Archives for 2011

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2011/wga-copyright-and-musicals).

**John August:** Hello, and welcome to Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things interesting to screenwriters. My name is John August.

**Craig Mazin:** My name is Craig Mazin.

**John:** Hello, Craig, how are you doing today?

**Craig:** Doing great, John. How about yourself?

**John:** I am doing pretty well. It’s a been a day of many small errands and things to take care of. I got my flu shot today, for example.

**Craig:** Which, and you know I’m a huge pro-vaccination guy, but I always feel like the flu shot is the one vaccine that’s kind of a waste of time; it’s just because the whole thing where there’s so many different strains and they’re kind of guessing.

**John:** They are guessing. They have to figure out which flu they think is going to be the biggest strain to hit American shores at the time. My gambler’s aspect of it is that having the flu completely sucks.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** And so, if I can spend $20 and take 20 minutes to have a very good chance of avoiding a terrible flu, I’ll gladly spend that money and take that time.

**Craig:** Absolutely. And that’s why I’ll get a flu shot, also. And I always get my kids flu shots. I just always feel a little silly about it as opposed to proper vaccinations, which, of course, are life savers.

The other thing about the flu is, I feel like people misuse the word “flu,” because flu is a very specific virus. And usually, when people say they have the flu, what they mean is they have the common cold.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** You really have to be pretty sick for it to be the flu.

**John:** If you’re knocked on your back and really, really hating life, that could very well be the flu.

**Craig:** Yeah, you’ve got, like, a serious fever, muscle pains, that’s flu’s bad stuff. And I’m constantly having unprotected sex with random strangers, so I really have to watch myself.

**John:** It is important. And the flu vaccine protects you from all things. It’s a bullet vaccine, too, apparently. It makes you lead proof.

Actual news: we have a new WGA president elected.

**Craig:** That’s right. Chris Keyser was elected last week, along with Carl Gottlieb, who will be our new vice president. Howard Rodman is our new secretary/treasurer. And then a bunch of people — a lot of new people to the board and a few incumbents were returned, as well.

**John:** One of the emails I got from Chris Keyser thanking everybody for the support along the way made a very good point: that we tend to notice the Guild and the activities of the Guild right around those annual election times and not so much in between. So, there’s certainly things we need to focus on now to try to make sure are enacted.

**Craig:** Yeah, you know, that’s the theory that it’s really what happens in between the negotiations that’s kind of the important stuff. We fetishize negotiations because they’re exciting and because, in a way, it’s our — you know — we are constantly going through negotiations on our own, and we get frustrated with them, or perhaps they don’t go well. This is a chance for all of us collectively to have a good negotiation.

As I like to point out, when we negotiate with the companies, we’re negotiating on behalf of the minimum basic writer, the scale writer. Oddly, it’s like a combination of our strongest and weakest hand.

But in between those negotiations — which, granted, are somewhat exciting, particularly when a strike is involved — there’s all this stuff that goes on. And where the Guild tends to go wrong is when individuals are having a problem and they call the Guild for help, rightfully and justifiably. And the Guild fumbles it. And this happens all the time.

So, I’m hoping that Chris can kind of turn that aspect of it around.

**John:** The kind of things you call the Guild for most often are about money. And money that is due to you that is not being paid to you. So, collections is a crucial function of the Guild. And making sure that if a writer’s not getting paid, you have someone to reach out to to say, listen, this company is either behind on actual payment for the writing I’m doing for them right now, or on residuals. And there’s different departments that are responsible for trying to enforce those things.

And making sure you have the right people running those departments that you’re spending the resources right to get that money in is crucial, because that’s money that goes to the members you’re supposed to serve. And it’s also the money that is funding the Guild.

**Craig:** Yeah, this is an important distinction for people to understand. Our business is what they call an overscaled business in that, unlike most unions, which set a pay scale that everybody earns — depending on their seniority, the time in — we’re overscale. Almost everybody that writes for a living earns more than scale.

What that means is, if you’ve earned more than scale, the problem that you have may be getting that extra payment, or whatever is above scale, ultimately becomes — it’s far more efficient for your individual, your personal transactional lawyer to handle that sort of thing, or your agent.

But there are areas that are very important to us. You mentioned residuals. This is a big one. It’s important for people to understand this. When a company’s behind on residuals, or not paying residuals or not paying enough in residuals, the injured party is not the writer; it’s the union. Because the union collectively is what’s bargaining here. So, the union is injured, and the union is collecting on behalf of the writer. This is kind of a weird distinction.

So, you can’t really go in there with your heavy hitting lawyer and start suing over residuals. You need the union to do it, because they’re the ones with standing. So, when we call the union, and we say, “Look, we think these guys are behind on their residuals,” and then the union shrugs, then we’ve really got a problem, because they’re the only ones who can help us.

**John:** This’ll be an advanced section of the podcast, is to talk about this esoterica of what the Writers Guild is. We think, like, “oh, it’s a union.” But when we think of unions, we think of people who make things or people who work on assembly lines. And we’re such a strange, different kind of union in that — I was talking about this with Howard Rodman this last week, is that — most unions are concerned about time. So, like, the time and the working conditions and being paid for your time properly.

We are such a document focused Guild that it becomes difficult to figure out how to measure and adequately protect the other things a writer does. An example would be, you’re working on the launch of a TV show. And you’re working on all of the other media that goes with it. So, you’re building out the universe. So, within the course of this TV show, you have these characters and this sort of thing.

But they say, “Hey, we really want to figure out, like, make an alternate reality game for what this is supposed to be.” Is that something that is a Writers Guild covered function? It’s not even clear what the document is behind that, because it’s not clear what writing is happening there, it’s not clear where this falls under our distinction.

This was the challenge we ran into with editors is that editors working in reality television are doing some story kind of functions. But there’s not a document that you can point to that says, “This was a written thing.”

**Craig:** Right. In fact, we do have a word for story like functions in the absence of written material. It’s called “producing.” And we have a long standing tradition on the television side of writer/producers. Almost everybody that’s a show runner who works at a certain level on a TV staff as a writer is also a producer, because they are providing story functions without actually doing the writing — the specific writing. They also write, of course, in addition to those duties.

But yes, the truth is, the only thing that we provide for which we are paid is written material on a page — literary material. And in fact, you mentioned the notion of time. Creative workers who do what we do are exempt from overtime legislation in the state of California. We can’t sue because we worked more than 40 hours a week and somehow ended up getting less than minimum wage or anything like that. We’re exempt. The law sort of says, if you are creative for a living, it’s not about time, it’s about the product.

