Why is it always the Screenwriter's fault?
April 22nd, 2005
I'm sure you've noticed this before. Almost invariably whenever a movie wasn't "understood" or "not followed" or simply "not liked," it's always the lowly screenwriter who the movie critic picks on. Something wrong with the movie? Gotta be the screenwriter. Never mind that the screenwriter is not always to be assumed at fault, and rarely it is the case. By the time the movie is being made the screenwriter(s) are long gone my friend. As a matter of fact, the screenwriter is probably the least involved in making a bad movie. Here's my point: the script at one time was probably pretty good; had to be or no one would want to make it and no studio would want to spend $50 million on it. But then here comes the producers or executives or director that want changes. The writer might refuse; no problem, fire that one and bring in another one.
The script then starts its cycle or recycle period. Rewrite after rewrite. The executive might want to change a character's sex, delete characters, add characters or have two characters have sex (notice I didn't assume they'd be of the opposite sex). They might want to add scenes, delete scenes, or heck just re-order them. Then the actors come in, big name actors and actresses who then demand changes to the script. They bring in their own freaking writers sometimes. And lets not forget about the director, who always has a change "or two" that he or she "has" to make to the script for "continuity sake."
Now here's a movie critic, Richard von Busack, who because he felt the movie was not cohesive assumes that the screenwriters didn't even bother to keep track of the storyline, or their predecessor's work as he correctly assumes, rewrites happened. But Busack is dead wrong. At that point, when the movie is spliced together in the editing room, it could be a whole slew of people mucking with it. From the director to the editor to the producer. And I guarantee, more than likely, the screenwriters had little to do with Mr. Busack's issues with the movie he is reviewing ('The Interpreter'). Here's his intro to the review:
THERE MUST HAVE BEEN a point during the creation of the film The Interpreter when it had possibilities. Sydney Pollack (Out of Africa) must have been trying to use a thriller format to show what had happened to the continent since Isak Dinesen left. However, The Interpreter displays all the signs of having been rewritten and rewritten again. So do a lot of movies, but this particular example seems more like a screenwriting version of the old art-school game of Exquisite Corpse. It's as if the newer screenwriter didn't have more than a few lines of what a previous screenwriter had labored on, and thus he took the story into new and more confusing directions. Information gets lost along the way. For example, a very distinctive-looking African terrorist blows up a bus and 17 passengers in Queens, and nobody seems to be keeping an eye out for him after his crime. A few security apparatuses are keeping tabs on a woman's cell phone, but no one seems to notice that she's been having intimate conversations with the secret serviceman who's been guarding her.
I do agree, there must have been a "point" to this movie at one time. Most likely the point was either deleted from the script by the director or who knows, or cut out and left on the floor of the editing room. In his review Mr. Busack shows his ignorance of the filmmaking process. But I suspect he doesn't really care.
-- Chris
read more of his review
The script then starts its cycle or recycle period. Rewrite after rewrite. The executive might want to change a character's sex, delete characters, add characters or have two characters have sex (notice I didn't assume they'd be of the opposite sex). They might want to add scenes, delete scenes, or heck just re-order them. Then the actors come in, big name actors and actresses who then demand changes to the script. They bring in their own freaking writers sometimes. And lets not forget about the director, who always has a change "or two" that he or she "has" to make to the script for "continuity sake."
Now here's a movie critic, Richard von Busack, who because he felt the movie was not cohesive assumes that the screenwriters didn't even bother to keep track of the storyline, or their predecessor's work as he correctly assumes, rewrites happened. But Busack is dead wrong. At that point, when the movie is spliced together in the editing room, it could be a whole slew of people mucking with it. From the director to the editor to the producer. And I guarantee, more than likely, the screenwriters had little to do with Mr. Busack's issues with the movie he is reviewing ('The Interpreter'). Here's his intro to the review:
THERE MUST HAVE BEEN a point during the creation of the film The Interpreter when it had possibilities. Sydney Pollack (Out of Africa) must have been trying to use a thriller format to show what had happened to the continent since Isak Dinesen left. However, The Interpreter displays all the signs of having been rewritten and rewritten again. So do a lot of movies, but this particular example seems more like a screenwriting version of the old art-school game of Exquisite Corpse. It's as if the newer screenwriter didn't have more than a few lines of what a previous screenwriter had labored on, and thus he took the story into new and more confusing directions. Information gets lost along the way. For example, a very distinctive-looking African terrorist blows up a bus and 17 passengers in Queens, and nobody seems to be keeping an eye out for him after his crime. A few security apparatuses are keeping tabs on a woman's cell phone, but no one seems to notice that she's been having intimate conversations with the secret serviceman who's been guarding her.
I do agree, there must have been a "point" to this movie at one time. Most likely the point was either deleted from the script by the director or who knows, or cut out and left on the floor of the editing room. In his review Mr. Busack shows his ignorance of the filmmaking process. But I suspect he doesn't really care.
-- Chris
read more of his review
Comments
Only logged-in members can comment. You can log in or join today for free!
Advertisement
