A Film By....?
Had a great first day, and a friend suggested that I briefly mention whether or not I’m taking a “film by” credit on the movie.
After all, I’m not just the director, but the writer too. So c’mon, written and directed by the same guy? I’m the auteur dammit! So I should take the possessory credit, right?
Wrong.
I’m taking a directing credit and a writing credit. But the film is by all of us. Me, the DP, the editor, the grips, the costume designers, hair, makeup, craft services……everyone. I’d be nowhere without the crew. I’m part of the crew. We’re a team. No us…no movie.
Of course, this opinion isn’t too popular among the DGA folks. And I just joined the DGA.
Meaning that I’m probably now pissing people off in two unions.
Eh.
All in a day’s work.
Eh.
When my partner and I write (solely in conjunction with each other) and direct a movie, we take the “Film By” credit.
Controversial? Sure.
But that’s the way we roll.
I, for one, applaud you for standing by your principles. With people like you, John August, Scott Frank, Kevin Smith, Steven Soderbergh, etc. refusing to take the vanity credit, perhaps one day “a film by” will be considered “uncool.”
I’m amazingly pretentious, so I take the “un film de” credit.
A film by us…very well said.
Craig, if you’re pissing people off in only two unions, the solution is obvious. Give yourself an onscreen role so you can join SAG.
Just don’t piss off the Teamsters, ‘kay? I enjoy this blog way too much and would miss it…
Personally I thinkt that the “A Film by” credits is kinda lame. I would go for the “end credit”. Movie’s over. Credits music. Written and Directed by … That rocks. Of course if the movie sucks it could go bad. But if the movie is good and the audience had a really good time that’s the credit I would like, and it’s not even pretentious. ;-)
Greg
Very well-played.
Wish I could remember the William Goldman quote on this subject, after he read a Pakula obituary.
His main point was: it’s the press who need a pin-up. The industry knows it’s always a group effort. Whether it’s a smooth shoot or not, all have to excel.
So… good call.
The “A Film By” credit lost any meaning when it became part of the DGA contract. All it means now is that directors get to have their name on a film twice. Sure, it insults everyone else who worked on the picture, but it doesn’t actually do anything for the director, except boost his ego.
Most directors I know don’t really need that.
On the other hand, NOT taking the credit is the height of cool. Good on ya, Craig.
Good man.
I read that the DGAs second choice for the opening credit was going to be ‘Sprung Fully Formed From the Brainpain Of …
Now that’s the kind of problem to have. To take the credit or not take the credit. I’m working overtime for a problem like that. I have the movie, but not the crew.
How ‘bout this Craig, TAKE the “film by”, but put it in a new place, as in…
FADE OUT THE END
A FILM BY
And roll the credits. ‘Cause lets face it, with any film, THAT’S were the poss cred REALLY belongs.
Or you can go with (after the FADE OUT):
A FILM BY
Followed by the credits.CRAIG MAZIN
AND…
I guess the point of it within the DGA is that while it’s a group effort, a feature film is the director’s vision - more so than a TV show is the writer’s vision. And if it’s part of the DGA contract, then it makes sense why so many people use it so often. An earlier version of the credit was “A Robin Swift Film” which is still there on a lot, but my point in bringing it up now, is the credits for Network. Sydney Lumet is a superb director, and well known by 1976- yet the opening for Network says “A Paddy Chadayefsky Film”.
And for the record, no one who’s been in the industry as long as Mr. Mazin has is stupid enough to piss off the teamsters.
You are awesome, Craig!
“I guess the point of it within the DGA is that while it’s a group effort, a feature film is the director’s vision”
In that case, I’d love to see a “Vision by” credit introduced.
Yeah, but then you have to define vision, and I’m sure there’s some DPs and set designers and costume designers who have something to say about that.
Also, if you look at our modern culture of looking at film, even academically, the director is credited with authorship. Maybe that’s in part to the usage of ‘film by’ or maybe the credit is designed to solidify that. Either way, it simplifies the matter, and those in the know understand the cooperative nature of film [hell, that’s why I love it so much], while the “ignorant unwashed masses” (whether they exist or not) get a simple “oh, it’s a spielberg film”
Silly unwashed masses.
I am a huge friend of the Teamsters.
I love the Teamsters.
I have a Teamsters hat, and I stand behind them.
Behind is good. Between them and the catering truck: bad.
Good work sir. I second your awesomeness.
”Also, if you look at our modern culture of looking at film, even academically, the director is credited with authorship”
Really? Damn. I don’t mind E! doing it but if academics also agree then I’m sorry Craig, you are just making yourself look ridiculous.
Amen!
Craig,
Good luck, and let me offer you a couple pieces of advice:
ALWAYS check your lenses for flaws that may cause important shots to be out of focus.
Love it first, then leave it.
U.
If you came up with the idea, wrote it and directed the film, there is no reason NOT to take the “film by” credit. Sure, it couldn’t have been done without a gaffer or a DP and everyone else on the cast and crew, but you are the seed that spawned the film. YOU made it happen. Everyone else HELPED you.
There are lots of reasons not to take the Film By credit, including the very basic “It already says ‘written and directed by’, why add another credit that really only means ‘directed by’?”
I do agree that “a film by” being contractually obligated by the DGA makes it essentially meaningless…
but I would argue that “A film by Terry Gilliam” is a valid credit, even if he did not originate the material. “A film by Stanley Kubrick” does actually seem like a fair credit, given how much control he maintained over each facet of the film.
I think that to argue that it can never be accurate is just as silly as the DGA’s position that it is automatic at a certain point.
Also…
“Of course, this opinion isn’t too popular among the DGA folks.”
I was under the impression that the DGA actively discourages first-time directors from requesting “A Film By” credit, so I think you’re safe on this one.
Wow, you really rock, man.
Seriously - that’s laudable.
I know Gilliam has taken the “film by” credit, but I don’t think Kubrick ever did (though I know some of his movie’s posters had “Stanley Kubrick’s” before the title.
There are some others who certainly have a distinctive style who could take the “Film By” credit and not really raise my hackles, personally. I think of Woody Allen has having a distinctive style (though, once again, I don’t think he takes the “Film By” credit) and even the love-him-or-hate-him Kevin Smith has something of a distinctive style (certainly in his writing… and the fact that Jay & Silent Bob are in essentially all of his movies), but he doesn’t take the “Film By” credit, either.
The whole “film by” credit issue just boils down to whether you believe a motion picture can have an author.
(and yes, Ryan, Kubrick took authorship credit at the head of his movies, as “A Stanley Kubrick film”)
Kubrick’s film Full Metal Jacket is distinct from Gustav Hasford’s book The Short Timers. They can quite reasonably be regarded as two separate works of authorship. I for one don’t have a problem distinguishing between them.
John August distinguishes between the “film by” credit and the “a [Director’s Name] film” or [Director’s Name]’s [Movie Title].
http://johnaugust.com/archives/2007/giving-credit
Is this distinction common? It seems that many of you believe all of these to be possessive credit.
I know I do consider the “Film By” different than “So-and-So’s Film”, but I don’t know how prevalent that distinction is.
That’s just semantics. They’re both possessory credits.
I’ll take film by credit!!!
Back in 1966, the WGA won jurisdiction over the “A Film by” credit, making it available only to writer-directors (other forms of possessory credit, like “A Blank McBlank Film,” were still available to anyone). The DGA forced the issue come the next contract negotiations, and the WGA gave up that right.
But I think that bit of history might contribute somewhat to the perception that the “A Film by” credit is different from other kinds of possessory credit.
What’s weird is, producers have always had above-the-title possessory credit (nowadays, its achieved by using one’s name in the name of the production company), but writers seem copasetic with that one.
Craig, right on.
As for a film being a director’s vision, I get it..sort of… Unless the director is a writer/director, his so-called vision isn’t his at all. It’s the vision of the writer as realized by the director.
But the director is the guy who chooses how the movie will look. The shots. Colours. How the actors act and so on.
The story of the movie is the writer’s vision.
The movie itself is, uh… depending on who has the final say. Which means most movies should be signed with “A film by a Dozen Money-grabbing Studio Execs”.
Paula - I would make a small distinction that it is the vision of the director as elicited by the writer. Because the director is empowered to disregard whatever aspects of the script he doesn’t relate to. But that’s a minor distinction.
Ted - thanks for the history lesson. That makes a lot of sense.
Anon - that link is interesting, but August’s point seems to be largely surfacey. While there may be a worthwhile argument about a distinction between “film by” and “a _ film” (either one being in addition to a director’s credit), I don’t think the argument would be that literal. Yes, a film by says it’s “by” the person, but I think that the average viewer sees “A Steven Spielberg film” and thinks “Oh, this is a film by Steven Spielberg!”
However, to be honest, prior to this part of this discussion, I didn’t even know that anybody made this distinction. That’s interesting.
Oh, good god.
Saying it’s laudable that someone not take a “film by” credit is like saying it’s laudable that they don’t ass rape their own children.
A good friend of mine said it best - the time will come when people look back at the “film by” credit the way we now look back at smoking on airplanes:
“Are you serious? People really did that?”
“Yes, Timmy. They did. They didn’t know any better.”
Craig may not know this yet, so let me edify you further on this inane subject - not only is it the norm for directors to take it, when the movie is finished, he’s gonna have to write a couple paragraphs to the DGA explaining why he’s NOT taking it. They hand the fucking thing out automatically now, and you have to actively campaign to remove it. It’s ludicrous.
The credit is a lie, no matter who you are and what you did on the movie. Film is a collaborative medium. Always has been, always will be. Even arguing the point gives it a credibility it simply doesn’t have.
The first time you see an actor take a weak line and make it strong, the first time you see a DP turn a flacid shot into one that rivets you to your seat, the first time your crafts service person suggests cutting a line because it’s redundant, you’ll get exactly who it is who makes a film, and it’s never, ever, ever one person.
The words “a film by” mean one thing, and that is this: “My ego is so fragile I must piss on everything and make it mine.” This sort of character flaw does not discriminate. Some brilliant directors are guilty of it, as are some hacks. But it always means the same thing, and it’s always a little pathetic.
And here’s the truly pathetic thing - as director, you’re usually gonna get the credit anyway. Everyone talks about “the new Gilliam,” so it’s not like taking the credit actually means anything positive. Meaning you can actually do the right thing by not taking the credit… and STILL GET THE CREDIT.
Feh.
Josh —
I think it’s laudable you don’t ass-rape your own children.
Keep up the good work!
Uh-oh. This thread got Olsoned.
All hands, battle stations.
As long as we all agree that you should only ass-rape other people’s children, or rape your own from the front, I think that’s the most important thing.
Anonymous,
“I think it’s laudable you don’t ass-rape your own children.”
Thank you. I know it’s a bold, controversial stand I’m taking, but what can I say? That’s just the kind of courageous, stand-taker I am.
All in a day’s work.
Josh Olson and Craig Mazin are right.
The takers of the credit are wrong.
It’s that simple.
Yet grade grubbers will always want the extra credit.
What about someone like Robert Rodriguez? Someone who writes his own movies, directs them, produces, acts as his own cinematographer, edits, composes the score, personally plays half of the instruments on the soundtrack, operates the steadicam, is the visual effects supervisor, and basically has a direct hand in everything short of craft service on his productions? He’s about as close as you can get to an author of his movies, and yet he’s gone out of his way to avoid taking all the credit.
I guess in Rodriguez’ case, you might figure, “I’ve got 27 credits on this movie. Do I need a 28th?”
Question of the day: Can a motion picture be considered to have an author? A screenplay definitely has an author. A movie, however, is a different animal. Harder to say if it has an author.
But I can say this:
I know a Hitchcock movie when I see one. And so do you.
Depends on how you’re using the word “author.”
If you’re using it in a legal sense, then, yes, a motion picture can have an author or authors.
Why has screenwriters gotten so utterly ass fucked on the “film by” issue? If you write a stage play, that play will for all time be the writer’s play. Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Ibsen’s Peer Gynt, even NN’s Piece of Crap. No matter what kind of “vision” the director brings to the play they don’t get “a play by” credit.
I don’t get it.
And it’s not like movies aren’t produced many times over with different directors. A remake of a movie is a remake of the movie, but a new production of a stage play is a “remake” of the written play.
Robert Rodriguez is a good example, Nick. He’s not exactly shy about listing his credits at the front of the film, written, directed, composed, chopped, etc., by Robert Rodriguez. Yet he doesn’t take “A Film By” credit because it’s a ludicrious credit. Of course, Robert isn’t in the DGA, so he doesn’t have to explain himself.
Even then, the whole reason he left the DGA was because they wouldn’t allow him to give Frank Miller the credit Rodriguez felt he deserved. So they share co-director credits on Sin City and Rodriguez insisted on calling the movie “Frank Miller’s Sin City.”
Film directors don’t get “screenplay by,” either (unless, of course, the same individual who does the job of “director” also wrote the screenplay).
Stage directors don’t actually direct plays — they direct performances of stage plays.
And film directors don’t actually direct screenplays — they direct films made from screenplays.
Crucial difference.
In theater, it’s not uncommon for the producer to take a possessory credit for a production of a stage play: Joseph Papp’s The Pirates of Penzanze, for instance. But this is supposed to be understood as shorthand for “Josehp Papp’s [production of] The Pirates of Penzanze [written by Gilbert & Sullivan].
Arguably, the “A film by” credit (or the “A _ _ film” or whatever) actually means “A film by Joe Director [of a story & screenplay by Jill Writer] (or “a screenplay by Jill Writer adapted from a story by Jerry Novelist) … but no one actually parses it that way.
A remake of a movie isn’t a remake of a movie. That’s how people talk about it, but in reality, a “remake” is either:
A new movie produced from a new screenplay that is an adaptation of source material that had previously been adapted into a screenplay from which a movie was produced (example: Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory were both adaptations of the same novel, but that’s the entirety of their relationship).
A new movie produced from a new screenplay that is adapted from a screenplay from which a movie which was previously produced (example: The Longest Yard (1974) and The Longest Yard (2005) The latter movie was made from a new version of the story & screenplay from which the first was produced).
Psycho (1998) is the only instance I can think of an actual remake of a movie. Not only was it produced from the same screenplay as the 1960 version (like the way a play that’s been staged before will be staged again in a new production), it was shot-by-shot recration of the work specific to the film medium, as well.
So what you’re basically saying, Ted, is that what we call a remake of a movie should instead be called an adaptation of a movie, or something like that?
Does The Omen count? (I’ve never seen the remake)
Original writer is only one credited…
Historical note: When the “A Film By” credit was first introduced in competing DGA & WGA contracts, the DGA steadfastly maintained it was “the credit of Ford, Hitchock and Lean…”
Then it got elevated by Andrew Saris’s clammy embrace of “the auteur theory,” and subsequently debased, like cheap coinage, through overuse by the underqualifed.
Still and all, I think it’s worth considering for those few directors who’ve demonstrated, through a body of work over time, that their uniquely personal stamp is identifiable, consistent, and unique.
That said, how come there are no Victor Fleming festivals, retrospectives, or boxed sets? The man directed “Wizard of Oz,” “Gone With the Wind” and “Captains Courageous,” for God’s sake!
Me, I think Michael Curiz is long overdue for cult auteur status and director worship… come on, “The Adventures of Robin Hood,” “Casablanca,” “The Sea Hawk,” “Yankee Doodle Dandy,” “Charge of the Light Brigade,” “Life With Father,” and “White Christmas.” !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THAT’S a body of work. IMDB has him credited with 172 feature films, including about 60 in Hungarian, French, and German before he even got to Hollywood.
There will never be another.
At least Michael Curtiz is immortalized in the Brian Atene audition video.
S.A. —
In the case of something like Charlie and the Chocalate Factory, it’d be more accurate to call it a “new adaptation” (of a previously-adapted novel) then a “remake.”
In the case of something like The Longest Yard, “a new version adapted from the original screenplay” would be more accurate then a “remake,” but that’s bit of a mouthful.
Ruari —
If The Omen (2006) was produced from the same sceenplay as the 1976 movie, then it is akin to a new production of a stage play that’s been previously produced. But since I haven’t seen it either, I don’t know if it’s a shot-by-shot remake, in the way Psycho was.
“Still and all, I think it’s worth considering for those few directors who’ve demonstrated, through a body of work over time, that their uniquely personal stamp is identifiable, consistent, and unique.”
And why does the DIRECTED BY credit not suffice?
Carl,
“The man directed “Wizard of Oz,” “Gone With the Wind” and “Captains Courageous,” for God’s sake!”
George Cukor, Mervyn LeRoy and King Vidor - not to mention several others - might have something to say about that, as they all directed significant portions of those first two films. Fleming ended up with the credit for both, but he was hardly THE director on either.
The directors you mention are inarguably giants, but the auteur theory celebrates directors whose work is recognizable from the work, films you can spot a mile away as being the work of a specific director. As good as Flemming and Curtiz were, they don’t fit that bill (which is one of many problems with the auteur theory - it celebrates limitations. Artists who branch out, who aren’t tied down to the same themes, the same ideas are penalized.)
“Still and all, I think it’s worth considering for those few directors who’ve demonstrated, through a body of work over time, that their uniquely personal stamp is identifiable, consistent, and unique.
On top of Johnny’s point - which should be enough -there’s also this - very often the director’s “personal stamp” involves directing other people’s screenplays that deal with the same themes and ideas over and over. I have a lot of hard-boiled crime novels in my library, but it would never occur to me to claim credit for creating them just because they all bear recognizable similarities.
Ted,
As long as we’re splitting hairs - Psycho wasn’t a shot-by-shot remake. Van Sant SAID it was, but it wasn’t.
“Arguably, the “A film by” credit (or the “A _ _ film” or whatever) actually means “A film by Joe Director [of a story & screenplay by Jill Writer] (or “a screenplay by Jill Writer adapted from a story by Jerry Novelist) … but no one actually parses it that way.”
Yup. And there’s a reason. “Joseph Papp’s Pirates” alerts us to the fact that this is a different production of Pirates than, say, Carrot Top’s. It is a way of differentiating between the two productions. Not a problem in the case of most movies.
“And why does the DIRECTED BY credit not suffice?”
It’s kind of the inverse of the problem (or one of many) that exists now with the FILM BY credit. At the outset, it was a way of differentiating the Hitchcocks of the world from Hollywood Gun-For-Hire #415. Hitchcock brings more to a film and makes it his own to a greater degree than merely DIRECTED BY indicates, when you consider that every paint-by-numbers director in the business gets that credit. It’s like the scene in Sleepers where DeNiro’s trying to describe the Sistine Chapel and the kids don’t grasp what differentiates Michelangelo from a Mexican laborer they know.
Any way you slice it, FILM BY is an erroneous credit. If we’re going to grant choice directors with a higher honor than merely DIRECTED BY, a credit which indicates sole authorship isn’t the way to do it.
a) Trying to “grant choice directors with a higher honor” is not really the purpose of credits, though; isn’t that what awards are for? b) Since credit details are negotiated by labor unions, which are presumably in the business of setting standards and minimal levels of treatment for all their members rather than finagling special favors for a select few, I can’t imagine any scenario in which such an arrangement could be worked out to anyone’s satisfaction anyway. (Not to mention that the judgment involved is entirely subjective anyway.) And c) even if all those hurdles were somehow surmounted, the resulting credit would still inevitably get politicized, lobbied for, and eventually granted to every hack who could demonstrate to some credit committee that he was unanimously regarded as a genius in his own mind. (“A Filmic Masterpiece by Brett Ratner,” anyone?)
But if you do insist on starting down this road, why limit it to directors only? There are certainly just as many writers out there who have a distinctive, inimitable style. (As well as cinematographers, and actors, and…)
Bottom line, why can’t acclaimed artists/craftsmen just have their egos mollified by the acclaim itself, rather than needing to memorialize it in the credits of all their future works (including the ones that might, well, suck)?
“Hitchcock brings more to a film and makes it his own to a greater degree than merely DIRECTED BY indicates (…)”
The point is that the name Hitchcock in and of itself serves as indicator of what kind of film to expect, NOT the credit.
Directed by Alfred Hitchcock will always pack more punch than A Film By Alvin Karbouet.
The possessory credit serves only one purpose - to boost the ego of those who feel the need to take it.
Now, marketing folks may argue that the credit helps audiences gauge what kind of film to expect and hence increases the studio’s ability to market their product 9which is the sole reason why studios support the credit). But a discernible “directed by” on posters, tv adds, etc. can serve the exact same purpose.
P.S. Talking about Sir Alfred… I just watched “Strangers On A Train” - what a silly and inane execution of a fantastic premise that is.
Quite frankly, I see very little difference between the two credits (“A Film By…” and “A [insert name here] Film”), despite Craig’s explanation. Besides, I actually like “A [insert name here] Film” better. I think it sounds better, and that has nothing to do with how much credit is being taken.
Johnny,
While your argument is reasonable, you lose big credibility points with your P.S.
Talking about silly and inane…
Just want to say this is one of the funniest posts on the site ever.
Cheers! And break a leg btw.
And here’s a thought: If we’re all against the idea of sticking a credit on a film just for vanity’s sake, then why embed the credits in the film itself in the first place? Why not just put “[Title of Movie]” at the beginning and “The End” at the end?
The overwhelming majority of the audience doesn’t care about anything except — in some, not all, cases — the names of the actors that they’re about to see. (And if someone’s going to see a movie because Brad Pitt is in it, then by definition, they already know that Brad Pitt is in it, so there’s still no need to remind them of it again. They’ll recognize him when he shows up.) If people do chance to read the credits at all, it’s because they’re the only thing on the screen at that moment, and I can guarantee they forget the names the moment they disappear anyway. So why not shave a few minutes off the beginning and end of the movie, maybe cram in one more daily showing and/or irritating Fandango ad, spare the world the creation of any more of those godawful songs that tend to get played over end credits, and the vanishingly small fraction of the audience, myself included, who actually gives a rat’s ass who did what can look it up on IMDB like we always do?
The who-gets-paid-for-what function of the credits needn’t change because of this; the entities responsible for keeping those records would still keep them and use them as they always have. But given that no one but friends, family, and others in the industry reads or cares about them anyway, isn’t any on-screen credit essentially a vanity credit?
Carl —
One aspect of the auteur theory (aka la politique des auteurs) that’s generally ignored or unknown is that its not enough for a director to have a body of work in order to be considered an auteur, or even to have a distinct and recognizable style. The body of work must also meet a certain aesthetic criteria that encompasses subject matter, story, setting, visual style (including composition), even actors’ performances. The Cahiers bunch who developed the theory judged that Curtiz’ body of work to not meet those criteria (some of his movies did, but a lot did not). So he was excluded from the original “U.S. directors working under studio system who are auteurs” list.