**John:** One of the things that’s hard to grasp — and maybe you can talk me through it again because I still have a hard time processing it fully — is the Writers Guild is based on a commonly accepted fiction of copyright. And I mean this especially in relation to spec screenplays —

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** — I’ve written a screenplay. And I want to sell it to this certain studio, this WGA signatory studio. In the course of selling it to that studio, we will all kind of enter into a mutually agreed upon fiction that this studio has hired me to write this screenplay and that they are the author of this screenplay. Is that an accurate reflection?

**Craig:** It is. Here’s the basic deal: The United States is unique. We have something called “work for hire.” Anywhere else in the world, an author is an author. If you write something, you’re the author. You are the sole author and you have certain moral rights as the author.

In the United States, going all the way back to the Constitution, there’s something called “work for hire,” where a person or a business can cause to be created or commission work that they don’t actually author directly, but they are the authors in law. And they retain copyright.

Now, interestingly, why this impacts us here as professional writers: We have a union. Unions in this country represent employees. That’s it. If you’re not an employee, then you cannot be in a union, because that’s the only thing unions are allowed to do by law.

So, for instance, novelists can’t unionize, because they’re not employees. They are independent contractors. They’re copyright owners. We are not copyright owners. We’re employees of the companies; the studios are the, quote-unquote “copyright authors” of the works that we’re writing.

The plus side of being employees is that we can unionize and we can collectively bargain with the studios, which I think is, obviously, a huge benefit for us.

The other thing is that we can take advantage of certain things as a collective, like getting pension and health care. Obviously, we have a lot of difficulties negotiating with the companies and the other things like compensation and residuals.

But here’s how it ties back to this whole spec thing: I write a spec screenplay. It’s mine. Nobody commissioned it, I wrote it. I have two choices: I can register it with the United States Copyright Office and now I have copyright, or I can just do nothing and just have implied copyright.

Now, it comes time for me to sell it to a studio. They want to buy it. The way it’s all been worked out is, either I transfer the copyright to them — which they just basically say is a condition, so if you don’t want to transfer the copyright to us, no dice, no sale — or, if I haven’t registered it, I just backwards retroactively agree to say that they commissioned it and it’s a work for hire.

That is valuable in a weird way to us. It sounds like we’re getting ripped off, but by agreeing to go along with that retroactive lie, we allowed the specs grip to be covered by all of our Writers Guild protections, including — by the way — some separated rights, which we’re going to be getting into in a second.

So, it sounds like it is a lie, it sounds like it’s kind of a ripoff to us, and in a way, the big ripoff is work for hire. But no work for hire, no union.

**John:** So, without this kind of fiction, the guild could cover us in situations where we clearly were being hired to work on a TV show, but purchasing our original ideas would be very complicated.

**Craig:** Yeah, basically if we didn’t have this fiction, the spec market could become a non-union writing market. That’s why the Writers Guild actually got the companies to agree to say, “Let’s all look the other way here when it comes to specs, even though technically they don’t meet the definition of a truly commissioned work, or a true work-for-hire.” It’s better to call it that, otherwise the spec market becomes this kind of gray zone where they don’t even have to pay minimums. That would be —

**John:** They could literally say like, “I will pay you $500 for this script.”

**Craig:** Or how about, “I’ll pay you $1,” in which, then it becomes almost like a weird option market. Then you also get no credit protections, and if you lose your credit protections, you’re losing your separated rights, you’re losing your guaranteed minimum share story credit, you’re losing residuals. The ripple effect that goes forward from that would be tremendous. It would essentially decimate us as writers and providers of original material.

**John:** So one of the protections that you get as a part of the Writers Guild is what we call separated rights, which is a complicated bundle of things that come with the person who is awarded story credit on — we’re talking screenplays, TV is always more complicated.

**Craig:** Yeah. If you get story by credit, you get screen story by credit, or you get written by credit, which includes an implied story credit.

**John:** Subsequent works derived from your original story, you are compensated for those.

**Craig:** You get — there’s some formula, it’s not particularly glowing, but there’s some formula where you get paid for sequel payments, you essentially get WGA minimums for the sequels. The truth is, that’s one of the weakest separated rights we have, because usually your agent gets you a better deal than that anyway.

When we look at our separated rights — and they’re called separated rights because we’re essentially saying, “OK, we’re giving you all of the rights, but we’re kind of holding these little few ones back.” — the one that’s become the most useful, and the most potentially lucrative for us is dramatic stage rights.

**John:** Dramatic stage rights brings us to our first thing that we want to talk about today, which is Jessica Bendinger. The screenwriter behind Bring It On is in contention with the producers of destined-for-Broadway musical, Bring It On, the argument being that the stage musical is using her story elements, and is not compensating her for those.

**Craig:** Right. We have, one of our separated rights is dramatic stage rights. Basically, the deal is this: if you have story by, or screen story by, or written by on a screenplay — in this case Jessica has that — then the company has two years following the release of the movie to produce a stage version of that screenplay, musical or not musical. If they don’t do so within two years, then the writer essentially has an exclusive license in perpetuity to adapt for the stage, and to benefit from that adaptation on their own without the studio.

What happens sometimes though is that the studio contends that they are making — five years after the fact — that they’re making a stage production that has that title, but isn’t really based on that script. [laughs] That’s where you run into trouble.

**John:** Yeah, and that is essentially what I think is happening in the case of Bring It On is that, based on the articles I’ve read so far, Beacon, the people who made the movie who are behind the musical say that, “Yes, we are making a musical called ‘Bring It On,’ but it’s not using the story that is inherent in Jessica’s original screenplay.” Further complicated by the fact that they have made two sequels to Bring It On that neither of which credits Jessica.

**Craig:** Right, so I mean technically…I believe Bring It On was an original screenplay, so Jessica will always get a based on characters created by credit. If they’re using characters from the first one, then they’re in trouble. If they’re not using characters from the first one, and they’re basing it solely on say, the story of the third movie, then maybe they can wriggle out of it. This is one of those things where unfortunately, the way our society works, people tend to just go, “Well, let’s roll the dice, and if it ends up being litigated, it ends up being litigated.”

**John:** Story is what’s really the crucial aspect here, and having written a screenplay for somebody doesn’t necessarily give you dramatic rights on something. I can speak very specifically about Big Fish. Big Fish is based on a novel by Daniel Wallace. Sony bought the rights to the book for me, Sony hired me to write the screenplay. We wrote the screenplay, we made the movie. Sony has the chance to make the musical based on it, because Sony’s considered the author of the screenplay. Daniel Wallace has the rights to make a stage version of his book because he wrote the book.

However, someone who wanted to make a musical of Big Fish would need to get both Daniel Wallace’s book and if they wanted to use anything from the movie, they would need to get the rights from Columbia Pictures. If a producer were to go in and do both of those things, they could make a Big Fish musical. They could use every word of dialogue from the screenplay, and my name wouldn’t appear anywhere on it, which is a bizarre and frustrating thing about how things are divvied up these days, and that the studio is considered the author of the screenplay.

