Revista de Comunicación de la SEECI, nº 49, 15 July 2019 - 15 November 2019, 39-57

RESEARCH http://doi.org/10.15198/seeci.2019.49.39-57
Received: 27/08/2018 --- Accepted: 22/02/2019 --- Published: 15/07/2019

AUTHORSHIP IN CLASSIC HOLLYWOOD CINEMA

LA AUTORÍA EN EL CINE CLÁSICO DE HOLLYWOOD

María Lara Martínez1: Complutense University. Spain.

[email protected]

Antonio Lara: Complutense University. Spain.

[email protected]

ABSTRACT

From the beginning of the cinema, in which only one person took care of almost
everything, the organization of a film progressively evolved, and the different
functions in the process got wider and more specialized. The notion of collective
authorship is a difficult concept to approach and understand in all its dimensions. In
this article we try to clarify it after analyzing how the structure of team collaboration
at that time influenced its creators, and why some can be considered authors while
others are denied that status. In order to examine in depth what was the real
procedure of the different trades, professional journals have been consulted, looking
for interviews with photography directors, writers, directors, producers... in addition
to previous studies in books, magazines and documentaries. It is found that there
are certain figures that have been unfairly ignored, like the producer, the director of
photography, the editor or the supervising editor, because their contribution was not
a merely technical or managerial job. The case of the producer is specially
discriminatory as it is usually thought they were exclusively focused in the
economical aspects of the production, while they assumed key roles now usually part
of the directors duties.

KEY WORDS: cinema – classical – Hollywood – author – creator – audiovisual – film.

RESUMEN

Desde los comienzos del cine, en los que una sola persona se ocupaba prácticamente
de todo, la organización de la creación de un film fue evolucionando, y las diversas
funciones del proceso fueron aumentando y especializándose progresivamente. La
noción de autoría colectiva es un concepto difícil de abordar y de comprender en
toda su dimensión. En este artículo se pretende analizarlo, tras estudiar de qué
modo la estructura de colaboración en equipo de aquella época influía en sus

1
María Lara Martínez: She has worked as a teacher of Audiovisual Communication since 2003. She
currently works at the Faculty of Information Sciences of the Complutense University with the subject
of “Publishing and Postproduction”. At the same time she works as a film editor since 1994.
[email protected]

39
 Lara Martínez, M., and Lara, A. Authorship in classic Hollywood cinema

creadores, y por qué razón se considera que unos son autores, mientras a otros se
les niega esa condición. Para examinar a fondo cuál era el sistema de trabajo real de
los distintos oficios se han consultado -además de estudios anteriores en libros,
revistas y documentales-, las revistas profesionales, buscando entrevistas a
directores de fotografía, guionistas, directores, productores… Se ha constatado que
hay ciertas figuras clave como el productor, el director de fotografía, el montador o
el supervisor de montaje cuyas aportaciones a la autoría han sido ignoradas
pensando que su labor se ceñía a responsabilidades meramente técnicas, logísticas o
de financiación. En concreto, el caso del productor es especialmente sangrante, pues
incluso tiene fama de arruinar el trabajo del resto del equipo para obtener un mayor
beneficio económico, cuando lo cierto es que desarrollaban funciones clave, que en
la actualidad se atribuyen al director.

PALABRAS CLAVE: cine – clásico – Hollywood – autor – creador – audiovisual –

película.

A AUTORIA NO CINEMA CLÁSSICO DE HOLLYWOOD

RESUME

Desde o começo do cinema, em que uma só pessoa se ocupava praticamente de

tudo, a organização da criação de um filme foi evolucionando, e as diversas funções
do processo foram aumentando e especializando-se progressivamente. A noção de
autoria coletiva é um conceito difícil de abordar e de compreender em toda a sua
dimensão. Neste artigo pretende-se analisa-lo, depois estudar de que modo a
estrutura de colaboração em equipe daquela época influía em seus criadores, e por
qual razão se considera que uns são autores, enquanto outros são negadas esta
condição. Para examinar a fundo qual era o sistema de trabalho real dos distintos
ofícios foram consultados ademais de estudos anteriores em livros, revistas
profissionais, buscando entrevistas aos diretores de fotografia, roteiristas, diretores,
produtores etc. Foi constatado que há certas figuras chave como o produtor, o
diretor de fotografia, o montador ou supervisor de montagem cujas contribuições à
autoria foram ignoradas pensando que seu trabalho se ajustava à responsabilidades
meramente técnicas, logísticas ou de financiamento. Em concreto, o caso do
produtor é especialmente sangrento inclusive tem fama de arruinar o trabalho do
resto da equipe para obter um maior benefício econômico, quando o certo é que
desenvolviam funções clave, que na atualidade se atribuem ao diretor.

PALAVRAS CHAVE: cinema – clássico – Hollywood – autor – criador – audiovisual –

filme.

How to cite the article:

Lara Martínez, M., and Lara, A. (2019). Authorship in classic Hollywood cinema. [La
autoría en el cine clásico de Hollywood]. Revista de Comunicación de la SEECI, 49,
39-57. doi: http://doi.org/10.15198/seeci.2019.49.39-57
Recovered from http://www.seeci.net/revista/index.php/seeci/article/view/553

40
Revista de Comunicación de la SEECI. 15 July, 2019 / 15 November, 2019, nº 49, 39-57
 Lara Martínez, M., and Lara, A. Authorship in classic Hollywood cinema

1. INTRODUCTION

Since the beginning of cinema, in which a single person took care of practically
everything, the organization of the creation of a film gradually evolved, and the
various functions of the process increased and specialized progressively, and new
positions emerged, although the general responsibilities of some of these
professionals hardly varied, as will be analyzed throughout the study. At first, camera
operators such as the famous Edwin S. Porter chose the plot, directed the
participants in the scene, configured lighting and sets, opted for a model of lenses, a
certain frame, the type of virgin film… And after the shoot, they took care to develop
the impressed material and give it meaning in the montage room.

