The Stand By Writer
Directing’s over
there, writing’s
over here…So here’s the kind of story that drives screenwriters nuts. We’ve created a small village in which to shoot, and we’ve built about five buildings. In order to save some money, the producer opted to not finish the back of one of the buildings, and wouldn’t you know it, but suddenly we find ourselves needing to shoot behind that building. The back is half wood siding (good) and half plywood (bad).
What do we do?
Well, every studio film crew has a guy called the “stand by painter”. If you need something painted on the spot, he’s your man. The stand by painter managed to paint the plywood in such a way that it looked like wood siding, and that’s all we needed.
Here’s the part screenwriters hate.
There’s a stand by painter, but there’s no stand by writer???
I relayed this story to a friend. He’s an Academy Award nominated writer-director (a truly great one at that). He’s directed movies from what he’s written, he’s directed movies from what other writers have written, and he’s written movies that others have directed…so he’s got a pretty good perspective on this whole concept. He’s very much in favor of the stand by writer, but he believes that the objection to this concept isn’t so much from the companies as it is from the directors.
So directors…I’m talkin’ to you. Here’s my pitch for the stand by writer.
I’m lucky enough to work with a secure director who enjoys my presence on the set. And since I work for a studio that would like to see me direct one day, I’ve been sort of “practice directing” in my head on this movie (note to the DGA…in my head, okay?…not stepping on anyone’s toes). I think about how to shoot the scenes. I think about pacing, angles, wardrobe, performance notes, editorial decisions, overlapping, transitions…all the stuff required of a studio director.
What I’ve come to learn is that “directing thinking” is vastly different than “writing thinking”.
When I write, my mind wanders. Possibilities are necessarily expansive. The totality of the story is constantly at the forefront. An hour goes by where I just think. Decisions aren’t really decisions—the delete key is ever so close, and what was certain an hour ago is now preposterous.
When I’m in my directing mind, what I’m doing is concentrating entirely on the work of the day. I have a scene. Pages. The story of that scene must now be reverse engineered into geometric perspectives, angles that I diagram onto a blueprint of the set, just like this. Sizes must be considered, as well as how the scene will hopefully be edited. Continuity must always be monitored. There is no time to go backwards. There is no time to stop and think for a while. The day is long, exhausting and entirely focused on the capturing this one scene.
When you’re in the directing mind, it’s only natural that the obsession of the writing mind are neglected. It’s only natural. Why not have a writer there to turn to when you realize that you need some additional dialogue to help bridge a transition? Why not have a writer there who can offer a second line of defense against errors of omission? Remember, everything’s being shot out of sequence. And even though there’s a script supervisor, a producer, a line producer, an assistant director and a studio executive, at Hour 12 of a long shoot day in which everyone is concentrated on getting this one shot off right before the crew goes into overtime, the one person who is probably thinking hardest about this moment in the context of the whole story in chronological order…
…is the writer.
Consider this story, which is instructive for two reasons.
The link doesn’t work unless you cut and paste it into your browser window. The URL is http://www.wordplayer.com/forums/scriptsarc05/index.cgi?read=40628
First, it proves the writers’ point. We should be there.
Second, it proves the directors’ point. We are often unnecessarily negative, and our attitudes can be undermining.
If we could remain positive and helpful on the set, we’d be a major boon to the production. It would be possible, I think, to collectively bargain for a guaranteed offer for “stand by writer” services. Those services would not encompass the writing of actual pages, but would simply account for our presence and consultation. The writer could turn the offer down, but at their option.
The key, of course, is understanding exactly how one is supposed to behave on a set. Thinking about the job from the director’s point of view can help every one of us understand why they’re loathe to have another “author” around.
Think of it this way.
What if you were hired to write a screenplay, and a director was attached. And what if the studio said, “Oh, and by the way, the director would like to sit in a room with you while you write. And read what you’re writing over your shoulder. And then comment.”
Ummmm, no.
