Mmm...I appreciate some of the distinctions you're drawing here, but I must differ on several conclusions.
First, I think the writer, the director, and the editor are all of preeminent importance during the filmmaking process. The editor is the unsung, unappreciated hero here, too. And, while I would agree that the director is in charge, it is his/her "vision", as it were, the writer plays a crucial role which cannot be underemphasised. You cannot make a brilliant film out of a bad script (he said, waiting to be corrected by an exception which proves the rule). The script is all the framework, the starting point - the idea. If the idea doesn't work, the movie ain't gonna work either.
I don't think either job is more important (although, again, the director is in charge, I don't think he's more important to the story-telling process).
100% agree on that last point: scripts cannot exist alone and a script which is bad, subpar, or even excellent can be elevated higher by a crackerjack director. But only so far. A great driver can take a dumpy car and do better than a poor driver, but a great driver in a model T isn't winning the Monaco Grand Prix no matter how much time he shaves on the corners.
100% disagree on the example you used, though. Graham Greene didn't write a bad story, he wrote an incredible one. Reed made the story into one of the best films of all time (and even Greene acknowledges the prudence and genius which shaped his story from page to film and made it work - in the introduction to the book) But to say it's a bad story is wrong. I don't think it's a questionable plot point, either; I've offered a plausible explanation to why Harry might want Holly there. It's not spelled out, but it's hardly absent. And the rest of the story doesn't hinge on it - so I don't think that's a bad plot point at all.
reply
share
MovieMadness (116)
5 years ago
It's not a bad story per se, but a story "whose worth had yet to be determined" before the film was actually made. The final product is what counts. The story itself wasn't even intended for publication. Television is more of a writer's medium (but even that is iffy with TV shows becoming increasingly cinematic). But film is 90% a director's medium. A script or story may be considered great, but it will be modified, have content removed or added (often to the writer's dismay) 90% of the times by the director. When they give out awards to a screenplay, it is, of course, for the version that is actually shown on the screen; it is for the director-modified version of the screenplay, not for what the writer originally wrote. In other words, all your praises of Greene's story is kind of moot. His writing ability was not really used for writing here. His writing doesn't have to be perfect for the film to work. I agree the film still works even with the bit about the job. The film mentions "job" just once, doesn't dwell on it, and focuses our attention on Harry's death instead. But still, we could still amuse ourselves by wondering what that job really was!
reply
share
Ace_Spade (9458)
5 years ago
100%: scripts are stories whose worth is not determined. Absolutely on board here.
I still maintain that a great director with a shoddy script will turn out a bad movie more times than not. If the director does a re-write on the script, then he is no longer working with a bad script. I know that directors modify and rework, but if you look at shooting scripts (which you can find online or sometimes even published in hard copy) you can see that there aren't usually radical changes to the plot structure, flow of the film, or dialogue. You can also see (as you have pointed out) that the script is simple potential. The Matrix's screenplay, for instance, has about a paragraph for the lobby scene, and it isn't detailed enough to give us what we got. So, I mostly agree, but I think you're underplaying the role of the writer by far too much.
Greene is an exception: in his introduction to the book, he points out (not just that the book was never meant to be published) that the changes make sense and he understands why the name was changed, and it was an American, and why they cut certain B-plots and so forth.
I've read the book, too, and I appreciate it as literature as much as I appreciate the film.
I do have fun thinking about the unexplored elements of the film (like the job). The mystery and confusion is some of the fun of the noir, of course.
reply
share
MovieMadness (116)
5 years ago
The audition scenes in Mulholland Drive (2001, David Lynch) may illustrate why the writer is never in control in the film medium. In the first audition, the actresses say the lines and act in a cheesy, laughter-inducing manner. In the second audition, the actors say the exact same lines, but with a much higher level of acting, much more effective pacing, elocution, emotion, everything. A screenplay for a film is but one "raw material" used in the making of the film, the same way that food is the raw material for a chef. The person *handling* the screenplay or food is what counts. Yes, we can say Greene's or any writer's screenplay is great, but that in itself serves no purpose and is meaningless, just like uncooked food. I have great respect for film writers like any other film fans, of course. But the true medium for writers is on a page (or stage), where they are much more in control. In a novel, the writer communicates directly to us, with no one else standing in the way and affecting the writer's vision. Not so in the film medium.
Regarding changes to a shooting script, sometimes even a small change yields very different result. Even if no change occurs to the writing, it can still yield very different result, as illustrated above.
reply
share
Ace_Spade (9458)
5 years ago
I never said the director wasn't in control or that the writer was. I just said that the writer's script matters and lays the first steps for the film.
If I may invite myself into your metaphor, the writer provides the raw food. If he brings in rotten vegetables, the chef can do all he wants, the salad will be abysmal. The writer also brings something in and maybe says what it is. "This is stewing beef," he says, so the chef makes a stew. If the chef fights that and tries to make a roast, it will be tough and gristly and unpleasant.
I'm not sure it's a perfect analogy, either, because it implies that the chef is the only one who is an artist. The writer (and editor) are artists, too, and affect the outcome.
I agree, small changes can make big results. The way actors and directors interpret material is key. But we still say Shakespeare was a genius. He gave no instruction on how to play the scenes. In fact, his are some of the sparest stage directions of all time ("They fight"). Yet, Shakespeare is a genius. And it is for the director to realise or ruin that genius.