However, this system became very slow to respond to the demands of the
exhibitors, which already in the first decade of the twentieth century were requiring
manufacturers an average of twenty to thirty weekly premieres, according to Janet
Staiger (Bordwell, 1997, p. 133). And she added: “The Selig plant is a huge art
factory where films with the same level of organizational efficiency, division of labor
and material handling are produced, as if they are locomotives or sewing machines”.
Although, during this stage, directors-producers like D.W. Griffith were the main
responsible for the films, the specialization by departments had turned the cinema
into a collective art.

Although not all the voices were pronounced in favor of the Hollywood domain:
the famous expression “factory of dreams”, so often named in a positive sense, was
actually coined by the critic Ehrengurg in 1931 as a denunciation of the role of the
film industry, responsible for “mind- numbing films that engulfed millions of people”
(Ehrengurg , 2008). Due to the haste with which the works were carried out, Jack
Warner went on to say ironically: "I do not want it to be good, I want it on Tuesday"
(Apple, 2006).

The early use of the term “art” in the article cited in Bordwell on Selig plant is
striking, because, according to Gubern (2016, p. 151), the writer and journalist
Ricciotto Canudo was the one who dared to name cinema “Seventh Art” in his
Manifesto of the seven arts.

Although, as Gutiérrez García points out, cinematographic works would not be

legislatively recognized as such until the 1948 Brussels Conference: The terms
“literary and artistic works” include all productions of literary, scientific and artistic
domain, whatever the mode or form of expression, such as [...] cinematographic
works and those obtained by a procedure analogous to cinematography. (Gutiérrez
García, 2018, p. 3)

The first allusions to the cinematographic invention were recorded in the Berlin Act
in 1908. At that time, it was considered only as a means of “reproduction and
representation” and the regulation focused on protecting the preexisting works on
which films were based. (Gutiérrez García, 2018, p. 3). In this sense, the litigation
about the adaptation of the literary success of Ben Hur became famous in Hollywood .

41
Revista de Comunicación de la SEECI. 15 July, 2019 / 15 November, 2019, nº 49, 39-57
 Lara Martínez, M., and Lara, A. Authorship in classic Hollywood cinema

Kalem filmed an unauthorized adaptation without regard to intellectual property

rights and was sued both by the editors of Lee Wallace's original novel and by buyers
for their theatrical version. The courts decided that the term “work” that the laws of
American intellectual property historically collected included materials that need not
necessarily be printed, so films were subject to these regulations, both to fulfill and
to achieve protection against possible infractions (Bordwell, 1997, p. 143).

2. OBJECTIVES

As reflected in the title, the main objective of this article is the study of the figure
of the author of cinematographic works in the classic Hollywood system. This
dimension is not made only for practical reasons, to reduce the issue and therefore
the scope of research, but there is a more important reason: the classical system of
production is invariably considered the canon, either to follow it or to consciously
turn away from it. And yet it is known badly. As a general rule, a series of
stereotypes, far from reality, are repeated, without deepening the processes of
cinematographic creation of the studios.

This article aims to analyze how that particular system of teamwork influenced its
creators, and for what reasons we call some of them authors and deny others that
condition. In this sense, special attention is paid to the figure of the producer, since
it is a profession that has been reviled throughout history, but that deserves the
highest recognition. In the Anglo-Saxon tradition, they have enjoyed a certain
prestige, although rather associated with the idea of industrial entrepreneurship, not
artistic. That is, as the person who summons a group of talents around a project,
and deals with organizing and managing finances. In the best application of capitalist
doctrine, successful producers were the ones who obtained the most money from
their products, and that is why stories abound in which, with that priority objective,
they despise and are despised by the rest of the filmmakers, as well as by the critics,
and in general by the most intellectual tradition. Although there may be exceptions
that do correspond to that bad reputation, producers were not usually those operetta
demons, but very intelligent people who tried to make the best films they were
capable of within the budget limit, that is, more or less the same as the rest of the
authors in their field.

Other figures are also analyzed, such as the editor or the director of photography
to check to what extent they should be taken into account as authors. In fact, one of
the objectives of this article is precisely to research on the meaning of the expression
collective art, a habitual concept, even persistent, but poorly resolved. In this line,
the attention to some directly ignored professionals such as the montage supervisor,
who exerted a great influence on the final finish of the films, is not lost either. Their
contribution to film grammar is still forgotten, but a scientific approach to film
authorship must have all the elements that have influenced creation, both for good
and for bad.

Finally, we have not forgotten the screenwriter or the director, because, although
there is a huge theoretical body on their work, in general it has been done from a

42
Revista de Comunicación de la SEECI. 15 July, 2019 / 15 November, 2019, nº 49, 39-57
 Lara Martínez, M., and Lara, A. Authorship in classic Hollywood cinema

romantic perspective, with a focus on the most legendary aspects of their mission,
instead of framing their responsibility from a pragmatic point of view.

3. METHODOLOGY

The very concept of classical cinema is a notion that has changed its essence.
Some theorists limit it to the period circumscribed to the Hollywood of the 1930s and
1940s, while others include the 1950s, and even later. In this study, the emphasis is
placed on the work system of the studios, and therefore their survival is what marks
the frontier of the stage in question. At the moment when the process changes and
independent productions begin to be the norm, instead of the exception, then a new
dynamic begins to dominate the authorship relationships of creators. It is not that
there is a revolution among filmmakers but that the panorama is changing, also due
in part to the irruption of the director's conception as the undisputed author,
advocated by the theorists of the Nouvelle Vague.

