A History Of Debate, Part II

Once again, I thank you both for the ringside seat.

Great, thought provoking posts Craig.

I applaud your honor in letting him get the last word in. Josh seems hung up on principle of the “film by” credit. It doesn’t appear to be about money. It is purely about what is right. Josh, it is Craig’s opinion that it would take a strike to get this particular issue resolved. Is this important enough to you to strike for?

It seems obvious to my eyes, that Craig is passionate about standing up for screenwriters. Just because his priorities are not yours, doesn’t mean he cares any less for what is just and right. It seems like he takes an issue, shrewdly evaluates its probability of success, and attacks where success is most likely. He will not throw his ship onto a rock that he could of otherwise easily navigated around, regardless of whether the rock should have been there in the first place. I wish there were more people with his honesty and common sense.

JOSH and CRAIG:

So we all agree. We hate the “Film By” credit. So what do we do about it?

My advice?

Move on.

Josh, if I understand your posts correctly you want the perception of writers changed. I know I agree with that. I’m pretty sure Craig agrees with that. I’m pretty sure all writers agree with that.

What we’re disageeing on here is how to make that happen. As someone who used to be an executive I can definitely tell you, it ain’t with the “Film By” credit. There are so many other issues out there that need to be dealt with.

This reminds me a lot of our current situation with George Bush. Whenever something really huge happens within the walls of the Presidency, a trivial social situation is put out there (Michael Jackson, Terry Schiavo), and then we all forget things like: “Oh yeah, didn’t Karl Rove commit treason?”

Cue The Pacifier. No, not you Vin Diesel.

Like Craig, I want to stay objective enough so I don’t start foaming at the mouth and preach about Hollywood injustices. Someone once called me a Slave Master on this site. And it wasn’t an analogy…

If it ain’t about the money and it ain’t about the audience, then it’s about the principle, right? Look, I get that. It’s not right. But it is petty. A petty argument, that is.

If this is really, truly about perception this is not the way to go about it. It won’t change the way we’re perceived by the audience. It won’t change the way we’re perceived by directors and it damn sure won’t change the way we’re perceived by our employers. But it will change the way you perceive yourself.

That’s all.

Is that the goal here?

Craig,

Thanks for posting this debate, and way to keep a level head throughout.

Josh,

I think you need to stop labeling Craig as a guy who puts down writers at every opportunity. He clearly cares deeply about writers and writing or he wouldn’t bother with being a WGA rep, or maintaining this blog. It’s not that Craig can’t be wronger than a wrong thing (W?, seriously?). It’s just that you come across as not knowing whether Craig cares more about writers than directors. You can question his opinions and his methods, but after all he’s done, can you really question his loyalties?

I’d kind of like to hear more about these ideas.

Direct what you write,

and,

Produce what you write.

Both sound just ducky when you’ve got little or no idea what they entail, but, as always, I’d imagine there are pitfalls to both. Since there are at least a few people in here that have done both…

How ‘bout a bit about how those experiences panned out for those of you that’ve been through them.

As a “writer/producer” what aspects of that job did you find yourself totally unprepared for because, until you actually had to do that job, you had NO idea that … ???

How did you get through it?

What would you (did you) do differently 2nd time around?

Ditto for “writer/director”.

Dammit. That was me askin’. Forgot to fill in the name field again.

Mike:

I’m one of two producers on Scary 4. That’s a first for me. I think the thing I became really aware of early on was that my duel role made it possible for me to hurt my own writing…

…and my own writing made it possible for me to hurt my own production.

It’s important to be able to wear just one hat or the other so that you can be decisive, but it’s just as important to allow a little bit of bleedthrough between the tasks. When I’m reviewing what a particular scene might cost, the producer in me needs to be reminded by the writer why it’s worth the money.

And when I’m writing a scene, the writer in me needs to be reminded by the producer that efficiency and shootability and cost really do matter.

I think this debate is very important for all writers, and I thank both of you for your insights. I would encourage further discussion, though I think we would all benefit with less personal references and slights and simply talk about the issues, inviting and debating all positions, and moving on when at an impasse. While we may have our differences, let’s reserve our anger for those who deserve it - hack coverage writers who wouldn’t know a good script if it hit them in the face. ;)

It seems that Josh has real trouble presenting his case without seemingly being vindictive. The whiney, complaining writer, the type Craig has defined before.

I mean, really, this is a great conversation about bettering the stature of the writer with both Craig and Josh scoring interesting points.

But I find I lose concentration when I hear Josh’s apparent anger that seems unrelated to the subject matter. Things such as: “If it helps your conservative soul live with it more…” You’re making more of a personal jab (because you obviously disagree with Craig’s politics) than a professional observation. Why? You’re obviously insinuating that “conservative” is a dirty word. But in a debate about writer’s rights, why would you bring up someone’s political stripes? I just don’t get it.

The issue here seems to a simple one of hierarchy.

Josh and Craig are arguing that writers should be on an equal footing with directors, and that any claims to authorship are outright immoral and an insult to all creative personnel on a film production.

Lets put the cat among the pigeons for a moment.

A director is called a director for good reason. They’re under immense pressure, fighting horrendous logistics, politicking with disgruntled actors, writers, crew, and through all that are responsible for telling a compelling story cinematically, from pre-production to when the final frame of film is cut. In the creative pecking order, for better or worse, they’re top of the pile.

Screenwriters who are unhappy with this pecking order should think about writing novels, stage plays, or better yet - directing themselves.

Christopher Doyle, who leaves his signature on every single film he photographs, has stated that his job is to reflect the ‘vision’ of the director he’s working with. Why is it so rare to hear a writer state the same thing?

i think the director should serve the vision of the story, not the other way around.

If we agree the “film by” credit is wrong, we change it and THEN we move on. If it’s wrong, which we all know it is, change it.

That’s what unions are for, right. Make right what isn’t, stop unhealthy and unethical business practices.

Don’t understand why folks are so quick to brush off the “film by” thing, even though they know it is wrong.

Quick question…I just joined WA so I could read the unedited exchange…

Where exactly is this discussion taking place? What’s the name of the thread?

Thanks!

Peter:

It’s in the Polls section near the bottom, something about PR. Obviously, Josh and I went off on a tangent.

“That’s what unions are for, right. Make right what isn’t, stop unhealthy and unethical business practices.”

Unions were formally organized to represent their collective views for wages, hours, and working conditions. (full disclosure: I plagarized that from the internet)

Much like life, nothing is ever going to be 100% perfect. And although this is a lazy analogy, union disputes are very much like going to war. I don’t want my General going after one particular enemy soldier because he raped a sheep a fort night ago (what?). I want my General to win the war strategically and smartly, while knowing that he’s doesn’t necessarily have to kill every enemy soldier to do that.

Let’s put this in perspective a bit.

Do you know what other unions are like? The kind of shit they put up with. Things like, erraticating their health insurance, eliminating over time, lowering pensions. Wanna have some fun? Try telling someone who works for another union like the TWU about the “Film By” issue. At the very least you’d give him a good laugh…

Don’t care?

Fair enough. You don’t have to. After all, we don’t work for the MTA. We work in Hollywood. But Perspective is a scary thing, ain’t it? Why argue over something so little with so much energy? And when real issues that actually do affect our livelihood are raised, they’ll very little fight left. Seriously, there are more important things to deal with.

I was never promised Utopia. Nobody was.

But is the ‘film by’ credit really wrong, or evil, or bad, or immoral or is it just about battling egos?

A film is a film. A screenplay is a screenplay. In the scheme of things why should the ‘film by’ credit matter anymore to a writer than it does to a cinematographer, editor or production designer?

It’s like the argument John Lennon and Paul MaCartney had about the order of the their names in songwriting credits.

No one gave a shit, except them.

That’s the point, Kevin, it ain’t so little - it’s little to you, obviously, not to others here - whether you think it’s large or small, we agree it still wrong and unfair and we should start with that.

civil rights was about more than who got to sit where on the bus, much much more - but it a good deal of the progress started when someone objected to a tiny thing of who gets to sit where and why.

Obviously, I never thought the racism methaphor was inappropriate - I thought it was more than apt. We’re talking about fair and equal treatment. That’s what the union is, collectively, to make sure we get a fair shake - I don’t really understand what your objection to my post is - are you saying because you weren’t promised a utopia, we should let the bullshit credit go?

There are many issues, obviously, but the credit is and always will be important in a lot of ways.

Even if it’s only symbolic, it’s important.

“Civil rights was about more than who got to sit where on the bus, much much more - but it a good deal of the progress started when someone objected to a tiny thing of who gets to sit where and why.”

You’ve got to be fucking kidding me.

This is what I mean by Perspective.

This has NOTHING to do with civil rights. Writer’s or otherwise. The rights that writers retain are NOWHERE near as powerless to keep on perpetuating this ridiculous analogy. Rosa Parks refusing to get up and move to the back of the bus was not a little thing. She had less rights than a house dog. If you think that situation is comparable to a Writer’s…that is wackier beyond wacky.

“Are you saying because you weren’t promised a utopia, we should let the bullshit credit go?”

Yes.

If someone can really explain to me how this will change the perception of Writer’s to our Employers—realistically, I’d love to hear it.

It’s not a small step.

It’s a giant waste of time.

Sorry, the beginning of my post was a bit more aggressive than I would have liked.

Even if it’s only symbolic, it’s important.

Actualy, I think the standard accepted definition of “it’s only symbolic” is that it’s not important.

Quite frankly this whole argument is stupid. The problem is too many writers saying the same thing in different ways. Here’s the bullet points:

1) Both sides think the ‘film by’ credit is stupid and inaccurate.

2) One side thinks it’s worth fighting for, the other side says it’s not worth the energy.

See how few pages are required when you refrain from adjectives and victim analogies?

I think Craig really just laid it all out there a long time ago. The DGA has shown they are willing to strike over this issue so to get it resolved in your favor you have to be willing to strike longer. Since the majority of WGA members are TV writers and aren’t really affected by this issue that seems unlikely. What else need be said?

I’ve been following this discussion for over a year, trying to decide where I’d position myself when it was my turn.

I’m a writer/director with a finished screenplay, Guru Trap, a twisted love story, assessed as “amazingly good, and it isn’t even my genre” by an Emmy Winner (full disclosure: she’s my ex-mother-in-law.

But she’s my ex, mother-in-law, so it isn’t like she cut me a break on the read!), and about to start directing/producing a feature documentary, What’s Your Sexual Pattern? that we hope to submit to the Academy in a few years for consideration.

All this while holding my day job, and being a single father to my four teenage kids (three girls, 19, 18, 16) and a son (13). laughs

So I found myself legitimately needing to think the debate through for myself, from both the writers and the directors’ points of view.

Having done so, I agree, that “A Film By” is bullshit, even if you are Robert Rodriguez. But I don’t think it’s worth striking for. And I don’t believe we’re going to get it any other way than with a strike.

I believe Craig is right. Given the membership composition (lots of television writers), those of us whose prefered medium is film will never get a strike vote on this issue.

As for shifting how writers are perceived, fundamentally, I don’t believe “A Film By” is the fulcrum. I’m not quite certain yet what is - DVD tracks are in the ballpark. Publicity tours, being on the “Making of” documentary.

I think the key will be, “Branding” writers, in much the same way that directors and actors are branded. Which means we will need to each spend time and money developing our own looks, hiring public relations people, learning how to speak on camera, and so on.

Just as a studio has to have a good story to justify firing a name actor or director, they have to have a good story to justify firing Bill Goldman. Because Goldman is a known Brand. As is Joss Whedon. Or Aaron Sorkin. Put another way, if you have your own brand, a studio will hire you because they can tell a good story about why they hired you, regardless of any other reason. Your brand becomes a reason to help sell the movie, as well as help protect their jobs internally.

A no-name director wouldn’t dare use the DGA’s rules to try and get “A Film By” on a film that Goldman, Whedon, or Sorkin was the main draw on. Because in 72 point type on the one-sheet, it’s screaming, “From the pen of 2-Time Oscar Winner WILLIAM GOLDMAN”, or “From JOSS WHEDON, Creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer”.

I want the WGAw to spend it’s time - striking if it has to - on what really matters to me: making sure we get more money on each and every DVD etc sold. And not a little more money - a lot more money. No backing down. The backend is what matters.

This credit thing… as writers learn to brand themselves, and as we negotiate the right to do so on each and every DVD sold, and during each press tour, and to participate at every level of the creative process, the credits issus is something which I believe will take care of itself over time, as everyone learns to see us as a full member of the creative team, equal to the director.

But it will come about as a function OF THE STORY WE TELL ABOUT OURSELVES, that is, the brand we create for ourselves as a body of writers. The demands we make under the new MBA should be designed to help us tell a new story in which we are co-equal with the director, the two people which co-create the film.

This is the brand we wish to make of ourselves, this is the story we wish to tell.

We’re storytellers - let’s get to work inventing this new story for all of our sakes.

Check out Josh Friedman’s blog entry “THE POOP IS BANANAS” for an interesting addition to this discussion.

http://www.hucksblog.blogspot.com/

Not wacky at all - it was about the little things that are wrong and should change and that we can change - it’s a metaphor, as I said - and in my view a very apt one.

Sometimes little things that are, by themselves, small and annoying, mean more in the broader picture. That’s perspective.

Damn, just because you think the bullshit credit is a waste of time doens’t mean a load of the rest of us don’t. You keep going on about perspective but appear to be championing only one.

Recently had call to examine both sides of the “a film by” question. I am currently (shoot in 3 weeks) making my first feature as writer and director. I toyed with the “a film by” question … for a few minutes, but decided — as someone who has benefitted from the amazing suppport of others on this and other projects — that I couldn’t justify it, wouldn’t be able to look myself in the eye, if I had it — even though I have lived and breathed the film for 3 years.

Then, a couple of weeks ago, my co-writer on another project and I discovered that the director of that one was asking the producer for a “film by” credit. It was then, on the other side of the table, that I realised how shocking an idea it is. The co-writer and I had been working night and day on this script for almost a year. THis guy (a great director and great to work with) had just come on — and he is giving the project a real boost — but it sure wasn’t by him … certainly not yet … and we couldn’t see how it would end up being by him by the time he made it.

We pointed out that the DGA discourages it for first time directors, and suggests that directors that get it are instrumental in developing the project … and he quickly backed down. Actually, his agent backed down — I think he was kind of embarrassed about the whole thing. I wonder to what extent this has become an accepted thing that agents must ask for — to be seen to be getting added value for their client?

Anyway … my 2c.

Anonymous,

“Why? You’re obviously insinuating that “conservative” is a dirty word.”

Sorry for the insinuation. I’ll make it explicity - “conservative” IS a dirty word.

“ But in a debate about writer’s rights, why would you bring up someone’s political stripes? I just don’t get it.”

Because this is a political discussion.

Matt,

“A director is called a director for good reason.”

And a grip is called a grip for good reason, and each of them gets a credit on the finished film that reflects that. Why give either of them another one?

I pick a book at random from my shelf. There is no argument that the author of a book is the author of the book, is there? Didn’t think so. What does it say? It says “Slippage by Harlan Ellison.” What it DOESN’T say is “Slippage by Harlan Ellison a book by Harlan Ellison.” It also doesn’t say “Slippage by Harlan Ellison a Harlan Ellison book.” You know why? Because they already told us once who wrote it. No need for another credit. It’s REAL simple.

“They’re under immense pressure, fighting horrendous logistics, politicking with disgruntled actors, writers, crew, and through all that are responsible for telling a compelling story cinematically, from pre-production to when the final frame of film is cut.”

Okay. First of all, they’re responsible for translating the screenplay to film. As a rule, it’s the writer whose job it is to TELL the story. Second of all, while the director’s job can be hell, so can the writer’s. Having written, directed and worked in the art department, I can promise you that working in the art department is harder work than either of the other two. I can also tell you that coming to a job where close to a hundred people are working day and night to please you has its disadvantages and frustrations, but they don’t come close to the horror of staring at an empty page. Here’s a fact - a director can show up on the set, pass out, and wake up to find that a scene has been shot. I’ve seen it happen. I’ve seen it happen on very good movies. That had good scripts.

I have never in my life walked into my study to find a scene has been written while I slept.

“Christopher Doyle, who leaves his signature on every single film he photographs, has stated that his job is to reflect the ‘vision’ of the director he’s working with. Why is it so rare to hear a writer state the same thing?”

The DP comes on board the film after the director has been hired. He works directly under the director, and it’s his job to reflect the vision of the director he’s working under. I’d love to hear you explain how it’s the job of the writer to reflect the vision of the director when the writer is usually the first one on the job.

Were you to, say, be hired by a studio to direct a spec I wrote, and you told me it was my job to reflect your vision, I’d laugh in your face.

When I directed my own script, it was my job to honor the screenplay.

Later in the year, I’m directing an adaptation I wrote. It’s a brilliant story by a brilliant writer, Dennis Lehane. As the screenwriter, it was my job to honor Lehane’s short story. As the director, it will be my job to honor the screenplay. The director’s vision will be in service of the screenwriter’s vision, which was in service to the author’s vision. Were I to tell Lehane that now that I’m directing it’s his job to service my vision, I’d be the most arrogant, ignorant jackalope to ever walk onto a set.

Joshua,

“Don’t understand why folks are so quick to brush off the “film by” thing, even though they know it is wrong”

Because some people don’t grasp the importance of symbolism.

Matt,

“But is the ‘film by’ credit really wrong, or evil, or bad, or immoral or is it just about battling egos?”

This is the last time I respond to the suggestion that it’s about egotism. I’ve addressed this half a dozen times already, and I know I’m reasonably adept at getting my ideas across via the written word, so I have to assume folks are simply not reading the posts.

“A film is a film. A screenplay is a screenplay. In the scheme of things why should the ‘film by’ credit matter anymore to a writer than it does to a cinematographer, editor or production designer?”

It matters to some cinematographers, editors and production designers. I know cinematographers who’ve saved inept directors by doing their job on the set on a daily basis who’ve watched those same directors take the credit. Same goes with editors. It’s not about wanting the credit for myself. It’s about recognizing that it is a baldfaced lie and an insult to the scores of people whose vital work make the movie. And I guess I have to spell this out - it doesn’t insult them because they want the credit. In insults them because it takes credit for their work.

Jesse,

“A no-name director wouldn’t dare use the DGA’s rules to try and get “A Film By” on a film that Goldman, Whedon, or Sorkin was the main draw on. “

Third time today!

Glengarry Glen Ross. A film by James Foley. Not exactly a no-name director, but compared to Mamet? Please.

And if you think the names Goldman, Whedon, or Sorkin actually draw people to the movie theaters, I have a bridge you might want to buy.

People keep getting hung up on this. Writers - like directors, for the most part - are almost entirely unknown to the world outside. To movie fans, sure, but the folks who make up the majority of the audience don’t know the difference between Joss Whedon and Hal Ashby. I am not now nor have I ever argued that somehow we should all be famous. This has nothing to do with fame, and the fact that many people here keep bringing it back to that gives some insight into what motivates some people to write, I guess. But it’s not the subject. And I promise you, aside from the one I mentioned, there are countless examples of small directors taking film by credits on movies written by huge writers.

I realize my last post could be read as characterizing Jesse as someone who’s drawn to writing for fame. That wasn’t at all my intention. I was using his comment as a launching pad for a general comment, one that wasn’t at all directed at him. I quite agree with his assessment that we need to create a new story. That’s what I’ve been trying to say in my own way from the get go. So Jesse, if you feel I’ve impugned you, I apologize. But the comment wasn’t directed at you.

Here’s something I haven’t heard brought up: How does the Producer’s Guild feel about the credit? I know Craig says individual producers don’t think the credit is worthwhile, but does their union have an official position?

I know a lot of producers feel (often rightly so) that the film is really by them. They’re the ones who are there from the moment the writer is hired until … well, forever. They deal with the writing, the pre-production, the production, the post-production, the marketing, the ancillary markets, the merchandising, everything cradle-to-grave. And when the film gets Best Picture, they’re the ones accepting.

The reason I ask is I wonder if the WGA and the Producer’s Guild could use their combined power to kill the Film By credit. Or are things between the two unions too contentious to allow for that sort of teamwork?

Josh,

I don’t take any of this personally, till people start saying, “Jesse, you fuck”, and often, not then. After having spent almost ten years as a paramedic in big city, inner city ghettos, I find I can almost always outlast someone who is angry with me. laughs

As for writing for fame… well, if it happens, it happens, and fine with me. Not that fame is my purpose in writing. But I didn’t think for a second you thought that’s what I was saying. And please, feel free to riff off me to make whatever points you wish. smiles

No, with the Joss Whedon example, I was thinking specifically of how he used his personal brand this past year to sell Serenity, because who he was marketing to were all the comic book fans and television fans whom over seven years knew him from Buffy, Angel, Firefly, and so it was Joss’s name that was the brand which mattered, not anything else.

As part of we creating a new story about what it means to be a writer, as a whole, part of which I’m claiming will involve branding all of our top 200-500 writers, in much the same way that the top 200-500 actors are branded, both male and female, and known to the public…

That as part of inventing, creating this new story of what it is to be a WGAw writer, I believe the whole issue of the possessory credit will become moot as our identity shifts.

