. The upshot of this is that the viewer is now more likely toassume that this is self-expression on Richard’s part and therefore the truth as he

believes it to be. In effect, we have been cued to interpret the soliloquy in this wayas a result of the zoom to an extreme close-up of Richard in shot 11, immediatelyprior to the cut to the bathroom. This camera movement towards Richard suggestsan increase in our psychological closeness to Richard. The facial movementsof McKellen are important here; the close-up allows us to see that his mouth iscontorted into a grimace. Additionally, Richard’s yellowing teeth, suggestive ofdecay, are likely to provoke negative feelings towards his character, suggestingthat his true character is not the jovial speech-maker of the ballroom scene.

There is, of course, dramatic irony here in that the viewer is privy to Richard’s

private thoughts whereas the other characters in the film are not. By staging thesoliloquy in this way, the film makes the complex and devious nature of Richardexplicit in a way that would be difficult to effect on stage. What is also interestingstylistically about the soliloquy is that the cut from shot 11 to shot 12 supposesa temporal deictic shift (Galbraith, 1995) and therefore implies an interpolationto the original text which we do not hear. This implied time lapse foregroundsthe difference in status of the speech in the ballroom and the remainder ofthe soliloquy in the bathroom. The difference in status of the two parts of thesoliloquy is further emphasized by the contrast in settings. The dimly lit bathroom

contrasts sharply with the brightly lit, colourful opulence of the palace ballroom.If we now turn to the semiotic structure of the shots, here too we find elementsthat result in a different interpretation of the soliloquy to that which we would belikely to come up with on the basis of a textual analysis alone. A major difference







324 DAN MCINTYRE


Figure 1 Shot 17 from Richard III: Soliloquy

Figure 2 Shot 17 from Richard III : Soliloquy – change of address via change in gazedirection










in performance between the McKellen version and Shakespeare’s original playtext (and, indeed, other film productions) is that in this film Richard begins thesoliloquy unaware of the viewing audience. He does not address his speech

direct to camera until line 26, in the washroom of the palace. At this point, as he isstaring into the bathroom mirror, he apparently notices his audience, as if seeingthem in the reflection (shot 17). The following change of gaze direction results inboth a change of address and a change in grammatical process. In the bathroomup to this point, Richard’s address has been indirect. Applying Kress and vanLeeuwen’s (1996, 2006) terminology would lead us to define Richard as the Actorin a non-transactional process, since he appears until line 26 to be speaking simplyto himself. The change in gaze direction at line 25 (shot 17) entails the creationof an eye-line vector between Richard and the camera (i.e. the viewing audience),

thus altering Richard’s status so that he is now a Reacter and the audience aPhenomenon in an interactive reactional structure (see Figures 1 and 2 for thischange in address). Richard’s direct address also increases the salience of hischaracter in the shot and consequently it may be argued that we attach a greaterinformation value to his image. The salience of Richard’s character in the shot isthen increased as he advances towards the camera. The effect of this movementis to increase the sense of unease that Richard exudes. This is not something thatis easily explained using either Kress and van Leeuwen’s approach or tools fromFilm Studies, but Brown and Levinson’s (1987) framework for the analysis of

linguistic politeness can shed some light on what happens here. In Brown andLevinson’s terms, Richard’s movement towards the camera (shot 18), and thecamera’s consequent backing away from him, represents a paralinguistic threat tothe viewer’s negative face (i.e. his or her desire to be unimpeded). This is becausethe eye-line vector established between Richard and the camera suggests thatRichard is now looking at the viewer (in effect, the camera creates the illusionthat the viewer is somehow in the bathroom with Richard). Richard’s movementcloser to the camera impinges on what we perceive, as a result of what we knowthe camera to represent, to be our personal space. The position of the camera

creates the illusion of there being a direct connection between the discourse world(Werth, 1997) and the text world of which Richard is a part. The illusion of aparalinguistic threat to the audience’s negative face further characterizes Richardas a threatening and potentially dangerous character.

From this point on the camera continues to represent the viewing positionof the audience with the consequent effect of our being treated as Richard’sconfidants. Indeed, he even motions to the camera to follow him as he leaves thebathroom, in order that he might explain his plans further (shot 20). This cameramovement creates the effect of an increase in our physical proximity to Richard ashe rushes to the dock where Clarence is being arrested.