This issue of the temporal dimension is relevant since it limits access to the
original sources and therefore influences the methodology. Of course, it has still been
feasible to analyze the films of that period, which has proved useful for our research,
but what is not possible is to speak directly with the authors, since most of them
have already died. The search for information on their working methods, the
different responsibilities of each profession or even of each work step in a certain
field has been made thanks to the statements of professionals of that time that were
embodied in previous studies (in books, magazines or documentaries), as reflected in
the bibliography section.

However, although we have also consulted some reference manuals or some

classical academic works, our approach to this period is different from the usual one.
In general, the magnifying glass is usually placed on the finished products, the
cinematographic works, and the multiple interpretations that can be made of their
content. Or the artists are studied by scrutinizing every last detail of their biography.
Instead, here the objective is the examination of the trades so as to find out what
the standard system of creation was, which, although not radically different from the
current one, does have certain peculiarities that are often ignored and that help to
better understand the concept of authorship of both the past and the present.

For that reason, in order to research more deeply what the methods preferred by
the workers were, we have also resorted to other types of more technical
publications such as professional journals, especially seeking interviews with
specialists, such as cinematographers, screenwriters, directors, producers...

As a last point, it is necessary to mention the previous work experience as film

editors of the researchers of this article. Although it is a scientific writing, all that
previous knowledge that professional wisdom acquired after years of effort is put at
the service of a strictly academic point of view that undoubtedly helps to solve
certain gaps that are not learned in any other way.

43
Revista de Comunicación de la SEECI. 15 July, 2019 / 15 November, 2019, nº 49, 39-57
 Lara Martínez, M., and Lara, A. Authorship in classic Hollywood cinema

4. DISCUSSION

4.1. Collective authorship in cinema

The notion of collective authorship is a difficult concept to address. In fact, the

very definition of authorship, even when we refer to an isolated artist, is a rather
modern idea, derived and modified throughout history by the successive visions on
Art that the Renaissance, Romanticism or contemporary movements brought with
them. But this concept, complicated in itself, becomes even more complex if it is
about works in which there is not only one person in charge but several people
(many or few, that is indifferent), who collaborate with each other until reaching a
common result. In addition, the repercussions of granting the author status to one or
the other are not purely intellectual, of the kind with which artistic critics would
enjoy, but have direct consequences in the economic, moral and criminal spheres.

As explained by Elisa Gutiérrez, the legislation on the subject of copyright has two
trends according to the legal tradition of the Anglo-Saxon countries and the countries
of continental law:

In the former, the rights were granted to persons, natural or legal, who took
on the initiative and responsibility of the film, which fits in the definition of the
figure of the producer (...). This system was called “copyright”. The continental
countries opted for the system of “copyright”, preferring to grant authorship to
certain people who had made artistic and/or literary contributions to the
resulting work. (Gutiérrez García, 2018, p. 8).

Specifically in the Spanish legal system, it has been considered that the authors of
an audiovisual work were the scriptwriter, the director and the musician. Of course, it
is difficult to accept that the legislator can decree who the authors of a work of art
are beyond what the creators themselves think, although it is a constant that the
laws lag behind the social reality they are trying to regulate. Of course, this criticism
is extensive to scientific articles, like this one, that insist on unraveling a curiously
elusive world, which is always one step further.

The consideration of author, in the meaning granted by the law, has a practical
sense: they are granted a moral and patrimonial right over the audiovisual product.
That is to say, that apart from their salary, and in concept of author's rights, they will
receive a small percentage of the collection of the box office 2. In general, it is not a
large sum, although in some cases where success is achieved, the figure rises
proportionally. This percentage is different and independent of whether authors
negotiate a participation in the profits, something that in classical cinema was
reserved for only a handful of names in all history, because even the most famous
actors were permanently incorporated into a studio that only offered them a regular
salary whether they rolled or not.

2
Specifically 1.55%, which in turn is divided equally among the authors.

44
Revista de Comunicación de la SEECI. 15 July, 2019 / 15 November, 2019, nº 49, 39-57
 Lara Martínez, M., and Lara, A. Authorship in classic Hollywood cinema

At present, the moral right also gives them control over their work, such as
preventing its modification without permission, or the scope of its dissemination.
Contracts usually have these circumstances in mind, although, as the moral right is
inalienable, it could be the case that a screenwriter dissatisfied with the result (for
example, the writer of the original novel, who is the owner of the plot), prevented a
movie that is already finished from being marketed3. The producer could ask for a
strong compensation for damages, but it would be difficult to oppose it.

The Spanish legislator and, in general, the European, chooses a specific list on
which only the director, the musician and the scriptwriter are found, and now it also
includes the director of photography. It is clear that these are positions of great
responsibility in a film, and therefore there is nothing to object. That is, it is clear
that the screenwriter deserves to be considered the author of the films he writes, as
well as the director or the musician. However, it is legitimate to ask why these people
and not others. For some time we have tried to show, through several articles, that
there are also other film workers, such as the artistic director or the editor, who are
equally essential for cinema, and who in certain cases even constitute their main
creative force, since from the films created in the Golden Stage of Hollywood to the
most recent ones of the national panorama.

The fundamental question that arises is what the essence of the author is or, in
other words, if a person develops a work in a work of art, does that person
automatically transform into an author? When works are the responsibility of a single
individual, as in literature or painting, there is usually no debate. However, the case
of cinema is very different, because it is a collective art. Although it is usual to have a
central figure that coordinates or directs the other contributions, the key is that the
final result comes precisely from the collaboration. It is not a mere sum of wills that
accumulate their strength to raise a project, instead, there is an interaction, a mutual
influence among them that causes very different results.

At the end of the process, it is impossible to know who was responsible for each
idea, not only due to lack of memory, but rather because, from the original idea to
the one that remains on the screen, the personal interpretation of each artist
gradually polishes, or contradicts, the previous one. An example of this is found in
classic cinema: According to what several authors have narrated, the final sentence
that Rick told Captain Renault in Casablanca (Michael Curtiz, 1942), “Louis, I feel that
this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship”, was actually written by the producer
Hal B. Wallis (Ros, 2017, p. 38). Later, in view of the great success, both the Epstein
brothers and Koch claimed their predominant role in the writing of the work,
including this key closing.