But I think it’s a mistake to conflate the origins of the director’s possessory credit with the auteur theory. Directors were receiving above-the-title possessory credit for about twenty years before the auteur theory of film criticism was developed, and about thirty years before Sarris introduced his corrupted version to the U.S.
Josh —
I’m not splitting hairs. In fact, I’m surprised that you’re so dismissive of this point. When people talk about remaking a movie or remakes of movies, they are ignoring the fact that it’s the story, or the story and dramatization — indisputably the work of writers — that is being given new treatment. As has been pointed out, stage plays are given new productions without either the play or the production being considered automatically as somehow lesser work or “not original.” There’s even a Tony given for “Best Revival.” Mabye because when it comes to plays, there’s some notion that the writer’s work endures and has value beyond any speicific treatment its been given. Seems to me that’s maybe a worthwhile distinction to draw in the case of the film industry, too.
On the other hands, it’s kind of funny that I almost wrote that Psycho was virtually a shot-by-shot remake of the first movie, but didn’t think that distinction was really necessary.
I’d watch a film by Alvin Karbouet.
Ted,
I’m curious as to what your take is on this:
You don’t need a crew to make a film, you don’t need a cinematographer, you don’t need actors, and you don’t need a screenplay.
All you need is a director and a movie camera. (Actually you don’t even need a camera, as some of the films of Norman McLaren and Stan Brakhage, etc. would prove. But you do need a director.)
In my younger days, I made a number of films on my own with my wind-up Bolex. Some were edited in-camera, some I cut on my old Moviola. No crew, no actors.
So my question is, what’s the difference between my being the author of my films and a painter being the author of his canvass, or a writer being the author of his novel? And I mean that in a creative sense, not a legal one.
And if there is no difference, and the only thing one requires in order to make a film is a director, couldn’t it reasonably stated that film is a director’s medium?
I am interested to watch all the Hollywood films made without anyone but a director.
One could argue that since the commercial film industry is one of storytelling that film should be considered a writers medium.
Uh, Bill…no. Okay, you didn’t ask me, but that was so ridiculous I couldn’t restrain myself.
I realize that just about everyone here will disagree with my post (and god help me if Josh decides to go at it).
This is a writer’s forum. I get it. I’ll take it as a given that you all disagree vehemently.
The reason I’m asking Ted is because I want Ted’s take on it. I think it’s an interesting question, one I have heard repeatedly and I am not as quick to dismiss.
And I’m not just referring to commercial films, Anon. (Van Gogh didn’t paint commercial canvasses.) Or Hollywood films. Or indie films. Or experimental films. Or docs. I’m talking theoretically about film as an art form.
Sorry Bill, your proposal is so silly and inane (heh, right back atcha!) and so flawed, it’s simply not worthy a serious answer… However I second Paula’s sentiment. Try again.
Oh, and Anon-
Posted by Craig Mazin, Feb. 9, 2006:
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.
Bill,
“And I’m not just referring to commercial films, Anon. (Van Gogh didn’t paint commercial canvasses.) Or Hollywood films. Or indie films. Or experimental films. Or docs. I’m talking theoretically about film as an art form.”
No, you’re not. Film IS an art form. What you’re talking about is a very specific type of film, one that has no bearing whatsoever on this discussion. Your question is as close as anyone’s ever gotten here to asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Yes, a film that is made by one person and one person alone is a film by that person. Which you already knew.
“This is a writer’s forum. I get it.”
No, you don’t. It’s a classic form of backwards reasoning. “Because you are a writer, you must believe X.”
Try this:
“Because I believe X, I am a writer.”
A director without a script is just some dude on the unemployment line.
As for the Mazin comment you’ve cited, it’s primarily gibberish, so it’s hard to respond seriously, except to say that, once again, my worst assumptions about the guy seem to hold true.
Bill, sorry to chime in again - but that’s one man’s opinion. Hardly the official definition of the job of a director your argument requires to gain an iota of validity.
Well, a film can’t exist without some sort of recording medium, so I guess the true author of a film is the guy who manufactures the film stock.
A person could make a film without a director. Some directors cede much, if not all, of the technical directing aspects to the cinematographer. Now, you could say then, “In those cases the cinematographer is acting as the director, therefore, all it takes is a director.” And someone else might come back with, “When a director is telling a story, he’s acting as storyteller, which is the domain of the writer. Therefore, when doing much of his job, a director is just a writer. So the writers should be the authors of the film.”
And add to all this that television is widely considered to be a writers medium despite the fact that, as an art form, it is virtually indistinguishable from film.
Granted, writers take their own extra credit in TV with the “Created By” credit and some people might not denote a huge difference between that and the “Film By” on films.
Maybe that should be the standard for getting credit. If the director made a film like Bill describes, he can take the film by credit. Otherwise, no.
Hi Josh, (by the way, loved History of Violence)
When you say-
A director without a script is just some dude on the unemployment line
-you’re dismissing some very great, important work by Cassavettes, Maysles, Wiseman… some of their work was done with outlines, some with broad character sketches, but they all made great movies without scripts.
I didn’t realize you had to be employed to be considered an artist. People dismissed Van Gogh just as curtly in the day.
It might be hard to accept- and hard to do- but it remains possible in principle to make a commercial film without a script.
And I think it’s perfectly reasonable to assume writers would be threatened by a line of reasoning that downplays their importance in the creation of films. I just mean that a similar line of reasoning wouldn’t offend many in a director’s forum.
Anon-
…And a writer can’t write a book without some form of writing materials. So what’s your point?
Bill,
Jesus.
Yeah. There are always exceptions. ALWAYS. But two of the three you mentioned are documentary filmmakers, and one of ‘em would have been just as unemployed as a scriptless director if he didn’t have his actors, who were, essentially, co-writers.
So what’s your point?
As for Van Gogh, Vinnie wasn’t dependent on another artist to be able to do his work.
Look, if you have a valid response to what people are saying, offer it. But if you just want to dance around on the heads of pins, you’re gonna be a solo act.
Lastly, I’m not threatened by a line of argument that downplays the importance of writers. I’m disgusted by it. And you have yet to actually make one, by the way. All you’ve done is point out that there are execptions. The fact that I can buy a video camera, and vid myself picking my nose does not actually have any bearing on the fact that the “film by” credit is an offense to every single person who works on a film.
Josh,
I’m not arguing for the film by credit. I couldn’t care less either way. I’m not a screenwriter, nor a director. And the credit does nothing to hinder/heighten my appreciation of a film.
I am saying that it’s possible to make a film without a script, but not without a director. Regardless of how you dance around the issue, that much is true.
And I just wanted Ted’s take on it, in terms of its implications for the debate, as he has a lucid and dispassionate way of responding to a proposition.
But thanks for your time.
Bill — “I am saying that it’s possible to make a film without a script, but not without a director.”
Without a script, yes. But not without a “writer.” If you’re creating the story as you go along, you’re doing the same thing that a writer does, only without pen and paper.
Bill —
I think assigning possession of the medium of film — of any medium of expression, for that matter — to a job title, or to people who identify themselves by that job title, is silly.
I would say that film is a medium in which people who do the work associated with the term “director” may create individual works of authorship, but more typically make authorial contributions to collective works of authorship.
Thanks, Ted.
I can appreciate that assigning possession of the medium of film to a job title can be regarded as silly, though many would disagree.
But any medium of expression?
Saying that the novel is a writer’s medium is silly? I guess you lose me there. I assume you mean only mediums of expression where more than one artist is involved. Opera perhaps? Theatre?
But I guess making authorial contributions to collective works of authorship is a safe, if vague, bet.
Bill —
A novel is a type of work that can be created in the medium of the written word (or, if you will, a literary medium); it’s not a medium in-and-of-itself.
And saying that people who do the work identified by the term ‘director’ make authorial contributions to a collective work of authorship is not “vague.” Certainly, its a generality, but but that’s all it can be, absent discussion of a specific work.
Nor is it a “safe bet.” There’s some people who absolutely reject the idea that the work directors do is in anyway creative, or constitutes any creative contribution to a motion picture. Witness Josh’s dismissal of Craig’s statements as “gibberish.”
I believe I tried to post this a couple days ago but it didn’t go up. The gist didn’t really matter, but at the heart of the Film by credit is what Ted said, and I’m sure all of us already knew. It’s collaborative, and as for who ‘deserves’ the credit; that changes from film to film. Sydney Lumet’s Network had one opening credit I remember from when I watched it at last year’s pre-oscar film series. “A Paddy Chadayefsky Film” Both the director and playwright were extremely well established and noteworthy. Chadayefsky didn’t ask for a co-director credit and Sydney Lumet didn’t get a Film by credit. In my opinion a “film by” or “A __ film” credit should be determined on a case by case basis by the collaborators of the piece, and if they can’t agree, ignore it entirely - or just let the producer take it all to him/herself. iirc, lots of early films gave it to the producers or the company which was basically the producers’ name. [i.e. De Laurentiis]
And as for Mr. Olson’s apparent deflating of an unemployed director as an artist, I didn’t see it that way. In the end, if he/she’s doing it all him/herself, then s/he is on the unemployment line.
As for novelists, yes 99% of it is the writer, but the good ones know how to humbly thank their editors, readers, agents, friends, etc. It’s hard to imagine something done solely on the back of one person.
Back to topic, I don’t think it should be in the DGA contract, but I do understand why they felt the need to protect that credit of authorship from the producer.
John,
You’re making a core assumption that’s fallacious. You’re assuming that a possessory credit is somehow essential, that it MUST be established who the “author” of the film is. No such need exists. The director will be credited as the director. The writer will be credited as the writer. The key grip as the key grip, and so on. A seperate credit that indicates…. what, exactly?… is extraneous, and, in the end, meaningless.
John —
The DGA Basic Agreement doesn’t guarantee directors the “A Film by” credit (or any possessory credit). Rather, it guarantees directors the right to negotiate for above-minimum credit, and affirsm that all individuals — that’s all individuals, producers, writers, DPs, composers, caterers, anyone — employed by DGA Signatory Companies have the same right.
However, in their last negotiation, the DGA added a sideletter to their Basic Agreement that prohibited a possessive (possessory) credit from being accorded to a director on his/her first film, unless the director was also responsible for bringing the literary material to the Company (ie, writer-directors can still negotiate for and receive a possessory credit on their first film).
So, basically, the DGA contract ensures that anyone can indiviudally negotiate an above-the-title credit, but prohibits Companies from agreeing to an above-the-line credit for a director on his/her first film.
The WGA Basic Agreement prohibits writers from individually negotiating an above-the-line credit.
“The WGA Basic Agreement prohibits writers from individually negotiating an above-the-line credit.”
What!?
Why are writer’s choosing to screw themselves? This is the first time I’ve heard of this.
Ted,
I don’t doubt you at all on this sort of thing. But it seems at odds with what I’ve heard first hand from two friends in the DGA, which is that they had to actively opt out of the “film by” credit. They had to write letters to their guild explaining why they weren’t taking the credit. That doesn’t seem to be the same thing as actively campaigning FOR it.
“Anonymous” —
The WGA MBA prohibits sig companies from giving any form of writing credit other than those specified in the MBA. This used to be called the “Robert Towne rule” — Towne worked on The Godfather, but didn’t receive MBA-sanctioned credit, so the produces put a prominent credit at the end of the movie, thanking him.
Regardless of the controversy over arbitration, there is a good reason to preserve the sanctity of the MBA writing credits — unlike any other on-screen credit, including any directors’ credit, writers’ credits are contractual recognition of authorship of the final script.
I’ve suggested that the WGA should negotiate for what I call the “Paddy Chayefsky credit” — a form of above-the-title credit that could negotiated by writers individually, one that a writer could receive only if:
A ) he/she (or they, as a team) receive the credit “Written by”; and
B ) if the director takes an above-the-title credit
This has garnered virtually no support whatsoever.
Josh —
I can only tell you what it says in the DGA Basic Agreement: directors are not guaranteed a possessive/possessory credit; they only have the right to negotiate for one.
Now, in practice, it may be that pretty much every Company will give a possessory credit to any feature director that asks for it. And — and I know how controversial this statement will be, but it’s nonetheless true — it is actually in the best interests of all U.S. directors collectively, present and future, for every director to take a possessory credit. So I can certainly see the DGA, which represents the interests of directors collectively, pressuring all directors to take it.
Do you know whether the DGA asks directors who don’t take the possessory credit to include some kind of specific content or phrasing in their opt-out letters? Or could you ask your friends?
P.S. I know one director who lobbied the DGA to allow him to share his possessive credit with the writer. The DGA said, adamantly, no way.
-
I’m a director, and I’m all for the “film by” credit. It recognizes all the things I do that I don’t get credit for — the guidance I give to all the departments, and the uncredited writing I do on the screenplay.
David C. -
Last time I checked giving guidance to all the departments is part of the director’s job. Why do you demand extra credit for it?
Do you also take teamster credit for dropping off your lead actress at starbucks? How about taking a catering credit for that day you handed the DP a string of red licorice?
As far a uncredited rewrites are concerned - who is stopping you from submitting your draft for arbitration?
Ted,
” know how controversial this statement will be, but it’s nonetheless true — it is actually in the best interests of all U.S. directors collectively, present and future, for every director to take a possessory credit”
It would be controversial if they did it, but hardly controversial for you to suggest it’s in their best interests. Definitely would be.
Gonna check with my director friends about the letter. Definitely an interesting subject if it’s NOT in the agreement.
“David C”
You’re a bore and a coward. Feel free to contact me and I’d be happy to address your ignorance.
If I ever end up having to do real aribitration with twelve other writers, though, I’ll be sure to drop you a line. I know you could give me some tips….
David C.,
While I’m not nearly as offended by the `A Film By…’ credit as many here, I think your comment comes off as rather ignorant and egotistical. It sounds to me like you want extra credit for doing what is basically your job. The director gets the final beginning credits, and the first credit after the film ends. He/she is cited in 99% of reviews and is more associated with the film than anyone other than the star of the film. In most non-trade publications, the director is the ONLY non-actor listed. What more do you want?
Most directors have not created the story or the characters in the film, they have not brought all the talent together to make the film, they have not created the look of the film, nor have they brought the characters to life. And that’s not even mentioning post production. The director is responsible for directing all the people involved in the film, but he/she does not actually create it.
Why take a credit that insults so many of the people that help create the film you direct? Because your ego needs a little more of a boost?
A novel writer can say `A Book By…’ because they are the sole creative force behind the book. The publisher publishes, but the author is not dependent on them to actually complete the novel.
A painter is solely responsible for their painting, because they are the only creative force behind it.
A director is one of a handful of people who are responsible for the creation of the film. When you can figure out how to get rid of those other creative people, then I don’t think anyone would have a problem saying that the film is by you.
Here’s one vote for the institution of the “annoying lead actor” possessory credit. As in “A Steven Seagall Movie,” or “Yet Another Film in Which Tom Cruise Leaps Over Stuff Frequently and Shouts a Lot.”
Also, side note to Tim W.: Although my own contributions here tilt primarily toward the pointless-bullshit end of the spectrum, I am a fan of substance too, and your posts on all topics are a continual favorite…. Not only do you appear to be correct about things roughly 100% of the time, but they’re also uniformly a pleasure to read.
(No one on the internet ever stops griping and arguing long enough to pay a compliment. Figured I’d try it; see if the universe ends.)
Johnny:
“As far a uncredited rewrites are concerned - who is stopping you from submitting your draft for arbitration?”
You’ve hit on the problem exactly. The Writers Guild made up a rule that makes it harder for a director to get credit on a movie than a writer. So I can completely rework a pedestrian script, elevate it into a work of of art, but if a group of WRITERS decides that I haven’t hit their arbitrary limit, my name doesn’t go on.
Maybe it shouldn’t bother me, but it does. If “film by” is the only way I can show the world that maybe the genius didn’t spring out of the script, full born, then so be it.
Because if your goal is really to stop people from claiming credit for work that isn’t fully theirs, then set your own house in order, writers.
So, the claim is that “Directed By” doesn’t cover translating the script to screen, so there needs to be another credit that may or may no include any number of things including what most people think of as directing.
Got it.
Personally, I don’t care if a director takes the credit, especially since it doesn’t mean anything. It’s just not something I would do personally because it seems silly to me to want it.
Davd C. —
Although I agree with you that the WGA’s policy on awarding credit in arbitration is biased, pointing to it as justification for the director’s possessory credit is disingenuous. For one thing, the possessory credit pre-dates any Guild involvement in credit determination by decades. For another, regardless of anything some writers might think, legally, contractually, the one thing the possessory credit absolutely excludes is any claim to authorship of the literary material used in the movie. And, finally, you are subject to that policy voluntarily, not by dint of being employed under Guild jurisdiction, but because you’ve opted to be a full member of the WGA.
My position on the possessory credit is not in keeping with that of a lot of other writers, so its doesn’t bother me if you take the credit or not — but, geez, man, sack up, and don’t try to pretend you’re taking the credit because you can’t get on-screen writing credit. Because you know that if you did get on-screen writing credit, you’d use that as justification for taking the possessory.
Hey, who needs the ego boost of “A Film By…” credit when I’ve got E.e. doing that for me. Thanks for the compliment. As for being right 100% of the time, maybe I could give you my wife’s email and you could explain that to her. For some reason, she won’t take my word for it.
Now back to your regularly scheduled arguing and griping.
“We directors who have possessory credits have hard-earned them over many years for good reason. We are paid big money because we can bring audience-pulling star quality to our films as a whole. We bring it by our personal influence over all including the writer. As a typical example take my own latest case, ‘David Lean’s film of Doctor Zhivago.’ I worked one year with the writer. Unlike him I directed not only the actors but the cameraman, set designer, costume designer, sound men, editor, composer and even the laboratory in their final print. Unlike him I chose the actors, the technicians, the subject and him to write it. I staged it. I filmed it. It was my film of his script which I shot when he was not there. If a director, writer or producer cannot claim such overall responsibility it should not be called his film. If he can, it truly is his film. Sincerely, David Lean.”
Discuss.
Mr. Lean sounds like he has a bug up his butt about something. Maybe his iPhone got stolen.
David C:
Here’s an idea: WRITE YOUR OWN DAMN SCRIPT.
Then you won’t have to go through arbitration at all. Stare down that blank page and show the world, once and for all, your singular genius.
David C.
Stating that your uncredited contributions to the screenplay entitle you to the film by credit is of course absurd.
It is also proof that you’re totally missing the point…
This is not an issue of writers vs directors. The possessory credit is an insult to the entire list of names in the closing credits. These are the people that made the film… under your direction.
Talk about your direction, I don’t believe the scenario you describe ever actually happened to you, i.e. I don’t believe you ever directed a film for a signatory company and despite contributing 50 % to the final draft of the screenplay were denied writing credit in arbitration.
Maybe if you’d reveal your identity and the title of the production you are referring to your words would carry more, scratch that, some weight.
All those things David Lean talks about fall under the Jeopardy category, “Things Directors Do.”
For all those directors out there who need extra credit, there’s always the option of creating a body of work that is so distinctive that people will call it “your” film, whether you take a possessory credit or not. I have no idea whether Woody Allen, Cassavetes, or Fellini used the possessory credit, but what’s clear is they didn’t need it. Their unique talents were evident on the screen and are widely recognized. This is not to minimize the contributions of the other artists involved (great directors work with great actors, writers, costume designers, set designers, cinemotagraphers…).
Unique artistry is not about job title. It’s about human genius, which is rare in any medium at any time in human history. Michaelangelo had this kind of genius. He was an original. So was Mozart. So is Woody Allen. And you know what, so is Charlie Kaufman, the SCREENWRITER. Maybe Charlie should get a possessory credit. He certainly deserves it far more than most directors working in this business today (no disrespect, but let’s admit it, that kind of creative genius is rare). And yet, to give him one would ignore the vital contributions of Spike Jones (Being John Malkovich, Adaptation) and Michel Gondry (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind). Maybe we should act like five year olds and just share instead of trying to hog all the credit for ourselves.
Mr. Olson,
I seem to have given you the wrong impression. Yes, I was arguing under the fallacious assumption that a ‘film by’ credit was ‘necessary,’ because I thought we were discussing more who should get it than whether it should be there at all. Personally, if that once in a blue moon chance does happen and I get a directed by credit, no way in hell am I going to fight for a ‘film by’ credit. It’s superfluous and silly and only really useful for marketing purposes. I was just showing the side of the coin where the authorship credit wasn’t given to the director. I was also addressing the chance that even if you don’t want it, someone involved in the project does.
As for Lean’s note, if the writer was fighting with him over a film by credit, than that note makes some sense. That being said, an ‘authorship’ credit really isn’t necessary at all for a director- especially not one as good as Lean.
I worked on a movie once where the director was, truly, the fourth or fifth most important person in creating what ultimately ended up on screen.
That director got a “Film By” credit.
He also got an Oscar nomination.
“Talk about your direction, I don’t believe the scenario you describe ever actually happened to you, i.e. I don’t believe you ever directed a film for a signatory company and despite contributing 50 % to the final draft of the screenplay were denied writing credit in arbitration.”
So if I wrote 45% I don’t deserve any credit because I’m the director? Your rules are obscene.
And no matter what Ted said, I don’t remember having a choice to opt out of the arbitration guidelines.
My only solace in all of this is that I directed two movies back to back with different credited writers, and the reviews have been similarly excellent and talked about the constant tone, writing and vision.
All of which proves, to me, that “film by” means something different than “written by.”
“So if I wrote 45% I don’t deserve any credit because I’m the director? Your rules are obscene.”
No one here claimed the arbitration process isn’t flawed. I believe Ted acknowledged a certain bias. But the arbitration process has zilch to do with the possessive credit. Your point?
“And no matter what Ted said, I don’t remember having a choice to opt out of the arbitration guidelines.”
Nobody (who works for a sig com) does. And I don’t recall Ted saying you did, did he?
“My only solace in all of this is that I directed two movies back to back with different credited writers, and the reviews have been similarly excellent and talked about the constant tone, writing and vision.”
So you earned your directed by credit, awesome.
“All of which proves, to me, that “film by” means something different than “written by.””
It sure does. It sure does…
You know what strikes me as funny? The fact that you vehemently demand the right to put your name over the title of a film you directed, but don’t have the balls to put your full name under a post you have written.
This Steve Martin essay on the “a film by” credit is pretty amusing:
http://www.compleatsteve.com/essays/filmby.htm
“Frank Capra didn’t have the ‘A film by…’ credit and today he’s practically forgotten.” Gotta love Steve Martin.
