A Film By... How does it sit with you?

CallaghanFilms said:
But they do.
They say, "That (building) is a Frank Lloyd Wright."
Click to expand...

That's not the same as saying it is "by" him, as I stated. Besides, pragmatics dictate that what is understood from "That is a Frank Lloyd Wright" is that he designed it. It is implied but not stated that he played a substantial, yet defined and limited role in its creation. Everyone knows that Wright was an architect and interior designer; no one would surmise that he actually constructed it. This stands in contrast to a film, which can and has been created wholly by one individual.

Chris Light said:
sorry Jordan, but i absolutely agree with Frank. not that i'm an authority, i just do.
Click to expand...

OK. You convinced me. :P
 
Actually Wright frequently took an active role not only in the design but also the engineering and construction of his projects.* Frequently because his designs scared the heck out of the contractors and they told him Pal, if you want to remove that series of braces you can just go ahead and do it yourself.

Part of the problem with the analogy is that film production<>architecture and construction. In a building project you do not usually have the same dynamic of multiple professional department heads and their staffs making high-level creative contributions to the work that define its character, appearance, and function. There is no equivalent to a DP who defines the look and framing, an editor who determines the relationship of shots, a composer who layers in all of the power and influence of a score, a production designer who sets the tone of what's before the camera, etc etc etc while the director works with the cast and serves as overall creative coordinator.

If you choose to reduce the roles of DP, editor, composer, designer, etc etc etc to mere interchangeable tradespeople who are no more than hands operated at a distance by the will of the director...well, have fun with that. I sure won't be working with you.


*Which is why some of them are falling apart; Wright was a much better designer than engineer...



 
"I sure won't be working with you." I agree with Max to a point. I wrote a number of short scripts last year for a friend who made one of them. He stuck 'a film by" on it at first, I didn't say anything, but upon reflection he took it out on his own. I'm glad he did for many of the reasons others have mentioned. It wouldn't stop me from working with this filmaker in the future but it might have given me pause. (He's currently in preproduction on another short script I wrote.
 
Well, in all truth I really should have written I won't be working with you - unless you're paying enough to make it worthwhile.

Hey, we're all professionals here.
 
"If one person puts far more work than everyone else into getting the film made and completed, they can put their name wherever they damn well please."
I disagree. The short that my friend shot last year took me 20 minutes to write in a bar. I did some very minor rewrites, but essentially that was the script. A couple of well known actors loved the film and recognized my writing. Other people I respect didn't get it. I'm sure my friend with others spent hundred of hours making the film. Which part is more important? Which contribution should be minimized? Should the years I spent writing for the stage and screen be factored in to the equation of who did more work? Should the years of training the production designer, actors, dp, etc not be factored in?
 
Just found myself thinking that the usual AMPAS practice is illustrative:

There are separate categories for Best Picture and Best Director, and the Best Picture statue does not go to the director. It goes to the Producer - who hired the director. And if the director also happens to be a Producer - he's receiving the award in his producing capacity, not for his directorial work. It's as open a recognition as can be that the totality of the film is not 'by' the director; to the degree it's 'by' anybody it's 'by' the person who assembled the team of which the director is a senior member, and the award is in recognition of the work of that team.

Further, when it comes to Best Director, the voting peer group is - of course - the Directors' group. When it comes to Best Picture, the vote goes across all professional peer groups, in recognition of the fact that the film as a singular product is a synthesis of the work of all those groups and therefore outside of the sole purview of directors when it comes to evaluating its merits.

Of course, that's just the judgment and practice of the premiere US professional organization for career film makers...
 
lambert said:
I disagree. The short that my friend shot last year took me 20 minutes to write in a bar. I did some very minor rewrites, but essentially that was the script. A couple of well known actors loved the film and recognized my writing. Other people I respect didn't get it. I'm sure my friend with others spent hundred of hours making the film. Which part is more important? Which contribution should be minimized? Should the years I spent writing for the stage and screen be factored in to the equation of who did more work? Should the years of training the production designer, actors, dp, etc not be factored in?
Click to expand...
Completely disagree.

But I'm speaking from the POV of someone who writes, directs, shoots, edits, sound design, etc... all my work.

For example, I wrote the script for my WestFest entry (among all the other credits I listed above).
I had another writer on the forum look at it for me and make some minor changes. The final credit read... "written by 'me' and 'x'.

I'm not against giving credit, even above and beyond what's required. He told me that I was being more than generous, I didn't care. He made some good changes.

Now, If I make a Feature and have crew doing most of the work... I'll remove the 'film by" stamp I usually place on my work.
But if I make a feature and do all of the above, I've earned the stamp.

There is no right or wrong answer. It varies and is also a personal preference in many cases.

MAH
 
Michael, I don't think anyone disagrees that someone who can manage the one-man-band approach where they literally handle every last position themselves with zero participation or assistance from any other person, is certainly entitled to the 'film by' title.

If that's how you produce your projects, more power to you. It's one heck of an impressive achievement to complete a film entirely and solely by yourself and when you've done it the 'film by' title is properly yours.
 
Sad Max said:
Michael, I don't think anyone disagrees that someone who can manage the one-man-band approach where they literally handle every last position themselves with zero participation or assistance from any other person, is certainly entitled to the 'film by' title.

If that's how you produce your projects, more power to you. It's one heck of an impressive achievement to complete a film entirely and solely by yourself and when you've done it the 'film by' title is properly yours.
Click to expand...
I was just quoted so I figured I would respond and make it clear as to why I feel that way. :)

I'm still not completely against it in the professional realm as well. Some great examples were brought up earlier in this thread and I think in some cases it works.
I do know that it takes a good team to make a great film though. Shorts are a different animal in some cases. Not all, but some.

MAH
 
I don't see how the observation that a particular director did it is an argument in support of the practice.

But that may just be me.
 
Sad Max said:
I don't see how the observation that a particular director did it is an argument in support of the practice.

But that may just be me.
Click to expand...
Not saying that. As I said, it's more of a personal choice in many cases. There is no right or wrong answer to this question.

The question was "How does it sit with you?" Sits fine with me.

Tarantino started doing it around Pulp Fiction as well. Didn't bother me at all.

The funny thing about all this is if a film bombs, the Director takes ALL the heat.

:)
 
As I said, it's more of a personal choice in many cases. There is no right or wrong answer to this question.
Click to expand...
A personal choice to try and claim sole credit for the work of others. I think that indeed there is room to debate whether or not that's right.

The funny thing about all this is if a film bombs, the Director takes ALL the heat.
Click to expand...
Not really. Have you not noticed the popularity of blaming the writer?
 
Sad Max said:
A personal choice to try and claim sole credit for the work of others.
Click to expand...
No. They get their credit. Some people will go see a movie just based on the "a film by" credit. Again, I have no problem with it.

Sad Max said:
Not really. Have you not noticed the popularity of blaming the writer?
Click to expand...
Not in the Film Discussion area. :)

Sure, it comes up from time to time but it's usually the Director that takes most of the flak.

I'll leave you guys to it though. Have a good one. We're just going in circles.

Cheers,

MAH
 
I look at it in most cases for non-established filmakers the same way as someone who shows up for a first date with a t-shirt that says "Worlds greatest lover". You just wish your roommate had said something before you left the apartment for the date. You can do it sure, and it's not gonna bother anybody really but it seems a little premature, silly and somehow cheapens the film. No disrespect meant to the filmakers who do use it. That's just how it strikes me, but to each his own. No right or wrong answer but if festival programmers share my view it may make some filmakers reconsider the wisdom of using it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top