Tell that to Teddy! 
The Sitcom Mission 2011 Page 121
Pitching in far too late on this, but if an actor/director thinks there's more than one way to read a line (in the broadest sense) that means you probably haven't written it right, right?
Quote: Lazzard @ May 10 2011, 10:29 AM BSTPitching in far too late on this, but if an actor/director thinks there's more than one way to read a line (in the broadest sense) that means you probably haven't written it right, right?
Wrong.
There are as many bad actors and directors as there are bad writers. Especially when it comes to comedy!
I think that all writers have to accept that once their work is handed over to a director and actors it is going to be different than they envisaged. I think that if you get your piece to be somewhere around 70-80% of how you hoped it would be, then you're doing well.
Sometimes an actor will bring to life a line that was throwaway as far as you were concerned and equally sometimes your best lines can get lost in the process.
You can only have so much control over the process at the level that we're involved at. In my opinion, write as best you can, make it so clear for the actors that any confusion or ambiguity can be minimised and be happy, no be very happy that your work is being performed.
I've usually had great actors for my scripts. Occasionally not and I am far far from happy when it happens.
But as you say sometimes an Actor throws something in that is a joy. Remember there is only one original creative in a play/show/film and this is the writer!
Respect the Writer I say.
Quote: Marc P @ May 10 2011, 11:29 AM BSTRemember there is only one original creative in a play/show/film and this is the writer!
An awful lot of actors, directors, producers, designers and composers would disagree with you.
Quote: andyblacksheep @ May 10 2011, 12:21 PM BSTAn awful lot of actors, directors, producers, designers and composers would disagree with you.
I couldn't care less. They are wrong. The conductor didn't write the famous fifth Symphony. Beethoven did!
There are other artists on it of course, but only one original artist. Everybody else is interpreting.
I don't think any conducter would claim to have composed Beethoven's symphonies, unless they were a) Beethoven or b) insane.
But I believe that a film composer can claim to have composed a film score that they composed. And that they will have done so not simply by reading the writer's script and having it magically appear, but by going through their own creative process.
But to be fair, if you're choosing to define 'original creation' as what the writer does, then yes, by definition nobody but the writer does original creation and there's no argument to be had.
The composer interprets the writers intentions probably with the director consulting, in eliciting the emotional response that the writer envisioned. They work very closely from the script for obvious reasons.
Of course not Griff. I never said that. All kinds of creativity everywhere but it is interpretive of the original authors vision isn't it. I have the greatest respect for all of the above.
The writer is the FIRST person to put creative input into a project.
Anyone working on the project later on would not be working on that project if the writer had not created that project.
Many people working on the project will subsequently do creative work.
I think we differ in believing that later creative work, because it is INSPIRED BY the original creativity, is in some way a different entity to that original creativity. I don't think it is. All creative work is inspired by previous ideas, even the first creative input of the writer will have been inspired by something previous to it. It's all still creative.
Well I guess we must agree to differ. And I never said that the writer is the only creative contributor - that would be nonsense. In the main I am addressing some of the comments that a writer should just be grateful that his/her piece has been directed, acted out at all, even if it is crap in parts. Simon and Declan say they will be involving the writers in the process as much as they can. And they are right so to do. Anybody who didn't would be a bit of a numpty. Respect the writer is all.
Quote: Griff @ May 10 2011, 10:39 AM BSTI'd also suggest that completely unambiguous dialogue is in danger of being a bit on-the-nose?
Unambiguous to the listener - sure.
The actor needs to know what he means, though - as does the writer.
And the dialogue is never viewed out of context - if it comes out of the character and the situation then there shouldn't be that much lattitude of interpretation.
Shakespeare is a slightly different case, wouldn't you say, in as much as it is written in a language with which we are not that familiar - unless we are scholars - but I bet if you asked him, he'd have only one way of reading it.
Which would, de facto, be the right way.
I now see I am arguing against myself a little here BUT - I do believe a good writer should make it easy for a good actor to interpret his lines in the way he meant off the page
Mis-intrpretation is more likely to come from bad writing than bad acting/directing.
Quote: Lazzard @ May 10 2011, 2:01 PM BSTMis-intrpretation is more likely to come from bad writing than bad acting/directing.
Not in my experience!