Riddle me this, David C:
# # #Let’s say a screenplay described or suggested all kinds of details, like framing, lenses, film stock, blocking, editing, costumes, lighting, motivation, sound, music, art direction, set design, color, action, etc. At what threshold would that writer be entitled to share directing credit?
Sound crazy? Ever read a William Goldman screenplay? I’ll save you the trouble. Here’s an excerpt from BUTCH CASSIDY:
FADE IN ON
The ENTIRE SCREEN is deep shadow. Almost. The upper right-hand corner is white, a white that almost stings to look at. (The opening sequences of the film, until otherwise stated, are in a grainy black and white. Color comes later.)
HOLD ON THE SHOT.
Eventually, it begins to come clear that the darkness is the side of a building, together with the shadow of that building on the ground, while the white is the afternoon sun. But if we don’t know quite what it is that we’re seeing at this point, that’s all right. Now the shadow of a MAN begins to fill the bright white corner. As the shadow lengthens—
CUT TO
A MAN idly walking around the building. He is BUTCH CASSIDY and hard to pin down. Thirty-five and bright, he has brown hair, but most people, if asked to describe him, would remember him as blonde. He speaks well and quickly, and has been all his life a leader of men, but if you asked him, he would be damned if he could tell you why.
CUT TO
BUTCH, stopping by a window, giving it a glance.
CUT TO
THE WINDOW. It is heavily and magnificantly barred.
CUT TO
BUTCH scowling briefly at the bars. He moves in towards the window to look through, and as he does, there begins a series of QUICK CUTS. (BUTCH, it might be note here, is casing the bank, and what he is doing as his eyes flick from place to place inside is probing the place for weaknesses. But if we don’t know quite what it is that’s going on at this point, that’s all right too.)
CUT TO
A DOOR. It is thick and solid metal and strong.
CUT TO
PAPER MONEY being counted by ten skilled fingers.
CUT TO
A GUN IN A HOLSTER, belonging to a MAN in a guard’s uniform.
CUT TO
A WINDOW HIGH UP ON ONE WALL. It is, if anything, more heavily and magnificantly barred than the first.
CUT TO
THE DOOR OF A BANK SAFE. It is behind shining bars and it is the kind of safe that has a time lock and
CUT TO
BUTCH, eyes expertly flicking from place to place. Then he starts to walk around the bank again, and he isn’t happy.
CUT TO
A BANK GUARD. It is closing time now and he is slamming metal plates into place, the sound loud and sharp and final.
PULL BACK TO REVEAL
BUTCH, watching the GUARD work.
BUTCH
What was the matter with that old bank this town used to have? It was beautiful.
GUARD
(continuing to slam things shut) People kept robbing it.
Do you feel that Goldman deserves to share directing credit with George Roy Hill?
Yeah, David C., who are you? What films have you directed and, apparently, rewritten?
Btw, I’m a little confused about your experience with the WGA arbitration process. Have you been through the process and If so, what happened exactly?
Anonymous:
Goldman should share writing credit with David C., as David C.’s genius seeped into the written words by mere merit of him, David C., reading the above passage, and thereby elevating Goldman’s pedestrian writing to the highest level of excellence.
Really, David deserves A FILM BY credit for it was he and he alone who inserted the dvd into his player, thus, without David C.’s genius, the film would not have played back and consequently never been seen in this particular instance.
David C,
It’s incumbent upon me to point out that almost every one of those raves has also stated that your new film isn’t as good or as substantive as your last one. And some of us critics feel your current impersonation of a world-class auteur is less than convincing.
Thanks for the flowers, though. I’m feeling much better now.
Roger,
“some of us critics feel your current impersonation of a world-class auteur is less than convincing.”
Would you say it’s deserving of a Razzie?
I’m beginning to think David C. is just Josh’s old pal come here to wind him up. There just cannot be this much arrogance contained in a single person without his brain blowing up, even if that person is a movie director.
C’mon…you guys do get that this guy is pretending to be David Cronenberg, right?
Damn it, Kevin, I was going for a bit of subtlety and you had to ruin it all. ;-)
But the scary thing is that there are a lot of people who actually think that way… though they mostly come to terms with reality once they leave film school and enter the real world.
Sorry, Petrich, I just couldn’t take people continuing to ask serious questions to that guy. It was driving me nuts.
And just to clarify, yes, when Larry and I write, direct, and produce something, we do take the “Film By” credit.
Why?
Because of our ego, that’s why. It’s all about ego. We all have it, let’s not bullshit each other. Let’s not play the “we’re all so noble” game cause we’d all lose.
And if taking a “Film By” credit is the worst thing I ever do in life…I think I can live with that.
Every time you take a “A Film By” credit, god kills a kitten.
Thank God. Kittens are so annoying.
Kevin,
“Because of our ego, that’s why. It’s all about ego. We all have it, let’s not bullshit each other.”
Having it and being able to control it are - obviously - two different things.
“And just to clarify, yes, when Larry and I write, direct, and produce something, we do take the “Film By” credit.”
We heard you the first time…
Nobody gives a shit what you and Larry do.
Though I must say if there’s one thing I loathe more than established directors taking the vanity credit, it’s total unknowns taking it.
Olson argues the absurdity of “a film by” credit well.
It seems most of the people who argue for it are nubed out and know not much of nothing.
Well, when it comes to ego-stroking, I’m sure there are ways to do it that are much less offensive to your co-workers than taking a Film By credit:
Have your wife compliment on your bedly capabilities.
Read positive criticism of your work.
Admire your godly physique in a full-length mirror.
Beat a small child in a game of marbles.
Have your assistant compose an epic poem in the honour of your conquests.
I’m sure each of us could find something from that list to satisfy.
I actually have a serious question this time, regarding credits: who decides the order of the credits? For example, if the credits are at the end of the movie, it is customary for the editor’s credit to come after the production designer’s credit, which comes after the DP’s credit.
I assume the usual order was created through some sort of agreement between the DGA, WGA, ASC, ACE, CSA, etc. at least when it comes to major studio pictures.
So my questions are: how was that agreement achieved? How did it go from Floyd Crosby sharing his title card on High Noon with Grace Kelly’s hairdresser, to what we have today?
And finally, what penalty would be inflicted upon someone who would change the usual order of things?
Hoping for useful answers to silly questions, yours truly, Steve.
“It seems most of the people who argue for it are nubed out and know not much of nothing.”
Since the only one here offering any kind of counter argument here appears to be a fraud, allow me to offer these names up in consideration - they were willing to strike to protect the possessory credit back when.
David Lean, Robert Aldrich, Claude Binyon, Richard Brooks, David Butler, Frank Capra, William Castle, Hal Cooper, Roger Corman, George Cukor, Frederick De Cordova, Delmer Daves, Blake Edwards, John Frankenheimer, Willis Goldbeck, Mark Goode, Ray Gosnell, Walter Grauman, Arthur Hiller, Alfred Hitchcock, Norman Jewison, Henry King, Stanley Kramer, Buzz Kulik, Sheldon Leonard, Mervyn LeRoy, Joshua Logan, Delbert Mann, George Marshall, Vincente Minnelli, Ralph Nelson, Mike Nichols, Otto Preminger, John Rich, Martin Ritt, Mark Robson, George Schaefer, Franklin Schaffner, Lesley Selander, Jack Shea, George Sidney, Elliot Silverstein, Josef Von Sternberg, George Stevens, John Sturges, David Swift, King Vidor, Charles Walters, Charles Wasserman, Don Weis, Billy Wilder, Robert Wise, William Wyler and Fred Zinnemann.
Not exactly nubes.
http://www.dga.org/thedga/crgiwga.php3
Ruari,
I hope that fifty years after I’m dead, some schmuck doesn’t put me on a list like that to bolster an argument without having the slightest idea of what my views actually were.
If I spent half an hour compiling an even larger list of great writers, actors, editors, and DPs who thought it was an absurd credit, it would mean only that I was as bad at making my case as you are.
Johnny,
You have a point. When I see “A film by Francois Truffaut,” it does, at least, play on the fact that Truffaut’s name actually MEANS something. But when I see “A film by Bilbo Dotweiller,” it’s pretty clear we’re dealing with some poor schmuck who’s just overcompensating. Point being that it’s a fucked up credit when it’s a genuine Big Name, semi-auteur director, but it’s REALLY fucked up - and pathetic - when it’s a nobody.
My favorite is when you also see the same Nobody’s name on the poster seventeen times.
Speaking of which, y’all have GOT to check out The Room at the Sunset 5 at one of its monthly midnight showings. Truly amazing, and I believe its auteurist director took a producer AND an executive producer credit.
Woo, Johnny.
Seriously…are you obsessed with me or what? You mention or refer to me more than anyone else I know.
So just for the record…you’re not my type.
Idiot.
Umm…yeah, obviously. But to infer that you have your ego in check is blatantly absurd.
“Ruari,
I hope that fifty years after I’m dead, some schmuck doesn’t put me on a list like that to bolster an argument without having the slightest idea of what my views actually were.
If I spent half an hour compiling an even larger list of great writers, actors, editors, and DPs who thought it was an absurd credit, it would mean only that I was as bad at making my case as you are.”
If you actually bother to read the article, you’d see that I didn’t invent that list. Every name on the list was unanimously in support of the possessive credit for directors. In fact, every damn quote in the article goes out of it’s way to reiterate just how unified they “all” were.
http://www.dga.org/thedga/crgiwga.php3
For some reason the link was screwy first time. If the above still doesn’t work, the article is titled “DGA | CREATIVE RIGHTS | A FILM BY: BY TED ELRICK” - easy to find on google.
Anyway, it’s not really MY case Josh. I just find the argument kind of interesting, but as presented here, it’s pretty one-sided, what with most of you guys being writers and all.
Personally, I’m fairly easy about the whole possessive credit thing, which is why you’ll notice the “argument” I presented was so flimsy. Because I didn’t actually offer one. I’m neither strongly for or against, and my position on this is in a state of constant flux. Currently, I think it depends on the individual project. I think it should be earned. And I think it’s a useful marketing tool, ESPECIALLY for nobodies. I think it’s reasonable for directors who do more than just direct (and I think that should be a condition of receiving the credit)
Btw, could you do me the courtesy of spelling my name correctly when you are dismissing me,
Yours sincerely, Ruairí Robinson, Schmuck
http://www.dga.org/thedga/crgiwga.php3
Damn…sorry.
The director’s possessory credit has far greater significance than mere ego-stroking. It does not mean the same thing as “Directed by,” so its not a duplicate credit or an extra credit. It does not claim credit for writing the screenplay, or composing the music, or for creating any other work of authorship used in the production of the movie.
It claims credit for authorship of the movie itself, which is a separate and distinct work of authorship in its own right.
And, because it is actually given to someone by the Company that is, under U.S. law, the legal author of the movie, it recognizes the director as the de facto author of the movie.
All the shunning, name-calling, finger-pointing and ridiculing will not convince them to give that up.
And, quite frankly, they’d be stupid to do so. In point of fact, because I roundly reject the idea that the Company that finances the production of a movie is the de facto author of that movie, I think Craig is stupid not to take a possessory credit on Superhero! If he’s not the de facto author of the movie — or, at least, a de facto author of the movie — then who is?
The Weintraub Company?
Nutz to that.
NOTE: Authorship has nothing to do with the auteur theory. The auteur theory is a mode of film criticism, and that’s all. Authorship is a philosophical principle that pre-dates the auteur theory by centuries, and underlies copyright and intellectual property law worldwide.
-
Kevin,
“Umm…yeah, obviously. But to infer that you have your ego in check is blatantly absurd.”
Significantly more in check than yours, obviously. I’ve never taken credit for work that isn’t mine, nor have I ever jumped the gun and declared myself something I am not.
I understand the needs of the ego. You are correct when you state everyone does. Where you’re wrong is when you assert that it’s something we’d all like to do. Personally, I really don’t understand taking that credit. It’s meanspirited and insulting to the people who do the lion’s share of the work.
I understand an ego that wants to verbally bitch-slap some know-nothing amateur when he asserts he’s your creative equal because he, like you, owns a keyboard and has internet access. I do not understand an ego that wants to deny credit to other people for their good work, especially when their good work makes my job easier. That’s not raw, healthy, ego, pal. That’s something uglier. If you’re gonna own it, at least name it properly.
Ruairí,
Link don’t work, bubba. Nor is it interesting. Believe it or not, I’ve heard the arguments. They’re always self-serving. The argument folks here are making against the film by credit is anything but self-serving.
Yeah! What Ted said!
Isn’t it amazing what an educated voice sounds like?
I doubt we’ll ever get the DGA to give it up. I disagree on one thing, though - making fun of it, finger pointing, ridiculing and shaming do, actually, have an effect on an individual basis. I’ve seen it work.
And obviously you’re pretty biased if you believe that you do the lion’s share of the work. Keep in mind this isn’t a fact. Perhaps true in some cases but obviously not a fact.
It’s just your dumb opinion.
Despite the shocking revelation that “David C” was a silly joke, no one stepped forward to answer my question:
At what threshold should the writer of a sufficiently detailed screenplay be entitled to share the directing credit? 35%? 50%? Should there be a DGA arbitration process?
Josh —
I don’t consider it a triumph for writers if a director doesn’t take a possessory credit that recognizes the director as the de facto author of the movie.
I consider it a *tragedy for writers that we are prohibited from even negotiating for a possessory credit that recognizes the writer as the de facto author of the movie.
Because the credited writer on a movie has just as much and just as legitimate claim to de facto authorship of the movie as the credited director, if not moreso.
“Link don’t work, bubba. Nor is it interesting. Believe it or not, I’ve heard the arguments. They’re always self-serving. The argument folks here are making against the film by credit is anything but self-serving.”
Just because it’s self serving doesn’t make it automatically “wrong”. In the sense that expecting to be paid for your work is obviously self-serving too, but obviously not wrong. But I make no claims about being an expert here. I’m just trying to find out more.
Ted’s point (cheers Ted) about the defacto authorship certainly clarifies the argument as being about a lot more than JUST ego.
Anyway, my jury is still out.
Ted - what does this defacto authorship actually MEAN in practical terms…?
Anonymous —
I didn’t think your question was serious. Of course, there’s no point where someone whose work on a movie is limited solely to writing or revising the screenplay should get credit for directing the movie. Similarly, there’s no point where someone whose work on a movie is limited solely to directing the movie should get credit for writing or revising the screenplay.
Ted -
“I think Craig is stupid not to take a possessory credit on Superhero! If he’s not the de facto author of the movie — or, at least, a de facto author of the movie — then who is?”
Why does there need to be a de facto author?
There is no harm done in a director, as in Craig’s case, opting not to take the credit. Either way, the studio is - and remains - the legal author. The vanity credit is just that… for show. Rather than fighting to give writers the right to negotiate for the equivalent to a possessive credit, why not abandon the concept of such a credit period?
Personally I find that threats of Rape by specially trained giraffe are the most effective means of winning an intellectual argument. Though the effectiveness is admittedly reduced when the threat is delivered via the internet. In person though, the I assure you, it is TERRIFYING. Especially when the giraffe is backlit, so you can’t see his eyes. You just don’t know what he’s thinking. That’s the worst part.
Anyways….
I still don’t see a big difference between “A Film By…” credit and “A [name here] Film”, other than the fact that one is offensive to others. I mean I understand the literal difference, but in the grand scheme of things, both are possessory. Why not simply take the “A [name here] Film” credit and save everyone the headache? As I said before, I think it looks a lot better, anyway. “A Film By” credit, quite frankly, looks a little amateurish, like you’ve made some sort art film no one is going to see.
No, no. When there’s a shaft of light across the eyes, like Christopher Lambert in Highlander, that’s fuckin’ terrifying.
Especially if you know…it’s a 35 foot animal.
Ted,
“I consider it a *tragedy for writers that we are prohibited from even negotiating for a possessory credit that recognizes the writer as the de facto author of the movie.”
I guess…. only inasmuch as director’s AREN’T prohibited from it.
“Because the credited writer on a movie has just as much and just as legitimate claim to de facto authorship of the movie as the credited director, if not moreso.”
I’d say moreso, but it’s still a very sticky issue.
“Of course, there’s no point where someone whose work on a movie is limited solely to writing or revising the screenplay should get credit for directing the movie.”
Actually, Anonymous has a damn fine point, and you’re breezing past it. When a screenwriter delivers specific, explicit direction on the page, why isn’t that considered directing? Because it’s written and not spoken?
Josh:
I think scripted directions don’t qualify as directing for two reasons.
They account for a very narrow aspect of what the job of film directing entails.
More importantly, they are not mandatory, nor is there even the slightest guarantee that they will be followed at all during production of the scene.
Frankly, if we were to assign “directing” status to writers who type out “Gary moves to the window” in their scripts, I think we’d have to start handing out directing status to storyboard artists quite a bit sooner.
Nonetheless, and this all gets a bit academic I suppose, but to me the notion that Gary is walking to a window, or that we see money counted, or that an armored car is squealing around a corner…
…that’s writing.
But…
Where does the camera go? What size lens? Is it moving or static? What do the objects actually look like? How long are we watching each shot? Which car? Who plays Gary? How is Gary saying his lines? What does his silence impart when he walks to the window? Are we hearing ambient sounds, score, source cues…how much? How loud? What’s Gary wearing? How big is the room? How fast does Gary talk? How bright is the room?
Blah blah blah. You’ve directed before. You get my point (maybe, I dunno, I presume you’ll argue with me regardless, doesn’t really matter).
I believe that screenwriters and directors are the coauthors of the film, inasmuch as the film is authored.
I believe their roles are quite nicely separable.
I believe that the screenwriter is the primary author of the film in most cases, but there are cases where the director’s authorship takes prominence.
Either way, I think calling what Anonymous delineated “directing” is insulting to what’s so primary about screenwriting. That’s writing, dammit. That’s what we do.
Kevin,
“And obviously you’re pretty biased if you believe that you do the lion’s share of the work. Keep in mind this isn’t a fact. Perhaps true in some cases but obviously not a fact.”
Seriously, man, you’re not even in the room. Try to understand what someone’s saying before you flip out on them. Or if you’re come online and post when you’re drunk out of your mind, do what I do, and post under an assumed name. I like to use “Craig Mazin.”
PS: Posting physical threats to someone who’s criticized you harshly is just sad, man. What’s it prove? You still have to live with the same insecurities that drive you take that stupid credit. You still have to do the damn work to prove you are what you want everyone to see you as. If you can’t handle a forum devoted to WORDS without resorting to threats, what the fuck are you doing writing?
What are you going to do when your work actually gets out into the real world, where there are blue meanie critics who are gonna say stuff that’s WAY worse than anything he - or I, or anyone else here - has said about you?
I mean it - when Owen Glieberman writes that it’s kinda sad for a coupla guys nobody’s ever heard of to take a “film by” credit, are you gonna threaten to punch his lights out, too?
Lemme know if it works.
Craig,
“Where does the camera go? What size lens? Is it moving or static? What do the objects actually look like? How long are we watching each shot? Which car? Who plays Gary? How is Gary saying his lines? What does his silence impart when he walks to the window? Are we hearing ambient sounds, score, source cues…how much? How loud? What’s Gary wearing? How big is the room? How fast does Gary talk? How bright is the room?”
All of which are jobs done by the director… or not. Every one of those decisions is one the director can choose to make, or hand off to someone else, and still get the credit.
My point was not that we should give writers co-directing credits, but that it needs to be recognized that writing the script is a lot more than just laying out some ideas for the REAL visionary to run with.
“Either way, I think calling what Anonymous delineated “directing” is insulting to what’s so primary about screenwriting. That’s writing, dammit. That’s what we do.”
Yup. And what we do involves a lot more creativity than simply directing the movie, and we STILL don’t deserve “film by” credit.
PS: Let’s be clear - I don’t argue with Lean’s premise that directing is a lot more physical labor than the writer’s. I just argue with the notion that that matters in the slightest. If it did, the director would be one of the last people eligible for the “film by” credit. Cos let me tell ya, I’ve worked grip, and I’ve directed, and one of ‘em’s a HELL of a lot more work than the other.
Okay, I don’t think you and I really disagree much on this, save maybe for one thing.
As Geddy Lee sang, if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
The director is responsible for all of those things mentioned above.
I don’t physically frame the shots, but I approve them before we roll. Sometimes I ask for corrections. Sometimes I say, “That’s good. Let’s go.” In the end, though, the director has responsibilities, and those responsibilities (regardless of the director’s desire to make decision) comprise the sum total of what we call “directing.”
Other than that…yup. Spot on.
Look, I have to delete comments attacking Olson, comments attacking Kevin, comments attacking Johnny…
…c’mon people. You know the rules. They’re not hard. I can’t catch everything. Doing my best here. Try and restrain yourselves.
Keep…the tone….CIVIL. Very very simple.
The Film By credit is bullshit. But the WGA gave up that fight a long time ago. I don’t know why. I’m sure it’s a long and fascinating story.
It’s sad though. Because now here we sit—fighting for compensation for product placement and for reality writers to be in our guild. Yay us! :barf:
And, for the record, I have never posted on this page or any other writer’s website under any name other than my own.
Also, I don’t think even “David C.” believes what he’s saying. He’s just trolling…and trolling well, I might add.
“PS: Let’s be clear - I don’t argue with Lean’s premise that directing is a lot more physical labor than the writer’s.”
Except he said nothing of PHYSICAL labour. AT least in the quote referenced here…
Craig,
“As Geddy Lee sang, if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.”
Indeed. But I choose to appoint someone else to plot my scripts, and another person to write the dialogue, I don’t get to say it’s a script by Josh Olson. Unless I’m…. well, we all know one or two of those. But you get the point.
By the way, I just want to add - much as I hate the “film by” credit, it DID provide the single biggest laugh I had in a theater this year.
Went to see Captivity - let’s not get into the why - and at the end of the movie, after ninety or so minutes of moronic torture porn, the film goes to black, and then the credit -
A Film By Roland Joffe.
Fucking hilarious.
Ruari —
In-and-of-itself, the recognition of de facto authorship doesn’t have much practical value. However, since its inception, the DGA has worked hard to get directors — theatrical directors, at least — contractual rights that are commiserate with that standing (it’s why “final cut” is the holy grail of directors). The DGA also makes sure that any time authorial rights in motion pictures are infringed upon, or legislation is being considered that may alter or impact those rights — colorization, piracy, the “ClearView” DVD editing thing, digitial copyright law, etc — directors are always at the forefront of the fight to preserve the greatest possible economic and moral rights for the authors.
Because the work-made-for-hire law says it is, not because the sutdio has actually done the work attendant to authorship. Creating a unique expression of an idea is and always be something that can be done only by real, natural-born-type individuals. I don’t discount the financial contribution necessary to put that unique expression into a fixed form — but the work-made-for-hire law discounts all contributions other than the financial.