It’s not a hypothetical situation, Legally Blonde is a Broadway musical, uses a lot of material from the screenplay for Legally Blonde and the screenwriters aren’t credited as writers on that project.

**Craig:** That’s right. I mean the truth is: every screenplay, no matter what the circumstance, is owned and authored in law by the studio. The difference is, if you have a story credit or screen story credit, or a written by credit, you essentially retain control over this one area of exploitation: dramatic stage rights.

In the case of Big Fish or Legally Blonde, you guys — Lutz & Smith, and in your case on Big Fish — you guys adapted a novel. When we adapt source material, unless we create a story that is uniquely separate from the story in the source material, there is no story credit, and there are no separated rights. You would have to negotiate ahead of time the right to be credited on some stage adaptation of the movie.

It is a weird thing, and since so much of what we do now is adaptation, our separated rights keep getting — there’s just narrower and narrower circumstances where we even get them in the first place. Then when you do get them, as is the case with Jessica and her project, then sometimes still there can be a real dispute.

By the way, I’m going to add another thing that’s really annoying, and God, I wish we could fix this one in negotiations: Let’s say everything goes perfect, you write a script and you do have story credit, and you do get separated rights, and three years later, you mount a stage production. You still have to get permission from the studio to use the title of the movie on your show. Very frustrating.

**John:** Is that part of a WGA agreement or is that a part of the contract that they hired for, or is it —

**Craig:** No. That’s one of the limitations in the MBA — in the minimum basic agreement, which is our collective bargaining agreement — it basically says…actually it’s even worse than I said. I’m going to read you — it says basically, When we decide that we’re going to use this separated right, prior to the first performance of the dramatic work, we are required to submit to the company a copy of the work. Then we will not, without their consent, use the title of the motion picture, or the screenplay, as the case may be, as the title unless they allow us to.

How about this one? But if they insist that we have to, we also have to. So if you decided to change it because you felt it was a better title for the stage play, and the company said, “No, we actually want you to use the title of the movie,” you’re forced to. It’s very restrictive.

**John:** That is restrictive. Now, the individual writer who sold a spec screenplay could theoretically have language in his or her contract that would supersede that, is that correct?

**Craig:** That is correct. We are always free to negotiate better individual terms than the ones that exist. However, I must tell you, it’s very difficult to get the studios to agree to any kind of change to what they call that “core language,” because they hate setting precedent. For instance, you will not find any writer who has ever gotten a better deal on residuals in individual contract. None. Does not exist; they’ll never do it.

**John:** You and I were both behind the writers group that met with all of the studios and ended up getting some, not quite first dollar gross, but a larger piece of the back-end for some projects that we’re now writing over at Fox. That was part of our instinct behind that was it was very hard to get a better back-end percentage as a writer because everyone was loath to do that.

**Craig:** I think it is first dollar gross.

**John:** It’s kind of first dollar gross. It’s a really good definition of back end.

**Craig:** It’s one of the flavors. There’s like a billion flavors of back-end participation; it’s one of the better ones.

**John:** I will say, it’s not Will Smith’s first dollar gross.

**Craig:** No, no. No, it’s not.

**John:** No, no one gets Will Smith money.

**Craig:** No, he gets like zero dollar gross.

**John:** Will Smith, he gets crisp, new dollar bills directly from the mint is how you pay Will Smith. And you know what? He’s worth every one of those crisp, new dollar bills they send to him.

**Craig:** Don’t begrudge the man a dime.

Yeah, you’re right, we sort of made a little mini collective there to break through one of the barriers of getting that kind of participation as a writer. When it comes to these things, separated rights, it’s very difficult to kind of get them to give you a better deal than is already there.

This will continue to happen, because — obviously as you can tell if you just take a walk down Times Square — studios have realized that there’s this pretty decent source of additional revenue. If one of these stage productions really connects, they can do very well. I think this is going to be a battle front for sure. An interesting case to watch with Jessica.

**John:** Yeah, definitely.

Speaking of adaptations, I was lucky to have lunch with Winnie Holzman yesterday; we were talking about Wicked. She is the book writer on Wicked and wrote My So Called Life before that. It’s so fascinating to see what a stage musical looks like in great success. Wicked was a book by Gregory Maguire that was option-purchased with the first instinct of making it into a movie.

They made it into a Broadway musical first. While ultimately you can imagine they will make a movie somewhere down the road, it’s much more lucrative for them to keep that on the stage right now.

**Craig:** No question.

**John:** One of the remarkable things about Broadway also is that the reporting is fairly transparent. The writer of a Broadway show has a very good sense of how much money she is bringing in this week because it literally is a percentage of the box office take and that’s a public figure. It’s a very different formula than what we’re used to as screenwriters.

**Craig:** Right. And ultimately, when you mount a Broadway production, if you’re doing it independently of, say, a movie studio that controls rights, you don’t have these layers — these corporate layers that suck up all this revenue through their various vacuum holes.

**John:** The other topic of money related to copyright issues and what we do as screenwriters is the lawsuit that Harlan Ellison is suing over the movie In Time —

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** — the Andrew Niccol directed movie, which is interesting. I’ve been involved in cases where a writer, after the fact, a movie’s is in production or a movie has been made,and then a writer steps up and says, “No. That’s based on my idea.” I’ve been involved in litigation over that.

I’ve never been in litigation where someone is trying to stop the movie or file an injunction, arguing before the movie has been released that it is based on his idea.

**Craig:** Yeah. This is one of those things where I’ve been on both sides of these things. Anybody that writes for a living and gets movies made is going to get the call sooner or later that you so-called “stole someone’s idea.”

First things firs:, ideas are not property. Copyright law is pretty clear about this. An idea in and of itself is not protectable. That’s why body-switching movies can continue to be made. They should stop, but — you can freely make another body-switching movie without being sued by Freaky Friday or any of the other billions of them.

So, what is protectable? Unique expression in fixed form. “Fixed form” is important. It’s not enough to just say the idea or say the specifics out loud that are protectable. In the case of Harlan Ellison, he’s obviously met that test. He’s written a unique expression of fixed form. That’s his story. And what he is alleging is that this movie, which I haven’t seen, clearly infringes on that which is unique to his story.

Ultimately, that’s what the lawsuit will have to determine. That’s what a judge will have to determine or a jury — that depends on how these things get litigated, and uually, they just get settled. — but they have to basically look at the two works and say, “All right. Is this theft or is this one of those hundredth monkey things where two people had similar ideas but it’s not theft?”

