A Film By....?

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
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:

1. ALWAYS check your lenses for flaws that may cause important shots to be out of focus.

2. 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.

• Ted

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.

• Ted

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

• Ted

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.

• Ted

“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.

• Ted

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.

• Ted

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.

• Ted

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.”

• Ted

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.

• Ted

“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.

• Ted

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?

• Ted

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.

• Ted

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.