Still, that’s pretty much what we’re asking to do when we request a presence on the set. Given that, I suggest we approach the task with the utmost respect to our directing brethren. They are the coauthors of the movie, but just as we are the sole authors of the screenplay, they are the sole authors of that shooting day’s work.
See how that works?
If writers could learn to be respectful of this fact, and if directors could learn to be less fearful of writers, the stand by writer would help accomplish something that everyone wants.
Better movies.
“What if you were hired to write a screenplay, and a director was attached. And what if the studio said, “Oh, and by the way, the director would like to sit in a room with you while you write. And read what you’re writing over your shoulder. And then comment.”
Doesn’t that, sometimes, doesn’t that actually happen? No, wait, it happens on the phone.
But I completely agree, Craig. The writer should be there. Or a writer.
As a writer - why not work with the director in the room. Lets just get on with it. Beats doing changes and rewrites for things that you know won’t work. It might be the perfect way foward - schedules and budgets are what don’t allow it.
Why not have writers who specialize in being standbys? Someone who reads the shooting script, becomes familiar with what the director and producers want, and is at the elbow of the director at all times.
Having a selfless devotion to the director’s vision is much easier for someone who didn’t write the script.
Ahhh, great idea, insofar as both egos can bend together to create a better story. However you need be mindful of the wishes of the ‘800 lb. gorilla’, and that is sometimes outside of the realm of only the director and writer.
Great overall concept, sure beats the rewrite, pages of notes, rewrite, notes, pages, rewrite endless cycle. But it’s already being done in a few productions (Tony and DJ in ‘Salton Sea’), and the smart Director keeps the Writer close-at-hand. However, it would be nice to formalize the philosophy into some official title or something WGA approved.
But making the writer a greater part of the production, only seems basic common sense, not sure why this is a sudden grand revelation. Having the writer at arm’s length only creates problems, and accounts for writers holding out until they can direct, aka Tim in ‘Secondhand Lions’ and scores of others.
I have never really thought about directing, which is a good thing, since there’s a stall in the girl’s room at my Big Deal Film School in which someone graffitied: If you want to direct, you’re in the wrong bathroom. For those of us who ever do get a job, my favorite professor, let’s call him Million Dollar Action Boy, suggests that the only way around eventually getting fired as Writer or Director is also being Producer. He says you negotiate that one right up front while you still have something everyone wants, as in the screenplay. And a very nice set of ta-tas. Okay, that second part I’m making up but I think we all catch my drift, boys. JGTH, “Things They Won’t Tell You In Film School.”
Okay, here’s something I’ve never understood and I count on you guys for enlightenment.
I’ve written and produced scores of feature documentaries. I approach all my subjects with a three-act narrative in mind. If it doesn’t adhere to a three-act structure it isn’t a feature film. Now, by the time we have shot all the interviews and B roll footage and acquired other footage it’s not unusual for the first assembly on tape or video to run anywhere from 5 to 7 hours. I then take that 5 to 7 hours and shape it into a narrative of between 105 and 120 minutes.
But mainstream directors begin production with a completed screenplay, 105 to 120 pages, and then turn in their first assembly in post at 3 hours or 4 hours or even 5. They have the road map for the movie in their hands, the screenplay, which is more than I have when I start a documentary. In other words, I have an excuse for shooting excess and for trying to tell the story different ways as the subject defines what the movie is going to be. But, for chrissakes, they walk on the set in the morning with The Written Word in their hands and scripts still mangled and garbled in production?
Just shoot what’s on the paper that everyone’s already agreed is hopefully Grade-A material or they all wouldn’t be there.
Rodger:
First of all, it’s rare that directors turn in 3 or 4 hour assemblies of 110 page scripts. It’s probably rare because directors don’t turn in assemblies. Editors turn in assemblies to the directors, who then work with the editors to create the director’s cut.
Of course directors shoot more than they will eventually need, just as writers write more than they will eventually need. It’s a necessary part of the creative process.
The director’s cut is intentionally long, because the movie must be screened for an audience. What if they like this scene but not that one? What if they like this subplot, but not that one? You show them all of it, and gauge their reaction.
