Jeffrey M. Anderson's 400 Screens, 400 Blows -- Writers on the Storm

this is an interesting article...the positions you present on director importance make some sense, but writers have to be good for something...right?

Reply

Well, I wouldn't say its a issue of a director vs. writer - imho, the two main schools of thought in terms of creating film come down to the auteur theory (which you already explained) and the idea of film as an inherently collaborative medium. I lean more towards the latter but of course it isn't absolute. Without a doubt, a film's script is the foundation the whole process is built upon - but the combination of the director, actors, cinematographer, composer, etc. makes each endeavor unique. Regardless, an interesting article and an equally interesting discussion...

Reply

Alfred Hitchcock's films are all recognizably his no matter who wrote the screenplay. The same with John Ford, Howard Hawks, and Martin Scorsese. I would wager that most of these so-called critics who rail against the auteur theory have not bothered to read Truffaut or even Andrew Sarris. Sarris even goes on record as writing that not all directors are auteurs, and even had an article about novelist and screenplay writer Richard Price. Unfortunately, most recent Hollywood films are made by committee so there are fewer directors currently at work that have a recognizable visual style or thematic consistency.

Reply

This inherently collaborative medium starts with blank sheets of paper. Those blank sheets of paper are filled with information by the writer. The information on the sheets of paper is like the genitic code contained in a seed. You want strawberries get strawbarry seed; you want corn get corn seed. You want a good crop get a good farmer, with tractors, water, agronamist, etc. You want a bad crop get a director, actors, cinematographer, composer, etc., regardless of how gifted and intelligent the director and others might be.

Writers know the genitic code of what they write as well as good farmers know the genitic code of seed. It goes without saying that directors take a-shot-in-the-dark, which results in a flop, when they fail to grasp the genitic code of a writers script.

Without the script a director has no concept of a story. Without the writer there's nothing for director, actors, cinematographer, composer, etc. to do in an inherently collaborative medium called film. Without the writer the intire film industry is out of work.

Every screenwriter from Billy Wilder to Joe Esterhas has said it: you give them one thing, they make something different; and there's a reason why. In an otherwise inherently collaborative medium only the author can work alone, because, the author is an artist.

One of the specifics, which makes the medium inherently collaborative, is the demand of the medium to combine art (provided by the author) with science (provided by the director, actors, cinematographer, composer, etc.)

Providing 'art' is the work of an author or authors.

Providing 'science' is the work of technicians or directors, actors, cinematographer, composer, etc.)

Failure to properly interpret a work of art is a mistake. Failure to properly interpret a work of art can cause a technician to make changes. When a technician makes changes to a work of 'art' those changes do not make that technician an author of the work. Mistakes are not art. Changes are not art. And it does not matter if the changes made by a technician make the art better or worse, because, the scientific (directors) technical job to produce the art as good as or better than the original art is implied by the scientific (directors) technical acceptance of the original authors story.

The auteur theory is bunk.

The San Francisco International Film Festival is correct in paying tribute to writers.

An industry that ranks writers lower than craft services, when the whole industry would cease to exist without writers, is indeed cruel and vicious.

The situation is easy enough to prove. If you give the same script to two different companies to produce and send the writer along to be on set and in the cutting room during production, you'll get back two (writers cans of film) that are very similar. Now take the same script and give it to two other companies to produce and keep the writer off set and out of the cutting room during production, and you'll get back two (cans of film) that are very different from each other and also very different from either of the (writers cans of film).

With the above proof in hand, I doubt, any competent Hollywood writer would agree with anything but the proof.

http://www2.xlibris.com/Bookstore/book_excerpt.asp?bookid=17207

Reply

This whole discussion is, of course, absurd, and while you might find one or two working screenwriters who buy into it, the great majority do not (Neither does the Writers Guild.)

Your examples indicate a deep lack of understanding of how writers work. You take a perfect example of two writers who can legitimately lay claim to true authorship of their films - Scott and Karaszewski - and then use the fact that they don't ALWAYS write the same kind of script as proof of your ridiculous contention that the director is author.

Anyone with a modicum of wit can see the difference between Ed Wood and That Darn Cat. Screenwriters split their time between writing passion projects and doing work for hire. I guarantee you that That Darn Cat paid the rent for them to write their next passion project.

Also, the notion that someone is not an auteur because they deal with a variety of subjects is as ignorant and absurd as everything else you've written here.

This stuff matters. Writers are screwed out of money, power and recognition every day, and when people like you - especially ones with no hint of a clue - pontificate on how valid this theory is (one that's long since fallen out of favor among serious critics and film scholars, by the way), you hurt the very people who provide the creative spark for the movies you love so much.

Lastly, film is a collaborative medium. Giving any one individual blanket credit for the "authorship" of a movie is stupid venture to begin with.

This is the problem with the internet. Any ignoramus can, with a laptop, present himself as an authority on a subject he's completely ignorant of.

Reply

Film is a collaborative medium. End of story. Or do you really intend to call Eli Roth and Shawn Levy auteurs? And no, "any Hollywood writer" does not agree with you. I happen to think you're an uninformed fool and I'm one of those writers. Writers get screwed enough. You can type, so you think you should have an opinion. That's not necessarily true. Get an informed opinion and come on back. Until then, your opinion is ludicrous and just wrong. It's unfortunate that Cinematical lets people like you blather on about things they don't understand. Seriously. Stop confusing people.

Reply