Setiquette - A Writer's Code
It’s a common assumption that Our Thing doesn’t require our presence on the set of the films we write. Similarly, it’s a common assumption that most directors don’t want us there anyway.
I’m going to challenge those assumptions.
While it’s true that plenty of movies are produced without the writer present, I’d argue that it’s in our interest as the primary story technicians to be there—even if it’s only for the beginning of the day. That’s when the scenes are blocked. That’s when the actors are carefully examining their sides. That’s when the entirety of the multi-million dollar corporation known as The Production is suddenly focused like a laser on somewhere between one and three pages of the scripts we write.
And no one knows those one to three pages better than we.
However, we do not currently have a right to be on the set. One of the problems facing directors is that they can feel challenged or interfered with by someone else asserting authorship on the set, and the director’s near-complete authority is necessary for them to best do their job.
I’ll argue that authority on the set is not necessary for us to do our job. Nor is servility.
What’s necessary is a formal code of behavior—an etiquette—to help define our job on the set as well as assure directors that our presence will be neither disruptive nor redundant. Furthermore, any good code of setiquette should avoid stepping on certain landmines—the director’s right to ban anyone they’d like from the set, for instance. Nonetheless, I think directors would want us on the set if they felt their primary concerns were addressed formally and beforehand. I think it would be a rare director who wouldn’t want the option of a writer there to help take care of the myriad of issues that typically arise, unforeseen, on the day of shooting.
As always, I call upon you, intrepid writers, to comment on this list. Add to it, rip it apart, have at it. Furthermore, feel free to challenge my initial presumption. Should writers be on the set? Should it be an option…or part of our job description? Should a production all-services deal become the norm, rather than a maybe?
Remember, setiquette goes both ways…we ought to have obligations to the production, but the production ought to have obligations to us. Finally, I think this setiquette can only realistically apply if the writer is there to work. Visiting the set makes you a visitor; if you’re a visitor, you can expect to be treated like one.
Enough prologue. My first shot at Setiquette.
The currently employed screenwriter shall be prominently listed on and promptly receive all call sheets.
There shall be a Screenwriter’s Office in the production office and a Screenwriter’s Trailer when trailers are used for location shooting.
There shall be a seat for the screenwriter on set, preferably near the director’s seat, unless the director opts otherwise.
The screenwriter shall have full access to the set, unless the director opts otherwise.
The screenwriter shall not discuss any script, story, character or production issues with the cast unless the director grants specific permission.
The screenwriter shall not discuss any script, story, character or production issues with the crew unless the director grants specific permission.
The screenwriter shall make his expertise available to the director, and shall provide it at the director’s pleasure to the best of his ability.
The screenwriter shall not give “notes” to the director, unless the director opts otherwise.
The screenwriter shall be invited to screen all dailies with the director, unless the director opts otherwise, in which case a separate viewing of dailies will be made available to the screenwriter in a timely fashion.
The screenwriter will receive all crew gifts (jackets, etc.) and will be invited to all wrap parties.
Okay, fire away!
1 to 3 pages? Dude. In TV we do 8 pages or so a day. And writers run the joint. You’re welcome on my set any ol’ time.
Tim wrote:
Yeah, and it shows.
Kidding! I’m a kidder… :)
The reasons that writers are treated so differenly in TV and film is worth a whole article in and of itself.
Hey, Ted, wanna take that one?
Hey — not only do we shoot 8 or more pages a day, we even have time to sit around and watch “The Specials,” so, come on. I’m off topic.
There’s probably a real value in working something like this out jointly with the DGA; very possibly some directors who wouldn’t otherwise be comfortable with the idea of a writer on the set might change their minds if presented with reasonable, formalized codes of behavior.
But there are some bugs to work out on our side first. One is that not all writers will want to be there. I love being on a set when I really have something to do; I don’t love being there (especially out of town) when very little is needed of me. I could imagine a project where I’d feel differently, but generally speaking I wouldn’t want to feel like three months on a set was part of my job — a part for which I’m sure they wouldn’t pay nearly what they’d pay me to write for three months.
What’s more, if having a writer on set became the standard, then a writer — often a writer operating without the certainty of getting credit — would feel obligated to be there, otherwise running the risk that some other writer will be hired for that job, jeopardizing the credit.