It’s a very useful strategy. Once you have that all-important audience experience, you use it to hone the movie down to its essential state.
If you decide to just “shoot what’s on the paper”, then you’re toast. This is what screenwriters must understand. There’s a difference between what you’ve written prior to the reality of the moment of shooting, and the story that you now can tell in production. That difference requires flexibility. Studios don’t hire directors to film the pages as written. They hire directors to capture, in filmed form, the story that the screenplay spawns in mental form.
Craig,
That most recent reply from you deserves it’s own article. What an elegant and efficiently written summary of the difference between a writer and a director!
That last paragraph alone could go a looong way towards pacifying bitter and territorial writers.
I have a question, Craig. When you decided to direct, why did you pick a script you hadn’t written? It seems like the reason a writer would want to direct is to keep his script more in line with what he originally intended. Did the opportunity come up and you just wanted the experience?
Terrific reply, Craig. Thank you.
Peter:
Thanks.
Michael:
Well, if I were a cynic, I might say that I wanted to cut my teeth on someone else’s script…you know…just in case I stank. :)
But the real reason was one of perspective. I was concerned that if the first thing I directed was something I’d also written, I wouldn’t be able to make the transition as cleanly as I’d like. I think that after a few years and a lot more experience, I may now be ready to do so.
Rodger:
You’re welcome! I didn’t want you to think I was beatin’ on ya or nothin’. :)
Not at all, Craig. As LAist once said about me, I’m “a familiar gadfly in the L.A. blogosphere” so I have a keen sense of the difference between being “beaten on” and being taught something. I’m no rookie to the writing game but one never stops learning.
I only recently discovered The Artful Writer through a colleague and I’m enjoying it very much.
Craig, Since on-set writers must be paid… often an expensive weekly fee on top of a per diem… producers/studios tend to balk at writers coming to the set unless they feel they are rushing into production with a less-than-final script. That is to say, the “bank” is against it financially, rather than the “director” against it creatively. The problem for writers is expressing that we would like to be involved in the production, that we would still like our weekly quote met (plus our per diem, plus our travel), but that all of the above doesn’t necessarily mean that the script needs a new ending or that every actor’s on-set whim needs to be met. Now, you can always say “I’ll just go and not be paid,” but then you are short-changing your profession and your contributions to the production. Part of the fault lies in the writer’s contract structure, which typically runs out of steps long before the cameras start rolling.
I’m sure you have some thoughts on this… I’d love to hear them.
Rodger:
Glad to hear it!
Derek:
Sure. There are two options. The first is simply to negotiate a weekly fee that isn’t so damned expensive. In other words, if we train the studios and directors to prefer the stand by writer, then it’s really our issue about whether or not to do it for the available money.
The second option is an all-services deal, which I try and make on each movie I have that goes into production.
Craig, I think your first option sends the wrong message… which is, you can include the writers on the cheap! Still, maybe the ends justifies the means… and being on set is worth more than making an established weekly quote. But it is a thin line between “free,” “cheap,” and “what my skills are worth.”
As for the second option, personally, I prefer an all-services contract from the time the steps in my contract are fulfilled up until the day of production. Anything after the cameras roll, I feel, should be a weekly fee. At least, that is how we’ve done it to this point.
Still, both your options require the studio/producer to put additional money into the budget to cover you… and on an out-of-town production… also per diem and travel. I think these factors are as difficult to overcome for a writer who wants to be included in the production… as it is to convince the director that he/she should be there. In some ways, more so. On one hand, you want to say, “the script is great… I’ll just be there for any tweaks necessary…” and on the other, you have to say, “the script needs enough work to justify the expense of including me.” It’s a Catch-22.