In the Intellectual Property Law of our country there is a valuable definition that
we include here:

3
For years it was rumored that Patricia Highsmith, dissatisfied with the version of The American
Friend (Der amerikanische Freund, 1977), that Wim Wenders made about her novel The Game of
Ripley, had prevented its re-release in movie theaters.

45
Revista de Comunicación de la SEECI. 15 July, 2019 / 15 November, 2019, nº 49, 39-57
 Lara Martínez, M., and Lara, A. Authorship in classic Hollywood cinema

[A collective work] is constituted by the meeting of contributions of different

authors whose personal contribution is based on a unique and autonomous
creation, for which it was conceived without being possible to attribute
separately to any of them a right over the whole of the work done. 4

We fully agree with it, but that does not solve the problem that had already been
announced for cinematographic works. Its collective nature is recognized, but author
status is restricted to a small closed list. So the question still stands, why the
director, the scriptwriter or the musician? Why was the director of photography
included later? Is there such a difference between the artistic work of some and the
professional routines of the rest of the team? So as to offer a reasonable explanation,
you have to resort to tradition. These professions already had organized groups that
were in charge of defending their copyright prior to the arrival of cinema. It does not
take many arguments to argue that if the writer or the musician are considered
authors when they work alone, they will be treated the same way when they do it
together. On the other hand, the figure of the director has followed another
trajectory.

4.2. The role of the director compared to the creative producer

In reality, the vindication of the figure of the director/author does not reach the
French New Wave. Before that time, no director would have called himself an author,
which does not mean that they underestimated their own value or did not think of
cinema as an artistic manifestation. But their role, although it was fundamental, was
still a link in the chain of the studios. In Hollywood, their work was restricted to
filming and with less freedom of action than at present. We are used to thinking of
filmmakers who control almost every aspect of a film from the beginning to the end
but, in the golden age of cinema, those who exercised a real creative control over all
aspects of the film were the producers. It is almost a problem of nomenclature,
because you could say that the producer of that time was the equivalent of the
director now, since he had the last word in creative decisions, with the difference
that the producer delegated someone to supervise the shooting. The definitive proof
is that most of directors did not go to the editing room, but rather it was the editor
himself, in solitude or collaborating with the producer, who decided the definitive
structure of the film. Of course, in the classical system, the figure of the montage
supervisor or the executives of the studies, who could exert a great influence, had to
be taken into account too: if it could be said that the directors exercised a leadership
role in the teams, this would have been limited to what Vidal Ramentól and Fuertes
Camacho (2012) call a participative leadership.

At that time, the absurd expression, in which, at the beginning of the titles of
credit, it is said “a film by [the name of the director]” did not exist. Now it is so
familiar that it is accepted without questioning it. But it is not an innocent cliché. With
it, it is understood that the director is the true author of the film, and that is why he

4
Spain. Royal Legislative Decree 1/1996, as of April 12, approving the Revised Text of the Intellectual
Property Law. Article 8. Collective work.

46
Revista de Comunicación de la SEECI. 15 July, 2019 / 15 November, 2019, nº 49, 39-57
 Lara Martínez, M., and Lara, A. Authorship in classic Hollywood cinema

leaves his signature. Although, reluctantly, the help of other participants is

recognized, it is a limited admission, just enough not to take away the director’s
absolute protagonism.

It is pertinent to note that, when in the world of theater they say “a work by”,
nobody refers to the director of the staging but the writer of the text. The author is
the creative dramatist of the libretto, without any discussion. Moreover, the director
of a play, however famous he may be, does not even receive royalties. Only the
musician gets a small percentage, since almost the entire amount goes to the writer.

André Bazin and his disciples argued that “An author is that director who achieves,
through a unique stylistic stamp in the way he uses the filmic language, to express
his vision of the world, his ideology, and his obsessions” (Gutiérrez Correa, 2014, p.
7). In the classic cinema of Hollywood, they emphasized Alfred Hitchcock, Orson
Welles, Howard Hawks and William Wyler at the beginning, and they gradually
expanded the list in their writings of Cahiers du Cinéma.

The American Andrew Sarris, a film critic in the journal Film Culture, echoed in his
country the ideas of the French critics. Some voices like that of Pauline Kael, of the
well-known New Yorker journal, openly opposed, arguing that “in most films, the
director is not the head of the film, which is the product of the creative work of
several people from their different jobs” (Gutiérrez Correa, 2014, p. 16).

These alternative ideas of the New Wave, which in principle were circumscribed to
a local group, very theoretical, have spread to the rest of the world, marking so
deeply the conception of the modern director, even in the United States, that now it
seems natural or the only possible thing. There will always be a person who takes on
the artistic initiative of a project, and the fact that it is the producer or the director
has both advantages and disadvantages. It is important not to forget that there are
other alternatives to the method in force today.

Nobody would hesitate to consider John Ford as a legendary author, and yet,
when he finished shooting, he would go on vacation. The only advice he gave the
editor is that he did not mess up the movie. It was not an eccentric behavior, it was
usual. What other filmmakers did was link a shoot with the following, of successive
projects, which left them no time to sit down with the editor. For example, John
Huston followed a similar model, and still remains a world reference. In the
magnificent book Picture, Rolling with Huston, journalist Lillian Ross described the
painful birth of the film The Red Badge of Courage (1974). Huston appears in the
title and the cover photo, but the text, essential to understand the system of classical
Hollywood studios, reveals that it was the producer, Gottfried Reinhardt, who worked
with Benny Lewis in the montage of the film (Ross, 1986).

