A History Of Debate, Part I

Craig, let me be the first to post and thank you for sharing this exchange.

I’ve known for awhile that you and I have different views, in terms of the writer’s role and so on, but it’s nice to hear both sides articulated. As a spec monkey with little to no power doing indie rewrites, I’m more in Olson’s camp regardless.

Thanks again -

It’s no secret that I share this viewpoint with Craig and that I’ve clashed with other writers on this site.

Unfortunately, it’s quite apparent that this Great Divide will always exist no matter what level the screenwriter is on.

Like Daniel Petrie Jr., I was an agent first so I see things from a very objective point of view. There are evils out there, yes. But they can come from behind the typewriter as well.

Bad Behavior is par for course in this industry. But it’s definitely not an exclusive trait among employers. It exists just about everywhere which is to be expected in an industry run by personalities and tastes, not product.

I do find, however, that there are some writers out there that think like scorned girlfriends. You know the type, they’ve been screwed over by their last boyfriend and they think that every guy is gonna screw her over. She thinks we don’t see that attitude a mile away but we do. Her negative attitude toward men is now her aura and we couldn’t miss it if we tried. That’s how some writers are.

We’ve all been disrespected. We’ve all been put upon. But when that happens…you move on. The idea that writers are the least powerful cog can be very true.

It can also be complete bullshit.

Experience and clout go a long way. The sale of a spec does not a career make. And if you’re expecting the world on your first movie, well…that’s ridiculous. The more you work, the more you’re respected. It works that way for everyone.

I remember my first couple of months as an agent before I had any star clients. There were some casting directors that wouldn’t even return my phone calls. Hell, there were some casting assistants that wouldn’t return my phone calls! But as time went on and my client list became stronger, I got more respect.

At the end of the day, we all work differently and have different experiences. Mine have been mostly positive. I’ve worked for a couple of assholes but as long as I don’t become an asshole myself, I know that people recognize that. I’ve had scary arguments with Scott Rudin and Joel Silver but that hasn’t put me off the business. It’s made me stronger. And for every Rudin/Silver there’s a Sarah Green or a Brian Grazer.

But it’s amazing how aggressive we get on these sites, huh?

How does keeping a director from using a “film by” credit affect the writer’s livelihood?

Kevin,

“Experience and clout go a long way. The sale of a spec does not a career make. And if you’re expecting the world on your first movie, well…that’s ridiculous. The more you work, the more you’re respected. It works that way for everyone.”

Briefly and bluntly - No. It doesn’t. You’re wrong.

If the studio hires the director of Boat Trip to direct my next project, he can take a “film by” credit if he wants.

It has nothing to do with personal respect - that’s entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Nobody’s talking about legislating the way people behave. I’m talking about making systemic changes.

As I said to Craig earlier, if we were arguing segregation, my position would be that the water fountain should be available to everyone, and his is that it should only be available to people who’ve earned the proper amount of respect.

David,

“How does keeping a director from using a “film by” credit affect the writer’s livelihood?”

As long as the system degrades the essential and primary contribution of the writer, we’ll never live up to our earning potential. The auteur theory has been dismissed everywhere but in Hollywood - even French academics don’t really buy into it anymore.

Put it this way - if the general perception of the key grip was that he’s more imporant than the DP, he’d be paid more. Do the math.

Josh,

“Experience and clout go a long way. The sale of a spec does not a career make. And if you’re expecting the world on your first movie, well…that’s ridiculous. The more you work, the more you’re respected. It works that way for everyone.”

“Briefly and bluntly - No. It doesn’t. You’re wrong.If the studio hires the director of Boat Trip to direct my next project, he can take a “film by” credit if he wants.”

Now wait a minute. This year you’re an Oscar nominated Writer. But in the same year that Boat Trip came out, you also wrote and directed, Infested.

What are you trying to say?

The path and experiences in this industry are different for everybody. If work experience wasn’t a factor in contract negotiations, why not just have everybody sign favored nations deals?

“It has nothing to do with personal respect - that’s entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Nobody’s talking about legislating the way people behave. I’m talking about making systemic changes.”

I’m not talking about Personal Respect. I’m talking about being a Professional in a creative industry that is run by personal taste. But that’s the beauty of the contracts that we sign. If the track record is there, you can negotiate for anything and hopefully get it.

Truthfully?

I do think there’s a big difference between dealing with a writer on his first job and dealing with a writer with credits, produced or not. Track record will play into every single position on a film.

How could it not?

“As I said to Craig earlier, if we were arguing segregation, my position would be that the water fountain should be available to everyone, and his is that it should only be available to people who’ve earned the proper amount of respect.”

I believe this to be a false analogy and I don’t think Craig has said anything like this.

But there is a heirachy in this business. And I don’t know what business or organization that doesn’t have a heirachy.

CRAIG;

With re to “Josh has graciously agreed to let me publish this exchange here, so I ask the home-team crowd to be as respectful of him as you would of me.”

Absolutely bro. This is one of the few blogs around where people seem to be a lot more interested in making points than scorin’ ‘em, and that’s something I hope NEVER changes around here.

Josh O.

Welcome and tx for takin’ the time to post.

If you don’t mind, could you put forth a few specific examples of the kinds of structural changes you think might be useful?

If that’s too much to ask, (I realize this is a subject that can get VERY complicated VERY quickly), how ‘bout the top three structural changes you feel might be most important to concentrate on with regard to the relationship between writers and their employers, or even picking just one change at a time that we could all chew on for a bit?

This reminds me of an interview Harrison Ford gave to Charlies Rose a long time ago. He said he found “You’re not respected until you are ‘respected’”. Saying that the only real indicator of respect, in this business, comes from the studio’s willingness to cut you a large paycheck.

Hollywood values the “act of creation”, and whoever illustrates that act is rewarded handsomely. Contracts, awards, everything is geared towards people who are viewed as being the creators of some work. In the medium of film, writers are simply not seen as creators. (with the possible exception of Charlie Kaufman).

When a film is really bad, who is blamed? The writer. “The actor struggled valiantly with the stiff dialogue”, “The director, try as he might, simply could not overcome the limits of the story”. But when a film is good, all the praise goes to the director.

Part of this is a recognition of just how collaborative the process of making a film is. The Director is seen as the one person who stands in the eye of the storm, making sure that all the people working for him are working towards his Grand Vision, that regardless of their contributions (be they the actor, writer, costume designer), their work will ultimately be filtered thru the directors Grand Vision. Thus the cult of personality that develops around the director. This is the way most people view the act of creation in film. The problem, of course, is that it’s not entirely true.

The fact is, the contribution writers make to the end product is greater than anyone else making the film. As Mamet has often said (I’m paraphrasing), “It doesn’t matter how you say the lines. The meaning of the lines is not conveyed by how you say them, it’s just what is said.” It’s content vs. presentation. Without interesting things to say, you might as well me filming a Bud Light commercial.

The problem is that screenplays are dependent upon presentation, they are manufactured for the express purpose of being translated by a presentational force. Without it, they are useless. And anyone who feels otherwise is deluding themselves, or has themselves been seduced by the allure of being an auteur. Those things are called books. In books, the presentation is the content. The cult of personality is the Writer.

