Which Came First, The Credit Or The Credit?
Want to anger screenwriters? Show them the summer movie preview in the recent issue of Premiere Magazine. They tell you that Tim Burton directed Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, but they don’t mention that John August wrote it.
Here’s the usual explanation for this all-too-typical omission.
“No one respects screenwriters.”
Baloney. If you were to ask the editors of Premiere or Newsweek or the L.A. Times or Film Threat, I’m pretty certain they’d all express an honest respect for screenwriters…particularly those of John’s caliber.
No, if you want the real answer, take a look at the entry for the upcoming skateboard movie Lords of Dogtown. The WGA credit for that film is “Written by Stacy Peralta”, but Premiere candidly points out that director Catherine Hardwicke did a rewrite.
How much of a rewrite? A little? A lot? Who knows? Not the media. Not the readers.
The real reason that publications typically avoid giving screenwriters their due is because they do not trust our credits.
I was speaking the other day with one of our union’s most prominent writers (and he’s a famous director to boot). He’s a true-blue union man, and he believes in the WGA and the promotion of writers. A few years ago, he took on an initiative to try and get writers better publicity in the media. What he heard time and time again was, “Gee, we’d love to, but we’re not in the business of printing lies that come back to bite us in the ass.”
You might scoff at the notion that entertainment reporters have any concerns with credibility or journalistic standards, and if you’re talking about The Star, you’re right. What about Premiere, though, which hires and features “real” journalists like Peter Biskind? Or Time and Newsweek? Or The New Yorker? Or even the much-maligned New York Times?
These magazines and papers don’t like the idea of printing someone else’s version of the truth. If the government says that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the media’s job is to question that rather than accept it (you may argue that they failed in that task, but that’s another debate).
The reason periodicals promote the director is because they know that person is the director.
They do not know who really wrote the movie. They read the same stories we do. The Mike Rich “Miracle” debacle. Julia Roberts thanking Richard LaGravenese at the Oscars.
Some writers insist that the solution is “one writer per movie”. My belief is that this is an impossible pipe dream, and I’ll write about why another day. Let’s stipulate for now that this isn’t likely any time soon.
So what then?
Maybe the answer is end credits. Maybe the answer is a more inclusive series of credits guidelines.
One thing’s for sure. Our credit system isn’t passing the sniff test with the rest of the world, and the victims aren’t just the writers who really have written the movie.
We’re all suffering. Stop complaining about the anonymity, folks. It’s our own fault.
The IMDb actually used to be a good source of screenwriting credits, with long lists of “uncredited” writers—but they’ve since limited themselves to the W.G.A.’s decisions. I’m not sure why. Do you know if it’s something the W.G.A. lobbied for? Or was it just too much to maintain?
Michael:
The Guild lobbied for it. The WGA must take the position that their credits are the only credits worth publication. To do so otherwise would be to admit that our system is a failure.
Unfortunately, the truth becomes collateral damage.
I disagree.
You write:
These magazines and papers don’t like the idea of printing someone else’s version of the truth. If the government says that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the media?s job is to question that rather than accept it.
If the govenment says “X”, then it is the newspaper’s job to print: “The US government has said X. Sean Penn says Y. Our own investigation has revelead the following Facts. For our opionion of the US Government, see the editorial page. For our Opinion of Sean Penn, see the Entertainment section.”
Likewise: “John August received the writer’s credit for Charlie.” Or, “The WGA has assigned the ‘Written by’ to Stacy Peralta.” It’s meaningless to say, “John Doe wrote the film,” because films aren’t written, they are a collaborative art in which even the screenplay has varying degrees of influence over the final product.
Craig, I think the fact that Charlie is an adaptation has a lot to do with it. There’s never any mention of the screenwriters of the Harry Potter or the Dr. Seuss book adaptations either. Conversely, the press usually plays up the writer when it’s a spec script. I remember when Arlington Road came out, you couldn’t find an article that didn’t mention Ehren Kruger. Ditto Nicholas Kazan for Fallen, and every single movie based on a Joe Eszterhas original spec.
Two points:
Don’t you think if the guild were to suddenly tell studios they need to actually list everyone they hired to write each picture, you would get substantial resistance? Isn’t limiting up front writing credits is as important as limiting producer credits? Laundry lists at the front of a movie are likely to be unappealing to the general public. It seems to me that the fiction of authorship, whether it’s that of the writer, director or producer, is part of the appeal of movies.
