Analogies

You can't win "respect" as a concession in a collective bargaining agreement, but I know it's something a lot of screenwriters crave, so I thought I'd pass along Jonathan Last's analogy:

Actors are quarterbacks, directors are running backs, and writers are offensive linemen. That's about how they contribute to the product, and how they're paid. And just like it was a welcome change when left tackles finally started being compensated more closely to their value a few years back, I think we should be happy to see writers moved a tiny bit closer to their real value.

Well said. People don't usually have lists of favorite writers the way they do actors or directors, but it should be obvious that without good story and good dialogue, you don't have a good movie.

Comments

At least link without comment to McCardle's "Full Disclosure."

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | November 11, 2007 9:06 PM

I'll go further than that: there are few directors or actors bad enough to completely ruin a movie with a good story. (Oddly, the only two directors I can think of capable of doing so are two of the [mysteriously] most acclaimed: Spielberg and De Palma.) But if you have a mediocre story, even the most skilled director and actors will find it almost impossible to make it into a worthwhile movie. Writers should be at the TOP of the heap, not the bottom.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | November 11, 2007 9:29 PM

Sure, people have favorite screen writers:

Jean-Claude Carriere, Preston Sturges, Robert Towne, Frank Launder & Sidney Gilliat, Robert Bloch, Anita Loos, Charles MacArthur & Ben Hecht, Billy Wilder ...

Writers get noticed.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | November 11, 2007 9:30 PM

What are producers in this analogy, the team owners?

There have been some exceptions to the anonymity of writers: A lot of people will go to see a movie when they learn that Charlie Kaufman wrote it, for example; I, for one, will be interested in seeing the next movie written by William Monahan. Also, a lot of writers are also directors and producers as well: e.g., Quentin Tarantino, Woody Allen, James Seamus. In TV, in particular, don't writers dominate the ranks of producers and show runners?

Posted by Fred | November 11, 2007 9:31 PM

While screenwriters are generally, and perhaps generally rightfully disrespected, it is the opposite with the television industry. Writers (eventually writer/producers) are kings and queens in that domain. And when it comes down to it, many of the things the WGA are out for, particularly the internet-related things, affect the television writers far more than feature film writers.

Television and feature writers differ so much in their respect, compensation, and career options, it's almost silly to have them in the same union.

Posted by John | November 11, 2007 9:36 PM

I'll go further than that: there are few directors or actors bad enough to completely ruin a movie with a good story.

Nerts. Compare the Gus Van Sant "Psycho" with the original. Compare the American version of "The Vanishing" with the original. Compare the first attempts to film "The Maltese Falcon" with the one that finally clicked. Any story can be botched by bad direction. And extremely talented people can sometimes manage that. Art is tricky and finicky.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | November 11, 2007 9:43 PM

I actually DO have such a list (and expect to see Beowulf because Neil Gaiman did the script), but it annoys me that marketing more or less ignores them, so it becomes more difficult to track.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | November 11, 2007 9:57 PM

A movie can be great with mediocre dialogue (Titanic for example), but yes, movies and TV definitely need quality writers.

Posted by hopeless pedant | November 11, 2007 10:24 PM

Jonathan Last? The dude's a freakin' wingnut. A stopped clock and all that.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | November 11, 2007 10:28 PM

"....I think we should be happy to see writers moved a tiny bit closer to their real value."

This belief sounds close to the Marx theory of labor value, where once should be paid the amount of worth he or she puts in the product.

I don't buy it. Writers don't get paid as much as actors, directors, and produce for market reasons. There are more talented writers in the labor market than directors, actors and producers.

A whole cadre of talented writers graduate each year from the humanity departments at ivy league schools every year.

Posted by thehova | November 11, 2007 11:34 PM

hopeless pedant said: "A movie can be great with mediocre dialogue (Titanic for example), but yes, movies and TV definitely need quality writers."

Ack! Of all the movies you could have picked, Titanic is the least likely to prove your point. Now, Star Wars is a good example of a great movie with less than stellar dialog.

Posted by Captain Noble | November 11, 2007 11:45 PM

Stuff it, Shakespeare.

Posted by ferd | November 11, 2007 11:54 PM

There are more talented writers in the labor market than directors, actors and producers.

Asserted, but unsupported.

Posted by Freddie | November 12, 2007 12:17 AM

Directors are...running backs? Clearly, the correct football analogy is that directors are coaches.

Posted by Haggai | November 12, 2007 12:23 AM

Directors are clearly the quarterbacks, and actors the running backs (much more easily interchangeable).

Posted by right | November 12, 2007 12:47 AM

"Directors are...running backs? Clearly, the correct football analogy is that directors are coaches."

He means in terms of pay: Quarterbacks > Running Backs > [Coaches] > Linemen.

"A movie can be great with mediocre dialogue (Titanic for example)"

Writers don't just write dialog.