For instance, I understand that there is a character in Harlan’s story called “The Timekeeper.” So, in his story time is a precious resource that can be granted or taken away from people as part of reward and punishment. And there’s a Timekeeper who controls that. And apparently, in the movie there is a similar character performing a similar function and he’s also called “The Timekeeper.”

So, on the one hand, Harlan’s going to argue, “Look. That’s unique and he took it.”

On the other hand, the studio is going to say, “The guy who keeps time is called ‘The Timekeeper.’ It’s not that unique at all.”

And that’s how this is going to be fought out. And ultimately, this is why these things are so difficult. I read the Ellison story many years ago. I obviously haven’t seen the Niccol film, it’s not out yet. If it were me, if somehow I were magically in charge of this, I would have to read the story again, watch the movie, and sort of gut check it and say, “Did this guy rip this guy off or not?” Not even intentionally — I don’t have to prove that there was intention; I just have to prove that it looks like material was taken. That just comes down to looking at it. Bottom line.

**John:** The timing of the lawsuit, speaking of time, is interesting too in that I feel like a lesser-known writer would have waited until after the movie came out and was successful before filing a lawsuit. If Harlan Ellison genuinely feels that this is his story, it may have been smart to do this now because it puts pressure on them to reach a decision earlier on and perhaps settle out if they don’t feel like they’re going to win this.

**Craig:** Yeah. We went through this on Hangover 2 with the famous tattoo lawsuit.

**John:** For people who don’t know, this is the concern about Ed Helms’ tattoo in the movie.

**Craig:** Right. Ed Helms wakes up with a tattoo that is remarkably similar to the one on Mike Tyson’s face, and the artist who created the tattoo on Mike Tyson’s face said, “Hey. Wait a second. That’s my tattoo. That’s my original work of art. You have to license that. You misappropriated it.”

The studio said, “A, It’s not exactly his tattoo. And B, we don’t think it is protectable. And C, get out of here.”

And he timed in such a way to try to get an injunction against the release and all the rest of it that in the end, this thing was settled. Again, these things typically are.

I think Harlan went through a similar thing with The Terminator. It ended up with a settlement and some kind of source material credit.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** It’s a funny thing. He’s an incredibly prolific writer, and he’s also a very litigious writer. [Laughter] He’s like a perfect storm of a guy who has written a lot and can point to similarities frequently. But, if the material was taken, it was taken. It’s not fair.

I want to believe the best of everybody. I think Andrew Niccol is great screenwriter and a terrific filmmaker, and Harlan is a legend. I don’t know — I hope that it was either not intentional or that there was no infringement. But we’ll see.

**John:** But what it has to come back to though is that it feels like an idea that a subsequent writer could come upon and would write something very similar to. Here is where I would come to: if I were thinking about a movie as “What’s a valuable commodity? What if time were a commodity?” With the idea of time being a commodity, I wonder if I would actually come to many of the same conclusions as this story does.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** That’s the challenge for me in thinking about this is: given this premise, these are the reasonable things you would come to. It’s like patent law to me: is it just a natural extension of the idea of what’s out there in the culture versus stealing somebody’s idea for what a graphical mouse will look like?

**Craig:** That’s right. You could say, “Here’s a phrase: Time is money. Now, let’s externalize it and create a story.” One of the things we have to be careful about is when we engage in this kind of litigation there is the law of unintended consequences. There are a thousand producers out there who could do the same thing that I just did.

“‘A stitch in time saves nine.’ What if that’s real? Oh my God.” Now they own that forever? No. It’s ridiculous.

So, you’re right. The concept alone isn’t enough. And even the expected execution elements of that concept wouldn’t be enough. You have to show a real lifting if you are going to actually get a verdict in your favor.

To get a settlement, I think you just have to show that you’ve got a reasonable enough case to cause a real problem and that you deserve some compensation to let that go. Obviously, I don’t know enough about the case to know what the level of evidence is here.

**John:** My concern is that intellectual property in the form of copyright could become the problem that’s become with patent law in the tech industry.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Basically like — oh, Sony is gathering up all these things about science fiction things so they can head off anyone who is trying to make a science fiction movie. I worry about copyright trolling.

**Craig:** Patent trolls becoming copyright trolls — I totally get it. And, you know, look: most of the time studios defend these claims vigorously, as the lawyers say. And 99 times out of 100 they don’t settle. They make them go away. In some cases they actually make the complainants pay them back. If they can show that it was a bologna claim, they’ll go after them for legal fees.

In the case of a guy like Harlan, it’s a little trickier. This is a pretty famous and accomplished guy who has also — and it’s not like a judge is not going to notice is that — he’s been down this road before, and to success. And so this one is a little trickier.

But by and large, I’m with you — I don’t like that everything we write can be held up by some nut who saws that he wrote the same thing in his little journal.

**John:** I think I am going to pitch a new science fiction story to our friend Derek Hass, who runs Popcorn Fiction. So here’s the basic premise: You have a moderately successful writer who invents the time machine, travels back in time, and writes the basic premise of all the future movies, such as Star Wars.

[laughter]

And then years later, sues Lucas and sues everyone, and becomes insanely wealthy. And then somehow gets tripped up in his own thing and dies of an appropriately gruesome science fiction death.

**Craig:** Or he just goes back in time, buys 50 shares of something and that’ll be good too.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** But that just shorts it and then it’s not good.

**John:** Yeah. You’ve basically shortened my short story down to a paragraph and then it’s not good. It’s not even a short story anymore.

**Craig:** Is there a market for short sentences?

**John:** Yeah. It’s called Twitter.

**Craig:** Yeah. That’s a great Twitter sentence.

**John:** It’s a very good Twitter sentence.

Well, thank you. I felt this was a good lesson with Professor Mazin.

**Craig:** I hope we didn’t put everyone to sleep. I mean — I just want to say for those of you have mustered your way through this, if you’re not a professional screenwriter and you’re wondering, “Why did I just listen to that?” It’s because you hope to be one. And believe me, it’s going to impact you. You have to know this stuff. Because they know it. So, you should know it too.

**John:** Craig, thank you very much.

**Craig:** Thank you John.

**John:** All right. And we’ll talk again next week.

**Craig:** Awesome.

The original post for this episode can be found here.

John August: Hello, and welcome to Scriptnotes. This is Episode 4, a podcast about screenwriting and things interesting to screenwriters. My name is John August.

Craig Mazin: I am Craig Mazin.

John: How are you doing today, Craig?

Craig: You know, John, I’m not bad. I’m a little busy, little headache-y today. One of these podcasts should just be on the physical ailments of the screenwriter.

John: You’ve actually had problems with headaches before. I know you used to have migraine problems, and you’re past the worst of that, is that correct?

