Tuesday, October 22, 1996
FILM:
Screenwriters, actors must accept film as the director’s
mediumFor two years in a row, I have done my civic duty as a
student of the School of Theater, Film and Television. Weeks before
the year-end festival, wherein all the school’s students get to
show their works, I along with a band of equally intrepid students
consign ourselves to a room in Melnitz Hall for the better part of
a weekend. What we do, all we do, that weekend is watch nearly
every last short film to be produced and/or completed that year.
The numbers can range from 70 to 100.
This task may seem grueling, but I tell anyone who asks that it
is an invaluable lesson in short filmmaking. Both years I’ve
participated in this marathon (first as a judge, then as a
programmer). I’ve picked up many lessons about the medium, namely
what to do and what not to do.
And one of the ways I amuse myself when watching these films is
to count how many begin with the oh-so film student credit "A Film
By (your name here)" before we’ve even seen the lead actor.
Usually, out of 70 films, you can count on one hand the number of
films that don’t feel the need to include this obligatory title
card.
I’ve never understood the point of it. I mean sure, there is a
bit of a thrill at the sight of seeing "A Film By Brandon Wilson,"
or "A Brandon Wilson Film" emblazoned across a big screen, but I
recognize that thrill for nothing more than what it is: a blow job
for the ego that doesn’t enhance the film or the experience of
watching it (except for the director) one little bit.
Why have I seen through this when 90 percent of my comrades have
not. I can’t say, though maybe since I wrote imaginary credits for
imaginary films of mine on random sheets of paper in high school so
many times, I inadvertently got it out of my system while still
relatively young. Unfortunately, this isn’t a trait most directors,
whether students or professionals, share.
The possessory credit simply has no intrinsic meaning, it is the
appendix of movie titles. Unless, like Ingmar Bergman, you don’t
bother to put "Written and Directed by" at the end of the opening
credits, the possessory credit is just a way to soothe or boost the
director’s ego, and was probably coined to smooth over some
contract dispute between a director and his bosses.
An odd trend has swept the possessory credit in America in the
last few years. Before about 1993, "A Film By" was most associated
with European filmmakers (such as "Ein Film Av Ingmar Bergman" or
"Un Film Di Federico Fellini" etc.) and the arty and
oft-pretentious American indie or student filmmakers who revered
them.
Then it all changed, thanks to the innovation of Steven
Spielberg. What he did in 1993 with regards to the possessory
credit was very telling, gives evidence to it’s importance to
filmmakers, and started a trend that’s still going strong.
When Spielberg did "Jurassic Park" it bore the same possessory
credit his films always had until then: "A Steven Spielberg Film."
But six months later when the director released his most personal
opus of them all, Spielberg employed the more hoity-toity sounding
"A Film By Steven Spielberg."
Of course, Hollywood is a town where everybody sits on their
manicured hands until one of the big boys does something, then
everyone else follows suit. So after Spielberg christened his
prestige project with a "A Film By," it has become the new industry
standard now used by super-hacks like Joel Schumacher and Tony
Scott, or even mere mortal hacks like "The Chamber" director James
Foley.
So now, the possessory credit of the auteur filmmaker has been
neutralized. If the fact that Garry Marshall has employed "A Film
By" doesn’t make the kids in Melnitz step over it like a soiled
diaper, there’s little hope for them.
"Who cares?" you may rightfully wonder. Well, a new magazine
aimed at screenwriters and "wannabes" recently devoted its entire
premiere issue to the possessory credit and the question of film
authorship. Not surprisingly, the writers feel the director is not
the author of a movie, and the voices raised against this fallacy
were quite passionate. They believe the writer should have his/her
name above the title, since the script is the basis of the film,
and there would be no script without the screenwriter.
I too believed this, back before film school when all I was was
an aspiring screenwriter. But when I entered film school and began
writing and learning the craft of film directing, I realized that
for better or worse, filmmaking is a director’s medium. If you’re
an actor, you’ll reign on the theater stage but never in film
(mega-stars don’t count, they’re not real actors) where your
performance can be edited, mis-shot, etc. If you’re a writer, you’d
best stick to novels where your characters can stay exactly as you
want them, rather than have your input diluted by the creativity of
an actor or director. Filmmaking is a collaborative art form, but
if any one person is responsible for what gets projected on the
screen, it’s the director, who like an orchestral conductor
oversees the film as a whole and makes sure everyone is playing the
same piece. It’s not, nor can it be, the writer, who must accept
that, although his opinion is asked, everything is the director’s
call. If this is unacceptable, the literary world awaits you.
However, directors are prone to suffer from god-complexes, and
every time one insists on slapping "A Film By" at the beginning of
his /her film they either give evidence to this megalomania, or a
childish imitation of their megalomanical idols.
Brandon Wilson is a third-year graduate student in film
directing.
Brandon Wilson