The biopic screenplay as a research output: Towards a working definition of narrative fiction filmmaking methodology

References

1. Baker, D. J.,, Batty, C.,, Beattie, D., and Davis, S.. ( 2015;), ‘ Scriptwriting as a research practice: Expanding the field. ’, TEXT: Journal of Writing and Writing Courses, Special Issue: ‘Scriptwriting as Creative Writing Research II’, 29, pp. 1–8, http://www.textjournal.com.au/speciss/issue29/Baker_Batty_Beattie&Davis.pdf. Accessed 26 January 2022.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Batty, C.. ( 2018;), ‘ A vacuous screenplay in search of rigour. ’, TEXT: Journal of Writing and Writing Courses, Special Issue: ‘Screenplays as Research Artefacts’, 48, pp. 1–18, http://www.textjournal.com.au/speciss/issue48/Batty.pdf. Accessed 26 January 2022.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Batty, C., and Baker, D. J.. ( 2018;), ‘ The role of fiction in screenwriting (as) research. ’, TEXT: Journal of Writing and Writing Courses, Special Issue: ‘Screenplays as Research Artefacts’, 48, pp. 1–10, http://www.textjournal.com.au/speciss/issue48/Batty&Baker.pdf. Accessed 26 January 2022.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Batty, C., and Kerrigan, S.. (eds) ( 2018), Screen Production Research: Creative Practice as a Mode of Enquiry, London:: Palgrave Macmillan;.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Bell, D.. ( 2018;), ‘ The primacy of practice: Establishing the terms of reference of creative arts and media research. ’, in C. Batty, and S. Kerrigan. (eds), Screen Production Research: Creative Practice as a Mode of Enquiry, London:: Palgrave Macmillan;, pp. 47–66.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Bentham, M.. ( 2021), My Brother, My Killer, unpublished screenplay.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Berkeley, L.. ( 2009;), ‘ Media education and new technology: A case study of major curriculum change within a university media degree. ’, Journal of Media Practice, 10:2&3, pp. 185–97.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Berkeley, L.. ( 2018;), ‘ Lights, camera, research: The specificity of research in screen production. ’, in C. Batty, and S. Kerrigan. (eds), Screen Production Research: Creative Practice as a Mode of Enquiry, London:: Palgrave Macmillan;, pp. 29–46.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Berry, M.. ( 2018;), ‘ Ethnography and screen production research. ’, in C. Batty, and S. Kerrigan. (eds), Screen Production Research: Creative Practice as a Mode of Enquiry, London:: Palgrave Macmillan;, pp. 103–20.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Bingham, D.. ( 2010), Whose Lives Are They Anyway?: The Biopic as Contemporary Film Genre, Piscataway, NJ:: Rutgers University Press;.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Black, J., and Roberts, C.. ( 2011), Doing Ethics in Media: Theories and Practical Applications, New York:: Routledge;.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Brown, T., and Vidal, B.. (eds) ( 2013), The Biopic in Contemporary Film Culture, New York:: Routledge;.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Clifford, J., and Marcus, G. E.. (eds) ( 1986), Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography, Berkeley, CA:: University of California Press;.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Cook, P.. (ed.) ( 2007), The Cinema Book, , 3rd ed.., London:: BFI;.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Custen, G. F.. ( 1992), Bio/Pics: How Hollywood Constructed Public History, New Brunswick, NJ:: Rutgers University Press;.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Deaver, F.. ( 1990;), ‘ On defining truth. ’, Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 5:3, pp. 166–77.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Denzin, N. K.. ( 2014), Interpretive Autoethnography, , 2nd ed.., Los Angeles, CA:: Sage;.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Denzin, N. K.. ( 2015;), ‘ Interpretative autoethnography. ’, in S. Holman Jones,, T. E. Adams, and C. Ellis. (eds), Handbook of Autoethnography, New York:: Routledge;, pp. 123–42.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Dooley, K.. ( 2019;), ‘ Teaching screen arts in Australia: Challenges, opportunities and current trends. ’, in C. Batty,, M. Berry, and K. Dooley. (eds), The Palgrave Handbook of Screen Production, London:: Palgrave Macmillan;, pp. 427–11.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Eakin, P. J.. (ed.) ( 2009), Living Autobiographically, Ithaca, NY:: Cornell University Press;.