John August

QandA

“Fictional events” disclaimer

QandA, Rights and Copyright

At the end of the credits of every movie, I read the
message saying, "The
events depicted in this movie are fictitious. Any similarity to any person
living or dead is merely coincidental." However, in a number of interviews
with screenwriters and on several DVD commentary tracks I hear a writer talk
about a real person or experience that he or she used in the script. Why do
you they get to put that message at the end?

–Ryan

This disclaimer is there strictly to help protect the studio and filmmakers
in case someone comes after them, claiming libel or defamation. Let’s say the
movie has an evil drug dealer named Joe Thompson. If some guy named Joe Thompson
in Wayzata, Minnesota decides the movie has defamed him and tries to sue, the
studio can point to that disclaimer and say, "Look, we said this character wasn’t
based on anyone."

Since you seem to like to watch the credits – God bless you – pay close attention,
because that disclaimer isn’t always exactly the same. In the case of a movie
like ALI, many of the characters obviously DID exist, and a lot of the events
portrayed in the movie DID happen. So the disclaimer at the end might say something
like, "This story is based on actual events. In certain cases incidents,
characters and timelines have been changed for dramatic purposes. Certain characters
may be composites, or entirely fictitious."

Among recent movies, CHICAGO, ADAPTATION and CATCH ME IF YOU CAN are based
on true stories, but each has taken considerable dramatic license. You’ll see
that reflected in the disclaimers at the end.

When you listen to DVD commentary tracks, you’ll often hear that a character
was "inspired by" a real-life person or events. For instance, GO
features a telepathic cat named Huxley, who is based on my friend George’s
telepathic cat named Huxley. The threeway, the strippers and the burning hotel
room all happened – at different times, to different people – but in stringing
them together, I created a fictious work that is not really "based on
actual events."

By the way, the screenwriter gets no say in what kind of disclaimer is put
on the movie. That’s generally handled by the studio lawyers.

How old is too old?

Psych 101, QandA

All my life I’ve been fascinated with the process of movie making.
Throughout my twenties I focused on acting (workshops, plays, student films,
local commercials, etc) but never found much enjoyment or satisfaction. I’m
now 32 and just starting my college education and wondering what road to go
down (writing, producing, etc). I guess my question to you is have you seen
many 30-somethings start later in life and manage to be taken seriously in
our unfortunately youth obsessed culture?

–Dave

You read so many stories about young people storming the film world that it’s
easy to think that no one successful was born before 1970. The truth is, most
of the movies you see were written, directed and produced by people in their
30’s, 40’s, and 50’s. The reason why 19-year old wunderkinds are so fascinating
is because they are so rare.

I started working in Hollywood when I was 22, ten years ago. I’m a better
writer now than I was then, partly through experience in the industry, and
partly through the simple passage of time. As you experience more of life,
you simply have more to write about, and a better understanding of the subtleties
of the world.

Will you have a tougher time starting out in your 30’s, rather than your 20’s?
Maybe. But starting a career in film is difficult at any age, so if it’s 15%
more difficult, I can’t imagine that would deter you. Yes, Hollywood can be
youth-obsessed, but it’s also a meritocracy at a certain point. People don’t
care where you come from as long as you can do the job well.

Looking back, I think the only real advantage I had with youth is that I was
willing to be poor. Since I came straight out of college, it didn’t really
bother me to eat spaghetti five nights a week, to sleep on the floor rather
than a bed, or drive a rusted-out Honda. If I had been better established in
life, with a comfortable job and a distaste for ramen noodles, it might have
been hard to give those things up.

Writer on-set

Film Industry, QandA

If you sell a screenplay and it goes into production, is
there any way to get on-set to watch your movie being filmed, even if it
has been re-written?

–Matt

One of the issues that came up in the latest negotiation between the Writers
Guild and the studios was whether screenwriters should have guaranteed access
to the set. Surprisingly, the biggest opponent to the idea was the Directors
Guild, perhaps concerned that having writers on the set might diminish the
director’s power and control.

In the end, allowing writers to visit the set was added to a new list of "preferred
practices." It’s a compromise, but certainly a step in the right direction.

Even without the latest ruling, in my experience the level of the writer’s
involvement during production has everything to do with his relationship with
the director and producers. On GO, I was there for every frame shot. On CHARLIE’S
ANGELS, I trekked down to the soundstages occasionally. MINORITY REPORT, just
once. (And that was mostly just to see the sets, which were the most elaborate
things I’ve ever seen.)

What few writers understand before visting a set is just how boring they are.
Shooting a movie is like running through mud, and if you don’t have a job on
the set, it gets old incredibly fast. For my money, a writer’s time is better
spent in the editing room, helping to find the best movie in the footage that
was shot. You don’t get to hobnob with big stars, but you’re more likely to
actually improve the movie.

Writer control

Producers, QandA

When working on a big budget remake, does the writer have complete control
over how the characters behave and talk? It must be difficult to shape the
main characters when people all around you have their own personal ideas about
them.

–RBC

Once the script has left the writer’s hands, he never has complete control
over anything. That’s the first and possibly the most frustrating truth about
screenwriting.

In order to be filmed, your perfect vision has to be mucked up by directors,
actors, editors and cinematographers, each of whom will change it to greater
and lesser degrees. The hope is that each step of the way, they’ll make it
better. Surprisingly, sometimes they do.

Your question is about remakes, where there’s a general familiarity with the
characters and the concept, and your instincts are right. Since everyone involved
on the project knows the underlying material, they all have strong opinions
about how to proceed.

The writer’s job, in this case, is to try to capture as much as possible of
what’s beloved about the original, and yet still make a movie that can stand
on its own.

In the case of CHARLIE’S ANGELS, the producers and I had long talks about
the tone and characters, independent of the plot. Rather than mocking the original
series, we wanted the movie to be a giant hug around it. We wanted the angels
to be super-competent on the job, and approachably dorky in their off-time.
Despite all the action, this would be fundamentally a comedy, and cool people
just aren’t funny.

All of this seems pretty obvious watching the final movie, but getting everyone
to agree to this approach was easily half of my job. It would have been easier
to make a straight-out spoof (like SCARY MOVIE), or a full-on action movie
(like James Bond), but I don’t think either would have been as successful.