But as people who work in this business, and who’s livelihoods are effected by these perceptions, we must make it our business to change those perceptions. Because if we don’t we will find ourselves in a situation where the second side of the coin is being neglected. We will find ourselves in a landscape of meaningless, yet picturesque stories.

A woman burning a slip of paper on the side of a mountain means nothing. It might mean something to you because of the context that that particular image evokes within you, but the image itself means nothing. If you happen to know that the woman is burning her late husband’s favorite poem on the side of the mountain where they first met, only then is the image given power.

Thus is is in our interest, as writers, to not rest until we are “respected” as much as any other forces of creation working on the film, because without us, the flickering images on the screen are meaningless. And if you are involved with the creation of a working atmosphere for future writers, you need to consider it your responsibility to fight for these things to the end.

Kevin,

“Now wait a minute. This year you’re an Oscar nominated Writer. But in the same year that Boat Trip came out, you also wrote and directed, Infested.

What are you trying to say?”

I’m saying that it doesn’t matter whether I’m the writer of Infested or the writer of Brokeback Mountain, if the director wants a film by credit, he gets it. Period. End of story. That BOTH of my films were better received than his is entirely irrelevant.

“I’m not talking about Personal Respect. I’m talking about being a Professional in a creative industry that is run by personal taste. But that’s the beauty of the contracts that we sign. If the track record is there, you can negotiate for anything and hopefully get it.”

Well, first of all, you’re wrong again. Turns out you can’t negotiate to keep the “film by” credit off your projects. That’s a violation of DGA rules. Second, even if you COULD negotiate for anything, why should we have to? Seriously, Kevin - why should I have to negotiate for things that the director gets as a matter of course? THAT’S THE ENTIRE POINT.

“I believe this to be a false analogy and I don’t think Craig has said anything like this.”

The more I think on it, the more I realize it’s a perfect analogy, actually.

Mike,

“If you don’t mind, could you put forth a few specific examples of the kinds of structural changes you think might be useful?”

Sure. We fight the “film by” credit to the end. It is a phony credit, and insults not only the writer, but the entire cast and crew whenever it’s used (There’s a guy on eBay who used to sell videos of himself masturbating. I think he might be the one person who can reasonably claim the credit, and even then I have issues.)

There is no valid reason, creatively or financially, for that credit to be used, ever.

Directors as a matter of course get audio commentary tracks on DVDs. They do not have to fight for that right. The same right should extend to writers. It should be ours to turn down, not something we have to negotiate for.

Screenwriters should get the same promotional guarantees directors get. If the studio’s sending the director out to do PR, the writer should have the option of being part of that.

Obviously, there are a lot of issues the WGA is facing, some large, some small. But I think if you solve the larger issue, if you force Hollywood to fully acknowledge the primary contributions and importance of the writer, the rest will come that much more easily.

Josh:

Your analogy is deeply flawed.

The argument over the possessory credit is one in which one group is receiving an unfair advantage over another.

The water fountain situation involves one group being denied a basic right.

There is no inherent advantage to being able to drink out of one water fountain. The reason “separate but equal” is bad is because it implies that the commingling of races is disgusting. It is a theory based on prejudice.

What we’re talking about with possessory credit is the absurdity of one group receiving overpraise. I suppose if you were a director, you’d start requesting that People Magazine feature cover photos of directors as often as they feature actors.

Actors are overpraised because they’re pretty. Directors are overpraised because the nature of their job makes them seem far more important than they are.

My acknowledgement of this reality and my unwillingness to battle over that injustice when there are other more grievous and substantive fights worth winning doesn’t make me someone who believes in the lie of the possessory credit.

Kevin,

as one of the writer’s you’ve tussled with, may I point out these two things - one, Josh is talking about professional respect, which is severly lacking for writers on all levels - not just his and Craig’s. There is enough testimony from writers at all levels of the biz to the effect that writers are neither respected enough nor treated equally. I know you disagree with this, it’s something we’ve argued about.

Two, Craig didn’t bring up the segregration issue, Josh did, as he says in the post you quoted. So I know not why you state Craig never said that when Josh didn’t claim that Craig did.

Craig,

Not to get all Republican on you, but I don’t recall the right to water fountains being guaranteed in the Constitution. The right to water may be a basic right, but the right to a fountain provided by the state sure isn’t one.

White folks got the nice ones because they were white. Black folks got the nasty ones because they were black. Thanks for the opportunity to allow me to reflect again on what a damn good analogy it is. I feel so clever today.

“Actors are overpraised because they’re pretty. Directors are overpraised because the nature of their job makes them seem far more important than they are.”

Heh heh. I have to imagine that as you typed that, you realized what a bad argument it was. I have to imagine that you saw instantly how flawed, and how, in fact, you were making my case, but stuck to it anyway in hopes I wouldn’t notice.

Actors are overpraised because of the nature of celebrity. Promote them or not, people will recognize the third cop from the left in the drunk tank scene before they’ll recognize the vast majority of writers or directors. They get the perks because people recognize them from being in front of the camera. It’s that simple.

But directors…. Hmmm…. The nature of their job doesn’t make them seem more important than they are. It’s pretty much an arbitrary decision, as anyone who works in TV will tell you. Directors do the same thing in TV…. but writers run the show. Not because the nature of TV is different, but because - ta dah! - that’s how it’s done.

Point being, you can point to a specific, immutable reason actors are given more significance than anyone else, and you cannot change that without changing the very nature of the medium. But the director/writer heirarchy? Pretty much arbitrary, and my argument is NOT to give writers power over directors, neccessarily, nor is it that writers should start grabbing the “film by” credit. It’s an offense and a lie no matter WHO takes it.

“My acknowledgement of this reality and my unwillingness to battle over that injustice when there are other more grievous and substantive fights worth winning doesn’t make me someone who believes in the lie of the possessory credit.”

MY point is you win that fight, and the others get a little bit easier.

Josh:

The right to equal access to public spaces and facilities is guaranteed in the Constitution, albeit somewhat tangentially.

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I think creating racially divided facilities violates equal protection because there is no rationale beyond punitive for doing so; separate but equal bathroom facilities for different genders, on the other hand, are obviously justified.

Yes, as soon as I wrote my response, I thought, “This is a terrible argument, but I’ll keep typing because my finger momentum cannot be overcome.”

The nature of a film director’s job is far different than that of a television episode director’s job. Without going too far into why I disagree with you, for now I’ll say that I seriously disagree with you, and I plan to write a post in the near future about why writers and directors find themselves in alternating positions of power and powerlessness in television and film.

With all due respect, I do not see any real strategic advantage in eliminating the “film by” credit, and I would submit that the most common rationale for fighting to the end to destroy it is an emotional one.

JOSHUA:

I said that Josh’s analogy is a false analogy and that was my point. Racial Segregation and the current situation of the heirachy with Writers is not comparable. I’ve said before that I hate racial analogies because they’re thoughtless, inaccurate, and not very clever. Writers vs. Blacks in the 50’s? Gimme a break…

JOSH:

I believe that the “Film By” credit should be eliminated entirely. It’s extraneous and unnecessary. There’s a “Directed By” credit and a “Screenplay by” credit. Anything more is silly. So I think that we agree there.