I’m not sure the press gives a crap about honesty in reporting screenwriter’s names. The role of the screenwriter is just not as sexy as that of the director. We sit in lonely rooms and think and type. Directors tell the biggest stars in the world what to do, where to stand, and what to feel.
Screenwriter = passive protagonist.
Director = active protagonist.
Which would you write about?
If I’m not mistaken…this is and has been the most controversial issue inside of the Writer’s Guild for most of its life. Craig’s point about there only being one director is right…and there’s only one actor per role, and one cinematographer, and one script supervisor, etc…while there can be dozens of writers - and hence a confusing dilemma when it comes to credit.
One way to address this issue, is to take a firmer role in standardizing the credit process (okay…I’m diving into a shitstorm here, but what the hell). Why not craft the credit process so that the original screenwriter of a project ALWAYS gets a screenplay credit (and the arbitration process revolves around who ELSE gets to share in that credit)? Before you blast me off the site, consider the logic. Even if less than 50% of the produced screenplay is used, the original writer manifested an idea from his/her head onto a page, and that idea got others (i.e. producers, studios, actors, directors, etc) interested and the ball rolling (even if it was an assignment)…a ball which led to the production of a film. Sometimes it’s just as important what NOT to use, as what to actually use. This would also reduce the art of agressive rewriting for the sole purpose of garnering a credit, among other things.
I’ve heard many of the arguments for the existing arbitration process…and I’m familiar with the intention behind it. And it works…sometimes. But not frequently enough. I think that incoroporating this idea is a subtle but significant shift that will go a long way to instilling fairness and clarity to an issue which simply must be rethought and revised in the near future. And in the process, it will give publications concerned with “credibility” at least some certainty with respect to credited screenwriters.
Jon:
The idea of end credits is that they’d be at the end. Along with the long runs of visual effects guys, grips, caterers, etc.
But there.
I’m not sure the press gives a crap about reporting about screenwriters, but I do think they’d be more willing to at least acknowledge them if they thought WGA credits were accurate to the truth of authorship.
Dan:
Ted had an idea…trying to remember how it went…
I think it was that we eliminate “story by” altogether. First writers on original projects are guaranteed at least a shared “written by” credit.
Subsequent writers would be awarded shared “written by” credit for showing a 33% contribution to the final screenplay, instead of the 50% they now have to show. Residuals would be divided evenly among the credited writers.
It’s an interesting concept, but unfortunately we can’t easily get rid of “story by”.
Furthermore, there are writers who are assigned original concepts. If those writers are first, and they blow it, and a subsequent writer comes in and writes the assignment anew and successfully, it seems odd that the first writer is guaranteed a credit and residuals if and only if a subsequent writer does a great job.
In other words, reward for your failure and others’ success.
I’m with Craig on this one 100%.
I think part of the problem is that the current credits system was devised in an era when folks outside of Hollywood were much more naive about how movies were made. Nowadays, at a time when weekend box office receipts appear in every newspaper in the country, and anybody who wants to can post mobile phone snapshots from the set of a film in progress to Ain’t It Cool News, it’s amazing how savvy the moviegoing public is. The secret is out, folks. People know that uncredited writers might have worked on any film they see. And that knowledge diminishes the respect they have for the credited names that do appear onscreen, because they have no idea how much of the script those people actually wrote.
Craig, I’d be curious to know on what percentage of movies there are one or more people who are paid at some point to work on the script, but not credited. Of course, in many of those cases, the uncredited writers might themselves feel they didn’t contribute anything to the final product, so I’d also be interested in knowing what percentage of films go to screenwriting arbitration.
And while I’m at it—are there any statistics on how many movies are made with a single writer (or writing team) along for the whole project?
I guess what I’m trying to figure out is, if we just decided to list every writer who was hired to work on a movie, how many films would that make a difference on?
Oh, I should also add that I don’t think that end credits are some sort of magical solution that are going to instantaneously get John August on the cover of Premiere Magazine, but I do see them as part of a package of long-term techniques to increase the prestige of writers.
Jacob:
I know that approximately one third of all movies are arbitrated for theatrical screen credit.
I doubt I’ll be able to find out how many movies have uncredited writers. The Guild guards that information very carefully in order to not undermine the value of the credits.
I’ll look into the stat on how many movies have only one participating writer or team.
My guess is that if you went to an end credits system, you’d see end credits for at least 75% of released films.
I just read Ebert’s “Dawn of the Dead” review, which includes the line: “The screenplay, credited to James Gunn …” This seems like an O.K. work-around for publications, but it’s certainly not perfect.
