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 blu