And I do believe that Writers should be more in the limelight but I don’t think it’s due to Professional Disrespect. Do you want to know why more Writers aren’t in the limelight?

Because it’s been deemed easier that way.

What do you do when there are multiple writers credited on a film? Do you bring them all in a room together and one writer says, “I wrote the part with the hooker in the motel” and then the other writer says, “Yeah, but I made her a man.” More than likely studios don’t want to deal with this especially when marketing is so important to a film. Now do I think this is wrong?

Absolutely.

I think that something better should be done to eleviate this but I do think that you are seeing ghosts in your soup; especially when you compare yourself to a black man living in 1955.

Craig,

“The right to equal access to public spaces and facilities is guaranteed in the Constitution, albeit somewhat tangentially.”

Not what I said. Nothing in the Constitution guarantees any of us water fountains. Again, my analogy continues to rock the socks of all who witness it.

“The nature of a film director’s job is far different than that of a television episode director’s job. “

The nature of a director’s job on any project differs from the nature of a director’s job on any other project.

I have witnessed four things in the extreme, and almost everything in between:

1) Director controls every aspect of production imaginable. Movie is amazing.

2) Director controls every aspect of production imaginable. Movie is heinous.

3) Director sits in the corner sucking his thumb in mortal terror while the cast and crew go on to make the movie without him. Movie wins an Oscar.

4) Director sits in the corner sucking his thumb in mortal terror while the cast and crew go on to make the movie without him. Movie is heinous.

The one thing each and every one of those directors - and every one in between - had in common was the right to a “film by” credit.

It ain’t based on personal merit. No way, no how. Never has been, never will be.

And if the thing is so irrelevant, so utterly meaningless and unimportant, why do you think the DGA fights for it so vigorously?

I have no problem with the film by credit.

It helps sell movies. Contrary to Josh’s assertion that: “There is no valid reason, creatively or financially, for that credit to be used, ever.” For part of the film going public, the draw is in seeing the latest Film by Quentin Tarantino, Martin Scorsese Picture, Spike Lee Joint or Steve Soderburgh Creative Experience. A film credit, rather than reflecting the individual ego of a director or any notions of auteurship, is really nothing more than an attempt at branding.

Don’t you get it Kevin? He’s unhappy. Black people under segregation were unhappy. It’s exactly the same thing. Come to think of it, rape victims are unhappy too. That means Craig is arguing for rape!

Have you no shame Craig? And don’t try to confuse us by supporting what you say point by point. If your arguments were really true you could just repeat how bad ass they are ad nauseam.

Well I for one am tired of whitey the rapist walking around with his film by credits and his quenched thirst. I think it’s time we make a stand, it’s time we took back our dignity and our God given right to be on DVD commentary tracks everywhere. And we all know where our fight starts.

With the director of Boat Trip!

MATT:

Audiences have no clue what the hell the “Film By” credit means.

It’s just as easy (and simpler) to say Directed by Martin Scorsese, Directed by Quentin Tarantino, or Directed by Spike Lee.

And can we kill that stupid segregation analogy? I can’t stop pissing my pants when I hear all these rich, white writers in their 30’s, comparing themselves to Blacks in the 50’s.

Seriously, all of my pants are drenched.

GARRETT:

Thanks for making me piss my pants again! Wanna make a bet if someone on here takes you seriously?

Thank you for the ringside seat, boys. Shame to miss this discussion for lack of a credit.

Kev,

I think you’re underestimating audiences. I’d bet a fair few people went to see The Village because M. Night Shamylan’s name is prominent on the posters and credits.

It doesn’t take a PHD in Film to work out what a ‘film by’ credit signifies. The same way it doesn’t take a PHD in English Lit. to work out what ‘a novel by’ signifies on the jacket of a book.

kevin;

i think anyone who has been around a while knows EXACTLY who is going to take garret seriously. you know who i’m talking about.

;)

Matt:

I definitely think that audiences may see a movie based on who directed it but I don’t think there’s really a difference between:

Directed by MARTIN SCORSESE.

or

a Film by MARTIN SCORSESE.

I think audiences just see “Martin Scorsese” and pray that Robert DeNiro will be in this one.

Then again, maybe I’m a hippocrite because the film I co-directed contains a Film By credit.

This is a question to Josh and Craig:

Is anyone proposing a monetary value be assigned to “Film By”?

Kevin:

“Film by” credits do not trigger any additional payments, and no one, to my knowledge, has ever proposed or is proposing that they should.

C.

Kevin,

“I said that Josh’s analogy is a false analogy and that was my point. Racial Segregation and the current situation of the heirachy with Writers is not comparable. I’ve said before that I hate racial analogies because they’re thoughtless, inaccurate, and not very clever. Writers vs. Blacks in the 50’s? Gimme a break…”

Obviously, they differ radically in degree. I take it for granted that everyone here knows that, and they know I’m smart enough to know that. I won’t apologize for the fact that when I think of the ultimate example of one group using a meaningless determination to declare superiority over another, I think of America’s racial history; and I’m not interested in turning this into a sideline discussion about the nature of analogies. I’d like to think it’s a given that I don’t consider myself to be in any way shape or form in the same situation as an African American living in America either during segregation or since.

Matt,

“I have no problem with the film by credit. It helps sell movies.”

Arbitrarily. Johnny Depp sells movies because the public likes to see that guy. The public only knows certain directors because the system is designed to value them over writers. It’s arbitrary. The movie star system is not.

“ the draw is in seeing the latest Film by Quentin Tarantino, Martin Scorsese Picture, Spike Lee Joint or Steve Soderburgh Creative Experience. “

The irony being that at least one of those directors has never taken the credit, and even uses pseudonyms on the credits so as not to see his name more than once.

“A film credit, rather than reflecting the individual ego of a director or any notions of auteurship, is really nothing more than an attempt at branding.”

Same thing.

Kevin -

I merely pointed out that you stated, incorrectly, that Josh said that Craig used the racial methaphor when in fact, Josh never said Craig stated any such thing. I was never arguing in favor or against the metaphor - just that you had the facts of the statement wrong. You play fast and loose with who said what.

And the idea that audiences aren’t aware of the “film by” credit? I call bullshit on that. A “Michael Bay” film? Come on. People know that credit and they always have.

And they know it from bad films as well - I remember seeing Batman and Robin with a full audiences and people cursing Joel Schumacher’s name because it was a “Joel Schumacher” film. I heard that in the audience.

People pay attention to those credits. Just like a credited writer on a film gets more attention than the uncredited ones, the direct gets as much credit as they are given on the screen in the titles.

Kevin,

“Audiences have no clue what the hell the “Film By” credit means.”

It’s not about audiences. That’s something you’ve brought into it. It’s about how we’re perceived in the business.

