One of the criticisms of my book The Screenplay as Literature <\/i>was that it appeared to be more about filmmaking than screenwriting.\u00a0 And there was a good reason for that.\u00a0 You see,\u00a0at the time when I wrote the book, although there were a great \u00a0many screenwriters lucratively plying their trade (in Hollywood, especially), there were none that I knew of in America (nor in Europe either) that were predominantly writing screenplays to express themselves in this new literary medium–if to express themselves at all.\u00a0 There were no screenwriters that you could compare to playwrights such as a Eugene O\u2019Neill or Tennessee Williams:\u00a0 playwrights who had chosen to devote themselves almost exclusively to the stage and were most comfortable in doing so.\u00a0 Oh, yes, there was the occasional noteworthy original screenplay written by a writer best known for his or her work in another medium (e.g. playwright \u00a0Arthur Miller\u2019s screenplay for The Misfits<\/i>), but that was hardly enough to inspire me to write a book entitled The Screenplay as Literature<\/i>.\u00a0 What did inspire me was the work of men who had chosen to express themselves exclusively in the making of films.\u00a0 These men, whose names include Bergman, Godard, Fellini and Antonioni, not only made films, but they either wrote their own scripts or collaborated on their writing; thus my use of the term filmmaker to describe them.\u00a0 Furthermore, although the aforementioned filmmakers were accomplished writers, especially Ingmar Bergman, they appeared to be more at home behind the camera than sitting behind a desk, writing.\u00a0 In fact, most of them confessed that they found the literary (writing) process rather \u00a0frustrating–an inadequate means of expressing their cinematic ideas; however, they did admit that the screenplay was a necessary first step, if only to prove on paper the validity of their film ideas.<\/p>\n
This brings us to the central problem in advocating for \u201cthe screenplay as literature\u201d:\u00a0 It is difficult to make the argument without the screenwriters to go with it.<\/i>\u00a0 That is not to say that there are no screenwriters:\u00a0 hundreds of screenplays are being written and produced each year. \u00a0However, are they being written by writers who have chosen to express themselves almost exclusively via the screenplay?\u00a0 For the most part, they are not.\u00a0 \u00a0Why is this important?\u00a0 Because just as it is difficult to think of the great novelists and playwrights of world literature of not wanting anything more than to pursue their art in their chosen form of writing, it is difficult to take seriously writers of screenplays \u00a0who do not consider screenwriting as their main literary pursuit\u2014no matter how good they are at it.\u00a0 This problem is further compounded by the fact that virtually all directors who write their own scripts want to be considered directors first and writers second, if at all.\u00a0 And let us also not forget the frequent characterization of the majority of screenwriters as aspiring (if not frustrated) directors.\u00a0 Now let us look at why this state of affairs exists, and how it undermines the proposition of \u201cthe screenplay as literature.\u201d<\/p>\n
The lack of what I call real<\/i> screenwriters can be attributed to two appalling \u00a0conditions: the first is that screenwriters get very little recognition for their work and are, for the most part, virtually unknown to the public; The second is that screenplays, by themselves, receive little respect\u2014and\u00a0 particularly from the people who turn them into films. Let us examine the first condition: \u00a0the anonymity of the screenwriter.<\/i><\/p>\n
Many would trace this problem to the popularity of Francois Truffaut\u2019s \u201cLa Politique des Auteurs,\u201d a position that Truffaut took in the late 1950\u2019s (and expounded in the influential French film journal Cahiers du Cinema<\/i>), which endeavored to give the credit of \u201cauthor\u201d to certain directors who did not write their own scripts.\u00a0 This gave rise to the elevation of the status of the director\u2014and usually at the expense of the screenwriter.\u00a0 However, as far as Hollywood is concerned, the marginalization of the screenwriter predates considerably \u201cLa Politique des Auteurs\u201d and the ascendency of the director.\u00a0 There (Hollywood) the producers (and even the distributors, too) have long taken credit for the films they have produced.<\/p>\n
