Alyssa Dattolico

In this assigned reading, a closer look is taken at chapter eight, called “Plays and Films: Authors, Auteurs, Autres”, from the above referenced book written by Jack Stillinger. Within this chapter, Stillinger gives his opinions, supported with many detailed examples, concerning the various placements of authorship for works in the realms of film and theatre specifically. He begins by stating that plays and films thrive on collaborative efforts because they generally involve and require more people than, say, a novel. However, throughout the chapter, Stillinger discusses which of the people participating in the process of creation of the piece should be credited for the end result.

Stillinger makes a point that the editing and changing of films and plays can be done with great ease and can be completed at any point throughout all stages of development. He then goes on to give examples of conflicts of interest that arise sometimes in regards to credibility when there is collaboration in film and plays. Firstly, it is speculated that for plays, the “author” is usually noted as the writer of the work and that whoever is in junction to collaborate on the project will collaborate with the writer. He goes on further to recognize the fact that although Shakespeare, known as the greatest writer in English history, has had his work adapted over many centuries by thousands of writers and directors who change original lines, scenery, roles, and themes, his pieces were worked on collaboratively in his time. Thus, showing that his success came with the help of others. Stillinger also re-states this view in a more modern way by comparing Tom Stoppard, who was glad to constantly edit, revise, and take advice from audiences to shape some of his plays, to William Gibson, who attempted collaboration but hated it because he felt no fulfillment from it as a writer when receiving constant editing demands from the producer, director, and actors.

Stillinger then moves on to speak about films, of which he believes that the “authors” are always identified with the director. He briefly gives regards to the acclaimed Woody Allen, who guarantees himself control and authorship on his projects by “collaborating with himself” and becoming writer, director, and actor in his films. However, he states that in many of the films that were made in the 30s and 40s, there would be so many people collaborating that numerous contributors would not be credited for their work. Because there were countless steps in revision of these movie scripts, large production companies — such as Warner Brothers — would hire 75 to 150 writers at a time, making it virtually impossible to give credit and authorship to each one. After the confusion and conflict created by this lack of crediting, the “auteur” theory was created in France, which solely deemed the director as the mastermind behind the film.

The reader is left with the notion that there will always be these kinds of conflicts about proper authorship given to those involved in collaborations. Personally, I do not see why all contributors and artists working on a film or play cannot be credited for whatever work they have completed. It only seems fair to receive a mark of merit for the time and effort given to make a project come to life. I will end with a question for discussion that has been formed from a statement that Orson Welles made and that was recorded in Stillinger’s text. It provoked me to think: is it the director, writer, or collaborators that make the films and plays what they are?

Michael Jolly

Opening: This reading describes the advantages and disadvantages of collaboration in the disciplines of theatre and film by the author not only voicing his opinion but also the opinions of experts in their fields. The author explains that plays and films are more collaborative than any other kind of production by involving more people in terms of the performance, creation, management and in other aspects.

Advantages of Collaboration in Theatre:

• Director Sir William Davenant sought to “improve” Shakespearean plays by collaborating with others. Davenant built the first ever scene house, and made elaborate and sensational visual displays (such as with machinery).
• Plays have often been a “collaborative enterprise” (Stillinger, 168) by
  many people working together to produce them. Writer Tom Stoppard enhanced
  his plays by collaborating with his writers, actors and the responses from
  audience members.

Disadvantages of Collaboration in Theatre:

• Author William Gibson called collaboration a “ ‘harass[ment] by the complexities of group action’ ” (172). He felt that “rewriting the character to fit the actor amounted to ‘wrecking the structure of the play’ ” (172).

Disadvantages of Collaboration in Film:

• Director Woody Allen feels “ ‘that no one should…be able to tamper with any artist’s work’ ” (174) which in turn “guarantees him a high degree of artistic control” (174).
• A screenwriter complains that collaborators “ ‘ruin your stories… Massacre your ideas… Prostitute your art…’ ” and “ ‘…Trample your pride’ ” (176).

