Film Industry

It has always bothered me that Christopher Fry did not get more credit for the work and writing he did on BEN HUR. [The studio] brought Fry in (after Gore Vidal) to work on making the language more appropriate to the times. As you know, the Writers Guild gave Karl Tunborg the full screenplay credit for BEN HUR. What attention do you think other writers who work on a film should get?

–Gail

BEN HUR came out in 1959. It would be comforting to think that in the 40+ years since then, the process of determining who should get credit for writing a screenplay would have been perfected. Unfortunately, it’s just as controversial as ever.

Screen credits are a huge, sticky mess that pits writers against writers. In fact, there is currently a major debate within the WGA about a proposed redraft of the Screen Credits Manual, the guidebook used by every arbitration panel. If you’re curious, you can read more about the issue in “A Credit Forum” at the WGA website.

In particular, one of these changes would have probably benefited a rewriter like Christopher Fry, since it addresses how much “story” credit a screenwriter gets when incorporating elements from a novel (like BEN HUR).

I’ve been through several arbitrations, one of which got ugly. I’ve also rewritten scripts for which I haven’t sought credit. In both cases, I truly believe there needs to be some sort of “Additional Writing” credit to acknowledge writers who have contributed to the script. It’s frustrating that a screenwriter can spend six months working on a film without having his name in the final credit scroll, while the caterer’s assistant is there for the world to see.

Any struggling new writer would jump at the chance
to be represented by an agent, any agent. But what is the downside to taking
the first "lifeline" offered?
If a contract is signed by both parties for a period of two years, can it be
broken if things don’t work out?

–Huerfano

The contracts you’re talking about are called agency papers, which are relatively
common at smaller literary agencies, which tend to be the companies that represent
newer writers. Basically, the document defines the relationship between the
writer and the agency, stating that the agency receives its commission on any
work it finds for the writer, for a set period of time – up to two years, but
sometimes only a year.

The contract mostly protects the agency, which is worried that the writer
will suddenly jump ship to a bigger agency upon selling a script for hundreds
of thousands of dollars. You can understand why the agency would be nervous.
Not only would it lose a client, it would lose its commission.

Not every agency requires its writers to sign agency papers, and truthfully,
a lot of people never bother signing them. Frankly, I’ve never even seen them.
But you shouldn’t freak out if an agent asks you to sign them.

That said, before you agree to work with any agent, you need to do a few things:

First, do your homework. Ask to talk with one of the agent’s current clients,
preferably a phone call with just the two of you. What work has the agent gotten
the writer? How quickly does the agent return phone calls? Better to ask the
hard questions now, than wish you’d asked them earlier.

Also, check that the agency is a WGA signatory (or whatever equivalent guild
if you’re outside the U.S.). Even if you aren’t a WGA member
yet, you want to make sure that the agency you’re dealing with has an agreement
with the WGA, which sets basic working rules and can offer you a lot of protection,
including the ability to drop an agent who isn’t getting you work.

Finally, trust your gut. If an agent makes you uncomfortable, don’t work with
him. While it’s hard to pass up an opportunity for representation, just remember
that if one agent liked your stuff, another one will as well.

In your opinion, can film censorship be used as a form of publicity to increase
market interest?

–Alex Rimmer

I can only answer in terms of the U.S., where "film censorship" usually
equates with getting an "NC-17" rating, which makes it difficult
to book theaters and advertise.

While there’s some tradition of a distributor milking a ratings fight for
publicity (SHOWGIRLS, DOGMA, CRASH), I’m not convinced the drama puts any more
butts in seats opening weekend. Rather, I suspect that the number of patrons
attracted by the controversy is largely offset by the number turned off. And
it’s important to remember that most of the movies branded NC-17 receive the
rating for sexual content, which is difficult to market beyond a certain level
anyway. The attendant controversy only highlights the sexual aspect of the
picture.

For truly tiny movies that might otherwise get no publicity at all, talk of
censorship might be an effective strategy. But for most movies, trying to generate
controversy this way seems ill-advised in my opinion.