"There are more talented writers in the labor market than directors, actors and producers."

Realistically, there are probably more attractive, competent actors than there are talented writers or directors. How hard is it to memorize dialog and emote? Top actors are overpaid; it's a lasting artifact of the old star system. There are plenty of examples of TV shows and movies doing well regardless of the actors. For example, Dick Wolf mints money with his Law & Order series, and he continually shuffles actors on the flagship show. For another example, when Vin Diesel tried to hold out for more money on the Triple X and Fast & The Furious sequels, he was replaced with cheaper actors with no ill effects.

Posted by Fred | November 12, 2007 12:51 AM

Top actors are overpaid; it's a lasting artifact of the old star system.

Right. One of the weirder things about our celebrity culture is that, as our nation's celebrity obsession has grown, the actual value of celebrity for successful movies has shrunk. There are very, very few stars who can open a movie like they used to. Even Tom Cruise, who has been the gold standard, has been slipping lately. Also, there's no shortage of celebrities. Theres so much media out there that there's a huge number of celebs. It's a strange circumstance.

Posted by Freddie | November 12, 2007 12:55 AM

Directors get more publicity than screenwriters, even though the screenplay is probably more essential. A major reason is that the director's job is far harder to do. Screenwriters work in their pajamas, while directors are in charge of 100 or more highly paid professionals, having to make countless decisions while the burn rate is roughly $1,000 per minute on a big movie.

It's like the difference between a staff general who draws up a battle plan on paper during the long years of peace and the line general who must execute it in the fog of war. Military historians like to praise Gen. Schlieffen, who drew up an elaborate plan for how Germany could win a two front war against France and Imperial Russia, and to denigrate Gen. von Moltke the Lesser, who botched Schlieffen's plan in 1914. Shlieffen, though, worked with relative leisure, while Von Moltke had to make decisions in real time.

Directing in television is easier than in movies because after the first few episodes, things are pretty routine (relative to movies -- it's still a tough job). So, in TV land, writers rule.

Posted by Steve Sailer | November 12, 2007 12:57 AM

One way to compare actors, directors, and writers is to measure the nepotism factor. All fall I've been reviewing movies starring close kin of stars, such as Casey Affleck in "Gone Baby Gone" and "Jesse James," and now Josh Brolin (Barbra Streisand's stepson) in "No Country for Old Men." (Neither is unqualified -- Affleck was okay and Brolin was terrific. Still ...)

Are there as many directors and writers who are close relatives of powerful people? I don't know, but it could be measured. Presumably, the more relatives there are in a highly desirable job, the easier it is to do.

Posted by Steve Sailer | November 12, 2007 1:03 AM

Everyone that has even heard of Michael Lewis' new book "Blindsided" knows that the left tackle is the second highest paid position in football. So by this analogy writers are getting paid better than directors.

Clearly the analogy needs work.

Posted by Kinney | November 12, 2007 1:08 AM

In TV, I can think of a whole list of marquee writers - David Kelley, Steven Bochco, Aaron Sorkin, Joss Whedon (who is a third generation TV writer),J. Michael Straczynski (who famously said he'd gladly give up producing if he could be assured none of his written words would be modified) etc.

People think TV and movies are almost the same thing, but they really aren't. Movies came from the silent cinema, and even today, images rule in that realm, with words as mostly a supporting element. TV, OTOH, grew out of radio serials, a form constructed entirely of words, and to this day TV is very much a writer's medium. There's been a certain amount of convergence between movies and TV, but to me the surface similarities to the two forms are deceptive.

Posted by jimBOB | November 12, 2007 1:44 AM

There are many indie movies which I find to be just as good, if not better than studio creations. The writing, acting, and directing are just as good. But they will never make any amount of money close to the studios films.

Bottom line: The marketers and financiers of the major studios add the most amount of value to TV series and films (not the writers).

Posted by thehova | November 12, 2007 1:53 AM

without good story and good dialogue, you don't have a good movie

I don't know about that, what about movies like:

Once Upon a Time in the West
Alien
Blade Runner
Days of Heaven
Apocalypse Now

I'm not saying that these movies all have a bad story or dialogue, though some of them do, but that it certainly isn't the story and the dialogue that accounts for the immense impact these movies have had on audiences and critics.

It seems to me that many people, especially the more intellectual ones, still don't grasp the essential fact that cinema is a visual and a musical medium. The visual part should be obvious, though the lighting and the color schemes and sense of space are hardly ever noticed unless they're blindingly obvious. But it is the musical aspect of cinema, musical in the sense of rhythm created by the framing and editing of the shots, that seems to be totally lost on many people.

A good director will have a hand in all of this, for sure, but he'd be lost without the input of a good cameraman, production designer and editor.