Craig: I am, yes. I used to have terrible migraines and I’ve gotten much, much better. The truth is all headaches are migraines, as my migraine doctor told me. I was shocked. I always thought there was just headaches and then violent other things called migraines.

They’re all the same, it’s just levels. Now I can just take a couple of Advil and I’m like a regular human being, but it used to be terrible, terrible.

John: How bad did it get? Were you physically incapacitated, where you couldn’t —

Craig: Yes, sometimes. I mean, it would get pretty bad where you would have to just lie in bed and wait. I had a kidney stone once. That was the worst.

John: Kidney stones are the worst. We’ve both had kidney stones. Kidney stones are literally — if someone had just said, “Here’s a gun.” “Thank you very much. I will kill myself now.”

Craig: Yes — sort of famously, pregnant women who have had natural childbirth and then had kidney stones pronounce kidney stones worse.

John: After my first kidney stone incident, it didn’t pass that first time. I was at the emergency room. The doctor gave me a prescription for a very heavy-duty painkiller and I didn’t have insurance at that point, so I’m not going to fill this prescription because this is really expensive stuff. So I thought, “Oh, if it comes back, I’ll deal with it if it comes back.”

So it came back really, really bad. So I have this prescription for this heavy-strength painkiller. It’s like five in the morning, I’m going to the 24-hour drug store trying to get this prescription filled.

I looked just like every junkie you could possibly imagine, desperate to get this thing filled. Of course, by then it was too late, I had to go back to the emergency room. Because when it recurs, it’s just awful.

Craig: It’s hard to imagine it until it happens to you. It’s the only time in my life I’ve actually writhed in agony. I finally knew what writhing was.

John: Or you try to lay back on the gurney or on the table, and you actually have to keep moving, because that’s the only way you can distract yourself from the awfulness.

Craig: I’m not a big medicine guy, but they gave me the heavy-duty Oxycontin — and I’m basically inviting people to now break into my house and steal it — but I still have this big thing of it, because you pass the stone, you don’t need it anymore.

But I save it, because I just feel like one day it’s going to happen again, and I need that there.

John: If you were watching Torchwood, Craig, you would know that because no one dies in the Torchwood: Miracle Day plot line, heavy-duty painkillers become very, very important, because people who are mortally wounded don’t die, and they’re in agony, and so something like your Oxycontin pills would be incredibly valuable.

Craig: I don’t watch that, but I do know just from the existence of drug addicts that they are valuable.

John: The other, of course, good idea for keeping Oxycontin on hand is a zombie apocalypse, because situations are going to occur beyond your basic survival needs of an axe and something else to dismember zombies that are coming after you. You are going to want some pain pills to through some other incidents that happen. Not zombie bite related things that are going to infect you, but just the other wear and tear that’s going to happen, because the medical system has collapsed.

Craig: You know, I have to say, I’ve been thinking more and more about this zombie thing, and if it goes down, if it really goes down, I’m just going to blow my own face off. You know what, I don’t even want to live in that world. I’m gonna blow my brains out, that way I’m out. I’m checked out, I can’t be a zombie, I can’t be running all the time. I just don’t care that much.

John: Yes, Thomas Jane it. You can do the thing that Thomas Jane does at the end of The Mist and kill you whole family. That’s always a good alternative.

Craig: Yes, because once the zombie apocalypse comes, your life isn’t going to have to score in the top two boxes. I don’t care if the audience doesn’t like it.

John: That’s well said.

Craig: Thank you.

John: But you know who does care if their story…

Craig: Segue! Segue!

John: …scores the top two boxes? Did you hear that segue?

By the way, my whole life, of course, I’ve used the word “segue,” but when I’ve seen it written down, I assumed it was spelt a different way. Segue is spelt S-E-G-U-E.

Craig: Yes, it’s spelled like “seg.”

John: Like “seg.” Whenever I would see that written out, I would say, “seg to.”€ I would say, “That’s shortened version of segue.” It’s actually how you spell segue. We’re doing the Big Fish musical, musicals are a lot about segues. Rather than “cut to,” it’s “segue to” a new thing that happens.

So I had to write the word “segue” a lot, and it still just looks so wrong to me.

Craig: There’s a whole group of words — and I promise we’ll get around to talking about screenplays in a second — but there’s a group of words that read differently than they’re pronounced, and for a long, long time, I thought “misled” was “mizzled.”€ And then “awry” I thought was “or-ry.”€ I think that makes more sense.

John: Don’t know that. Let’s get to the topic at hand. Today we want to talk about directors and how screenwriters deal with directors, and what that relationship is like. Some templates for thinking about how you would work with a director on a project.

And you’ve had many movies shot and have all of your director experiences been fantastic?

Craig: No.

[laughing]

John: That’s weird.

Craig: No. I mean I think I’ve had more good ones than…I really only had one weird one. Mostly though they’ve been good, I would say. Mostly good.

John: Yeah. I’d say most of mine have been pretty good, and some of the good ones were ones where I wasn’t all that involved with the project from the beginning. I just came in and did some work and helped them out. They went off and shot the movie and good luck and Godspeed.

Other times I’ve been on board the project from the very beginning, and a director comes on board. You’re trying to get them up to speed with where you’re at. So let’s aim more towards that from-inception kind of relationship because I think that’s more what our audience is listening for.

Also, we’re talking about movies. That relationship between a writer and a director in television is very, very different. The writer in television has more power but also has responsibility to the overall continuity of the show. The director is there to get what needs to be shot on the page, onto film, and into the episode.

Craig: Yeah, in television the director doesn’t have to determine who is going to be playing these roles, what they’re dressing like, what the sets should look like, what the tone of the product is. All those things have been determined already. I mean that’s the massive gulf between feature directing and television directing.

John: Well, all those things we talk about are the crucial things that a director is doing while the director is getting up to speed with the script and thinking about making the movie. So let’s just start talking about all the stuff that a director needs to do because it’s tempting to think about, “Oh, the director is responsible for the story and for getting the story told.”

And yes, that’s one of his or her jobs, but so much of a director’s time as you’re approaching making a move is really dealing with completely different things that have nothing to do with the script itself. So recognizing that you as a screenwriter are essentially a department when it comes to making a movie.

And you are going to be one of his meetings over the course of the day, but he’s also talking to the costume designer, the production designer, the cinematographer, the editors, the producers, the casting directors. As a giant village who’s come together to make this movie, he’s the village chief and you’re one of the villagers. Recognizing that difference is a hard thing to sometimes to get up to speed with.

Craig: Yeah, we are very focused in on what we are responsible for. Like you said, that’s the story. As it turns out, that is the most important part of this whole thing. The story is more important than the costumes, the locations, where the lights are going to go, and what the makeup should look like. But all those things flow from the story and are mission-critical to making a good movie.