Not immediately. Not with the new MBA currently being negotiated. But if we do it right, likely with the following negotiation, and so cleanly, it would be an obvious insult to whom we have become as partners in the creative process, for the DGA to attempt to insist on maintaining the PC for anyone except old-time highly-respected directors for whom, perhaps, it is grandfathered in.

But the key is to have the discussion amongst ourselves as to what story we wish to invent that shapes and defines ourselves. Everything else is gravy.

“Sorry for the insinuation. I’ll make it explicity - “conservative” IS a dirty word.”

So, Josh, by calling Craig the “c” word, is that what you think of him as well? And if so, are you actually listening to his point of view? Or, knowing that Craig is the “c” word, you instead just shout him down and think all his points are coming from the cruel and heartless cave where all “c” values come from?

Because as far as I’ve read, Craig does a lot more fighting for writers than you. His arguments to improve the writer’s lot seem passionate, realistic and well placed.

You just seem to ignore what he’s been trying to accomplish and harp on one thing: the “film by” credit.

“It matters to some cinematographers, editors and production designers. I know cinematographers who’ve saved inept directors by doing their job on the set on a daily basis who’ve watched those same directors take the credit. Same goes with editors. It’s not about wanting the credit for myself. It’s about recognizing that it is a baldfaced lie and an insult to the scores of people whose vital work make the movie. And I guess I have to spell this out - it doesn’t insult them because they want the credit. In insults them because it takes credit for their work.”

By the sounds of what you write here, Josh, you’re saying that film is a collaborative art. Many people have a piece in the puzzle that a movie becomes. Everyone has his or her stakes.

So why don’t we just abolish the “Film By” credit and move on?

Because by the time a script goes to camera, it’s not just the writer’s anymore, it’s the entire production team. I was always led to believe that the script, the beautiful piece of work it may be, is the blue print. And from this blue print an even better house is built (or not, in some cases).

It’s time to abolish, or conversely, take no notice of the credit since it really has no relevance.

Josh Olson wrote:

“Okay. First of all, [directors are] responsible for translating the screenplay to film. As a rule, it’s the writer whose job it is to TELL the story. “

Dude…

Hmm.

No.

Directors are responsible for telling a story with film. There is a story that is in written form that is, by its very nature, different from any and all filmic stories, but that story (the screenplay) presents a theory or proposal of what a filmic story should be.

The director then tells a filmic story, adhering to or departing from the theory/proposal when the demands of the filmic storytelling require it.

Some filmic stories are, by their natures, very close in nature to the theory. Others are further off.

I’m not sure how exactly you’re using the verb “honor”. Are you saying that “honoring the writing” means telling the best story possible that one can derive from the writing you’re honoring? Or are you saying that honoring the writing means being as faithful as possible to the writing?

“The reason I ask is I wonder if the WGA and the Producer’s Guild could use their combined power to kill the Film By credit.”

The Producer’s Guild has no power. It’s not even a union.

The Producer’s Guild has no power. It’s not even a union.

Interesting. I always wondered about that. Unions are typically set up to organize workers to stand up for their rights against management. But producers ARE management (or are at least part of the management, along with the studio) … so it seems odd that they would have a guild of their own.

(“Producers of the world unite! We must organize to protect ourselves against … ourselves! We can not allow ourselves to underpay us any longer!”)

So, what about other unions? If editors, DP’s, crew, etc. also have issues with the Film By credit, why not team up the WGA with IATSE, ACE, SAG, AFTRA and other professional organizations?

It seems like this issue is “everyone vs. the director.” There has to be enough collective power amongst all the other unions in this town to wrench that credit from the DGA’s greedy fingers.

Maybe people don’t care enough to bother? Everyone has bigger fish to fry? Or maybe there’s friction amongst the unions that prevents such cooperation?

Glengarry Glen Ross. A film by James Foley. Not exactly a no-name director, but compared to Mamet? Please.

I’ve got an even better (worse) example:

The Merchant of Venice: A Film By Micheal Radford.

That’s right: Shakespeare wrote the play. Al Pacino plays Shylock. But seconds into the film, the credits tell us we’re watching a film “by Michael Radford.”

So unless somebody can convince me that Michael Radford is more of a common name than William Shakespeare, you’re going to have to dispense with the whole “No director would take a possessory credit if the writer is well-known and respected” thing.

As for the notion that the director has final authority over the film: some do. But the vast majority don’t, and if the director and the producer disagree about, say, how to edit the film, the producer is going to win, unless the director is one of the lucky few with contractually promised final cut. I’m not saying this is a good thing or a bad thing; it’s just the way things are.

Something interesting about this discussion: both Craig and Josh agree that the “Film By” credit is “moronic” (to use Craig’s word). The only argument is: is it worth the the WGA’s while to launch a crusade against it?

Garret Whelan said all there is to say. Josh and Joshua have ignored the only point that matters:

The DGA will strike over this matter. The television writers in the WGA are of suffient enough numbers to prevent a WGA strike over the matter.

What do you propose the guid should do?

Until you have a realistic answer to this, the argument serves little purpose other than foot stomping and crying.

And I wasn’t going to say this before, but Josh’s “conservative IS a dirty word” comment demands it. This argument is less about the “film by” credit and more about Josh’s distrust and dislike of Craig merely because of his political views. The racial analogy suddenly has an entirely new meaning as I’m certain Craig’s personal views are in the minority in the guild, and those views are absolutely no indication how he conducts himself as it’s representative.

1. A motion picture is considered throughout the world to be a work of authorship in its own right, separate and distinct from any other work of authorship. A motion picture does not exist; someone or ones do the work that falls under the umbrella of the term “director”; a motion picture exits.

Someone who is responsible for the creation of a work of authorship — the person through whose sensibilities all other suggestions, ideas, contributions, etc. are filtered — is called an “author,” in fact if not in law. The argument that the “a film by” credit implies authorship to which directors are not entitled is a non-starter.

1. The only way the director’s possessive credit will be abolished is by the DGA membership itself. The DGA as an organization adamantly protects that credit with the kind of fervor that all unions should show in protecting their members’ rights. In some cases requiring directors to take the credit who otherwise would not. I know of two instances where this has happened.

In one of them, the DGA required the director to take the credit because the above-the-title production company card (the “presents”) included the producer’s name.

In the other, the director argued to the DGA that the possessive credit should include the writer, as well (it was a spec screenplay, a single writer from beginning to end). The DGA said “no” (again, the production company card included a person’s name).

(BTW — the “producer’s-name-in-the-production-company’s-name” is the reason no one should be looking to the PGA for help on this issue. In fact, the director’s possessive credit came into existence as a response to the producer’s possessive credit — read Frank Capra’s The Name Above the Title if you want to understand why the DGA is so, er, possessive of it) ).

1. The practical course of action to deal with the director’s possessive credit:

Get a possessive credit of our own.

The DGA Basic Agreement says that anyone has the right to negotiate a possessive credit. Great. Here’s how it works:

On any movie where a writer or writers receives a “Written by” credit, if the production company includes the producer’s name or the director takes a possessive credit, the writer(s) receive(s) a possessive credit in the form of “Name’s ( and Name’s) Title” (like “Paddy Chayefsky’s Network or “Neil Simon’s The Goodbye Girl”). The possessive credit must be featured on screen and in all paid advertising and promotion equal to the producer or director card.

It’s the director’s film? Fine. It’s our story, structure, characters, characterizations, action and dialogue.

This would elevate the status of writers to equal to directors; make writers brands, brands that could be used in the promotion of movies; and, by making the credit dependent on either the producer or director taking a possessive credit first, let the producer or director determine whether or not there would be an additional possessive credit on the movie.

The kind of movies we’re talking about represent two works of authorship: the motion picture, and the screenplay.

Why not reflect that accurately in the credits?

-

Craig,

“Directors are responsible for telling a story with film. There is a story that is in written form that is, by its very nature, different from any and all filmic stories, but that story (the screenplay) presents a theory or proposal of what a filmic story should be.”

We’re getting into fine hair-splitting here. I absolutely believe the director’s primary job is to tell the story. But the post I was responding to gave that more weight than actually CREATING the story.

“Are you saying that “honoring the writing” means telling the best story possible that one can derive from the writing you’re honoring”

Absolutely.

Anonymous,

“It’s time to abolish, or conversely, take no notice of the credit since it really has no relevance.”

Oh my God! You’re so right! I didn’t see it until some anonymous person on the internet set me straight. The “film by” credit has no relevance! Whoo hoo! We are free at last from these chains of tyranny!

Seriously. Thanks for clearing that up. I’ll sleep so much better now that you’ve stated that.

Ted,

“ 1. The practical course of action to deal with the director’s possessive credit: Get a possessive credit of our own.”

To defeat the beast, become the beast?

But what, then, of movies in which the writing is mediocre, the directing is mediocre, but the performance at the center of it is so powerful that it overcomes the film’s limitations? Can we give the star’s possessive credit? Then there’s Thin Red Line, where everything’s a mess, but the visuals are mind-boggling - shouldn’t it be John Toll’s Thin Red Line?

“The kind of movies we’re talking about represent two works of authorship: the motion picture, and the screenplay. Why not reflect that accurately in the credits?”

They already do. There’s a “Directed By” credit for the director, and a “Written By” credit for the writer. Because a finished film is WAY more than two works of authorship.

Just a question: Would you be less upset about the “Film by” credit if it was listed at the very end of the credits as opposed to the beginning of the movie (or the beginning of the credits). I don’t mean theoretically, but practically speaking; if they put the credit at the end of the credits would it at least semi-appease your?

Thomas,

“And I wasn’t going to say this before, but Josh’s “conservative IS a dirty word” comment demands it. This argument is less about the “film by” credit and more about Josh’s distrust and dislike of Craig merely because of his political views.”

Say what?

Ay yi yi.

No, Thomas. It isn’t.

“I’m certain Craig’s personal views are in the minority in the guild, and those views are absolutely no indication how he conducts himself as it’s representative.”

This is a whole separate discussion, but I’m always fascinated by the notion that political views are like favorite sports teams - they have nothing to do with anything real. Liking the Seahawks is no reflection of who you are as a human being. Subscribing to a political philosophy, however, is. The notion that your politics don’t affect who you are is beyond absurd, but it’s one many people cling to. Your politics are a reflection of who you are (And vice versa). They are a reflection of your ethics and your morality and your character. That’s sort of their nature.

But that ain’t the subject, and the notion that I’m going after Craig because he likes the Seahawks and I don’t is idiotic. The philosophy he espouses in public on the issues we’re talking about here bother me a great deal.

And PLEASE don’t try to make this a political back and forth. I’ve said all I’ve got to say on the subject here, and will give any political posts the same attention I give to posts that express outrage because the poster doesn’t know what an analogy is.

Life’s too short.

ABQ,

“Just a question: Would you be less upset about the “Film by” credit if it was listed at the very end of the credits as opposed to the beginning of the movie (or the beginning of the credits). I don’t mean theoretically, but practically speaking; if they put the credit at the end of the credits would it at least semi-appease your?”

I really don’t see how the placement of it has anything to do with the problem at all.

Hell of a spirited debate about the “Film By” credit —especially for a debate that isn’t really about the “Film By” credit!

Seems to me that the real question is: What can writers do to get more clout without reimagining/expanding what their role is in the chain? Is it something that can occur organically, or is it something that must be pressed?

As for the “branding” concept, I think that it’s a good idea as far as it goes, but it does not have any practical functionality. It’s the “Charlie Kaufman” factor. In my humble opinion, he’s unique not because no one else could be as critic-friendly “out there” as he can be, but because there’s only so much capital available for “prestige pictures” that don’t make any money. Even with the stars that he can attract to his work, no one’s getting rich off CK. His “brand” (the only one that springs immediately to mind) speaks more against the commercial value of “writer branding” than for it. Ditto Joss Whedon’s “brand.” The “brand” concept only has value of it shows commercial success, not just thin-demo cult prestige. The directors have both: Woody Allen and Michael Bay, Spike Lee and McG, Paul Thomas Anderson and Paul W.S. Anderson. Steven Spielberg and …Steven Spielberg.

Thank you for reinforcing my point.

Uh, Thomas, pretty sure he simply refuted your point and did so quite grandly. Are you sure you’re not basing your response upon your own dark political aspirations?

I think the “film by” credit should be reserved for the rare films with no source material adapted, that are writen, directed, and produced by the originating person. From the blank page, through all the trials and tribulations of pre, prin, and post, to final print. Nothing less.

ps. Has there been a polling of the WGA membership to see what the actual rank and file members think of this issue?

“your own dark political aspirations”

What is he a sith lord?

I gotta side with Josh here: One’s political beliefs are the encapsulation of their worldview. I can’t see how that could be debated.

We can call it a Guild all day long, but the WGA is a labor union —and that makes it inherently political. This is obviously not to say that Craig’s personal political beliefs (whatever they may be) in any way interfere with his ability to carry out his responsibilities. It is only to rebut the allegation that political ideology has no relevance in the context of management and labor. That’s absurd.

A socialist might be a great venture capital fund manager, but that doesn’t change the fact that there is an inherent conflict at some level.

I gotta side with Josh here: One’s political beliefs are the encapsulation of their worldview. I can’t see how that could be debated.

We can call it a Guild all day long, but the WGA is a labor union —and that makes it inherently political. This is obviously not to say that Craig’s personal political beliefs (whatever they may be) in any way interfere with his ability to carry out his responsibilities. It is only to rebut the allegation that political ideology has no relevance in the context of management and labor. That’s absurd.

A socialist might be a great venture capital fund manager, but that doesn’t change the fact that there is an inherent conflict at some level.

Sean,

“I think the “film by” credit should be reserved for the rare films with no source material adapted, that are writen, directed, and produced by the originating person. From the blank page, through all the trials and tribulations of pre, prin, and post, to final print. Nothing less.”

It’s at least not as unreasonable as a director for hire taking it, but again I ask - why even have it in the first place? Credits exist for all those jobs. Why not be satisfied with them? Why arbitrarily single out directors for an extra credit for no reason?

And where do we draw the line? There are plenty of films where one person wrote, directed and produced and the only reason the thing’s watchable is the editor came in and saved the day. Or the lead actor gave an amazing performance despite terrible direction. It remains meaningless. And here’s the thing - you write, produce and direct, and everyone’s going to refer to it as a film by you anyway. Why detract from that by being a jerk?

Joe,

“This is obviously not to say that Craig’s personal political beliefs (whatever they may be) in any way interfere with his ability to carry out his responsibilities. It is only to rebut the allegation that political ideology has no relevance in the context of management and labor. That’s absurd.”

That warrants repeating - I believe it’s quite possible that Craig’s questionable political views don’t interfere with his ability to do his job. Absolutely, no question. And I think Craig knows I know this, so I’m not real worried about it.

Josh,

You certainly come across here as “the most arrogant, ignorant jackalope to ever walk onto a set.”

“I’d wager if you ever write something that’s of real lasting importance to you, in which you’ve poured a great deal of personal conviction, care and passion and told a story that is deeply personal to yourself, then had someone else cavalierly claim authorship because this system allows - hell, encourages - them to, my guess is you might not feel the same way.”

I don’t see you sharing your Oscar nom with the creators of the graphic novel. Nor with DC whom we know did an uncredited rewrite. Point is if Michael Bay had directed AHOF, likely no nomination for you.

Bottom line: You and DC could each direct a film from the same script, with the same crew, and make two completely different movies. Imagine Cameron Crowe’s “Adaptation”. Or Hitchcock’s “The Sting”.

To defeat the beast, become the beast?

I’m looking at this from the pov of “How can we elevate the status of writers collectively and increase the respect given to writers’ work individually?” rather than “How can we strip another group of employees of a contractual right and form of compensation they won from employers because it pisses me off?”

But what, then, of movies in which the writing is mediocre, the directing is mediocre, but the performance at the center of it is so powerful that it overcomes the film’s limitations?

Actors routinely get their names above the title, and a select group are routinely given two credits for the same job, and every actor is specifically identified with the performance he/she gave, regardless of quality.

But you’re making another mistake: the belief that the word “credit,” as used in this context, means “commendation,” rather than “acknowledgment.”

They already do. There’s a ‘Directed By’ credit for the director, and a ‘Written By’ credit for the writer.

And there’s a “Produced by” credit for the producer, and every actor is identified by the role he/she plays.

And, yet, when I watch a movie, I see producers’ names above the title, I see actors names above the title, I see directors names above the title …

The only above-the-line participant whose name I never see above the title is the writer (except for Paddy Chayefsky and Neil Simon, that is, who are also playwrights …)

ecause a finished film is WAY more than two works of authorship.

But in terms of works of authorship for which there must per force be human beings who authored them: the total is two (2): the motion picture, and the script.

-

“Bottom line: You and DC could each direct a film from the same script, with the same crew, and make two completely different movies. Imagine Cameron Crowe’s “Adaptation”. Or Hitchcock’s “The Sting”. “

Ummm…. they’d be a hell of a lot more similar than two movies by the same director of DIFFERENT scripts. So, what’s the point of your hypothetical? It would seem to be that the writer has a lot more proprietary claim than the director, wouldn’t it?

More importantly, your “sharing the nomination with the original author” crack actually reinforces the logic of what Josh has been saying. In this case, it’s an ADAPTED screenplay nod —that there is an original author is implicit in the category! It’s a similar train of thought to the idea that a director already has his credit —“Directed by…” and the “Film By” only clouds the already clear attribution of writer, director, editor, craft service, etc.

I’ve never really looked at a screenplay as an end in and of itself. A finished screenplay is a not literature. For me it really is blueprint of what I would like to have happen on the set under the best of circumstnaces. This is primarily why I’ve never worked with another writer. I am the one who sits in the office staring at a blank page. I know what that takes, but I also know what I as a director am going to do with that screenplay once I’m on the set. The script is used as a springboard for me and actors to hopefully achieve something greater than me the writer could have ever imagined. I could never put another writer through that. Of course, my way of working is a little different than most, but I’m truly looking for those “happy accidents”, those moments of spontaneous life that no writer sitting in his sactuary could really come up with.

Having said all that, I have never taken a film by credit mainly because I just find it incredibly pretentious. I can’t even bear to have my name up there more than once. I’ve never taken a producer’s credit, and I use a pseudonym for editing. I would simply feel like a douche bag to have my name up there fifteen fucking times a la Robert Rodriguez. I’m standing on the shoulders of a lot of people that worked their asses off for little money and there’s just no fucking way that in the end I would be able to face them with a card that read A film by Phil Garcia. Now of course everybody reading collectively just went who the fuck is that, which is another reason it’s idiotic to take the credit. All this reminds me of the ends credits for Kagemusha: as the movie is over and credits scroll the very last thing an audience sees (if they’ve even stayed in the theater that long) is simply Directed by Akira Kurosawa. That kind of humility could be used by damn near everyone in this industry.

Still, while yes Mamet’s voice (metaphoroical and otherwise) is in every second of Glengary Glen Ross, it is an incredibly different movie experience have James Foley at the helm. Take that exact same screenplay, same cast, same set, same cinematographer, same everything else, and replace the director and you have a completely different movie. Even with all the variables being the same, the voice of the movie, by that I guess I mean the filmic experience, is different. I’m sorry, but that difference is the director.

Does that make the “film by” credit any less idiotic? No.

And no one has really sufficiently answered the question as to how exactly writers are going to practically go about changing this.

GBY,

“I don’t see you sharing your Oscar nom with the creators of the graphic novel. Nor with DC whom we know did an uncredited rewrite. Point is if Michael Bay had directed AHOF, likely no nomination for you.”

If I can quote a line from a film by James Foley - did I knock over your rice bowl?

First of all, I have made it explicitly clear in every interview and appearance I’ve done that without the tremendous work of John Wagner and Vince Locke, there’d be no screenplay. I’ve met the men and thanked them profusely for their work. I’d add to that, that if you’ve read the book, you know that the screenplay tells a very different story. Their work has been adequately represented - the credits say “Based on a graphic novel by John Wagner and Vince Locke. So has mine. It says “Screenplay by Josh Olson.” So has David’s. It says, “Directed by David Cronenberg.”

I’ve also never made any bones about the fact that David and I spent a good deal of time talking about the script before I wrote the second draft, or that he spent some time editing that script down from there.

Lastly, I’ve never once given David anything but the highest praise. Two of the happiest days of my life were when I heard that one of the greatest directors alive wanted to direct my script, and when I saw the finished film. I’ve said that publically somewhere in the vicinity of a thousand times and personally almost as many (Even directors get tired of praise). The man is a genius and a visionary I’ve learned more from him in ten minutes than anyone’s going to learn from a week of reading this crap here.

“Bottom line: You and DC could each direct a film from the same script, with the same crew, and make two completely different movies.”

Indeed. And I would hope so. Otherwise, what purpose would directors serve? But thank you for pointing out the bleeding obvious. I suppose someone’s gotta do it.

As for sharing the nomination, I’m not even sure how one would go about doing that, or why. Does the Academy have some facility whereby I can ask them to share my nomination for adapted screenplay with someone else, let alone someone who didn’t type a word of the script?

And as long as we’re at it, should I have shared some of my compensation with them as well? I know they were paid handsomely for the rights - Vince told me he bought a house with some of that money, and I doubt he begrudges me the money I made on the project. Have you ever adapted anything? Have you given up your fee to the original creators?