326 DAN MCINTYRE


4 Conclusion

My aim in this article has been to explain how an analysis of performance ismethodologically possible in the stylistic analysis of drama on film, and to showhow such a multimodal analysis is necessary in order to account for the rangeof interpretative effects apparent in dramatic performance. In relation to IanMcKellen’s film version of Richard III , my overall point is that a purely text-based stylistic analysis does not reveal the variety of interpretative effects thatarise from watching the film version of the play. Consequently, a comprehensivestylistic analysis of the film must include a multimodal analysis. What alsobecomes apparent from the previous multimodal analysis is that McKellen’sversion of the play constrains the interpretative possibilities. For instance, theambiguity of the line ‘this son of York’ is removed in McKellen’s performance.

I hope to have shown, then, that it is possible and profitable to incorporatethe analysis of production and performance with a more traditional, text-basedstylistic analysis of drama. Although my analysis has been of a filmed versionof the play, assuming that a recording of a stage production is available the sametechniques might be employed in the analysis of a stage performance. One keyaspect of the methodological approach described in this article is the practice ofworking from a transcript of the film, in addition to referring to the film directly.Only by doing this are we able to accurately describe overlapping elementsof production and identify in detail specific stylistic effects. For example, the

paralinguistic threat to negative face described in section 3.2 may not have beenpicked up on without recourse to a transcript of the linguistic and non-linguisticelements of the soliloquy scene.

The practice of this kind of multimodal stylistic analysis also demonstrateshow stylistics might contribute to our understanding of film more generally (asopposed to simply concentrating on filmed versions of plays). Indeed, somesteps have already been taken in this direction (e.g. Simpson and Montgomery,1995; Montoro, 2006). As I mentioned earlier, however, in order to be of valueit is important that the stylistic analysis of film contributes something over and

above the traditional focus of Film Studies. In this respect, we might identify anumber of objectives for a stylistics of film:

1. We should be able to describe the language used in screenplays (includingboth dialogue and screen directions) in order to account for its interpretativeeffects on the reader/film viewer. This linguistic analysis may involve,for example, pragmatic analysis of dialogue or computational analysis ofelectronic corpora of screenplays.

2. We should be able to account for how film performance can be inferredfrom the screenplay (see Short, 1981, 1998 for examples of how this can

be achieved).










3. We should be able to account for the relationship between screenplaysand film performances. By this I mean that we should attempt to answersuch questions as (i) Are there equivalent effects in film performances/

productions to the linguistic effects found in texts? (ii) In what ways doperformance/production elements enhance the linguistic effects generatedin a screenplay? (iii) Does watching a film require less cognitive effortthan reading a text?5

A multimodal stylistic analysis of film drama should attempt to take accountof all of the objectives set out here (providing, of course, that these are relevantto the film performance/production and screenplay in question). Such analysesas may be produced by stylisticians of film are also likely to have knock-oneffects for other aspects of stylistics. For example, a stylistic analysis of film may

lead to a greater understanding of the principles behind the adaptation of plays,novels and short-stories into films, and may lead us to be able to speculate on, forexample, why adaptations sometimes restructure the order of events in the originalnarrative, or why certain elements of plot are left out. This article scratches thesurface of what I hope may turn out to be a fruitful and interesting developmentfor stylistics.

Acknowledgement

I am grateful to Ian McKellen for permission to reproduce two screen shots from Richard III (1995;see Figures 1 and 2).

Notes

1 Of course, there are a number of filmed versions of Richard III , including Laurence Olivier’s1955 version and Al Pacino’s Looking for Richard (1996). What makes the multimodal analysisof filmed plays methodologically possible is that the analyst can state which film (or filmversion) he/she has analysed and be sure that anyone wishing to argue with that analysis will have

access to exactly the same production. This, of course, is not possible with stage performances.2 McKellen’s version of Richard III began life as a stage play directed by Richard Eyre, which

opened at the Royal National Theatre of Great Britain’s Lyttelton Theatre before touring the UK,Europe and the USA between 1990 and 1992.

3 There is, of course, a pun on the word son due to its homophonic relationship with the word sun,an ambiguity that would be brought out in performance. Interpreting the word as sun emphasizesthe contrast between the ‘winter of discontent’ and the ‘glorious summer’. There is variation inthe Quartos between son and sun, though most editors prefer the former.

4 Note, then, that our understanding of Richard’s speech as a soliloquy is reliant on our beingfamiliar with either the original play text or more traditional performances of it.

5 This latter question may, of course, be unanswerable as yet, given current knowledge about

cognitive processing, though this is not to say it should not remain an aim.