Of course, there were exceptions in which certain directors supervised the entire
process, such as Alfred Hitchcock or Charles Chaplin, but they stood out precisely for
that reason. Chaplin was his own producer thanks to the studio that he created,
United Artists, along with other Hollywood greats Douglas Fairbanks, Mary Pickford

47
Revista de Comunicación de la SEECI. 15 July, 2019 / 15 November, 2019, nº 49, 39-57
 Lara Martínez, M., and Lara, A. Authorship in classic Hollywood cinema

and D. W. Griffith, who for a time remained as an independent producer with unequal
luck (Gomery, 1986, p. 209). At the beginning of his American stage, Hitchcock also
had problems to attend montage, until he could accumulate enough prestige and
independence to become a producer. This was the natural path of those creators
who wanted to have maximum creative control.

After these precisions about the creative producer, the reasons of the Anglo-Saxon
law to designate this one as the depository of the copyright are much better
understood. In our country, it seems an arbitrary decision, but the fact that it has a
bad reputation does not diminish its artistic capacity. In the same way, it is also
understood why the Oscar awards of the Academy of Hollywood for the “Best Film”
are collected by its producer, because that person is considered the creator, the real
responsible for the work as a whole.

4.3. The architects of the stories

In the early years of Hollywood cinema, there was not even what today is
understood as “screenplay”. Only a slight idea of the plot was enough to start the
shoot. They progressively realized that grouping the shots that happened in the same
enclave, instead of following the natural order of the story, made this phase faster
and more efficient. And, with movie theaters imposing, at a given time, a standard
length, they were forced to spend more time preparing the screenplays so that the
narrative retained a balanced structure of beginning, climax and outcome inherited
from its literary predecessor.

New demands to increase the quality and the footage of the films made better
planning necessary and the detailed screenplay became an indispensable tool to
calculate the costs of the final product and to favor the efficiency of the work of the
team. Filmmakers lost old roles with the new system and became experts in directing
actors and coordinating the different technical heads during filming, but under the
supervision of the producer.

Later on, numerous studios adopted the formula of “continuity screenplay” in

which the actions to be carried out in the staging were described in detail. If we
compare it with the model that is currently used, it would be halfway between a
script and a technical report (camera, script, and laboratory) as it collected notes on
footage, effects to be made, instructions on tints and notes for the editors.

And, faced with this strict model of operating, there were other methods such as
those by Griffith's, also shared by Chaplin, who used to shoot a barely outlined
screenplay. According to Bordwell (1997, p. 153), his editor remembered how the
filmmaker proceeded through long rehearsals, then he filmed general shots, and
after the first tests, deciding where he wanted the close-ups. He could afford to be
as slow as he wanted since he was not paid according to the invested time but to the
benefits, and he did not have a distribution deadline either; both privileges achieved
in part thanks to their box office successes. As explained in the same paragraph,
Cecil B. De Mille also moved away from the dominant practices in the industry. In

48
Revista de Comunicación de la SEECI. 15 July, 2019 / 15 November, 2019, nº 49, 39-57
 Lara Martínez, M., and Lara, A. Authorship in classic Hollywood cinema

order to achieve a greater dramatic intensity of the actors, he rolled in the natural
order of the story and placed several cameras to achieve all shots in one shot. With
this system, great continuity was obtained and the actors were favored but it
entailed some complication when it came to illuminating the first shots and required
a large number of operators, which could have been expensive. However, the
reduction of the shooting time and the quality of the final result convinced the
production company in this case.

As the complexity of films increased, the screenplay writing and review

departments became more and more numerous. It was a common practice to have
different professionals work in the treatment of a topic, sometimes leaving the visible
head behind, who used to be the famous writer hired by the studio to give fame to
the project. According to Nacache (1995, p. 66), the Screenwriters Guild had to
resolve more than once a case of paternity to respond to “the claims of some
screenwriters excluded during a duly stratified writing procedure”. Louis B. Mayer
argued that the function of the films was to entertain, so when a screenwriter
complained that they had modified their work, he always answered: “The most
important book of all times was written by a committee. It was the bible”. (Ross,
1991, p. 145).

The first credit of a screenwriter (the screenwriters’ head, not the continuity
technicians) that appeared was used in 1912 by Edison (Bordwell, 1997, p. 349) for
the purpose of encouraging other writers to send their stories and reduce the risk of
plagiarism. The problem arose when the companies refused to list in the films all the
participants in the text, who could be as many as ten. There was not in the authors
so much a search for recognition by the public but by the industry because being the
author of a prestigious film allowed better working conditions, higher fees and the
possibility of getting new projects. In this regard, the Academy of Motion Picture Art
& Sciences, apart from organizing the annual awards of the different categories for
“Best Film” or “Best Photography”, published a monthly bulletin detailing all the
participants in the screenplay of a specific title, to be distributed among the
managers of the companies.

Many famous novelists, such as Raymond Chandler, Scott Fitzgerald, or Dos

Passos, were called by the studios to adapt their novels, although their relationship
with the producers was based on a mutual suspicion, which usually led to endless
arguments. Others, on the other hand, like the playwright Lilian Hellman, knew how
to adapt to the office of screenwriter and changed their initial rejection for great
enthusiasm towards the multiple options that the new medium provided.

However, complaints about the little attention paid to their talent were more
frequent, since producers used to request the revision of their contributions by other
salaried professionals of the studio, more pragmatic and with less intellectual
pretensions. According to scholars such as Enric Ros (2017, p. 38), William Faulkner
barely contributed a few lines to the screenplay of Land of the Pharaohs (Howard
Hawks, 1955), after the production defrayed him a four-month trip to Egypt. The
imposition of the discipline of high performance and compliance with schedules of

49
Revista de Comunicación de la SEECI. 15 July, 2019 / 15 November, 2019, nº 49, 39-57
 Lara Martínez, M., and Lara, A. Authorship in classic Hollywood cinema

the studios did not favor the inspiration of this type of artists. Raymond Chandler
described his collaboration with Billy Wilder in Double Indemnity (1944) as “a
murderous experience that probably shortened my life, but I learned how to write a
screenplay, as much as I am capable of learning, which is not much” (García, 1999).
Wilder thought he could contribute valuable elements to the story: “He was
interested as I was in the atmosphere of a city, a situation, a person. He had an ear
for the nuances of “slang”. Besides, he was not only an author who could describe in
a wonderful way but he could also write dialogues”. (García, 1999).