Posted by novakant | November 12, 2007 4:51 AM

Production design is vital. Bad design can ruin a movie. Good design can't nescesarily save a bad one, but it can lift it a couple of notches.

Bottom line: it's team effort.

Perhaps producing is the most underated part of filmmaking?!

/Limagolf

Posted by Limagolf | November 12, 2007 5:59 AM

I think the story - especially the world-building, which is of course in significant part a product of the story - is a pretty important componenent of Blade Runner. Remember it's based on a (good) Philip K. Dick novel.

Posted by Kalkin | November 12, 2007 7:36 AM

"...the essential fact that cinema is a visual and a musical medium."

Reading a shooting script by a good screenwriterv shows that writers are very aware of this. What is minimal stage directions in a stageplay can become the majority of text in a shooting script, including camera angles, edits, soundtrack cues. Of course, directors often ignore those elements just as actors change the words.

Posted by bob mcmanus | November 12, 2007 10:03 AM

Hell, the scriptwriter even directs the actors

(As the girl stares wistfully into the sunset, her boyfriend behind her and to her left, half hidden by her body, gives a slight shrug and smile)

With the egos and competing visions, it is wonder that movies get made.

Posted by bob mcmanus | November 12, 2007 10:09 AM

Well, I'm off to picket, but I want to highlight a few things:

1. TV is really the writers' medium. That's why the WGA had Showrunners' Day last Wednesday. In fact, once writers become high-level enough producers, we tend to treat directors the way directors treat writers in film. (Actually, that's really only true in multi-cam, and there are directors who excel in that discipline, like Jim Burrows and Pam Fryman. But we do get final cut, not the director.)

2. Speaking of directors, the big fear in this strike is that the DGA -- who don't care about residuals as much -- will cut their own deal and screw us and SAG. Perhaps a better analogy for directors is moody shoot-first point guard.

3. You'd think acting talent wouldn't be scarce, but it is. At least in comedy. What's not scarce is pretty people who think they can act. In a related note, un-famous SAG people have shown up at my picket station every day. Often their hair is perfect.

4. Novakant and Limagoff are right. Production designers, DPs, editors. And in TV they have to work fast. In some respects, TV is more like the old studio system than it is like movies today.

It's take-your-kid-to-the-strike day!

Posted by Delicioius Pundit | November 12, 2007 10:54 AM

Posted by thehova: "There are more talented writers in the labor market than directors, actors and producers."

Posted by Freddie: "Asserted, but unsupported. "

Freddie, I'd say that thehova *disproves* that assertion with his next paragraph:

"A whole cadre of talented writers graduate each year from the humanity departments at ivy league schools every year."

Posted by Barry | November 12, 2007 11:27 AM

the marketers and financiers of the major studios add the most amount of value to TV series and films (not the writers).

You've hit on something that applies to film (though not to TV, which I think everyone has convinced me the writers rule*). In movies, the amount of money and risk involved from concept to script is much much smaller than the amount of money and risk involved from script to release. For movies, scripts are just a tiny piece of the overall production chain-- the movie still has to be shot, edited, marketed, etc.-- which is why the strike makes sense: writers are attempting to get more of the money made within that chain, particularly as the distribution model changes to digital media.

*aside: while we don't tend to "follow" movies based on screenwriters, we generally do know that Tina Fey was SNL's chief writer, and was able to pull people over to 30-Rock Based on her reputation, and Conan O'Brian is famous because he did great writing on The Simpsons.

Posted by Tyro | November 12, 2007 2:04 PM

writers are very aware of this.

I have no doubt that most good writers are, I was referring to the general public and a lot of critics who don't seem to get this. Many a time have I heard perfectly educated and intelligent people trot out the old complaint that the film wasn't like the book, arghh, and often critics seem to be focussed overly on story, while simply disregarding everything else.

Posted by novakant | November 12, 2007 3:02 PM

often critics seem to be focussed overly on story,

That's because viewers go to the movies to see a good story.

The problem is not that critics and the public focus overly on the story. The problem is that directors and many others in the film industry forget that this is the primary core of the a film.

Posted by Tyro | November 12, 2007 3:09 PM

Well, if they just go to the movies to see a good story and have little appreciation or perceptiveness for the way that story is told through camera work, acting, lighting, music, sound and production design, editing why do they bother going to the movies at all? And why in heavens name do such people become film critics of all things?

And what is "a good story" anyway apart from the way in which it is told? Is it the plot? Is it the dialogue? Is it the psychological, political or cultural subtext - how do you convey these? How can you divorce story from style? You can't even do that when it comes to prose, much less poetry. Well, I guess you could, but you would come away with a severely impoverished sense of these arts.

Posted by novakant | November 12, 2007 5:33 PM

Perhaps you've heard the old joke about the ambitious starlet who was so dumb she fucked the writer?

Posted by CJColucci | November 13, 2007 11:27 AM