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.

by Hugh MacMullan * * nightmares : — such presentation is not only not creative, it is bad business. }i ET us analyze these stories to see •*-'ho\v non-selective the agent has been. ( I apologize for wasting your time with such tawdry material, — mine is so wasted daily.) Stories one and five probably deserve the most consideration, since they present basic situations which can be used, even if it be necessary to discard the entire development provided by the writers. To realize either would probably be rather expensive. (For this you will have to take my word, but as submitted to me, story one could safely be budgeted at one million — story five at three million.) Both would require the services of a large and skillful cast ; both would certainly need the talent of an excellent director ; and both would demand, and for a long period of time, the most inventive screenwriters. Clearly they are properties that can appeal only to a company with large resources, both creative and financial. Stories four and six, though it seems to me preposterous that either should be considered as serious efforts, could nonetheless be developed into minor comedies — and if anyone doubt me, let them write down the basic idea of Three Men On A Horse or Sitting Pretty. But the company who might be interested in this material (particularly if it be an independent) would not normally be intrigued by stories one and five. There is a certain story consistency, even in the majors, so that an agent's submission can be guided, — except in various broad types that appeal to everyone ; — as an example, Little Women could hardly be a Warner Bros, picture ; The Treasure of the Sierra Madre would never appear on the Paramount list. With the independents this consistency is even more marked. So that one can safely say that the independent who is geared to story five could not conceivably be interested bv story six. STORIES two and three are, of course, beyond the pale — at least, the pale built by all self-respecting producers. To be sure, there is a market for such material, and probably an economically justifiable market, but such sub-marginal trash could hardly appeal to any producer whose attention was caught by one and five, or even remotely arrested by four and six. From the writer's viewpoint this analysis should be disturbing. Here in one batch, submitted to one company on one day by one agent, and I repeat a very reputable hypothetical agent, are stories ranging from incompetent to bearable, stories whose budgetary requirements vary from ninety thousand to three million. Wherein is any of the involved six writers honestly represented? Apparently the agent assembles his material without reason, not bothering to sell, not representing his clients. He is satisfied if National Pictures, or Equity Productions, or Metro-GoldwynMayer have read his list. But the three are all removedly unhappy, and so should the writers be. TT THAT then is the solution? And * * here I must be very personal. After one such submission, I wrote the agent and said I would be delighted to tell him or one of his associates exactly what our story needs were (and let me say again that this is not of one agent that I write — his name also is legion). In reply he telephoned, and, though verbally incoherent, I tried to explain what we would buy. His answer to me was a deluge of material, totally unrelated to our conversation, also totally unrelated to our story needs, which I had tried to explain. As a consequence, any envelope bearing his (legion's) name is greeted with shudders in our office, — there is a predisposition against reading his material, and the writers who are his clients are handicapped by his illustrious name. AND so I hope the solution is clear. The function of the agent on this merry-go-round is to determine what material that is submitted to him has sufficient merit to pass on, then to investigate the needs of each company to see where that material best fits. If he should do so, he will truly serve his clients. For it does no writer any good to be submitted to RKO, if RKO is not interested in the sort of material with which he works ; there is no glory in a rejection slip, nor isa career built by saying "Fox liked it, but couldn't see their way . . ." As the story editor for an independent, I can only indicate the grim alternative, but indicate it I will. We have now announced four pictures, a sufficient number to keep us well occupied for at least a year, and of this group only one has been bought through an agent, and she a personal friend of the producer. This is not by design — we read most carefully all submissions made to us — we do not lightly dismiss any material, for our livelihood depends on making satis (Continued on Pane 29) The Screen Writer, September, 1948 13