Advantages of Collaboration in Film:

• Writer Donald Odgen Stewart suggests that “ ‘the more writers they had to work on the scripts, the better the scripts would be’ ” (177).
• The author notes that “it is simply not possible for one person…to provide the entire creative force behind so complex a work as a motion picture” (179).
• Carringer clarifies that the film, Citizen Kane, “ ‘owes its eminence, and…existence, to the combined efforts of several…individuals” (179). He concludes by stating that   “ ‘the quality of a film is partly a measure of its collaborative talent… The film could never have been what it is without them…Had it not been for this particular combination, we might not have Citizen Kane at all’ ” (180-181).

Closing Question: Does collaboration throughout the interdisciplinary arts make a production better or is the writer/director the only reason for a production’s success?

Sandy Kwok

Out of all the different kinds of production that is found, plays and films are the most effective ways to express the author’s point of view that they are trying to send out to the audience and viewers. Plays and films are productions that require a lot of commitments and investors that are expecting a lot of profit from it.

It would also take an enormous number of people to create it. These people may include agents, studio executives, producers, directors, writers, actors, designers, stage and camera technicians, editors, publicists and also marketing executives. The time period of the plays performances may vary, they may be performed once, repeatedly over months, years or even centuries. The audience may receive different feedbacks from it also. Continuous editing of the plays and films are also very important. These changes would change depending on the reactions of the audiences.

The authors of the plays and or films are often considered to be just a normal working employee of the production. Often they are not recognized as the writer of the production. When they finished writing a script or story of a production it would always be change in the process of producing the production. The original piece of writing that they wrote would often be changed around by the director, actors or even by another writer. For example, Shakespeare’s play has been revised and edited a numerous of times before it was actually performed in the theatres. The version of King Lear that was first presented in 1680 or 1681 was which was more than one thousand lines were omitted before it was allowed to be presented.

The writers of the productions are usually seen as the lowest in there hierarchy in the play and film industry. Out of all the different posts they are the lowest of all. Writers would also have to purchase tickets in order for them to go and view their own pieces of work that they actually wrote. In other words they have no ownership towards their own pieces of writing. Writers usually would not go and view the stories that they write. The perspective that they have towards their writing is that being a writer is just a job it makes money for them and that is the end of the discussion for them, as long as they get their money then the work that the produced is not important at all.

I believe that the writers have spent time and effort towards the production, they should be respected like any other people in the industry, and the writing that they come up with should be left originally and should not be changed at all.

Nina Leinonen

In this text, Stillinger presents a modern interpretation of the various methods and forms of authorship given to both theatrical plays and cinematic films in specific examples. One of his first points firmly states the final outcome of either play or film is ultimately determined by the audience for the sake of monetary gain on behalf of the creators or producers. This in mind, the artistic merit given to such a presentation is trivialized by revisions and/or mass editing in other to please the viewer into buying the product.

Stillinger goes into detailed analysis of three examples, the first being that of plays. He simply states theatrical plays as a collaboration of workers with a named ‘original’ author. His example is Shakespeare, whose works have been reworked in multitudes of forms to suit the current audience of their viewing time period. Advances in technology and detailed set design and/or scenery have allowed for dropping of many descriptive passages in canonic works of Shakespeare, whose works were originally performed on a mainly barren stage. The introduction of female actors has also given way to some editing of characters including the addition of extraneous female roles. The most profound example of revision Stillinger provides is the change of written language in Shakespeare plays. Many examples of modern interpretations involving simplified or ‘literal’ dialogue are prompted in the section.

The analysis of film describes it mainly as collaboration with a named director, that is, the auteur theory. The auteur theory is simply put as the recognition of a single creator (usually the director) who is seen as the sole genius behind the cinematic work. Stillinger describes the reality being that hundreds of writers employed to work as the bottom rungs of the industry would create multiple versions of the story to be picked through and thrown away until the final product emerged. He also states that most films were collaborations long before their realization since the majority of films were adaptations of novels, short fiction, plays, biographies, autobiographies, histories, newspaper stories, and/or television scripts (176).