328 DAN MCINTYRE


References

Bateman, J., Delin, J. and Henschel, R. (2004) ‘Multimodality and Empiricism: Preparing for aCorpus-based Approach to the Study of Multimodal Meaning-making’, in E. Ventola, C. Charles

and M. Kaltenbacher (eds) Perspectives on Multimodality, pp. 65–87. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Battle Royale (Japan) (2001) Battle Royale Production Committee. Writer: Fukasaku Kenta. Director:

Fukasaku Kinji. Battleship Potemkin (Soviet Union) (1925) Mosfilm. Writers: Nina Agadzhanova, Nikolai Aseyev,

Sergei M. Eisenstein and Sergei Tretyakov. Director: Sergei M. Eisenstein. Ben Hur (USA) (1959) Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Writer: Karl Tunberg. Director: William Wyler.Bennison, N. (1993) ‘Discourse Analysis, Pragmatics and the Dramatic “Character”: Tom Stoppard’s

Professional Foul’, Language and Literature 2(2): 79–99. Bladerunner (USA) (1982) Warner Bros. Writers: Hampton Fancher and David Peoples. Director:

Ridley Scott.Boeriis, M. and Nørgaard, N. (2008) ‘The Multimodal Construal of Humour and Intertextuality in

Tele2’s Small Bill/Big Bill Campaign’, in A. Baldry and E. Montagna (eds) InterdisciplinaryPerspectives on Multimodality: Theory and Practice. Campobasso: Palladino.

Bordwell, D. (1986) Narration in the Fiction Film. London: Routledge.Bordwell, D. (1989) Making Meaning: Inference and Rhetoric in the Interpretation of Cinema.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Bordwell, D. and Thompson, K. (2001) Film Art: An Introduction, 6th edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.Bousfield, D. (2007) ‘“Never a Truer Word Said in Jest”: A Pragmastylistic Analysis of Impoliteness as

Banter in Henry IV, Part I ’, in M. Lambrou and P. Stockwell (eds) Contemporary Stylistics,pp. 195–208. London: Continuum.

Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Burton, D. (1980) Dialogue and Discourse: A Sociolinguistic Approach to Modern Drama Dialogueand Naturally Occurring Conversation. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Busse, B. (2007) ‘The Stylistics of Drama: The Reign of King Edward III ’, in M. Lambrou and P.Stockwell (eds) Contemporary Stylistics, pp. 232–43. London: Continuum.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (USA) (2005) Warner Bros. Writer: John August. Director: Tim Burton.Clemen, W. (1957) A Commentary on Shakespeare’s Richard III. London: Methuen.Culpeper, J. (1998) ‘(Im)politeness in Dramatic Dialogue’, in J. Culpeper, M. Short and P. Verdonk

(eds) Exploring the Language of Drama: From Text to Context , pp. 83–95. London: Routledge.Culpeper, J. (2001) Language and Characterisation: People in Plays and Other Texts. London: Longman.Culpeper, J. and McIntyre, D. (2006) ‘Drama: Stylistic Aspects’, in K. Brown (ed.) Encyclopedia of

Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn., vol. 3, pp.772–85. Oxford: Elsevier.

Culpeper, J., Short, M. and Verdonk, P. (1998) ‘Introduction’, in J. Culpeper, M. Short and P. Verdonk(eds) Exploring the Language of Drama: From Text to Context , pp. 1–5. London: Routledge.

Cunningham, J. (2004) Hungarian Cinema: From Coffee House to Multiplex . London:Wallflower Press.

Elam, K. (1980) The Semiotics of Theatre and Drama. London: Methuen.Forceville, C. (1999) ‘Educating the Eye? Kress and van Leeuwen’s Reading Images: The Grammar

of Visual Design (1996)’, Language and Literature 8(2): 163–78.Galbraith, M. (1995) ‘Deictic Shift Theory and the Poetics of Involvement in Narrative’, in J. F.

Duchan, G. A. Bruder and L. E. Hewitt (eds) Deixis in Narrative: A Cognitive Science Perspective,pp.19–59. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Gavins, J. and Steen, G. (eds) (2003) Cognitive Poetics in Practice. London: Routledge.

Grice, H. P. (1975) ‘Logic and Conversation’, in P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds) Syntax andSemantics 3: Speech Acts, pp.41–58. New York: Academic.

Hammond, A. (ed.) (1981) King Richard III . London: Methuen.Hardy, D. (2004) ‘Collocational Analysis as a Stylistic Discovery Procedure: The Case of Flannery

O’Connor’s Eyes’, Style 38(4): 410–27.