I could keep this up all day, but I doubt you’re going to respond to any of it, so I’ll close by saying I’m well aware that I can come across arrogant sometimes, but if there’s an ignorant jackalope here, it ain’t me, bubba.

And seriously, sorry about the rice bowl. E mail me your address and I’ll send you a check for ten bucks to buy a new one.

Wow! Josh seems to be one hell of a spit fire, or just a down right angry fellow!

So, Josh, are you going to be sharing your Oscar nom with the orignal writers of the graphic novel you adapted?

And if not, should they toss themselves into a rage similar to the one you’re pulling on this site?

Wow.

If someone else asks the same question, does it become less idiotic?

I apologize. It took me so damn long to write that post there were additional posts in the meantime that had obviously address my points.

Ted,

“I’m looking at this from the pov of “How can we elevate the status of writers collectively and increase the respect given to writers’ work individually?” rather than “How can we strip another group of employees of a contractual right and form of compensation they won from employers because it pisses me off?”

I understand that, and I appreciate it. You’re doing your job - being a realist, coming up with creaky, leaky solutions to problems that don’t fully solve them but get the job done for the time being, and I appreciate that. Seriously. But some of us get to be pie in the sky idealists, and as such, I have an ethical issue with that solution, in spite of the fact that it would solve some of the problems I’m talking about.

“But you’re making another mistake: the belief that the word “credit,” as used in this context, means “commendation,” rather than “acknowledgment.””

No, I get the difference. I’m just saying we can’t really say what makes a film. Writing makes a book. Images make a photograph. But what makes a movie?

“The only above-the-line participant whose name I never see above the title is the writer (except for Paddy Chayefsky and Neil Simon, that is, who are also playwrights …)”

And who owned their own writing.

I do recall the first credit on My Cousin Vinny was A Dale Launer Film. No idea how that happened, but I remember cheering when I saw that…. Then feeling tremendously guilty about it.

Phil,

“I’m standing on the shoulders of a lot of people that worked their asses off for little money and there’s just no fucking way that in the end I would be able to face them with a card that read A film by Phil Garcia.”

And in the end, you make Craig’s point, in a way. In the end, I’m talking about legislating that sort of decency, and you probably can’t do that.

“Still, while yes Mamet’s voice (metaphoroical and otherwise) is in every second of Glengary Glen Ross, it is an incredibly different movie experience have James Foley at the helm. “

Absolutely, and I think Foley did a tremendous job with the film, no question, and I didn’t mean to detract from his contributions to it.

“And no one has really sufficiently answered the question as to how exactly writers are going to practically go about changing this.”

In the end, all we’ve got are guys like you, who get it. I know several writer directors who feel the same way, and are vocal about it, and I intend to be a hell of a lot more vocal about it on the next one I direct, and really, that may be the best we can do.

anonymous,

“So, Josh, are you going to be sharing your Oscar nom with the orignal writers of the graphic novel you adapted?”

Hey, man, ask again under ten more anonymous screennames, it will STILL be the dumbest thing anyone’s ever posted here.

Josh —

So your entire argument against an above-the-title credit for writers is that it’s “leaky” and “creaky” and you have ethical problems with it?

Really, I expected better.

And Paddy Chayefsky and Neil Simon did not own their screenplays; just like everyone else, they had to assign their copyrights to the studios. However, they were able to use the studios’ need for their work as leverage to negotiate pretty good terms for themselves — including the above-the-title credit.

Fact is, I am an idealist, too — but I am not content to simply throw out an ideal, and then expect someone else to figure out how to actually bring it about. You’ve been asked a couple of times how you propose to eliminate the possessive credit. If your entire strategy is “bitch about it and keep bitching about it,” well … that you puts in step with the WGA and many of its members for the last thirty years at least — and you can see how well that’s worked.

The possessive credit is a superficial and indirect outgrowth of the circumstances under which writers work in this industry. My ideal is to change those circumstances — and an above-the-line credit for writers is one of the ways to bring about those changes. A minor one, certainly — but even a minor change for the better is still change for the better.

-

Ted,

“So your entire argument against an above-the-title credit for writers is that it’s “leaky” and “creaky” and you have ethical problems with it? Really, I expected better.”

Sorry, man. I have HUGE ethical problems with it, because my contention is not that the “Film By” credit robs writers of their due, it’s that it robs EVERYONE of their due. I get that your solution is a big step towards getting more respect for writers, but it’s still doing that by demeaning the contributions of others.

“And Paddy Chayefsky and Neil Simon did not own their screenplays; “

My comment was based on a conversation I had a while back with someone who knew Chayefsky pretty well, and my understanding was the he owned the copyright to his work. I could be very wrong, but this was a pretty reliable source. I have no doubt you have the facts in front of you, and I’m working from hearsay.

“Fact is, I am an idealist, too — but I am not content to simply throw out an ideal, and then expect someone else to figure out how to actually bring it about. You’ve been asked a couple of times how you propose to eliminate the possessive credit. If your entire strategy is “bitch about it and keep bitching about it,” well … that you puts in step with the WGA and many of its members for the last thirty years at least — and you can see how well that’s worked.”

The only way I can see to fight it within the Guild is to make it a negotiating point. As several people have pointed out, the TV writers won’t go for that, so that leaves us with PR, essentially. That puts it in the hands of writer/directors and writers who become directors to argue the point publicly and vocally. Maybe every month the WGA takes out a full page ad in the trades headed Weenies On Parade, and lists every director who took the credit that month. That has the advantage of being viscerally satisfying, but I don’t know how much good it would do….

“The possessive credit is a superficial and indirect outgrowth of the circumstances under which writers work in this industry. My ideal is to change those circumstances — and an above-the-line credit for writers is one of the ways to bring about those changes. A minor one, certainly — but even a minor change for the better is still change for the better.”

Yup. But like I said, my issue isn’t with directors taking that credit, it’s with anyone. I mean, to put it in extreme terms, we could also storm the DGA with guns and kill everyone who disagrees with us, but that solution raises ethical dilemmas as well.

Which brings us back to my comment - fighting for that above the line credit for writers will improve things in terms of our respect and our earning power, in the long term. But it doesn’t make it right.

Josh,

I have to side with Craig on this (regardless of his political views). We need to get over the “film by” credit (non)issue.

Why waste the Guild’s energies/resources on a war we can’t possibly win? Fight for writers’ rights in areas that really matter. “A film by” or “Un film de” or “Una pelicula por” is a convention accepted the world over. It hasn’t hampered the careers or the credibility of Goldman. Mamet. Henry. Gaghan. Kaufman. Olson. They are recognized and respected because their writing is top notch. The “film by” credit thing is a white elephant. Should writers get more respect on set, in post, and in ancillary? Damn straight they should. That’s worth fighting for.

Josh:

“And a grip is called a grip for good reason, and each of them gets a credit on the finished film that reflects that. Why give either of them another one?”

Because I hierarchy on a film production exists and grips aren’t as important to audiences as directors. A worker on an assembly line doesn’t have the same responsibilities or standing as the factory manager. If grips were valued equal to directors there would be ‘best grip’ category at the Oscars.

“I pick a book at random from my shelf. There is no argument that the author of a book is the author of the book, is there?”

Agreed. But lets put aside argument of the ‘film by’ credit for a moment and look simply at the claim to authorship.

The physical act of filmmaking gives the director the best shot at producing a unified, identifiable body of work. That’s an advantage a director has over any other member of a film production’s personnel. In the case of directors like the Coen Brothers, Tarantino, David Cronenburg, David Lynch and Steve Soderburgh the imprint they leave on their films is obvious.

That aside, you’ve made a very pertinent point. A reader buying a book looks for the author of that work. It helps sell the book. Likewise, a cineaste looks for the author of a film. They will actively follow the work of a director they admire.

“As a rule, it’s the writer whose job it is to TELL the story.”

No. The screenplay is blueprint. It’s like looking at the blueprints of the Sistine Chapel and saying they’re the Chapel. Directors, editors and DPs are as responsible for the rendering of a story cinematically as a screenwriter.

“I have never in my life walked into my study to find a scene has been written while I slept.”

If the director is incompetent, sleeping, comatose, or whatever - then someone else assumes the role, whether it be a star or DP, and does the work that needs to be done to complete the film.

“I’d love to hear you explain how it’s the job of the writer to reflect the vision of the director when the writer is usually the first one on the job.”

You’re writing about specs. Most productions have been in development for a long time before a director is attached. The fact is that writers are more often than not hired by a studio to work on projects they’ve acquired. If a director is attached, they have a big say in who will write the screenplay.

“Were you to, say, be hired by a studio to direct a spec I wrote, and you told me it was my job to reflect your vision, I’d laugh in your face.”

Rightly so. And if you told a director that it was their job to reflect yours, they would no doubt do the same. But we’re not debating the arrogance of individuals - we’re writing about who’s best placed to claim authorship of a film.

“I know cinematographers who’ve saved inept directors by doing their job on the set on a daily basis who’ve watched those same directors take the credit.”

Again, you’re writing about incompetent or reprehensible individuals who claimed credit where it isn’t due. It’s the same as the underhand boss claiming authorship of his secretary’s report. It’s underhand and dirty, but it boils down to the morality of the individual, not bosses as a group.

It’s a shame, because no matter how many times Josh repeats the mantra that this “isn’t about ego” the more it sounds from his angry diatribes that it can’t be anything but.

Josh, obviously an enormous talent (no doubting that) has a tremendously egocentric streak. He’s bashed and belittled everybody on this site.

It seems that Josh is fighting some imaginary authority figure, rather than listening to Ted and Craig’s very clear message on the realistic changes they are attempting to make so that all writers in the Guild will benefit.

It must be frustrating Josh, with such lofty pie-in-the-sky ideals that everyday reality forces you to crash to the ground.

Perhaps that’s where the agression comes from???

P.S.

Congrats on the nom!

Couple of quick points.

If you want to get a perspective of the DGA’s high dudgeon on our efforts to eliminate the “film by” credit, read this article from their magazine.

http://tinyurl.com/auz76

Lastly, you might draw the conclusion from Josh’s posts that I’m a white supremacist or deeply partisan neo-con. Neither is true. I consider myself moderately conservative…a bit right of center. In fact, I voted for John Kerry.

From where Josh is on the spectrum, though, yeah…I’m farrrrr away.

“The screenplay is blueprint. It’s like looking at the blueprints of the Sistine Chapel and saying they’re the Chapel. Directors, editors and DPs are as responsible for the rendering of a story cinematically as a screenwriter.” But the whole point being made is that we credit Michelangelo (the writer, in this analogy) for the Sistine Chapel, not the construction foreman!! Not the pontiff/executive producer, not the guy who supervised the translation of that blueprint into a physical medium. Be correctly give attribution to the artist who conceived the vision

Reposted for clarity and typos:

“The screenplay is blueprint. It’s like looking at the blueprints of the Sistine Chapel and saying they’re the Chapel. Directors, editors and DPs are as responsible for the rendering of a story cinematically as a screenwriter.”

Matt— But the whole point being made is that we credit Michelangelo (the writer, in this analogy) for the Sistine Chapel, not the construction foreman!! Not the pontiff/executive producer, not the guy who supervised the translation of that blueprint into a physical medium. We (correctly) give attribution to the artist who conceived the vision —the “writer.”

Joe:

“But the whole point being made is that we credit Michelangelo (the writer, in this analogy) for the Sistine Chapel, not the construction foreman!!”

The foreman is merely following the architect’s design, brick by brick. He has no say in the rendering or design of the building.

Directors, editors, production designers, actors and DPs do.

Which again leads us back to: Why then should one person get an author credit on a film?

Exactly… so, abolish the credit that makes great writers like Josh become raving lunatics!

Joe,

“But the whole point being made is that we credit Michelangelo (the writer, in this analogy) for the Sistine Chapel, not the construction foreman!! Not the pontiff/executive producer, not the guy who supervised the translation of that blueprint into a physical medium. Be correctly give attribution to the artist who conceived the vision”

Wrong, Joe. The Sistine Chapel was named for its creator, Pope Sixtus. (A chapel by…) He supervized its construction, as well as its decoration. Michelangelo’s work (decorative) came some 30 years later.

Joe:

Let me put it another way - if filmmaking is a democracy, then the director is president.

Okay, damn. Shit. —okay, switch out “Guggenhiem Museum” for “Sistine Chapel” and “Frank Lloyd Wright” for “Michelangelo.” haha. Same point.

Josh Olson,

An off-topic, none-of-my-business question.

You’re kind of a punk, but it’s hard not to admire your mania and conviction. Your posts are certainly more fun to read than Craig’s (where’s the funny?)) or Ted’s (how do you spell logorrhea?).

My question is: if you win the Oscar, will you make any sort of political statement? Will you risk looking like a punk in order to tell a “billion people” (ie, 50 or so million) what you think of the war, the Administration, the entire of our mendacious, black-hearted power structure? I’m genuinely curious, and if you don’t win we’ll never know.

It will boring if you say “none of your business”, but I understand.

ps. when do you have time to work?

Your posts are certainly more fun to read than Craig’s (where’s the funny?)

You want funny?

Pay me, baby!

Matt-

I think a much more apt analogy would be that a director is a baseball manager, and the script is the starting pitching. The actors are the hitters.

I could really get behind the “Weenies on Parade” ad idea.

“You want funny?

Pay me, baby!”

I’ll have a hard enough time coughing up the money for Scary Movie 4. Come to think of it, I’ll wait ‘til awards season so I can use my guild card.

“The foreman is merely following the architect’s design, brick by brick. He has no say in the rendering or design of the building. Directors, editors, production designers, actors and DPs do.”

To which Joe asked: “Which again leads us back to: Why then should one person get an author credit on a film?”

Answer: Because editors, production designers, actors and DPs all work to achieve the director’s vision for the film (which can often differ from the writer’s vision).

I’m not saying I support the credit (I don’t), but there’s a valid argument on both sides. And it won’t change. It won’t.

How ‘bout settling on a standard that’s some version of goin’ “Old School” with the credits?

As in, the title roll is combined with the credit roll and goes before the film. (you see this quite a bit in old classics)

(Producer credit) Presents

A Film By (Director credit)

From The Screenplay by (Screenwriter(s) credit)

Based on (Author/Playwrite/Creator)’s Source Title

A-List Cast Name(s) in

TITLE

With (Cast)

Roll below the line credits and…

FADE IN:

Mike,

Sounds good to me.

I should clarify the idea behind the above.

Standardize the possessory credits.

As in there’s always a “possessory credit” of some kind for the producer, the director, the screenwriter, (and when aplicable credit to any author, playwrite, or creator), along with a spot for A-List cast over the title, and it’s always the same.

The “directed by” and “written by” get essentially repeated, and relegated to the top of the below the line credits with everybody else’s credits.

Josh —

I think you’re missing two points:

First: I’m not saying that the writer’s possessive credit would be for the film. It would be for the story and screenplay, and it would be given only where the Company has recognized the writer (or writers) as the author of the story and screenplay used in the movie.

(That’s what the MBA already says our credits are given for: authorship of the final script (as represented on-screen); where the story is original to the final script, the authorship of that is recognized, too).

So if you write a spec screenplay, and the Company makes it into the movie, you receive “Written by,” and on-screen and in all ads, the movie will be known as “Josh Olson’s Title of the Movie.

And it would be true.

Second: in advertising, if the director receives a possessive credit, and the name of the producer or production company possessive is used, then the director must be mentioned, too (they can use actor’s names without using any other names).

However, no other credits need be included.

So you see a short ad on television, and it includes “Jeff Star A Joe Smith Production of a film by John Doe Title of the Movie,” and … that’s it.

With a writer’s possessive, then that ad would have to say “Jeff Star A Joe Smith Production of a film by John Doe Jill Stone’s Title of the Movie.”

Or — and this is the sneaky part, pay attention — it could just say “Jeff Star Title of the Movie.”

Which do you think Companies would opt for?

By negotiating a writer’s possessive that was used in advertising only when the director’s possessive is used, which itself is used only when the production company possessive is used, it would lay the responsibility on the folks whose egos begat this whole thing: the producers.

-

Again, the argument over the possessory credit, as has been pointed out repeatedly, may be the wrong argument because:

It will -

a) meet violent political opposition from the DGA; b) not be winnable as a fight except with a strike; c) not be strikable withing our membership, as the television faction of the WGAw doesn’t give a damn.

Therefore…

We’re arguing, I say, over the wrong issue. Not that it doesn’t matter as a symbol. But it isn’t something we can do anything about right now, so let’s all agree that we agree this sucks, and start to plan how to fix this, without making a head-on attack that we can’t possibly win.

We need to change the context in which the posessory credit is held.

I doubt I need to explain how context works with this group, but a good positive example of a context shift changing everything, would be Kennedy’s declaration that we’re going to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade. Inside of that committment, people began to act. Some of these actions were the same precise actions they were doing in the days before Kennedy spoke. But now, they contributed to this common focus.

The same action that days ago had meant that a fuel just was no good, now meant that a fuel was ruled out for use in going to the moon, which actually contributed to everyone’s committment to going to the moon. By ruling out fuel x, they’d eliminated something that wouldn’t work.

What is missing for us, I say, is a context for us as writers, that tells a story which, when heard by people in the industry, and by ordinary folks, goes clunk with them:

Writers are the original authors of movies. Before actors, before directors, before the lights, cameras and action - first, there is the Writer. We are the Writers. Absolutely nothing, happens without us.

Right now, the DGA is holding on to the possessory credit like its life depended on it, and Josh and others are fighting to get rid of it, as if their lives depended on it.

All that causes is a big tussle, and festers a culture of victimization and resentment.

Let go of that fight - it isn’t winnable, and frankly, it helps keeps everything else stuck.

Shift the context. Invent this new story I’m suggesting. Improve on it as appropriate. Make it your own.

When the context shifts, so will everything else. And then, miracles will come.

We’re writers. Storytelling is what we do. So lets invent the story of who we are, and quit fucking around.

Ted;

That’s great for spec’s, but waddabout s/p’s based on other works?

You couldn’t have Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio’s SHREK for example could ya?

Not tryin to play “gotcha” here, just that SO many films these days are adapted from something that I wonder how often that idea could be used.

How wouldya handle this with things like Shrek or POTC etc.?

(serious q, not rhetorical).

P.S. Heh. Saw a cute headline in The Onion the other day people in here might apriciate:

HOLLYWOOD ACHIEVES “GREEN” GOALS OF USING 100% RECYCLED MATERIAL!

O.k., not fair, but it’s funney.

Matt,

“Because I hierarchy on a film production exists and grips aren’t as important to audiences as directors”

I keep saying this - it’s not about the audience. It never has been. They don’t know who ANY of us are, with the exception of maybe Spielberg.

“No. The screenplay is blueprint”

The screenplay is the story. It usually starts with a writer.

“Directors, editors and DPs are as responsible for the rendering of a story cinematically as a screenwriter.”

Word games. They “render” it. They don’t, as a rule, create it. And the notion that they’re as responsible for “rendering” it is, at best, arguable.

““I’d love to hear you explain how it’s the job of the writer to reflect the vision of the director when the writer is usually the first one on the job.” You’re writing about specs. Most productions have been in development for a long time before a director is attached. The fact is that writers are more often than not hired by a studio to work on projects they’ve acquired. If a director is attached, they have a big say in who will write the screenplay.”

More often than not, the writer is on first.

“Rightly so. And if you told a director that it was their job to reflect yours, they would no doubt do the same. But we’re not debating the arrogance of individuals - we’re writing about who’s best placed to claim authorship of a film.”

No, we’re not, and this is becoming immensely frustrating. YOU’RE talking about who’s best placed to claim authorship of a film. I’m talking about the fact that NOBODY can claim authorship of a film.

Look, I didn’t learn this stuff at film school. I grew up just loving movies, and making my own with my friends. I spent a year at film school, and one of the things that drove me nuts was how professor’s would put all the focus on the director when I could see that that wasn’t always relevant. Like I said, Ben Hecht’s name at the front was more likely to ensure a good movie, say, Orson Welles’s. One of many reasons I got the hell out of film school quickly and just got to the business of making movies.

And I’m sorry you read my passion on the subject as some kind of frenzied lunacy. My passion on the subject has been the same since long before I got into the business, let alone became a working writer. And it’s what’s driven me to put myself above those issues if I can. I care first and foremost because I love this medium, and I feel that kicking the primary creators of movies in the teeth on a regular basis drains them of their desire to do the best work possible, and in the end, that leads to crappy movies.

That you can’t conceive of why someone would be very passionate about this without being “frenzied” or egomaniacal is kind of sad, frankly.

Craig clearly cares - we’ve never argued about whether or not it’s wrong. Just about how to deal with it. I can deal with that. What I CAN’T deal with is a writer arguing there must be something wrong with you for giving a damn about this.

DC,

“It’s a shame, because no matter how many times Josh repeats the mantra that this “isn’t about ego” the more it sounds from his angry diatribes that it can’t be anything but.”

You can’t with some people, I guess. When I’d argue this issue passionately a decade ago, I’d get the patronizing response that I didn’t have enough experience to have a valid opinion. Now credentials are resonably solid enough, I get this.