The final section on critics again revisits the idea of the auteur theory as well as the single authorship of the critic themselves as a supposedly non-collaborative worker.

Michael Lorsch

It is simply not possible for one person, however brilliant, to provide the entire creative force behind so complex a work as a motion picture (or a theatric performance)”

Everyone wants to take credit for work their proud of, but in reality, nothing can be attributed to one creative mastermind. This is especially true when analyzing the worlds of film and theatre. A theatric performance or movie has far too many people with enormous ideas and contributions to simply say the writer or director created it. Yes, even our dear Shakespeare can’t be fully credited for his works. Billy S often found his ideas in Greek stories or even other’s poetry. The same can be said for the world of film. Casablanca, a watershed mark in cinema, had many people take it from the original title of Everybody Comes to Ricks to the romantic and memorable movie it became.

Yes, collaboration is the name of the entertainment game but how does that affect the original work, and more importantly, the actual authors. Some authors say the process is completely beneficial. They believe the collaborative process makes the original piece (a book, a piece of art, etc) more suitable and therefore more successful for an entertainment medium. However; others believe the process can completely destroy a work, removing “the serious art for the sake of theatrical entertainment”.

So who do we hand the award to when giving out the Oscar for best picture? It’s become apparent that over the past couple of decades the auteur theory, one created by Francois Truffaut in the 1950s, has taken precedence. This theory states that the director can be credited with a film’s success or failure and let’s face it, after we wasted ten dollars on a bad film, we don’t blame the writer, we curse the director!

The author obviously favours the ideas and works produced through collaboration, but what do you think?

Does collaboration hurt or enhance a piece of art? Can it do both? Does the loss of “serious art” gives us cause to worry? Can entertaining movies and plays be considered “serious art”?

Colin Martin

In short, Stillinger’s essay deals with the inherent “multiple authorship” of literary works in the realms of film and theater. Based on the intrinsic interdisciplinarity involved in such productions, he attempts to prove that a work can never truly have sole authorship. One of his key arguments is that productions of such a nature are rooted heavily on entertainment value. For a film or theatrical show to be successful there is a sole dependency on the interests of an audience. Because of this, many re-drafts are made before production from a script can begin. He traces this practice back to Shakespearean times and states that collaboration was inherent in commercial works. He argues that the production process has always been dependent upon the collaboration of disciplines.

Another key point that Stillinger addresses is based on the consequent interpretations of a script throughout history and the reworking of such material to appeal to the relevant demographic. He supports this point by referring to the numerous reproductions of Shakespeare’s plays. It is interesting to think that the Shakespeare plays that we were introduced to in school were in fact reinterpretations of his original work. In this sense, multiple authorship transcends history. Transforming key works into works that have relevancy in the present culture is something that is evident throughout the history of visual communication. Once a work is published and is in the public sphere, it is there for anyone to reinterpret or reinvent.

The author also brings to the forefront the theory of “auteurs”. He explains that this concept is imposed on the director as being the “mastermind” behind the creation of a film as opposed to the writers who have largely been exploited for their talents. He doesn’t explain “autres”, but I assume that this refers to all others who contribute their creativity throughout the process and forgotten along the way.