In other words, the law is wrong. Laws can be changed — in fact, the parts of this law that deals with visual arts (painting, photography, architecture, sculpture) have been changed, to ensure the individual creator has rights in a work indepdendent of any assignment of copyright, and regardless of any work-made-for-hire agreement. In other words, rights that attach not to legal authorship, but de facto authorship. These changes in the law were necessary in order for the U.S. to become signatory to the Berne Convention. As further homogenity of U.S. copyright law with that of other nations is necessitated by globalization, the opportunity is there to make that recognition of de facto authorship not just a contractual matter, but a legislative one.
Or, the short answer: there must be de facto authors because works of authorship are, in fact, creaed by individuals, and not legal entities.
By the way: per the WGA MBA, on-screen writing credit is a recognition of de facto authorship of the story and screenplay used in the production of the movie. What’s your argument in favor of writers giving that up?
Ted -
“By the way: per the WGA MBA, on-screen writing credit is a recognition of de facto authorship of the story and screenplay used in the production of the movie. What’s your argument in favor of writers giving that up?”
As I’m sure you’re well aware, that’s not my argument. At all. I never suggested the written by/screenplay by/story by credit be abolished.
I just don’t see the need for on screen assignment of total authorship over the film - be it in favor of the director, the writer or both.
Ted,
It’s been a long time since I was in law school, but I think you’re confusing the issue of “authorship” under copyright law with the issue of creative rights (also known as moral rights).
When someone creates an original work of authorship, they are automatically the copyright owner. Once they sell their copyright they no longer are. Under copyright law, the “author” is not the person who created the work, but rather the person who OWNS the copyright.
The copyright owner or “author” has the legal right to exploit the work of authorship, which they own - for example, by selling or licensing rights to adapt it in another medium, releasing it on DVD, airing it on television. The right to exploit the work includes the right to control all decisions related to the exploitation of that work. That’s why writers can be rewritten without their consent and why directors rarely get final cut.
So bottom line, copyright law is about economics. Period. In fact, the reason copyright was created in the first place was to confer economic rights in works of authorship oncethe printing press made the copying of literary works profitable. (Before that, people copied books by hand. Because that took too long to be economically profitable, no one really cared if a copy was made. Modern copyright law allows limited “fair use” of a copyrighted work without the copyright owner being compensated. This is the modern equivalent of letting someone make a single hand-copy of your book).
Obviously, a company can’t author anything, and no one really thinks they can, which is no doubt why you used the term “de facto author”. But as the LEGAL “author”, companies can and do control the works of authorship that they own. And that’s all that it means to “author” a film. And since creative decisions impact the economic gains and losses that the copyright owner/”author” gets or incurs, these decisions also reside with the owner/”author” in less they’ve been contracted away (as when a director gets final cut in his contract).
The Film By credit does NOT confer the rights of legal “authorship” onto the film’s director. Nor does it confer the right to make creative decisions. The owner/”author” retains these rights, which means it can do a remake, colorize a film, or what have you. Sure, the DGA fights this, but they usually lose, as far as I know. And if they win it’s not in the courts, since the law is not on their side.
Btw, since you mentioned colorization, here’s a NYTimes article from 1987 that drives home the point.
Here’s the deal…
In our business, writers and directors sell our copyrights and in the process we forfeit the right to control the works of authorship that we create. In contrast, novelists retain their copyrights. A copyright in a book will say something like “Copyright Geraldine Brooks 2001. All rights reserved.” This means Geraldine Brooks, not her publisher, gets to decide whether to sell film rights to her book. Of course, once she decides to sell those film rights, she forfeits her right to control what happens to her book when it becomes a film - just like us. And the “author” of the film won’t be Geraldine Brooks, or the director, but, yep, The Weinstein Company or whomever.
Naturally, artists want to control what happens to their work. But the interesting and uncomfortable truth is that no artist (pre-internet at least, and maybe even post) can exploit their own work the way a major corporation can. On some level we all know it, which is why we aren’t off in Pretoria making our own films for distribution on the internet. Should writers and directors have more of a creative say. For my money, yes. But there’s an argument to be made on the other side as well. The entities who put the money on the line do have a right, one could argue, to use their own best judgment (such as it is) about the best way to recoup their investment. Which brings me to my final point…
The studios have complete control over content decisions, the size of film slates and film budgets, and the marketing and distribution strategies that they employ to recoup their investment and make a profit. This is why their arguments about residuals, and the ridiculous conversation about rollbacks, makes no sense at all. They’re basically saying, we’re in the driver’s seat, but if we fuck it up, we’d like you to share in the loss. Obviously that’s absurd.
Like I said, I didn’t think Anonymous meant the question seriously. I mean, who actually believes that if you write a screenplay that includes descriptions of shots and camera moves, it is the same thing as making a movie that includes footage with shots and camera moves that meet those general descriptions?
Directing the mind’s eye of a reader through use of the written word is a valuable thing … but imagining that is the same as directing the production and asembly of film footage that can be viewed by actual eyes is the kind of anamolistic magic thinking that … well, suffice it to say, if you believe that, I’ve got a jeep made entirely from bamboo and palm fronds that you’re going to love driving around on the L.A. freeways.
Ted,
“I mean, who actually believes that if you write a screenplay that includes descriptions of shots and camera moves, it is the same thing as making a movie that includes footage with shots and camera moves that meet those general descriptions?”
I didn’t say it was the same thing as MAKING a movie… I was, however, saying it could be construed as being the same thing as DIRECTING a movie.
There’s at least one famous Hitchcock scene that was reportedly shot with him nowhere near the set, with his AD working off his notes, his WRITTEN direction. Did he not direct the sequence?
Many directors believe that cutting a scene from a script, or altering the sequence of scenes while they’re still on the page, or giving notes constitutes co-writing a script. If one is to humor that notion, one must also humor the notion that directing a scene from the page constitutes directing.
Just saying.
PS to Craig: In the spirit of honesty, it would be nice if you’d acknowledge that there’s a difference between a personal insult and a physical threat, even when that threat comes from someone who sucks your toes for a living. No one’s gonna end up owning your car if you call them a vainglorious asshole, ya dig?
PPS to Kev: Whatta ya drive, bubba?
Any comments that violate the rule are gone. No sense in debating over stuff no one else can read.
“Any comments that violate the rule are gone. No sense in debating over stuff no one else can read.”
Not to harp on about it… BUT the comment calling me an idiot is still up. So is the one telling Olson something is “just his dumb opinion”. All you did is delete the posts that made your most ardent sycophant look bad. Is all.
This thread is starting to suck.
Craig is a genius.
When Josh isn’t taking swipes at people he’s very eloquent.
We need fresh blood.
There’s nothing to debate. The law makes a distinction between calling someone a boob and threatening to beat someone down.
I remain what I’ve always been - boggled over the fact that the only people I’ve ever run into on the internet who resort to libel and threats when criticized or mocked are screenwriters.
Guys, I’m in the middle of shooting a movie. I do this here and there on brief breaks…which I get about three times a day, and just for a couple of minutes.
I delete stuff as I see it, mostly. I deleted posts that attacked you, Johnny, and I deleted posts that attacked Kevin, and I deleted one post that attacked Josh.
Separate from that, it doesn’t matter who said what within the posts I deleted. They’re gone.
Gotta go.
“There’s at least one famous Hitchcock scene that was reportedly shot with him nowhere near the set, with his AD working off his notes, his WRITTEN direction. Did he not direct the sequence?”
Nope. In this case it appears the AD is working for all intents and purposes as second unit director.
ruairi,
you pretend to be on the fence but your bias is heavy and obvious.
and that’s just some gangsta shit.
That explains all those pudgy, bearded, acts of violence I keep hearing about.
Creative rights are not also known as moral rights. Perhaps you are projecting your own confusion onto me.
Really? Terry and I have created a number of screenplays, but we weren’t automatically the copyright owner. That’s because, despite being the de facto authors of those works, under U.S. law, initial copyright ownership vests in the de juris author — the author determined by law.
Now, its true that in most cases, both under U.S. law and that of other countries, de juris authorship is identical to de facto authorship. And those cases, your statement that if someone creates a work of authorship, they are automatically the copyright owner, is true.
But we’re talking about works where de facto authorship does not guarantee de juris authorship, and so the creators of the works are not automatically the copyright owners.
Copyright ownership and authorship — either de juris or de facto — are not synonymous. Under U.S. law, de juris authorshp determined initial copyright ownership.
But, whereas copyright ownership, in whole or in part, may be transferred or assigned to another person or party, authorship — again, either de juris or de facto — can’t be. Ever.
Yeah, whatever.
Okay, I get your argument:
As the de juris author, the Company owns the copyright in the work. Since there is no value in de facto authorship, there’s no point to any credit that recognizes de facto authorship.
To which I respond:
The only time that de facto authors are not de juris authors is when works of authorshp are created under work-made-for-hire law.
The only country in the world that has a work-made-for-hire law is the U.S.
The work-made-for-hire law is wrong. It is wrong in its assertion that the economic contribution to a work of authorship is the only contribution of any value in determining de juris authorship. It is wrong in the face of the constitutional basis for copyright law, which is “to promote the progress of Science and the useful Arts” — progress which is dependent not upon spending money, but on ideas borne of the human mind.
In the past, U.S. copyright law has been amended so at to make it more homogenous with that of the rest of the world. These amendments recognized that, even where visual works are created as work-made-for-hire, the de facto authors of those works nonetheless retained some authorial rights in their works.
Although there is no guarantee that U.S. copyright law will ever again be amended to make it more homogenous with that of the rest of the world, it would be passing stupid for de facto authors to resign themselves to the status quo. Rather, de facto authors should at all times be asserting the rights to which they are entitled, the rights they would have, if not for the peculiar institution of the work-made-for-hire law … which includes the right to claim authorship of a work they authored, to be credited as the authors-in-fact, if not in law, of those works.
And that’s why I think that if someone can negotiate a credit that recognizes him/her as the de facto author of the movie, he/she should fucking take it. That de facto authors of movies who work under WGA jurisdiction are prohibited from doing so doesn’t change that.
Ted, “And that’s why I think that if someone can negotiate a credit that recognizes him/her as the de facto author of the movie, he/she should fucking take it. That de facto authors of movies who work under WGA jurisdiction are prohibited from doing so doesn’t change that.”
END OF THREAD.
Ted -
Do you really believe there’s a scintilla of a chance that directors executing their right to claim the vanity credit could facilitate amendments to the work-made-for-hire law in the U.S.?
With all due… I don’t think it’s too late to call shotgun on that bamboo racer you spoke of.
On second thought, it is kind of funny how studios will acknowledge a de facto author for marketing purposes, but claim sole legal authorship nonetheless.
Shit - any room in the backseat?
Craig,
“Separate from that, it doesn’t matter who said what within the posts I deleted. They’re gone.”
It matters that there’s a person who posts here who, when criticized, responds with threats of violence. It matters that Kevin has threatened to harm Johnny and - I gather, now - me for criticizing his views. Aside from any potential legal issues, it also matters because there are people here who still buy into your portrayal of yourself as someone with some semblance of integrity.
S’all I’m saying.
Ruairi,
“Nope. In this case it appears the AD is working for all intents and purposes as second unit director.”
So when a director does what the writer has indicated on the page, he’s a director, and when a second unit director does what the director has indicated on the page, he’s a second unit director.
Interesting.
This matters, by the way. Because in the grand scheme of things, we can define exactly what a writer does, but not so much with a director. The sky’s the limit. They can do everything, they can do nothing. Someone mentioned earlier that they’d worked on a movie where the director wasn’t a significant player on the film and went on to win an Oscar. Anyone who’s done time in this business has seen that happen, and heard all the stories.
To be fair, there are also stories of shitty scripts being saved by clever directors, good editing, great acting, and so on. No question that that can happen (it’s less frequent, because without a good solid base - ie: a script - it’s bloody hard to make it work), but the point is this - the cult of the director is arbitrary as hell. Always has been, always will be.
The fact that Peter Bogdonavich “autered” some very great movies, then stopped as soon as he stopped working with Polly Platt should tell us something. And there’s a million of examples like that. It’s a collaborative medium. The discussion of who the legally defined author of a film is one thing, and as Ted and Paula are proving right now, the waters are murky. But in terms of just the way we look at and talk about movies, the time has long since passed to explode this notion that film is, by definition, a director’s medium.
The easiest way to not get beaten up, or threatened to get beaten up, is to find a way to express views with passion without infuriating others. Especially in the tight nit movie business.
Or use an alias like me.
knit
Josh,
Oh man, get a grip. Are you really that scared? Do you really think I’m gonna use my mutant powers and shimmy my way into your ethernet cables?
If I knew it was that easy to rattle your cage, I would’ve done so a lot sooner.
Potential legal issues…whatever, Ann Coulter.
Misconstrued, maybe, but since the writing process results in intellectual property in a literary medium which must then be adapted or copied in some way to the film medium, it means there are still creative decisions to be made after the writing processs is complete (as in: decisions necessary to create the movie as a physical object, an artifact, a piece of intellectual property, something with a tangible, fixed existence that is separate and distinct from any other pieces of intellectual property, no matter the similarity of their content).
Regardless of what you call the process of making those creative decisions — producing, directing, catering, whatever — those creative decisions have not been made in the writing process.
Which is not to say that no creative decisions required to create the movie (intellectual property in the medium of film) have been made in the writing process — quite a few have been (which is why screenwriters are filmmakers, and why most countries in the world recognize the writer as one of the authors of a movie). But things like shot composition and camera moves and the lighting and the like, things that are inarguably understood to fall under the authority implied by the term “directing?”
No. It’s just silly.
-
“Guys, I’m in the middle of shooting a movie. I do this here and there on brief breaks…which I get about three times a day, and just for a couple of minutes.”
Craig –
Don’t mind us, dude, go shoot your movie. Nobody asked you to busy yourself deleting comments. Come to think of it, a rather counterproductive endeavor. Deleting a post doesn’t make the insult go away – or the threat for that matter. All it does is erase the written record.
And for the record, you keep dodging Josh’s point… calling someone a moron and threating to beat a person up are hardly on the same level of “uncivil”. It’s just too darn obvious that you’re playing favorites…
That being said, I’m sure everyone is sick and tired of the insults that we throw back and forth. It’s divisive and annoying.
So why don’t we try something new? How ‘bout we state our case and point without being insulting? We’ve all done it to each other and we’re all guilty. We may not like each other but let’s at least try and be human beings.
I’m game if you’re game. Deal?
Kevin,
You’re a fucking moron and I’m going to kill you.
Arbouet said that Olson would never say this stuff to anyone’s face. I had the enjoyment of seeing the 2006 WGA nominees speak together at an event last year. They discussed the subject of the dreaded A Film By credit, and when Paul Haggis said that he had taken it, Olson (as well as Steve Gaghan) both exploded. Everything he’s said here he said there, on a stage, to the face of a very powerful filmmaker. Somehow, Haggis took the criticism, argued his point, and never had to resort to the kind of crazy rage or violent threats I’ve seen here. Maybe part of it is that some people assume a tone to other people’s posts that aren’t there, but maybe some of it is that some people here are just really insecure, and should lighten up and think twice before they threaten to harm anyone. Because even if you know your threats are empty and meaningless, that’s not obvious to everyone else. That’s why there are laws about threatening people.
Is that what you got from my posts? Really?
Trying again:
If there comes a point where U.S. copyright law undergoes change — excuse me, further change — to make it more homogenous with copyright law in virtually every other country in the world — none of which have work-made-for-hire law, all of which insist that, regardless of issues of copyright ownership, authors must be and can only real, natural born individuals —
— then, when it comes to determining who are the real, natural born individuals who are the authors of cinematographic works of authorship, the fact that the work-made-for-hire de juris authors of cinematographic works have, for sixty-plus years or so, recognized real, natural born individuals who do the job of “director” as the de facto authors of those works could be looked at, argued and interpreted as a precedent for making that determination.
This is not the only precedent that directors could point to — but, since most foreign copyright law says that the author of the work will be presumed to be the indiviual or individuals credited in the usual manner as authors … it’s a good one.
Probaly no more clear, but, then, it would appear that writers are by-and-large cool with the idea that the works of authorship we create — both in the literary medium and the film medium — are nonetheless legally recognized as having been created by corporations, rather than, oh, you know, the individual who actually created them. So cool with it, in fact, that most can’t even be bothered understanding even the principles of authorship, let alone the value of authorsip.
As far as I’m concerned, it is more important to advance the principle that, regardless of the work-made-for-hire law, individual creators are the authors of motion pictures, and not corporpations or employers, then it is to argue that no individuals should be recognized as the de facto authors. I would prefer that recognition included indivdiuals responsible for both the process of writing the movie and directing the movie, and believe its short-sighted and foolish for those responsible for the writing process not to seek that recognition. By the same token, if any individuals can get that recognition, it would be short-sighted and foolish of them not to take it.
So Ted…
Instead of abolishing the possessive credit for directors, advocate a shared film by credit for directors and writers. Savvy?
As in…
PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL
A Film By
Gore Verbinsky & Ted Elliott & Terry Rossio and Stuart Beattie and Jay Wolpert
“So when a director does what the writer has indicated on the page, he’s a director, and when a second unit director does what the director has indicated on the page, he’s a second unit director.”
Yes, because the director has final say over either one. On the one hand, he is choosing to follow the sketchy ideas of the writer and follow them through to completion [unless you have a script which says ‘shoot this shot from 10 feet away, but with a Zeiss prime lens so that the perspective will match things you shot three days ago in a different location’, I maintain that even saying “Cut To” a specific shot is still a sketchy idea… whereas Hitchcock actually would specify with storyboards and lens exactly what the shot should be]. That’s directing. On the other hand, he is telling them what to shoot and, ultimately, approving or denying its use in the film. That is also directing.
I think it’s funny that Josh is so angry that the “Film By” credit is dismissive of everybody else’s contributions, but consistently and repeatedly dismisses virtually any possible creative contribution by a director (and I’ve seen him do this before in these conversations).
That said, since the last time I saw one of these fights on here, I saw ‘A History of Violence’. I didn’t actually wind up liking the movie very much, but I thought it was a vast improvement over the original graphic novel. And I give credit to Josh for that, especially because I’ve heard Cronenberg’s changes specified, and they all contributed to problems I ultimately had with the film. And yet, Josh gets sole credit for making those changes and Cronenberg gets sole credit for the film.
So, kudos Josh. We disagree philosophically, but I do think you did a good job. I even thought that the script of what I saw of ‘Infested’ seemed pretty good. I didn’t get to finish watching, but it wasn’t that I turned it off or anything.
Oh, and I would also dispute calling what the AD allegedly did on the Hitchcock film “second unit” direction. I do believe that term would be at least partially on who is actually being shot; if it’s the shower scene in ‘Psycho’, that’s not second-unit, even if Hitch wasn’t on set. I’m sure somebody more knowledgable than I on the intricacies of the guilds — Ted, probably — can provide the exact definition of “second unit direction”, but I would say that one person directed one individual scene in a movie directed by another person. I can’t say whether they contributed anything to deserve a credit beyond “assistant director”; Eastwood didn’t get anything for ‘Dirty Harry’, and Kurt Russell directed at least a week or two on ‘Tombstone’ without credit. I would think that would fall under the same category of miscellany.
Also, as I understand it, Hitchcock rarely talked to actors and never actually looked through the camera lens, because he had so meticulously prepared everything in advance. So I think a case could be made that him actually being on set or not wouldn’t change the direction of the scene all that much.
When I was ADing, I directed an entire sequence on the show with no credit, and when the head writer came in to direct another sequence, I had to help him with basic principles of screen direction and things like that. Screen direction, 180 degree rule, etc, that’s not creative per se… but if a writer who is directing doesn’t know them, it doesn’t matter how creative their ideas are, the thing just won’t cut. And it is not automatically the DP’s job to catch those mistakes. [It’s supposed to be the script supervisor’s job… if you have one.]
My point is just that it’s not nearly as cut-and-dry as a lot of people here seem to be making it. However, it’s also not as cut-and-dry as the DGA makes it out to be either… but at least they have an obvious reason why they would make it out that way.
Ted,
” things like shot composition and camera moves and the lighting and the like, things that are inarguably understood to fall under the authority implied by the term “directing?”
No. It’s just silly.”
Just trying to get folks to think creatively.
On a screenwriting board.
How absurd of me.
By the way, that word “inarguable?” I don’t think it means what you think it means.
Kevin,
“That being said, I’m sure everyone is sick and tired of the insults that we throw back and forth. It’s divisive and annoying.”
Nah. Only to some people. Threats, on the other hand, are generally a sign of an unbalanced mind. It’s interesting to watch you and Mazin act like physically threatening someone and calling them a douchebag are the same thing. I hope neither one of you has kids.
Also interesting watching you run away from having done it. If the purpose of a threat isn’t to intimidate someone - as you now seem to be claiming - what, pray tell, IS it? To show us that you’re throwing in the towel? To prove you can’t make an argument? Just curious.
James,
“when Paul Haggis said that he had taken it, Olson (as well as Steve Gaghan) both exploded”
Nah, nobody exploded. But we did dogpile on the dude. And, shockingly, he was still quite friendly at the end, and we still managed to do the whole tour together for another month or so without anyone even raising their voice, let alone coming to blows. But then, say what you will about Haggis, he’s not so insecure he needs to stifle dissent.
Sean,
““So when a director does what the writer has indicated on the page, he’s a director, and when a second unit director does what the director has indicated on the page, he’s a second unit director.” Yes, because the director has final say over either one.”
Not when it’s TV. Meaning this is all arbitrary.
“I think it’s funny that Josh is so angry that the “Film By” credit is dismissive of everybody else’s contributions, but consistently and repeatedly dismisses virtually any possible creative contribution by a director”
Never have. I’ve simply pointed out that there is no set definition of “director.” Some do everything, some do virtually nothing. But insofar as the script is the template for the film, that it lays the groundwork for the structure and story and every other goddam thing that matters, it’s fascinating to me that the director is invariably perceived as the one in charge.
“My point is just that it’s not nearly as cut-and-dry as a lot of people here seem to be making it.”
Hey, precisely.
Ted’s cavalier dismissal of it notwithstanding, Anonymous’s point remains a good one. When writers offer direction from the page, there’s no process by which they can lobby for co-directing credit, but when a director cuts a scene on the page, or writes a line of dialogue to cover a missing scene, you can be assured he’ll be going for arbitration.
“That being said, I’m sure everyone is sick and tired of the insults that we throw back and forth.”
Show of hands. Anybody? Because I’m not. I just think it’s annoying that my well-crafted posts which so beautifully deconstruct your attempts at making a point get deleted.