Let me make this clear - I’m in a great position. I’m doing everything I need to to ensure that these issues don’t affect me directly. I’m writing, producing and directing my next project. I won’t be taking the “Film By” credit, and I’ll be making a point of discussing the issue whenever possible because it needs to be discussed. For a director to claim that my passion about the issue is ego-driven is a cheap shot. For a fellow writer, it’s more than a little frightening. I have to wonder how much your work means to you if you not only don’t care about the issue, but think that people who do are egomaniacs.

Matt,

“My question is: if you win the Oscar, will you make any sort of political statement”

If you think I have a shot at beating McMurtry and Ossana, I’d love to place a wager with you. I made two hundred bucks last weekend at the WGA. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again - I am deeply proud to be one of the stars of the Lose To Larry world tour.

“when do you have time to work?”

I’m working now. This is a happy little break from coming up with clever ways to kill the nun in act three.

And I’ll take the punk thing any day. I’ll be the Sex Pistols, and you be Yes.

Ted,

“So if you write a spec screenplay, and the Company makes it into the movie, you receive “Written by,” and on-screen and in all ads, the movie will be known as “Josh Olson’s Title of the Movie. And it would be true.”

Sounds like a bit of semantical legerdemain, but maybe it’s legit. I dunno. I’ve never felt the need for anything more than “written by,” and I wish it could be that simple. That feels like piling more complications onto the thing.

“By negotiating a writer’s possessive that was used in advertising only when the director’s possessive is used, which itself is used only when the production company possessive is used, it would lay the responsibility on the folks whose egos begat this whole thing: the producers.”

Okay. Now you’re talking. Because the end goal is to get everyone to just drop the whole thing. If you can’t take it away from the directors, just make it too cumbersome. I kinda like it, actually….

if it’s wrong, it should go - no matter how hard the fight is.

As writers, we should be aware of history and history is full of wrong ideas / rules / actions that everyone admitted were wrong and no one wanted to take responsibility for changing because it looked too hard and would be too much hassle. At some point someone said, it doesn’t matter how much a hassle it is, it’s wrong and it has to be changed now.

That’s how we got unions, right? And that wasn’t easy.

I remember reading that the players union happened for the NBA when some greats like Jerry West and Oscar Robertson, minutes before the all star game, told the NBA that there would be no all star game unless the union was recognized. Those guys didn’t do it just for themselves but for all the players and they did it mostly because it was right.

Listen, if you cannot change something as wrong as the “film by” credit, something loathed by both suits and creatives (not to mention members of the dga) then why should members believe that you will be able to change anything else that might matter in the future?

“And I’ll take the punk thing any day. I’ll be the Sex Pistols, and you be Yes.”

Nice. It got a chuckle out of me.

Josh,

“Then there’s Thin Red Line, where everything’s a mess, but the visuals are mind-boggling - shouldn’t it be John Toll’s Thin Red Line?”

Funny how you dismiss The Thin Red Line as “everything’s a mess” and in the same breath praise John Toll for his great images.

Fact is, Toll had in mind a completely different look for the film when he came onboard. (American Cinematographer, Vol.80 No.2) He wanted a visceral, gritty, graphic, docu style, like Kaminski was doing with Saving Private Ryan- which was filming at the same time.

Malick, however, had a distinct vision for the photography of the film. And Toll realized the director’s vision.

That’s how you got the “mind-boggling” visuals.

And that’s why it’s a film by Terrence Malick.

I know I mentioned this once but as anyone here read John Furia’s “We the Authors: A Common Sense Revolution?” ( http://www.nzwritersguild.org.nz/news/authors.html )

His manifesto expresses the essence of the debate regarding the condition of the writer. His are words I live by.

Michael C,

If Malick shot the film himself, it still wouldn’t be a film by Terrence Malick. Did he design every shot? Did he select each lens? Did he select each filter? Did he direct the camera crew? Did he direct the lighting crew? Did he pull focus? If he did all these things, why would he need a DP of Toll’s abilities?

Ludicrous, you say, but guess what? When Steven King write a book, he does ALL those things. That’s why it’s a book by Steven King.

I’m also calling you on extreme dishonesty. That the example I gave may not be the best is irrelevant, unless you want to seriously make the point that never, in the history of film, has a DP saved a director’s ass. Instead of working with the logic of my argument, you’re playing lawyer games. That’s fundamentally dishonest, and means that I’m going to have a hard time taking your arguments seriously, since you’re clearly not considering alternate views, you’re just examining them for ways to drive technical holes through them. It’s idiotic.

And as long as folks are attibuting personal motivations, you have me at the disadvantage. I don’t need you to tell me WHO you are, but WHAT are you? Are you a screenwriter making this argument? A director? A producer? A cinematographer? A film student? Context has been made an issue. You have mine. What’s yours?

“And I’ll take the punk thing any day. I’ll be the Sex Pistols, and you be Yes.”

Oh, Josh, I only hear Good Charlotte in you. Grrrrr.

Josh,

Easy tiger.

I’m a screenwriter. And a director. Not a lawyer. Though I am playing devil’s advocate, because while I don’t always agree with the “film by” credit (I do in the case of writer-director-producer) I can understand and appreciate the argument for it.

The director has a vision (we hope) and all departments in production serve that singular vision. When the film is being made- as we sorely know- even the writer(s) serve(s) that vision.

No argument from me on Stephen King. Yes. It’s his book.

But when you talk about the film, it’s Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining. I don’t have a problem distinguishing between them.

P.S. No need to call my post idiotic. I’m just saying…

Josh,

Most people that don’t care who you are. But there are plenty of folks that do. They are called fans. Stop insulting them by claiming they don’t care. Stop assuming you are the only person outside of Hollywood to ever figure out that the Film By credit is bogus.

IMDb was not created by Hollywood. It was created by fans that loved movies. The audience does matter. The fans do care. Once you figure that out, you might find that they can be a useful resource.

Josh

Ho hum.

Seems to me like a bunch of people need to get out and P.A. a little more (or at least once) before getting further tangled in this web.

I realize many on this site have been on sets before, but maybe not under the guise of a PA — a position that provides insight into all categories and not just one specific.

Then, perhaps, it would shed some further light on what Olson is proposing. And I bet many would-be-opposed would turn their coats another color.

And I’m a guy who idolizes Capra.

A couple of things:

1. Let’s all try to have these discussions without the personal insults.

2. If you want to post on here and have a specific point of view, be an adult and don’t post under “Anonymous or Fan”. Although I totally disagree with a lot of things that Josh has said, he at least has the testicular fortitude to stand behind his name. I suggest you do the same.

“If it’s wrong, it should go - no matter how hard the fight is.”

1. It’s not about how hard the fight is. It’s an unwinnable issue. The WGA won’t strike over this. And although I personally don’t agree with the credit, I can’t honestly say that it’s wrong 100% of the time.

“I’ve said all I’ve got to say on the subject here, and will give any political posts the same attention I give to posts that express outrage because the poster doesn’t know what an analogy is.”

1. This site has the most hilarious analogies ever created. I know what an analogy is. I just object to the silly and thoughtless ones. Surely as writers we can do better.

2. So Ted is at least coming up with some real solutions. Anyone else have any? It’s easy to bitch. Solutions take careful and passionate thought. Anyone?

I’m just wondering, Josh, in your last rambling there, it kinda bordered on the psychotic. Paranoid accusations of playing “lawyer games” and so on. One question:

Have you been getting any sleep? Or have you been obsessing about the “film by” credit over the past 48 hours?

There have been many opinions both for and against this issue. Only one relevant thing has come out of it: the “Film By” credit is irrelevant and not even worth lifting a finger for when considering the consequences of such actions.

Josh, you say your arguments are logical, yet what’s logical about commiting figuritive suicide over a bogus credit?

If you want to post on here and have a specific point of view, be an adult and don’t post under ‘Anonymous or Fan’. Although I totally disagree with a lot of things that Josh has said, he at least has the testicular fortitude to stand behind his name. I suggest you do the same.

I am the person that posted as “A fan”. My name is Elizabeth Duncan. Lord knows I don’t want you to question my testicular fortitude, so there you go. I didn’t bother to post my real name because it doesn’t matter. You still don’t know any more about me than you did before.

I only lurk on this board. I don’t post because I am not a screenwriter or a film maker. I am not a Hollywood person. I never will be. I don’t want to be. I come to this site as a fan and nothing more. I have nothing to add to conversations about writing or movie making. I don’t have any experience with those things.

I do know a few things about the audience, though. So I posted. My name is irrelavent and adds no value to my comments because I am nobody. My status as a fan is the only relavent thing about me in regard to this site.

I apologize for offending you by not properly introducing myself. And now I will humbly slink back into lurkdom as one of the faceless audience members.

Beth

Beth, Thanks for coming. Pull up a chair. Grab a microphone. All are welcome here.

Ted, As Craig knows, I’m a big fan of public shaming. It seems that Josh is on to something with his “grab the power and then speak out” strategy. It can be the flanker maneuver to your writer’s possessory credit attack. Since we can’t strike for it, since the DGA won’t relinquish it, then maybe we can make the “film by” credit such an embarrassing designation that directors won’t go near it. If anything, it’s a start.

Craig,

“If you want to get a perspective of the DGA’s high dudgeon on our efforts to eliminate the “film by” credit, read this article from their magazine. http://tinyurl.com/auz76”

Gah. Thanks for posting that link. That piece was such monumental, repugnant horseshit, it only spurred my eagerness to get into that damn Guild and start kicking some asses.

“Lastly, you might draw the conclusion from Josh’s posts that I’m a white supremacist or deeply partisan neo-con. Neither is true. I consider myself moderately conservative…a bit right of center. In fact, I voted for John Kerry.”

You’re not a white supremacist. You just eat babies.

And I didn’t vote for Kerry. I wrote in Mao Tse-Tung.

(Five bucks says at least one of the respondents here will take that deadly seriously. And here’s the thing, Craig - he’ll be one of yours. Nyuk nyuk.)

Anonymous, or Michael, or whoever

There should be a thing near where you post that says Remember Me. Type your name - even if it’s a phony - and click it. Because I never know who I’m talking to. Is there one of you or five of you? Because if you’re just one of those anonymous cats, cool. But there’s a few of them who are monumental dickheads, and there’s no point in responding to them.

In fact, I’m not gonna respond to any more anonymous posts. At least go to the effort of making up a funny name, so it’s possible to track who I’m talking to.

It’s not about how hard the fight is. It’s an unwinnable issue.

Unwinnable?! As long as people keep repeating the above and as long as writers believe it, the cause is lost.

But when writers decide they’ve had it with unfair treatments, misappropriation of authorship, industry wide infantilization of creators, when they learn the great lessons of history and unite to defend a just cause, they will prevail.

The whole thing was pretty much kicked off by another individual who stated (and I paraphrase) that everyone in Hollywood pretty much owes their jobs to writers, as we provide the genesis for the process that employs everyone. I argued that we need everyone else as much as they need us, because without people to produce our screenplays, our screenplays are unsellable. No us, no them. No them, no us.

Without us writers, there is no film industry, and no one has a job. Without them, writers are still writers. They can still write stories. Writers predate film by centuries.

Dear Beth,

“Most people that don’t care who you are. But there are plenty of folks that do. They are called fans. Stop insulting them by claiming they don’t care.”

I fail to see how I’m insulting anyone by saying they don’t care who I am. And unlike a shockingly large number of people who make movies, I’m a fan myself. An uber fan. My first memory is of The Beatles in Help! at the drive in with my parents. I cut school for a whole day to see Peeping Tom when it played at the local rep house because it was a legendary movie that never played on TV, and commercial VCRs hadn’t come along yet. I’ve lived and breathed movies longer than some people here have been alive. I’m a fan. I know what fans care about. I know fans care about every aspect of the movies. I’m not TALKING about fans. I’m talking about the audience. Fans are a small part of that, and God bless them. If I have a tribe in this world, it’s movie fans. But they are not now and have never been the majority of the audience.

The majority of the audience sees something like six movies a year in the theater - maybe less - and truly doesn’t care who wrote or directed them. And here’s my blasphemy, if you want - they shouldn’t. Movies are just a pleasant escape for them. My ultimate goal is to reach that audience, give them an evening’s entertainment, and my lord, if I can get them to think about the movie for ten minutes afterwards, and to consider what it was saying, or some aspect of their own life in relation to that, man, I have done the job and then some. And if the real fans, the uber-geeks like me love the thing, and talk about it, and start kicking it around and adding it to their pantheon of MOVIES YOU GOTTA SEE TO BE ONE OF US, then hell, that’s the finest icing there is.

That is not insulting or patronizing or dismissing. It is the nature of this medium. God bless the movie fans, but if they were the only people in the audience, the average movie budget would be about ten thousand dollars.

“Stop assuming you are the only person outside of Hollywood to ever figure out that the Film By credit is bogus.”

I’d love it if you’d point to the post where I said or implied that I was, because I’ve never thought that for a moment.

It’s an issue that concerns a hell of a lot of working writers, and other filmmakers. I am one of countless many.

DCraig,

Again, no idea who you are or what your background is. I was asked to come here and discuss this issue, and I do not disagree for a moment that some of my posts are contentious. Sorry, I’m passionate.

But I’ve refrained from being a completely obnoxious and insulting asshole, and the only time I’ve posted anything that could be considered insulting is when some obnoxious shemp fired the first shot.

Have something to say? Cool. Say it. Want to just keep repeating that you think someone who’s passionate about this is psychotic? Hey, you know what? That’s idiotic and boring.

If you’re gonna insult me, do it with style, and try to do it while also saying something worth listening to.

Sorry, Josh. Didn’t realize I posted anonymously. Clicked too soon. Though clearly you knew it was I.

Mike —

Although it’s possible to receive “Written by” on a movie where there is source material (“Screen story by” means the story is original to the movie even though there is source material, as on POTC), I’d argue that source material is an automatic disqualifier for the above-the-title credit.

-

Joshua wrote:

“if it’s wrong, it should go - no matter how hard the fight is.”

Well, that’s a lovely union slogan. Okay, fine. Now let’s posit that the DGA has the same slogan about the high crime of denying “a film by” credit.

Now what? We both bludgeon ourselves to death while the companies laugh their asses off?

There is so much potential to be realized in a DGA/WGA alliance. If we stopped fighting them over this stuff and really put our hands out in partnership, I honestly believe we would be earning more in residuals, we would have more creative rights on the sets of the movies we write, and our bargaining position would be vastly superior than it is now.

But nooooooooooo…. :)

We have to FIGHT! Only through glorious struggle will we win the day!

GENERAL NOTE:

Anyone is free to post any comment they’d like under their own name or a pseudonym or anonymously.

That’s by my choice, and this is MAH HOUSE, so let’s refrain from berating our anon. posters. It’s not something I encourage, but I don’t villify it either.

Beth, please accept my apologies. You did nothing wrong, and I hope you continue to participate as a non-lurker.

Well, that’s a lovely union slogan. Okay, fine. Now let’s posit that the DGA has the same slogan about the high crime of denying “a film by” credit.

Am I mistaken or wasn’t it the WGA who made the historical mistake of granting the ‘film by’ credit in the first place during botched up negociations?

Isn’t time to correct this. Also, don’t you have laws that allowed writers to dissociate themselves with a union to form another one?

Daniel L. —

Given that one of John Furia’s revolutionary ideas in 1999 — actually, the only concrete suggestion he makes — is that we need to implement the Berne Convention, which has been in full force in the U.S. since 1989, I find it difficult to take his essay seriously (it also disproves his belief that the Berne Convention’s moral rights provisions protect the artistic integrity of an author’s work).

They are wonderful ideals, and well-expressed, but, unlike in a movie, a well-worded speech does not result in the slow clap and a changed world. Inspirational words are well and good, but revolution requires action, and action requires a plan for action.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of writers who talk the talk, but when it comes time to walk the walk, are too scared to exercise the rights we already have.

-

Well, that’s a lovely union slogan. Okay, fine. Now let�s posit that the DGA has the same slogan about the high crime of denying a ‘film by’ credit.

Am I mistaken or wasn’t it the WGA who made the historical mistake of granting the ‘film by’ credit in the first place during botched up negociations?

Isn’t time to correct this. Also, don’t you have laws that allowed writers to dissociate themselves with a union to form another one?

Ted wrote:

“On any movie where a writer or writers receives a “Written by” credit, if the production company includes the producer’s name or the director takes a possessive credit, the writer(s) receive(s) a possessive credit in the form of “Name’s ( and Name’s) Title” (like “Paddy Chayefsky’s Network” or “Neil Simon’s The Goodbye Girl”). The possessive credit must be featured on screen and in all paid advertising and promotion equal to the producer or director card.

It’s the director’s film? Fine. It?s our story, structure, characters, characterizations, action and dialogue.”

I like this.

It isn’t the way I’d personally want it, in a perfect world, but since the DGA doesn’t seem to be inclined to give up their extra credit, and since the WGA has enough TV writers to keep the WGA from striking over it…

My personal credo is something along the lines of “Be Fair And Leave No One Behind”… but I also live in a right-to-work state (Texas), so unions don’t have the same kind of film industry pull, here.

So, maybe it’s easier for me to come to the table with that POV.

With all that in mind, I have a question for Josh:

(But first, a preamble.)

I’ve read through all the posts on both threads, and while I can’t regurgitate all of them from memory, my impression is that you, Josh, are trying to look out for everyone, in that it takes every person in the credits, beginning and end, to make a movie.

Be Fair And Leave No One Behind.

But, doesn’t the very nature of the unions — i.e., look out for their own — make that a pretty dreamy POV to hold?

It doesn’t seem possible to be a member of one of the unions and realistically hold that POV.

Anyways… after all the input and back-and-forth, I realize I’m not adding anything new to the discussion… just wanted to toss in my two pesos.

RP

You know, truly, it’s a shame that Ted and Craig and Josh don’t see eye-to-eye on this issue… throw in Chuck Pogue and the WGA would have one hell of a passionate negotiating committee.

Ronson:

Ted and I and Josh and Chuck locked in a room? Wow. Blood in everyone’s socks with in the hour.

Daniel:

Writers cannot disassociate from the WGA and form another union. If they could, many already would have.

Daniel L. (hey, dude!) —

Directors started getting the possessive credit in the 1930s, before there were any industry unions or guilds. That practice continued until 1967.

In 1967, the WGA won as a term of its collective bargaining agreement a limitation on the possessive credit: it could only be awarded to individual who directed and wrote the movie.

The DGA did not like that at all. They protested to the AMPTP, and the AMPTP and WGA offered a compromise: any director who had gotten a possessive credit prior to 1967 would continue to get it; all others would be bound by the 1967 regs.

So the DGA announced that they would no longer be negotiating with the AMPTP as an organization, and would begin negotiating with production companies on a one-to-one basis — and it was only those production companies that there members would work for in the future. Some 60 or so companies, AMPTP members all, signed with the DGA.

The AMPTP — specifically, the major studios — realized they were on the verge of losing their own power, so they took a hard stand with the WGA: that term had to go.

The 1970 WGA MBA did not include the term. The 1970 DGA Basic Agreement included a term guaranteeing the right of individual to negotiate special credits above minimums — ie, the possessive credit.

I guess you could say its the WGA’s own fault that directors can get a possessive credit, since they did not go out on strike in 1970 to defend the term they won in 1967.

However, I don’t think so. The WGA could have gone out on strike, and then the AMPTP would have unilaterally instituted its final offer (a right management has under the law), and directors would still have the right to negotiate possessive credits.

For a more detailed version of the events, from the directors’ point of view (and guaranteed to piss off Josh, and pretty much any other writer who reads it, by the way), go here: http://tinyurl.com/a45hj

-

Ronson —

I like Chuck, and admire his passion, but his big crusade issue — sole credit for the first writer, sometimes stated as “one writer, one movie” — is something the WGA is legally prohibited from negotiating (particulars of labor law).

-

Thanks for the welcome, Derek.

Josh, I’m sorry if I misconstrued your comments. Congratulations on the nom, btw.

Craig, you certainly don’t owe me an apology, but I appreciate it just the same.

Ted,

“Although it’s possible to receive “Written by” on a movie where there is source material (“Screen story by” means the story is original to the movie even though there is source material, as on POTC), I’d argue that source material is an automatic disqualifier for the above-the-title credit.”

Yeah, but if the point is to create a situation where there are so many possessives that it’s hard for a director to take a possessive, why hold ourselves to a different standard than they do?

Craig,

“Anyone is free to post any comment they’d like under their own name or a pseudonym or anonymously. That’s by my choice, and this is MAH HOUSE, so let’s refrain from berating our anon. posters. It’s not something I encourage, but I don’t villify it either.”

I’m not berating anyone for posting anonymously. I’m berating people for not even bothering to create a pseudonym. With a pseudonym, you can track a discussion with someone. With “anonymous” you have no idea if it’s the same person or a dozen different ones.

Ronson,

“But, doesn’t the very nature of the unions — i.e., look out for their own — make that a pretty dreamy POV to hold?”

In some cases, sure. But not this one. I can’t come up with a reason why the other unions would object to preventing DGA members from taking more than their fair credit.

Beth,

“Josh, I’m sorry if I misconstrued your comments. Congratulations on the nom, btw.”