However, he was soon aware of his difficult character and his manifest disdain for
the screenwriter's job, as Cecilia García recalls.

Maybe the novelist, like so many others coming from literature, felt insecure when
it came to writing a film, according to the letters sent to his friend, actor Charles
Morton:

A body of screenplay bibliography is not available, because they belong to

the studios, not to the authors, and the studios will not show them. For
example, I tried to borrow from Warner the screenplay for The Maltese
Falcon; they did not give it to me. All the writer can do is watch the movies.
(...) You cannot make a detailed study and a reconstruction of the problems.
(Chandler, 2013).

He also denounced the contradictions of the system: “The screenplay as it exists is

the result of a bitter and prolonged battle between the writer (or the writers) and the
people whose objective is to exploit his talent without giving him the freedom to use
that talent” (Chandler, 2013). Despite this, he ended up praising, in the same letter,
the generosity of the audiovisual companies that, unlike his editor, when he achieved
great success, negotiated with him again: “And when I write something that gives
profits, then it breaks my contract and writes a better one I cannot despise an
industry that does that” (Chandler, 2013).

4.4. The different disciplines

The demands of higher quality films, with the ability to be credible, to excite and
impress the viewer, encouraged companies to hire the best professionals in the world
of theater, music, fashion ... Numerous artists from other disciplines like painting or
architecture became expert advisors of the different cinematographic categories. This
massive arrival increased specialization and favored the improvement of the
techniques in all fields, giving rise to new jobs.

The figure of the script (which until a few years ago was still dominated by
women) became essential when it came to rendering the required attention to the
raccord, and to serve as a bridge between the shoot and the editing room. That
person was in charge of supervising the respect for the continuity of the shots filmed
at different times that would later appear on the screen in a row. And, in turn, they
wrote annotations that could help to organize the material. That is, as today.

50
Revista de Comunicación de la SEECI. 15 July, 2019 / 15 November, 2019, nº 49, 39-57
 Lara Martínez, M., and Lara, A. Authorship in classic Hollywood cinema

The responsibilities of the assistant director who had to group the shots that were
to be filmed each day were gradually broadened, and the lighting of the set, the
sets, the costumes and the exterior locations were monitored. This way, it freed the
director of the pre-shooting tasks and established a connection between the director,
the production and the staff of the set.

One of the first artistic directors who started as apprentices in film studios was
Anton Grot, who was nominated for an Oscar for The Sea Hawk (Michael Curtiz,
1940). With the support of the research staff, he avoided anachronisms in the
sets, but in addition to the decoration, he had to have technical knowledge about
the construction of structures, the characteristics of the celluloid and the response
of the different objectives. Initially he designed sets for the producer Sigmund
Lubin in the traditional way but he would soon develop revolutionary methods.
According to cameraman Arthur Miller, Grot made carefully shaded pencil
drawings that were especially useful when lighting. He adds that Grot devised a
“decreasing table”, using different lenses and marking in photographs the way in
which the depth of field receded into the background. This procedure stimulated
his later experiments with a false perspective, allowing spectacular spatial effects
at very reduced costs (Ramírez, 2004). It was also common to use miniature
models of the sets that helped to previously plan the camera angles, the lighting
and the position of actors.

4.5. Collaboration in the shooting

In any film, the involvement of all the professionals who participate in it is

necessary, even now, and in the enormous machinery of Hollywood cinema, from
workers of lower scales to the highest executives of production contributed to the
development of each project, to a greater or lesser extent.

The director of photography Lucien Ballard, responsible for the film The Killing
(Stanley Kubrick, 1956) once said: “Another thing you learn is that the camera
operator cannot make a movie as he wants because he is not the one who
commands. It is collaboration between the director, the artistic director and the
operator” (Bordwell, 1997, p. 156).

It is also worth mentioning special effects technicians at this point. In the case of
Citizen Kane (Orson Welles, 1941) they were responsible along with the
cinematographer Gregg Toland for the most innovative shots of that work.

Higher-budget movies such as blockbusters became, according to researcher

Jacqueline Nacache, an “ambiguous terrain, a place of elections and contradictions,
where gigantism can amplify the voice of an artist or sink it completely” (1995, p.
81). Therefore, she stated that the dominant figure of this type of films used to be
the producer, offering as a paradigmatic example Gone with the Wind (1939), with
three directors, George Cukor, Sam Wood (both excluded of the credits) and Victor
Fleming, but “a single true responsible person: David O'Selznick” (Nacache, 1995, p.
81).

51
Revista de Comunicación de la SEECI. 15 July, 2019 / 15 November, 2019, nº 49, 39-57
 Lara Martínez, M., and Lara, A. Authorship in classic Hollywood cinema

Depending on the company in which they worked and also on the personality of
the producer who was responsible for the coordination, filmmakers had more or less
room for maneuver. Filmmakers used their well-known fame to achieve as much
control as possible, at least during the filming phase.

Director Vincent Sherman, author of All Through the Night (1942) remembered:

After having seen many of John Ford's films, I can imagine that he does a lot of
editing with the camera. At Warner Brothers, we could not do it. If we had done
it, we would have got into trouble immediately. We knew that we had to cover
a scene from different angles so that there were different options, so that Wallis
and Warner could choose what they wanted. (Bordwell, 1997, p. 367).