Which leads to the larger nasty question of Which Writer Should Be There. (I’m assuming you’re not suggestion that all participating writers get the same treatment.) On most productions this wouldn’t be problematic, but on some it definitely would.
Last, I’m not sure that I agree with your underlying premise, that it’s the variability of behavior which leads many directors not to want us around. There are those who already treasure writers and want them around (think of Sidney Lumet’s line about how if you have someone there for the hair, why wouldn’t you want someone for the words?), but there are others whose reasons for not wanting us around run a lot deeper. They may seem unfair to us, but something like psychological necessities to them.
This would definitely work for a certain type of writer. A writer who is detail-oriented AND flexible. Some writers, maybe that mystical, muse-icle writer would not want one word altered.
I know that I have had that red flag go up when someone suggests a change to my writing. It can hard to fight sometimes, because we have fallen in love with our words.
Eric
By the way, Craig, I have been using your The Answer Is Always “Yes” in a play I wrote and am directing for our church. I am trying to supress that primal urge to fight against every change of my precious words. I am learning humility.
That would be nice, but it also sounds like hard work.
One of the great attractions of writing for me is that I can do it by myself, hand it in, and I’m all done.
But then again I might be the only aspirant screenwriter who has less than no interest in directing.
Tim:
If you’re sitting around watching The Specials, something’s gone terribly wrong. :)
Howard:
I think any code of mutually agreed-upon “best practices” (as John A. calls them) would only apply for the term of a writer’s employment on the set. If they really don’t need you, you’re not compelled to be there, and they’re not compelled to have you.
The writer who should be there is the writer who is currently employed. And yeah, every currently employed writer ought to try and remain employed.
You know, your credit point is interesting. I wonder if there’s a new credit (oh my fucking God, what am I doing?????) we could imagine…”on-set writer”.
Could just be the Diet Coke talking.
Louise:
Writing on the set isn’t directing. :)
Coop:
Glad to have been of help. Remember, just because you say “yes” at first doesn’t mean you’re obligated to do whatever they tell you!
Craig, I like where you are going with this and I think it is a great idea. Any dialogue on this subject is always worth discussing. Here are some personal experiences that can be considered as you tweak your list.
Michael and I were on the set of a big budget action movie we wrote a few years ago. The film had a prominent director. We loved working with him; he treated us with utmost respect… gave us freedom that we didn’t expect… was an all-around great experience. The budget for the movie included money for a new writer, but he said no, he wanted the script to be ours from start to finish, God bless him.
However, he was/is extremely open to actor improvisation which can be beneficial but also detrimental. And… as long as Michael and I were on the set, all of the actors took this to mean that the script and dialogue were malleable. We found ourselves fighting a battle each day to keep the script/dialogue on track. You say one rule would be that we don’t speak to the cast unless the director approves… the problem is WHEN the director approves. The door to our trailer was constantly opened by actors with that day’s sides in their hands. They all wanted more lines, they all wanted to be funnier, the bad guy wanted to be a good guy… it was never-ending. We had a few victories, granted, and there were a few good ideas that came out of the actor input. In the end, we were glad we were there. But during the twelfth week, we were asked by the studio if we wanted to stay for the final three weeks and we said, “no, by all means send us home. At least for a week to stop the bleeding.” And a great deal of the last three weeks were shot as written, because no one felt the authority to rewrite the pages. We wished that we had gone home sooner and come back after a few weeks absence to see if it would have had an effect. In the end, the movie did well but 90% of the dialogue wasn’t what we wrote… and that’s with us being right there… speaking up on every take. We aren’t sit-on-our-hands guys and we fought for our lines… literally huddling up with the actors/director between takes… but the ship can get away from you fast and at a certain point you yield to your director.
The tricky part of legislating this setiquette is when a movie is out-of-town, as ours was (Miami). The studio must pay you a weekly fee to be there, plus your stipend, plus all your first-class travel. They will avoid this expense whenever they can. I think it will be a hard argument to make to the studio that they HAVE to abide by this… and quite frankly, I would rather negotiate a higher fee when they NEED you there than to have a minimal fee or no fee when you just WANT to be there.
That said, the respect has to start somewhere and the more writers are involved with the process all the way through, the better. - DH
Craig, but it’s still work. And involves dreadful early hours and things like that. I mean, I’m lazy.
Swag! Yesss!
Go for it. Cut #2 and #3 and add such a #11 (Almost your #7, in fact!):
— Collaborate on any or some issues (By this, “volunteering” an opinion) when specifically asked or discussed about by the director.
