Posts Tagged ‘contracts’

Polish or rewrite?

Thursday, November 26th, 2009

Sorry the blog has been irregular: the last two of five trips in as many weeks are coming up, then I am around for a while. But interesting things keep happening, the latest of which is repeated every few months as a negotiation takes place or a producer tries to vary elements of a contract after the contract has been signed.

I don’t mean tearing it up, just pushing into an area of semantic ambiguity. This happens when there is no clear definition of the difference between a rewrite and a polish. One is bigger than the other. But rarely is there wording that clearly differentiates one from the other.

What happens when the writer shows say the first Act to the producer and director and they provide notes while the writer is still writing the first draft? In this case it made sense for some of the rewrite to be done before the Second Act. So the writer did it.

When the final pages of the first draft was delivered they were well received and the response included the words (more of less) that perhaps there could be some tidying up prior to the rewrite.

This raised an interesting scenario. If a writer writes such a good first draft that very little work is needed for the ‘rewrite’, so little that it is a matter of a day or two, ie much more like a polish? Should writers perhaps deliberately leave in aspects of the script so that the rewrite is substantial and necessary?

In the end the producer behaved perfectly and even though the notes for the rewrite have still to be delivered, they asked for the rewrite invoice to be sent since some of the rewrite had already been done.

Contractual rip-offs

Thursday, July 16th, 2009

On return from a few days away in Cannes (life is rather pleasant there when the film festival is not on) I found myself confronting a series of common and not so common contractual problems.

The first was a contract in which the client was [a] being asked to defer most of the initial guaranteed payment (a very low figure) for the writing of the script and [b] that the 3% of the budget (a relatively high figure) that would be paid depended on the writer not sharing any credit with any other writer (the producer could contribute to the script but that would not penalise the writer!).

So there are in fact four problems:

1. The writer is being asked to defer: there are times when this is reasonable but only if there is an appropriate compensation guaranteed in the contract. This one does not.

2. The guaranteed figure is very low. Again, the percentage of the budget could be compensation, so could a high percentage of either the film’s profits or the producer’s net profits. This contract is far from generous to the level I think it needs to be.

3. The apparently higher-then-usual percentage of the budget on which the final fee is based is nullified if another writer does any work on the script. There is no conventional arbitration to work out what proportion each writer has contributed and reward each according to that contribution. So the writer may never get more than the low guaranteed figure.

4. The 4th problem is the less-obvious one: that the producer is planning to work on the script and may get a credit even if the writer loses no cash as a result.

This is an easy problem to deal with: most of these points should be deal-breakers and we should walk away. But if the client likes the project, has not much else on at the moment and the producer is potentially capable of being prolific, maybe there is just enough to warrant battling to improve the contract rather than walking away from it.

For some writers contracts that full of dreadful clauses can still be a way of enhancing their CV and possibly even being credited with a very successful film. If only one knew which films would be successful.

Tomorrow is another day and another lousy clause.