End credits sound great, but wouldn’t they undermine the legitimacy of the arbitration in the opening credits? Maybe the “written by” credit should only be used in cases where there’s just one writer. Everything else would have a “shooting script by” credit at the beginning, and a long list of contributing writers at the end—with appropriate details next to their names, like the nature of the revision and the dates they worked on the movie. It would be cumbersome but accurate.
I believe there is a practical reason why “Summer movie” type preview articles don’t include screenwriters:
Long lead time.
Because the WGA has right to final determination of credit, no writing credits can be considered accurate until after the studio has submitted its preliminary credit to the WGA, and either A) the deadline has passed for arbitration; or B ) final credit has been determined through arbitration.
Studios have the right to use their preliminarily-determined writing credit in publicity material, but were a magazine to use those in a preview issue, it could not under any circumstances be considered reporting of any kind.
Additionally, it would mean that an individual or individuals that the studio wanted publicly known as the writer of the movie could get more recognition than the individual(s) who actually wrote the movie — because the studio could delay submitting its credits to the WGA so that their selected individual would be the “writer” of the movie for the entire lead-up period to the movie’s release.
It’s a sticky wicket: screenwriters should be included in preview issues, but it should be the actual screenwriters.
Shouldn’t it?
-
Dan —
There are legal reason that prevent the WGA Minimum Basic Agreement from stipulating that any single writer (first writer, last writer, tallest writer, writer who wrote the most drafts, whatever) hired to work on a movie be guaranteed sole credit (or any credit, for that matter). WGA arbitration guidelines are subject to the same laws, so they cannot guarantee any writer sole credit, either.
Those same laws also prevent a studio from guaranteeing a writer sole credit as an individual term of his contract, beyond the MBA.
The only way a writer can be guaranteed sole credit is to individually negotiate as a term of his contract that the studio will not employ anyone else to contribute literary material toward the movie’s final script.
-
Craig —
I think you’re misremembering my suggestion, which was to make “written by” credit the only credit awarded on non-adaptation screenplays, provided that:
Nothing other than drafts of the screenplay were considered as arbitration material (ie, no treatments, outlines, etc.)
The same standard for one writer to receive that credit applied to all writers.
The first (original) writer could be guaranteed “Written by” credit, which could be shared with up to two other writers/writing teams.
This would obviously be an improvement for original writers over the current guidelines in terms of residuals (and would also make it more difficult for anyone who was not actually hired as a writer to receive screen credit), but since it would eliminate the biased standards for subsequent writers, my guess is that a faction of WGA members would see it as either favoring rewriters or encouraging studios to have screenplays rewritten.
Because, you know, the current guidelines have been so effective at social engineering the world into giving greater respect to screenwriters, right?
-
Ted,
I didn’t mean to imply SOLE credit for original writers of screenplays…just guaranteed credit, along with whatever subsequent writers were found through the arbitration process to be deserving of credit as well.
Question, about your proposal (which, as I understand it, is somewhat similar to my thinking on the subject): Why do you say “…since it would eliminate the biased standards for subsequent writers, my guess is that a faction of WGA members would see it as either favoring rewritres or encouraging studios to have screenplays rewritten”?
Could you clarify/elaborate upon this for me? Thanks.
As I discussed in a previous post, I think “end credits” are a good idea only if they list every person hired on the project under the MBA, regardless of contribution.
This would provide a complete record of every writer engaged on the project.
It is a crying shame that our union has a formalized process to deny writers credit from projects they have worked on, erasing any evidence of their work in the public record.
If you want a complete knock-down-drag-out argument about this, check in the archives for Craig’s post about end credits.
“They do not know who really wrote the movie”
That’s very convenient. The press uses lack of knowledge as a way to avoid talking about the screenwriter… Unless the journalist didn’t like the movie, in which case they don’t mind piling all sorts of blame on the “script” and the “screenwriter” or whoever else they feel destroyed the movie. Even though the journalist has no clue if the movie shot represented what was written. They don’t know if the actor made up all their lines on set. They don’t know if the director decided to have the vegan character eat beef for a dinner scene. I do scoff at the fact-checking of entertainment reporting at ANY publication. Whether it be Variety, Premiere, or the Wall Street Journal.
The argument would hold a lot more water if journalists didn’t routinely blame screenwriters for movies they didn’t like.
One thing you know from the WGA credits is that the writer they credit DID work on the movie. They may not have written the final script, but they were certainly involved. To not mention that is avoiding a definite truth.
Spec,
” It is a crying shame that our union has a formalized process to deny writers credit from projects they have worked on, erasing any evidence of their work in the public record.