“It’s divisive and annoying.”
As I said, not to me it’s not.
“So why don’t we try something new? How ‘bout we state our case and point without being insulting?”
Been there, done that.
“We’ve all done it to each other and we’re all guilty.”
AEHHH! I’ve never threatened you. Also I didn’t start the name calling. I could prove it you, except those posts have been deleted. Shucks.
“We may not like each other but let’s at least try and be human beings.”
You’re the only one who blows his lid everytime he gets outsmarted. So knock yourself out, try act like a human. Let us know how that’s working out for you.
“I’m game if you’re game. Deal?”
It amazes me how you curse people out, jump down their throats, insult them, threaten them, and then come back with this holier-than-thou attitude to kiss and makeup. What’s next? You gonna ask Olson out on a date, too? Beware, I hear he ain’t cheap.
I don’t come back for a day and 50-60 posts get added. Jebus. As it’s Friday and I’m quite lazy, I only read the last 7 or so posts. And I have no comment except to Olson’s reservedly jaded comment about directors going for arbitration or one line here or one scene there. In so far as my only comment is… that’s silly of those directors. If you’re a director who takes an active role in reshaping a script into something you feel is your ‘vision,’ you don’t really need a writing credit. It’s not like you’d’ve written it without the writer’s final draft first.
In as much as I see myself as an aspiring participant in creating films; I feel strongly about people having specific skills and being ‘masters of their domain.’ Sure there are lots of writer/director/filmmaker types who make wonderful films, but there’s brilliance in a scriptwriter who never has and never will want anything to do with directing- they just love the word on the page and - more importantly, love entrusting to someone else- not so they carryout the writer’s vision perfectly, but so that ‘magic’ may emerge from all the pieces and work thrown into it.
In all n00b honesty, (dream job is director) the more I write, the less I want anything to do with shooting the stories I write, not because they’re bad, but simply because I’ve contributed my vision/thoughts/idea as best I can, and if someone else sees something in it, they should be able to run with it to whatever destination they choose. [also there’s frelling millions of amateurs like me who call themselves ‘writer/director,’ and they annoy the piss out of me.
Sorry about the bad grammar, and what turned into a rant - albeit a rant with nothing whatsoever to do with ‘Film By,’ but it’s Friday and cutting all these 3 minute pieces has kinda fried my brain.
Josh,
What’s really funny here is the assumption that A) Craig likes or condones anything I say and B) that you’re so freaked out over the fact that I told someone that I’d like to slap them around on a freakin’ writer’s blog.
I was moving away from our arguments because I know that for the most part, people find them boring. And I love the fact that you think that the more you use the term, Physically Threaten it somehow seems incredibly menacing to someone who is literally 3000 miles away from me.
Do I think that you like to argue for the sake of arguing? Absolutely. Am I gonna jump on Virgin America, track you down, and punch you in the nose? Not bloody likely.
I find it hard to believe that this is the first time you’ve read someone wanting to punch someone else on the internet. And if it is, welcome to the internet. The place where people say shit. If you’re really that bothered, offended, bewildered, shocked, or scared of what I said, well then you have two options.
or
It’s up to you which one you choose but personally, I think it’d be kind of funny to go with option number 2. Who knows, in this Bushian world, they just might look into it.
Now as for hoping that I don’t have kids…I can only guess that you’re inferring that when I get bothered by someone I beat the shit out of my kid? I’m not sure, it’s a pretty creepy comment so I just want to be sure.
Johnny,
I’ve never met another dude that’s so interested by what I say.
Keep in mind that I haven’t said boo to you in god knows how long but you felt the need to invoke my name in this post:
Posted by: Johnny Hartmann at September 23, 2007 1:00 PM
In which I ignored you (in fact I made a joke to make light of it). You then felt the need to address me again on:
Posted by: Johnny Hartmann at September 26, 2007 4:22 PM
Which was just ridiculous. What’s even more ridiculous is how you pretend that I’ve even addressed you first in the entire year of 2007.
Your behavious is borderline obsessive. Actually you’ve crossed that border 15 posts ago.
Bro…that’s just weird.
You know what’s weird, Kevin?
That my showing off your shortcomings actually gives you an ego boost simply due to the fact that I’m talking “about” you.
This is an open forum. People comment on people’s comments. It doesn’t mean you’re special. It only means somebody doesn’t agree with you.
Don’t get jealous, but I’ve critically responded to many people MORE THAN TWICE, including Ted, David C., Craig and some guy named Bill. None of them freaked out and resolved to empty threats of physical harm. Only you, sweetheart, only you.
“The fact that Peter Bogdonavich “autered” some very great movies, then stopped as soon as he stopped working with Polly Platt should tell us something.”
It tells me two things. You’re showing your age, for one; when I went to school, and Bogdanovich came to speak, more people wanted to talk about ‘Noises Off…’ than ‘Last Picture Show’. I like ‘em both. I’ve also never heard a word said against ‘Saint Jack’.
But, moreover, because you are looking for directors of directors who get all their creativity from a collaborator, you see that pattern in the facts. An auteurist could easily argue that Bogdanovich was happier because he was in a stable marriage with an equal to off-set potential sycophants, and that after they got divorced, and his much-younger girlfriend was murdered, and he was personally bankrupted, he never fully recovered creatively.
Beyond that, almost every one of his peers in the ‘70’s had a similar sudden rampant decline in their creative abilities. Francis Ford Coppola hasn’t made much worthwhile since he was bankrupted, George Lucas hasn’t made a good movie since his divorce (and if you cite her as a collaborator, she did edit the absolute worst movie Scorsese ever made… after which, he began working with one of his great creative collaborators), Friedkin and Altman and Cimino found difficulty being employed after directing a few flops, the worst period in Spielberg’s career came after his divorce [though I suppose somebody’s gonna argue that his recent trend is worse than 1984-1991]… and Ashby, I guess it was the drugs.
So did they all lose important creative collaborators vaguely around the time they made their worst movies too? ‘Cause I think it’s possible that non-creative things can have an impact on creative work.
Johnny —
That’s the ideal, yes.
Josh —
No offense, but before you try to get people to think creatively, you should probably show some ability to do so yourself. The reason your arguments are so easily refuted and dismantled is because they are perfunctory, poorly thought out, and largely unorginal … in short, uncreative.
It means “cannot be argued.” What do you think it means?
Oh, and before you answer:
When I referred to the decisions that are inarguably understood to fall under the authority implied by “directing,” it was in the context of your statement that writing a screenplay could be construed as DIRECTING a movie.
If you want to argue that those decisions are not understood to fall under the authority of “directing,” you’re going to be arguing that you, yourself, don’t understand what you meant when you used the word “directing.”
Of course, if that is the case, it actually explains a lot …
Anon,
“It tells me two things. You’re showing your age, for one; when I went to school, and Bogdanovich came to speak, more people wanted to talk about ‘Noises Off…’ than ‘Last Picture Show’. “
That’s just sad, frankly.
Ted,
“No offense, but before you try to get people to think creatively, you should probably show some ability to do so yourself. “
I’m always down with a good personal insult, but your word don’t make it so. I have yet to see you actually respond to the idea put forth except to dismiss it as though you’re the last word on these things. Even if you HAD actually directed, the best you could offer would be an informed opinion.
“When I referred to the decisions that are inarguably understood to fall under the authority implied by “directing,” it was in the context of your statement that writing a screenplay could be construed as DIRECTING a movie.”
Um… yeah. Is English your second language? That framing a shot is INARGUABLY considered to be part of directing doesn’t negate the point. It’s irrelevant to it, in fact.
If giving notes and editing can be construed as writing, then yes - it is possible to write passages of a screenplay that can be construed as directing. One can make the argument. Several have, actually.
Having written and having directed, I know the difference. I also know there’s a lot of directing that happens on the page, and a lot of writing that happens on the set. Anonymous’s notion that quid oughta be quo pro is an interesting one, in spite of the fact that you, inarguably, don’t find it so. Perhaps up there on Vulcan, people don’t enjoy kicking around curious, intriguing and amusing ideas, but down here in Shitville, it do help to pass the time.
One last thought to the film school anone - I’d wager that there are more people in film school right now because of The Rock than Citizen Kane. If you want to live in a world in which that’s a testimony to the qualitative superiority of Bay’s masterwork over Welles’s, knock yourself out. But I’ll stick to the world where democracy and art do not walk the banks of the Seine hand in hand.
Catch ya at the Britney show!
Josh, I haven’t argued anything remotely akin to what you’re suggesting I argued.
I simply said that once I delete a post, it’s gone. Once I ask people to stop acting like jerks, I’ve done my job.
I don’t feel a great need to single anyone out publicly for what they’ve posted here, nor do I feel that any of the so-called “physical threats” were at all legitimate.
This is all pretty obvious stuff, which reminds me, yet again, that your persona in here is fraudulent and in bad faith.
And that’s fine. Your choice. Hell, as long as it’s done civilly, you can keep on doing it.
Still, I’ve kind of been enjoying your posts lately. More fun once you start reading them as comedy.
First!
“Not when it’s TV. Meaning this is all arbitrary.”
That’s kind of a non-sequitur point in a discussion about “A Film By”, though.
Unless you’re trying to say that “Directed By” is a non-creative, technical credit.
To which I would say, fine, that’s why you needthe creative “A Film by”, to distinguish it from the “Directed By” TV credit which, as you say, has little meaning creatively (at least beyond maybe the pilot).
““ but consistently and repeatedly dismisses virtually any possible creative contribution by a director”
Never have.”
Oh sure you have. Within this very conversation, you say that there’s no requirement for a director to have any creative input.
Which says to me that “director” as a credit does not imply “creativity” to everybody.
Which seems, to me, to be a reason to have the creative credit “A Film By”.
“I’ve simply pointed out that there is no set definition of “director.””
That I do agree with. I agree with the idea that “A Film by” should not be inherent to directors, but I don’t agree with the far stronger sentiment that it should not exist as a credit.
“it’s fascinating to me that the director is invariably perceived as the one in charge.”
Well, the director is the one in charge, creatively; not every time, but not being so is the exception, not vice versa. I know I’ve seen you say that you didn’t agree with every decision Cronenberg made… but, at the end of the day, he is in creative charge, and gets to make those decisions. So the perception accurately reflects the reality. It’s the reality which you seem to object to.
(And not entirely wrongly.)
“Ted’s cavalier dismissal of it notwithstanding, Anonymous’s point remains a good one. When writers offer direction from the page, there’s no process by which they can lobby for co-directing credit,”
Because when writers offer direction from the page, people read the scripts with big pencils and cross out the directions.
Also, wouldn’t telling the person where to “Cut to:” actually be co-editing? I mean, it doesn’t take into account rhythm, how the shots cut together, or any other thing that actually qualifies as editing, but it seems to be an editing note more than a directing one.
“but when a director cuts a scene on the page, or writes a line of dialogue to cover a missing scene, you can be assured he’ll be going for arbitration.”
For somebody who claims not to be knocking directors’ creativity, you sure don’t seem to have anything positive to say about any director’s creative abilities. You read antagonism into “A Film by” (even though Ted has given perfectly rational non-antagonistic reasons why it’s basically a requirement), and then take that antagonism as license to knock all directors.
I’m just saying that I can’t get behind your statements because you take them way too extreme. I agree with your sentiment, but not to that extent.
“Oh sure you have. Within this very conversation, you say that there’s no requirement for a director to have any creative input.”
It baffles me how people still misread this part of Olson’s argument…
Saying there is no requirment for a director to have any creative input DOESN’T MEAN no director has ever had any creative input in the production of a motion picture. It ONLY MEANS he is not required to have creative input to get the directed by credit… or the film by for that matter. Which renders the vanity credit ever more so questionable.
No, Kevin, not “FIRST!”
ONLY !!
There’s a difference.
Craig,
“I don’t feel a great need to single anyone out publicly for what they’ve posted here, nor do I feel that any of the so-called “physical threats” were at all legitimate.”
Legally speaking, that’s not your decision to make. You know all this, of course. And honestly, I find it fascinating to watch how far beyond any ordinary definition of ethical boundaries you’ll go when it comes to taking shots at me. To wit:
“This is all pretty obvious stuff, which reminds me, yet again, that your persona in here is fraudulent and in bad faith.”
Seriously, bubba - I openly invite you or your little pals to come up to me one day and actually say to my face what they claim to have said. It would be fascinating.
“Still, I’ve kind of been enjoying your posts lately. More fun once you start reading them as comedy.”
Indeed. Not mindless skit comedy, but comedy of a sort. What’s tragic is that you think that’s an insult, and that it’s taken you this long to stumble across the truth of it. I gotta make a note to catch one of your flicks sometime. Surely you must keep a sense of humor buried somewhere.
I’M AN ORIGINAL!
Sean,
“That’s kind of a non-sequitur point in a discussion about “A Film By”, though.”
No, it’s not. It’s been stated - even here - that film is a director’s medium. TV, however, is considered a writer’s medium. Technically speaking, there’s zero difference between the two, meaning EITHER statement is completely arbitrary.
“Oh sure you have. Within this very conversation, you say that there’s no requirement for a director to have any creative input.”
No, I haven’t. I’ve said that every specific creative aspect of the job of directing is one that the director may choose to abdicate. I’ve never said he can abdicate all of them at the same time.
“Well, the director is the one in charge, creatively; not every time, but not being so is the exception, not vice versa”
Creatively in charge of interpreting the script.
“Because when writers offer direction from the page, people read the scripts with big pencils and cross out the directions.”
Tell that to Mamet.
Sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t. Mostly they do, but that’s an issue of perception. Sometimes a director tells an actor to do something, and the actor goes off and does something else.
“Also, wouldn’t telling the person where to “Cut to:” actually be co-editing?”
So your definition of a director doesn’t include telling the editor where to cut?
“You read antagonism into “A Film by” (even though Ted has given perfectly rational non-antagonistic reasons why it’s basically a requirement), and then take that antagonism as license to knock all directors.”
Ted hasn’t offered anything but some legal explanations as to why it benefits directors to take it. I haven’t argued with those. He’s right. I’m talking an almost entirely seperate issue, and there are two sub-issues - first is the state of writers, and second is the notion that the credit takes away from the contributions of EVERYONE who works on a film.
Taking the credit doesn’t change who owns the negative, nor does it change where the money comes from. It’s just a way of wiping your dick on the work and claiming credit additional to that which you’ve already gotten.
I’ve worked with good directors, bad ones, and a couple great ones. Some take it, some don’t, and the level of their talent has literally nothing to do with it.
You keep reading absolutes into my statements. I say “a director doesn’t have to frame shots,” and you hear, “directors never frame shots.” You need to step back, get that I’ve got tremendous respect for directors (and everyone who makes movies), and am simply explaining why one person taking credit for the creation of a film is an offense to everyone who worked on it.
You say a director’s job is to run the show creatively, but I wonder - how is that even possible if that director didn’t write the script? It’s semantics, and words matter. A director’s job is to service the translation of the script to the screen.
“I’M AN ORIGINAL!”
So is Danny Bonaduce.
Um…yeah…got me there…
Ted -
Aha! So, what needs to happen next is the studios must be convinced that utilizing teh writers’ names in the marketing campaign can benefit their product’s potential to sell tickets, no? I guess it’s not completely improbable. Ads that emphasize other creative forces (than the director) in a “from the minds/producers/etc. that brought you last years blockbuster” sorta way are not uncommon. But I suppose A-listers need to carry the torch here… Just like they did for the directors back in the days. Heck, if Hitchock & Co can demand a vanity credit and X years later every schmo with a barret can claim it, why not set the same action in motion today for writers? So, call your agents… I want that film by credit! And I want it TOMORROW! Mwahahahaar.
Josh:
Shall I email you my office number? You can leave me your number in return.
I’d be glad to say any of this to you over the phone.
I’ll happily say it in person as well, but I’m busy. Is physical presence required for some reason?
Not planning on…punching me, are you?
As for your legal opinions…well…let’s say someone threatens someone here physically, and I delete it.
And then someone just calls someone an “asshole” and I delete it.
Please explain to me what legal error I’ve made. You seem to require that I delete certain comments with gusto or something.
Craig,
“I’ll happily say it in person as well, but I’m busy. Is physical presence required for some reason?”
Wow.
Fascinating.
So let me get this straight…
I’m a phony because I wouldn’t say the stuff I say here in person… but you don’t understand why physical presence is neccessary?
Truly fascinating.
Let me spell it out once, because you’re obviously damaged in the head somehow.
I don’t give a rat’s ass what you call me here. An asshole, a poseur, a no-talent… names are names. But when you use this forum to promote an actual lie about me, a situation I was in that you didn’t even witness…. I mind. (For the record - you understand the difference clearly. Unlike me, however, there are ethical lines you have no problem whatsoever crossing. Much like your friends the Wibberlys. Let’s be clear - I understand why they felt the impulse to lie about our encounter. I just don’t understand not having the moral barometer that would preclude them from actually doing it. I also understand why you’re so eager to believe their lie, but, again, I don’t understand the moral weakness that allows you to spread it publicly.)
See how it works? A forum of ideas. “You’re a moron” is an idea. “You fuck small children” is not an idea. It’s libel. So I frankly don’t give a shit whether or not someone who would have the temerity to call me a blowhard here would be able to do it in person. Makes no difference to me at all. Hell, I recently had some asshole who’s been badmouthing me online for years walk up to Harlan Ellison and introduce himself as a friend of mine just so he could get a personal autograph. My response? I laughed my ass off. It does me no harm that some idiot has no character. But to lie about my behavior is to attempt to do me actual harm, and that’s a no-no, bubba.
I’m never going to go three steps out of my way to be in the same room with either you or the Wibberlys - life is short and full enough - but be assured that if I ever find myself in that room, I’ll be keen to hear you lovely folks reiterate the lies about me that you have spread here and elsewhere to my face.
Craig,
My suggestion on deleting certain posts “with gusto” would be to leave them in place, but alter their text so that it simply reads:
“PWNED, bitchezzz!!!!! —Craig”
…and that way we’ll all know.
Just thought I’d help out.
“The essential feature of the histrionic personality disorder is a pervasive and excessive pattern of emotionality and attention-seeking behavior. Males with HPD usually present with identity diffusion, disturbed relationships, and lack of impulse control.”
hmmm.
Josh:
Okay. If we’re ever in the same room together, I’ll lay it all out for you.
Joshie: loved the democracy and art crack!
How’s the Halo script coming?
dr. Bomb, would you say “hmmm” to my face?
Josh,
I don’t think Craig meant your “persona” here was fake as far as fighting. No one expects you and Craig to fight. We’d like to see it, but that’s not what Craig and Olson are “about.” BTW, the Wibberlys haven’t chimed in once on this debate. I think Craig means that you are hypocritical in that you occasionally judge some people based on what they write, then you write the same kind of stuff.
ps.
meaning: money plays a big factor into what choices writers make, and once you admit that—writing for money, or at least partly—the idea that you’re writing for art becomes harder to defend.
my last movie bombed - I would diagnosis you with love.
hmmm.
Bomb,
“meaning: money plays a big factor into what choices writers make, and once you admit that—writing for money, or at least partly—the idea that you’re writing for art becomes harder to defend.”
Happy to discuss this with you… once I know what the hell you’re talking about. I’m a pro, man. I do this for money. It’s how I earn a living, ya know. No day job here, no whopping inheritance I can fall back on.
Hard to come up with too many artists who haven’t done it for money, frankly. Folks like to throw Van Gogh around, but that motherfucker would have KILLED to get paid for his work. And he should have.
This is one of those weird tropes that just won’t die - that if one strives to create art of any value or meaning, one must - by definition - not care about getting paid. It’s sort of like that weird one the Idiot Right likes to throw out about how if you have money, it’s hypocritical to care about the poor. Usually, it tells you more about the person making the comments - it tells you that THEY don’t understand how one can operate that way because THEY don’t.
I’m lucky enough that the last few years, though, every single professional decision I’ve made has been driven by my passion, and not my wallet. One of the reasons I live in an apartment and not a house is so I don’t end up having to make creative decisions based on income. I get to turn down high paying jobs that don’t do anything for me in favor of work that matters. Drives my agent nuts sometimes. C’est la vie.
(Speaking of which - Rachael - hard to tell if that was a snipe or a serious question, but the question shouldn’t be “How’s the Halo script coming?” but “How’s the Peter Jackson project coming?” Get it? Should also clarify my feelings about directors a bit, as Sean seems to think I hate ‘em, which is far, far, far from the truth.)
But if you want to judge me by the kind of stuff I write, make sure you know what you’re talking about. I parlayed the success of History into some massive, mercenary, soul-deadening money makers, baby. I wrote a Batman cartoon, I wrote a low budget Willie Nelson western, I co-wrote an episode of Masters of Science Fiction with Harlan Ellison, I bought a short story and specced (specked?)my adaptation to direct, and I’m currently adapting L. Frank Baum’s Oz books. I have an LA Weekly story coming out in a couple weeks, and I’m directing a rock video for which - if they approve the budget - I’ll be making almost a thousand dollars!!!!! Dude, I am ALL about getting paid.
Wow! Peter Jackson is very famous! If I were you, I’d mention him even more than Ellison.
If that’s possible.
P.S. Loved your adaptation of AHOV, and am looking forward to your adaptations of Halo, The Wizard Of Oz, and About Gwen. If you ever come up with an original idea, I know I’ll look forward to that, too!
Rachael,
You are so right. How dare I ever mention the name of writers or directors I’ve worked with on a forum for working screenwriters. The sheer hubris!
If it’ll make you feel more at home, I’ll pretend I’m a no-talent slug who lives in a trailer park and posts moronic snipes at people who’ve actually managed to achieve some level of success. One day, when it dawns on me that the only purpose I serve in the world is to convert oxygen into failure, I’ll wrap my lips around the tailpipe of my parents’ car (unless I’ve managed to buy my own by then) and suck hard until I expire.
Or would you prefer nobody follow in your footsteps?
Yes, adapting a video game for a high grossing director makes you an artist, not someone who panders to commercialism for cash.
You certainly talk a big game, Joshie.
BTW, have you seen the movie you directed? Maybe you should watch it again, sober this time, and you’ll realize exactly how ridiculous you sound every time you brag about directing.
Clearly that will have to happen tomorrow, because you seem to have hit the liquid courage early today.
Slurp slurp! I’m a big deal! Slurp slurp! I’m a pure beam of white light and integrity! Slurp slurp! Feelings of inadequacy almost vanquished! Slurp slurp type type!
You gotta admit, this thread is damn funny, I don’t care who you are.
::hic::
Sorry. Y’all can git back to it now.
Rachael,
I can’t believe you’ve actually got me defending Olson, but here goes….