For my analogy, I'd pick a relay race. First up: the writer. Then the director. Then the editor. Any one of these three can run better or worse, leaving a harder or easier task for those after, or taking advantage of (or squandering) opportunities left by the previous runner. But it is the team that moves the story forward.
I don't think we're on such different pages, by the by. I think we're mostly agreeing on the role of the director, his control, his artistry. Something about the phrasing just makes me think that you are minimalising or dismissive of the writer. And I don't think that's fair or accurate.
reply
share
MovieMadness (116)
5 years ago
It doesn't "matter" whether the script "matters" or not. Tons of unproduced and/or unfilmmable scripts would indicate that. The person who decides how a script is used, whether it could be used, whether it is feasible (technically or logistically) to be filmed, how much of it is used or not used, etc., is the only person who matters. And that person is not the writer, unless he or she is also the director. This is not a knock on writers. This is just the nature of the business.
If someone brings in rotten vegetables, the chef doesn't just make bad salad. He or she goes through a decision-making process: should I cook something else, should I get new vegetables, should I fire the person who brought the rotten vegetables, etc. The chef does what a chef does, and DECIDES what the meal is going to be. That's my point. The person who brings in uncooked food doesn't decide anything.
"Minimizing" the writer may be a strong word, but I see writing as just another "raw material" used in the making of a film. Someone needs to create a nice melding of all the different material. Hence the saying: a great piece of work is better than the sum of its parts.
Regarding Shakespeare, I've seem markedly different portrayals in, for instance, Hamlet. In the 1948 Olivier film version, Polonius is played by the actor as a silly senile old fool. But in the 1996 Kenneth Branagh version, notice the cunning and intelligence the Polonius character is depicted. It is just like the Mulholland Drive auditions. Two actors can deliver very different portrayals by speaking the same lines. Writing as sublime as Shakespeare's doesn't change the fact that his works are meant not to be read on a page, but watched as it is performed by actors who use their own interpretations on how to play the roles. It is the *performances* (and stage direction too, probably) that determine his works' final worth.
reply
share
Ace_Spade (9458)
5 years ago
It certainly matters. The statement that the script doesn't matter implies that writers don't matter. That's a whole profession. That's a large chunk of the population. Those are people who craft the stories we grew up with, we cling to, we learn from.
If you're saying who put together the story that is used is the only person who matters, it still isn't the director, it's the editor and/or producer. It's whoever has approval over the final cut. I argue that everybody has a voice here. The writer creates the story (and usually the idea), the director executes it according to his vision, the editor puts it all together (in line with what he's been given) and the movie gets put out with the talents of a thousand artists and contributors.
The chef analogy proves my point. If, in the analogy, the script is the vegetables, and the chef (director) can't use them, he (as you say) gets newer and/or different ingredients. That's another script. If he makes the farmer get him a new draft of vegetables, it's still a writer with a script. If he fires the farmer and gets a new crop from somebody else, it's a new writer with a script. If he goes and gets his own vegetables, he's a writer/director and he still has a script.
I love that scripts, like Shakespeare, can be interpreted a multitude of ways. I love that directors and actors can realise or ruin a text based on their actions. I'm not fighting you on the efforts or importance of other members of the creative team, just on the fact that the writer is an important part of that team. If the same team of director and actors get together with a lesser script than Shakespeare, they will almost inevitably produce a worse result.
Scripts matter. Writers matter.
reply
share
MovieMadness (116)
4 years ago
Just want to (belatedly) add a little bit into this discussion. Btw, I hope you are all doing well in these difficult times.
In the filmmaking process, the important individuals are the ones who work on the set. The screenwriter often doesn't come to the set, unless he or she is also the director. So to "represent" the writer on set, the job of "script supervisor" was born. This person has the important task of telling the director, for instance, how much screen time is needed for Page A to Page B on the script. If it has too much screen time, lines are cut, simple as that. No screenwriters would object because they all understand the importance of keeping the film under a certain run time. The script supervisor also informs everyone on the set the "continuity" from scene to scene or shot to shot, e.g. whether the actor's posture or the position of key prop item look the right way from one shot to the next, etc. None of this key info is on the script. The screenwriter would be of no help in this important day-to-day workflow. This is yet another reason the screenwriter is often of lesser importance in the filmmaking process.
Search "script supervisor" on Youtube to see a nice recent video on what the job entails. This is probably the most important position in filmmaking that is not awarded the Oscar (supposedly because it has nothing to "arts and science" which the Academy is about).
reply
share
Ace_Spade (9458)
4 years ago
I will definitely watch some videos about script supervisor.
But I also think that screenwriters are one-third of the story-shapers on a film (writer-director-editor), and I'd add that a lot of writers get really ticked off when the others mess with their story. Probably not so much individual lines, but other re-shapings which stray from the writer's vision in bigger ways.
Maybe this just hits home to me because I've known a couple of writers who work in different mediums (film, tv, prose, theatre, etc.) and they all have one thing in common: nobody around them in the creative process seems to respect their work very much, but they're often the first ones to dream it up. That's not right and it's not fair.
Writing the script and crafting the story is insanely difficult work and sets the foundations that everybody else is going to build on.
But, I am going to check out script supervisors more. Choreography could use an Oscar, too.
Thanks for the sentiment at the beginning; I'm doing okay right now, despite the craziness going on around us all. Pretty grateful for a movie forum or two to discuss something fun.
I hope you're okay, too.
reply
share