Why Don't Screenwriters Get More Credit?

[manticore]

I think this an old question, but why is the job of director given so much more emphasis and attention than screenwriter? I've never thought it was fair. As Gore Vidal said, a director can make a bad film out of a good script but he can't make a good film out of a bad script. Writers do get more credit in television, and people do follow the work of someone like Jimmy McGovern in a way they don't seem to in cinema.

I know very little about film, so tell me you buffs - are there screenwriters you follow, whose films you always make sure to see? Do you check to see who wrote a film to decide whether to watch it or not? Who do you think are great screenwriters? Are they mostly writer/directors?

[Small Man Big Horse]

I've always thought this. Probably self indulgently as I've tried to write scripts in the past and it's fucking hard, but yeah, without the scriptwriter you have nothing and they should get much much more respect than they do.

[Blumf]

As Gore Vidal said, a director can make a bad film out of a good script but he can't make a good film out of a bad script.

Isn't that what they did with Casablanca?

But yep, always surprising how little attention is given to the foundational part of a film, especially as it's probably one of cheapest parts.

[Mister Six]

I think it's because the process from script to screen is so much longer in film, and with much more intermediary fiddling from producers, actors, their agents etc, so that what ends up on the screen is rarely (unless the director is also the writer) what was originally on the page. Whereas in telly there's less time to arse around and less money to worry about, so once the script is workable, it's off to the races.

Similarly, having less money means less opportunity to get flashy with the visuals, so the director is more likely to be in the position of getting the script to the screen, rather than engineering something to show off their skills. It's only in the past 10-15 years that TV's really had the budget and ambition to let a director make a mark.

Alnd in a popular series you need the writer to keep coming back and developing the story. TV's far more dependent on the writer because it can't just fuck off to an entirely new bunch of characters and stories.

But yes, not nearly enough reverence is paid to the script. Too many of these shit superhero movies are put in place because the studio said 'We need a film about this property - get someone to put the script together by next October so we can get shooting.'

[Steven]

I think it's because the process from script to screen is so much longer in film, and with much more intermediary fiddling from producers, actors, their agents etc, so that what ends up on the screen is rarely (unless the director is also the writer) what was originally on the page.

I agree, and the Coen's Barton Fink is a bit of a deconstruction of that whole phenomena, going back to even the early days - secure a good writer and butter him up then have him write a load of schlock stuff to order at a pittance, as they can always get someone to re-write it. So many scripts flying around you don't know who's copying who and the concept can change so much depending on what the studio want or which actors are signed on to the project.

Bruce Robinson wrote and directed Jennifer 8 then vowed never to work in the system again after the studio edited out the FUCKING ENDING of the film to make it short enough to have two showings a night rather than one, that's how little they care.

[Shit Good Nose]

There is an argument that (creative, rather than purely financial) producers and editors are the real creators of the end result.  I think the post-Lucas Star Wars films are a good example of the producer influence - the franchise has now become whatever Kathleen Kennedy wants it to be.  And editors take hundreds of hours of film and create the story and flow.

As it is, if we ignore meddling studios and producers, most directors choose how a scene is shot and acted, the pacing of it, and how it looks.  You could take the exact same script and have it shot by Uwe Boll and...I dunno...let's say Billy Wilder, and the end results would be as different as you would expect, despite the words spoken and the story told being exactly the same.

Good writers were given the reverence they deserved in the 60s and 70s, but a lot of them were also good directors.

These days, studios want films to tick certain boxes and, in most cases, the writer and director isn't really that important - if they can write and make the film on time and on budget to an expected template, nothing else really matters.

[mothman]

But yes, not nearly enough reverence is paid to the script. Too many of these shit superhero movies are put in place because the studio said 'We need a film about this property - get someone to put the script together by next October so we can get shooting.'

This. In some ways it's the closest return to the production methods of the studio system since the original collapsed. The mindset that "We want to make a film about this subject, starring these actors, now go write something" thus puts the screenwriter as secondary to the process (and also disposable/replaceable). Just listening to the Secret History Of Hollywood series on Val Lewton, when he as producer in the horror unit is literally given the title of the film then told to go off and make something that fits it, it speaks volumes...

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

Shane Black is the only example of an auteur scriptwriter that I can think of of the top of my head. He too has moved into directing these days though.

[Z]

Yup, most the best scriptwriters make plays to move into directing, largely to get past the frustration of seeing their script edited to oblivion. There are really strict rules on how much you need to do to remove the original script writers name from a film even after countless edits so often films may have a scriptwriter credited who contributed very little to the overall feel of the film*.

That being said, there are people who are very much viewed as great scriptwriters. Usually they've to build their name up in theatre first but not always; Dalton Trumbo, Paddy Chayefsky, Kenneth Lonergan, Paul Schrader, Nora Ephron, Charlie Kaufman, Shane Black, Aaron Sorkin
Then there's people like Billy Wilder who are firstly known as great directors but were screenwriters first and that's probably where 90% of their talent lay; has he ever even directed something he didn't write? Would he know how to? You could ask the same of the Coens, Woody Allen, and numerous others really.


* _{See the production of Superman 2 for an example of this causing huge issues; also check out rumours about how far the extent of William Goldman's script doctoring work on Good Will Hunting could have stretched to still allow two hot young Hollywood A-Listers to maintain sole screenwriting credit as Miramax pushed them for the oscar.}

[greenman]

I think it's because the process from script to screen is so much longer in film, and with much more intermediary fiddling from producers, actors, their agents etc, so that what ends up on the screen is rarely (unless the director is also the writer) what was originally on the page. Whereas in telly there's less time to arse around and less money to worry about, so once the script is workable, it's off to the races.