Thank you very much. It’s a mind boggling honor. And don’t sweat the misconstruction (is that a word, or did I just make that up?) I appreciate the chance to clarify my position.

Could someone answer when exactly the film by credit is determined. The impression I get is that it is done at negotiation which I assume is almost before production is started.

It seems strange that film by is determined before there is actually a film. This of course lends some weight to the writter’s since at this stage they are more likely to have something to show for their work.

What I would like to see is if someone requests a film by credit, it be determined at the end of production, when there is a finished film to judge. Where everyone’s contribution can be weighed and it can be determined who’s film it is.

Let the writer’s work stand for itself. If their work can’t stand up to this scrutiny, then there shouldn’t be any legistration to protect them.

I like Ted’s idea of creating a compulsory possessory credit for writers when directors (or producers) take it. Mostly because it goes along, philosophically, with the truly brilliant (and idealistic) tenets behind the 1st Amendment. In effect, the only answer to speech you disagree with is MORE speech, not less speech. It’s like, a totally American ideal.

In addition, it will eventually result in every guild demanding the credit, which will, in time, show up the director’s credit as the wholly cynical possessive that it is.

Can you imagine?

A film by… Joe Schmoe.

Brought to you by a screenplay written by… Beetle Bailey.

With scenes edited by… Hortence Walton.

And a set catered by… Clarence’s Donut Shack.

Brilliant!

Jaylynn

“I like Chuck, and admire his passion, but his big crusade issue — sole credit for the first writer, sometimes stated as “one writer, one movie” — is something the WGA is legally prohibited from negotiating (particulars of labor law).”

Ted— If you have details on the particulars of that, I’d love to read into it further. (My blood pressure isn’t high enough yet.)

Beth:

Sorry if it seemed like I was singling you out. I just didn’t think it was fair that Josh was getting beat up with ridiculous insults (not you). But welcome! Now you can see what self absorbed idiots we all are!

Josh:

So I see that Ted is the only one coming up with solutions. Do you have any? Or what would you like to see happen?

Daniel L:

“But when writers decide they’ve had it with unfair treatments, misappropriation of authorship, industry wide infantilization of creators, when they learn the great lessons of history and unite to defend a just cause, they will prevail.”

I loved Braveheart too.:)

But I think we need a bit more realism here. Is that the biggest issue you have with the WGA? What’s the biggest grievance you have?

Ted:

I like the idea of the writer’s possessive credit as an appeasement for writers who feel this is a very important issue. But I feel like it will only spur more arbitrations between writers.

I feel kind of in the middle with this issue because I’m a Director as well. But the DGA pisses me off because they don’t allow Co-Directors into the union (I co-direct with Larry Strong).

Oh well…

Josh —

if the point is to create a situation where there are so many possessives that it’s hard for a director to take a possessive, why hold ourselves to a different standard than they do?

I think it would be best to avoid credits like “Elliott & Rossio’s Walt Disney’s Pirates of the Caribbean or “Craig Mazin’s A Sun Also Rises — both of which would be possible if “Screen story by/Screenplay by” triggered the writer’s above-the-title credit.

There’s no point or purpose to setting ourselves up for ridicule.

-

Josh,

“But I’ve refrained from being a completely obnoxious and insulting asshole…”

Really?

Leif,

“Could someone answer when exactly the film by credit is determined. The impression I get is that it is done at negotiation which I assume is almost before production is started.”

There’s no negotiation, there’s no process. It works like this - Director says, “I want a ‘Film By’ credit.” End of story.

Ted,

“I think it would be best to avoid credits like “Elliott & Rossio’s Walt Disney’s Pirates of the Caribbean or “Craig Mazin’s A Sun Also Rises — both of which would be possible if “Screen story by/Screenplay by” triggered the writer’s above-the-title credit.”

I suppose. But if the point is to make the whole thing so burdonsome that the directors feel silly taking the credit, or that the studios say, “Basta!” to all this, isn’t piling the possessives on and making it as top heavy as possible the point?

“Elliott & Rossio’s Walt Disney’s Pirates of the Caribbean” is no more ludicrous than Michael Bay’s Hamlet, and considering the fact that you guys had to come up with an actual story, it might even be less so.

Mr.Olson:

“And I’m sorry you read my passion on the subject as some kind of frenzied lunacy.”

I didn’t write that, and would never write that. I would NEVER even intimate it.

Josh, I think you must be confusing me with another Matt who’s leaving comments.

I’ve found your views on the subject measured and intelligent. Not crazy.

Just to be clear on that.

Craig,

Does it make sense to hold out a hand in partnership to the dga when they’ve got their other hand around our throat, via the “film by” credit?

Is it around our (the writers) throat? That’s what this whole debate seems to have revolved around, hasn’t it?

The reason they hang onto it is because of the power implicit within the credit. So that shatters your argument that it means nothing because obviously, it does, otherwise they wouldn’t fight to the death to keep it, right?

Now I acknowledge that it doesn’t bother you and others as much - it certainly does rile enough people, you must admit, and makes little to no sense to most folks (including directors within the dga) so why dismiss it as unimportant when, seeing as that there are 139 comments to this post, it seems to be very important.

I agree it’s important to work in partnership not only with other unions but the potential employers as well … but isn’t the way to go about having a partnership is making sure we all get a fair deal and equal say at the table?

And I disagree that employers (studios) would just sit back and laugh as two unions duke it out. A strike would hurt them (and I’m not calling for a strike) and I think they would do everything they could to avoid that, perhaps even whispering in an ear, “hey, I always thought the film by credit was stupid” like many here have testified they have said.

Again, it’s wrong, we all agree it’s wrong, what the problem is that we cannot agree on whether to do anything about it or not.

We’re like a bunch of democrats. Oops. We’re not supposed to make political references.

It surprises me how many screenwriters on this topic (or, more accurately, folks-who-are-looking-at-a-screenwriting-blog) believe that a director has a greater claim of authorship on a film than a screenwriter does. Not as the subject relates to credit/Guild/professional issues, but as an artistic principle. Surprising.

I just don’t see it.

JOE:

“It surprises me how many screenwriters on this topic (or, more accurately, folks-who-are-looking-at-a-screenwriting-blog) believe that a director has a greater claim of authorship on a film than a screenwriter does. Not as the subject relates to credit/Guild/professional issues, but as an artistic principle. Surprising. I just don’t see it.”

Have you ever directed a moderately budgeted film? Chances are, if you have, you might feel a greater sense of authorship—whether it be true or not.

Honestly, I don’t feel that there is such a clear cut answer.

“I don’t see it”

Neither do most people on Earth. Planet Hollywood has a very distinct way of peculiar way of relating to writers.

What I don’t get is how so many of Hollywood Planet’s inhabitants chose to ignore that, on Earth, screenwriters are respected and considered authors.

Guess what? Planet Hollywood is not flat and you’re not going to fall off the world if you venture beyond its limited horizon.

Kevin—

I’ve no doubt that the labors of directing a feature of any budget are enough to make the director feel as if she has created something out of nothing, but that certainly doesn’t make it even remotely true. The script is not only the starting point chronologically, it is also the focal point around which every other person’s job revolves —including the director’s.

I think it all falls back to the unfortunate reality that everyone from PO Box “managers” to honeywagon staff thinks they can write.

“I don’t see it”

Neither do most people on Earth. Planet Hollywood has a very distinct way of peculiar way of relating to writers.

What I don’t get is how so many of Hollywood Planet’s inhabitants chose to ignore that, on Earth, screenwriters are respected and considered authors.

Guess what? Planet Hollywood is not flat and you’re not going to fall off the world if you venture beyond its limited horizon.

Sorry about the double post. The site gave me someking of error response the first time and it seemed it had not accepted the comment.

edited to add:

“The script is not only the starting point chronologically, it is also the focal point around which every other person’s job revolves —including the director’s.”

n the above, I use “script” but refer to the original story in any form.

Matt,

Sorry if I mushed an answer to someone else in a post to you. Not intentional.

Joshua,

“Does it make sense to hold out a hand in partnership to the dga when they’ve got their other hand around our throat, via the “film by” credit?”

I think that’s the thing I can’t get over.

In spite of what some people have said here, it’s a tremendously important issue. That’s not even seriously debatable. I do see that it’s going to be nigh unto impossible to get the WGA to fix it, because to date, none of us have come up with a real solution. I like Ted’s because it has the merits of high silliness, but it’s still not a permanent solution, and there’s a real good chance all it will do is clog up the credits block even more. I keep thinking we need to resign ourselves to fighting the battle on an individual basis - I guarantee you that the “film by” credit will be part of the PR story when Until Gwen is done. And I know quite a few other writer/directors who make a point of bringing it up whenever possible (Steve Gaghan brought it up at a WGA panel we did together last week, and it was a pretty enjoyable, rowdy discussion - nobody realized Haggis had taken it on Crash.)

Anyway, all that said, yeah, you’re right - for all the talk of coming up with a way to deal with this positively and not antagonistically with the DGA, we lose sight of the fact that their official position is openly hostile to us on the matter.

There’s a perception in this town that screenwriters are gigantic wimps. I suppose there’s a certain Christ-like decency to the notion that we ignore that and try to work in fellowship with the DGA, but their conviction that we exist solely to serve their grand visions - even if we’re the ones who created that vision - is profoundly idiotic, and deeply offensive.

“I think it all falls back to the unfortunate reality that everyone from PO Box “managers” to honeywagon staff thinks they can write.”

Well…there’s certainly truth to that.

But there’s another major problem here. A problem that makes it so hard for the WGA and the DGA to come to terms. It’s called:

Unreasonable Self-Importance.

There are some writers and directors that are truly humble to the arduous task of creating a movie and realize, correctly, that the making of the film was due to an extraordinary amount of people and efforts. But it seems like those people—moderates—are in the minority.

On one hand you have someone like John Carpenter, that totally buys into the “Auteur Theory”. And if you’ve ever worked on a film you know that the Auteur Theory is total and complete bullshit. The implication being that Directors are beyond important, almost God-like, and totally infallable.

Now on the other hand we have writers that are exactly the same way. Awhile ago, on this very website, a movie was being discussed entitled, From Justin to Kelly—a truly horrible movie for many reasons. But a poster on here believed that the movie could not have come from the vision of a screenwriter. The movie must have been a studio construct, hired 3 or 4 writers, and churned out the flick in order to capitalize on the success of American Idol. While true, the movie was made to capitalize on the success of American Idol, it was totally the brainchild of one writer, the sister of the creator of the show. She approached her brother about doing a movie halfway into the semi-finals. This type of thinking is also ridiculous. With the same type of insulting implications.

The problem with these two examples is that they have no idea how Self-Important they feel their occupation is. This is a problem, a problem that makes negotiating with the DGA a major problem.

So thank your good graces that we have someone like Craig who sees all sides of the coin. Maybe then, and only then, we can move onto an amicable and worthwile relationship.

Kevin,

“Have you ever directed a moderately budgeted film? Chances are, if you have, you might feel a greater sense of authorship—whether it be true or not.”

Try directing one you also wrote.

Sure, it would feel lovely to get all the credit for the work of all those people…. But you know what else would feel lovely? Walking into a bank and taking all the money out of it, or having sex with every woman I find attractive. Or just getting into that Lamborghini that some dude parked outside and going for a joy ride.

My response to anyone who takes that credit because of their feelings is to call their momma and tell her about it, because your feewings really don’t matter. What matters is that you’re not the author of the film.

Kevin, nobody’s arguing that directors don’t FEEL they deserve the credit. Of course they do. The point is that that feeling is utterly irrelevant. It’s wrong. Period. End of story. It’s exactly that clear, exactly that simple. The only issue is what’s the best way to end it.

Joshua:

Directors have their hands around our THROAT???

No they don’t.

If directors were stealing our money or sleeping with our wives, you might have a point (and I’m starting to agree with Kevin that you’re a little too Braveheart-y on this issue…I mean, it’s not like the DGA gets the right of prima nocta or anything).

And while I believe the wanted the credit to reflect their power, the fact is that not having the credit doesn’t change their actual power in any way.

Frankly, I think the “film by” credit has started to embarrass the DGA, which is why they have unilaterally started to tighten its usage among their own rank and file.

My argument isn’t shattered at all. I think that the DGA convinced everyone they should be allowed to wear a shiny crown. They threatened to strike if anyone took their shiny crown away. So everyone finally said, “Fine. Okay.”

And now they’re the idiots standing there with a shiny crown, wondering why everyone in Hollywood snickers when they see a moronic credit like “A Film By”…particularly when that credit is less of a reward and more of a warning..and I think we could all think of a few names after “A Film By” that would qualify.

But it’s too late. They fought too hard. They insisted. Now they have to keep telling themselves that everyone’s just jealous, and that shiny crowns aren’t ostentatious and evidence of insecurity. No, they’re still really cool…and shiny…or something.

Some people are, amusingly enough, jealous of the shiny crown.

Me? I just think it’s inane.

“It’s exactly that clear, exactly that simple.”

In fact, on a purely theoretical level, I can’t see how it is even possible to not arrive at that conclusion. I believe a film has no author (again, theory not real-world) but, if a film had to, the only argument I can see that can be made for “authorship” of a film is the one for the writer.

Nearly every “director-as-author because he supervises and decides” argument falls apart in a homunculus-like progression leading back to executive producer.

Nearly every “director-as-author because the script is just words on paper and the director creates a film” argument falls apart for the same reason I can claim to like Mozart, despite not being able to read music.

The creator of the story is the author of the film, if anyone is. And no one is. But if someone were, it would be…

Josh,

One word:

Hysterical

“And I’ll take the punk thing any day. I’ll be the Sex Pistols, and you be Yes.”

Nice. It got a chuckle out of me.”

Gave me a chuckle because the Sex Pistols lasted one album while Yes lasted 30 years.

“Gave me a chuckle because the Sex Pistols lasted one album while Yes lasted 30 years.”

If you don’t get the difference, I don’t think anyone can explain it to you.

LOL! Points to Craig for working in primo nocta into the conversation. I had to laugh at that one. Nice. Well played, sir.

But the fact that you consider the credit inane (which is reasonable, because it is) doesn’t take away from the fact that it is, in the words of Mr. Olson, openly hostile to the position of writers as the authors of the stories. And I think it’s a silly and stupid thing, I’m not nearly raging as much as I may come across, I sure do have a sense of humor about it - I just don’t simply understand how you cannot see how important it is as writers to be known as the authors of the the work? And barring that, how can you not see how important it to a large bulk of the working writers running around today?

That’s all, I’m not going to start burning embassies or slicing up English lords to get my way. It’s a debate, right? And that primo nocta line was a ringer, no doubt.

Wait a minute. Perhaps they, the directors, do get primo nocta (for those who don’t remember Braveheart, that was when the lord of the land gets to sleep with any Scot’s bride before her husband-to-be, thus filling the land with children of English stock) in that regard, because when a writer works on a story for a movie and needs a director, in order to do that said writer may have to give up authorship, all or partly, on that first night. A Micheal Hunt film. Primo Nocta, dga style.

Now I know you’ve pointed out that the studios own the properties they buy, true, but that doesn’t mean a studio can buy my script, shoot it and then say in the credits “written by Paramount” because we have certain rights to authorship, correct? What I’m saying, and have said, is that this issue is more important than it may seem and it’s something worth debating and fixing, really.

But no violence, no burning and no fighting. I like my hijinks and drama on the page and stage, not in real life. And though I loved Braveheart very much and used to be able to quote it extensively, I’ve never watched it once, or any Mel movies, since “Passion” came out. I miss it sometimes. I miss T2, as well, but the Governor, well … he’s in his thing and that’s good for him, but I can’t go there.

JD,

“Gave me a chuckle because the Sex Pistols lasted one album while Yes lasted 30 years.”

That depends on your definition of “lasted,” of course.

The argument against the ‘film by’ credit is a sound one if you take into account the lack of true visionaries in cinema.

But that doesn’t mean there aren’t directors and writers who are deserving of laying claim to authorship.

The film by credit is only offensive when it misused, or appropriated. It often is, and that’s what makes is inane and pointless.

You could argue until you were blue in the face, about how a film is a purely collaborative effort. But how can you argue persuasively that the work of Francis Ford Coppola, Alfred Hitchcock, Godard, Kieslowski, Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese, David Lynch, Spielberg and Orson Welles doesn’t express singular visions and clearly identifiable bodies of work?

How many of the above directors have taken the credit?

Matt,

“But how can you argue persuasively that the work of Francis Ford Coppola, Alfred Hitchcock, Godard, Kieslowski, Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese, David Lynch, Spielberg and Orson Welles doesn’t express singular visions and clearly identifiable bodies of work?”

It’s pretty damn easy, actually. Identifiable characteristics don’t really mean anything. I could find twenty five great books by twenty five great writers, each of them dealing with themes and issues that are interesting to me, hire twenty five screenwriters to adapt them for me, then direct them and take credit for a singular vision.

Josh,

I’m past the ‘film by’ credit thing. It’s been played to death.

I’m just arguing the case for authorship of a film. I still believe that directors and especially writer/directors can lay claim to authorship of a film - whether they want to take the ‘film by’ credit, or not.

Matt—

“But how can you argue persuasively that the work of Francis Ford Coppola, Alfred Hitchcock, Godard, Kieslowski, Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese, David Lynch, Spielberg and Orson Welles doesn’t express singular visions and clearly identifiable bodies of work?” What part of Mario Puzo’s novel (and screenplay) best expresses Coppola’s “singular vision?” Which part of Herman J. Mankiewicz’s screenplay is the most clearly Welles-esque? How does Hitch’s taste in material give him authorship over the work of the screenwriters who’s work he brought to the screen?

“I could find twenty five great books by twenty five great writers, each of them dealing with themes and issues that are interesting to me, hire twenty five screenwriters to adapt them for me, then direct them and take credit for a singular vision.”

You make filmmaking sound like working on an assembly line.

What you just described is essentially hack work. Of course, I can claim ‘credit’ for anything. I could take a Shakespeare play, update it, shoot it on video with a small crew and take credit for a singular vision. That doesn’t mean its any good, and it doesn’t make me an auteur or visionary.

You’re back to writing about unscrupulous individuals, not the validity of the authorship.

It seems to me that the dubious claim of film “authorship” cannot possibly be considered in any case wherein the director is not the sole originator and writer of the material. Even then, the collaborative nature of filmmaking still allows an argument about the merits of the such a claim. But, personally, that is the only case where I don’t consider the authorship claim to be preposterous. It is then at least debatable.

A secondary point —in theoretical terms, it is irrelevant who is making the claim of authorship. Any claim, whether by the director himself or by anyone else, has to have the same evidence of individual creation.

It seems to me that the dubious claim of film “authorship” cannot possibly be considered in any case wherein the director is not the sole originator and writer of the material. Even then, the collaborative nature of filmmaking still allows an argument about the merits of the such a claim. But, personally, that is the only case where I don’t consider the authorship claim to be preposterous. It is then at least debatable.

A secondary point —in theoretical terms, it is irrelevant who is making the claim of authorship. Any claim, whether by the director himself or by anyone else, has to have the same evidence of individual creation.

Josh,

“If Malick shot the film himself, it still wouldn’t be a film by Terrence Malick. Did he design every shot? Did he select each lens? Did he select each filter? Did he direct the camera crew? Did he direct the lighting crew? Did he pull focus?”

Sorry, Josh. You have made some good arguments against the credit. But this isn’t one of ‘em.

That would be like saying anyone who gives input into the draft you’re writing implies authorship over your screenplay. It doesn’t. And it shouldn’t.

There’s no question to me that “Ghost Dog” is a Jim Jarmusch film. He controlled all aspects of the production from writing his own screenplay to the final cut. And yes, I know he didn’t actually grind the lenses- but who cares?

The focus puller did what he had to do to achieve Jarmusch’s vision (as did everyone else on set, in prep and in post). If he had some good suggestions about the focus-pulling, great. Bonus. But that does not imply authorship of the film.

So for the record, not all writers here feel the “film by” credit is always wrong. As I said in an earlier post, I have no problem with the credit in cases like Jarmusch, Kubrick, Malick; a writer-director-producer who conceives, executes and shapes the picture to his/her personal vision from beginning to end.

Yes, Stephen King wrote the book all by himself, he is the author. But a writer-director-producer cannot be the author simply because his art form requires the assistance of others? So you can only be considered an author of works of art when you work in disciplines that don’t require help in achieving your vision?

Doesn’t wash.

Can we consider Mozart to be the author of the opera The Marriage of Figaro? Absolutely. If motion pictures existed 250 years ago, and Mozart premiered his opera as a film rather than onstage, he’d still be the author. Regardless of who did the lighting, who pulled focus, who sang, and who had input into the choreography.

The Marriage of Figaro the play- Beaumarchais The Marriage of Figaro the opera- Mozart

The Shining the book- Stephen King The Shining the film- Stanley Kubrick.

That said, I agree that directors for hire should not be entitled to the “film by” credit. I agree that that is bullshit. But we don’t all agree that the credit itself is always bullshit.

P.S. Go easy on me, man. This ain’t personal, and I really appreciate and enjoy your time here.

Josh,

“If Malick shot the film himself, it still wouldn’t be a film by Terrence Malick. Did he design every shot? Did he select each lens? Did he select each filter? Did he direct the camera crew? Did he direct the lighting crew? Did he pull focus?”