JOSHUA:

Jesus Christ, I don’t know why you’re harping on this but when you’re misunderstanding my point (probably why Josh isn’t harping on this either). I wasn’t saying that Craig said those exact words. I was saying that he didn’t say anything “like” that. My point was that it was a false analogy, I surely didn’t think that Craig made the false analogy…

“And the idea that audiences aren’t aware of the “film by” credit? I call bullshit on that. A “Michael Bay” film? Come on. People know that credit and they always have.”

I call Bullshit on your Bullshit.

Audiences know who directed the film. But audiences aren’t looking for that “Film By” credit. They’re looking for that “Directed By” credit. And if the “Film By” credit disappears, no one will bat an eye. People usually say that a film was “Directed by So and So” not “A Film by So and So”.

I don’t even know where you stand on the issue… I’m saying that “Film By” should go. Are you saying that it should stay?

MBatchellor ,

“Thank you for the ringside seat, boys. Shame to miss this discussion for lack of a credit.”

That’s hardly relevant. I’ve held these opinions a very long time. The only thing credits have given me is a somewhat larger podium to offer them from.

As a kid, I knew when I was in the presence of a film where the writing outweighed everything, and it outraged me then that the director got the most credit. And yeah, I’ve seen just as many films where it was clearly the direction that saved the day, or the performance, or the score, or the camerawork. Why arbitrarily select the director for a special credit nobody else can ever take without massive amounts of negotiation?

I don’t mean to detract from the great work James Foley did directing Glengarry Glen Ross, but “A film by James Foley????” Lunacy.

Josh:

I think that MBatchellor was thanking us for making this exchange public, as he can’t access WriterAction.

Actually, WriterAction is accessible to any member of the WGA…not just those who have credits.

Hmmm.

Ya know this actually might be a case where an outsider’s view could be helpful.

First, try to keep in mind that as an outsider to the industry being able to listen to these kinds of debates is absolutely invaluable. I REALLY appreciate the opportunity to take part in a conversation like this. You can’t get these kinds of things from books, classes, or anything else that I know of.

But, that said, and with all due respect, I do have to wonder whether or not you guys are getting lost in your underwear here. There’s a bit of something akin to “beltway blindness” to this part of the debate.

Outside of Hollywood, trust me on this, believe me, and talk to a relative from well outside Tinsel Town if you don’t, preferably somebody who knows nothing at all about the film industry, and you’re going to VERY quickly find that NOBODY, and I really do mean NO-BODY, ever reads or pays the very slightest attention to “possessory credits”.

That’s a “Hollywood thang”. It really is.

For the average film goer, ;-) for all those “people you fly over”, “A Film by” is nothing at all more than one of a whole bunch of (forgive me for this but it’s true), annoying cards that fly by while you wait for the “actual movie” to start.

Nobody pays attention to who produced it. Nobody pays attention to who scored it, directed it, or the name of the novel or author the story was based on, let alone arcane technicalities like the difference between a “story by”, “screenplay by” or “written by”.

They either already know those things going into a film, or they never know it, and really don’t care.

So as any kind of valuable tool for gettin’ your name out there before the filmgoing public, forget title or credit rolls. People don’t read them.

Stinks, but that’s the way it is.

(And before somebody stands up and shouts “Hey! I read title and credit rolls!” I’ll answer before hand that “Yeah, but you, and I, and all the rest of us that do, probably amount to somewhere around 0.001% of the filmgoing market”)

So with all due Josh, eh, I have a tough time believing that “fighting the film by credit to the end” is likely to get writers very far. (Not tryin’ to put you down here. After all I DID ask for your thoughts on this, and you offered ‘em.) Where I think you may have a critical point is here:

“Directors as a matter of course get audio commentary tracks on DVDs. They do not have to fight for that right. The same right should extend to writers. It should be ours to turn down, not something we have to negotiate for.

Screenwriters should get the same promotional guarantees directors get. If the studio’s sending the director out to do PR, the writer should have the option of being part of that.”

That sounds one hell of a lot more important to me.

The sale of novels is based first an foremost on the name of the author. And yeah, novels ARE different, in a whole host of ways, BUT…

Strictly from a marketing standpoint, I don’t think there’s much difference at all.

Forget critics. Forget The Hollywood Machine for a second. Step outside all of that for a minute, turn around, and look at all this from the point of view of your audience, the people buying those tickets, from an outsider’s POV.

What a film audience looks for first and foremost is an engaging story. THAT’S the acid test for just about any film.

It sure as hell ain’t things like shot composition, the score, the costumes, or even really the acting.

Does anybody in here really believe that Bill Shatner’s acting skills made the name “James T. Kirk” or the phrase “Beam me up Scotty” a house hold name?

Does anybody believe that it was the directing, or the acting, let alone any of the production values that made The Twilight Zone SO popular that decades, literally DECADES after that show went off the air, people STILL go to the trouble of taping the yearly New Years Eve marathons?

It ain’t the acting. And it’s not the directing. Those are the things Hollywood insiders are FAR more concerned with than audiences.

The name Tom Hanks isn’t going to save a film with a half assed story. People will give Tom Hanks a chance, but ONLY until word of mouth gets out as to whether or not THE STORY was any good.

Say what you will. Books are no different at all than novels in one critical aspect.

Sure expensive paid quotes on the back cover, shrewd cover art, and exposure on Oprah or The New York Times Best Sellers list help move those books off the shelves, in just the same way an A-List actor or director’s name can help a film, but JUST like novels, what people are buying, and simply will not tolerate missing once they plop down their nickel, is the tale well told.

THE STORY is the acid test. And imo the ONLY reason audiences don’t know or make their buying decisions on the basis of who the writer was, is because Hollywood doesn’t use writers to market films. If they did, audiences would start paying MUCH more attention, and in fact basing their decision on whether or not to go see a film, on the basis of the name under the Written by - exactly as they do with novels.

Which is why I think Josh has hit on a MUCH more important area of concern to all of us when he notes that -

“Directors as a matter of course get audio commentary tracks on DVDs. They do not have to fight for that right. The same right should extend to writers. It should be ours to turn down, not something we have to negotiate for.

Screenwriters should get the same promotional guarantees directors get. If the studio’s sending the director out to do PR, the writer should have the option of being part of that.”

THAT, at least from my own point of view, impresses me as a MUCH more important consideration than “possessory credits” in a title roll that audiences don’t bother to read or care about out here, where the decision to buy a ticket or not, is actually being made.

aI don’t understand why we are using a segregation analogy when there’s a rich and noble internet history of jumping straight into the Hitler/Nazi analogy.

Writers are the Jews. Directors are the Nazis. By taking “Film By” credit, the directors are putting the writers into the “ghetto” of not having publicity and good standing. And by replacing writers on a project, they are putting the writers in an oven and killing them with a toxic gas.

• keith

Mike,

“Outside of Hollywood, trust me on this, believe me, and talk to a relative from well outside Tinsel Town if you don’t, preferably somebody who knows nothing at all about the film industry, and you’re going to VERY quickly find that NOBODY, and I really do mean NO-BODY, ever reads or pays the very slightest attention to “possessory credits”.”

