Managing Difficult Writer

[WhiteTiger]

I wanted to ask fellow Directors if you've ever had a difficult situation with a writer who is married to his own vision of the script? He has shown a 'his way or the highway' type attitude and has had many blow ups with other writing collaborators over the script development, which has caused people to walk off the project.

Unfortunately I don't feel I can call the shots (apart from on set obviously) as it's a creative collaboration (and we are all mutual investors). It's very much give him an inch, he takes a mile. Which is a difficult situation for me, I've been undermined a few times and disrespected publically which as crossed boundaries, I let shit slide in the interests of the bigger goal of getting the film made.

Any tips for asserting my role without alienating him? I know you can't manage how other people act, only how you react. To be honest I am sick of bending over backwards to placate a difficult character. Now the script is finished he needs to hand over.

Any tips/advice/experience would be much appreciated. Thanks.

 

[gorillaonabike]

White Tiger posted this 14 months ago. He hasn't been back to
indietalk since.


This method might work for an Oscar winner but White Tiger was
working with a writer who is also putting up the money and producing
the movie.

Keeping THAT in mind what would you do, gorilla? If you tell the investor
to "get lost" all the money goes. If you tell the writer to "get lost" the
script goes with them. In THIS case it is a director who wants more creative
control over the writer who is also financing the movie. So whose vision
is this? The writer/producer or the director?

I don't go to a party where I'm unwelcome. If they don't want my vision, then I'm perfectly happy to walk away and let them find another director / prostitute.

The point is, my opinion (not yours), is I'm bored of creating artistic compromise for the sake of people who have no idea. I've taken the money to do that and I find it uninteresting to direct something inhibited, not because of budget, but because of bone-stupid ideas.

In fact, I spoke with one director whose last movie bombed so badly that no-one else will hire him due to allowing the producer's poor decision-making. It lost a ton of money and as the director, he carried the can and is effectively unemployable except for shooting actors' showreels.

Accepting good ideas is great. However, Tom Hooper didn't get to where he is by compromising, rather totally the opposite. He won an Oscar precisely because he didn't compromise.

 

[Cracker Funk]

The good news is that there's actually a happy-middle between the arguments put forth by D-rik and G-bike. Alan Smithee has done quite well for himself.

If I were ever to find myself in a similar situation, I think I would grit my teeth and bear it out, while also negotiating with the producer my right to use a pseudonym (Smithee doesn't work anymore). While I think it bad practice for a producer to not allow a director to see through their vision (why did you hire them in the first place?), let's not forget the fact that the producer is in charge. Were I ever to find myself in such a situation, I wouldn't think of myself as a "director/prostitute", but rather a person who needs to pay rent and put food on my table.

Onwards and upwards, there's always the next project to think about!

 

[directorik]

Since I don't compare my career to others (especially Oscar winners)
I don't face this problem. I am a working director. I am not an Oscar
contender and I don't think of myself as an auteur. I'm happy to do
work-for-hire gigs. When a producer/writer hires me the end product
is their vision, not mine. I will decide to take or decline the job after
a read of the script and a face to face conversation with the person
who has the creative vision. I would never get into a situation where,
as the director, I have to fight with the producer/writer over creative
vision – I know whose creative vision it is.

I know there are those who think of me as a “prostitute”. I will accept
that. I have (many times) directed ONLY for the money; directing a
project I don't believe in. But I do my best and I always learn a little
something.

 

[gorillaonabike]

Since I don't compare my career to others (especially Oscar winners)
I don't face this problem. I am a working director. I am not an Oscar
contender and I don't think of myself as an auteur. I'm happy to do
work-for-hire gigs. When a producer/writer hires me the end product
is their vision, not mine. I will decide to take or decline the job after
a read of the script and a face to face conversation with the person
who has the creative vision. I would never get into a situation where,
as the director, I have to fight with the producer/writer over creative
vision – I know whose creative vision it is.

I know there are those who think of me as a “prostitute”. I will accept
that. I have (many times) directed ONLY for the money; directing a
project I don't believe in. But I do my best and I always learn a little
something.

From experience, I know that walking away from stuff we don't want to do is the best thing we can do. I mean that it allows us to focus on what we want, what we're good at and what we love.

That's just my perspective which could be wrong but it's what I live by. If anything, when I fail, it's because I forget this basic principle.

Incidentally, I was in the same class at school with Tom with 3 years while he was making his early films, before he went to a posh school, so I'm just talking from observation. We weren't friends as he's way too smart for me - he's a genius - but at the same time, I know what he was like. He still has the same haircut...

 

[directorik]

That's just my perspective which could be wrong but it's what I live by. If anything, when I fail, it's because I forget this basic principle.

You are not wrong. You and I are different.

What I want, what I'm good at and what I love is directing.
And that often means artistic compromise. I, too, will walk
away from projects I don't want to do. But I very much enjoy
the challenge of working with others especially when we don't
share the same artistic vision. I do not believe that my vision
is superior so I will gladly compromise. Sometimes I end up
thinking I was right and sometimes I find I was not.

I know from experience that if I were to only accept gigs in
which I have total artistic control I would work far less. And
what I want, what I'm good at and what I love is working. I
know I'm not so talented that I can walk away from a
writer/producer and not compromise. What I'm good at is
working with others to achieve a finished project.

A prostitute or a “working stiff”?

While I think it bad practice for a producer to not allow a director to see through their vision (why did you hire them in the first place?), let's not forget the fact that the producer is in charge.