Crass commercialism would mean taking on projects that hold no personal interest for you, solely because of the money attached to them.
And possessing artistic integrity does not obligate you to turn down a project that you do feel a personal connection to, and believe you could create something good from, simply because it does come with money attached. (The word for that would be “foolishness,” I think.)
Although there are any number of accurate criticisms that can and should be leveled at Josh, the list of projects he’s been asked to do and passed over does give him some pretty solid bona fides on this point.
You may see zero potential for art in an adaptation of Halo, but all that means is that you’d be succumbing to the lure of crass commercialism if you signed on to write the thing. (Presumably, the money would be the only thing that got you there.) Other people may see art in other places. It doesn’t make them sellouts; it just means they have different tastes than you.
I do think your insults are beautifully crafted, which makes it all the more unpleasant to have to argue with them, but I think they’re missing the mark in this case.
E.e.
Please note that I when I brought up Halo, Joshie did not defend the project on an artist level. That would have given some support to your wonderfully cogent point. Instead, he only mentioned the director, establishing that he took on the project because of the fame of the people involved, not because he saw creative merit in adapting that video game.
Woody Allen can pay me a nickel to blow sailors in an alley, but it doesn’t make it art, no matter how many times I say “Woody Allen” through seed crusted teeth.
Joshie:
I was recounting this fascinating thread with some friends of mine. Perhaps you can settle a bet: when you read a positive review of your work, does it make the pain of being unloved as a child go away? I said it doesn’t, but my friend Marge swears that every kind word must have felt like a hug from mom or praise from dad. Or, at least, how you imagine a hug from mom or praise from dad would have felt.
We’ve got an apple pie riding on this, so please let us know post haste!
At this point, I’m at a bit of a loss. I can’t tell if anyone’s being serious anymore or not.
This will, no doubt, earn me more scorn from Josh.
This is turning into a third-grade classroom.
Rachael,
I’m not sure if you’re genuinely ignorant, or just pretending, but Peter Jackson’s an exceptionally well respected filmmaker. When a screenwriter says he would love to work with him, it’s just stupid to assume that it’s because he’s famous. Josh gets plenty of opportunities to work with more famous people than Jackson, I’m sure. If you’re really this ignorant about movies, why are you here? If you’re not, why pretend you are?
Rachael,
But what if the alley in question were moodily-lit, with sitar music jangling discordantly in the background? ‘Cause you must admit, that sounds pretty arty.
Especially if you kept pulling your head back to intone “Woody Allen…” at hard-to-predict intervals. I can see the glowing review in Village Voice already….
Josh,
I want to be you. I want to be you so all I ever think about is me. If I were you I would be so filled with me I wouldn’t give a shit about you.
Love,
Me-wanting-to-be-you-wanting-to-be-only-you-because-you-are-the-only-person-who-feels-the-pain-and-passion -of-beingggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
E.E.
“You may see zero potential for art in an adaptation of Halo, but all that means is that you’d be succumbing to the lure of crass commercialism if you signed on to write the thing. (Presumably, the money would be the only thing that got you there.) Other people may see art in other places. It doesn’t make them sellouts; it just means they have different tastes than you.”
See? That’s not hard, now, is it?
But you’re wasting your breath. This Rachael creature is either some mongoloid, wandered in off the street, or someone who knows better putting everyone on. I vote for the latter. Whatever.
Rachael,
“when you read a positive review of your work, does it make the pain of being unloved as a child go away? “
Sadly, you’ll never know.
Sorry. Last Anonymous was me.
Craig,
“At this point, I’m at a bit of a loss. I can’t tell if anyone’s being serious anymore or not.”
You never can.
Which, again, makes your career choices SO unusual.
Josh:
I know. Ka-raaaaazy!
Well, if Josh would rather keep his artistic integrity by not adapting a video game for Peter Jackson, I’d be more than happy to take that heavy burden up on my own shoulders…
“Sadly, you’ll never know.”
Wait, do you mean I’ll never know because you won’t tell me or because I’ll never experience it?
I guess the rumors are true. Your work is a lot more clear and impactful when you have a good writer coming in behind you, cleaning up the prose.
Rachael,
“I guess the rumors are true. Your work is a lot more clear and impactful when you have a good writer coming in behind you, cleaning up the prose.”
Can be. I’ve had that happen once, with Harlan. Thanks for not only providing me an opportunity to hype my pal yet again, but for letting your mask slip. I almost bought the rube from the sticks bit, but now that I know who you are…. well, it’s just boring, dear. As usual.
Really bugs you when someone makes a well-reasoned argument supported by facts, huh?
Thing is, I’ve actually responded a couple of times now to that idea, in a couple of different ways, including a briefer version of the response Craig gave. Here’s yet another way:
Writing a screenplay cannot be construed as directing a movie because the process of writing a screenplay does not result in audio/visual material that can be assembled into a movie, whereas the process of directing a movie does result in audio/visual material that can be assembled into a movie.
Conversely, the process of directing a movie cannot be construed as writing a screenplay, because the process of directing movie does not result in literary material that is adapted or copied into audio/visual material that can be assembled into a movie, whereas writing a screenplay does result in literary material that is adapted or copied into audio/visual material that can be assembled into a movie.
Giving notes and editing can be construed as writing a screenplay? Really, Josh? You really making that argument? That something you really believe? That a conviction of yours, that if someone gives you notes or edits, they’re writing the screenplay, just like you? Really?
Wow.
Okay, fine. Yes, if you ignore the general, contextual and specified meaning of words, intentionally omit qualifying phrases, and make ludicrous statements you don’t even believe yourself, then something that isn’t another thing can be construed for being the other thing the something isn’t.
Well, you are the person who says that giving notes and editing is writing a screenplay, right? Or was that just your despration to continue arguing an untenable position talking?
The things you cited are specifically excluded by the MBA as meeting the definition of “writer,” let alone qualifying for participating writer status for credit determination if they are performed by someone contracted in the capacity of “director” only. Which means a director who did those things only would not qualify for participating writer status under the MBA, and so couldn’t go for arbitration.
There’s no process by which a writer, as that term is defined by the MBA, can lobby for co-directing credit because — and see if you can understand this — directing credit is given by Companies to people who are directors as defined by the DGA Basic Agreement (in the form of “Directed by”).
Conversely, there is no process by which a director can lobby for co-writing credit because writing credit is given by Companies to people who:
Au contraire. As I said previously, I think it is more important to advance the principle that individual creators are the true authors of motion pictures, and decidedly not the corporations that finance those motion pictures. That, alone, is reason enough for any individual creator who can get the possessory credit to take it. As I also said previously, the problem isn’t that individual creators who do the job of “director” can get it; it’s that individuals who do the job of “writer” are prohibited from even trying to get it … by other writers.
Why must people always insist that anyone who disagrees with them is not merely incorrect, but also stupid and/or doomed to lifelong failure?
Agree with its underlying premise or no, if you could read that passage culminating in “seed crusted teeth” (for instance) and not at least appreciate the thing on its literary merits, then you’re a little bit dead inside…. (And if you don’t agree with me on that, you’re a moron who’ll never amount to anything.)
Giving credit where it’s due doesn’t automatically confer it where it’s not due, does it?
(Oh, shit, I think I almost got back on topic with that last sentence. Sorry about that.)
Actually, what has to happen first is for the term of the MBA that prohibits writers from negotiating for possessory credit to be eliminated.
But, as you point out, studios already sometimes market movies as “from the writer(s) of …” Typically, it when they’ve got nothing else to market except the movie itself, but still … (although, not always — seeing the trailer for Adaptation, which included the phrase “A Charlie Kaufman Screenplay,” was one of my favorite moments in a movie theater, ever).
What an above-the-title possessory credit for writers would do is, make it possible for a greater number of writers to become “brands,” like Kaufman kinda is, and like is already the case with a number of directors … and actors … and producers … which would make the writer a possible marketing feature, like directors … and actors … and producers …
Ted,
Thank you, once again, for taking a conversation of ideas, and turning it into a conversation about simple facts. Problem is, we’re not in that realm. This isn’t a discussion about legally defined facts, it’s a discussion about theoretical aspects of what is - technically speaking - an art form.
“Well, you are the person who says that giving notes and editing is writing a screenplay, right?”
Nope, but thanks for mangling my words so you can attack a meaning I did not give them. The phrase “if/then” should have been a hint, and if you’ve never had anyone confuse giving notes, offering ideas and suggesting cuts with actually writing, I have to wonder if this is the same Ted Elliot who’s been working in this business almost as long as I have.
While you avoid the usual inane ad hominems that fly around this place, you do win the prize for arguing in bad faith.
I can only assume that the Pon Far is upon you….
Ted,
“But, as you point out, studios already sometimes market movies as “from the writer(s) of …” Typically, it when they’ve got nothing else to market except the movie itself…”
In the few examples I remember seeing this it was writers making their directorial debut. That’s a bigger hindrance to screenwriters as a whole than the “A Film By” credit; the only time writers are included in the marketing is when they become directors.
Why do I get the feeling that while composing truculent one-liners in her head meant to blister Josh, Rachael cowers in a corner of her dark little room, desperately resisting the urge to cut herself? Not too deep, mind you. Just enough to ease the inner pain. I imagine her over-aerobicized calves, crisp with compulsive tanning, quivering in anticipation of the sweet release, her haunches already criss-crossed with tiny white scars, the immutable reminders of a troubled adolescence.
Or is it just me?
Josh,
it’s me, the real bomb. The originator.
I agree that my post was confusing.
What i was trying to say is that when Craig made the crack about your ‘persona being fake’, it seemed like you assumed his comment was realated to that whole Wibberly “story”.
I was saying that, having watched some of your spats back in the writer action days, Craig seemed to be implying that your persona was fake because in the past, you have been very judgemental of the work your peers, when in fact, you are the same as any gun for hire.
Which is fine. Cuz I don’t judge
Writer Action is OVER (bomb).
Ted -
“What an above-the-title possessory credit for writers would do is, make it possible for a greater number of writers to become “brands,…””
It’s a bit of a chicken and the egg sort of quandary, isn’t it… I mean, doesn’t the writer have to become a brand before he gets the honor? Otherwise, who (as in what studio) is going to promote a film as written by an unknown?
That’s if my assessment that studios will only be persuaded to allow a possessive credit for screenwriters if it benefits the marketing campaign is correct, of course.
What other angles do you see how to eliminate the term of the MBA that prohibits writers from negotiating for possessory credit and sway a studio to agree to put a writer’s name above the title?
As an impartial observer here, I can honestly say the only difference between what’s going on here and on the playground of an elementary school is that the insults here are a lot more literate and entertaining. Ari Gold would be lucky as to have some of the crap being spewed out here to be able to out of his mouth. It doesn’t make it any less like an incredibly educated 10 year old, however. Just thought you should know.
And as an impartial observer who knows no one involved here, let me just detail my observations of this incredibly bizarre thread.
(Please don’t take any of these comments as insults.)
Josh,
I thought you had a point early, but with nearly every post, you make yourself look worse and worse. You’re starting to sound bitter, defensive and rather hate filled. I have no idea whether there is a history between you and Craig or any of the other posters here, but considering this is Craig and Ted’s website, you’re pretty much going to fight a losing battle. People come here BECAUSE of the them, and attacking them is probably not going to gain you any sympathy. Speaking of which, why do you come to this site?
Rachael,
I understood what you were trying to get at, but, as a few others have pointed out, you probably aimed pretty badly. Although I enjoyed some of your insults, they pretty much put you in the same camp as Josh. And no one really wants to go to that camp. No offense Josh.
Kevin and Johnny,
Please get a room, because you’re arguments are not nearly as entertaining and neither of you come off well from reading your posts. Plus, there seems to be some sexual tension than neither of you wants to admit.
Craig,
Don’t you have a movie to do?
E.e.
I made my wife read your post about me being right 100% of the time. She doesn’t believe you, either. Weird. It’s something I’m going to have to work on, obviously. You’d think after 16 years together, she would have figured it out!
Now, now, Josh — if they were simple facts, then you’d know them, wouldn’t you?
And if you’d known them, then you wouldn’t have introduced ideas into the conversation that were easily refuted by those fact, would you?
And you also wouldn’t opine that a discussion of theoretical aspects of an art form that focused on possessory credit, writing credit, directing credit and into which you yourself introduced the idea of credit arbitration “isn’t a discussion about legally defined facts” — since all of those things are either legally-defined facts or exist due to legally-defined facts, as the terms of individual and collective contracts.
And, of course, if you paid heed this rather famous quote:
then you would never suggest that facts, either simple or legally-defined, had no place in a conversation of ideas.
Ted (and Craig),
I don’t think anyone here is questioning your grasp of legalese and the MBA. You proven time and again, both here and on WA, that you know this stuff very well. I respect your years of experience working with (and for) the WGA.
Speaking only for myself, what I find frustrating is that you seem unwilling or unable to take the imaginative leap to entertain the possibility of the writer of a sufficiently detailed screenplay to claim some credit as a director. Yes, you did answer the question with a list of duties that a director performs and a beautifully parsed definition of what constitutes screenwriting and directing. But when someone (well, Josh) challenges that, you seem to dodge the original question and fall back on long-established, legalistic mumbo-jumbo: “They can’t because of the MBA blah blah blah… in the International courts ‘authorship’ means blah blah blah…”
Yes, I believe you. But what I’m asking you is to shove all that aside and entertain the notion, purely as an intellectual exercise, that a sufficiently detailed screenplay can be handed directly to the department heads as “written instruction” (thanks, Josh) on what is required for a given scene. We all know that there are directors out there who don’t give a rat’s ass about framing… or lenses… or lighting… or actors… or costume design… or color palette… etc. Not ALL directors, obviously. Some directors focus on certain things (visuals, or performances), and some control every detail, while others are hired guns for powerful producers, who are there essentially to say “action” and “cut.” I know of one A-list director who literally CAN NOT READ. The man is a functional illiterate. He has someone read the screenplay aloud to him. And yes, he also gets a vanity credit.
A director’s job is to interpret a script and turn it into a movie. But the scope of his authority has changed over the decades. For the last 30-40 years they’ve reached the height of their power. But in the old Studio System days, they were more like TV directors. The studios (and their producers) developed the screenplays, assigned them to directors, along with the casts and crews, and the director managed the shoot. Then the producer supervised the edit while the directors were shuffled off to their next assignment (of course there are exceptions). If anyone received a “vanity credit” in those days, it was the producer. But times changed before, so why can’t they change again, with the writer assuming more authority?
Josh brought up another very valid point, which is that in television, the director is only around for a few days prep, the 7-9 day shoot, and a week or two to deliver his cut. A great many details are written into the teleplay, in terms of visuals, design, music, etc. The writers are involved in casting, location scouting, and set design. The writers have “tone meetings” with the director, to make sure he “gets” the script. The writers are often on the set. The writers take over in the editing room and supervise the final cut and the sound mix. Essentially, the writer (acting in a dual role as a producer) SUPERVISES the director every step of the way. And yet they are not entitled to share the credit. I mean, they’re doing half of his job (if not more)! If a director comes on a feature and subsequently rewrites half of the screenplay, he’s entitled to share the writing credit.
I know there are rules that govern this crap. But just think about it. Shouldn’t the creative give-and-take go both ways? Especially when one side insists on a vanity credit…
Consider if you will, Lord of the rings. Big, epic scripts, big epic movies.
Ok, now imagine the exact same scripts, shot on mini-dv, with finger puppets. Or hey - how about done with 2d cel animation. Imagine that! Crazy as it may seem.
The examples listed on this thread of directing on the page could still easily have been done, just as easily, with finger puppets, and resulted in a completely different movie with a completely different tone. Writing is not directing, and directing is not writing. Although, there is obviously always some degree of hazyness and overlapping, as some of you occasionally acknowledge. The result of a writer’s efforts is not once single useable frame of finished film, whereas a director doing his job results in a finished MOVIE.
The director’s job may be to interpret the script - but here’s the thing. He usually has the authority to change it as he sees fit. Or throw it out the window and shoot with finger puppets instead, if he happens to be having a mental breakdown at the time. I hear Ted had a fun time on The Puppet Masters and Little Monsters. Tell me Ted - do you take responsibility for those MOVIES? You wrote the scripts, umm… right…?
The writer bears no responsibility for the look of the film, or the performances, or a million other things that come under the RESPONSIBILITY of the director. Literally everyone else’s job, whether the director is hands-on or not, comes under the directors responsibility. The writer can write “beautiful sunset” or whatever, and the DOP may be the one to actually shoot it, but the director is the one with the authority over the finished image - and over pretty much every other aspect of the finished film.
Unless the writer takes this responsibility, he or she cannot be considered to be directing. That I believe is what David Lean was driving at. I think it’s pretty clear, whether you agree with it, or not.
Directors who do not exercise this authority on every aspect of a production, are quite simply, not doing their job. So using shitty directors who do a shitty job on shitty films, as a way of undermining what directors do (or are supposed to do), is pretty much irrelevant. It’s the equivalent of a writer doing a half assed job, the week before his deadline, and handing in a piece of shit script. He may have met his contractual obligations, but is most certainly not doing his job. There just isn’t a crew of 50 people hanging around watching him screw up.
Never pretended to be neutral. But my mind is still not made up about this possessory credit thing. Simply because, on the project I’m currently developing with Warners (Plug! Plug! Announcements Soon!) I really would be a fucking ass if I were to try and take the credit, since it’s based on a pre-existing property beloved by many. But I might feel differently about a project I have originated from scratch. So I’m just curious about the arguments - honestly, I still don’t feel like I’m getting the full picture here. And there’s no “artfuldirector.com” where I can see the other side.
Anyway - I spoke to an entertainment lawyer (who represents some of your favourite filmmakers) the other evening, and he told me that unless you are both writing and directing, (or perhaps originated the concept) you are unlikely to be granted the credit under the studio system no matter how hard you lobby, as a first time director. It’s just that some years ago it was much easier for non-writing directors to get that credit, so they cling to it greedily. Once they give it up, they won’t get it again.
So it would appear that, for the most part, the checks and balances you guys are looking for are in place. Kind of. I may be mashing up his words though, since there was quite a bit of wine involved.
R.
Joshie:
Your paranoia would be amusing, if it weren’t so sad.
Hey, even though it’s sad, I’m still amused! Maybe the Germans were onto something with that Schadenfreude thing!
Rachel - maybe you didn’t get the memo, but generally speaking, it’s considered tacky and untoward to bring the quality of people’s work, and their character, and personal lives into a discussion that has nothing to do with it unless they bring it up first. Kinda cheap shots, ya dig?
Believe me, I’ve bitten my tongue more than a few times here and (for the most part) avoided the cheap shots. Kind of.
We witnessed it on the forums not long ago, where one member who had been dismissing everyone else and their sister, suddenly brought the quality of their own work into the discussion, and oh baybee, were all bets ever off.
Anonymous wrote:
And then a few paragraphs later, wrote:
Well, if the director’s job is to turn a script into a movie, then why should a writer “claim some credit as a director” when they haven’t turned a script into a movie?
Bit of a contradiction there.
Screenplays are meant to be specific. They’re meant to be a literary substrate for the film to follow. They are a prescription for a movie. A prediction. An imagining in literary form. That’s what screenwriting credit recognizes.
By even suggesting that what we write on a page is somehow worthy of directing credit, we seem to be unconsciously devaluing what screenwriting credit means, and overvaluing what directing credit means.
The fact that the general public overvalues directors and directing credit does not mean we ought to as well. And as Ted is proper to point out, it’s a two-way street. If we believe that writing “Joe goes to the window and stares out at the street” is now “directing.” then why shouldn’t a director—who changes that on the day and has Mike go to a security monitor to check the street—believe that’s now “writing?”
Hey, but If the director writes this idea down on a piece of paper it is! Great idea, thanks guys. See you in arbitration, suckers!
As Ted’s pointed out before, the WGA MBA specifically excludes incidental “writing” as writing.
Of course, if a director really does create literary material under a WGA writing contract, and that material contributes a significant amount to the final screenplay as reflected by what is on the screen, then of course that director is also a writer, and of course he or she should be given due process through arbitration.
Errr… I was “Joshing” with you craig. It was precisely as realistic as the suggestion that writers should get a directing credit for adding camera moves into the script.
In other words: Bollocks more like.
Tell me about it! The madder I get at Johnny, the more I can’t stop looking into his beautiful eyes. It’s like…it’s like he’s looking into my soul or something.
On another note, the argument that all writing is a creative endeavor and directing doesn’t necessarily have to be a creative endeavor is a basic misunderstanding of the word “creative”. If you think creating in terms of filmmaking as the construction of something from nothing, that isn’t necessarily correct. In the sense of filmmaking, all directors, even the bad ones, are creating something new. They are creating a new and yes, original, work of audio and visual material.
Just thought I’d clear that up.
Hi, I’m the real Peter Jackson. As the real Peter Jackson, I’d like to say that I think the “film by” credit should be aboliished. It’s become a silly thing now and can’t ever regain relevance.
Being the real Peter Jackson, I often think about things.
Craig,
I’d like to say, you are doing a fine job here. I’m sure your next film will be better than anything I—the real non-fake Peter Jackson—have ever made.
Ted and Josh,
I’m the real Peter Jackson so, beware…for mine eyes are upon you at all times.
I feel compelled say that, as one of the few real names here, I can honestly assure you all that the anonymous poster who wrote about an illietrate A-List director is lying. It’s lying to make a point. A point no one cares about.
I’m somewhat surprised to find my opinion shifting on this one as the discussion goes on.
Never thought about it in quite these terms before, but it does seem that the most accurate description of a finished film would be that it’s an adaptation of a literary work (screenplay) into a different medium (film). Which, contrary to what Ted is urging, would seem to rule out the screenwriter being considered the “author” of that film.
A somewhat analagous circumstance (not a perfect analogy, I realize) would be writing a screenplay based on a novel, which in that case involves adapting a work in one literary form into a work in a different literary form. Even if it’s an extremely faithful adaptation, the screenwriter is still considered, both in law and in fact, to be the author of that screenplay, despite the fact that the series of events depicted and much or all the dialogue may originally have been the creation of the novel writer. That translation process from one form to another, in and of itself, seems to be sufficient to confer separate authorship—presumably because even in a faithful adaptation, enough decisions specific to the requirements of the new form are being made along the way to consider the resulting work to be a separate creation with an author of its own.
(The source writer is certainly entitled to credit—on the title page of the screenplay in this case—and probably to other rights that some of the legally-inclined minds here could list more accurately than I could…but not to authorship, per se.)
