I love Malcolm MacDowell so I definitely don't want to pile on any negativity towards him but it was an ignorant remark to make :) Then again, I've talked to directors who've looked me straight in the eye and said "Nobody needs a screenwriter, they're useless. If I want the job done, I'll do it myself". And, well, yes, they do which is never more obvious than when watching their movies. But as we all know, there's this strange hostility towards screenwriters that may be chalked up to this basic fact: all movies start with a script. The writer is the most important person on board, he's the very first human element in the process. And then he becomes a leper ^^

Marija, I think you hit it square on the head: All movies start with a script. And that simple fact drives some people in the process of producing a movie crazy. Especially so if they do not themselves have the wherewithal to create a story. That means they are DEPENDENT on writers. And writers have opinions. And deep appreciation of STORY which some, even many of the folks involved in production - including directors! - don't have. So much of it is really about insecurity and power trips. That said, there are lots and lots of people in the business who DO appreciate writers... and grasp story... and aren't insecure... and work well with writers. So it's a mixed bag. If you work as a writer in the movie business, you just have to be aware of the dynamic and have the psychological makeup to live with it.

Indeed. On the one hand, it's a pleasure to work with a producer who trusts in the writer and on the other, there are very good lessons to be learned in working for someone who doesn't, in every way. We learn how to deal with sometimes absurd and unrealistic notes, we learn how to write better by making things clear and bulletproof, we learn how to prepare our arguments for this or that plot point that is necessary for the story to work, and we learn the values of zen meditation. Or how to plot the perfect murder :)

This kind of thing seems to generate a hostility and dichotomy (just like the one about film as art versus as business, or the one about religion versus science). Competition is a concept in our sports fanatical society, which I have long thought is great food for thematic content (posed against the lack of competition - ironically a competition in itself). This is all apples and oranges. You can make films without scripts or with them. A written work can be as beautiful. But it would make more sense formatted as a story. This doesn't have to be a competition. I tend to agree with MM, if you're talking about films made from scripts. And if not your still talking about the things going on in the director and actors' heads (if you have actors). It's a collaborative medium. How many times have we heard that? But ultimately a script is just a blueprint and in itself it's really nothing until it's made into a film. I think that's what he means and I've heard this view many times before from writers who understand that they are humbly only outlining what is to become a film. In that sense the script in itself is not an end, it's not a great work unto itself (except to filmmakers). If you think it is you're thinking like a filmmaker and seeing the film in your head. But that's in you, not in the script. If a script is really all that great, reformat it as a book and sell it. By the way, most films are adapted. Sorry for the long rant.

This kind of quotation always drives me mad because I always suspect that the way the quotation has been chopped gives it meaning that wasn't there. Sometimes the opposite of what the speaker actually meant. So a little research led me to the Sarasota Herald Tribune of Dec 12th 1976. The context is this: McDowell was filming Caligula, at the time known as "Gore Vidal's Caligula". Gore Vidal (who wrote the novel and the screenplay) was suing to have his name removed from the title, and had been giving interviews badmouthing the as yet unfinished film. McDowell, evidently, was asked about the tension between writers and directors. And he answered (it's paraphrased in the article) that he realized that there could never be peace between writers and directors during the filming of "A Clockwork Orange". He then went on to say: "There are no great scripts - there are just great films. There is always this dilemma - 'A Clockwork Orange' will always be thought of as Stanley Kubrick's not as Anthony Burgess'" In other words, I think, he's stating a simple truth: when a movie is done no one (except an extremely small community of writers and producers) ever talks about a great script. They only talk about great movies. And in movies - in the popular imagination - the director is the creator. The writer is overshadowed, he is saying. He isn't saying that the writer doesn't matter and he certainly isn't saying the script doesn't matter. In point of fact I think the 'dilemma' of which he speaks is the writer's dilemma. Doesn't matter how much credit the writer deserves, he ain't going to get it. Indeed his central example is key: A Clockwork Orange. The novel, also written by Anthony Burgess, is a minor classic of modern literature. But all anyone ever talks about (I would wager that you could include 99% of screenwriters in this category) is Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange. McDowell isn't saying that the book and script don't deserve credit, he's saying they don't get credit. And he's saying that that's the dilemma the writer faces. As for the great spec scripts, well, as Mr. Goldman famously said; Nobody knows anything.

That's interesting Markam that you (and MacDowell) cite A Clockwork Orange. The picture on Scott's post above is from that set. Specifically it's the rape scene where he does Singing in the Rain. I've read that it took three days to do that scene. Both Kubrick and MacDowell felt it wasn't working (hence the apprehension toward screenwriters). At the end of the three days of burning time and not coming up with anything MacDowell finally came up with dancing to Singing in the Rain, a great classic scene along with the entire movie. In this context it was the actor and director who made the scene work. Considering that it's such a classic, of course MacDowell would feel this way. That film made his career. But you have to realize that as a writer this is bound to happen. You aren't testing out the dialog with actors. Some writers say you should read your lines out loud to see how they sound; even act them out. In the production stage that context is everything. And I think everyone in the biz knows a great script is everything.

I hate to be disagreeable, because I'm not a disagreeable guy. But my point here isn't to put context to McDowell's claim that there are no great scripts. My point is everyone has misinterpreted what he is saying. It may be a peculiar English locution, but when he says “there are no great scripts” he doesn’t mean it literally. In this context he means that no one recognizes the work that goes into the script, scripts don't live on as "great scripts" because once a movie comes out, it belongs to the director. He isn’t particularly saying it’s good or bad, he’s saying it’s a fact of life. And he's saying it in response to a question about the struggle between writers and directors. He isn't saying that writers have to get used to seeing their work changed. He's saying that writers just don't get credit on movies. It all goes to the director. Hence "Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange". As to “A Clockwork Orange”, Kubrick wrote the script, and McDowell’s main objection seems to have been that it was wildly underwritten. It wasn’t that the rape scene was written in a way that didn’t work, it was that Kubrick hadn’t written the scene at all. According to McDowell, the scene in the script was about two sentences, and didn’t include a woman, let alone a rape. Again, if anything, McDowell is on the writer’s side - and he does care about the writing. ? If you want proof, here: https://vimeo.com/81039253 At 5:35 McDowell credits Burgess as being the creator of A Clockwork Orange. He goes on to talk about Kubrick not allowing Burgess on the set, and that that was correct since Kubrick was making his own film. But that doesn’t sound like disrespect toward the writer to me - though Burgess wasn’t the screenwriter. At about 15:20 he talks about what he looks for in a script. He does say that he can tell in the first two pages if he wants to do it - but most producers will tell you the same thing. He goes on to say that it must be deeply felt and lived, and that it takes extraordinary skill to transfer that to the page. That also doesn’t sound like he has a lack of respect for writers. If you go here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khRa0x7TjPQ At about 1:40 he talks about why he chose to do “Suck” and he responds that it was a wonderful script. At 20:40 he talks about why television is so good now. I bet you guessed his answer. The writing. Again, saying “there are no great scripts - just great films” is a particular English idiom - it makes a great controversial quote - but it doesn’t mean what everyone thinks it does. I blame twitter.

Excellent videos. Thank you for that. I missed that Kubrick did the screenplay. Yes, when you converse online its very easy to be misunderstood, especially if you are being coy or playing with words.