The screen writer (Apr-Oct 1948)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

(with the exception of Mr. Goldwyn in an article appearing in the current issue of this magazine) ever offered to writers an opportunity to work under conditions even remotely similar to those enjoyed by dramatists. But this fact alone does not relieve the Guild of its obligation. Even producers are beginning to recognize the desirability of a change and are themselves pointing the way for writers (and the Guild) to pursue. Mr. Goldwyn deplores the fact that Hollywood writers appear to prefer "Fidler's Four Bells" to a dream "in terms of Nobel." Mr. Goldwyn's concern is commendable; and it is a happy and healthy sign that he is prepared to cooperate in bringing about a renascence of inspired motion picture writing. But if this is true of Mr. Goldwyn, how much more should it be the Guild's concern to create conditions favorable to the writing of great scripts? It is no mystery that Hollywood writers lack incentive. They have little pride of authorship because as authors they are disregarded and disfranchised. A fine play or novel brings fame to its creator. A fine motion picture brings fame to a star or a producing executive. Despite the current legend in Hollywood the creative impulse does not thrive on money alone. If there are Shaws and Ibsens among us it is my belief that they have found not the slightest encouragement of their talents. Any writer of genius would be a fool to waste his time trying to convince a hierarchy of business executives that his ideas were sounder than theirs. Such writers are either completely frustrated by the industry or forced to seek recognition in other fields to protect their work from vandalism and their property rights from wholesale confiscation. By confiscation I mean the refusal to permit screenwriters to retain subsidiary rights in the sale of original material and thus deprive them of the continuance of revenue from works that prove successful. ' I "HESE are the major incentives -* that Hollywood denies to writers. It is tiresome even to repeat them. That these incentives exist in almost every other field of creative writing is well known, and in almost every other motion picture industry except ours. There are no substitutes for the incentives or artistic freedom, recognition of authorship, and adequate royalties. Until these conditions are made possible in Hollywood, I doubt if any ambitious screen writer, however gifted, will win critical acclaim outside the industry, much less the "Nobel Prize." Jimmy Fidler's four bells will continue to ring merrily for the marketing of star-studded banalties and writers will continue to be blamed. Looking toward the future, then, I should say that the Guild will more and more concern itself with these matters. Censorship, leasing of material, reservation of rights, and royalties are the essential business of writers if they wish to feel free creatively and unharrassed by economic exploitation. These things are not impossible to achieve. I'm sure Mr. Goldwyn, if he were a writer, would be the first to accept the "heavy responsibility" he places upon us by declaring "you writers . . . have the opportunity, if you have the courage, to create for yourselves an atmosphere of artistic freedom and an opportunity for even greater financial rewards for the future." These words are more than a challenge. They are a clear and succinct statement of the two reasons for the Guild's existence, one of which we have almost forgotten. < CO > Z z < a H Z w w H Notes From a New Member IN the early months of 1946 when I attended my first meeting of the Screen Writers' Guild, the burning issue was the rehiring of veterans. Here were our guys returning after as much as four years in the service (all gallant); their credits were stale; most of them, lacking a year's continuous service for one employer, were ineligible for protection under the Selective Service Act. One speaker dumped the problem squarely in the laps of "the producers" who refused By DAVID CHANDLER pointblank to have back our exservicemen. It seemed incredible to me, but it also made me angry enough to have socked a producer if there'd been one within range. As I burned, the speaker came up with a proposal, generous but not practical. His idea was that the employed writers working solo go to their producers and ask to have an unemployed vet assigned as collaborator. That way every working Guild member could do his bit toward frustrating the designs of "the producers." Suddenly those two words began to get me. I'm always slow on the semantic uptake. The producers I knew were gents pathetically eager to be liked, to be thought one of the boys, unmarked by their extended liaison with what Henry James has called "the bitch-Goddess Success." I realized that rehiring was no problem for our members in the grand 22 The Screen Writer, April, 1948