Likewise, the creation of a film from a screenplay involves a great number of additional decisions specific to that medium, as noted in Craig’s excellent listing of them somewhere far up above. And like the novel-to-screenplay adaptation, some—though perhaps not quite so many—of those decisions may involve deliberate departures from the source material, be it by choosing not to include a particular scene in the film, ad-libbing new dialogue in place of what’s on the page, and so on.
So I’m coming to the conclusion (somewhat reluctantly) that the screenwriter has no more claim to being the author of the finished film than the novelist has to being the author of the screenplay based on his book. The novelist is the author of the novel; the screenwriter is the author of the screenplay; neither of them is the author of the film.
(As for the broader question of whether a film can rightly be considered to have a single author at all, I kinda lean toward Josh and Craig’s point of view: too many hands involved in its creation to single out the owner of one pair of them as the sole creative force. But whoever the author is, it doesn’t seem like it could be the screenwriter.)
The unfortunate aspect of this, from a screenwriter’s point of view, is that the thing you are the author of happens to be the thing with essentially zero commercial potential, in and of itself. (Millions of people have bought Lord of the Rings books, and millions more have seen the movies, but I doubt you could find more than a few thousand people in the entire world who’d be willing to pay for a copy of the Lord of the Rings screenplay…and that’s a popular movie.) So I guess the conclusion is, get yourself a very good deal for the “adaptation rights” to that screenplay.
Am I insane? Is my reasoning crucially flawed somewhere along the line? ‘Cause I’d really like to be talked out of this….
(And despite all the above, I still continue to be very much in favor of an above-the-title credit for writers, especially if and when they’re being taken by other players. “Prominent” need not imply “possessory” or “authorial,” after all. If the director insists on claiming that it’s “A Film by” him, I see no reason not to point out that the film in question came “From a Screenplay by” me. Or whatever.)
Tim W. -
“Kevin and Johnny, Please get a room, because you’re arguments are not nearly as entertaining and neither of you come off well from reading your posts. Plus, there seems to be some sexual tension than neither of you wants to admit.”
The argument was long over… so why bring it back up? Does it turn you on, sexy?
Oh, and when you say to Josh -
“…considering this is Craig and Ted’s website, you’re pretty much going to fight a losing battle. People come here BECAUSE of the them,…”
Really? That so? Why don;t you compare the post count of an Olson thread to a non-Olson thread?! The numbers speak for themselves. Timmy.
“…and attacking them is probably not going to gain you any sympathy.”
Yes, it does.
Hi, I’m Johnny Hartmann’s best friend. I’m also an illiterate director. I’d like to say that Johnny is right about one thing and one thing only.
Josh Olson makes threads fun.
But that guy who posts under the name “bomb” is the best. Me and Johnny Hartmann like that “bomb” guy the most.
Ruairi -
“The writer bears no responsibility for the look of the film, or the performances, or a million other things that come under the RESPONSIBILITY of the director.”
Right…er…the writer only bears responsibilty for a little something called the entire fucking screenplay from which a movie is made - with all its narrative, twists, subplots, locations, characters, character motivations, set pieces, action sequences, dialogue, subtext, tone, theme, message, surprise endings et cetera.
What’s harder - to write a two page scene that moves an audience emotionally, or to look at a color chart and mumble “This one” - ?
“The writer can write “beautiful sunset” or whatever, and the DOP may be the one to actually shoot it, but the director is the one with the authority over the finished image - and over pretty much every other aspect of the finished film.”
Firstly, the director can have his DOP shoot the most amazing ball of fire melting into the horizon, but without the context of a story - as created by the writer - it all means shite.
Secondly, are you really going on record saying that because the director has the given authority means he’s the ultimate creative force behind the film and his power shall not be questioned? You would have made a great Nazi.
Ruairi,
“What’s harder - to write a two page scene that moves an audience emotionally, or to look at a color chart and mumble “This one” - ?”
You don’t know directing from your own ass!
I meant to quote Johnny in the above post.
“Right…er…the writer only bears responsibilty for a little something called the entire fucking screenplay from which a movie is made - with all its narrative, twists, subplots, locations, characters, character motivations, set pieces, action sequences, dialogue, subtext, tone, theme, message, surprise endings et cetera. “
Hold on a second. I agree, for the most part. But you seem to be arguing with me! What’s up with that?. What on earth makes you think I disagree? All I said was that the director bears the responsibility for making this stuff play in the finished work on film. The writer does not bear that responsibility. (But they often get the BLAME if the director screws up, which sucks too)
And actually if the writer is for hire, there is the possibility, for better or worse, that the director is the one (or the producer even) telling the writer what to do, including what scene to include, and where to put it - so does the writer bear this responsibility? All of it? All the time? Quick! Jon Peters is demanding a giant robot spider fight in the third act! Do you do it? is it He’s paying you! He’s your boss! He’s telling you what to do! Is it your responsibility? Oh my God Uwe Boll wants another car chase!!! What to do, what to do!!!!
If this really was the writer’s RESPONSIBILITY then William Goldman wouldn’t have written all those books about how directors fucked up the movies of his scripts. Because he would be the one to blame. And if he was RESPONSIBLE, then he would have the control to prevent it. That’s kind of a big part of what I mean by the whole responsiblity thing - not necessarily just creatively responsible for it’s inception, but including the responsibilities that the writer doesn’t not take on, but which the project requires in order for it to reach the screen in a finished form.
So it’s a bit hazier than any of us might prefer, for the sake of clear sides in an argument.
“What’s harder - to write a two page scene that moves an audience emotionally, or to look at a color chart and mumble “This one” - ?”
Which is harder - writing fart Jokes, or Directing The Godfather? Making silly, biased comparisons, or using reasoned arguments? What’s annoying is that most of your arguments against me here, are not really contradicting anything I’ve said. You just have to misread them to make it look that way. Maybe I could have been clearer, or you are detecting things in them I didn’t intend. Whatever.
“Firstly, the director can have his DOP shoot the most amazing ball of fire melting into the horizon, but without the context of a story - as created by the writer - it all means shite.”
Yes - OBVIOUSLY. And that’s why the writers are credited with writing the script. And nothing I said suggests the story is not all-important. Nor am I advocating for anyone’s credit to be undermined.
Here’s the thing: If writers really did want all the responsibility that comes with making a movie that’s identical to what they wrote, then they would be directing, because that’s the ONLY way to make sure what you see in your head makes it to the screen. You don’t get to say “Yeah I just hate getting up early and shit” and then bitch out someone else who has been entrusted with the responsibility of bringing your words precisely as expressed to the screen. Because NOBODY on the planet will see the script exactly the same way you do. You can’t have it both ways. Unless you are Paddy Cheyefsky… or at the very least, or a producer on the movie too, so you can boss the director around. Solution: Every writer should at least try and be a producer on every project they write.
“Secondly, are you really going on record saying that because the director has the given authority means he’s the ultimate creative force behind the film and his power shall not be questioned? You would have made a great Nazi.”
Boom. The end. Oh dear, you just invoked Godwin’s law. Oh dear oh deary me. I am so very dissapointed in you Johnny.
“You don’t know directing from your own ass!”
Anonymous -
You have to read comments in context! I know it’s hard. But try…
Ding Ding Ding!!
It only took 271 posts to get to a Nazi reference.
It seems to me that you’re slipping into an argument for quality of work and/or which job is harder, the director or the writer. Whether we’re talking about the best screenwriter in the world or the worst director in the world, it doesn’t change the definition of the job title.
If I understand Ted’s point correctly (which I wholeheartedly agree with), the problem with the WGA is that its members would rather argue with the existence of the “Film By” credit rather than argue the legitimacy of screenwriters being the co-author of a film. Do you not see the value in being a co-author of a film as well as the screenwriter?
Because the argument that it’s an extra, unnecessary credit doesn’t hold water. If the “Film By” credit establishes authorship, which is obviously different than a “Directed by” or “Screenplay by” credit, than the argument should be, Why does the U.S Copyright Laws exclude screenwriters from being eligible?
Ruairi -
“You just have to misread them to make it look that way. Maybe I could have been clearer, or you are detecting things in them I didn’t intend. Whatever.”
Honestly, yes, I did read your post as an argument pro the vanity credit for directors based on them bearing all authority slash resonsibility. Maybe I’m too hungover, or your rant was just too damn long. Either way, I spelled your name right. And that should count for something!
WA Bomb,
“I was saying that, having watched some of your spats back in the writer action days, Craig seemed to be implying that your persona was fake because in the past, you have been very judgemental of the work your peers, when in fact, you are the same as any gun for hire.”
Got it. Problem is, I don’t pretend otherwise. This is what I do for a living. This is a job, and you go where the work is. But there are guns for hire and there are guns for hire. I just find it interesting that when some people - and this is hardly just a sin of screenwriters - when some people get to a place where they can pick and choose, where they can do whatever they want, they still crank out the same old crap.
Lucas fascinates me, for instance. For years, he said that if given the chance, he’d spend the rest of his life making avant garde-art films that nobody understood. So here is, more money than god, can do anything he wants… Makes three crappy Star Wars movies.
The point of my litany of gigs was to get across the fact that when given this brief shot at choice, I’ve consistently chosen to follow my passion.
There’s a Bill Hicks bit about actors who do commercials, and how there’s a special place in hell for them. He always makes the point of letting starving actors off the hook, but what the fuck is Jay Leno doing shilling potato chips? He has enough money.
Look, man, send me three bucks for postage and I’ll give you a DVD of On The Border. I’ve got some shit on my CV that’ll boggle your mind.
Tim,
“considering this is Craig and Ted’s website, you’re pretty much going to fight a losing battle. People come here BECAUSE of the them, and attacking them is probably not going to gain you any sympathy.”
Happily enough, I don’t need to come to the internet for sympathy, affection, understanding, approbation or political power. If I did, I’d probably start a webpage. Call it “artfulwriter” or somesuch.
“why do you come to this site?”
Craig pays me. I keep it interesting, and his hits go way up.
Ted,
You have gone so far in re-positioning my statements into another context, there’s no point in talking to you about this. I honestly don’t know if you’re malicious, or just utterly incapable of intellectualizing anything you can’t touch, but in any case, it’s like arguing about love with someone who only believes in tarmac.
Ruairi,
“The writer bears no responsibility for the look of the film, or the performances, or a million other things that come under the RESPONSIBILITY of the director.”
Two words:
Horse.
Shit.
But keep on living in that world, cos what the fuck - the only people that mentality hurts are writers.
Plus, now Ted can come in and discuss the legally defined meaning of “responsibility,” which, of course, is completely irrelevant.
Craig,
�The fact that the general public overvalues directors and directing credit does not mean we ought to as well. And as Ted is proper to point out, it�s a two-way street. If we believe that writing �Joe goes to the window and stares out at the street� is now �directing.� then why shouldn�t a director�who changes that on the day and has Mike go to a security monitor to check the street�believe that�s now �writing?��
What you and Ted seem incapable of grasping is that SOME DO.
And the WGA prohibits them from taking a writing credit for doing that, but it DOESN�T prohibit them from taking a �Film By� credit. Which many of them think they deserve because, after all, they practically wrote that scene with the security monitor.
The Real P. Jackson,
�I can honestly assure you all that the anonymous poster who wrote about an illietrate A-List director is lying.�
Sadly, no.
Ee,
“Which, contrary to what Ted is urging, would seem to rule out the screenwriter being considered the “author” of that film.”
Ooh! You’re getting there!
“That translation process from one form to another, in and of itself, seems to be sufficient to confer separate authorship—presumably because even in a faithful adaptation, enough decisions specific to the requirements of the new form are being made along the way to consider the resulting work to be a separate creation with an author of its own.”
Yup.
“So I’m coming to the conclusion (somewhat reluctantly) that the screenwriter has no more claim to being the author of the finished film than the novelist has to being the author of the screenplay based on his book. The novelist is the author of the novel; the screenwriter is the author of the screenplay; neither of them is the author of the film.”
Exactly right.
“As for the broader question of whether a film can rightly be considered to have a single author at all…”
Ah, but that IS the important question, and one everyone already knows the answer to. The “authors” of a film are duly and properly credited already. At the beginning and the end of the film (with the ironic exception of additional writers. I’ve gripped for three days on movies and gotten credit, but there are movies I wrote on where I get no credit at all. Thanks WGA!)
Which leads right to Kevin’s comment:
“Do you not see the value in being a co-author of a film as well as the screenwriter?”
Of course. One would have to be a moron not to. The value has never been at issue, in spite of what Ted seems to think. I also see the value in robbing banks, and bilking your grandma out of her life savings.
It’s a moral issue, not a legal or economic one.
Kevin -
“Do you not see the value in being a co-author of a film as well as the screenwriter?”
Sure I do, is why I’ve asked Ted how to accomplish such a feat in the first place.
Ruairi -
“Oh dear, you just invoked Godwin’s law. Oh dear oh deary me. I am so very dissapointed in you Johnny.”
The fact that Nazi analogies are commonly utilizied in arguments does not render the analogy false. Besides, I was born in Germany and thus hold the AUTHORITY to make such comparisons. Ja?
Josh:
Leno does contribute quite a bit to charity.
Johnny,
Sure I do, is why I’ve asked Ted how to accomplish such a feat in the first place.Well, I think the first way to go is to unite the WGA as a whole on this issue but that seems pretty damn impossible.
If I had to arbitrarily make up a statistic, I’d say that 70% of the WGA wants to unilaterally abolish the credit, without even realizing that there’s a realistic chance of a co-author existence with a director the OR the even take moral issue with the credit as does Josh. When taking a Film By credit becomes comparable to stealing from your grandmother, well…this does not bode well.
Josh,
So just to clarify (this is a serious question, not a snipe), you believe that no one one individual or individuals can author a film? Meaning, even if the director and the writer worked out a co-Film By credit, it would still demean the contributions of the rest of the crew? Is that close to your argument?
If it is, then why would you want a studio to be the author of a film and not its filmmakers? Within the music industry it would be like Timbaland, Justin Timberlake, and 50 cent, creating a song but then Interscope (I don’t know if that’s their real label and it’d be way too gay to look it up) claiming itself as the author.
We know there has to be an author to a film, so why give it up to Disney?
Oops, that first line of my post should be attributed to Johnny.
Thanks for a more interesting discussion, guys. Now we’re getting somewhere!
To The Real Peter Jackson:
Dude! So awesome that you decided to post here. Big fan. FORGOTTEN SILVER fucking rules. I’m sorry, but I didn’t mean to imply that YOU were the illiterate A-List director. But this guy is most definitely out there, directing, authouring films, taking a possessory credit, while having his screenplays read aloud to him. One of my best friends was very much involved with one of his blockbusters from a few years ago.
Re: the point about CREATIVITY vs. RESPONSIBILITY. My earlier point is that the person who is responsible for a film (or TV program) has shifted over the years. Right now (in most cases) it’s the director in films, and the writer/producer in television. But that can change.
Actually, my aforementioned friend is a high-level production exec at the studio. HE’S really the one who is responsible for the films produced on his watch. He does the budgets, approves department head hires, goes on scouts, and spends a lot of time on the set. When the film goes over budget, he finds the money elsewhere to make sure what needs to be shot gets shot, or he forces the director to cut scenes. (You could argue that a director who goes over-budget is being IRRESPONSIBLE to the film, as his inability to make his days results in damage done to the film as conceived in the screenplay.)
He’s got some AMAZING stories about insane directors, and how he’s had to kick ass to keep a film moving. Seems like that should be the producer’s job, but my friend is responsible for the budget and making sure the production delivers the best possible film (based upon the screenplay that the studio wanted to make) on time. (To be fair, he’s read hundreds of terrible screenplays too, and dealt with incompetant producers; I don’t want to give the impression that I hate directors. Come to think of it, my friend has also done a fair amount of 2nd unit directing himself.)
Carry on.
Josh, you have gone so far in re-positioning Craig’s simple statements into another context (directors who “don’t ass rape their own children”), there’s no point in talking to you about this. It’s like arguing about man-boy love with someone who only believes in heterosexuality.
“Ruairi,
“The writer bears no responsibility for the look of the film, or the performances, or a million other things that come under the RESPONSIBILITY of the director.”
Two words:
Horse.
Shit.
But keep on living in that world, cos what the fuck - the only people that mentality hurts are writers.”
Well, that’s the world you are living in too, Josh. I know it’s not an ideal world, but at least be honest about it. If I’m wrong, and you can explain to me how a writer bears responsibility for processes he is not present to oversee and has no say over, then I’d like to hear it. By responsibility, I mean that the writer is answerable, or accountable for. Not that he is responsible for conceiving the concept and story structure etc. without which there would be no movie. (what’s that you say? No definitions? I’ll define it if you refuse to understand a word I’ve said. Oh wait, usually when that happens, you dismiss it as irrelevant.)
That’s 3 times in a row that you have been rude or condescending to me in this thread alone. You are hurting my feelings dude. Sniff. And I’m not even sure we’re on the opposite sides of an argument here.
Do it again, and I might even be rude back.
I think Josh hit the nails on their respective heads…
“It’s a moral issue, not a legal or economic one.”
To him - and others, incl. myself - taking the vanity credit is first and foremost a moral issue. Many are involved in the making of a motion picture, hence not one (or few) should get a credit that identifies him/them as the sole de facto author.
However, it seems to me that Ted too takes moral issue with the possessive credit when he states that creating a unique expression of an idea is something that can only be done by people and thus no corporate entity (like a studio) but a living-breathing individual should be recocknized as the author of a film. The idea being that the credit should be given to those living-breathing individuals who most (!) deserve it, i.e. writers and directors in tandem.
Personally, I tend to agree with the notion in last anon’s post - that the studio IS the author of a film in the sense that without the studio’s resources, be they monetary or else (e.g. the hard labor of an exectuve producer working for the studio), writers would sit on a 120 pages of ink and directors…er…would sit at home staring at the wall.
Damn, identifying a sole author of a product that was created in a collaborative effort is tricky…
Maybe this has been covered already , but what’s the real difference between what a writer does and what a director does? Is it just that one works with words on paper and the other tells people what to do (or what not to do)? But the job is the same? Isn’t this all Simantics?
“When taking a Film By credit becomes comparable to stealing from your grandmother…”
Oh, good lord.
hangs head in despair for all humanity
You know, I keep wanting to add a little disclaimer before writing a defense of Olson, because my longtime observation is that he tends to be a bit of a dick and look down on people a lot, but God help me, I’m beginning to see why.
Whatever his other faults, the man actually does demonstrate a certain, perhaps naive, faith in the reasoning and analytical capabilities of his fellow humans by presenting his arguments in a form that assumes a certain, minimal level of intellect and attention on the part of the reader. Yes, it might be simpler and clearer to simply write, “I agree that claiming authorship may be valuable, but I also believe that it would be morally wrong in this case.” Clear, simple, understandable by the average sixth-grader, checks all those boxes for sure.
But the thing is, people who like words and enjoy their use often prefer to do marginally more interesting things with them. This can include employing certain little rhetorical flourishes that make the same point in a more entertaining way. But apparently, such devices just can’t be used on the internet, because of the overwhelmingly high probability that people will either willfully misinterpret them, which is disingenuous, or sincerely be too dumb to follow them, which is just sad.
So, yes, for the record: If one believes that claiming sole authorship of a work made by many hands is an activity that may be personally enriching but is morally wrong, then that activity is indeed comparable to stealing—even, alas, from Grandma. Just as mountains are comparable to molehills, and a lover’s eyes are comparable to the newly-risen moon, so can a comparison be made in this case. (I suddenly envision dim-witted audience members raising their hands to berate John Donne: “Well, if you’re claiming that the eyeballs of your beloved are actually a large collection of dust and rock orbiting our planet at a distance of several hundred thousand miles, then I don’t see how I can take anything you say seriously!”)
Note that “comparable” does not mean “equal to.” It means “in some way similar to.” As in, “The mental apparatus of certain internet commentors is comparable to an empty hamster wheel, squeaking forlornly in the night.”
Oops. Above rant was mine.
(Please consider this my more prominently-displayed possessory credit.)
What if I understand the rhetorical flourishes but I’m not entertained?
Then no harm is done, I’d say.
E.e,
Um, obviously I didn’t take Josh’s comment literally. I was making the point that some WGA members feel that the Film By credit was a moral issue.
But thanks for the lesson on metaphors, I guess.
Craig,
“Leno does contribute quite a bit to charity.”
Of course he does, sweetheart.
Bleargh.
Kevin,
“you believe that no one one individual or individuals can author a film?”
Gee, considering the fact that I’ve said that maybe 27,345 times in the last couple years, several hundred of those times right HERE, it’s nice to see you finally get that that’s what I’m saying.
“If it is, then why would you want a studio to be the author of a film and not its filmmakers?”
A separate question from the ethics of taking a “film by” credit.
“I was making the point that some WGA members feel that the Film By credit was a moral issue.”
Gee, ya think?
EE,
“Whatever his other faults, the man actually does demonstrate a certain, perhaps naive, faith in the reasoning and analytical capabilities of his fellow humans by presenting his arguments in a form that assumes a certain, minimal level of intellect and attention on the part of the reader.”
Sensa humor helps, too, but I knew walking in the door that’d be in short supply around here. Apparently, Craig keeps all his funny in a jar he only opens on the job.
By the way, just for the record - it’s not a naive faith. I KNOW there are plenty of folks here who can’t handle the occasional rhetorical flourish or challenging idea. I just don’t give a crap about them. I’m writing for the folks who get it, and enjoying the fact that I annoy the ones who don’t.
“But apparently, such devices just can’t be used on the internet, because of the overwhelmingly high probability that people will either willfully misinterpret them, which is disingenuous, or sincerely be too dumb to follow them, which is just sad.”
Sad when it’s the NAMBLA message boards, sure. But I’ve long since gotten over that. It does, however, continue to blow my mind how many professional screenwriters are hostile to such notions and are, themselves, only functionally literate.
(Although this discussion about the illiterate director raises an interesting point…. it’s possible for an illiterate to become a successful director. It is much, much harder for an illiterate to become a screenwriter of ANY sort. Safe to say, there are no illiterates in the WGA, which puts us at least one up on the DGA, no?)
Craig,
“What if I understand the rhetorical flourishes but I’m not entertained?”
Aw, honey pie. You would be if so many of them weren’t at your expense.
Josh,
I don’t think you said one actual thing in your last post other than sounding like a dayplayer from Mean Girls.
You know you can’t have a conversation with someone when they actually use the word, “Gee” twice in one post.
“Anonymous” —
You presume that because I don’t agree that its possible for a sufficiently-detailed screenplay to entitle the writer(s) to director credit, it means I lack the ability to imagine such a screenplay that “can be handed directly to the department heads as ‘written instruction’.”