Um…. Yeah. I know that. And like I said to Kevin, none of this is about how the audience perceives any of us. The audience thinks the actors make up the dialogue and that the directors just point the camera at them. That’s got nothing to do with this discussion. It’s not about fame. It’s not about glory. It’s not about being recognized by housewives in Kansas. It’s about how the people who cut the checks perceive what we do. That’s it. That’s all.

Josh:

What makes you think the people who cut the checks take the ridiculous “film by” credit any more seriously than the audience does?

Every executive I ever talk to about that credit rolls his eyes. Everyone in the business knows it’s a joke.

Kevin,

Yes, I parse words for a living. I live for it. You got me.

And I’m against the “film by” credit because it is incorrect - I called bullshit on you for saying that the audience is unaware of it because that is, for the most part, untrue. Obviously there are some folks who are unaware, just like some folks don’t know who Charlie Kaufmann is and some people have inexplicably never seen Office Space. Can’t imagine why they haven’t, but they are there if you look for them.

But I know a lotta folks that live in the flyer-zone (Iowa) I have lots of family back in the sticks who know nothing of the biz and could care less about the innner workings, but they recognize the “film by” credit, whether it be a heinious film (Michael Bay, according to my brother) or a kickass film (John Singleton, according to my old man). They know it means something. A film by John or Peter or Spielberg, what have you.

And note, the film by credit comes at the top, in the opening credits, not at the end - so people tend to notice it more.

So based on empirical testimony from the many, many non-industry folk I am in touch with, I call bullshit on your bullshit on my bullshit.

So there.

And Craig, if everyone in the business knows it’s a joke, why not just end the farce right now and say, no more “a film by” credits? What’s the hold-up if it’s not money and no one takes it serious?

Kevin,

This is a writer’s forum. As such, I assume a reasonable conversance with words and ideas on the part of everyone here. If I were to use the analogy of a seagull dropping a clam on a rock to illustrate the nature of writing a spec, I would not be suggesting that spec writers have wings, nor that they enjoy shellfish, nor, even, that they know what it’s like to fly. Or have a beak. Or feathers.

Were someone to suggest that I WAS saying those things, I’d say that person would be well served by a semester of Freshman Composition, or perhaps tenth grade English. Were that person to go the next step and imply that somehow I’m a clod for daring to compare myself to a beautiful bird, I would say that person was deliberately looking for an excuse to call me names.

I would also say that that person had more of an interest in patrolling the way people express ideas than in the actual discussion of ideas, and that that’s one of the things that’s turning this country into the intellectual laughing stock of the world, but since none of those things have happened here, this is a silly post, isn’t it?

Craig

“What makes you think the people who cut the checks take the ridiculous “film by” credit any more seriously than the audience does?

Every executive I ever talk to about that credit rolls his eyes. Everyone in the business knows it’s a joke.”

Tell that to the DGA.

I just read Mike’s post - we evidently have different experiences, Mike, because movies seem to matter to a lot of people not in the business in the fly-over zones - one reason why Entertainment Weekly and Premiere magazine sells so well across the country, is it not?

I remember laughing my ass off at the scene in In & Out where everyone gathers to watch the Oscars in the small town, everyone with their list of predictions and excited, because it was the same experience I had when living in both Iowa and Nebraska.

Again, not all people or everyone, but more than I think folks are aware of. I mean, it’s one reason why a billion people watch the Academy Awards world wide, ain’t it? Or are they just making that number up?

Could we expand this discussion a bit?

What else are writers grieving about besides “a film by?” I’m curious to get a random sampling…

I think Craig and Kevin’s posts are stimulating because they contradict the mythos I grew up with. Growing up in a WGA household, I was exposed to CONSTANT horror stories about how writers ain’t shit in this town…

This stuff nearly put me off the craft entirely… until circumstance thrust me into some pretty inspiring projects and I got to see, first hand, that maybe things ain’t so bad after all.

I’m still a baby writer, without enough experience to really judge…but I suspect that the “scorned girlfriend” post (way back before seagulls and water fountains) may have been on to something…

What if one’s “poor treatment” is an extension of one’s perceptual filters?

How many people do you know who are always complaining about the same problems and twists of “fate?” “Why does this always happen to me?” they cry, unaware that they are their own worst enemy.

We can all find at least one example of this in our networks of friends and family…someone who is blind to their self-created predicaments, and deaf to our advice. Beware confronting them with the truth, for they may turn on you, if they don’t simply dissociate into a haze of denial and finger pointing…

We ALL have blind spots like this, making us unaware of the illusions of limitation and struggle that we create every day…

I say this is not to “blame the victim” so much as to “empower the victim…”

Josh;

“Um…. Yeah. I know that. And like I said to Kevin, none of this is about how the audience perceives any of us. The audience thinks the actors make up the dialogue and that the directors just point the camera at them. That’s got nothing to do with this discussion. It’s not about fame. It’s not about glory. It’s not about being recognized by housewives in Kansas. It’s about how the people who cut the checks perceive what we do. That’s it. That’s all.”

;-) Me thinks you might be applying a bit of a tensile load to one of my ambulatory appendages when you say “The audience thinks the actors make up the dialogue and that the directors just point the camera at them.”

At least I hope that’s the case. I don’t know too many people over the age of about five that believe that.

And I agree with you that - “It’s not about fame. It’s not about glory.”, but mmmm I dunno, I really don’t when it comes to “It’s not about being recognized by housewives in Kansas.”

Seriously, I’m not being rhetorical here, what makes you say that?

Again, I’m talkin’ here like a guy with a paper one. I realize that. And I can see that “It’s about how the people who cut the checks perceive what we do.”? That certainly makes sense to me.

But suppose for a moment that, hell, even HALF “the housewives in Kansas” (and the rest of the nation) recognized the name Josh Olson, and associated that name with all those stories you wrote, stories they sure as hell loved seeing their favorite actors and actresses in, as opposed to the names they saw under the written by of films they thought weren’t their cup of tea despite the fact that their favorite actors and actresses were in them. You don’t think that would very much change how the people that sign your checks view you? Mind you you’d have to be KNOWN by the fans of your work. Which means you’d have to be out there doin’ all the P.R. work too. “Writing” would become more like just half of your job at that point. You’d have to be every bit as skilled at playing to your potential fans on The Tonight Show with colorful anecdotes as any actor or director. You’d have to know how to “bring your party piece”, and make it sell. But hell, I’ve gotta believe you’re pretty good at working tougher audiences in a studio pitch than you’re likely to have to face across a desk from Conan O’Brien, Larry King, or Charlie Rose. It’d be work, a lotta work, but if your name wound up in the end as one that was in fact “recognized by every housewife in Kansas” what makes you think that that wouldn’t make you an even more valuable asset to the people signing your checks?

Benjah,

“I’m still a baby writer, without enough experience to really judge…but I suspect that the “scorned girlfriend” post (way back before seagulls and water fountains) may have been on to something…”

I don’t. Like I said, I held these views long before I became a writer, let alone a working writer. I would also say that my recent experience was nearly everything the process should be and almost never is.

