I have (many times) been hired to direct a script written by the
"producer". In a few cases written by the producer (person who is
an investor) and lead actor. It's a challenge. In those cases I did not
have the final creative say. It was my job to make the movie the
writer/investor wants. Not to make MY movie.
I have also been in a partnership where I am also an investor. In
those cases I have made sure that we have a creative agreement
before we start shooting. As a director/investor I've had to give up
some of my creative freedom to the writer/investor.
Originally Posted by WhiteTiger
It is given that I am editing, so that's an area that I can also story tell without interference.
I take it there is not a creative agreement in writing. If I were an
investor and it was my script I would want a lot of say in the editing.
Is it really "a given" that during editing your creative vision will not
be interfered with? After all, he has just as much invested in the final
product as you do - creative and financial.
I come to this with a very different attitude than most here. Directing
a movie is a job. I fully understand the "auteur" theory and what "the
score" should be, but I also know that unless it is spelled out IN WRITING
before the shoot starts there are going to be creative issues. The writer
typically wants their vision on the screen. So when a writer invests
their own money that means they want to insure that creative vision.
In my experience a director working with a writer/investor takes a back
I always wanted the next job more than I wanted to be the "auteur" so
I wanted to be known as the director who would stay true to the vision
of the writer/producer. I actually enjoy the challenge of working with
To your question; yes, I have had a difficult situation with a writer who is
married to his own vision of the script - several times. Given the his way
or the highway I take his way. I respect writers.