Flaw, obviously.
Think of it more in the light of an arbitration which actually aims at determining exact contributions; when any form of rewriting takes place, it is asking for a partition of all credits, end, initial, by, final and what else.
So the theory being that shared multiple proofs of authorship can represent entirely real responsability over different aspects of the writing process, fails (by subjective manners or opinions) to declare some evidence for anyone to believe including the “external” observations Craig mentioned.
Then,
The written by credits are a mix bag of contracted variations that CAN be manipulated to serve everyone but the actual screenwriters who can prove work via arbitration.
The end credits would supplement to that notion, listing the totality of work(s) done.
The filtering of such contributions has the advantage of stating THE truth beyond facts or interpretation based on objective proof.
Authorship(s) is either real or shared.
Knowing this, even the smallest of contributions is recognized and credited for. Need i add, were PAID for under contracts.
Dan —
On-screen story credit is already guaranteed in the case where the first writer hired writes a full draft without being assigned any source material or literary material — which applies to original screenplays written both on spec and on assignment.
The bias I’m speaking of is the heightened standard for some writers that depends not on the literary material they contribute to the movie’s final script, but rather on the date they are hired, or the capacity in which they are hired. Screen credit is supposed to recognize the story and screenplay as they exist in the finished movie, not the first draft, and there is no good argument (other than purely emotional) for not evaluating all writing contributions equally.
But I sincerely doubt that will ever happen, because there are too many WGA members who are terrified of the prospect of having their work stand on its own.
-
I spoke to Michael Stiner (sp?), unit publicist on POTC 2 & 3, about why it’s a practice to omit writing credits in preview issues. He said it was because even puff entertainment industry magazines are loathe to essentially reprint studio publicity material — which is exactly what any preliminary writing credit would be.
-
Despite the fact that preliminary credits are studio publicity material, they can take on the weight and value of truth even IN TOWN where people should know better. It’s in the studio’s interest to suggest a movie was written by one writer (clean credits, clean development…must equal GREAT SCRIPT! Especially if that writer is a brand name (and there are a few of them).
Unfortunately, this requires the uncredited (again, preliminarily) writer to spend the entire production period of a movie he may well have originated awkwardly reminding people in meetings that he wrote the first three drafts of the project and will be arbitrating shortly. You’ve all done it, don’t lie to yourselves…
Furthermore, despite attempts to keep a level playing field vis a vis anonymity in the arbitration process, writers are consumers, too. If they’ve driven by a billboard for a huge summer movie for three months with one writer’s name on it, that tends to sink in…It puts the burden of proof (subconsciously or otherwise) on the uncredited (and presumedly less well known) writer.
I’ve argued this with people before and some believe writers are inherently fans of the underdog and if there’s any subconscious bias it’ll be for the uncredited writer… I’d like to believe it’s all unaffected by the preliminary credit but it’s not an easy answer.
And you can argue the “social engineering” thing all you want but ultimately it’s up to the individual. I don’t like to take rewrite jobs when I know I’m going to fall in love with the material and then have to arbritrate against the first writer. Unlike original writers, a rewriter KNOWS the score and goes into it with eyes wide open. Take the job to get paid. Then go home and write an original.
Since Craig used me as an example (God, Craig, I feel so used.), I’d just like to say for the record that Charlie and the Chocolate Factory never went to arbitration. Rather, I picked up the phone and called the other writers, who decided to let the proposed credit stand.
And no, I didn’t threaten to kidnap their dogs or anything.
Also, for the record, the Premiere magazine folks are nice, whether or not they print my name. And kudos to Entertainment Weekly, which tends to print screenwriters’ names in the preview issues.
John:
I just live to embarrass you and Scott Frank.
Netflix does not offer the category of writer as a way to look up a DVD - at least in this market - theose credits are long established and could be used to promote a writer following.
I think the guild should consider a campaign with this corporation to change public/critique perception of the writer’s role. Either through asking members who use the service to request they add writer to their search parameters - or even Guild contact offering information about writers (link to articles about writers that they already do?)
I know a few years ago - when I emailed Netflix, they told me they were adding this, but so far nothing. I know people more recently have requested it and they’ve been less encouraging.
JD
Searching Netflix by writer would be a great feature. Hell, I’d like to be able to search by cinematographer, too. There’s no reason Netflix shouldn’t be as informative as the IMDb.
You know, until I started posting here, I thought I was at least moderately knowledgeable of screenwriters—but I’m having to look up easily eighty per cent of you guys to see what movies you’ve written. It’s a little embarrassing.