Ben, there is one major difference between Playwrights and Screenwriters...that is copyright. Playwrights own their copyright; Screenwriters don't. From that one issue flow all benefits for playwrights; all evils for screenwriters. Because we don't own our copyright, we get thrown off things we created, we have no say in changes, we have no power or control over the work. Because playwrights have copyright, no one can change a thing without their permission. The one trade-off is money. Screenwriters get paid obscenely well. Even mediocre screenwriters can earn a lucrative living. Playwrights trade money for power...unless they have a Broadway/West End hit or something that becomes a regional theatre hit or a community theatre staple, it's much harder for them to make a living.
As I get older, I want to abandon movies and go back to the theatre...which is where I started out, which I still find infinitely more exciting than film...a good play for me is always more thrilling than a good movie. But also in the theatre, things are not topsy-turvy, the power still rests with the visionary, the one CREATING artist -- The playwright. That's not to say the others contributors aren't "creative", but they are INTERPRETING artists.
I was on the Board of Directors for the WGA from 1997-2001. I ran on one issue alone. Creative Rights. I was known (and still am in some circles) as "The Pit Bull of Creative Rights". I won't be happy until screenwriters have the same power as our brothers in the Dramatists Guild (of which I'm also a member).
Here are THE THREE GREAT LIES OF HOLLYWOOD:
1)THE AUTEUR THEORY. This is the greatest French farce since Feydeau. WRITERS create stories, not directors.
2) DIRECTOR'S VISION. If a director is doing his job right, he has NO VISION. All he has is a point-of-view toward THE VISION OF THE SCRIPT. Which a WRITER wrote. A director SERVES the script.
3) A FILM BY. Always a sop to an insecure ego. This started off as a marketing ploy because a half dozen directors became as recognizable as the stars they were directing, so they got their name over the title (But look at something like YOU CAN'T TAKE IT WITH YOU...It says Frank Capra directs James Stewart and Jean Arthur in...No "Frank Capra film" or "A Film By...").
But guess what, kiddies? There's still only about a half dozen "star" directors. So why has this possessive become a wholesale statement of artistry that touts every nonentity, hack, and mediocrity to come down the pike? And why should even box office directors get to lay claim to the whole movie? A film is always the work of many, many people, not just one man...Though Ben Hecht once said: "A film is never any better than the stupidest person connected with it."
Directors always bellow, "The script is merely a blueprint for a film", displaying their illiteracy by misinterpreting this word. A contractor doesn't go around willy-nilly changing the blueprints of a house. He may change a window or a closet, but he doesn't shift stress-bearing walls...and even on small changes, he usually consults the architect. And it's always a "Frank Lloyd Wright" house. Named after the guy who designed it, NOT the guy who built it.
Back in the thirties, a director was usually assigned a script after it was where the producer wanted it to be. If he didn't shoot something, Hal Wallis or whoever was on the phone, saying: "Where is scene 56B?" After he finished filming (or even before) that film was with the editor and the director wasn't there with him. He was off filming his next assignment. If you wanted final cut, you learn to cut in the camera like John Ford, so that there was only one way to put the thing together. Often times director's were taken off films, sometimes they were taken off something to go shoot footage on someone else's film. The writers may have been employees in those days; but so were the directors.
