The Schreiber Theory

[Bomby]

The Schreiber Theory is a theory, posited in 2005, that the author of the screenplay is the premier author of a film, even more so than the director, or you know, anyone else who actually worked on the film itself. There are some screenwriters who are reason enough to see a movie (Charlie Kaufman), but in the hands of worse filmmakers than his screenplays go to, what's left?

Three counterpoints to the Schreiber Theory:

1. Shakespeare adaptations.
I think we can all agree that Shakespeare was a pretty good writer. His plays have been adapted into films numerous times. How many of them are actually worth watching? Hell, BBC's adaptations alone disprove the Schreiber Theory.

2. Branded to Kill and Tae Guk Gi
Branded to Kill is a Japanese Yakuza film that took an average, run-of-the-mill B-film screenplay and transformed it into a surrealist masterpiece. Tae Guk Gi has a pretty damn good screenplay, but the film is less enjoyable due to its annoyingly overwrought style.

3. Non-narrative cinema
Hell, not all narrative films even have screenplays. Wong Kar-Wai has made many fine films improvising with his actors.

[Kargath]

If the director sticks to the screenplay, then the screenwriters are the main 'author' of a film.
If the director doesn't stick to the screenplay, then he or she is in effect rewriting parts of the screenplay - even if those edits are not written down.

[Bomby]

But a screenplay is not a film. Different directors, no matter how much they stick to the screenplay, will still make the stylistic choices that determine the quality of the film. I can guarantee you that if you handed the same screenplay to Tsai Ming-Liang and Michael Bay and both stuck to it 100%, you will have two wildly different films.

Another apt comparison would be the remakes of the Twilight Zone - I know I'm getting into television here - that were airing earlier in the decade. The quickly-canceled series where Forest Whitaker was the host. Compare the feel and effectiveness of the remakes with the original episodes from the 1960's. In my admittedly-not-so-humble opinion, the 60's ones are far better due to the stylistic choices being made. Regardless of which is better, the remakes were quick to use fast cutting, closer framings, modern lighting schemes and other stylistic choices that are more typical of the current styles being used in television. The scripts were pretty much exactly the same, but the results are wildly different.

[CaptHayfever]

Yeah, Schreiber Theory sucks, but I'm not a big fan of Auteur Theory either, given (A) the number of films for which a stock director is hired while most of the command decisions are made by producers or meddling executives and (B) the number of inflated directorial egos it leads to.

The fact of the matter is that the performing arts always have been & always will be collaborative. The problem is that academia demands to have a sole (or at least, a primary) author to credit for everything. Yeah, there are some directors who completely dominate their films, just as there are some writers whose scripts go unchallenged, but those do not an entire medium make.

I kinda need to point out, since you brought up Twilight Zone, that neither directors nor writers en masse are considered the "authors" of television series; that credit is given to the show runner, who can be anything from head writer to producer to developer.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

[Cosmonautical]

What Kargath was trying to say, I believe, is that the writer is the originator of a concept and the director is a translator. A translator is a writer as well. Essentially, a director must make wide interpretations to deliver an end product, and he becomes a part of the writing process. The script writer is the writer of the inspiration. The director and his trusted contributors are all the writers of the film, rather than the script.

[Bomby]

I'm also not a big fan of the auteur theory, Capt. Your example of "stock directors" is the main reason why I disown the theory for the most part. Cinematographers, art directors, editors, etc. never seem to get their due.

The writer/translator dichotomy is an interesting way of putting it, though I'm still not completely sure I agree. The screenwriter is an integral part of the commercial filmmaking process - your project will not be funded without one. Even in the case of a stock director who doesn't leave big stylistic imprints, the Schreiber theory is still forgetting about the cinematographer, art director, and the editor.

Commercial cinema is like building a house. The screenwriter is the guy who says "I want a house that is kind of like this and has these qualities." The director, cinematographer, and art designer draw up the blueprint of the house. The process of filming is the gathering of the materials that will be used to build the house. The director and the editor put the house together.

I still feel that the director is usually the most important determining factor of the filmmaking process. But those nasty producers (and sometimes Ed Norton) like to meddle with the process...

Overall, film theory is just wild mass guessing that can be interesting but usually does not teach anything of real substance about film, or why people react to it in certain ways. I'm more into formal analysis and narratology, myself.