Sorry, Josh. You have made some good arguments against the credit. But this isn’t one of ‘em.

That would be like saying anyone who gives input into the draft you’re writing implies authorship over your screenplay. It doesn’t. And it shouldn’t.

There’s no question to me that “Ghost Dog” is a Jim Jarmusch film. He controlled all aspects of the production from writing his own screenplay to the final cut. And yes, I know he didn’t actually grind the lenses- but who cares?

The focus puller did what he had to do to achieve Jarmusch’s vision (as did everyone else on set, in prep and in post). If he had some good suggestions about the focus-pulling, great. Bonus. But that does not imply authorship of the film.

So for the record, not all writers here feel the “film by” credit is always wrong. As I said in an earlier post, I have no problem with the credit in cases like Jarmusch, Kubrick, Malick; a writer-director-producer who conceives, executes and shapes the picture to his/her personal vision from beginning to end.

Yes, Stephen King wrote the book all by himself, he is the author. But a writer-director-producer cannot be the author simply because his art form requires the assistance of others? So you can only be considered an author of works of art when you work in disciplines that don’t require help in achieving your vision?

Doesn’t wash.

Can we consider Mozart to be the author of the opera The Marriage of Figaro? Absolutely. If motion pictures existed 250 years ago, and Mozart premiered his opera as a film rather than onstage, he’d still be the author. Regardless of who did the lighting, who pulled focus, who sang, and who had input into the choreography.

The Marriage of Figaro the play- Beaumarchais The Marriage of Figaro the opera- Mozart

The Shining the book- Stephen King The Shining the film- Stanley Kubrick.

That said, I agree that directors for hire should not be entitled to the “film by” credit. I agree that that is bullshit. But we don’t all agree that the credit itself is always bullshit.

P.S. Go easy on me, man. This ain’t personal, and I really appreciate and enjoy your time here.

Joe:

Have you read Puzo’s novel?

I have.

It’s pulp fiction. Nothing wrong with that, but in Coppola’s hands the story became so much more.

And before you tell me. I know. Puzo co-wrote the screenplay with Coppola.

But it was the latter’s ‘vision’ that elevated the story from mere beach read, to masterpiece.

Joe:

Have you read Puzo’s novel?

I have.

It’s pulp fiction. Nothing wrong with that, but in Coppola’s hands the story became so much more.

And before you tell me. I know. Puzo co-wrote the screenplay with Coppola.

But it was the latter’s ‘vision’ that elevated the story from mere beach read, to masterpiece.

It seems to me that the dubious claim of film “authorship” cannot possibly be considered in any case wherein the director is not the sole originator and writer of the material. Even then, the collaborative nature of filmmaking still allows an argument about the merits of the such a claim. But, personally, that is the only case where I don’t consider the authorship claim to be preposterous. It is then at least debatable.

A secondary point —in theoretical terms, it is irrelevant who is making the claim of authorship. Any claim, whether by the director himself or by anyone else, has to have the same evidence of individual creation.

Though I agree with Josh’s theoretical point that no one individual should be given a possessory credit, I also agree with the more realistic concerns of folks like Craig and Ted who argue that we’ll never win the fight, so let’s focus our energies elsewhere.

And here is something that really pisses me off.

Several years ago, during the marketing for “I Know What You Did Last Summer”, ads had originally touted the movie as being from “the Creator of Scream”.

But noooooooo! Wes Craven (presumably with the backing of the all powerful DGA) got his panties in a bunch and eventually ensured that Kevin Williamson was demoted to “Co Creator of Scream” in those ads, since he, Wes Craven, “created” the movie by directing it.

Following suit, during the marketing of “Pleasantville”, it was advertised as being from the “Co-Creator of “Dave”- Gary Ross.

Now, if we’re going to lie down and accept the DGA’s ludicrous credit hogging with the ‘Film By’ nonsense, then the very LEAST they can do is allow a writer like Kevin Williamson or Gary Ross (who very literally CREATED the projects of Scream and Dave out of their own fertile imaginations) to call themselves the creators.

If anything, Ivan Reitman and Wes Craven were the “executors” of “Dave” and “Scream” - but, and maybe I’m playing sematic games here, the creators were emphatically the writers.

Wow. It’s like a double-triple posting freakout on here. I apologize for my part in it.

Having said that…

Your Mozart point directly (I think) proves my point and disproves yours. By your logic, all Mozart did is write the piece. It’s the conductor, arranger, and producer of whatever recording you are listening to that ought to claim “authorship” over the piece of music you enjoy. Mozart (to further your side’s angle) had nothing to do with the choices that went into the singular vision of that specific recording.

Joe,

The Mozart analogy was meant to illustrate that even though The Marriage of Figaro was based on a play, the opera is distinct from it. It is clearly Mozart’s. And he will always be considered the author. And if he had made it as a film, he would be no less the author.

Maybe it’s a weak analogy. Still, are you saying that writer-director-producers shouldn’t be entitled to authorship?

I just don’t see how anyone could reasonably argue that “Eraserhead” is not a David Lynch film.

My take on the topic is that it is debatable only in the context of a writer/director who is the sole originator of the material and has final cut. And even then, I think the argument against “authorship” is not without its strong points.

In any other scenario, I think it is more-or-less the misguided ramblings of 70 year-old French film critics.

My take on the topic is that it is debatable only in the context of a writer/director who is the sole originator of the material and has final cut. And even then, I think the argument against “authorship” is not without its strong points.

In any other scenario, I think it is more-or-less the misguided ramblings of 70 year-old French film critics.

My take on the topic is that it is debatable only in the context of a writer/director who is the sole originator of the material and has final cut. And even then, I think the argument against “authorship” is not without its strong points.

In any other scenario, I think it is more-or-less the misguided ramblings of 70 year-old French film critics.

Joe:

“In any other scenario, I think it is more-or-less the misguided ramblings of 70 year-old French film critics.”

Read Film Comment or Sight and Sound. Their are still a fair few film writers who subscribe to the auteur theory.

I was being flippant. Using hyperbole and humor to (I hoped) reinforce my contention. I am going to lay low because I find my multi-posting to be personally embarassing. I aplogize again that my over-eagerness has led me to appear foolish (to many, more foolish, I imagine.)

Matt,

“What you just described is essentially hack work. “

You just called Alfred Hitchcock a hack.

Michael

“So for the record, not all writers here feel the “film by” credit is always wrong”

I would argue that anyone who genuinely believes that doesn’t understand the collaborative nature of film. I wrote the screenplay. I am its author - not the film’s. If it’s adapted, the original writer is the author of the source. Not the screenplay or the film. The director directs. The DP shoots. There is no single author of a film. You keep arguing as if I’m stating they’re crediting the wrong person. My point is that nobody can lay claim to authorship of a movie.

“Go easy on me, man. This ain’t personal, and I really appreciate and enjoy your time here.”

Sorry if I’ve jumped on you. Some of the dimmer lights here seem to be all about making it personal, and if I’ve snapped at you mistakenly, I apologize.

Matt,

“It’s pulp fiction. Nothing wrong with that, but in Coppola’s hands the story became so much more. And before you tell me. I know. Puzo co-wrote the screenplay with Coppola. But it was the latter’s ‘vision’ that elevated the story from mere beach read, to masterpiece.”

In the hands of Coppola the WRITER. He elevated the material when he wrote the adaptation. And say what you will about the novel, without it, there’s no material for anyone to elevate, writer or director. On some subjects, I am unimpeachable.

Joe,

�My take on the topic is that it is debatable only in the context of a writer/director who is the sole originator of the material and has final cut. And even then, I think the argument against �authorship� is not without its strong points.�

If we ever get to the point where only writer/director/producer/editors get the �Film By� credit, I think that would be a pretty happy compromise.

Matt

“Their are still a fair few film writers who subscribe to the auteur theory.”

Finally, it is the auteur theory that proves my point. No matter what people say, the very language we use proves what we all know.

The highest compliment we can pay a director is to call him the French word for “writer.” That sort of gives it all away, doesn’t it? His work is good enough that it approaches writing.

Funny that when you write a great book, they don’t call you a directeur.

Josh,

I’m just saying that there are writers here- who understand the filmmaking process- who have no problem accepting authorship in some cases.

Walter Murch recognizes the director’s authorship. And for every person I name you could name another who disagrees with it. Doesn’t make it wrong. Just makes it controversial.

To repeat: I just don’t see how anyone could reasonably argue that “Eraserhead” is not a David Lynch film.

Care to take a stab at it? Or accept it as a happy compromise?

Joe —

Like any collective bargaining agreement, the WGA MBA sets the minimum terms of employment that a signatory Company must offer to employees who contribute literary material toward a motion picture where the Company has the contractual right to direct personal services of writing (that’s the actual, factual contractual description of the job of “writer” in the MBA).

The law (specifically, the National Labor Relations Act) requires that a collective bargaining agreement must offer identical terms to all employees who do the same work.

So the MBA must permit a Company to be able to offer all writers employed identical terms for receiving screen credit, which means all writers employed on any single project must have equal opportunity to receive screen credit.

However, the WGA has an interest in keeping the number of writers credited on any movie to a minimum, the ideal being exactly what Chuck wants: one (1) (the theory is, keeping the number of writers who can receive credit on a movie to the minimum will keep the number of writers who work on any one movie to a minimum).

The minimum number of screen credits it must be possible for a Company to give in order to guarantee any writer employed on the same movie the same terms is two (2).

Doing the math:

Your individual contract includes all terms of the MBA, so your contract guarantees that, if you fulfill X terms, as per the MBA, you will receive screen credit, as per the MBA.

If I am hired to work on the same movie you are, my individual contract must guarantee me the same thing: if I fulfill X terms, I will receive screen credit.

That means that in your contract, the Company must reserve the right to give screen credit to one other writer, and in my contract, the Company must reserve the right to give screen credit to one other writer.

So: every writer’s contract must include the possibility of the Company giving credit to two (2) writers.

And that means the MBA cannot guarantee screen credit to one (1) writer only.

The only way for the WGA to achieve either “sole credit for the first writer” or “one writer, one movie,” is by getting the AMPTP to agree to employ one writer, and only one writer, on any given movie.

-

“Gave me a chuckle because the Sex Pistols lasted one album while Yes lasted 30 years.”

“That depends on your definition of “lasted,” of course. “

I was just having some fun while perusing this debate, which is quite interesting to say the least. But I’ll leave the debate to those who have a better handle on the inner workings of the WGA than I.

Josh —

“Elliott & Rossio’s Walt Disney’s Pirates of the Caribbean” or “Craig Mazin’s The Sun Also Rises” would make the writer’s above-the-title credit the object of ridicule. “A film by Michael Bay Hamlet” would likely be an object of ridicule, but not because of the possessive credit.

-

By the by,

The French word “auteur” means: author, composer, painter, artist, etc… Not just writer.

Craig said: “And now they’re the idiots standing there with a shiny crown, wondering why everyone in Hollywood snickers when they see a moronic credit like ‘A Film By’ particularly when that credit is less of a reward and more of a warning..”

This is where I think fans should have a role to play. How embarrassing is it when even folks in ‘fly-over-country’ are laughing at you? And please don’t tell me that no one in Hollywood cares what the plebs think. For one thing, it’s depressing. For another I don’t think it’s true. I think directors like having fans, just like anyone else. Fans, after all, are another measure of power. You can’t change the hearts and minds of the die-hard ‘director=auteur’ kool-aid drinkers, but you can start stripping away the average fans by educating them.

This has nothing to do with ‘film by’ credit, but why aren’t more screenwriters doing late night talk shows and the like? Is it possible for the WGA to help make screenwriters more accessible to the general public? Build up that fanbase?

A film by Cameron Crowe.

Un film de Catherine Breillat

Una pelicula de Alejandro Inarrito

Einen film von Tom Tykwer

Hate it all you want. But it goes far beyond unions, and far beyond Hollywood. It’s accepted throughout the world. It has permeated the public consciousness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auteur

And it has little to do with the DGA. No union has that kind of power.

Beth: Well said. Writers should be on the chat shows. And they should be on the junkets and on DVD commentaries. That’s worth fighting for.

Ted writes: “However, the WGA has an interest in keeping the number of writers credited on any movie to a minimum, the ideal being exactly what Chuck wants: one (1) (the theory is, keeping the number of writers who can receive credit on a movie to the minimum will keep the number of writers who work on any one movie to a minimum).”

Is there any observational data that supports the hypothesis that limiting the number of writing credits also limits the number of writers who are hired? For example, has the average number of hired writers (credited an anonymous) per film decreased since the WGA tightened the rules for recieving credit?

Ooo. Craig broke out The Big Gun — HUMOR!

No, really, you don’t think it looks cool? But it’s shiney, and it’s… it’s a crown! That means I’m the boss. I AM the King! Prima noctra!

Kind of reminds me of one of Eric Cartman’s many attempts to impress everyone with how important he is - “I am the God of the Sea People!”

Hey, and for those interested, today on NPR’s The Brian Lehrer Show:

The Pen is Mightier than the Megaphone

David Kipen, film critic and author The Schreiber Theory: A Radical Rewrite of American Film History (Melville House, 2006) - dismantles the the auteur theory that directors are the driving force behind movies.

The link:

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/episodes/02102006

Thoughts?

Ted—

Thanks for the scoop. I guess what is confusing me is how this doesn’t then apply to the DGA. Specifically, I am thinking of that whole Exorcist prequel debacle/ If a director can be replaced and the new director can use the existing footage and recieve sole credit, how is that any different from a labor law perspective from replacing a writer, if both materials are work product?

Thanks for responding, I appreciate it.

Josh:

“Have you ever directed a moderately budgeted film? Chances are, if you have, you might feel a greater sense of authorship—whether it be true or not.”

Try directing one you also wrote.

I have. I’m not sure what you mean here.

“My response to anyone who takes that credit because of their feelings is to call their momma and tell her about it, because your feewings really don’t matter.”

I agree.

That’s why we should drop the credit issue. Because at the end of the day, it’s about your feelings. Directors are hurting your feelings for taking that stupid credit. It doesn’t impact you financially so by process of elimination, it’s about your feewings.

I suggest having sex with every attractive woman you meet. I know it will help.

Point is, this is a nice debate and all but AGAIN, where’s the solution?

So far there’s been only one(1) solution presented here out the 180 posts: For Writers to recieve a possessory credit as well.

I’m leaning towards the feeling that the additional credit is petty and unnecessary.

So…anyone else who’s against the credit have any realistic solutions? I admit that I personally don’t because I think the whole issue reminds me a lot of Kindergarten.

Anyone?

Josh:

P.S. We use HTML tags here!:}

I had a suggestion, which was change the credit - just because you disagree with it doesn’t mean it’s neither possible or realistic.

Joe Unidos said:

It surprises me how many screenwriters on this topic (or, more accurately, folks-who-are-looking-at-a-screenwriting-blog) believe that a director has a greater claim of authorship on a film than a screenwriter does. I just don’t see it.

Neither do most people on Earth. Planet Hollywood has a very distinct way of peculiar way of relating to writers. What I don’t get is how so many of Hollywood Planet’s inhabitants chose to ignore that, on Earth, screenwriters are respected and considered authors.

“I had a suggestion, which was change the credit - just because you disagree with it doesn’t mean it’s neither possible or realistic.”

What do you mean by “change the credit”?

I meant get rid of “film by” credit.

Uh…

That’s not possible or realistic.

Have you been paying attention to the last 200 posts?

Most of us agree that the “Film By” credit is insulting. But most of us also agree that the only way this credit will change is a strike. That strike won’t happen. The WGA won’t strike over a “Film By” credit.

Because most of the members don’t believe it’s worth striking over.

cwmagee wrote:

Is there any observational data that supports the hypothesis that limiting the number of writing credits also limits the number of writers who are hired?

No, although I think I may have poorly phrased the idea behind the “sole credit for the first writer” strategy.

The idea is, if the first writer was guaranteed credit, then no one would ever accept a rewrite assignment.

Because, you know, writers don’t accept rewrite assignments in order to collect a fee, maintain health fund eligibility, take opportunities to prove their ability to deliver a shootable script and make relationships that will lead to further employment …

Screen credit has no relationship to Company hiring practices. It also has little bearing on whether or not someone accepts a rewrite assignment — because it is already as difficult as legally possible for a subsequent writer to receive screen credit.

Really, the ‘sole credit’ idea comes down to the belief: if only one writer was credited on every movie, it would cause only one writer to be hired on every movie.

The amount of anomalistic thinking there is in the WGA, you’d think we were a cargo cult.

-

as I said, because you disagree with it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s neither possible or realistic … in other words, simply because you say it cannot be so doesn’t make it so.

Seems to me that requiring every paid writer to be credited would be more of a deterrent than allowing only one credit.

It would allow the customer to correlate the quality (or banality) of movies by the number of writers, something that they currently have no way of doing.

The current credit system seems to hide serial hiring and firing practices, thus shielding difficult producers/ directors from scrutiny.

“as I said, because you disagree with it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s neither possible or realistic … in other words, simply because you say it cannot be so doesn’t make it so.”

So even though we know that the only way the issue MIGHT be resolved is a strike and we know a strike won’t happen, it’s still possible and realistic?

Cool! Wait…what?

I think you should run for President of the United States. No, President of the Universe! And then promise each citizen of the world No More Taxes, Disease Free Sex, and a Flying Car!

Shit, I’d vote for you.

cwmagee:

“It would allow the customer to correlate the quality (or banality) of movies by the number of writers, something that they currently have no way of doing.”

The Quality of a movie doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with the number of writers on a film.

And that was a great solution by the way.

Just Do It!

I feel like running a marathon…

As a writer based a safe distance from Hollywood (New Zealand) I’ve been watching this debate with great amusement.

What do you guys have to complain about? You’re probably taking home half a mill’ for penning the latest instalment in the franchise you’ve been riding for far too long anyway.

You’re in the system, at the top of the pile. It’s easy to profess to care about the hoards of writers out there trying to make it when you’ve three future projects lined up, are on first name terms with the Weinsteins and are getting enough in residuals from Scary Movie 2 to retire on.

Writers in the rest of the world are more interested in making sure they even get paid than worrying about whether they’ll be insulted by the “A film by…” credit.

Down here in NZ, the average movie takes five years to get off the ground and you’re lucky to get NZ$45,000 for three drafts. And we’re a country punching far above our weight in film thanks to Peter Jackson, Andrew Adamson, Niki Caro etc.

It’s the same in Australia, UK, Ireland, Europe (anywhere outside Holly/Bollywood. Writers are happy to get credit fullstop and not end up bankrupt because they believed in a story enough to see it through to completion.

Get real, you guys have it good in Hollywood, yet you still manage to pump out dross in ever increasing quantities.

Why don’t you find something important to discuss, like how screwed up your country is and how you need to get more movies on the screen to reflect this.

Why don’t you talk about how to make more movies like Munich, Syriana, Lord of War, Goodnight and Goodluck, Jarhead and North Country and shake your ignorant population awake.

Sometimes I just have to agree with Maynard James Keenan when it comes to California and the airheads who live there…

“I’m praying for tidal waves, I wanna see the ground give way…”

NZ writer

How did a post based on a credit in a film suddenly turn into an angry rant against America?

“… shake your ignorant population awake.”

That’s quite a sweeping statement. This is beginning to sound like a person who has been drinking too much sour milk.

How old are you, NZ? Because by the sound of your incoherent bile, you’re either 12 years old, or a 32 year old psychotic that locks himself in a dingy apartment thinking that he’s creating the next “Citizen Kane.” Another frustrated writer that believes he has all the talent in the world and if producers would “just look at my work, they’ll see I’m brilliant too!”

‘“I’m praying for tidal waves, I wanna see the ground give way…”’

Talk about ignorant, NZ. That’s not only ignorant, it’s frightening.

Joe —

Writers are hired to deliver completed literary material to the Company. Even a writer hired on a week-to-week basis are hired on a week-to-week basis to deliver completed literary material.

So credit must be determined based on completed literary material delivered v. literary material actually used in the final film.

On the other hand, directors’ work is done on an incremental basis. An objective standard for credit can be created based on work product (ie, footage shot), rather than finished work. I think its something like, if a director is replaced prior to X number of shooting days into production, the replacing director gets credit; if replaced after, the first director gets credit (the DGA also has strictures on who can replace the director: it must be a DGA member, and it cannot be anyone employed on the motion picture at the time the director is replaced).

And, there’s this: in theatricals, directors are rarely replaced after production begins, because one of the things that makes a studio commit to production is the specific director they can hire. And because the standard any director must meet in order to receive credit is: work completed in production …

-

Kevin,

It is, in my mind, better than your solution, which starts with “bend” and ends in “over”.

Again, not being braveheart-ie, just pointing out the obvious! ;)

Very interesting discussion.

Josh started out by claiming that the ‘Film by’ credit (for directors) is an insult, not only to writers but to all the people who work in movies and contribute creatively. Incidentally I don’t agree with that.

Then comes this:

“If we ever get to the point where only writer/director/producer/editors get the ‘Film By’ credit, I think that would be a pretty happy compromise.”

If this is a happy compromise what would be the perfect solution?