Minnelli, who worked in the production unit of MGM with Stanley Donen and Gene
Kelly, said in his memoirs that, thanks to producer Arthur Freed, the musical comedy
developed that way: “He is the one who gave all creators as much freedom as possible
and that is the mark of trust indispensable for any creation” (Minnelli, 1975, p. 123).

4.6. Choosing the cut

The final editing, in most cases, was not supervised by the director, as it is
conceived today, but it was the producer who accompanied the editor in this phase
of creation of the film. The director used to limit himself to controlling the shooting
process. Only some filmmakers proposed this possibility to the studio, as long as
they enjoyed a high status that allowed them to negotiate their conditions. In the
1920s, Lubitsch negotiated with Warner Bros. to have control over the final cut as
well as the final word about the cast and plot (Bordwell, 1997, p. 154). As we
pointed out in a previous paragraph, Hitchcock achieved, by means of a deliberate
plan, to be required in the editing room, since he shot in such a way the material of
Rebecca (1940), his first movie in the United States, that the editor saw forced to
resort to him for the movie to make sense.

The figure of the montage supervisor also played an important role in this process
since it acted in the name of the study, coordinating the different professionals in the
same direction. Margaret Booth was one of the most outstanding of the profession.
Many felt that it was a very strict film language also in terms of editing, which editors
knew they should not break. Booth was said to be the most feared and implacable of
the MGM but, on the other hand, according to the testimonies about what he used to
tell to film editors, he did not seem so inflexible in style since he prioritized other
questions about the raccord: “If you think you have to cut at a point whether it matches
or not, cut. You cut looking for emotion and you get a lot acting like that” (Apple, 2006).

Editor Adrienne Fazan, who was responsible for the editing of Singing in the Rain
(Stanley Donen and Gene Kelly, 1952), reported that the stern supervisor expected
him to use close-ups in a Vincente Minnelli’s film. However, it was not possible
because he had decided not to shoot them. The director planned to make long shots
with camera movements on purpose so they would not make changes in the editing

52
Revista de Comunicación de la SEECI. 15 July, 2019 / 15 November, 2019, nº 49, 39-57
 Lara Martínez, M., and Lara, A. Authorship in classic Hollywood cinema

room. Then, in the study, they enlarged these frames by reframing, to obtain, this
way, the first shots non-existent at the beginning (Bordwell, 1997, p. 368).

According to Nacache, in classic cinema, especially in the studio of Warner Bros., a

style of rapid editing was developed, that is, with plenty of ellipses and shots without
excessive duration, since it allowed them to “tell complex stories, even dark ones,
without producing traumas in the spectator” (Nacache, 1995, p. 33). It was said that
Jack Warner forced the fragments showing a character going from one place to
another to be cut as they were useless for the narrative and only “wear out shoe
soles” (Coursodon, 1991).

These innovative ideas were not repeated in all the films of the industry, since
many directors, mainly those of European origin, such as Stroheim or Sternberg,
were reluctant to shorten the shots, because it constituted for them a betrayal of
their particular way of expression. Welles, within his modern proposals, also did not
advocate transience on the shots. In fact, in several of his works, such as in The
Magnificent Ambersons (1942), we can see how he forces this deliberately slow style.

Throughout the period of classic Hollywood cinema, there were different

production systems that gradually developed certain cyclical tendencies in terms of
creation, but only the confluence of all the professionals specialized in the different
aspects necessary to compose a film, created a style that continues to exist today in
world cinematography.

5. CONCLUSIONS

The figure of the producer must be taken into account. Without doubt, his image
has been criticized and his role has given rise to many detractors. To many, there is
the erroneous belief that the mission of a producer is solely to manage the economic
aspects of the film and give special value to those that allow the director maximum
autonomy. Indeed, throughout the history of filmmaking, we can find people with
lack of cultural interest, ignorance of the environment or simply lack of talent, but it
is also true that, in contrast to them, many producers have left a deep mark by their
participation, due to their intelligence, interest and experience. This circumstance
occurs especially in the golden age in Hollywood, with prominent names such as
Arthur Freed or David O'Selznick, and it is still maintained in the United States today.

The incorporation of the figure of the producer in the group of recognized authors
of a work can raise objections as happens with the rest of other participations,
including, to name a few, those of actors, editors or other collaborators as those who
participate in the sound, the decoration... But the truth is that all those who
contribute with their work should be considered, though, each in connection with
their contribution (Lara, 2006). For example, the job of the assistant director is
extremely important even if he is under orders from the director. In fact, the term
“assistant”, from its use in classic cinema, does not reflect his value, since in reality
he is the true shooting director. And yet his contribution to authorship is maybe more
limited than in other trades.

53
Revista de Comunicación de la SEECI. 15 July, 2019 / 15 November, 2019, nº 49, 39-57
 Lara Martínez, M., and Lara, A. Authorship in classic Hollywood cinema

A scale would have to be established that could be incorporated into an

intellectual property law, in which none of the authors would be excluded, even if
they were proportionally distinguished with respect to their contribution. Since the
beginning of cinema, this question has not been resolved and maybe, at some point,
this multiple reality of the concept of author will be adapted to a regulation.

It is difficult to know the complexity involved in the creation of a film. The

spectators that come to movie theaters receive the titles of credit with resignation
and, on many occasions, they do not even wait and leave before concluding the
projection. A pedagogical task would be to explain that there are necessary tasks in
the realization of a film and that many of the trades, for example, laboratory
technicians, are essential. This does not mean that they are authors. Many people
work to get to carry out each project, from the person responsible for catering to the
drivers, but not all of them must be considered artists. The question would be to ask
whether the final work would be modified by replacing one with another, if this
would have a direct influence on the result.

Walter Murch, one of the few editors whose name has come from anonymity,
considers Cinematographic Art to be an essentially collective activity, one of the
characteristics that makes the difference with other forms of artistic expression
(Murch, 2003). Others think the same. However, in the audiovisual world, still
unpredictable changes will continue to occur.

