|
DGA Forum
Dear DGA Magazine:
As a proud member of both the DGA and the WGA,
I was appalled by the hysterical tone of the article entitled "The WGA's 'creative rights' proposals, etc." The article's
representations that the sky will fall if screenwriters are given their fair due is just plain wrong. Allowing writers on the
set and including them in the filmmaking process does not undercut the position of the director; unless of course the director doesn't belong at the helm of that particular ship.
As a director I encourage creative input from many sources, none more so than the person or persons who had the
inspiration and vision to create the script which, in most cases, was the foundation for the movie. Are directors so frail and insecure that they can't listen to ideas from the person who lived with them long before the director came on board? I don't think so.
Will the WGA's proposals really damage the entire film industry? It may indeed change it. And change it for the
better. Bolstering the writer's position will help directors by giving them an ally against the ill-advised, and generally uncreative ramblings that pass for creative input from the
studios. After all, it's the writer and the director who set the creative direction for the film; not the studio's marketing department. The stronger the link between the director and the writer, the stronger the creative cohesion and the better the film.
As for the most contentious issue, that of possessory credits, I think that it's high time directors stop claiming credit for something they didn't do. Unless they actually wrote, filmed, edited, produced, and acted in the movie, they didn't create the film. They are a part of the process, not the entire process. Having the title 'Director' should be a big enough reward for anyone. Even in Hollywood.
-David C. Engelbach, director
Reply
Obviously we strongly disagree with Mr. Engelbach's claim that the tone of the article was "hysterical."
We never suggested that the sky would fall if a writer appeared on the set. All we are saying is that the extent of a writer's participation in the production process is a decision that should be made by each individual director of a particular film, not mandated in the WGA's Minimum Basic Agreement.
We took great pains to point out that we agree that screenwriters do not receive the respect they are due. But a provision in the WGA's Minimum Basic Agreement mandating the writer's presence on the set (or in meetings or seeing dailies, etc.) is not about respect for anyone's contribution as a writer. It is about changing the writer's role, and inserting the WGA contract into the director-writer relationship.
As for the possessory credit, it is noteworthy that Mr. Engelbach says that "[u]nless the [directors] actually wrote, filmed, edited, produced, and acted in the movie, they didn't create the film." He is probably not aware that the "Created By" credit goes only to TV writers, writers who do not direct, film, edit, produce or act in the program. The WGA seized control of that credit years ago for their Minimum Basic Agreement. In the meantime, we continue to believe that Frank Capra, John Ford, David Lean and Alfred Hitchcock were entitled to put their brand on their films, and that many other directors into the present day are, as well. We would rather see the decisions about according that credit left to free individual negotiation rather than be controlled by the WGA.
|
