Филологические науки/ 3.Теоретические и методологические проблемы исследования языка.

Скобникова Оксана Владимировна

Национальный Технический Университет Украины «КПИ», Украина

Approaches to classification of screenplays.

There were several attempts to create classification of screenplays that would be convenient for analysis and have practical value in describing the film. D. Borduell proposed, in particular, to group movies by: time, country of production, director, actor performing a major role, producer, scriptwriter, studio, technological features, series, style, structure, presented ideas, values, purpose, predicted audience, plot or main theme [1, 148].

An attempt to create a classification of film discourse that corresponds the interests of linguistic research was made by G. Slyshkin and M. Yefremova [2, 40]. They identified types of film text on the basis of dominance of visual signs (indexal or iconic) and a particular style. Feature film text, according to the above authors, is the text, where iconic signs and stylized spoken language dominates; Non-feature film text is the one where indexal signs and scientific or journalistic language dominate; also there is a special group of animated film texts. About this classification we can see that now the boundaries between types of film texts accented by the authors are erasing. For example, the documentary today is actively using elements, including style elements, that previously belonged to feature films only. Programmes in the genre of «docufiction» («documentary + fiction», reality shows, etc.) appear on our screen in great quantity and it emphasises the approximation of documentary and feature film texts. It is accented that today we should not distinguish them as strictly as it was done before.

G. Slyshkin and M. Yefremova [2, 43] suggest several reasons more for distribution of film text: 1) by recipient (age, mass / elite); 2) by addresser (professional - amateur); 3) by authentity of the screenplay (original, film adaptation, remake, prequel, sequel, sidequel); 4) by genre; 5) by value to particular lingual-cultural community (precedential - non precedential).

Using a description of typical structures directly linked to the notion of genre, it is convenient to survey the mass cinema. Many researchers consider the genre as a paradigm of the film text and film texts of different genres as components of the paradigm. Genre classification has not only theoretical but also indubitable practical importance, since certain genres suggest a target audience, and that is connected with the profitability of filmmaking. Among the most well-known genres there can be mentioned such genres as: western, horror film, comedy, historical film, fiction, action film, epic film, tragedy, musical. G. Slyshkin and M. Yefremova point out that the number of genres is growing constantly and distinguish as separate such genres as: drama, melodrama, comedy, fairy-tale, detective, western, war film, adventure film, science-fiction film, psychological drama, romantic love story, tragic comedy, romantic comedy, action, comedy action, thriller fiction film, mystical film and mystical thriller, horror film, thriller, catastrophe film, Christmas story [2, 45].

Genres of film discourse exist as "cultural concepts", which are associated with certain superstructures - standard schemes for which specific discourses are constructed. Such a superstructure for the film in a particular genre will include the following elements: a typical place, and sometimes time of action, scenery, costumes and props; typical topics, subjects, basic elements of the story, motives, styles, situation; repeating signs (images), typical dialogues; a standard set of characters with cliched characteristics. To this list se can add typical goals that creators of the film discorse pursue, typical audience, as well as style of relationship of authors and interpreters of the discourse.

List of references:

1. Bordwell, D. Making Meaning : Inference and Rhetoric in the Interpretation of Cinema / D. Bordwell. – Cambridge : Harvard University Press, 1989. – 352 p.

2. Slyshkin, G. G. Kinotekst (opyt lingvokulturologicheskogo analisa) / G. G. Slyshkin, М. А. Yefremova. – М. : Vodolej Publishers, 2004. – 153 p.

3. Illenko U. Paradygma kino / Urij Illenko. – К. : Abrys, 1999. – 416 p.