Herman, V. (1995) Dramatic Discourse: Dialogue as Interaction in Plays. London: Routledge.Knapp, J. V. (2003) ‘Talking the Walk in Cognitive Stylistics’, Style 37(1): 104–12.Kress, G. and van Leeuwen, T. (1996) Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. London:

Routledge.

Kress, G. and Van Leeuwen, T. (2001) Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of ContemporaryCommunication. London: Arnold.

Kress, G. and van Leeuwen, T. (2006) Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design, 2nd edn.London: Routledge.

Looking for Richard (USA) (1996) Chal Productions. Writer and Director: Al Pacino.McIntyre, D. (2006) Point of View in Plays: A Cognitive Stylistic Approach to Viewpoint in Drama and

Other Text-types. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.McKellen, I. and Loncraine, R. (1996) William Shakespeare’s King Richard III. London: Doubleday.Machin, D. (2007) Introduction to Multimodal Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Monaco, J. (2000) How to Read a Film: Movies, Media, Multimedia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Montoro, R. (2006) ‘Analysing Literature Through Films’, in G. Watson and S. Zyngier (eds)

Literature and Stylistics for Language Learners: Theory and Practice, pp. 48–59. Basingstoke:Palgrave. Monty Python’s Life of Brian (UK) (1979) Handmade Films. Writers: Graham Chapman, John Cleese,

Terry Gilliam, Eric Idle, Terry Jones and Michael Palin. Director: Terry Jones. Richard III (UK) (1955) London Films. Writers: Colley Cibber and David Garrick. Director:

Laurence Olivier. Richard III (UK/USA) (1995) United Artists. Writers: Ian McKellen and Richard Loncraine. Director:

Richard Loncraine.Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. and Jefferson, G. (1974) ‘A Simplest Systematics for the Organisation of

Turn-Taking for Conversation’, Language 50: 696–735.Semino, E. and Short, M. (2004) Corpus Stylistics: Speech, Writing and Thought Presentation in a

Corpus of English Writing. London: Routledge.Short, M. (1981) ‘Discourse Analysis and the Analysis of Drama’, Applied Linguistics 11(2): 180–202.Short, M. (1996) Exploring the Language of Poems, Plays and Prose. London: Longman.Short, M. (1998) ‘From Dramatic Text to Dramatic Performance’, in J. Culpeper, M. Short and

P. Verdonk (eds) Exploring the Language of Drama: From Text to Context , pp. 6–18. London:Routledge.

Simpson, P. and Montgomery, M. (1995) ‘Language, Literature and Film: The Stylistics of BernardMacLaverty’s Cal’, in P. Verdonk and J. J. Weber (eds) Twentieth Century Fiction: From Text to

Context , pp. 138–59. London: Routledge.Stockwell, P. (2002) Cognitive Poetics: An Introduction. London: Routledge.Stubbs, M. (2005) ‘Conrad in the Computer: Examples of Quantitative Stylistic Methods’, Language

and Literature 14(1): 5–24.Styan, J. L. (1969) The Elements of Drama. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Sunshine (Hungary/Germany/Austria/Canada) (1999) Momentum Pictures. Writers: István Szabó and

Israel Horovitz. Director: István Szabó.The Wizard of Oz (USA) (1939) Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Writer: Noel Langley. Director:

Victor Fleming.Watts, R. J. (2003) Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Wells, S. (1970) Literature and Drama. London: Routledge.Werth, P. (1997) Text Worlds: Representing Conceptual Space in Discourse. London: Longman.Withnail and I (UK) (1986) Handmade Films. Writer and Director: Bruce Robinson.

Address

Dan McIntyre, Department of English, University of Huddersfield, Queensgate, Huddersfield HD13DH, UK. [email: [email protected]]








330 DAN MCINTYRE


A p p e n d i x 1

A u d i o - v i s u a l t r a n s c r i p t o f l i n g u i s t i c , p a r a l i n

g u i s t i c a n d n o n - l i n g u i s t i c p e r f o r m a n c e f e a t u r e s o f t h e s o l i l o q

u y f r o m R i c h a r d I I I ( 1 9 9 5 )

S h o t

n o .

T i m e ( m

i n u t e s a n d

s e c o n d s i n t o f i l m )

S h o t d e s c r i p t i o n

L i n g u i s t i c a u d i o

( O S = o u t o f s h o t )

P a r a l i n g u i s t i c v i s u a l

P a r a l i n g u i s t i c a u d i o

N o n - l i n g u i s t i c v i s u a l

1

8 . 3 8

C l o s e - u p o f R i c h a r d ’ s

f i n g e r t a p p i n g a

m i c r o p h o n e .