Mike McKenna

• No play or film has ever been a single man or woman’s work. Each and every one has many peoples perspectives and opinions layered upon it and affecting it before it even nears performance/exhibition.
• Plays and films are naturally more collaborative than other types of art, like painting and sculpture. Because so many people are involved with the creative process of these art forms, attributing the ‘authorship’ of a certain play or film is very difficult.
• Plays and films are very flexible mediums. They are repeated for audiences over an indefinite period, sometimes many years in the case of classic films and plays. More importantly however, over this time the work can be changed based on audience input. Actors change their delivery, directors alter the play slightly, take out scenes, add dialogue, etc. Even films can be re-edited or dubbed.
• Directors are now considered to be the ‘Authors’ of films, at least for the last 25 years or so. Since people have access to information about how films are made due to documentaries and ‘how-it’s-made’ featurrettes, they understand the collaborative nature of film already. They still attribute the authorship to the director, however.
• 500 years ago, going to a play was like turning on the television, you didn’t know what you were going to see, you just went. The playwright was not even mentioned, for the most part. The first playbill with the playwrights name on it didn’t even appear until 1699. Not even Shakespeare got his name on one (As a writer)
• Shakespeare’s plays were butchered after he died. Many people have ‘interpreted’ his works over the last 350 years, in some very poor ways. However, the fact that people like Nahum Tate decided to remove over 1000 of Shakespeare’s lines and change the plot of King Lear does add credence to the theory of multiple authorship. It is no longer Shakespeare’s play, it’s Shakespeare/Tate. And company.
• There are two philosophies facing authors and collaboration. Acceptance or defiance. Acceptance can lead to a better work, honed by many people’s ideas and creativity. Defiance, while it does leave you with an important credit at the end, still finds you collaborating, whether you realize it or not. Basically, it serves only to make you miserable.
• Films have a complicated and intricate authorship, so assigning a single credit for writing can be difficult. Often, many writers are assigned from the beginning to write a script. Even if that isn’t the case, most films are adaptations of other media like books and plays and so on, making them instant collaborations.
  

While this reading does carefully analyze the important idea of collaboration in writing, it does not address one important problem with itself. People need a name, a face, a person to associate with a given work, so that they can grasp it in their reality. Is the Director the right person for that job? In a play, who can command the ship sailing into the media frenzy? Who are we supposed to look to, when we can’t look at everybody?

Angela Qian

In this article it talked about the collaboration in Plays and Films, the contributions of each department or individual vs. the conflicts. Even though in plays, the named writer was considered the “author”, while in films, the “author” often refers to the director rather than the script writers, yet their collaboration had the similar conflicts. Both plays and films face the conflicts of interest and authority because of the complexity of their production.

The author used examples of the changes in the writings of Shakespeare, Stoppard, Gibson and many script writers in film productions to show that the original ideas of the one man’s work was revised, twisted, or even “ruined”, as some may call it, in the process of collaboration. This conflict of interest made many writers feel like they lose the ownership of their writings.

The author also used the examples of Yankee Doodle Dandy and Casablanca, and Carringer’s analysis on Welles’ work Citizen Kane to reveal the problems on the authority of the work. The credits of the work were attributed very unevenly. Arguing against Welles’ statement “it is… the creation of one man” Carringer declared the importance of collaboration and the great value of the other contributors.

Agreeing with Carringer, the author also concluded that the production of plays and films is not the creation of one man but a very complicated process of collaboration between many specialized fields. Attributing sole authorship of the work to the director or any other individual is not a very appropriate approach to the study of this field.

Question:

In your opinion, is there a true ownership of works such as plays and films? If yes, who does it belongs to and why? If no, then are there any underlying problems with having a work of art with no ownership?

Bilal Sadiq

Plays and Films are both collaborative work to inspire the audience with greater expense than books. A Play is uncut performance rehearsed several times on one stage in order to achieve the perfection whereas Films are edited during production on different platforms to catch the eye of the viewers.

The author of the plays started to perform in the end of sixtieth centaury. Shakespeare’s plays were at the peak of its powers. In seventieth century the playgoers simply went to the playhouse without even knowing the title of the play for the sake of entertainment. Later on, several edition in text were made to Shakespeare plays to make a better understanding by Nicholas Rowe in 1709.

The theatrical play of Macbeth was reformed with painted sceneries and women were allowed to act in expanded female roles. The performance was divided into acts and scenes.

The films Critic like Gibson interpreted in his text form Two For The Seesaw, which in present considered author creativity in the American Filmmaking. The screenwriters say 1930s, 40s and 50s as Golden Age of Hollywood Studios like MGM, Twentieth Century Fox and Warner Brothers who hired more that 150 writers and assigned different project to several to avoid duplication.

Nowadays, audiences enjoy watching films rather than theatrical plays and reading books. Does that mean in future there will no existence of plays?