Cinema and Speech Acts

In defining speech acts Austin made a distinction between “ordinary circumstances” and literary ones which apparently complicates the application or completion of the speech act. Austin spoke of speech acts as “hollow or void if said by an actor on the stage, or if introduced in a poem, or spoken in soliloquy,” (pg 22) considering these speech uses to be “not serious” and “parasitic.” Because of this he excluded fictional speech acts, literary soliloquies, or language from poetry from the speech act.
· Rick Blaine's self-sacrificing scene in Casablanca airport farewell speech to Ilsa Lund
“Ilsa, I'm no good at being noble, but it doesn't take much to see that the problems of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world. Someday you'll understand that. Now, now. Here's looking at you, kid."
· Senator Jefferson Smith's filibuster speech with his exposition on moral integrity, American democracy, and 'lost causes' before collapsing to the Senate floor in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
"Great principles don't get lost once they come to light. They're right here. You just have to see them again...You think I'm licked. You all think I'm licked. Well, I'm not licked. And I'm going to stay right here and fight for this lost cause, even if this room gets filled with lies like these; and the Taylors and all their armies come marching into this place. Somebody will listen to me."

So Austin would consider the speeches made by characters in a movie to be void, without intentions and whose fake circumstance nulls the utterances for it is parasitic. Is it because the situation taking place is not really taking place that Rick’s farewell speech is considered void? Individually, the statements spoken by the actors are speech acts, for they are promises, pleas, intentions of completing an action. Rick is letting Ilsa leave him by apologizing and assuring her that she will understand his actions later. Mr. Smith is promising to stay on the Senate floor against all oppositions. Austin excludes fictional speeches from his speech act, but do they not also serve a purpose, are obviously not factual statements. In the performance or acting out of the words, is the audience supposed to remain unmoved and assume the character has no motivation for his words. If that is the case actions are assumed to not be occurring in a movie or play although visible to the audience. Actually I am not sure I understand cinematic speech acts, Austin refutes them but action is technically taking place.