Q&A: June 2006 Archives

With all of the bloodletting and debate and…I’m sure the Germans have a better word for what we’ve been doing here lately (olsonschauung?)…I had managed to fall tragically behind on a bunch of questions our readers have emailed. And so, let’s play Q&A…

When you approach writing a screenplay do you flush out a detailed backstory with character descriptions and several plot and sub-plotlines, or do you just plunge right into writing the script?

I think I answer safely for both Ted and myself when I say that neither of us are plungers. I am a huge believer in conceiving a story separate from the screenplay, and then writing the screenplay of the story. So yes, I have always thought first about the elements of story: character, narrative, theme.

Forgive me for coming late to the discussion, but I followed the talk about rewrites from the May 14 link. I have a question.

Why not hire writers for a period of time?

Say a studio hires a writer to do rewrites for six weeks instead of two drafts of rewrites. If the studio wants more work done, then they have to extend that contract. Writers would get paid for all their re-writing, because it would all fall under the contract. It may be a lot of work during that time frame, but it would be finite and have a discrete dollar figure attached to the work. And there would be no real way to do a free re-write once the contract starts (although before the contract is a different story) It seems like this is a sensible way to work, so why isn’t it done?

It is a sensible way for some writers to work in some situations, and it is done. The WGA MBA allows for writers to be employed on a term basis, as long as the compensation per week is no less than the weekly minimum set by MBA.

Professional writers tend to be employed on a term basis in one of two situations. The first is the weekly. I only take weekly assignments on projects that are either in production or getting close to production. This is the sort of work people often describe as “script doctoring.” A full draft isn’t required. A polish isn’t required. Typically, one or two weeks is all it takes to get the job done.

The second situation is the all-services deal. I almost always seek to make an all-services deal if I’m going to be following a movie through preproduction, production and post-production. Neither I nor the studio wants to engage in endless negotiations. We all agree that I should be working on the project until the final reels ship. As such, I negotiate one lump sum to cover all of my writing services on the project until it’s done.

Okay, here’s a multiparter from a reader in Canada…

1. If an actor is a SAG member and he works in Montreal, which union has jurisdiction - ACTRA or SAG?

2. If an actor is an ACTRA, SAG or Equity member and he is invited to work on a non-union film in - let’s say, India - can he do so? Is a waiver the only way? And in your experience, would shooting in an *emerging* nation be grounds for a waiver to work with non-union producers?

3. Would you kindly share some insight with me on the relationship between producers who do not wish to sign with a union and union actors? Are there ways around the system for a producer?

4. And lastly, in today’s co-production, cross-country world, where does the non-union producer find him/herself when faced with dual or trebled-union actors?

Although I don’t have anything to do with SAG or ACTRA (in this case, ACTRA refers to the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists, not the crappy Gillette razor), most unions in North America follow uniform rules derived from U.S. and Canadian labor law.

Answer #1…it depends on where the actor lives. If the actor lives in the U.S., then SAG will cover the Montreal employment. If the actor lives in Canada, then ACTRA covers the job…even if the actor is a member of SAG. This appears to be the result of an agreement between the two unions.

Answer #2…no. A few years ago, SAG expanded one of its working rules to forbid any members from working for any non-signatory…even in places outside of SAG’s legal jurisdiction (like India). It’s called Global Rule One, and it goes a little something like this: No member shall work as a performer or make an agreement to work as a performer for any producer who has not executed a basic minimum agreement with the Guild which is in full force and effect.

Now, honestly, I don’t think that’s really enforceable. I mean, if I’m a SAG actor in L.A., and someone wants me to star in a non-SAG movie in Mumbai, SAG can threaten me with fines or something, but for what…taking employment in a work area they don’t cover? I don’t think so. Just my opinion. On the other hand, working union is always preferable to not. Always.

Answer #3…there shouldn’t be any relationship between union writers and non-union producers. Assuming the work is in a covered area (so not Mumbai, but yes Burbank), WGA writers are forbidden from working for non-sigs (and this is enforceable). Producers can try and get around these restrictions, but it’s difficult for them, and generally speaking, they act in good faith. Generally. The vast majority of live-action major motion picture releases are the result of WGA writers working for signatory employers.

Answer #4…in trouble. Probably best to stop being a non-union producer, and do what’s necessary to become signatory to the major creative guilds. Not only do you get access to the world’s most talented and desirable pool of writers, directors, actors, editors and cinematographers, but you also make a choice to adhere to a fair code of employment. It’s worth it for selfish and selfless reasons alike.

Okay, last question. It’s a fun one.

At what point does a character deserve a name? If he speaks? If she is mentioned by other characters? Obviously some characters need to be kept anonymous, like the Cigarette Smoking Man in The X-Files.

That’s a really good question. I almost never give a character a name if he doesn’t speak AND if no one else needs to refer to him by name. Sometimes, even if a character speaks, I still won’t give them a name, because their movie value is contained entirely in that one line (e.g. “I’ll have what she’s having”). So, yeah, I guess you sort of answered your own question. I mean, that kind of cuts to the heart of screenwriting, doesn’t it? We write for the screen, and anything that can’t be conveyed through film, even if silently, is detritus. If there’s no utility for a name, I won’t grant one. That doesn’t mean, however, that I won’t describe the character if his appearance is important. That’s how you end up with names like “Wrinkly Man” and “Angry Midget”.

David Zucker takes this principle one step further and identifies these nameless characters in the end credits by their lines of dialogue. For instance, instead of listing “Concerned Passerby” and the actor who played him, David will literally call the character “Hey! What Are You Doing?”

Makes sense, if you think about it.