That the ‘Film by’ credit is shared by tens (or hundreds) of people - in other words, every single person whose creative contribution is for all to see in the finished film? Or did I miss something important in this marathon thread?

‘“I’m praying for tidal waves, I wanna see the ground give way…”’

Seeing as this is a quote from the song Aenema by Tool, it appears he has a hard time writing original material. Should he get a written by NZ for that one? ;-)

Let’s cool it with the personal stuff…

…stay on target.

Stay on target…

Remind me, what’s the target? The possessive credit debate has devolved into “nuh-uh” vs “nuh-huh”, killing all other topics. Maybe we could put that one to bed for now and move on to DVD commentaries, publicity junkets, and other things that would help increase the writer’s stock?

Fame has value in Hollywood. The only reason Serenity made any money was because Joss Whedon’s name was on it. He has earned a fanbase through television and comic books. He was able to get Serenity made based partly on the fact that he has a fanbase. I’m not saying everyone should model their career after Whedon, but there is clearly value in name recognition.

Where’s that fork…?

Okay, put it in me…

…I’m done!

But seriously, I’ve never felt more like a Democrat than I do now…

I think Ted hit it on the nose when he pointed out that you can make a motion picture without a screenplay. Can’t without a director. Ergo: No writer, no screenplay. No director, no film.

Maysles films certainly come to mind. Also Frederick Wiseman. They frequently worked without screenplays. Salesmen, Grey Gardens, Gimme Shelter, Titicut Follies, Highscool… Does it matter that these are documentaries? Does the authorship argument apply only to fiction films? Of course not.

I’d like to propose a solution:

1. Do not sell a spec without being attached as either a producer or director.
2. Do not write a film you do not want to be attached to as either a producer or director.
3. Do not take an assignment unless you will be attached as a producer or director.

I maybe naive and short on experience, but I am not without experience. It only took one frustrating assignment adapting a book for two independent producers to decide I wanted more say in the projects I was attached to. I am just barely a working writer and have no credits, but I am now co-producing my next script with a producer I trust.

I suggest not making the “film by” credit a deal breaker, it will go away with time. The power will shift when screenwriters stop being writers and start being filmmakers. That is why playwrights have the power they have and that is why TV writers have the power they have. Because they are all producers of their work as well as writers.

The “film by” credit will be easy to tackle when you, as an empowered producer on your film asks the director not to take the credit. Let him say it to your face, to you, the writer and one of the producers, that he wants ownership of the film. In this way even the “film by” credit will go the way the producer’s possessory credit went. It may take some time, but it will go away.

Okay, so your saying to yourself that is all fine and good, but I don’t want to direct… Fine, neither do I.

Okay, then, what if you are saying to yourself, but I don’t want to be a producer…

Then my question to you is why are you writing films if you do not want to me a filmmaker? I think we writers must quit thinking of themselves as isolated writers armed with nothing but our laptops and ideas and start taking possession of our films. Start making ourselves part of the filmmaking process. In other words, as filmmakers. A filmmaker makes a movie, a screenwriter is just a commodity needed to make a film (thus the blueprint analogy).

Our power is in the material. As originators of it (when written on spec), the power is automatically ours. As soon as we relinquish the rights to what we have created, we are powerless. I say we do not give away our rights, unless we are welcomed as filmmakers (producers or directors) who will help see the process from beginning to end. Same with assignments. Do not sign onto someone else’s project unless you will be welcomed aboard as a credited creative partner.

I look forward to hearing from more established writers, as they will know things I cannot. However, I feel certain (in my naivete) that with a little sacrifice, film can function more like TV for the average writer, so long as we all stick to our guns and elevate our role from that of writer to filmmaker.

(Let the writer revolution begin!)

Michael,

“Hate it all you want. But it goes far beyond unions, and far beyond Hollywood. It’s accepted throughout the world. It has permeated the public consciousness.”

At one point the view that the world was flat also permeated the public consciousness. It takes a lot of work and more than just contract negotiations to change how people think. It doesn’t have to happen this week, this month, this year or in my lifetime. But it won’t ever happen if we don’t address it.

Mike

�David Kipen, film critic and author The Schreiber Theory: A Radical Rewrite of American Film History (Melville House, 2006) - dismantles the the auteur theory that directors are the driving force behind movies.�

I just met David Kipen last night, and he gave me a copy of the book. He had me from the first sentence, which is (from memory, so it might be off a bit), �Imagine a library where the books are arranged alphabetically by editor.�

Lovely stuff, and I�m eager to see how his book is received over the next few months.

Kevin,

��Have you ever directed a moderately budgeted film? Chances are, if you have, you might feel a greater sense of authorship�whether it be true or not.�

Try directing one you also wrote.

I have. I�m not sure what you mean here.�

I thought it was pretty clear. I was simply saying that as someone who�s not only directed but written the thing as well, I can say that some of us don�t feel that urge.

�That�s why we should drop the credit issue. Because at the end of the day, it�s about your feelings. Directors are hurting your feelings for taking that stupid credit. It doesn�t impact you financially so by process of elimination, it�s about your feewings.�

It�s got nothing to do with feelings. So long as writers are perceived as subordinate to directors, we�ll be compensated accordingly. That�s a tremendously simple concept, and I have yet to hear a single argument that even comes close to refuting it.

PS: I have no idea what an HTML tag is.

NZ writer,

�What do you guys have to complain about? You�re probably taking home half a mill� for penning the latest instalment in the franchise you�ve been riding for far too long anyway.�

I get the resentment, but bite me. That there are some screenwriters who are motivated purely by money is inarguable. That there are a great many who aren�t, however, is equally inarguable. I turned down a good deal more than that to write the latest installment in a franchise, and at the time when I should have been leaping on some high profile mega project, I chose to write a ten million dollar western for Willie Nelson because I love westerns and I love Willie.

What�s fascinating about your position is you�re arguing from two opposing positions. One the one hand, you resent the monolithic Hollywood Screenwriters because we only do it for the money and don�t care about what�s right; but at the same time, BECAUSE we get paid the big money, you think we shouldn�t care about what�s right. It�s not exactly a well thought out position, although I understand the emotional satisfaction of jerking the old knee.

�Writers in the rest of the world are more interested in making sure they even get paid than worrying about whether they�ll be insulted by the �A film by�� credit.�

I like to think writers in the rest of the world are more interested in doing good work than they are in either of those things. I know I am, and was even when I barely earning a subsistence wage. Having spent a decade where $45,000 NZ would be a good YEAR, let alone a good job, I can safely say that not all of us are motivated purely by greed. I know it�s not your intention to say that you are…. But that does seem to be what you�re saying.

�Why don�t you talk about how to make more movies like Munich, Syriana, Lord of War, Goodnight and Goodluck, Jarhead and North Country and shake your ignorant population awake.�

I�d wager you and I see eye to eye politically, but I find the notion that movies like that do more than preach to the choir to be fairly absurd. Do you really think anyone walked out of Jarhead determined to stop the war?

Anna,

“Josh started out by claiming that the ‘Film by’ credit (for directors) is an insult, not only to writers but to all the people who work in movies and contribute creatively. Incidentally I don’t agree with that. Then comes this: “If we ever get to the point where only writer/director/producer/editors get the ‘Film By’ credit, I think that would be a pretty happy compromise.” If this is a happy compromise what would be the perfect solution?”

Um… No “film by” credit at all. Which is what I’ve stated from the beginning. What’s the point of it? If I write and direct a movie, let alone produce and edit it, everyone’s going to refer to it as a Josh Olson movie anyway? What’s the point of taking an extra credit that doesn’t say anything new?

David,

The flaw at the heart of your argument is that it presupposes that everyone who writes should want to direct. Many writers are hermetic creatures, they live in caves and fear daylight. That’s how they function. Why must they be forced to take on a job they do not desire to protect their work? Why is the phrase “just the writer” even allowed to exist?

Josh,

You’re one of my new heros.

JOSH:

“It’s got nothing to do with feelings. So long as writers are perceived as subordinate to directors, we’ll be compensated accordingly. That’s a tremendously simple concept, and I have yet to hear a single argument that even comes close to refuting it.”

Ok. Well…two things.

1. Of course it has to do with feelings. That’s obvious. And it’s something that you made pretty clear. I’m not saying that’s wrong—in fact, I really don’t think it’s wrong, but yes, it has to do with feelings.

2. Money! I was wondering when we’d finally get around to that!

You feel like we should be compensated more? In what way? I’m curious…

Today I watched a documentary on the life and political struggle of Nelson Mandela. Currently, Mandela is campaigning strongly to promote awareness and action against the spread of AIDS in Africa. He is making a great number of changes in the opinions of the African peoples and in the policies of the countries governments. But some AIDS campaigners are still angry with Mandela ? and some even blame him for the spread of AIDS in the epidemic proportions it has reached today.

Why do they blame him? Because when he was actually President of South Africa, he didn?t tackle the issue of AIDS as fervently and passionately as he did issues of equality and human rights. In fact, the subject of AIDS was avoided while he was in power. This is why some see the present state of affairs to be Mandela?s own fault.

Now, comparing the spread of the AIDS virus across the African continent to the ?Film By? credit would be as ridiculous and offensive as comparing the credit complaint to Rosa Parks? defiant stand against the oppression of segregation.

But I can use this example to illustrate a different point, regarding picking your battles ? and more importantly, picking the time and place.

The reason for Mandela?s inaction when it came to combating AIDS whilst he was President is a powerful one. AIDS was a very taboo subject at that time, not just in politics but also in public opinion. There was a high degree of danger involved in raising the issue and discussing it. If Mandela had attacked the prejudices head on whilst in government, perhaps he could have swayed the balance, and maybe the disease would have been slowed in its progression across Africa at an earlier date.

However, a much more likely scenario, is that Mandela would have lost the respect of his people, the confidence of his supporters and he would have earned the rancour of many powerful opponents to the AIDS issue. He would most likely have been removed from power and quite possibly killed. Before he solved the AIDS problem and worse yet, before he could make the broad sweeping changes to civil rights in his own country, across Africa and the world. We would have lost most of the good that Mandela had done and continues to do for humanity.

Even now, as opinions in Africa have been gradually changed, Mandela is still threatened for his speaking out on the topic of AIDS. He still has to fight against incredibly powerful political opponents. But he has a better position to rally from now and more of an advantage than he had whilst in government.

Now the removal of the ?Film By? credit is very important (though it?s nowhere near as important as the battle against AIDS and nowhere near as important as the civil rights struggle for equality and I dare say, not quite as important as Mr. Olson might think it is) but if we focus the majority of our attention on this issue, sacrificing other far more important and relevant issues, and we put all of our fight into getting this one small concession from the studios ? well, then we won?t have enough left to fight with for the things that matter more.

If Nelson Mandela could put an issue as serious as the spread of AIDS to one side until he could do the most good, surely we can put something like ?A Film By? aside until we?ve struck a few other, more important blows?

Now, who’d like to take bets that this post does absolutely nothing to change the opinions of anyone in this debate who has an opinion?

Josh:

“Many writers are hermetic creatures, they live in caves and fear daylight.”

This is more of a problem than you think. And this contributes more to the subordinate issue than a “Film By” credit ever has or ever will.

Those question marks are what I get for spellchecking my post in Word.

Josh,

My argument is that all writers should become producers of their work. I threw in directing because it is another way to achieve the same thing: creative control. My guess is that most screenwriters don’t want to be directors. However, all writers should want to be filmmakers and turn themselves from just writers, to writer-producers.

Since we control our work at inception, let us use that ownership for leverage. Instead of selling out to the highest bidder, let’s take our projects to the prodcos and execs that will take us, the writer-producer, as part of the package.

Vanity Fair has been nice enough to interview a writer who demonstrates my point exactly.

The issue on news stands now has an article about Zach Helms. He was an unproduced writer for five years, until he decided to take a stand (and join the revolution!) and refuse “to sell a script unless he’s satisfied not only that it will have an excellent chance of actually making it to the screen, but also that it will be filmed as he wrote it.”

Since coming up with his personal manifesto, two of his films are now being made as he intends. My argument is about empowering writers on a individual basis. Once enough writers are empowered, we will all start reaping the rewards. The story of Zach Helm is just a well-timed case in point.

p.s. I can’t find the article on line, but if you buy the magazine, it starts on p.250.

“The issue on news stands now has an article about Zach Helms. He was an unproduced writer for five years, until he decided to take a stand (and join the revolution!) and refuse “to sell a script unless he’s satisfied not only that it will have an excellent chance of actually making it to the screen, but also that it will be filmed as he wrote it.”

Do not believe these PR stories. They have less to do with reality than the Chronicles of Narnia.

Kevin,

Certainly it the article is a PR coup. But the fact remains that by taking a stand, his career turned a dramatic direction that it may not have if he continued the trajectory of your standard screenwriter. I do not see why this strategy cannot work for every writer, especially new writers who are not yet entrenched in the old system.

Kevin,

“Of course it has to do with feelings. That’s obvious. And it’s something that you made pretty clear. I’m not saying that’s wrong—in fact, I really don’t think it’s wrong, but yes, it has to do with feelings.”

Most of the people arguing that it doesn’t matter have been arguing from the point of view of feelings. Most of the arguments against - my own included - have nothing to do with feelings. You might want to go back and re-read the thread…. If you have eleven free hours.

“Money! I was wondering when we’d finally get around to that!”

Seriously - I’m kind of shocked by this. My initial premise that sparked this whole thing is that it’s all about money and power. Has nothing to do with feelings. How you missed that is beyond me

Godsbane,

�If Nelson Mandela could put an issue as serious as the spread of AIDS to one side until he could do the most good, surely we can put something like ?A Film By? aside until we?ve struck a few other, more important blows?�

To stick with your analogy - and it�s an ANALOGY - only an illiterate would think you�re comparing the �film by� credit with AIDS… Nelson Mandela couldn�t even think about addressing the issue until he was out of jail and president of South Africa. He could certainly have tried, but it was only when he had any power that he could do anything substantive.

Get how it works? The little issues you want to address will be a lot easier to deal with when writers are no longer viewed and treated as second-class contibutors.

David,

“My argument is that all writers should become producers of their work. I threw in directing because it is another way to achieve the same thing: creative control. My guess is that most screenwriters don’t want to be directors. However, all writers should want to be filmmakers and turn themselves from just writers, to writer-producers. “

Again - why should they have to? They’re the WRITERS. The fact that that’s your gameplan or mine is irrelevant. We choose that path because we’re inclined in that directed. But why should a writer have to give up power because he also doesn’t want to be a producer?

I�m all about writers taking control of their careers and doing everything they personally can to see their visions make it to the screen in the purest form possible. But I think telling them that�s the only way to do it is nuts. There are truly great writers out there who have no business skills whatsoever. Why penalize them? Do we really want to see nothing but movies by people who can write reasonably well but know how to negotiate with agents? That�s a criteria for being a great screenwriter?

�He was an unproduced writer for five years, until he decided to take a stand (and join the revolution!) and refuse �to sell a script unless he�s satisfied not only that it will have an excellent chance of actually making it to the screen, but also that it will be filmed as he wrote it.�

That�s not exactly unusual. I know plenty of writers who�ve turned down offers because they knew the film would be bad, or not the movie they wanted to see. You can never know if a film will be any good when you walk into a deal, but you can usually tell when it�s going to be awful. His stand isn�t so unusual, and it�s hardly revolutionary.

Josh,

Thanks for the comments. I don’t think we are very far apart on these issues, so let me address this one:

“But why should a writer have to give up power because he also doesn’t want to be a producer?”

The answer to that is that the writer shouldn’t have to give up power just because he is a writer. Unfortunately, that is simply the way the system works at the moment.

If we want to change the system, we can’t just say that it shouldn’t be the way it is. Instead, we have to work within the system to make it work for us. One of the things a writer can do now, is demand to be part of the production team or partner up with an existing producer and co-produce the movie yourself.

You say abolish the “film by” credit and respect will follow. I am saying, let’s all stake out our power now, and respect will follow. It will be easier to deal with the “film by” credit when the WGA is an army of writer-producers.

Later you write: “There are truly great writers out there who have no business skills whatsoever. Why penalize them? Do we really want to see nothing but movies by people who can write reasonably well but know how to negotiate with agents?”

My answer to this is, yes, that is what it might take to get respect. This industry does not play well with the quiet, shy types. I’ve found that the meeting is as, if not more, important than the sample script in landing an assignments. So yes, perhaps it is a penalty to have no business sense. By the way, I am not talking about the nuts and bolts/finding-the-financing kind of producing either. I’m talking about being a creative producer: being involved in casting sessions, location scouts, budgetary discussions, etc. Let say for instance, your production team decides they can only afford one of two costly scenes. One of the scenes must be staged differently. Don’t you think this is a question that is best settled with the writer in the room?

Your point is well taken that every writer doesn’t want to be involved in these kind of producing discussion. I guess my answer to that is every writer should want to be involved. That is the motive behind my writing: “Do not write a film you do not want to be attached to as either a producer or director.” Again, we are in the business of making movies. Let’s as writers get more involved in the making of movies. You don’t see playwrights saying the just wish they could write the play and have nothing to do with the production. Working with the director and actors is just part of the playwright’s job. The same is true of TV writers. I don’t know enough about 1 hr dramas, but I know that sitcoms involve the writers until the moment the director calls wrap. And that is why I’m calling it a revolution. Because we need to change the culture of the film industry. Writers should be involved in many of the issues producers deal with. So lets put ourselves in that position. I believe this is a realistic way each one of us can do it.

Admittedly, I’m short on experience, so forgive my naivete (and overwrought rhetoric… I was a bottle of wine into the evening the first time “revolution” spilled out of my keyboard. Unfortunately, I have no such excuse this time). Let me close with saying that like you, I am seriously impassioned over these issues. I say let’s work together and rewrite the rule book, one writer at a time.

Josh:

“Most of the arguments against - my own included -have nothing to do with feelings. You might want to go back and re-read the thread…. If you have eleven free hours.”

You’re kidding, right? This whole argument is about feelings. The DGA feels the “Film By” credit is correct and appropo. You feel like (and a lot of other writers, myself included) that the “Film By” credit is insulting. There’s no monetary value attached to the Film By credit. Right now, this all about feelings.

“Seriously - I’m kind of shocked by this. My initial premise that sparked this whole thing is that it’s all about money and power. Has nothing to do with feelings. How you missed that is beyond me”

I did miss this. I re-read all the posts—okay, I’m lying: I SKIMMED—but I wonder if we’re talking about 2 different things. Is your premise that Directors have too much power and make too much money or that Writers don’t have any power and make way too little money?

I’d agree that Writers should have more power (money, are you kidding me?) but I’m still totally unconvinced that it has to do with “Film By”. You didn’t address something I said to you before, something I believe is the real culprit.

“Many writers are hermetic creatures, they live in caves and fear daylight.”

This I believe is a much bigger issue.

Mr. Olson,

“Nelson Mandela couldn�t even think about addressing the issue until he was out of jail and president of South Africa. He could certainly have tried, but it was only when he had any power that he could do anything substantive.”

I think you just proved my point. But remember, it was when Mandela was President that he was powerless to act, as that would have destroyed his powerbase for making all the other reforms he made under his leadership.

“Get how it works? The little issues you want to address will be a lot easier to deal with when writers are no longer viewed and treated as second-class contibutors.”

Yes, I get it and once more, you’ve just argued for the point you seem to be opposing. When writers have the rights they deserve then the little issues will be a lot easier to address. So we have to ocus on the big picture and get that respect before we start making less important stuff like “Film By” a high priority.

And coming back to - “To stick with your analogy - and it�s an ANALOGY - only an illiterate would think you�re comparing the �film by� credit with AIDS…”

I only made that as clear as I could, simply because you made a statement that people read as you comparing yourself to Rosa Parks on account of your contract that forbids a “Film By” credit. I didn’t want the same misunderstanding. But thankyou for reinforcing that point for me.

Kevin, I thought you said something about a fork and being done?

Regardless, it’s not about feelings, Josh has broken down logically and reasonably why the “film by” credit is wrong and inappropriate and while he has done so with considerable feeling, the basis for his action to change is not rooted within feeling. I don’t know why that’s hard to see, since you yourself have admitted that the credit is silly and useless - so you are not arguing about whether or not the credit itself is reasonable, rather we are arguing upon what a reasonable response to said credit is. You (and others) state that we should simply ignore it. My response (and Josh’s) is that it should be addressed and changed.

Certainly we feel we are right, but the positions themselves are not about how we feel about the work but what is right and reasonable as writers in order to thrive. Therefore Josh is correct in that feelings do not necessarily play a part in it the logic of the work.

As I pointed out earlier, we are authors, we have certain rights - the owners can buy our property, but even then there are limits - as I mentioned, a studio can buy, shoot and distribute your screenplay, but they cannot do so and list “written by Paramount” even though they may own the film rights. They cannot because we are the authors of the story of the film and therefore have certain rights as its originator. Logically, the “film by” credit cuts into the writer’s rights as authors, hurts us professionally and marginalizes our contribution to the end product. We agree that it does that. Some of us wish to do something about it, as writers. Some of us don’t, seeing it as a scrap not worth fighting for and unwinnable. We’ve gone back and forth on the reasons pro and con and evidently will not be able to solve this puzzle on this comment string, which is too bad. Because it is important, much more important than whether or not some writers are more social than others.