–

–

A p p l a u s e f r o m

a u d i e n c e .

–

2

8 . 4 0

M e d i u m c l o s e - u p

o n

R i c h a r d a t m i c r o p h o n e .

–

–


a u d i e n c e .

–

3

8 . 4 2


o n

D u c h e s s o f Y o r k .

–

–


a u d i e n c e .

–

4

8 . 4 5


o n


R i c h a r d : N o w i s

t h e w i n t e r o f o u r

d i s c o n t e n t m a d e

g l o r i o u s s u m m e r b y

t h i s

R i c h a r d e x t e n d s h i s

h a n d .

A p p l a u s e d i e s d o w n .

–

5

8 . 5 5

L o n g s h o t o f E d w

a r d

a n d E l i z a b e t h

R i c h a r d : ( O S ) s o n o f

Y o r k

E d w a r d w a v e s

g r a c i o u s l y .

L a u g

h t e r f r o m

E d w a r d a n d a p p l a u s e

a n d l a u g h t e r f r o m

a u d i e n c e .

–

6

8 . 5 9


o n


R i c h a r d : A n d a l l t h e

c l o u d s t h a t l o u r e d

u p o n o u r h o u s e / I n t h e

d e e p b o s o m o f t h e

o c e a n b u r i e d . / N o w a r e

o u r b r o w s b o u n d w i t h

v i c t o r i o u s w r e a t h s ;

R i c h a r d s h a k e s f i s t .

–

–










7

9 . 1 3

L o n g s h o t o f L o r d

H a s t i n g s a n d D u c h e s s o f

Y o r k .

–

L o r d H a s t i n g s a n d

D u c h e s s o f Y o r k

s m i l e .

L a u g

h t e r f r o m

a u d i e n c e .

–

8

9 . 1 5


o n


R i c h a r d : O u r b r u i s e d

a r m s h u n g u p f o r

m o n u m e n t s ; / O u r s t e r n

a l a r u m s c h a n g e d t o

m e r r y m e e t i n g s ;

–

–

–

9

9 . 2 4

L o n g s h o t o f L o r d R i v e r s

a n d o t h e r s .

R i c h a r d : ( O S ) O u r

d r e a d f u l m a r c h e s t o

d e l i g h t f u l m e a s u r e s .

L o r d R i v e r s f l i c k s h i s

l i g h t e r a n d t h e c h i l d

o n h i s k n e e b l o w s o u t

t h e f l a m e .

–

–

1 0

9 . 2 9


o n

D u k e o f B u c k i n g h a m .

–

–

L o u d

l a u g h t e r a n d

a p p l a u s e f r o m

B u c k

i n g h a m .

B u c k i n g h a

m

s m o k i n g a

c i g a r .

1 1

9 . 3 3

C l o s e - u p o n R i c h

a r d a t

m i c r o p h o n e a n d z o o m

t o e x t r e m e c l o s e - u p o n

R i c h a r d ’ s m o u t h .

R i c h a r d : G r i m -

v i s a g e d w a r h a t h

s m o o t h e d h i s w r i n k l e

d

f r o n t ; / A n d n o w ,

i n s t e a d o f m o u n t i n g

b a r b e d s t e e d s / T o f r i g h t

t h e s o u l s o f f e a r f u l

a d v e r s a r i e s / H e

–

–

E x t r e m e - c l o s e - u p o n

R i c h a r d ’ s y e l l o w i n g

t e e t h .

–

–

–

–

–

–

C u t t o n e x t s c e n e .

1 2

9 . 4 6

L o n g s h o t o f R i c h a r d

o p e n i n g d o o r a n d

e n t e r i n g w a s h r o o

m .

R i c h a r d : c a p e r s

n i m b l y i n a l a d y ’ s

c h a m b e r

–

–

–

A p p e n d i x 1

( c o n t i n u e d )








332 DAN MCINTYRE


S h o t

n o .

T i m e ( m

i n u t e s a n d








1 3

9 . 5 0

T r a c k i n g s h o t o f R i c h a r d

a s h e w a l k s t o u r i n a l .

R i c h a r d : / T o t h e

l a s c i v i o u s p l e a s i n g o f

a l u t e .

–

–

–

1 4

9 . 5 6


o n

R i c h a r d a t u r i n a l

w i t h h i s

b a c k t o c a m e r a .

