When doing research for a screenplay based upon an actual event, using various sources, at what point do you have to give credit or get rights?

--Melissa

The underlying issue here is "public domain." Any writer is free to use the cold hard facts of an actual event, be it a Pennsylvania mine fire or the rescue of Jessica Lynch. Setting aside issues of defamation and the ill-defined rights of publicity/privacy -- complications that may or may not apply -- you have quite a bit of freedom to tell whatever story you choose. That is, as long as you're sticking to the facts themselves, and not someone's interpretation of these facts. But the dividing line is not always crystal-clear.

As an example, the recent film Shattered Glass, which tells the story of disgraced journalist Stephen Glass, is based on the Vanity Fair article of the same name written by Buzz Bissinger. The article is non-fiction. But Bissinger's interpretation and structuring of the real-life events -- his storytelling -- was meaningful, and the forces behind making the movie decided to buy the rights to his article and have their movie be "based on the article by..." rather than just "based on actual events." (See earlier columns for discussion on how murky the definition of "actual events" can be.)

Could you write another movie about Stephen Glass without owning the rights to that article? Absolutely. TV movies do it all the time. The details surrounding the Glass case are widely available, and as long as you're not using another writer's interpretation of the events, you're pretty well protected.

That said, a producer may decide to get someone's rights anyway. Many times, producers will want to "lock up" a key figure's film rights just to scare off rivals. For instance, if Producer A owns Jessica Lynch's "life rights" (an incredibly vague term that's used all the time, unfortunately), that doesn't preclude Producer B from making a movie with a Jessica Lynch character. But it makes life for Producer B much more difficult. While Producer A has much more latitude in his portrayal of Lynch, Producer B must stick to whatever facts are generally known. That makes telling a compelling story more challenging.

Over the past eight years I have been making short movies as a practice for my planned "career". Next year I begin college at Savannah College of Art and Design and I have always found the hardest part of the process is making a good, confident script. 100% of the time I have written as well as directed. What benefits come about from working with a designated screenwriter and is it essential for most directors to become proficient writers as well?

-Evan

Great art comes about because someone was compelled, even obsessed, to create it. The writer-director auteur form has brought forth some profoundly significant movies because sometimes the subject matter can only be executed optimally when it comes from the unique perspective of one person. I will have to agree with you, however, that for some directors the “hardest part of the process is making a good, confident script”. I don’t think directors should feel a responsibility to be the sole creative force on every project; that omnipotent tactic is not always appropriate.

It would be impossible to say “what benefits come from working with a designated screenwriter” because the possibilities are so infinite. However, we could start with the basic “two heads are better than one” premise. Writers are a unique breed and bring perspectives to the table that we, as directors, may not have considered. What I have noticed is that knowing too much about production both on a logistic and financial level can almost be limiting and stifling when I write. On the other hand, a great screenwriter will throw that silly stuff to the wind and let loose on the page with imaginative ideas that are impossible to shoot. Then we as directors have to figure out a way to interpret it and put it on film. So, is it “essential for directors to become proficient writers?” My answer is “no”, but it is essential that you know good writing when you see it.

The bottom line is that for some projects it is absolutely appropriate for the director to also be the writer and for others it is not necessarily appropriate. A productive director-writer relationship is very precious and should be treasured by both. I usually have great relationships with the writers of the films I have done. (Only once did I request that the writer not be on the set because we were having irreconcilable differences.) I was driving down the street the other day and I saw Greg Erb, part of a writing team I worked on during a Weinstein picture I directed a few years ago. He gave me the highest compliment a director could get from a writer: "Hey Penelope. Great to see you the other day. I have such good memories of Senseless, and such appreciation for the respect with which you always treated me and Craig (Mazin). You always made us feel like creative equals, instead of the snot nosed young idiots we were. Oh yeah - and you're fucking hilarious."

Love that guy.

I am young 23 year old with a huge aspiration for both film and television. I soon will be behind the DP chair once again and I wanted to achieve a gritty yet colorful look. So I was thinking that I shoot everything with a polarizer, including indoors. My question is.. If I use a polarizer indoors and not adjust the camera for exposure, will it give me the look that I am going for?

-Mario

Interesting idea, but I wouldn’t want to shoot with a polarizer indoors without adjusting the exposure since there is a 2 stop loss with most polarizer’s so you are talking about quite severe underexposure. You are right that under-exposure of this kind will make the film more grainy, but the problem is that it will make the color less saturated which goes against your idea of gritty-yet-colorful.

Take the polarizer idea on its own. Whilst it is true that outside a Polar will tend to saturate color by removing some reflected light, (blue sky is the obvious example), you need to compensate the exposure otherwise your underexposure will de-saturate the colour. So lets say you use the Polariser outside and compensate the stop but then OVEREXPOSE the film to increase the colour saturation (some people disagree with this but it works for me!) Now you have the problem of not “gritty” so you have to decide how to achieve this. Super 8mm? 16mm? If it’s MiniDV it’s a bigger problem as fake grain is not great. Otherwise if its 35mm then a 500ASA stop should be essential for a slightly grainy feel. You’d have to push process it to get any real feeling of grain.

So what to do indoors? The polar won’t make much difference here – look through it and you’ll see – unless you are around a lot of water or reflective material. The color is largely a function of sets and costumes, along with stock and exposure choices. Remember that you can increase color saturation considerably by lighting colors with their own color.. the “gritty” element is under the same control as it was outdoors…

I never got around to trying pola gel in front of lights with colour and then a pola on the camera. I thought about it a couple of times but maybe you can make some sense of it!

John August's screenwriting credits include Go, Big Fish, Titan A.E. and both Charlie's Angels movies. His current projects include Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Tarzan, and Corpse Bride. He also maintains a screenwriting-oriented website at johnaugust.com.

Born and raised in Boulder, Colorado, John earned a degree in journalism from Drake University in Iowa, and an MFA in film production from the Peter Stark program at the University of Southern California. He lives in Los Angeles.

Got a question about screenwriting? Send it to Ask a Writer.

Got a question about directing? Send it to Ask a Director.

If you are considering working in the movie industry, Oliver Stapleton has written a brief guide available at www.cineman.co.uk.

Got a question about cinematography? Send it to Ask a Cinematographer.