You have to look at every department as necessary. The story is the thing that’s driving everything. It’s just a question of time. Throughout the day he still has to sit there and figure out what the cars should be in the scene where, okay, and then she pulls up in her car. What car? Here, I got pictures of cars for you. That’s where you want to blow your brains out as a director.

Or we have a scene where there’s a party, and he’s going to crash the party and deliver a speech to the girl. Okay, well, how many people are at the party? What ages are they? Are they different races? How are they dressed? Is it upscale? Is it downscale? The billions of questions that start to bury the director in quicksand soak up so much time, and they all have to be answered. They’re all theoretically part of some cohesive vision.

John: A crucial thing that a smart screenwriter pointed out to me once is that as a screenwriter, you’re the only person who’s already seen the movie. So when you approach your first meeting as the director you have to remember that you already made the movie in your head. You can see the whole thing.

The director, he or she, hasn’t seen the whole thing yet and is still trying to figure out what the movie looks like and is starting to answer those thousands of questions ahead of time. If they want to go through every page of the script with you, it’s not necessarily because they have a problem with it. They’re just trying to figure it out.

Your job a lot of times is to almost be like an interpreter as if the script was written in some other language, and you have to help talk it through with them so that it can be understandable in their language and they understand what your intention was, who are these characters in the scene, what is important, and how they’re going to get through that.

Because ultimately the smart directors realize that they’re going to be on the set at four in the morning after very long days of shooting. They have two hours until the sun rises, and that actor is going to come to him and be saying like, “What am I supposed to be doing in this scene?” They have to be able to have an answer.

So the times where I’ve been most exhausted with a director, I’ve always tried to remember that, “Okay, that’s right. They’re trying to figure this all out, too.”

Craig: Yeah, and you’re smart because you’re putting the movie first. It’s tempting to put your own ego and what you’ve invested in the screenplay first, but the point of the screenplay is the movie. What you’re talking about is helping the director do the best job they can do in realizing their vision and your vision and your intention. So obviously, part of that is explaining your intention and defending your intention.

Another part of it is recognizing that they have to do it for real. The movie that you saw in your head? That can’t ever be a movie because in your movie people move like they do in dreams. They’re on one end of the room. Now they’re on the other end of the room. Time speeds up and slows down in accordance with the importance of the moment.

But in a movie, time moves at one second per second. [laughs] You can’t speed it up, really, or slow it down. I mean, you can a little bit here and there, but there are demands of production that force the director to, frankly, make a less amazing, wonderful, kind of translucent thing than you have in your brain, which is this kind of shimmering dream of whatever your movie was.

That said, the more specific you are in your head about the movie — Like I wrote a blog piece once that says, “You can’t just walk into a building.” You should know if your character walks into a building, see the building. You may not want to waste a bunch of space on the page describing the building, but sooner or later someone’s going to say, “What building did you have in mind?” It’s good to know.

If you drop your jaw and go, “Uh, I don’t know. A building,” you’re expressing a different philosophy than everybody else in the movie. Because they have a job to actually shoot something. If you start saying, “Ah, who cares, it doesn’t matter,” or implying, “Who cares, it doesn’t matter,” you’ve put this thing between you and them.

John: You should be able to have an answer for any question that comes up. So rather than having generic type of like, “This is a police station.” Well, what kind of police station is this like? Where are we at in the police station?

The very first movie I was involved with, the first movie of mine that got produced, was Go. On that movie, fortunately Doug Liman had me super-involved. I was not only on set every moment, but every moment of pre-production I was there, too.

It was a great experience for us to get in the same brain space about what was important, what kinds of things we were going to see. But I always had an answer. It wasn’t always going to be the same answer as Doug’s, but when asked, or occasionally when not asked, but when I saw something going in the opposite direction, I could volunteer my opinion of like, “This is what the intention of this was.” Always couched in terms of like, “These are the other options I could see being out there, but this is what the actual intention of this thing was.”

From casting, from what locations we’re picking to, just the style of the world. Like how rundown of a grocery store are we at, and where are we at in this grocery store. The script reflected a lot of those things, but you’re not ever going to be able to have all those details on the page. They were in my head, though, like I had filmed it well enough in my head that I could at least give them my answer for how things were supposed to be.

Craig: Yeah. That’s important. By the way, that is a help for a director.

Look, I’ve worked primarily with two directors, David Zucker and Todd Phillips — both incredibly different guys, very different filmmakers, different kinds of movies. But they’ve both been very generous with me, and they’ve included me as a partner. One of the parts of that contract that I honor is if they don’t get it — let’s say I express my intention as best I can, and they just don’t get it — it’s important for me to stop and go, “Here’s the deal.”

It doesn’t really matter if I get it. If they don’t get it, I have to figure out something else that they do get that satisfies whatever this intention is, because they have to do it. They’re the ones that actually have to relay it. Just as I think when you are directing, and your actor looks at you and says, “I just don’t get this,” you got to think about how to either make them see so that they can internalize and perform it, or find another way in.

The director has to be an adult enough to sublimate his own desires and ego to make the moment with the actors work, and the writer has to do the same for the director. Everybody ultimately has to be subordinate to the movie.

So when I work with those guys, they’re kind enough to let me on their set — and it’s their set — and they want me there, and I am respectful enough to help them. By help them, I mean help the movie, not the script.

John: Let’s talk about being on the set, and let’s talk set etiquette. I found a range of experiences on being the writer on the set. With Go, I was at the monitor for every shot. I had the contacts on, the little ear pieces on. We had a little hand-held monitor so if I needed to walk away from the camera, I could see what they were setting up and run back if something was not going to work right.

With those, I could always talk directly to Doug, and I had to talk directly to Doug because the camera was on his shoulder. So there really were no private conversations. Like I had to come up to him and say like, “What Sarah did was great. It’s going to be a problem when we cut to this next thing here, because we’re setting the expectation…” I would try to give a note that both validated what just happened, but also explain why I was coming up and talking to him. So that he could then turn to Sarah and say like, “Yeah, what he just said,” and shoot the next take.

Other cases, like on Big Fish, first day of shooting we’re in Montgomery, Alabama. Tim picked a really easy day of stuff to shoot, which is a smart choice. A really simple thing where Billy Crudup is coming to talk with Jessica Lange.

So I’m watching on the monitor, and I see one little thing, “Oh, I should tell Tim that, that there’s a little moment, opportunity there.” I go up, I pull him aside, it’s like, “Tim, that was great what she just did. But there’s also the chance here when he’s there, and there might be a little moment here.” And I could see like these garage doors go down in front of his eyes.