In point of fact, it’s easy to imagine — because any screenplay serves as “written instructions” for making the movie. I’ve gotten crapped on by other writers for pointing this out in the past, but the primary purpose of a screenplay is as a service document. The format alone should make that obvious.
And, trust me, I am so frustrated by the limitations of the screenplay format, I have imagined screenplays that include hyperlinked appendices, storyboards and full animatics.
But since any screenplay serves as written instruction to the cast and crew, it means that the sufficient amount of detail necessary for a screenplay to be used as instructions to the cast & crew is whatever amount is in the screenplay.
So that whole “sufficiently detailed” thing is a red-herring. The real question is, if the writer of the screenplay hands a screenplay directly to the cast and crew as written instructions, does the fact he wrote the screenplay entitle him to credit for directing the movie?
The short answer is, no. Oh, he may be entitled to credit for directing the movie, but it wouldn’t be by dint of having written the screenplay, or even by dint of handing it directly to the department heads — it’d be because he has the authority to direct the crew to follow those instructions.
Or direct them to not follow them, but follow other instructions instead. Or direct them to implement some, but not others, in this way, but not that way. Or to direct the actors to stay on script or improvise. Or to direct the DP to plan for a night shoot because the screenplay says NIGHT (or to plan for day shoot because, despite the fact that the screenplay says NIGHT, the scene’s going to take place during the day), etc.
If someone is looking for a non-legalese, basic, fundamental definition of the job of “director,” here it is: someone with the authority to direct the cast and crew in producing X feet of shot footage per day that can be used in a final assembly of a motion picture.
At one time, that was the sum total of the job of “director.” Crank out the footage. All of the responsibilities and authority now attendant to the job of “director” — both television and theatrical — were won on the basis of, If the director oversees X, Y or Z in pre-production, it will make the shot footage produced more valuable in the editing room. If the director overseas A, B, or C in post-production, it will more quickly realize the value of the shot footage. The value of the job directors do to the Companies is shooting footage; directors have increased the value of that job based on enhancing the value to the Companies of the footage they shoot.
So, nowadays, directing the cast and crew in shooting footage is not the only thing people who do the job of “director” do — but it’s the one thing that anyone must have the authority to in order to claim credit for directing.
And the process of writing the screenplay does not entail that authority.
Because, in order of the screenplay to serve as written instructions for the cast & crew, the writing process must be complete. Finished. Over. The screenplay must exist in some form that can be shared with others.
Even if the writing process is happening concurrently with the footage being shot, the part of the screenplay that serves as instructions for shooting footage must exist before the footage can be shot (this is true in post-production, too: the writing process must be finished before the written work can be used as instructions for (re-)shooting or recording ADR or whatever).
If the writer’s work must be done before the authority to direct the crew to use that work as instructions can even be exercised, it means that the writer’s work does not include the very authority that distinguishes the process of directing from any other process.
In other words: the process of writing does not result in work in the medium of film, and the process of directing does not result in work in the medium of the written word.
Just what I said.
What an illuminating discovery. It’s even harder to wipe your ass with no hands.
For a man who says that he has great respect for directors, you sure do never miss a chance to disparage them; even in the context of a fake story about an illiterate director. You’re like a bored housewife that swears she doesn’t have a drinking problem but continually pours Jack Daniels in her cereal.
So here’s your own little intervention: Although you say you have great respect for directors…you don’t.
Ted,
“Because, in order of the screenplay to serve as written instructions for the cast & crew, the writing process must be complete. Finished. Over. The screenplay must exist in some form that can be shared with others.”
I find a series of words placed in the proper context to be a pretty solid way of communicating these things…
Kevin,
You have a hard time grasping the written word, that’s become crystal clear. If I were to devote my time to clarifying every point I make because you didn’t understand it, I’d have no time left for pretending to be a 19 year old hooker who calls every John “Daddy” in Second Life. So do me a favor, and refrain from interpreting my posts. They’re not written for you. I’ve practically forgotten how to use words that small.
“even in the context of a fake story about an illiterate director. “
Hate to break it to you, but until you’re actually out here, in THIS business - studio based feature films - your level of insider knowledge is dwarfed by the average Crafts Service dude.
Josh,
“even in the context of a fake story about an illiterate director. “
Oh boy. This coming from the same guy who was too clueless to realize that he was arguing with a someone pretending to be David Cronenberg. If I have to spend 20 years in this business to get outsmarted by a guy posting as “David C.”, maybe I’ll just quit and get a job responding to your wacky posts.
Ted,
“In other words: the process of writing does not result in work in the medium of film, and the process of directing does not result in work in the medium of the written word.”
A sincere question, since I agree with this statement: How does this square with your stated hope that writers will someday gain the status of authors (or even co-authors) of the films made from their screenplays? Wouldn’t the very definition of authorship, as used in pretty much every medium, preclude the writer being the author of the film if what you say above is true?
And a dumb question, if anyone’s willing to field it: Are there any cases apart from film where a work that is the product of many people’s labor—and specifically, that entails “creative” labor of various kinds by various contributors—has its authorship assigned to one, or least a smaller subset, of those contributors? And if such a case does exist, how is authorship determined? (I feel like there’s some obvious answer to this question, but it just isn’t coming to me….)
In short, are there any historical precedents elsewhere that might serve as a guide here?
“I’d have no time left for pretending to be a 19 year old hooker who calls every John ‘Daddy’ in Second Life.”
Oh, shit, that was YOU?
All is forgiven, baby, all is forgiven….
You all understand that Josh Olson is an AW Troll?
So, how many votes for Josh Olson writing Craig’s guest column next week?
Anyone?
You’d earn points in my book, Craig!
Kevin,
Please point me to the post which led you to the truly bizarre conclusion that I thought “David C” was actually David Cronenberg. I’m genuinely trying to understand how what passes for your mind works, and it would help a LOT.
When you can’t, though, it would be a nice change if you’d acknowledge you were talking out of your ass.
Ted,
Thank you for your thoughtful answer to my post.
There are a lot of terms flying around here: “authorship,” “creator,” “direct,” “responsibility.” If it sounds like I’m trying to tear down the status of the director, it’s only to try to point out that directors didn’t (and don’t) always occupy some exhaulted, omnipotent position in the hierarchy. A myth has built up around The Director over the last few decades, and it seems (to me) like he’s accomplished this by diminishing the creative input of everyone else on the crew. The “Film By” credit is just the final slap in the face.
Producers used to be the Titans, but over the years that credit has been watered down to the point of absurdity. When you look at the main titles and count a dozen or more flavors of producer, who knows what any one of them actually did, if anything. The writer has been devalued to the point that they’re seen as almost interchangeable. It’s become S.O.P. to hire a new writer when a director comes on board, or a big star.
The question of a film’s “authorship” that Ted raised is an interesting one, and I don’t know what the answer is. Speaking as a screenwriter, I don’t feel totally comfortible claiming it for myself. I understand the necessity for there to be a single person on a film who has the ultimate authority, lest there be chaos. But in most cases, that’s still myth. There are still people behind the scenes telling a director what he can and can’t have. The director is then charged with making it work. Is it fair then to grant him “authorship?” I don’t know. Should the producer who guides a film from conception (or acquisition of literary material) through the final release, including hiring the director, be given “authorship?” Perhaps.
I also find the idea of granting “authorship” to a corporation troubling. Even though they put up the money and assumed the risk, a film is simply an investment to them. They didn’t “create” it.
Kevin,
I can’t speak for Josh, but I don’t think anyone actually belived “David C” was “David Cronenberg.” That didn’t even occur to me. I just thought he was some wiseguy named David Carpenter, or David Chung, or whatever.
And you can believe what you want, but the Illiterate Director is 100% true. He’s currently attached to two big studio franchise movies. I say this NOT to mock all directors everywhere, BTW. Just to point out that there are degrees in all things. A few directors are brilliant and can simultaneously manage everything from the overall creative vision to the tiniest technical detail, and others get driven to the set so they can say “action” and “cut.” Most of them are in the middle. Mere mortals.
E.e. wrote:
Not at all. Although the relationship between a screenplay and a motion picture is akin to the relationship between a novel and a screenplay adapting that novel, there’s one important difference:
A screenplay is a dramatization created specifically for use in the production of a motion picture that incorporates that dramatization as part of its content.
Bearing in mind that the accepted defintion of “work of authorship” is “the unique expression of ideas in a fixed, tangible form,” and that a screenplay and a movie are both works of authorship:
The unique expression of ideas created by the writer were fixed the form of the screenplay as a means toward fixing that unique expression of ideas in the form of a movie.
The fact that the screenplay is in-and-of-itself a work of authorship is actually a by-product of the process of creating the work of authorship that is the movie.
The fact that screenplay is a work of authorship in its own right means the writer is the author of the screenplay.
But as the creator of the unique expression of ideas fixed in the form of the movie as intended by their creator, the writer is also the author of the movie.
Always. Irrefutable, save for those who want to refute the entire concept of authorship. The copyright law of every country in the world (except the U.S.) that recognizes motion pictures as a works of authorship likewise recognize writers as authors of motion pictures.
(where there is a writer, of course; resistant though some may be to the idea, it is possible to make a movie without a screenplay)
However …
… becuse the unique expression of ideas created by the writer are not the sum total of the unique expression of ideas fixed in the form of the movie, the writer is not the sole author.
So then the question becomes, who created the unique expression of ideas in the movie that were not created by the writer?
Some countires say its the director; some say its the director and producer; some say its the director, producer and composer; some say its the director, producer, composer, cinematogrpaher and editor (there’s one that says its the producer only, but I can’t remember which one; and I’ve been told that there’s some countries that recognize the writer as the sole author of the movie, but the source of that did not specific what countries those are, and I’ve never found one).
In this country, directors, through the possesory credit, are asserting “The individuals who are authors of motion pictures are directors.”
And that is exactly what writers in the U.S. need to be doing, as well. Asserting that we are the authors of motion pictures. Because we are, regardless of the work-made-for-hire law.
(BTW, just to make clear: “writer,” “director,” “producer” does not necessarily mean a single individual; where more than individual is credited for the screenplay, then they are collectively the “writer”; same for all the others).
So, regardless of anything else, there is no question in my mind that writers aboslutely have claim to de facto authorship of movies. Given that one of the moral rights of authorship is the right to attribution of authorship, there is also no question in my mind that we have the right to credit that recognizes that authorship.
(The writing credits on movies already recognize our de facto authorship of the screenplay).
Actually, that’s not true.
The screenplay, as a work-of-authorship in-and-of-itself, is vested with a copyright separate from that of the movie.
Copyright is actually a bundle of rights: the right to perform/exhibit/broadcast/transmit the work to the public; the right to make copies and distribute them to the public; and the right to create new works of authorship derived from the work.
That last one gives the copyright owner the exclusive right to:
There’s more, but I think that sufficiently establishes the value of the copyright in the screenplay.
No, the unfortunate aspect of this, from the screenwriter’s point of view, is that the work-made-for-hire law specically assigns legal authorship of the screenplay and all attendant authorial rights to the financier of the movie.
Just as I thought. You don’t have to read very well to be a complete dipshit. I specifically said that you were arguing with a guy pretending to be David Cronenberg. Not that you thought he was David Cronenberg.
I guess now we all know a screenwriter who’s completely illiterate.
Oh and by the way, arguing with a guy pretending to be David Cronenberg is even worse than thinking he’s David Cronenberg. You didn’t even get that he was referrencing Cronenberg…a director you actually worked with.
It’s like getting head from Jennifer Lopez and then realizing it was Mario Lopez that whole time.
Kevin,
You wrote, “I specifically said that you were arguing with a guy pretending to be David Cronenberg. Not that you thought he was David Cronenberg.”
There’s two problems with this statement. The first is that this is EXACTLY what you said:
“This coming from the same guy who was too clueless to realize that he was arguing with a someone pretending to be David Cronenberg.”
Second, I did not argue with her. I called her a bore and a coward, and left it at that. A bore, because she’s tried this before, under the same ridiculous screenname; a coward because she attacks my professional acheivements under a phony name.
So your assertion that I argued with her - let alone that I thought she was David Cronenberg - remains ridiculous. Like every other goddam thing you post here.
Lastly, you gotta know that when you assert you’re somehow more in the know about things like this illiterate director than someone who, say, actually works in the studio system, you just come across kinda silly, ya know?
Arbouet confuses directing youtube videos with being a Hollywood director, so when he sees someone talk about an illiterate director working in Hollywood, he thinks it’s him, even though he’s not actually a director working in Hollywood. Hell, he’s not even illiterate. Just stupid.
Umm…seriously, you can read, right?
And now I’m not sure if you’re just a really untruthful guy or you just don’t remember all the ridiculous posts that you wrote.
You argued with with David C. for quite some time until A) I called out the joke, and B) thought that Rachael was the David C.
And it doesn’t an Oscar nominee to know when someone is making up a scenario to make a point. What’s really sad is that it’s painfully obvious that you define yourself as Josh Olson, Screenwriter. I guess I understand. Because Josh Olson, Human Being is pretty lacking.
Spike L,
Hey, cool! I’m such a big fan of Inside Man. She Hate Me was a piece of shit, though.
Do I look as gullible as Olson?
Kevin -
Also, you do realize you are the only one who thinks David C. was posing as David Cronenberg, right?
Oh and, what’s it feel like to vomit on people without suffering the repercussions of getting your dribble deleted? Just curious…
to all you fake bombs,
I’ve worked very hard to establish the “bomb” brand. Various ‘bombs’ are attributed to some of the most intellectually profound posts on Artrul Writer. For people to take my name in vain is plain insane. And it ruins years of hard work.
If people continue to use the bomb brand without consent from me, the real bomber, I’ll have to stop posting under that name.
yours truly,
The Real Peter Jackson
Ted,
That clarifies a whole bunch of things. Thanks for both your knowledge of these topics and your willingness to spend your off-hours sharing it. Greatly appreciated.
Johnny,
You may have missed it but the poster admitted the joke.
It’s as if you read Josh’s posts and somehow the words get transformed into beautiful sonnets. I mean, I know you idolize the guy but are you seriously even reading what he writes.
Not to mention that Craig is working right now and has no way of deleting absolutely anything he might deem uncivil.
“I’ve had that happen once, with Harlan.”
You sure it was just that one time, Josh?
Kevo -
“I know you idolize the guy but are you seriously even reading what he writes.”
That’s cute.
If by “idolize” you mean share many of his views and am not afraid to speak up even if doing so is rather unpopular on this site, then yeah, I worship the man!
Am I seriously reading his posts? Not only that, unlike you I also understand what he’s saying. So do others.
Kevin,
You must admit, it gets bit hard to follow the through-line of your thoughts when within the space of a single hour, you both deny thinking that Josh thought he was talking to David Cronenberg, then pretend to think you’re talking to Spike Lee and ask, “Do I look as gullible as Josh now?” Seriously, which of these two things do you believe to be true? Both of them? (One during even-numbered minutes and one during odd-numbered ones, perhaps?)
If nothing else, you might consider using the phrase, “Obviously, what I meant was…” a bit less often. I’m a reasonably bright guy, I read things pretty carefully, and I can say with all sincerity, it’s not that obvious.
…And now to turn about and kinda defend the guy instead: I have to say, waving the dick of one’s current success in other people’s faces is a wee bit unseemly. In fact, it’s every bit as odious as its doppelganger bad habit, “Excoriating people for perceived failings in their produced work when one has no similar accomplishments of one’s own.” Neither tack adds much to an argument; both, in fact, tend to function as tacit cop-outs from people who have run out of substantive things to say.
Once one reaches any given level of success, it’s certainly comforting to view it as a thing predestined, and to look at one’s less-glorious past as a series of shrewd steps leading inevitably in that direction. But a few overnight sensations aside, most people do arrive at success via some time in the farm leagues. To assume that you were the last talented person who will ever emerge from such places, and immediately begin heaping scorn on anyone else who’s still working their way up from them, makes you look not only like a dick, but a dishonest dick with a very selective memory.
You may indeed have been a rare needle of talent in a great haystack of mediocrity, but that’s no reason to piss on the entire haystack. Either there are other such needles still waiting to be found in it somewhere, or else film as an art form is doomed forever the moment the current crop of geniuses expires. One certainly hopes it’s the former.
And as such, to scornfully dismiss someone as “a director of YouTube videos” is to make no point at all. Many great directors were, at one point in their lives, “directors of student films”—as were a whole bunch of no-talent wanna-bes who never achieved a damn thing. As a barometer of either someone’s current merit or their future potential, merely knowing the arena of their current endeavors doesn’t really tell you a whole fuck of a lot.
And frankly, Kevin’s most notable YouTube video has attracted more viewers than a great many theatrical releases ever do, and has done so (I’m presuming) with a promotional budget somewhere in the neighborhood of “jack shit” vs. the studios’ millions. Mostly via word-of-mouth from satisfied consumers, in other words. So whether you liked the thing or I did, it apparently got the job done for a fair number of people. And there are other measures of success than one’s rank in the industry pecking order, after all. (But if that’s the only measure that’s meaningful to you-the-anonymous-but-apparently-much-bigger-director, well, I’d hazard a further guess that a video seen by millions and replayed on every major media outlet in the country probably generates a certain amount of “Hey, maybe we should be doing business with these people” buzz, too. Just like happened to you when your career started to get hot.)
“And now I’m not sure if you’re just a really untruthful guy or you just don’t remember all the ridiculous posts that you wrote.”
Uh… Kev? I don’t have to remember anything. This is clearly news to you, but the way this medium works is like so: you write something, and it sticks around (Except, of course, for your threats top beat down Johnny for calling you a nitwit). If you’ll take ten seconds and look up to the top of this page, you’ll find exactly ONE post from me to the lady calling herself “David C., the one I cited in my last post.
After that, it’s true, several people responded to this nitwit as though she were a real person, but I was not one of them. Ted Elliot was, so I guess you’re saying he’s clueless, too. I’d call him a lot of things, but not that. Still, different strokes for different folks….
Anonymous,
Points all well taken, but hardly needed - having worked in leagues that make youtube look like Sony, I’m well aware of all of that. The issue was Kevin’s assertion as to the veracity of a small piece of info about a working studio director, as though someone who doesn’t work in this system could be more aware of these things than someone who does.
My issue is that you take a story signed by a poster under ANONYMOUS as Gospel because it make one of your “Director as Sky God” points but summarily dismiss other posters under ANONYMOUS when you don’t like what they’re saying. Unless you know who the poster is and who the hypothetical director is, why in the world would you take that story as fact? You took it as fact simply because you chose to. That’s it. Everything else is fantasy.
But yeah, feel free to attack my career some more. Not only do you have no idea who my agent is or who I have worked with or currently work with but it’s nice to hear you continue on that path to make you look more like a petty jerk.
E.e. said: “But the thing is, people who like words and enjoy their use often prefer to do marginally more interesting things with them. This can include employing certain little rhetorical flourishes that make the same point in a more entertaining way. But apparently, such devices just can’t be used on the internet, because of the overwhelmingly high probability that people will either willfully misinterpret them, which is disingenuous, or sincerely be too dumb to follow them, which is just sad.”
When in doubt, I use the `A River Runs Through It’ style of writing: “Half as long”
Anything more tends to get lost.
Tim,
Thanks, that’s an excellent
dear “original” bomb,
eat me.
Kevin,
“My issue is that you take a story signed by a poster under ANONYMOUS as Gospel because it make one of your “Director as Sky God” points but summarily dismiss other posters under ANONYMOUS when you don’t like what they’re saying. Unless you know who the poster is and who the hypothetical director is, why in the world would you take that story as fact? “
No, genius. I supported Anonymous’s comment because, like him/her, I also know of this director. As do many other people who work HERE IN HOLLYWOOD. Not THERE IN NEW YORK.
As for the rest - Okay, so you’re gonna pretend the whole other conversation never happened cos you just went back and found out that I DIDN’T engage David C in debate, which makes you look like a complete bonehead. Got it. That’ll be worth remembering the next time you assert any kind of basic integrity here.
“But yeah, feel free to attack my career some more. “
I never did. You do not live here. You do not work here. You could be Martin fucking Scorsese, you simply don’t spend enough time in this specific area of this regional business to be able to say, authoritatively, that someone who DOES doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
What I’ve attacked is your ongoing need to present yourself as something you aren’t yet. You may very well end up the next Spielberg. Do the world - and yourself - a favor… don’t tell us you’re the next Spielberg until you actually are.
By the way, my agent can beat up your agent.
And when exactly did this happen?
Whoops! Never.
If you’re gonna make shit up at least pick a director that I really love like Chris Nolan.
“but it’s nice to hear you continue on that path to make you look more like a petty jerk.”
I thought only girls call guys jerks.
Maybe it’s a east coast thing.
Kevin,
Perhaps you forgot, or maybe you’re just too drunk, but you wrote this a little while ago:
“And now I’m not sure if you’re just a really untruthful guy or you just don’t remember all the ridiculous posts that you wrote.”
Since I never actually wrote any of the posts you attributed to me, I guess that means I’m not an untruthful guy, huh?
So what does that make you, the dude who can’t acknowledge he was not only wrong, but used his disastrously inept recollection of easily verifiable events to personally attack someone else’s integrity?
Sucks to be you, bubba.
I can no longer post under my Name(s) of “bomb.”
My style has been ripped off too hard. Which sucks. Because I worked really hard for me to perfect it.
For those of you who were fans of mines, please stay tune for a new improved alias.
I will be taking on Josh Olson and Ted Elliott for their non-agreed by me positions, which I find so incorrect.
Because as a mature person, I find this banal and infantile.
Just do me the pleasure of showing me where I’ve ever talked about my talent. Like you know, EVER.
I’ll show you mine if you show me yours.
And I really don’t have to attack your personal integrity. You do that just fine on your own. Especially the part where you insinuated that Craig and I beat our kids.
Good job!!
Kevin,
Wow. Right there, in black and white. Dead fucking wrong for all the world to see… can’t even acknowledge it.
“Especially the part where you insinuated that Craig and I beat our kids.”
Shit, I didn’t even know you two were married.
I don’t see what’s wrong with threatening to beat someone up as long as you honor your words upon seeing your adversary.
When two people using their real names insult each other, the fact it’s online should give one immunity.
Fighting is a normal thing. Especially for men. I honestly believe that if Kevin and Josh insult each other to the point that one of them wants to fight, hey, go for it.
Having fights in real life has made me a better man. It’s made me a man who doesn’t insult people, even online, unless i’m willing to fight them.
I mean to say “the fact that it’s online should NOT give one immunity.”
Kevin,
How does insinuating somebody beats their children put a dent in one’s integrity? Do you even know what the word means?
I’m closing the comments in this thread.
Reasons: boring…embarrassing