R i c h a r d : B u t I , t h a t

a m n o t s h a p e d f o r

s p o r t i v e t r i c k s / N o r

m a d e t o c o u r t a n

a m o r o u s l o o k i n g -

g l a s s ; / I , t h a t a m r u d e l y

s t a m p e d , / D e f o r m e d ,

u n f i n i s h e d , s e n t

b e f o r e m y t i m e / I n t o

t h i s b r e a t h i n g w o r l d ,

s c a r c e h a l f m a d e u p ,

–

–

R i c h a r d p u

l l s c h a i n -

f l u s h ( 1 0 . 1

2 )

1 5

1 0 . 2 0


a s h e w a l k s t o w a

s h b a s i n .

R i c h a r d : A n d

t h a t s o l a m e l y a n d

u n f a s h i o n a b l e / T h a t

d o g s b a r k a t m e

–

–

R i c h a r d w a s h e s h i s

h a n d s a t s i n k .

1 6

1 0 . 2 6


o n

R i c h a r d a t w a s h b

a s i n

( s h o t i n c l u d e s R i c h a r d ’ s

r e f l e c t i o n i n m i r r o r a b o v e

b a s i n ) .

R i c h a r d : a s I h a l t b y

t h e m ; /

–

–

–

A p p e n d i x 1











1 7

1 0 . 2 9

S l o w z o o m i n o n

R i c h a r d

l o o k i n g i n t o m i r r o r .

R i c h a r d : W h y , I , i n

t h i s w e a k p i p i n g t i m e

o f p e a c e , / H a v e n o

d e l i g h t t o p a s s a w a y

t h e t i m e , / U n l e s s t o

s p y m y s h a d o w i n t h e

s u n / A n d d e s c a n t o n

m i n e o w n d e f o r m i t y : /

W h y , I c a n s m i l e , a n d

m u r d e r w h i l e I s m i l e , /

W e t m y c h e e k s w i t h

a r t i f i c i a l t e a r s , / A n d

f r a m e m y f a c e t o a l l

o c c a s i o n s .

–

–

R i c h a r d d r i e s h i s

h a n d o n a t o w e l

( 1 0 . 3 0 ) . R i c h a r d

a p p e a r s t o

n o t i c e

a u d i e n c e i n

r e f l e c t i o n ( 1 0 . 5 6 ) .

R i c h a r d t u r n s r o u n d

t o f a c e c a m

e r a

( 1 0 . 5 8 ) .

1 8

1 0 . 5 9

E x t r e m e c l o s e - u p

o n

R i c h a r d . C a m e r a

p u l l s

b a c k .

R i c h a r d : A n d

t h e r e f o r e , s i n c e

I c a n n o t p r o v e a

l o v e r , / T o e n t e r t a i n

t h e s e f a i r w e l l - s p o k e n

d a y s , / I a m d e t e r m i n e d

t o p r o v e a v i l l a i n / A n d

h a t e t h e i d l e p l e a s u r e

s

o f t h e s e d a y s .

R i c h a r d a d v a n c e s

t o w a r d s c a m e r a a s i t

p u l l s b a c k .

–

–

1 9

1 1 . 1 0


m o v i n g t o b a t h r o o m

d o o r .

–

–

–

–

A p p e n d i x 1









334 DAN MCINTYRE

S h o t

n o .

T i m e ( m

i n u t e s a n d








2 0

1 1 . 1 2


o n

R i c h a r d .

R i c h a r d : P l o t s h a v e

I l a i d

–

J a z z

m u s i c p l a y s i n

b a c k

g r o u n d ( 1 1 . 1 2 ) .

R i c h a r d o p

e n s d o o r

a n d t u r n s t o f a c e

c a m e r a ( 1 1

. 1 3 ) .

R i c h a r d b e

c k o n s

w i t h h i s f i n

g e r a n d

t u r n t o e x i t ( 1 1 . 1 4 ) .

–

–

–

–

–

–

C u t t o n e x t s c e n e .

2 1

1 1 . 1 6

L o n g s h o t o f a d o

c k .

R i c h a r d : T o s e t m y

b r o t h e r C l a r e n c e a n d

t h e k i n g / I n d e a d l y h a

t e

t h e o n e a g a i n s t t h e

o t h e r .

–

–

R i c h a r d m o v e s i n t o

r i g h t o f s h o t a n d

f a c e s c a m e

r a ( 1 1 . 2 0 ) .

L o o k s t o w a r d s d o c k

a n d m o v e s

o u t o f

s h o t ( 1 0 . 2 3

) .

A p p e n d i x 1


screenplay 2[1]

Documents