Craig: [laughs]

John: I realized, this is not going to be the kind of set relationship we have. He doesn’t want me to be chumming with those notes, and it’s a very good idea for me to go back to Los Angeles.

Craig: [laughs]

John: There wasn’t a problem. There wasn’t a disagreement, there wasn’t anything like that. But that wasn’t the way he wanted to work, and I wasn’t going to be able to have a lot of input on the choices made on the set.

Craig: Well, surprise surprise, the directors are as different to each other as we are to each other. I mean, David Zucker and I essentially would co-direct. We sat together at the monitor — I don’t think we would ever move on unless we both agreed to move on. Occasionally, he wouldn’t even care if I gave notes to the actors. We walked through the setups together in the morning. We set the blocking together. We very much worked hand-in-hand.

Not at all the case with Todd Phillips, who is a very different kind of director, and certainly a more traditional one. Todd is the captain of the set 100 percent. As he’s pointed out, I think the way he’s put it is, “I don’t need you to be here.” [laughs] “I’ve made plenty of movies without you. That said, if you’d like to be here, it could be helpful.”

So I take that to heart. I mean, I don’t think I maybe…With that relationship, it’s really just about picking those moments where you think I’m going to just say, “Okay, this is something that matters to me that’s really important, and I’m going to share that with him.” Either he’s going to go, “Shut up, stupid,” or, “Yeah, that’s a good idea.” But I pick those moments carefully and few and far between. Frankly, he’s pretty good at what he does, and he’s the sort of very independent director.

One thing that I want to make clear about directing: so much of it has to do with confidence. You need to feel confident in your own vision. Some directors, their confidence goes up the more direct and obvious help they get. Other directors, their confidence goes down.

I understand that. I’m kind of that way myself. You and I write on our own. We don’t have writing partners. I always feel like I should be able to move this boulder myself. So you have to learn which kind of director you’re dealing with. If it’s a director that likes moving the boulder himself, just pick your moments carefully, and don’t be a nudge.

John: One of the luxuries of being a writer on the set is if you’re watching the monitor and you see something that you can fix and you have a good idea, you can speak up and have a good idea. If you see something that’s not working and you don’t know how to fix it, you can just sit there and shut up.

Craig: [laughs] Yeah, exactly.

John: Versus the director, who every time he calls, “Cut,” there’s 20 eyes looking at him saying, “Okay, what are we going to do next?” And the director has to figure out who he needs to talk with, about what needs to change, has to figure out what wasn’t working about that moment.

Craig: Yeah.

John: So giving that person the space to be able to do that and hopefully help where you can help him or her make that next thing happen.

Craig: That’s a good point. I will say — I don’t care who the director is — give them a little bit of time to find it. No director is going to get it on take one. Well, occasionally magic happens. But the point is, if you watch a take and you go, “Oh, no,” after watching that take, it’s for the same reason people would say, “Oh, no,” if they read the first thing you typed in the morning.

It’s beginning. The process is beginning. Don’t overreact. Don’t jump in there and say, “It’s not working. It’s not working.” Believe me, they know. Everybody knows. [laughs] It’s fine. You have all day to shoot two and a half pages, let the director do what they do.

The only times I ever discuss things with Todd, for instance, is if I thought, “Okay, here’s just another way of approaching this.” Someone once said, “Don’t ever show up with problems, just show up with solutions.” Give them an alternative. If they like it, they’ll do it.

John: Another director who I’ve worked with twice is McG. I love McG. McG can be frustrating at times, but I do love McG. What I love about McG is his energy and his passion. It’s hard to connect with McG on a story level often, but it’s easy to connect with him on a, “This is what it’s going to feel like,” level.

I think no matter who you’re talking with as a director, early on in those conversations, have conversations about tone and feeling, and what this is like to you. A lot of times you end up watching other movies with directors or talking about references. With Tim Burton I could just go into his office, and he’ll have water-color painted a lot of scenes from the script. It says, “Okay, I get what this world is like as he sees it.”

Like for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, I was very specific about a lot of the stuff in it, but like the Oompa-Loompas, how is he going to do the Oompa-Loompas? Then you go into his office, and you see he has this scale drawing of what the Oompa-Loompas are like standing next to all the different characters. You can just see everybody in their wardrobe, it’s like, “Oh, okay. I get what this movie is like to Tim.” Then every other conversation I have can be about supporting that vision of how he sees the world of Willy Wonka versus what I might have had in my head originally.

Craig: That’s a good way in with directors who aren’t also prominently screenwriters. In working with David and Todd, I’m working with writers, because they’re screenwriters in their own right. That, actually, also dramatically changes the way you approach that relationship. Because with both of those guys, I’ve been writing partners.

So I don’t have to do quite as much ambassadorship with the script to them because we all wrote it together. That also takes an enormous burden off of me — or I guess not even a burden, because there’s no burden on me, it’s just a worry that I don’t have to have. Because the truth is I know that they actually sat here and worked through this scene with me. We made it together. They’ve seen it in their heads. It makes sense to them. That’s a big relief.

John: It’s great when you have that opportunity to work with a writer-director who actually can generally understand the writing process on that. I think there’s a misconception that because of the perils of auteur theory is that all directors really come from a place of story, and understand story, and have a great grasp of what the narrative of something is. A lot of them don’t.

Some of the best directors, I think, are the ones who are very upfront about that’s not their strongest suit. Just like we don’t expect every director to be a master of cinematography, we don’t expect every director to be a master of visual effects. There are some who are great at figuring out all the pieces of a story and how to move from the beginning to the end, and there’s others who are really good at getting that story up onto the screen. Recognizing which kind of director you are working with early on is crucial with that.

One of the places where I feel like I think I’m good at, which I think a lot of screenwriters will tend to be good at once they have some experience with it, is editing. We’re often the right people to come into the editing room after there’s a director’s first cut to help talk through, “This is what’s not working, and this is what we may want to talk about changing.”

We talked about that first test screening, which is just incredibly nerve-wracking. Especially if you’re the director, of course, because you’ve been staring at this thing on an Avid screen for eight weeks, 12 weeks, trying to get things to work, and you have no idea if it actually works.

As a screenwriter, you’re watching it a lot of times blind. You just don’t know what movie it is that they ended up making. Where I’ve been most helpful to directors, I think, honestly, is being that first set of notes after the test screening and saying like, “These are the things that were awesome. These are the things that worked great. These are the things we had challenges with, and here are some ways we might want to talk about changing them.” Being that first person with the best notes is a helpful role for a screenwriter, I think.

Craig: I totally agree. To that end, here’s just a bit of practical advice. If you want to be a screenwriter that collaborates with filmmakers beyond just, “Congrats, we’re making your movie. See you at the premier,” you need to understand the process of editing. You can’t approach it like you’re just sitting there watching a show going, “I don’t know. I didn’t get this part,” or, “Why…it’s just boring here.”

