SCREEN-L Archives

March 2001, Week 5

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Anthony Rocha <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 30 Mar 2001 13:17:59 EST
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (26 lines)
WRITING
I think you are absolutely correct that writing is sometimes under valued and
this is very painful for the writer. Having been on both ends I have received
both bits of criticism. However I respectfully disagree that a good script
can survive bad direction. In my opinion this shows a lack of understanding
of direction. From the moment a director steps on a set there are thousands
of opportunities to make bad decisions. Some are not as critical, such as
color, others are vital such as performance, narrative arc, treatment of
suspense.

With the mass product that has been produce in film, has there ever been a
film with a poor director that turned out well? "Sure."  However it is far
from the rule. You would have to look for consistently bad films from
directors with a spectacular exception. Off hand I cannot think of any.

Just like a batter who looks for a good bat, it is critical to success.
However you cannot hit the ball without the batter. There have been great
directors who take poor material and turn it around. This is why although
painful, the director is more instrumental than the writer. This is why
evolution has led to directors getting more credited. There is no charity in
Hollywood, they are given credit because they are the straw.

----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu

ATOM RSS1 RSS2