Well in my limited productional experience, never been involved with something that didn’t require tweaks, and it’s not so much that the script needs work, it’s just that you need to rework to meet the demands of the production. Sometimes the idealized perfect script, on paper, doesn’t work on film. Maybe the actors feel some line should be fleshed out more or even cut, maybe this scene works better earlier, maybe you need to add a backstory, maybe this, maybe that, it can be endless. Craig’s ‘mental mind’ idea captures it perfectly. And any production that can’t somehow justify the expense of a writer, is a production on the way to doomsville. Having the writer on set, to adjust, help out, and tweak, sure beats having to pull him in, slag with pages of notes, when he’s already juggling 3 or more other productions with a now higher priority. And little minor tweaks, can make or break productions, don’t discount them just because they are ‘tweaks’.
To approach it from the protective writer mode, of perfect as is “script needs enough work to justify”, misses the big overall productional picture.
Don’t get me wrong… I understand the need for a writer on set; I want the writer to be included in the production; I want the writer to be paid what he/she is worth to be included; I am not discounting the importance of tweaks or why the writer and not the director/actor/producer should be the one implementing the tweaks. I am also as far from a “protective” writer as you can be.
I just think that writers spend a lot of time talking about how directors don’t want them included on the sets, when often times, it is a financial decision on behalf of the studio. And to say that any production that can’t justify the expense of the writer is on the road to “doomsville” is a bit naive… the heads of physical production at the studio will try to shave off any and all dollars that they can… even on $90M productions. If they see a writer making a weekly fee… but the script is “locked,” they will say… “why are we still employing this writer, when the script is locked? If you include per diem and travel, I can save $100K (or more) a week by sending him home. Over a twelve week production, that’s more than a million saved.” This is reality. And yes, after the writer goes home, the script will still be reworked to meet the demands of the production, even if it is locked… The producers/studio will say, “that is the director’s job.”
I also know why we target the directors… because a director who wants you on set, will most likely get you on set, physical production head be damned. It is an indifferent director — or worse, an antagonistic director —that will have you headed home.
My main point is that if we as writers are going to be included more often during production, we need to change the studio’s, the producer’s, AND the director’s thinking. Because we are an above-the-line expense, unlike the on-set painter, we are more valuable, more expensive, but also more vulnerable. If they can see the value, as Craig has outlined in his essay above (and with which I agree wholeheartedly), then the writer’s weekly fee would be included in the initial production budgets… and his or her presence would just be a given. But right now, this isn’t the case.
Well having seen a few Directors supposed “script fixes”, I lean towards “doomsville”, tho better results if the Director is also a Writer. :) And a ‘locked’ script is an illusion, no such thing exists, it be only ‘locked’ on opening day. But overall I agree, saying the same thing just a differing take. However a million over a 12 week period, seems rather excessively high, ‘stand-by’ or ‘on call’ need not be during the entire production, can work in a “week by week” set fee.
Getting beyond the write script, head for hills, leave the director to it, seems counterproductive. Some economically-feasible formalization of a ‘stand-by’ writer can help reduce the ego-clash, and kill the Development mindset of the writer as finished-goods once the script is greenlit.
Err, NOT getting beyond. (Script fix). :)
Hello all.
Craig, long time admirer of Artful Writer, first time contributer. (Be gentle!)
Terry Rossio has a great story about this very subject on his Blog. Since Mr Elliot was also involved, he could discuss it in greater detail. (I’m sorry, but I don’t feel comfortable posting the link without permission.)
But basically, both were present during the filming of PIRATES 1. On a very early morning, the director (G. Verbinski) told them that the ending would need to be reworked. (The stunt people had developed a killer way to get Capt. Jack onto the Pearl from the sea, which involved repositioning the landing point for the Capt. More time getting from Pt. A to B = more dialogue.)
It’s a great story; and I hope Mr Rossio or Mr Elliot will post it here for everyone.
But, though it illustrates how important having a writer on set can be, I think Mr Hass has an excellent point regarding the budget. I’m not sure, but I think Mr Rossio/ Elliot were also producers on PIRATES. If so, their rates were as producers. (Also, Mr Verbinski is a writer/directer; as such, he may be more comfortable having writers on his sets.
I hope Mr Elliot, and/or Mr Rossio comments on the original post.
For what it’s worth, I agree with you, Craig.
Thanks for the Artful Writer!