The screenwriter could even give “some” details without interfering. But, normal pre-shoot meetings and discussions do serve as reference already.
Sylvain:
I assume you’re French Canadian, and you’re entering French into an internet translator.
Unfortunately, much of it is coming through as gibberish. You’d probably be better off posting comments in either broken English.
Having been on set regularly in a non-writer capacity, I don’t think I could stand to be there for most of what happens to a script during production. On one picture Todd Graff wrote, they kept him on the set every day, sent him home to do rewrites regularly at night - seemingly happily - and frankly, I thought the script was all over the place by the end.
Maybe it’s something to negotiate on a case-by-case basis. Maybe the general dialogue should be just to establish the practice of negtiating it in good faith rather than making it the standard. Then again, maybe not.
By the way, no disrespect intended to Todd Graff. I think he’s written some very cool stuff along the way.
“The writer who should be there is the writer who is currently employed.”
Well….
I’ve had a situation where the studio wanted to bring me in for a paid week during rehearsal, but the star wanted “his guy” instead, and they quickly acquiesced. (And of course told me how bad they felt when the table read of my script went so well that they ended up paying this guy for nothing.)
My point is, Craig — there’s no such thing as “currently employed” unless you somehow already have a guaranteed all-services deal through production.
My guess is that this way of working, were it to become practice, would spawn a whole new category of “good set guys” who’d get hired to hang around and help out; I think that’s at least as likely as an increased set presence for the writers you’re thinking of as “currently employed.” And if that were to happen, it wouldn’t necessarily mean either better, more cohesive movies or more respect for writers.
Great list, Craig.
A suggestion for any screenwriter who finds himself working in the field: make nice with the production office staff, and the AD’s. Read through the crew sheet, and try to match names with faces. These people often aren’t used to the writer being around, so they may not know to treat you as a Friendly until you make the gesture.
God, I’m glad I work in television and NOT movies.
Derek:
That’s a new one on me. :) The “too much access” problem. In that case, I’d have to talk to the producer and director, and say, “Look, I love that we’re all loosey-goosey and open, but I need you guys to get your actors in line.”
Jon D.:
I think we have to view things this way: if we’re not there writing, someone else will be. Actors do try and goose their dialogue and enhance their roles. It’s in their best interest. Directors will absolutely rejigger the sides on any given day, and if there’s an inherent weakness many directors have, it’s their “what are we doing today” perspective. Trying to make any given day the “best” day can often lead to major story problems.
Having said that, I suppose we ought to be clear that these arrangements need not be compulsory. I just think they ought to be considered “best practices”.
Howard:
I’ve been both the “currently employed” writer on a weekly basis for a production, and I’ve been the “currently employed” writer on an all-services basis. The point is simply this: someone ought to be on the production in the role of “writer”. That someone ought to be treated a certain way. And off we go. If no one’s in that position, well, nothing we can do about that, really.
I don’t know about the “set” guys, Howard. That doesn’t feel intuitive to me.
John A.:
Excellent point. Here’s the horrifying truth—most theatrical screenwriters (with no TV experience) don’t have the foggiest clue what many of the people on set do. Then, of course, we writers wonder why they look at us like that. :) Getting to know the UPM, 1st AD, DP, Production Designer, Script Sup. and Script Coord. are sort of musts.
I make it a point to try and get to know as many of the crew as I can, from the keys to the PA’s. Remembering names is a big deal too. It’s amazing how much respect you get back from the crew when it’s clear you don’t think of them as scurvy dogs misexecuting your vision. After all, crewing a show is a very familial experience for these folks. Outsiders are given the stink-eye. Better to be one of them.
One of them, one of them. Gooble gobble, gooble gobble…
Tim:
Cool site. It’s linked now. And for what it’s worth, I thought Wonderfalls was pretty damned cool.
Craig —
No, i’m a Quebec resident with an almost “french” childhood. I do not use any “Internet translators”, whatever BableFish (or any parsing devices programmed to confuse adjectives with verbs or otherwise.) could claim it might express proper English as gibberish without me trying to patch it back, syntax and grammar, false and right.
True, that i have a very limited vocabulary. Also true, that i express my thoughts from a different perspective than anyone born and raised while immersed in THEIR own cultural assets, whatever it might be.