My comments come from three phases of my life - first, the period long before I became a writer, and was just a fan of movies. I started noticing, for instance, that if Ben Hecht’s name appeared at the front of a movie, it was pretty much guaranteed to be terrific, no matter who directed it, and yet there was no room for such people in the ludicrous auteur theory.

Second, the period in which I worked in the business for many years before becoming a writer. I saw from the inside how writers, as a whole, were perceived and treated by the industry.

Third, the period in which I’ve been a working writer, from having my words hacked up by inept tools who to having my words honored as much as any writer could ever hope for by one of the giants of world cinema.

I’d say that I’ve seen as good a sampling of these things as anyone (And from more angles than most).

Writers are the only people in this industry who create something from nothing. I am now, and always have argued for a quantum change in the way writers are perceived and treated as a matter of course in the film industry.

By the way, you have a point when you say this:

“How many people do you know who are always complaining about the same problems and twists of “fate?” “Why does this always happen to me?” they cry, unaware that they are their own worst enemy.”

As long as we let the DGA dictate that one person can take credit for the work of everyone, we’ll be, if not our worst enemy, one of them.

JOSH:

“As long as we let the DGA dictate that one person can take credit for the work of everyone, we’ll be, if not our worst enemy, one of them.”

Although I believe that the “Film By” credit should be eliminated because it’s unnecessary, I certainly don’t put that much stock into 2 words. If the issue is really about how the people who cut the checks perceive what we do then maybe we shouldn’t be arguing so hard about something that doesn’t really matter.

Think about it…it’s the ultimate pacifier.

It’s like when my son wants to stay up 5 minutes longer. Sure, at first I’ll say no but after awhile I’ll cave. Why? Because, what the fuck does it matter to me? He feels like he won some huge battle and I smile to myself because I know he won’t ask me for anything else for a long time. At least not until the morning.

The credit has no monetary value. Do you really think that credit will change the way employers view writers? Nope.

Employers care about one thing and one thing only: MONEY.

I don’t think it’s the beginning or the start of a new wave either. This feels a lot like small claim court and the plaintiff is suing for $1. The plaintiff will always say, “It’s not about the money! It’s about the principle!” Do you know what the judge does? He rolls his eyes because the plaintiff spent $500 dollars on court costs. (Heh, heh, I’m ready for the stream of posts that will undoubtedly lecture me about their undying principles…)

Is the “Film By” credit one of the major issues? What else is on the table?

Kevin:

I guess that’s my feeling too. I think Josh expects that employers actually care about things like credits, when, as you put it, all they really care about is money.

The WGA/DGA possessory credit war is nothing more than two bald men fighting over a comb.

Josh:

Yes, it’s true…the DGA really really really cares about this credit. So what? Are we playing the “they want it so I don’t want them to have it” game? If you walk into someone’s house and see a “World’s Best Lover” mug, do you immediately challenge the owner to a sex duel?

It’s an empty, vain, obnoxious boast.

Let the baby have his rattle.

Oh, and lastly, I agree that the constitution does not guarantee someone the right to a water fountain. At this point, I have completely lost sight of this analogy.

Josh:
  One thing I don't really understand is why the "Film By" credit is any different than "Directed By", particularly if most people assume that movies spring from a directors head fully clothed anyway.  I mean, where down the line does that "Film By" actually affect your career in dollars and cents terms?

Craig:
   You haven't answered Josh's contention that WGA members are better off being represented by leadership that has a chip on it's shoulder, that claws and scratches for every concession it can wring from the big 6's greasy little fingers. 
   Do you agree that hyper-aggressive representation is in the best interest of WGA members?  And if not, why not?

MIke,

”;-) Me thinks you might be applying a bit of a tensile load to one of my ambulatory appendages when you say “The audience thinks the actors make up the dialogue and that the directors just point the camera at them.”

At least I hope that’s the case. I don’t know too many people over the age of about five that believe that.”

I don’t know where you live, but by the very nature of the fact that most of the people you know know you, I’m not surprised. It doesn’t take much to disabuse people of that notion. However, the fact remains, most people have no idea what a screenwriter actually does. And I’ve had people at WGA screenings express shock at the fact that there was never any dialogue in the last scene of AHOV, as though they couldn’t fathom a writer writing a dramatic scene without dialogue.

Ask yourself this - are you more likely to cite Clint Eastwood or the writers when you cite a line from a Dirty Harry film. Obviously, you know better and are using short hand, but most people aren’t. They don’t know or care, nor should they. But to people who don’t care about movies beyond the 110 minutes they spend in a theater, what we do is a mystery.

Kevin,

“The credit has no monetary value. Do you really think that credit will change the way employers view writers? Nope.

Employers care about one thing and one thing only: MONEY”

It’s about perception. As long as we grant them all the crutches they use to support the perception that directors are the ultimate creators of a finished film, they’ll be compensated commensurately, and so will we.

Craig,

“Oh, and lastly, I agree that the constitution does not guarantee someone the right to a water fountain. At this point, I have completely lost sight of this analogy.”

The point is that as I sit in the back of my limo, sipping champagne out of Angelina Jolie’s shoe, I know, at last, what it is to be a black man in America.

Or something like that.

Murph,

“One thing I don’t really understand is why the “Film By” credit is any different than “Directed By”, particularly if most people assume that movies spring from a directors head fully clothed anyway. I mean, where down the line does that “Film By” actually affect your career in dollars and cents terms?”

Sigh. I’ll answer the first part, because it’s one I haven’t addressed already. If you don’t get the second part, having me explain it for the fifth time today won’t make a difference.

Directing is a specific job, as is writing, as is editing. “A film by” implies total authorship. Film is a collaborative medium. There is no single creator of a film, ever. It’s a lie and an insult to everyone else who works on the thing.

Writers don’t run the show in television.

Producers do.

-

Murph:

Mmmm, no, I don’t think aggression necessarily equals gains. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t.

If you’re legitimately, uncontrollably, innately militant, then you’re screwed. No one will take you seriously. You have to pick your spots, and then shoot to kill. Waving your gun around like a dingbat merely dillutes your credibility.

Josh:

I agree with your goals, but it seems to me this whole argument over possessory credit is a gargantuan task with a puny payoff. If the DGA gave up the “film by” credit, it would really only be a symbolic gesture, and it wouldn’t grant the writer much more respect. It’s a huge, uphill battle against a union entrenched practice. Is that really the logical first step to improve our lot in life, or is this just the tangent the conversation has followed because it’s the most sensationalistic issue?

Craig: I dare you to post this.

Josh: congratulations. You deserve it (for this movie).

All: I will brag about my anology before I even make it. It’s perfect. I was tempted to brag about it before I even thought of it, but that seemed excessive.

Here it is: Craig is a House Nigger, Josh is Kunta Kinte.

All, again: I know you get my point. Please don’t freak. Obviously, I know Craig is not a House Nigger; he’s a rich white guy. I also know Josh is not Kunta Kinte; he’s a rich white guy, too.

Is there some law I don’t know about that requires some people to accept work as screenwriters in the Hollywood film industry? People being loaded onto planes to L.A. at gun point? Being forced to sit at a keyboard on threat of arrest, beating, or both?

No?