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Ellis, C.. ( 2004), The Ethnographic I: A Methodological Novel about Autoethnography, Walnut Creek, CA:: AltaMira Press;.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Elsaesser, T.. ( [1972] 2012;), ‘ Tales of sound and fury: Observations on the family melodrama. ’, in B. K. Grant. (ed.), Film Genre Reader IV, Austin, TX:: University of Texas Press;, pp. 433–62.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Film Making Research Network ( 2019;), ‘ Participants. ’, Filmmaking Research Network, http://filmmakingresearch.net/participants/. Accessed 10 February 2022.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Gibbs, J.. ( 2002), Mise-en-scène: Film Style and Interpretation, New York:: Columbia University Press;.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Gilbey, R.. ( 2021;), ‘ Colin Young obituary. ’, The Guardian, 19 December, https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/dec/19/colin-young-obituary. Accessed 9 February 2022.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Ingold, T.. ( 2011), Being Alive: Essays on Movement, Knowledge and Description, London:: Routledge;.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Jenkins, K.. ( 1995), Rethinking History, , 4th ed.., London:: Routledge;.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Jones, L.. ( 2018;), ‘ On creative practice research. ’, in J. Oliver. (ed.), Associations: Creative Practice & Research, Carlton:: Melbourne University Press;, pp. 241–48.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Katz, S. D.. ( 1991), Film Directing Shot by Shot: Visualizing from Concept to Screen, Stoneham, MA:: Focal Press;.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Kipen, D.. ( 2006), The Schreiber Theory: A Radical Rewrite of American Film History, Hoboken, NJ:: Melville House Publishing;.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Lackoff, G., and Johnson, M.. ( 1980), Metaphors We Live By, Chicago, IL:: The University of Chicago Press;.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Lee, H.. ( 1960), To Kill a Mockingbird, New York:: Grand Central Publishing;.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Lorimer, H.. ( 2005;), ‘ Cultural geography: The busyness of being “more-than-representational”. ’, Progress in Human Geography, 29:1, pp. 83–94.
    [Google Scholar]
34. MacDougall, D.. ( 1998), Transcultural Cinema, Princeton, NJ:: Princeton University Press;.
    [Google Scholar]
35. MacDougall, D.. ( 2001;), ‘ Colin Young, ethnographic film and the film culture of the 1960s. ’, Visual Anthropology Review, 17:2, pp. 81–88.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Mantel, H.. ( 2017a;), ‘ The day is for the living. ’, Resurrection: The Art and Craft, BBC Reith Lecture; 1, 7 June.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Mantel, H.. ( 2017b;), ‘ The iron maiden. ’, Resurrection: The Art and Craft, BBC Reith Lecture; 2, 20 June.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Mantel, H.. ( 2017c;), ‘ Adaptation: Can these bones live?. ’, Resurrection: The Art and Craft, BBC Reith Lecture; 5, 11 July.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Maras, S.. (ed.) ( 2016), Ethics in Screenwriting, London:: Palgrave Macmillan;.
    [Google Scholar]
40. McCann, C., and Lackey, M.. ( 2018;), ‘ Contested realities in the biographical novel. ’, Éire-Ireland, 53:1&2, pp. 134–49.
    [Google Scholar]
41. McGovern, J.. ( 2016;), ‘ On morals, ethics and screenwriting: An interview with Jimmy McGovern. ’, in S. Maras. (ed.), Ethics in Screenwriting, London:: Palgrave Macmillan;, pp. 77–95.
    [Google Scholar]
42. McKee, R.. ( 1998), Story: Substance, Structure, Style, and the Principles of Screenwriting, York:: Methuen;.
    [Google Scholar]
43. Mees, C., and Murray, T.. ( 2019;), ‘ Visual and screen-based research methods. ’, in G. W. Noblit. (ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education, Oxford:: Oxford University Press;, pp. 1–24.
    [Google Scholar]
44. Merleau-Ponty, M.. ( 1968), The Visible and the Invisible, Evanston, IL:: Northwestern University Press;.
    [Google Scholar]
45. Millard, K.. ( 2010;), ‘ After the typewriter: The screenplay in a digital era. ’, Journal of Screenwriting, 1:1, pp. 11–25.
    [Google Scholar]
46. Morris, B.. ( 2019;), ‘ “Is this degree practical or theoretical?” Screen and media education, studio-based teaching and signature pedagogies. ’, in C. Batty,, M. Berry, and K. Dooley. (eds), The Palgrave Handbook of Screen Production, London:: Palgrave Macmillan;, pp. 415–25.
