The screen writer (June 1947-Mar 1948)

THE SCREEN WRITER to produce motion pictures at one-tenth the cost of the screen writing technique. For simplicity's sake, let's call the conventional technique of producing pictures "the screen writing technique" — involving script, breakdown, directed scene-by-scene shooting, editing, and dubbing. Sponsors long ago learned how very much more this technique costs than live television does, with a quality of difference in no wise proportionate to the cost difference, if even evident. Yet, ironically, sponsors have wanted film, because it can bypass the fabulous costs of electronically networking a program, simply by duping and mailing to each participating station, including stations not reachable by network yet. Film requires no costly studio rehearsal in the station or network. A film produced at a cost comparable to that of a television production would, in final reckoning, be far cheaper because of its savings in transmission charges. That's where film journalism, utilizing the film writing technique, shows its cheery head. It is just that. Cost-wise, it beats the screen writing technique hollow. The film writer requires that a cameraman go out and shoot a story without screenplay or treatment or scene list and send it in. Then he takes over, fashioning from the footage a full-fledged screen production. Sailing blithely between the Scylla of film's attractively low transmission costs and the Charybdis of screenwriting's formidable production costs, he eliminates sets, actors, directors, makeup men, costumers, grips, electricians, script clerks, technical directors, and usually sound men, for with rare exceptions, his film was shot silent, outdoors. The vital IATSE Cameramen's Union permits a single cameraman, at a wage 35% under all "production" cameramen, to shoot "newsreel" without assistant, whereas even for silent "production," while paid more, the cameraman must have at least one, and usually two or three assistants, plus sound crew, grips and electricians for sound. Were a journalistic story to be produced by the screen writer's technique, let's say a silent film-plus-track story, were the cameraman to be handed an alreadywritten script, and told to go out and shoot that script, scene by scene, set-up by set-up, not only would the IATSE rate the story as "production" immediately, and require the hiring of many additional hands, but— and this is a vital difference in technique — a director would be required to interpret what the screen writer wanted to translate into film. Incidentally, it would take a good deal longer to shoot, and edit. The story above, shot with screenplay, would cost about one-seventh as much to make if the film writing technique were employed. Once finished — if the film writer is really good — the two techniques would end up on the screen with surprising similarity. But, and it bears repetition, the film writer must be able to write like an angel. For the screen writer's job is cinematic: he may request film to enrich his story. The film writer is denied the chance to request. He takes what he gets, and what he lacks in film, he must supply by his commentary and story-sense. His job is literary. He, and he alone, must carry the brunt of the cost difference. His words, as we shall show, must paint the pictures which the cameraman didn't shoot. His literary tricks keep the audience from realizing that they are hearing scenes instead of seeing them. He has become the director, but he must direct after the film has reached the cutting room. With his script, he must make the film perform like an actor, in the scenes his words create. There are a great many in the business of film journalism today — and that includes everybody from the shoestring travelogue producers up through newsreels, documentaries, information films, and in fact anything on film which is not basically fictional or instructive — who would deny categorically that a writer can be given such immense responsibility and come up with a good show. There are those of the Picture Is All school, who say that no film can be better than its pictorial content, that the best commentary is a minimal captioning. There are those of the Complicated Film school who would argue that the job of film journalism is to prove or explore an area of fact, or culture, and must be shot so as best to illustrate the ideas. Most cameramen would insist that they are primarily responsible for the worth of a production, and not the commentary writer. Many cutters would contend that without their skill in editing film, the writer is helpless. IT is the controversial contention of this article that although — obviously — good camera work and good editing help enormously, that although it would be nice to use the screenplay technique, and infinitely easier, the economics of television demand a highlyskilled, highly imaginative and creative writer who with minimum help from cutter and cameraman can produce film journalism of a very high quality. It is also the contention of this article that such writers can succeed in answering television's demands, with ideas from skillful typewriters instead of the screen, and rather than merely answering the challenge can beat it, master it and come out with productions as good as, and often better than, those of their screen writing colleagues. Only one condition is postulated : a talented, educated writer. 40