Then let’s knock off the comparisons to the black experience in America, shall we?

Instead, let’s consider this proposition;

The authority to determine the content of feature films granted by the financier to writers would increase if the authority granted to directors was decreased. The authority granted to directors would decrease by abolishing the possessive credit.

Now, a different proposition:

The authority of directors to determine the content of feature films is greater than that granted to writers, but it is granted independently of that granted to writers. Directors won the right to the possessive credit because of the authority they have been granted. Abolishing the possessive credit would not decrease the authority granted to directors; decreasing the authority granted to directors would not per force increase the authority granted to writers.

The first proposition is an example of anomalistic thinking. The second proposition is an example of accurate analysis.

The possessive credit is not the source of authority; it is the result of authority granted.

The question writers should be asking are:

Why are directors granted the authority they have to determine the content of feature films?

What limits, if any, are there to that authority?

What responsibilities are attendant to that authority?

And, finally:

What can writers do to assume, finagle or take greater responsibility and authority to determine the content of feature films?

No question, many writers consider the possessive credit to be personally insulting.

Me? I hate seeing the authority to determine the content of feature films exercised badly, by anyone, no matter what degree of authority they have been granted.

The possessive credit is piddling next to that.

-

Holy Cripes - this means I ain’t even on the plantation …

Goddamn, I love a good debate. With respect, however, I feel that you’re all missing the point. The issue has nothing to do with director’s at all. The value of writers in the film industry is completely the result of an MBA that allows them to be picked up and discarded completely at will. The way to strengthen the writer’s position is not to attack or re-evaluate the director’s power —the way to strengthen the writer’s position is to rework the relationships and rules regarding rewrites.

Look at TV: It is not that the writer is powerful, it is that the writerS are powerful. Even setting aside the obvious technical and hierarchy reasons why writers rule TV, there is the strength of the bloc. The same is needed in film.

The WGA should not be trying to boost their membership’s position by attacking other Guild’s gains, they should be strengthening their own. The only thing I want to see the WGA guys working on is this:

When can I expect to see the shift from “Joe Writer has been replaced on ‘Movie X’” to “Movie X’ has ADDED Joe Blow to its writers?” We need to get the writers to band together if we want to accomplish anything. If they have to keep every writer on the project, do you think they’ll keep throwing drafts at the wall to see what sticks?

Joe,

You bring up a fine point, and one that obviously needs to be addressed seriously. I feel like this has all gotten far afield from the initial discussion (I think the entrance of Kunta Kinte was the final indicator that we’d travelled many, many miles from the goal of the original journey…).

The initial discussion came from my concern that Craig exhibits an extreme willingness to dismiss the concerns of writers as whining, and to demand that we all earn, on an individual, day to day basis, the same level of respect that directors are granted automatically, regardless of merit. I don’t mind that a fellow writer can’t ignore a chance to tell us how irritating or ignorant most writers are, but I do mind when that fellow writer is my representative.

For all Craig’s arguments, imagine if your agent was on record countless times talking about what a whining loser you were. How happy would you be knowing he was negotiating your next deal?

I don’t mind that it wandered into a discussion of the “film by” credit, because in spite of what many here have said, symbolic victories carry tremendous weight, especially in the arts. Perception is reality. Change how we’re perceived, and you start to change how we’re treated.

What we’re getting into now is talking about changing specific aspects of how we’re treated, and that’s fine. I’m just saying we’ve gotten away from the main point.

This has been a great discussion, everybody. Now let’s throw some hearsay into it:

Richard Linklater had his first “film by” credit on School of Rock—the only movie he directed, up to that point, that he didn’t write. I’ve heard that Linklater doesn’t like the possessory credit and didn’t want to use it, but the studio made him.

If this is true—and it seems weird that Linklater couldn’t just refuse—then clearly not all executives think the possessory credit’s a joke.

Can anyone shed any light?

Josh, I can certainly see your point and I can’t imagine how anyone could possibly argue with your underlying premise:

A wide range of opinions is fine among the membership but the union reps should —by design— be among the most zealous advocates for the membership.

Who could argue with that? The only counterpoint might be one which puts more emphasis on practical day-to-day concerns over more esoteric conceptual stuff like the director’s “film by” credit —although no one has made that argument here, that I am aware of.

On the “film by” issue however, I risk repeating myself because I think the crucial distinction has been missed and/or misinterpreted. The director’s “film by” credit is a testament to that Guild’s strong bargaining position NOT in relation to writers/editors/etc but in relation to OTHER DIRECTORS. The” one director” rule that the DGA has stuck to passionately (even at the risk of alienating its own membership) is what gives the membership its strength. If multiple or interchangeable directors could be used and credited in the same way writers are, the director would lose her clout in the way as writers. It’s the rewrites trap —the writer vs. writer cut-throat game— that prevents a unified front.

In my humble opinion, the writers need to force an MBA that keep their own internal house in order instead of worrying how many cookies the other kids get.

If this whole discussion is about respect and power, then the film by credit is a tremendous symbol and tearing it down would be the WGA equivalent of stopping tanks in Tiananmen Square. However, just because one man stood up to the red army, it didn’t necessarily bring any real change to the system.

I fear the film by credit is much the same. Let’s say the WGA takes on this battle and it wins. Now there is no possessory credit. Terrific! However, it is just a symbol and it stands a chance of not affecting much change.

I think if this discussion is about power, then Joe is on the right track, however I will suggest a more realistic solution. I think if writers are to have power in Hollywood, then they must be more than writers.

Want to be write an original story and see it get made? Well then your best chance might be to direct it and make it yourself. Look at this years best original scripts up for Oscars. All five are directed by the writer! It is the best way to protect your vision of the script and make sure it is not developed to death by earnest by misguided execs and directors.

Want to have more say in the production of your script, but don’t have aspirations to direct? Attach yourself as a producer and make it yourself. Or put it in your contract that you will only sell your script if you are attached as producer (and I’m not talking about a throw-away credit like associate producer). If you want a say in the day to day production, then make it your production! But don’t demand to produce and not do anything, because you probably won’t get that opportunity again. My guess is that you will have to earn this credit to get it again.

Then what to do with assignments? The problem with assignments is that the very nature of assignments makes film writers disposable. They throw money at us and say jump and we say how high? If we don’t jump high enough, they throw money at someone else and they try jumping just right.

The only real way to change this culture of assignments is to get enough power to prevent yourself from becoming disposable when you negotiate your deal. Not many writers wield this kind of power, but if you were the kind of writer who has made himself a hyphenate (writer-producer or writer-director) then you probably could.

I might be very naive, but I believe if writers are to have any power, then they must take it by becoming more than writers. If enough writers do, there will be a very definite power shift in the halls of Hollywood.

Don’t get me wrong, I think tearing down the film by credit is a worthy cause, but I don’t think it is a solution. Individual writers must empower themselves. If enough writers do, then getting rid of the possessory credit will be a whole lot easier.

