The "objective correlative” is a concept I came across somewhere in my readings—don’t ask me where. Loosely, it’s the external manifestation of a particular emotion. Seeing as cinema is concerned largely with externals, that is, visuals, I thought the concept would have great applicability to film. Thinking I had hit upon an important and highly original insight, I performed an internet search to see what, if anything, had been written on the subject of the objective correlative and film. The Google listings went on for pages and pages. I read through a bunch of them. Some were incisive, most total rubbish.

If you’re interested in learning about the objective correlative, the place to start is the essay that popularized the idea, T.S. Eliot’s “Hamlet and His Problems” in The Scared Wood (7th ed. 1967). There, Eliot stated: “The only way of expressing emotion in the form of art is by finding an ‘objective correlative’; in other words, a set of objects, a situation, a chain of events which shall be the formula for that particular emotion; such that when the external facts, which must terminate in a sensory experience, are given, the emotion is immediately evoked.” Id at 100 (emphasis in original).

In that essay, Eliot criticized Shakespeare’s characterization of Hamlet. Why does he delay his revenge on Claudius? Is his display of madness a ruse? We don’t know, since the emotions have no objective correlative. He then compared “Hamlet” with the more successful play, “Macbeth.” There, in the sleepwalking scene, Lady Macbeth’s obsessive hand washing provided the “exact equivalence” for her inexpiable guilt.

On one of the web pages, Screenwriting from Iowa Tip #48, Scott Smith gives a couple of examples, which, I believe, don’t fit Eliot’s definition: The volleyball “Wilson” from “Cast Away” and the chipped glass unicorn from “The Glass Menagerie.” The first is just an imaginary companion, someone for Tom Hanks to talk to, other than himself; and the second is more properly designated a symbol, since, rather than evoking a particular emotion, it is susceptible to multiple interpretations.

Another web page, http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/documents/Objective_Correlative.pdf, does a much better job explaining the concept, emphasizing that the objective correlative as more than a single thing, but, as Eliot said, a set of objects, chain of events or situation. Further, the whole, which is the objective correlative, is greater than the sum of its parts. The author gives the example of a cemetery scene, which the screenwriter might sketch as a series of shots:

A) Mourners, all clad in black, stand at a graveside.

B) The sky darkens and rain falls.

C) The Widow raises her veil and places her wedding ring on the gravestone.

D) As she turns from the grave, the sky begins to clear.

E) A shaft of light falls on a green spot near the grave.

The scene’s objective correlative is hope, even though the individual shots, taken by themselves, evoke other emotions. It is as a sequence that the series of shots acquires its meaning.

The objective correlative--sounds kind of abstract and theoretical. But it’s really about visuals and sequencing, very important elements for the script writers, whether they’re writing for the stage or screen. Next time you watch a movie or play, ask yourself: How did the dramatist evoke emotion? Was it through dialogue or visuals? The playwright might be able to evoke emotion through declamatory dialogue. But the screenwriter? He has the camera to record human behavior in minute detail. To evoke emotion, he would be wise to use visual sequences and behaviors, in short, the objective correlative.