Similarly, having less money means less opportunity to get flashy with the visuals, so the director is more likely to be in the position of getting the script to the screen, rather than engineering something to show off their skills. It's only in the past 10-15 years that TV's really had the budget and ambition to let a director make a mark.

Alnd in a popular series you need the writer to keep coming back and developing the story. TV's far more dependent on the writer because it can't just fuck off to an entirely new bunch of characters and stories.

But yes, not nearly enough reverence is paid to the script. Too many of these shit superhero movies are put in place because the studio said 'We need a film about this property - get someone to put the script together by next October so we can get shooting.'

Just based on viewing a lot of modern cinema I do actually get the sense that the script has become a larger element of studio control rather than the filming process.

I tend to think a common fault in a lot of modern blockbusters actually ends up being that they stick too closely to the script, lines of scenes which obviously aren't working are done anyway simply because the script represents more of the studio blueprint for the film than it did in the past.

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

How did I forget Charlie Kaufman? I just watched Anomalisa last night.

[greenman]

You could argue Martin McDonagh as well given that he got his start as a playwrite plus he's done his own ode to screenwriting film.

[Z]

You could argue Martin McDonagh as well plus he's done his own ode to screenwriting film.

I would view McDonagh as being similar to Lonergan, he's directed all the films he was the main writer on but his reputation as a writer in theatre (coupled with him not shifting completely away from theatre) means that he's always going to be viewed as a writer first.



From what I've heard about the Coen Brothers screenplays, they tend to approach everything from the writing side with some extremely elaborate stage directions and whatnot built in from that stage of development

Alexander Payne is an odd one who always seemed to be talked about more as a writer than a director to the point it was pretty odd he done a movie with someone else's script in Nebraska. It might just be that he emerged at around the same time as Charlie Kaufman (and lesser high concept guys like Andrew Niccol) where writers were getting a lot more attention than they had in years.

[Sebastian Cobb]

Shane Black is the only example of an auteur scriptwriter that I can think of of the top of my head. He too has moved into directing these days though.

I only know of the ones that were blacklisted at the height of McCarthyism (like Trumbo) and Paul Laverty, as his name keeps cropping up as a frequent writer/collaborator of Ken Loach.

[itsfredtitmus]

Paul Schrader

[checkoutgirl]

he as producer in the horror unit is literally given the title of the film then told to go off and make something that fits it

This has happened in different parts of the business. For exploitation drive-in films there was a mogul who would ask for film posters to be made up randomly and presented to him. He'd go into the room and point at whatever posters he liked and the producers would go off and make films based on the poster. The exact same thing happened with straight to VHS productions, cover art is made up, money man comes in and goes "that one, that one and that one" and off the producers would go to make the films.

The writer in that scenario is just a stage of the production rather than a godlike producer of hammered gold. As regards writers not getting enough credit, these days you'd be lucky if the director got any credit. How many people go to a film because mister X is directing? Less people than ever I'd say. Writers would get even less attention.

Film is said to be a visual medium and a directors medium so writers would naturally take more of a back seat attention wise. I do think you can make a good film from a bad script. Some films have not that much talking at all.

Having said all that I do think films would be better if more attention was paid to the writing/script. As for attention and praise on the writers, not a big deal to me. Some of them are very well paid so that should be enough. If you want attention and praise be an actor.

[Sebastian Cobb]

Paul Schrader

Blimey, Blue Collar was his debut! That's a strong start, that is.

[phantom_power]

William Goldman is the first name that popped into my head but even he has had to suffer with his scripts being fucked around with

Then you have someone like Akiva Goldsman who is almost the anti-auteur. He seems to get work all the time despite being a shit writer and having no style of his own

[Shit Good Nose]

Then you have someone like Akiva Goldsman who is almost the anti-auteur. He seems to get work all the time despite being a shit writer and having no style of his own

It's cos he works quick, can turn his hand to most genres and also quite powerful in the producing community.

But you're right - an abysmal writer.

[notjosh]

This has happened in different parts of the business. For exploitation drive-in films there was a mogul who would ask for film posters to be made up randomly and presented to him. He'd go into the room and point at whatever posters he liked and the producers would go off and make films based on the poster. The exact same thing happened with straight to VHS productions, cover art is made up, money man comes in and goes "that one, that one and that one" and off the producers would go to make the films.

The writer in that scenario is just a stage of the production rather than a godlike producer of hammered gold.

But often in those cases the writers are given much more creative freedom than they would on a big studio production. This is exactly how Val Lewton's RKO films were conceived, and he wrote some beautiful, unique screenplays which went untouched by the execs as long as they fitted the title and made money. I think a lot of Roger Corman films used the same principle.

Screenwriters on big-budget superhero/action movies and the like are not the drivers of a film's direction, but are used as resources by producers and are sacked and replaced in a heartbeat if they don't get it 'right'. That's why you could never pin 'auteur' status on someone like David Koepp or David S. Goyer (not that anyone would want to) because their contributions to a script are always going to be obfuscated by the meddling of other producers and the tens of other screenwriters who have worked on the film. You can't even guarantee that any of their words made it into the film, it might just be that they have more clout or better agents than the other poor sods who slaved away on it before being booted off without credit.

[Mister Six]

Good writers were given the reverence they deserved in the 60s and 70s, but a lot of them were also good directors.

It looked for a little bit like that might happen again in the 90s with Kevin Williamson after Scream (always seemed odd that he got the press, not Wes Craven) but that soon died down.