Why is this such a detriment to screenwriters?\u00a0 Because if individual screenwriters are virtually unknown to the public, it is almost impossible for them to develop an audience\u2014a following, that is.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Filmmakers such as Woody Allen and the late Ingmar Bergman developed followings for their films (for which they usually wrote the screenplays); and this, indeed, allowed them to grow as artists, to experiment.\u00a0 However, since I have written The Screenplay as Literature<\/i>, I can think of only a few American screenwriters whose work\u00a0is or\u00a0was known to the public for films which they were not also the director.\u00a0 The most notable are the late Paddy Chayevsky and Charles Kaufman; the first was the author of Network<\/i> (1976), arguably the best American screenplay of the second half of the Twentieth century; the second is best known for comic films that make substantial use of fantasy, such as Being John Malkovich<\/i> (1999) and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind<\/i> (2004).<\/p>\n
You might very well ask why is it important that there be writers who are not the directors of the screenplays they write when so many directors do write their own screenplays\u2014and do so very well?\u00a0 And it is worth noting that the renaissance in cinema that I wrote about in The Screenplay as Literature<\/i> took its inspiration (in part) \u00a0from an article written in 1948 by French critic (and subsequently film director) Alexandre Astruc, entitled \u201cLa Camera-Stylo.\u201d\u00a0 Here Astruc argued for scriptwriters to direct their own scripts; \u201cor rather, that the scriptwriter ceases to exist, for in this kind of filmmaking the distinction between author and director loses all meaning.\u201d<\/p>\n
What then is the need for the autonomous screenwriter?\u00a0 The need exists because the talent and temperament to be both a writer and a director may not necessarily reside in a single individual: one may excel in one endeavor but not the other.\u00a0 In the theater, playwrights who direct their own plays are rare.\u00a0 And few novelists long to be editors (or publishers, too).\u00a0 At one time we revered writers (e.g. novelists and playwrights) as simply writers, not as hyphenates as well (e.g. writer-directors).\u00a0 We have romanticized writers who spend many months (or years) writing in isolation\u2014away from the glitter and distractions of Los Angeles or New York: writers who no sooner than they hand off their just completed work to their agent or publisher, plunge into their next project.\u00a0 These are writers who have so much to write, but so little time to do so.\u00a0 And certainly little time to spend on the onerous details of production\u2014and film production, in particular.\u00a0 In a perfect world, producers, directors and film companies would be beating a path to the doors of screenwriters to get a first look at what they are working on, not the other way around.\u00a0 And if it is not enough that screenwriters themselves get little respect, it is far more egregious that the screenplay <\/i>itself, and particularly the original screenplay, gets even less\u2014the second impediment to \u201cthe screenplay as literature.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u00a0Dances with Wolves<\/i> (1990) was an American film that won Academy Awards for Best Film, Best Director, and Best Adapted Screenplay (even though the novel it was based on started out as an original screenplay).\u00a0 Yet when the author of the screenplay initially attempted to have it produced, he was told to turn it into a novel first\u2014which he did.\u00a0 How insulting!<\/i>\u00a0\u00a0 If a painter approached an art gallery to have his work exhibited (and, hopefully, sold), would he be told to turn his paintings into sculptures first?\u00a0 I think not.\u00a0 The sad fact is that the film industry—and particularly in the United States\u2014has always had an enormous distrust and disdain for the original screenplay.<\/p>\n
\u00a0If today I were to arrive in Hollywood with a trunk full of worthy scripts, written by writers who have seen every film, read every screenplay, and even possess university degrees in film and screenwriting, I would be laughed out of town\u2014assuming that I actually got in to see anyone of importance. \u201cBring me playwrights!\u00a0 Bring me novelists,\u201d they would tell me.\u00a0 \u201cBut don\u2019t bring me screenplays or screenwriters!\u00a0 We are surfeited with them.\u201d\u00a0 Been there!\u00a0 Done<\/i> that!<\/i>\u00a0 That is not to say that original screenplays are not, and cannot, be sold.\u00a0 However, if you do not have strong industry connections (and representation, too), you have a better chance of winning the lottery than of selling an original screenplay.<\/p>\n
We have not yet reached the center of \u201cthe screenplay as literature;\u201d in fact, we are not even close to it.\u00a0 <\/b>And we never will be–until cinema fully embraces the concept of \u00a0\u00a0\u201cthe Screenwriter as \u00a0. . . Screenwriter.\u201d\u00a0 <\/b><\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
One of the criticisms of my book The Screenplay as Literature was that it appeared to be more about filmmaking than screenwriting.\u00a0 And there was a good reason for that.\u00a0 You see,\u00a0at the time when I wrote the book, although … Continue reading