You have to understand how editing works, and you have to be able to speak the language of editing. Because ultimately, you need to — if you’re going to give advice, and it’s going to be a solution-oriented advice — you need to be able to say, “In this scene, how about just cutting the head” “How about taking this much off, and just keeping that line there?” “I know that you might have a problem with that because let’s say they’ve been talking up to that line and it’s all one shot, but do you have any coverage where you can establish them quietly and then just go in for that line?”

If you can talk like that, then your advice is usable, and it’s also clinical. Because remember, the director is going to be about as fragile as a human can be when they’re showing that cut for the first time. It’s truly nerve-wracking. So try and get some kind of handle on how editing actually works.

The other thing I was going to add was just when you were talking about directors who write and don’t write, comedy, it’s very rare — I don’t know why, it’s just the way it is — I don’t know any successful comedy, or repeatedly successful comedy directors, that don’t write. I don’t know if you can direct comedy if you don’t write. I’m not sure you can.

John: I’m sure if we spent a few minutes on that we’d find some really good directors who aren’t writers, but all of my favorite comedies I can think of have writer-directors behind them.

Craig: Yeah. I mean, if you look at the guys doing it now, Phillips, Apatow…I think Dobkin writes. Dobkin may be an example, actually. Because Wedding Crashers is awesome. I don’t know if he writes.

John: I don’t perceive him as being a writer.

Craig: Yeah, well, then maybe I’m wrong.

John: [noises]

Craig: Look at that. There you go. [laughs] Mazin’s wrong again.

John: We’re out about time, but let’s talk through some general advice for screenwriters dealing with directors. First off, the question of when a director becomes involved. Like, I may come on board this project which it’s the director’s idea. So I would be coming in, working very closely in collaboration with him, which can be really great and exciting, but can also be exhausting, because you feel him trying to shoot the movie while it’s still being —

Craig: Yeah, yeah.

John: — while it’s still at a very raw state. It can be great because it can be a really good collaboration. It could just take a lot of time. More often, you will have written something, and now a director comes on board. Your responsibility is to have a meeting of the minds where you can instill what was going on in your head to him or her, and she can communicate back to you like what she sees for the project.

That’s where I’m at right now with Susan Stroman on Big Fish, where I’ve had now 12 years to work with Big Fish in various forms, and she has to process what I’ve done and pull out of me what she needs to make it on the stage.

Craig: Yeah. If the director isn’t writing with you, I think it’s best to give yourself a little distance. Just like they need to get takes one through three in before anybody starts yapping in their ear, I feel like the writer needs some space to just write the script.

So if the director’s not writing, as long as everybody is connected on the vision and the rough idea of what the story is, you just…Yeah, it’s not a good idea to have them over your shoulder while you’re doing it. Look, even editors get to do an assembly.

John: Yeah. They give everyone a chance.

Craig: Everybody needs their shot. Yeah.

John: As you get closer to production, you have to accept the fact that you are going to become another department. Whatever close, one-on-one relationship you have with the director, it’s going to be a little bit more distant just because his or her time is going to be divided between a bunch of different people who need answers out of him — line producers, ADs, every department head wants as much time as they can possibly get.

So hopefully most of the big issues have been solved. Hopefully you feel like you really have a movie. If you get a chance to do a table reading, that’s awesome, because it’s the only way you’ll ever know that the actors read the script at least once. [laughs]

Craig: Well, and it’s your chance, too, to kind of…It’s your last shot at rewriting before they start shooting.

John: Yeah.

Craig: Start to hear what works and what doesn’t.

John: And if there’s lines that an actor literally can’t say, you have to change them. You can’t make an actor say a line that he or she doesn’t understand.

Craig: Yeah. They’re human beings. Use your actors to the best of their abilities. They’re all unique, and they’re there because they can do something we can’t, so make the best use of them. You’re right, as you approach production, understand that you’re a department, but be the best department. Be the department that the director turns to at the beginning of the day and the end of the day. Be the safe port in the storm.

You are technically — not technically. If you do it right, you’re really the only person that they can look at and say, “You and I both get this. Everybody else is looking like the blind men at the elephant. They’re feeling the piece of the elephant they feel, you and I can see the movie.” Be that person.

John: Sometimes I’ll have a producer on set who actually has the whole movie in his or her head, but more often, you’re going to be the only person around who has a understanding of what the whole story is, and how this little piece fits into the whole bigger piece.

Craig: That’s right.

John: The classic stories are always like the director decides to, “Oh, I really like that actress. Let’s throw her into this scene, just in the background.” The screenwriter says, “No, no, you don’t remember! She’s already dead!” A lot of times you are that person who remembers that. There’s a script supervisor who’s there, and his or her job is to check for some things like that, but you’re the person who remembers why everything is the way something is.

Craig: Yeah. I love script supervisors, but they’re not narrative supervisors. That’s the difference. They’re supervising the day’s work on the page and making sure that when you shoot things out of sequence, “Okay. Show me the Polaroid of what they look like in the scene before so I can make sure they match up.”

John: “Coffee cup right hand, coffee cup left hand.”

Craig: Yeah. Exactly. “You should be looking camera left and not camera right.” But we are the ones that technically we should know the narrative better than anybody.

John: We’re the story supervisors.

Craig: So to speak, yeah.

John: Then I would say, whatever your function is on the set, you’ll go away for a while, and the director will do his or her cut. You’ll get a chance to see it, and that’s hopefully a time where you can be a real help and a real ally to the director in getting the best version of this movie done. Because you had your shot at making the movie when you wrote the script, he has his shot shooting it and doing that first cut, and that final product is what you’re pushing to.

You’re always trying to write a movie, you weren’t trying to write a script.

Craig: Exactly, exactly. So just let the document go. Once the cameras are rolling, let it go. Every morning you take that piece of paper, the two and a half or three pieces of paper, look at them, love them, and then say goodbye to them. Because by the end of the day, they’re just paper, and now it’s movie. So service the movie.

John: Definitely.

Craig: Great. Before we go, can we say thank you to everybody for making us the number one film and TV non-music or — no, non-video podcast on iTunes? Is that right?

John: That’s pretty great. I think it’s also great that if you actually divide the categories down small enough, like pretty much everything is the star of its own list.

Craig: Right. We’re the top you and me podcast in the world.

John: That’s pretty amazing.

Craig: And like almost right off the bat.

John: Yeah.

Craig: Almost.

John: So thank you, Craig. A good conversation about directors.

Craig: Thank you, John. I was enlightened.

John: All right. We’ll see everybody next time.

Craig: See you next time, guys.

John: Bye.