The Collaborative Author & The Soul of the Film
Pasolini‘s genius, while undeniably centralizing, paradoxically overlooked a crucial dynamic of collaborative filmmaking: the author doesn’t dissipate within a group, but rather multiplies, manifesting as different facets through the contributions of others. As the introductory notes to this collection suggest, attempting to dissect authorship within a scriptwriting team – “who wrote what” – is ultimately futile.What is significant is recognizing that an author’s expression shifts depending on the collaborative context, undergoing a series of regenerations difficult to achieve in the solitary act of writing.
But could this very process of transformation – this collaborative alchemy – rely on the inherent ephemerality of the script itself? The script is merely a chrysalis, destined to become something “other,” a different structure altogether. Piccolo’s metaphor of cocoon and butterfly is apt, yet the cinematic cocoon already hints at the future form, displaying a nascent style visible even before the film’s completion. This is particularly true in the treatment – the “prose version” of the film – which offers a richer glimpse into the work’s essence than the script, a document inherently subject to cuts, modifications, and the interpretations of actors. A comparison of the treatment with the “final” script reveals this dynamic vividly.The treatment,actually,unveils the film’s soul by reconnecting to the traditions of storytelling and the novel – a more established and comfortable form within Italian literary history. Suso Cecchi D’Amico articulated this perfectly to Nikita Michalkov during the adaptation of Chekhov’s stories for Dark Eyes: “I always make a mistake when I try to turn a story into a novel.” This sentiment transcends its original context, becoming a defining principle for a generation of screenwriters. their treatments, irrespective of individual authorship, read as compelling short stories, prioritizing narrative over authorial ego, creating space for the story to breathe.
This shared characteristic – a willingness to subordinate the author’s voice to the narrative – unites these texts, despite stylistic variations evident throughout the collection. From the collaboration with pietro Tellini on Mr. Angelina to Cecchi D’Amico’s solo, unfilmed Cafés, a phantasmagorical work revealing a deep affection for memoir, travel writing, and the evocative imagery of Venetian Renaissance painting, a common thread emerges. Cafés feels like a translation, perhaps unconscious, of a female sensibility - a young woman’s experiance within the confines of a patriarchal world - navigating a complex landscape of power and constraint.
This focus on storytelling, on affabulation, perhaps explains Pasolini’s critique of cinematic “service texts” that he felt were infiltrating literature.He leveled this criticism in the context of a discussion about Gabriel García Márquez‘s famously captivating One Hundred Years of Solitude. Pasolini sensed that the allure of storytelling could become a form of escapism, a distraction from the pressing social realities of the time.However, he miscalculated the enduring power of the writen word. Unlike his contemporaries, focused on immediate social commentary, Pasolini underestimated the potential for his own literary structures to be repurposed – to become springboards for a new generation of performers, branded content creators, and writers driven by self-promotion and narcissism.
