The screen writer (June 1947-Mar 1948)

WRITERS-DIRECTORS IN A BRITISH STUDIO (I should add that at each conference stage, the producer, the associate producer, and the scenario editor have their full say ; but as I am dealing here only with the relations between writer and director, I am restricting myself to an account of the manner in which we two work once our aspirations have received all necessary blessings.) The treatment comes next; about a hundred pages describing the action, continuity and characterizations as I myself now see them. Personally, I believe in writing as much dialogue as possible in the treatment rather than merely describing conversation, as I find that this can be made to help considerably in the drawing of the characters. I do not, however, spend much time on the niceties of the dialogue in my treatment; not until the scripting stage does this receive careful attention. In spite of our previous discussions, the director, as I fully expected, feels differently from me about many points in the treatment; but we have already acquired sufficient mutual understanding for co-ordination of our views on most of these points to be reached in the discussion that follows its completion. Also, we are now beginning to know our characters well enough for new constructive suggestions to come freely from us both. It is likely that Crichton will find that I have not yet drawn some of the characters clearly enough. For example : "What exactly, is Roy's background?" he will ask. "What made him adopt his attitude to life? Was his father a drunkard — did his mother have so many children that she couldn't give him enough attention — was he an orphan brought up in some place where he was badly treated? I don't understand Roy." Not a word about Roy's upbringing will be spoken in the film ; Crichton is just as well aware of that as I am; but he wants to know it just the same, or he may feel a lack of confidence when he comes to bring Roy to life before the camera. Deficiencies of this sort are remedied as much as possible in my first revision of the treatment, when I also try fresh approaches to those points still at issue. Some of these will click ; some won't. The treatment is revised a second, third and fourth time, the remaining divergences of opinion being gradually ironed out until we are both satisfied that there is nothing in the story over which we will be sharply divided when we come to script it together. That phase is not reached until I have first turned out a draft script. This involves the presentation of the accepted treatment in separate scenes with more polished dialogue. And when I say "scenes," I do not mean "shots." I give little attention in my draft script to camera directions, except where these are necessary to emphasize moods and the importance of certain lines which must clearly be spoken in close-up. Even if I knew six times as much as I do about the technicalities of film-making, I should consider it a waste of time end effort to attempt "breaking down" a script into camera shots on my own initiative. Though Crichton might perhaps adopt a few of my suggestions, he would be certain to alter most of those carefully listed shots to conform with his own individual style of shooting. To ask him to follow precisely shooting directions prepared by someone else — prepared, if you like, by Eisenstein himself — would be like asking Hutton to follow Bradman's style of batting instead of his own. The draft script will probably undergo as much revision as did the treatment before we are ready to begin on the final script. It is now that we set about the "breaking down" process; we work on this together for about a month. By this time most of the creative work required from me has been applied, and my own contribution to the "breaking down" is restricted mainly to reshaping certain scenes and amending the dialogue to conform with the manner in which Crichton wishes to shoot. All major differences of opinion having been settled by now, I seldom find it hard to stomach a proposed change at this stage. Most of them are small changes and where these are concerned, the writer may as well resign himself to the certainty that the director will have his way about them on the floor, even though he may appear to submit to argument during the scripting! Scenes of complex action involving a great deal of cross-cutting, such as a free fight, I do not attempt to write in detail. These I leave entirely to the director, having once set down a full description of the general action as I see it, with a list of suggested incidents and visual "gags," from which he may draw as he feels inclined. The director's own scripting of these scenes, incidentally, will rarely be found to correspond at all closely with what eventually reaches the screen, for only in the cutting-rooms can they be finalized. Have I given the impression that, in such a partnership as ours, the director works sufficiently on the script to deserve a writing credit? Forget it! Apart from possibly scripting one or two of those complex action scenes, he has at no time done any actual writing: certainly he is responsible for none of the dialogue. His part has been to serve as midwife to the script to which the writer has given birth, and I hold that he should 15