    [Google Scholar]
47. Myerhoff, B.. ( 2007;), ‘ Talks on storytelling. ’, in M. Kaminsky, and M. Weiss. (eds), Stories as Equipment for Living, Ann Arbor, MI:: The University of Michigan Press;, pp. 15–27.
    [Google Scholar]
48. Nichols, B.. ( 1991), Representing Reality, Bloomington, IN and Indianapolis, IN:: Indiana University Press;.
    [Google Scholar]
49. Oliver, J.. (ed.) ( 2018), Associations: Creative Practice & Research, Carlton:: Melbourne University Publishing;.
    [Google Scholar]
50. Parker, D.. ( 2004;), ‘ Life writing as narrative of the good: Father and Son and the ethics of authenticity. ’, in P. J. Eakin. (ed.), The Ethics of Life-Writing, Ithaca, NY:: Cornell University Press;, pp. 53–72.
    [Google Scholar]
51. Petrie, D.. ( 2011;), ‘ Theory/practice and the British Film Conservatoire. ’, Journal of Media Practice, 12:2, pp. 125–38.
    [Google Scholar]
52. Presence, S.. ( 2013;), ‘ An investigation of affect in the cinema: Spectacle and the melodramatic rhetoric in Nil By Mouth. ’, Frames # 2, http://framescinemajournal.com/article/an-investigation-of-affect-in-the-cinema-spectacle-and-the-melodramatic-rhetoric-in-nil-by-mouth/. Accessed 3 March 2022.
    [Google Scholar]
53. Rabiger, M.. ( 2007), Directing: Film Techniques and Aesthetics, , 4th ed.., Waltham, MA:: Focal Press;.
    [Google Scholar]
54. Raskin, R.. ( 2018;), ‘ On why film theory has no place in film production courses. ’, Screenwriting Research Network Newsletter, 2, p. 3.
    [Google Scholar]
55. Rosenstone, R.. ( 1995), Visions of the Past: The Challenge of Film to Our Idea of History, Cambridge, MA:: Harvard University Press;.
    [Google Scholar]
56. Rosenstone, R.. ( [2006] 2012), History on Film/Film on History, , 2nd ed.., New York:: Pearson;.
    [Google Scholar]
57. Rouch, J., and Fulchignoni, E.. ( 1989;), ‘ Conversation between Jean Rouch and Professor Enrico Fulchignoni. ’, Visual Anthropology, 2:3&4, pp. 265–301.
    [Google Scholar]
58. Sellors, P.. ( 2010), Film Authorship: Auteurs and Other Myths, New York:: Wallflower Press;.
    [Google Scholar]
59. Shaviro, S.. ( 1993), The Cinematic Body, Minneapolis, MN:: University of Minnesota Press;.
    [Google Scholar]
60. Shaviro, S.. ( 2008;), ‘ The cinematic body REDUX. ’, Parallax, 14:1, pp. 48–54.
    [Google Scholar]
61. Some Happy Day ( 2021), C. Hill (wr. and dir.), Australia:: Soup Kitchen Productions;.
    [Google Scholar]
62. Taylor, C.. ( 1991), The Ethics of Authenticity, Cambridge, MA:: Harvard University Press;.
    [Google Scholar]
63. Tóibín, C., and Lane, B.. ( 2018;), ‘ The anchored imagination of the biographical novel. ’, Éire-Ireland, 53:1&2, pp. 150–66.
    [Google Scholar]
64. Vannini, P.. (ed.) ( 2015), Non-Representational Research Methodologies, New York:: Routledge;.
    [Google Scholar]
65. Walton, K. L.. ( 1990), Mimesis as Make-Believe: On the Foundations of the Representational Arts, Cambridge, MA:: Harvard University Press;.
    [Google Scholar]
66. Young, C.. ( 2012;), ‘ Motivator-in-chief. ’, Tribute to Colin Young at Sheffield Doc Fest, 13–17 June, https://vimeo.com/44783396. Accessed 15 January 2022.
    [Google Scholar]
67. Bentham, Michael. ( 2022;), ‘ The biopic screenplay as a research output: Towards a working definition of narrative fiction filmmaking methodology. ’, Journal of Screenwriting, 13:2, pp. 187–206, https://doi.org/10.1386/josc_00093_1
    [Google Scholar]