Business screen magazine (1946)

paradox BY STANFORD SOBEL r\KAI)()\: I III WT} sami' pi'oplc nnIio »uiit :i uriliT to do };oo<l work, kci'p chippin)> u»:i.> u( his idi'iilily so tliut he ciiiinol do good work. Recently i appeared on a panel of filmmakers to discuss the state ol the art, the role of the writer, the changing facets of film, and all the other currently popular subjects for forums on film. Well, one of the other people on the panel, also a writer, showed a film 1 had written which he claimed was lii\ film. He was able to pull off this petty larceny because the producer of the film had refused to allow any professional credits on the picture, and therefore nobody in the audience knew who the scriptwriter really was, least of all, the other writer on the panel. Now, I ask you . . . what would you have done in this situation? Would you have jumped up and yelled "You Chvaier you!" Would you have denounced the fraud to the entire audience? Would you have been ctx>l and charming about the whole thing and casually dropped a debtinair sarcasm to the audience? What would you have done? I was able to collect myself quickly because this is the fourth or fifth time this kind of thing has happened to me in the spi>ns()red film field. It cannot happen in television. Ihealncal shorts, or features, Ivcause the screen writer in these fields is protected by the Writers Ciuild of America conlracl. The writer must have a credit title immediately following the director's, and of the same si/.e type, screen, etc. But no such protection exists in the sponsored film field, so these kinds of frauds keep happening If there were a writer credit on the picture, nobods else could claim to have written the picture, or at least not very convincingly, Yel, many producers refuse to put a writer's credit into the picture, for what they consider good reast>ns ot their own. Iheir reasons are all \ariations on a single theme . . . only the producer's firm should be recognized in the titles. Credit titles are just free publicity for the various individual craftsmen who worked on the picture. These people may be working elsewhere in the future, they may try to pirate the client, or they may claim more credit than they deserve. But the basic reason is none of these. The basic reason is tied up with something called . . . "The Identity Crisis." Producers, and some clients too, feel so insecure about their position, their status, and their contribution to the film that they are constantly in jeopardy, afraid of others in the industry, afraid of the consequences of their taking a strong position on almost any issue of creativity. Well, Friends, writers have an identity too, and it affects everybody in the film industry. This industry depends upon good films. It's almost impossible to write good pictures unless you have a very strong sense of identity about your writing style, \our individuality, your creative drives, and your uniqueness. The producer can help to chip away at this strong sense of identity by constantly putting the writer down, but the most devastating put-down of all is to refuse him a credit title. And. It's also a personal rip-off of the worst kind because Nou're interfering with his ability to make a living. Most of the new clients I have acquired in the last five years have been producers who saw a film I had written for a competitor, noticed my name on the credit title, and then calleil me up about a film he hail in mind himself. If no producer allowed me to have a credit title 1 am certain I would never get enough new clients to continue earning a good living. Some producers maintain that nobodN ever notices the credits except the other people in our business. To which I can only say "Horse-feathers!" hven if that wen' true, it's very important! exposure in these days of small staffs' and no staff writers. But it's not true Industry people nia> notice professional credits more than other f)eople. but even unsophisticated audiences now look closely at credit titles to sec if they recognize any familiar names, j But perhaps the strongest reason l| can mention is the kind of consc-; quences involved in the incident i mentioned. If my name had been onj the picture, the other writer would | never have shown the picture andj claimed it as his own, especially with' me on the same panel! The consequences of not using credii titles are bad for ever\body. including,! in many cases, the producer himself. I've had clients show me pictures l| had written for other divisions of their own companies as examples ol the kind of scriptwriting they wanted' And not long ago 1 sat in with a client, who was interviewing prospecti\e producers when one of the salesmen making a presentation showed a picture I had written as his company's sample. The prospective client knew I had written the film and it made the producer look like a finagle artist. If my name had been on the picture, it would have made him look like a clever salesman. Bill Bernal, an old friend and one of, my most respected writing colleagues' in the indiistrv, mentioned to me that this maga/ine. Bi'siNtss .Sirhen, often fails to identify the writer of a film in its reviews. But I discovered on investigation that the writer is always identifed in these reviews if he has a screen credit, or if the producer includes the information in his publicilN aKmt the film, It turns out that when the writer of a lilm is not mentioned, it is onl\ bcc.iuse the producer conceals his identity, .^gain . . . the .iltack on the writer's creative identilx . . . by the producer but not by this continued on page l(ff'A Stanford Sobel's credit titles have appeared on theatrical, iflevi.tion, and sponsored films. A free-lance writer based in New York City. he also writes "Paradox", a column which appeals in each issue of this magazine. m 18 BUSINESS SCRfFN'