” … a studio can buy, shoot and distribute your screenplay, but they cannot do so and list “written by Paramount” even though they may own the film rights. They cannot because we are the authors of the story of the film and therefore have certain rights as its originator. Logically, the “film by” credit cuts into the writer’s rights as authors, hurts us professionally and marginalizes our contribution to the end product.” (Joshua)

Ted Elliott has mentioned this already: a script is a work of authorship, the resulting film is another work of authorship, distinctly different.

It seems to me that Josh Olson’s main issue is with the hierarchial nature of film production (which puts the director at the apex). He prefers to think of the physical production as a process where a number of skilled people (including the director), work alongside each other to turn out a good product.

I’m not going to argue with Josh’s view of things - there is not much point. But I disagree with him because he’s in essence saying that films are not works of authorship.

Given the nature of the hierarchial system (which is basically the same all the world over and has been in existence for almost hundred years), the director is the only person who can legimately lay claim to the authorship of a film. This is an accepted fact, not merely my personal opinion.

The posessive credit merely signifies that the director is taking credit for the finished film - the work as a whole. Not its constituent parts, not the script.

Josh objects to the posessive credit because in his mind it signifies that the director is greedily taking credit for everything - not only his contribution but the contribution of everyone else. In Josh’s view a film is clearly no more than a sum of its parts.

Not that Josh is arguing that writers should get posessive credit. Or anyone else for that matter. He doesn’t think anyone has the right to it.

This basically amounts to catagorizing films as products of mass production - like automobiles - rather than works of authorship. Cars are clearly products of creative minds, the designers’ for example, but a car is not a work of authorship - not even if the car in question is the only one of its type in existence.

And no, I’m not a Conservative nor am I a Republican Party sympathizer. I’m a Social Democrat (a party member in fact). Just so that’s clear.

Josh,

“As I pointed out earlier, we are authors, we have certain rights - the owners can buy our property, but even then there are limits - as I mentioned, a studio can buy, shoot and distribute your screenplay, but they cannot do so and list ?written by Paramount? even though they may own the film rights. They cannot because we are the authors of the story of the film and therefore have certain rights as its originator.”

Actually, due to the US’s work for hire laws, they could do that, and they did do that before the formation of the WGA-W. It’s only through collective bargaining that the studios were forced to give writers credit. I’m pretty sure Craig covered that in another post, but I don’t have time to go looking for it right this second.

“Given the nature of the hierarchial system (which is basically the same all the world over and has been in existence for almost hundred years), the director is the only person who can legimately lay claim to the authorship of a film. This is an accepted fact, not merely my personal opinion.”

Actually if I recall correctly, the US is the only country where writers do not retain copyright of their screenplays … in most of Europe screenwriters are acknowleged authors of the script and copyright it. It may vary a bit from country to country (not sure about china … who is?) but your statement that it is the same all over the world is basically incorrect and not an accepted fact.

Now, I’m not disputing that companies should or shouldn’t have copyright here in the US. I’m merely stating that, even though they do, there are limits within and the originator of the story gets rights. You don’t argue that.

This discussion hinges on a crucial element, like the director is the author of the film - but then is the director the author of the story of the film?

It’s the classic chicken and the egg question. Me, I say if the story comes first, the author of the story gets credited as the author of the story.

So you are saying, regardless of the directors contribution to the script, he or she should get authorship to it simply because he or she directed it? Because I disagree. Directing a script doesn’t necessarily mean one was an author to it. Look how many times A Star Is Born has been made into a film. Each with a different director. Can each director lay claim to authorship on subsequent remakes?

The story is the story. Some directors adapt and write, some don’t. Some directors do not make any contributions to the story, per se, and shoot it as written and shoot it very well. Some don’t.

Here is the definition of author - author |?ô??r| (abbr.: auth.) noun a writer of a book, article, or report : he is the author of several books on the subject. • someone who writes books as a profession : my favorite authors are Kurt Vonnegut and Aldous Huxley. • the writings of such a person : I had to read authors I disliked. • figurative an originator or creator of something, esp. a plan or idea : the authors of the peace plan.

So ask yourself - are directors the originators? Certainly they are creative, no one’s arguing that, but so is the property master. So are editors. Are directors the original creator of a film, does the idea start with them?

Me, I look at that and while I certainly value the work directors do, it seems a real stretch to call them the authors, unless they were writer-directors.

calling directors authors of the film suggests that writers are not, in essence, important or necessary to the process. And history supports this POV, seeing as that there are legions of horror stories out there on how badly writers have been treated.

Ask yourself this - if the writers simply stopped writing scripts - would the film business continue? Would directors continue to “author” films?

I know that they used to do that, Vlad, and that things changed as a result of the WGA’s collective bargaining - my point was that we do not give up everything as a result of work-for-hire, thanks to the lovely union. I don’t dispute that and don’t understand why you point this out.

It was an unfair situation and the union addressed it. Change is a good thing.

And for the record, since we’re keeping count, I’m neither Reb or Dem, liberal or conservative. I’m a proud progressive independent.

the director is the only person who can legimately lay claim to the authorship of a film. This is an accepted fact, not merely my personal opinion.

You are deeply confused as what is a fact, and what is an opinion, yours personally, or generally accepted.

That San Franciso is a city in California is a fact.

That San Franciso is one of the most beautiful cities in the world, is a generally accepted opinion. In other words, many, but not all people would agree.

That San Franciso is one of the two most beautiful cities in the world, is my personal opinion. As such, it is unrefutable, as it is my personal opinion.

Opinions - or to be more technical about it - assessments (opinions) vs assertions (facts), are always grounds or ungrounded. As such, assessments can never be true. At best, they can have substancial grounding, within a particular domain of competence, rendered by people who are competent to make assessments within the particular domain of expertiese.

That you don’t know this, leaves you making proposterous claims, such as that your personal opinion is an accepted fact. That I and others are arguing with you, should tip you off, that it is just another opinion. What you won’t see anyone arguing with you about, is that San Francisco, is a city in California. That’s because that, is a fact, and facts are always true or false, and can be proven, one way or the other.

Please don’t take this personally. There’s enough sillyness happening in this conversation already, in my personal opinion. Let’s us at least, not mistake assessments for assertions, that is, opinions for facts.

David,

“ Your point is well taken that every writer doesn’t want to be involved in these kind of producing discussion. I guess my answer to that is every writer should want to be involved. “

Yeah, and they should all be tanned with perfect teeth, extremely attractive, and know how to cook well. But they’re not, and they DON’T all want to be involved in producing, and in the end, if we make having other producorial skills a requisite for being a writer, the game is over. I get what you’re saying, but it’s one thing for some of us to try to take the reins in our hands and do something, it’s another to insist that everyone do it.

Kevin,

�I�d agree that Writers should have more power (money, are you kidding me?) but I�m still totally unconvinced that it has to do with �Film By�.�

It�s a basic trope in business - if people respect what you do, they compensate you commensurately. I cannot imagine that this concept is alien to you.

Anna,

“Ted Elliott has mentioned this already: a script is a work of authorship, the resulting film is another work of authorship, distinctly different.”

So different that a great many movies, if not most of them, do not attribute authorship in the opening credits. People are talking about the “film by” credit as though A) every movie has the credit, and B) as though it’s a given that single authorship of a movie must be attributed.

It’s a collaborative medium. When I write a script, it says “Screenplay by Josh Olson” because I’m the one who wrote it. If I do an adaptation, it also notes the writer or writers of the original work. If I work with a partner, it lists his or her name as well.

The same with a movie. I made a short that featured two actors. I wrote it and directed it, a friend of mine shot it and he and I edited it. The credits listed all of us, because we were the people who made the film. Was their a hierarchy Sure. Of course there was. Was it reflected in the credits? Of course - it listed me as the director.

We all agree that it’s important to give credit for the work. That’s what CREDITS do. They list each person, and tell what they did on a film, from honeywagon driver to cinematographer. From Bartender #1 to director. The hierarchy you seek to protect is not threatened by that. It’s quite clearly laid out to anyone who knows what those jobs are.

The possessive credit does not add to that. It does not explain something that is not clear. It does not indicate what someone who has not already been credited did on the film. Your entire argument hinges on the notion that a film MUST give a possessive credit to someone, else hell shall break loose. My argument is that the credit is extraneous and very often dishonest. You directed the movie. You’ve already received credit for that. Why take a second credit that doesn’t actually say anything, and can clearly be seen as degrading the contributions of the other collaborators?

The argument of how to deal with the issue - or even if it SHOULD be dealt with - is one that clearly has many sides. The argument over whether or not the “film by” credit is valid and has real meaning is not. There is no rational defense for it. It is not necessary. If you leave the director credit off the movie, people will walk out of the theater wondering who directed it. If you leave the Film By credit off, they will not, and they’re free to apply any inane theory they want - even the auteur theory - and attribute possessive credit however they see fit.

Sorry, typo.

That should read:

Opinions - or to be more technical about it - assessments (opinions) vs assertions (facts), are always grounded or ungrounded.

Josh,

You have a tendency to to respond to little cracks in arguments while avoiding the more difficult questions.

Your main argument is that no one can claim authorship to a movie because more than one person had a role in its creation.

Let’s use AHOV as example. When you were writing the script, did anyone make suggestions along the way? Maybe you ran an idea or two past some friends? DC certainly did a pass on your script. Still, you can (rightly) claim sole authorship to the screenplay.

Just as a director can (rightly) claim authorship to a film, regardless of the fact that others contributed to the process.

David Cronenberg is a film auteur. His body of work is clearly identifiable. Regardless of who wrote the screenplays, one simply has to look at the films and one says: Cronenberg. Same for Hitchcock, David Lynch… They are authors of films.

And please, no more talk of “if there’s no screenplay there can’t be a fim”. As I mentioned in a previous post, Maysles, Wiseman, Brakhage, etc, made films without screenplays. Great films.

No writer, no screenplay. No director, no film.

Josh:

“Your entire argument hinges on the notion that a film MUST give a possessive credit to someone, else hell shall break loose”

My argument doesn’t hinge on that.

My post has obviously caused a lot of misunderstanding. It’d probably take me all night to write a long post to express myself more clearly but I don’t have the time. So I’ll keep this short.

I don’t attach a whole lot of importance to the possessive credit itself (the words-on-the-screen). What really matters is what people in the industry think re. authorship of films, what kind of stand they take.

Do they support the idea that films are independent works of authorship or do they deny it?

Michael,

“Let’s use AHOV as example. When you were writing the script, did anyone make suggestions along the way? Maybe you ran an idea or two past some friends? DC certainly did a pass on your script. Still, you can (rightly) claim sole authorship to the screenplay.”

Yes. Because I wrote it. I can claim the credit Screenplay By. David directed it. He can claim the credit Directed By. See how those credits describe specific jobs? You cannot disagree with the assessment that he directed it and I wrote it. Authorship is strictly and solely a MATTER OF OPINION. I got paid for writing it. David got paid for directing it. Viggo got paid for acting in it. NOBODY got paid for authoring it. End of argument. I’m arguing stone facts. You’re arguing film school theory. Put it this way - I’m evolution, you’re creationism. Your beliefs are kind of cute, and it’s sweet that you cling to them so fervently…. but it’s superstitious hogwash. Let’s discuss facts, okay?

“David Cronenberg is a film auteur. His body of work is clearly identifiable. Regardless of who wrote the screenplays, one simply has to look at the films and one says: Cronenberg. Same for Hitchcock, David Lynch… They are authors of films.”

No, they’re not. Lynch can make far more of a case for himself than Hitch, because he, at least, writes his own material. The auteur theory is ludicrous on the surface, because it rewards filmmakers who fixate on the same issues and themes and ideas, and ignores artists who address a wide variety of issues. Nobody who studies will film would argue that John Huston is as worthy of deification of Hitchcock, but he’s not as regular a fixture in the auteur pantheon because his films were so diverse. And he actually wrote a good many of them.

You say David is an auteur as though that’s some sort of verifiable fact. It’s an OPINION. It’s a FEELING. I’m saying he’s a director. That’s a FACT.

I’m sorry - arguing the validity of the auteur theory is silly any place you do it, but on a writer’s forum, it’s silly AND disturbing.

And not to take an ounce away from David - he did a phenomenal job directing A History of Violence. I couldn’t have asked for a better director. And obviously, some of the themes of the script connected with him. But most people have remarked on the fact that it doesn’t seem like a typical Cronenberg film at all, and if you’ve read five of my scripts, you know that beast lives in my backyard. Half the movies critics have compared it to are films he’s never seen, and films that I swear by.

Am I claiming authorship of the film? Not for a single bloody moment. I’m claiming you CAN’T claim authorship of a collaborative medium. No matter what you say, your argument boils down to “I like the auteur theory because it makes me feel good.” I’m arguing facts. Period. End of story.

Anna,

“I don’t attach a whole lot of importance to the possessive credit itself (the words-on-the-screen). What really matters is what people in the industry think re. authorship of films, what kind of stand they take.

Do they support the idea that films are independent works of authorship or do they deny it?”

Craig is right when he says most industry people roll their eyes when they see the “Film By” credit, because most industry people know what goes into a movie.

That doesn’t mean that giving it to directors doesn’t degrade the contributions of writers.

If you deal with just the “facts” Josh, why can’t you realize the “fact” that you will probably never see the end of “Film by” credit.

Now that’s truly disturbing.

DCraig,

And “how” is the possibilty that the “Film by” credit will never cease a “fact”? Are you just trying to be funny, or what are you basing that ridiculous statement on?

Joshua:

What am I basing the “fact” on (by the way, I just looove all the quotation marks)?

I guess I’m “basing” this “fact” on the fact that the “DGA” seems not to want to “give up” this “credit” and there seems nothing the “WGA” can possibly “do” or “say” to change this “fact.”

So, as “Craig” says, we might as well “move” on to other “things” that will have a “realistic” chance of “furthering” the writer’s “standard” of “living” in the “guild” as is “compared” to “other” aspects of “film”making.

“D”Craig

Hmm … “nothing” they can do is far different from “willing” to do - which is what has been the subject of this long discussion. There is much that “could” be done, such as an unpleasant strike which I’m sure most would want to avoid - but it certainly is an option. Now whether or not this is something WGA “would” do, I cannot say, nor am I calling for an action such as that. Instead I’ll point out that your statement that there is “nothing” the WGA “can” do as actual fact is incorrect.

You stated, if you recall, that Josh cannot see the “fact” of that. It’s not. “Nothing” is just one of many choices leadership has before it.

Now, in the spirit of Jack from Five Easy Pieces, put that between your quotation marks and smoke it ;).

Josh,

“I’m sorry - arguing the validity of the auteur theory is silly any place you do it, but on a writer’s forum, it’s silly AND disturbing.”

A writer can’t hold and express a controversial opinion? Is this really Josh Olson here?

“I would argue that anyone who genuinely believes that doesn’t understand the collaborative nature of film.”

So Kubrick and Scorcese and Lynch (and…) are ignorant about filmmaking. Maybe you should set them straight as well. (too late for Stanley)

Michael,

“A writer can’t hold and express a controversial opinion”

I love responses like this. Am I really to believe you don’t understand that criticism and censorship are two different things? I didn’t say you couldn’t express an opinion. I said your opinion was silly and disturbing. The implication that I’m somehow opposed to your right to express it is insulting, and weakens your position even further.

“So Kubrick and Scorcese and Lynch (and…) are ignorant about filmmaking”

First of all, they don’t all take “Film By” credits. Second, they’re directors. Brilliant and egomaniacal are not contradictory.

But really, man, there’s nothing I love more than taking time to go into a detailed response to someone’s point, then find that they weren’t looking to exchange ideas, just reiterate what they already said. My sense of the few actual supporters of the Film By credit is that you guys can’t actually defend your view except to say “It’s always been this way,” and then to repeat that mantra after I or someone else takes the time to respond as though you’re actually discussing the issue.

Several people here have made quite a few arguments against the credit. You and a couple others have essentially just repeated, “No it isn’t” over and over and over, while ignoring the vast majority of our points.

Frankly, I have better things to do with my time. No offense, I just don’t see a percentage in arguing with someone who adheres to a patently indefensible position and won’t bother to respond to considered arguments.

You haven’t made a serious attempt to make your case, and you clearly haven’t bothered to consider the arguments of those who have.

Craig,

Thanks for making this happen, man. It’s been fun for the most part. I feel like the discussion that you and I were having, for all its faults, has gotten lost in the shuffle, and the last couple of days have made me feel like I’m arguing Evolution with a small handful of Creationists. It’s gone from a discussion that might actually go somewhere to a discussion whose sole purpose is to bring a few people who’ve missed the last 25 years up to date, and who have a vested interest in remaining oblivious.

Anyway, it’s been real. I’m even busier the next few days, then I’m out of the country for a while, so it’s as good a place as any for me to bow out. It’s clear, in conclusion, that people who know you believe you care for the rights of writers. I cannot speak to that, but I’m hopeful that it’s true. I’m still concerned that the majority of what you post here and elsewhere seems far more critical than supportive of writers, and as our representative that sends a bad message - not that you’re critical, but that that criticism is exclusively directed at writers. Maybe it’s a clever way of pulling the wool over the eyes of the folks across the table - he LOOKS like Lester Maddox, but really he’s Huey Newton (One last analogy for Kevin to blow up over.)

To the folks who argue that we shouldn’t bother doing anything about the possessive credit, maybe you’re right. There’ve been some reasonable arguments made. To the folks who argue that the possessive credit is just and proper, I’d say you might want to spend some time studying logic and language, and hell, you might actually want to spend some time working in the trenches, too. Experience is one hell of a teacher.

Josh:

Thanks to you too, and good on you for slogging it out in the trenches.

I do care about writers and their treatment and status very, very much. In the end, I suppose I think that Huey Newtons change nothing, but the people willing to do the unsexy, self-critical, grind-it-out work of compromise-with-the-enemy and improvement-from-within tend to triumph and change the world.

That’s why I thought it was important to publish our debate. The two of us really do represent two very different approaches in the cause of the same goal, and maybe…

…and this is a bit radical…

…maybe idealists like you need pragmatists like me to keep you focused on what can be, and pragmatists like me need idealists like you to keep me focused on what should be.

Best of luck at the Oscars, big guy. We’re all rootin’ for ya.

Great debate, for the most part. Good luck Oscar night, Josh.

Josh:

Dammit! You zinged me and then disappeared!!

Thanks for participating on Craig’s website. You had to put up with a lot of stupid cracks and it was pretty brave of you to play.

Good luck at the Academy!

Josh just called David Cronenberg (who frequently takes possessive credit) a “megalomaniac” who “doesn’t understand the collaborative nature of film.” Nice.

Wow, I came to this late - which is funny cuz I usually have the opposite problem.

Eh, hem.

Anyway, we should all thank Craig and Josh for their time and patience, and can I just say how freaking glad I am that I write television!

Come to the small screen, guys! We’re the kings there, and it’s great!

Peace

Guyot, I don’t think anyone could have put a better cap on the whole conversation than you just did. A hundred pages of “Uh huh!” / “Nuh uh!”, followed up by, “Hey guys, forget all this and come to TV! We’re kings there!”

I am rolling….

Josh & Craig, fun to see you debate elsewhere! Josh, miss “seeing” you.

It’s noteworthy that Matt, in his argument for the possessory credit for certain directors, lists two directors who refuse to take it — on principle: Francis Ford Coppola & Woody Allen. Matt also mentions Orson Welles, who did not take it [i]Citizen Kane[/i] or [i]Touch of Evil[/i] (and maybe no films; those are the only 2 I checked) — but as everyone knows he did share his own director’s title card with his DP.

Some additional “big” directors who don’t take the possessory credit (some of whom wrote and/or produced or more, too):

Ang Lee Peter Jackson Clint Eastwood James Ivory / Merchant-Ivory Joel Coen / The Coen Brothers Sidney Lumet (remember, [i]Network[/i]’s opening credits say “NETWORK” then “by PADDY CHAYEFSKY”) Frank Pierson Stanley Kubrick (sometimes) Robert Altman (I only checked [I]MAS*H[/I] & [i]Gosford Park[/i]) David Lean (I only checked [i]The Bridge on the River Kwai[/i]) George Lucas (I only checked the 6 [i]Star Wars[/i] films) David Lean (I only checked [i]The Bridge on the River Kwai[/i]) Baz Luhrmann (I only checked [i]Moulin Rouge![/i]) Robert Zemeckis (I only checked [i]Who Framed Roget Rabbit[/i]) William Friedkin (I only checked [i]The French Connection[/i]) Sam Mendes (I only checked [i]Road to Perdition[/i]) Gary Ross (I only checked [i]Seabiscuit[/i]) Sergio Leone (I only checked [i]The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly[/i])

If these luminaries don’t take it, no one should!

Amendment: Lean & Leone took it on other films.

(Sorry about all the “[i] [/i]“‘s… I thought HTML style tags worked here.)

Glenn:

HTML tags DO work here. You’re using BBCode tags. HTML uses the greater than and less than symbols rather than the brackets.

This is cool, you have to try it. I guessed 33135, and this game guessed it! See it here - http://www.funbrain.com/guess/