I have worked with actor/writers who don't want to direct
themselves but have a strong vision of what that what their
movie to be. I have worked with writer/producers who
understand that they are not skilled on set but still have a
strong vision of how they want their script made. Since I
understand that, that is why I'm hired in the first place. And
I'm with you; the producer is in charge.

There are many different needs in making a movie. We tend
to focus on the auteur director who doesn't compromise. But
there are writers and producers who also have a strong, artistic
vision and want a director who will make their vision happen.

Quick, without looking it up name five TV directors. Not movie
directors who have done TV. TV directors.
Now name five TV writer/creators.

 

[gorillaonabike]

You are not wrong. You and I are different.

What I want, what I'm good at and what I love is directing.
And that often means artistic compromise. I, too, will walk
away from projects I don't want to do. But I very much enjoy
the challenge of working with others especially when we don't
share the same artistic vision. I do not believe that my vision
is superior so I will gladly compromise. Sometimes I end up
thinking I was right and sometimes I find I was not.

I know from experience that if I were to only accept gigs in
which I have total artistic control I would work far less. And
what I want, what I'm good at and what I love is working. I
know I'm not so talented that I can walk away from a
writer/producer and not compromise. What I'm good at is
working with others to achieve a finished project.

A prostitute or a “working stiff”?


I have worked with actor/writers who don't want to direct
themselves but have a strong vision of what that what their
movie to be. I have worked with writer/producers who
understand that they are not skilled on set but still have a
strong vision of how they want their script made. Since I
understand that, that is why I'm hired in the first place. And
I'm with you; the producer is in charge.

There are many different needs in making a movie. We tend
to focus on the auteur director who doesn't compromise. But
there are writers and producers who also have a strong, artistic
vision and want a director who will make their vision happen.

Quick, without looking it up name five TV directors. Not movie
directors who have done TV. TV directors.
Now name five TV writer/creators.

I'm a prostitute and I make no bones about it. What I do paid my mortgage and the mortgage of my ex-wife in London and in business we're all prostitutes.

However, I would emphasise the 'walking away' element as to do something incredible, my strong belief is we need to be willing to walk away to find the things we want to do. Walking away is the most powerful thing we can do. Working is great but at a certain point, 'to thine own self be true.' As for TV writers, I couldn't name one but I could tell you about TV directors because I've done the festival circuit and met them.

 

[directorik]

So I go back to my original question:

In the situation discussed here a year ago what would YOU do?
The writer is also putting up the money and asks you to direct.
The writer/producer wants final artistic control, is willing to
hear you out but doesn't always agree with your artistic vision.
You believe in your vision but in the end it is the writer/producer
who makes the final call.

Do you walk away and let the producer find another director/prostitute?
Do you stick with the project and do you very best to maintain the
producers artistic vision?

 

[gorillaonabike]

So I go back to my original question:

In the situation discussed here a year ago what would YOU do?
The writer is also putting up the money and asks you to direct.
The writer/producer wants final artistic control, is willing to
hear you out but doesn't always agree with your artistic vision.
You believe in your vision but in the end it is the writer/producer
who makes the final call.

Do you walk away and let the producer find another director/prostitute?
Do you stick with the project and do you very best to maintain the
producers artistic vision?

Walk away.

 

[directorik]

2. a person (as a writer or painter) who deliberately debases his or her talents (as for money)

Then you are not a prostitute. I still hold that title here on
indietalk because I would not walk away from a gig like that.
I can't afford to.

 

[gorillaonabike]

2. a person (as a writer or painter) who deliberately debases his or her talents (as for money)

Then you are not a prostitute. I still hold that title here on
indietalk because I would not walk away from a gig like that.
I can't afford to.

I talk a load of horsesh!t sometimes. Someone just offered me £400 ($500 USD) for a day's writing /shoot / edit and I took it.

Admittedly, we shot my screenplay to my parameters. Does that make me a hooker?

 

[mlesemann]

originally posted by gorillaonabike: I talk a load of horsesh!t sometimes. Someone just offered me £400 ($500 USD) for a day's writing /shoot / edit and I took it.

Admittedly, we shot my screenplay to my parameters. Does that make me a hooker?

In my book, that makes you a pragmatist with a good sense of where/when you're willing to compromise and when you're not.

 

[directorik]

I agree. Getting hired to write and direct YOUR creative vision
maintaining YOUR creative standards does not make you a
hooker nor is it talking a lot of horseshite.

I seem to be the only writer and director here who will write
what I'm asked to write even if it doesn't meet MY creative
standards and direct a script I'm hired to direct even if it
doesn't meet MY personal vision.

In a way I envy those of you can turn down paying work.

 

[WalterB]

........
In a way I envy those of you can turn down paying work.

+1

I only turn down work when I don't trust a client (happened once: that guy turned out to be a fraud) or when it is political propaganda or pr0n.
However, since I'm doing mostly corporate work for a living I often have a lot of room to put my vision into it as long as it serves the clients' interests. And when the client wants something that I strongely think is a bad investment I don't take the job. I have turned clients down by telling them that at that moment they should invest in a proper website or corporate identity. Some come back 2 years later, since they were happy about the honest advice.

As a pro you don't always have the luxery of 'my way or the highway': there are bills to be paid.
Besides that a working pro gets opportunities. Constant naysayers lose opportunities.
So it is about balanced pragmatism towards your goals and needs.
Just make sure you walk away before you are in the middle of a project and everything is fine. When you walk away halfway shooting... well, it could be wise or it could be you'd be 'the guy who walked away'.

The discribed (old) situation is one that should have been clear before shooting. So there should be no fuzz about it.

@direktorik: to me you are just a pro no ho