Dave

The descendants of the auteur theory are hundreds of commercial/video directors who think they can write. The ramifications are studios and producers who foster and encourage this mentality. The by-products are “director’s passes” and multiple writers on a script after a director is hired, trying to figure out the director’s “vision.” This way of thinking is no longer earned; rather, it is expected. In fact, even if the studio or producers don’t like a certain director’s writing in a previous film, they will still encourage him or her to oversee the story development of their film, because overseeing the script is deemed part of the job of the director. The “film by” credit, while insulting (and don’t get wrong—I think it should go), is probably accurate. Randall Wallace, who wrote PEARL HARBOR, would most likely agree that the movie version of his script is “A film by Michael Bay.”

David,

“Want to be write an original story and see it get made? Well then your best chance might be to direct it and make it yourself. Look at this years best original scripts up for Oscars. All five are directed by the writer! It is the best way to protect your vision of the script and make sure it is not developed to death by earnest by misguided execs and directors.”

Sigh. I’m tempted to just chuck it in.

In a sense, I agree with you. That’s why I’m producing and directing. But I’m aware that not ever screenwriter has aspirations -or abilities - in that direction, and, more importantly - I would never say they should have to. The entire point of the discussion is to fight for the writer to get the consideration he or she deserves without having to do two other jobs as well.

Derek,

“he “film by” credit, while insulting (and don’t get wrong—I think it should go), is probably accurate. Randall Wallace, who wrote PEARL HARBOR, would most likely agree that the movie version of his script is “A film by Michael Bay.””

I repeat - Glengarry Glen Ross. A film by James Foley.

I think the writer-as-writer/producer concept has real merit, but it requires a fundamental change not only in how writers are viewed but also in how they view themselves. To simply say “I wanna be attached as a producer” is very different from a writer actually becoming a producer: A writer actually risking putting some money into early development, attaching talent, a writer actually ACTING as a producer. That’s the flipside that doesn’t get as much press. For all the “we get no respect” talk, one rarely hears any “we don’t have any financial risk invested in the actual production of this script as a film.”

And if the response is “that’s not the writer’s job,” then aren’t we using our acceptance of the status quo when it suits us, and complaining about it when it doesn’t?

Obviously, there are no easy fixes. How do we see our role ideally? How can we get there? We can barely agree on the questions let alone the answers.

Two points—one trivial, one important.

Let’s get the trivial one out of the way:

Again, not all people or everyone, but more than I think folks are aware of. I mean, it’s one reason why a billion people watch the Academy Awards world wide, ain’t it? Or are they just making that number up?

Believe it or not, yes, they are just making that number up. Here is a brief article from the New Yorker on the origin of the billion viewer myth.

More importantly, I want to respond to something Josh Olson said:

The initial discussion came from my concern that Craig exhibits an extreme willingness to dismiss the concerns of writers as whining, and to demand that we all earn, on an individual, day to day basis, the same level of respect that directors are granted automatically, regardless of merit. I don’t mind that a fellow writer can’t ignore a chance to tell us how irritating or ignorant most writers are, but I do mind when that fellow writer is my representative. For all Craig’s arguments, imagine if your agent was on record countless times talking about what a whining loser you were. How happy would you be knowing he was negotiating your next deal?

Everything else Josh has said in this discussion falls into one of two categories: (A) stuff I agree with, and (B) stuff that I disagree with but still respect. The above quote, though, falls into category (C): stuff that pisses me off.

God knows I disagree with Craig on any number of things (most of which have the middle initial W). But the notion that Craig’s attitude keeps him from pursuing the interests of writers is utterly wrong.

I can understand where the misunderstanding comes from. You hear Craig say, “Writers have got to stop whining about crap they’re never going to change,” and you think the end of the sentence is going to be “—and until then, the hell with ‘em.” Actually, though, the end of the sentence ends up being “—and in the meantime, I’m going to be focusing on stuff I can change.”

Something that has actually happened more than once is this:

Somebody posts a complaint about on WA that the the WGA is, in some way, falling down on its job, and failing to serve its members’ interests in some concrete way. The complaint is clearly meant as venting, with no real expectation of change. Craig follows it up, with a public post or a private e-mail, saying, “You’re right to complain about this crap. It shouldn’t happen. I have spoken to so-and-so at the WGA, and they have told me they will remedy the situation. If they don’t, let me know, and I’ll follow up.”

What I’m saying, Josh, is: if the only thing Craig ever did was tell other writers to shut up and stop whining, then, yeah, he’d be a pretty lousy representative. But he doesn’t just do that. When there’s something he can change singlehandedly, he’ll do it. And when there’s something he thinks the WGA can accomplish as a whole, he’ll argue passionately and constructively for it.

To bring it back to your agent analogy, which would you rather have: an agent who is dismissive about what he sees as your unrealistic demands, but who will fight tooth and nail for the ones he thinks he can get for you… or one who is too busy being supportive and friendly about all your demands to ever actually do anything about them?

Derek,

After watching directors ruin scripts I’ve worked on, I cannot disagree with your point about Pearl Harbor. However, to imply with the “film by” credit that any movie (no matter how much a director twists it into his/her vision) is solely the work of the director is still nonetheless a lie.

So…

Josh,

Nobody is really arguing that the “film by” credit is insulting and phony. Even Craig has said that he hates it. He’s just unwilling “to battle over that injustice when there are other more grievous and substantive fights worth winning,” a choice that I’m sure none of our board members takes lightly.

So my question to you, Josh, is:

When you say that the WGA should “fight the credit to the end,” how are you proposing we do this?

Are you saying that it’s something we should be willing to strike over? If so, I doubt you’d get much support from the majority of the guild on this one. If not, what else can we do?

Marianne

P.S. Hi, Craig. Great website.

Josh,

Fair enough. Though I wonder what Mamet thinks of Foley’s film version. I wonder if he thinks he would have directed it differently. But don’t try to get me to argue for the “film by” credit… I believe, as you do, that winning the battle to make it obsolete would be a baby-step toward the death of the auteur virus.

Boy, this is what I get for sleeping late like a loser. Look at this comment pond! Nice!

Couple of quick thoughts.

Welcome Wibberley! BTW, I loved the fact that you guys got “The Wibberleys” as a credit.

Joe Unidos brings up the MBA. Here’s the problem.

Our MBA is no different than the DGA’s MBA. Our MBA says that we are hired to do work for a minimum fee, and we can be replaced by another writer.

The DGA MBA says the same thing.

It just happens far less frequently because changing directors is very expensive. It’s a mistake to think, however, that our MBA is somehow deficient in a way that theirs is not.

Josh, Clearly, I am vague. I mean that had Craig not brought the discussion to this forum, I’d have not been able to witness the debate for I lack the film credit needed to join WGA and see this discussion elsewhere. Better?

The purpose of a union is to have strength in numbers. One of the most powerful tools that strength offers is the option to say “No,” or, to put it in less delicate terms, the option to blackball people that are working against your interests.

My “pie-in-the-sky, don’t know nothin’ ‘bout birthin’ no movie” suggestion is for writers to work with directors to get movies made. Don’t sell a script until there is a director attached. A director that sees the value of the relationship. Done in large numbers, there is a potential for significant change.

But Jen, that’s like saying you won’t sell your car until the buyer tells you who is gonna be driving it.