That’s what they got for wanting a superbly “bilingual” country by enforcing laws.
So…
11:? The screenwriter shall be invited to Collaborate on any or some issues (By this, ?volunteering? an opinion) when specifically asked or discussed about by the director.
…is almost equal to your #7.
I wouldn’t want a trailer spot or a splendid symbolic chair on some sets. I’d be there to help if ASKED.
Sorry, if i’m being misunderstood.
Secondly, pre-production meetings with the director are already there as an opportunity for the screenwriter to express whatever concerns or “details” they might want to set forth before, farewell baby, changes and alterations are made. Recording these suggestions as notes becomes indirect help that a director should be able to memorize and work with OR not.
And, John —
“These people often aren?t used to the writer being around, so they may not know to treat you as a Friendly until you make the gesture.”
Egos collide. What they consider “friendly” others might think as essential or respectable as much. I have a gesture, it’s called “What you’re (or we) working on WAS written.” Get busy.
Sylvain:
My apologies. You’re a bit difficult to follow, is all. :)
I should be apologizing for being “naturally” confusing until i won’t! :) So, you can go about your business. Move along. ;]
Why is this industry plauged by so much pussy footing?
As a writer, you often (not always, mind you) originate an idea. Why then are you (we, whatever) viewed as an enemy rather than an ally? I think that’s the real problem at the heart the issue. We’re acting like a divorced couple embroiled in a custody battle… and as in most divorces, it get’s uber-sensitive.
The writer is not a threat. The writer is, or can be, the director’s greatest partner - if ego could miraculously disappear. Why isn’t he all bent over how much the DP brings to the table? Or the actor? Or the producer?
Call me Mr. Brightside, but is there a chance at forming an aliance with that other creative madman working with equal passion on the project through a simple conversation… artist to artist… colleague to colleague? COME ON!
Let’s be the one’s with balls and put an end to the pussyfooting with a nobel act of humility.
Craig,
These are great ideas. I think this is an incredibly important area to address.
I think there are many ways we can make ourselves useful on the set on top of your (well chosen) story expert concept… for example, set visits by journalists. On our recent movie, we had many such folk coming through. The director and stars are too busy to spend a whole lot of time, but I, on the other hand… plenty. The producers asked me to show them around, answer questions, facilitiate. I was able to offer a perspective that they don’t usually get in the publicity mills, do something positive for the production, as well as reinforce things from the script perspective.
I think writers often get disrespected because they are faceless. Sometimes the “faces” of the movie, the stars, well-intentioned as they may be, forget that somebody wrote the script when they talk to the media. That’s less likely if they actually have laid eyes on you in person, seen you around the set, etc.
I think if we can offer ourselves as resources, and if we can become trusted entitities (by respecting the chain of command, speaking only through the director unless asked otherwise, as you’ve mentioned) we can be seen as assets, rather than liabilities.
Thanks, Craig, for doing this. Phil
Trey:
Good comments. The source of the enmity is complicated, I suspect. Surely there have been writers who’ve acted poorly on sets (“You’re not shooting it like I wrote it! Stop changing the words!”, etc.), and surely there have been directors who couldn’t bear the thought of the writer’s theoretically disapproving gaze…like the eyes of T.J. Eckelburg…and it made them act like jerks towards the writers.
The fact is that directors DO get bent over actors, producers and DP’s. The stories are legendary (one comes to mind…George Clooney and David O. Russell getting into a fistfight during the shooting of Three Kings).
But I like the way you put it. Someone has to offer some exemplary humility. Let’s be the strong ones. :)
Can that be the new WGA mantra?
Let’s be the strong ones! I love it.
Phil:
My pleasure. That’s a great idea, btw. Being on set naturally increases your opportunity for publicity and inclusion.
We are filmmakers too. Being on set helps us get recognized as such.
Trey:
I think we just wrote the title for the next article here at TAW. I should have it done some time tomorrow.
C.
I concur. LBTSO.
Phil
Limited experience (and in UK TV only), but I find being available for rehearsals and read-throughs far outweighs the benefits of being on set. There’s a far more consensual atmosphere, with everyone happy to pitch in, and just get it right. And quite often, when you realise that something that should have obvious in your script but isn’t, it’s an easy fix.
When you’re on set, everyone’s got their heads down and just wants to get on with it.
Also, I’m with LouiseB - sets are boring, and it’s waaay too much like proper work…