For example, filming will undergo such a huge transformation that it will not look
like we know it today. Many of the trades that currently create the film image and
that, in the future, will be replaced with a few people, or maybe only one provided
with a computer, will disappear. Of course, the fundamental thing will always be the
inspiration and talent of the creators.

With the passage of time, the possibilities of technology on the one hand and the
development of the generations associated with it [“Net generation” (Oblinger and
Oblinger, 2005), generation ND (Born Digital), generation C – “Creativity, Content ,
Share”- (Búa, 2010), Echo Boomers (OMD, 2012), or, more commonly referred to,
generation Y or Millennials as concluded by Alonso Mosquera, Gonzálvez Vallés and
Muñoz de Luna, (2016)] by another may make the collaboration is eliminated, and a
single author concentrates in himself to all the technical and artistic team, in a more
individual work, similar to that of a writer or a painter. One wonders where these
changes will take us, far from the traditional cinematic language, created and refined
throughout the iconic classic stage of Hollywood.

6. REFERENCES

Alonso Mosquera, M. H., Gonzálvez Vallés, J. E. y Muñoz de Luna, A. B. (2016).

Ventajas e inconvenientes del uso de dispositivos electrónicos en
el aula: percepción de los estudiantes de grados en comunicación.
Revista de Comunicación de la SEECI, XX(41), 136-154. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.15198/seeci.2016.41

54
Revista de Comunicación de la SEECI. 15 July, 2019 / 15 November, 2019, nº 49, 39-57
 Lara Martínez, M., and Lara, A. Authorship in classic Hollywood cinema

Apple, W. (Directora). (2006). The cutting edge: The magic of movie editing.
[Película]. EE.UU.: Starz Encore Entertainment.

Bordwell, D.; Staiger, J.; y Thompson, K. (1997). El cine clásico de Hollywood. Estilo
cinematográfico y modo de producción hasta 1960. Barcelona: Paidós.

Chandler, R. (2013). A mis mejores amigos no los he visto nunca: Cartas y ensayos
selectos. Barcelona: Debolsillo.

Coursodon, J. P. (1991). La Warner Bros. París: Centre Pompidou.

Ehrengurg, I. (2008). La Fábrica de sueños. Santa Cruz de Tenerife: Editorial

Melusina.

García, C. (28 de Febrero de 1999). Temblad, corruptos del mundo, El Cultural.

Recuperado de: http://www.elcultural.com/revista/cine/Temblad-corruptos-del-
mundo/13585

Gomery, D. (1986). Hollywood: El sistema de los estudios. Madrid: Verdoux.

Gubern, R. (1998). Historia del cine. Barcelona: Editorial Lumen.

Gutiérrez Correa, M. (2014). El cine de autor del cine moderno al cine posmoderno,
Razón y Palabra, 18, 87. Recuperado de: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa
?id=199531505030

Gutiérrez García, E. (2018). La autoría de la obra audiovisual. (Pendiente de

publicación).

Lara, A. (2005). El cine ha muerto, larga vida al cine. Pasado, presente y futuro de la
Postproducción. Madrid: T&B Editores.

Lara, A. (2007). La especificidad de las obras audiovisuales. E-Prints Complutense.

Lara, M. (2016). Fernando Colomo. Su cine desde dentro. Madrid: Ocho y Medio.

Minnelli, V. (1975). I Remember It Well. Sydney: Angus and Robertson.

Murch, W. (2003). En el momento del parpadeo, Madrid: Ocho y Medio.

Nacache, J. (1995). El cine de Hollywood. Madrid: Acento Editorial.

Oblinger, D. G. y Oblinger, J. L. (2005): Introduction. Educating the net generation.

Disponible en
http://www.educause.edu/Resources/EducatingtheNetGeneration/Introduction/60
59.

55
Revista de Comunicación de la SEECI. 15 July, 2019 / 15 November, 2019, nº 49, 39-57
 Lara Martínez, M., and Lara, A. Authorship in classic Hollywood cinema

OMD (2012): Millenials. Disponible en

http://www.omd.es/DigitalCenter/Onmedia/Agosto12/3.html

Ramírez, J. A. (2004). Architecture for the Screen: A Critical Study of Set Design in
Hollywood's Golden Age. McFarland.

Ros, E. (2017). Escritores en Hollywood, historia de un desencanto, Qué leer, 234,

38-43. Recuperado de: http://www.que-leer.com/2017/11/07/escritores-en-
hollywood-historia-de-un-desencanto/

Ross, L. (1991). Picture: Rodando con Huston. Madrid: Plot Ediciones.

AUTHORS:

María Lara
She has been teaching Audiovisual Communication since 2003. He has taught at the
URJC and the Nebrija. She is currently a professor in the Department of
Communication Theories and Analysis of the Complutense University with the
subjects of “Publishing and Postproduction” and “Visual Art”. At the same time, she
has worked as a film editor since 1994. She has edited 12 feature films, including the
latest films by Fernando Colomo, Isla Bonita and La Tribu.
[email protected]
Orcid ID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6414-8034
Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.es/citations?user=TxyBkB4AAAAJ&hl=es
ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Maria_Lara19
Researcher Id: I-6272-2016
Academia.edu: https://ucm.academia.edu/MariaLara

Antonio Lara
Professor at the Rey Juan Carlos University where he teaches the subjects of “Film
and television realization”. He is the author of the book of analysis about the past,
present and future of postproduction, Cinema has died, long life to the cinema. At
the time, since 1994 he has mounted 16 films, including the documentary De
Salamanca a ninguna parte, by Chema de la Peña and Al Sur de Granada and
Rivales, by Fernando Colomo.
[email protected]
Orcid ID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2158-8646
Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.es/citations?hl=es&user=t7ZBH5sAAAAJ

56
Revista de Comunicación de la SEECI. 15 July, 2019 / 15 November, 2019, nº 49, 39-57