May
20
Mighty Heart Has Many Authors
[Posted by Adam Dawtrey] When the titles roll for Michael Winterbottom’s A Mighty Heart, the screenwriter credit will read, “Written by John Orloff.”
Which just goes to show, you can’t always believe everything you read.
It’s no secret around London that Winterbottom and his regular collaborator Laurence Coriat wrote their own adaptation of Marianne Pearl’s book about her husband’s abducation and execution by Al-Queda from scratch, discarding Orloff’s draft that was developed by production shingle Plan B before Winterbottom came aboard.
Indeed, when the producers submitted the script to arbitration by the Writers Guild of America, the only question in their mind was whether Coriat and Winterbottom would have to share their credit with Orloff at all. The ruling that Orloff should get the sole credit, and that Coriat could not even be given “special thanks,” was a complete shock.
So when those titles roll today, and the screenwriter credit comes up, please don’t upset the filmmakers by applauding too loud.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
What goes around comes back around, isn't that the saying. If I were Orloff, I would have at least tried to give Winterbottom & Coriat some modicum of acknowledgment.
At some point, this will come back to bite Orloff . . . it never fails!
Posted by: Apres Ski | May 20, 2007 at 10:19 AM
not the way it went down at. winterbottom and his writing partner wanted sole credit. the wga saw it different. winterbottom appealed, threatened, and now is crying about the results. if he hadn't been a dick to begin with he would have had a shared credit and no arbitation. maybe you should read both scripts before you post rubbish like this.
Posted by: e | May 20, 2007 at 02:29 PM
Having actually read all the drafts-- it's absolute rubbish that they "started from scratch" as you say. Structure, dialogue, etc are almost identical-- rumors in London can whisper what they want-- did you actually READ the earlier drafts?
And, actually knowing the Guild rules-- had Winterbottom not been so greedy to want a writing credit, my guess is Coriat would have shared screenplay credit with Orloff (directors have to originate substantially higher than just another screenwriter in order to get credit). Winterbottom gambled with Coriat's credit (and presumed bonus)-- and lost. And now he seems to be whining about it to anyone that will listen.
And by the way, Apres Ski-- when a director submits for a writing credit, it is an AUTOMATIC arbitration by the WGA, so it wasn't up to Orloff at all to share credit IF HE HAD WANTED TO, but entirely up to the WGA, which obviously felt Winterbottom and Coriat did not start from scratch.
Know your facts before you smear someone's reputation and talent.
And people, applaud all you want.
Posted by: b | May 20, 2007 at 03:02 PM
Having been a wga arbitor and the writer of screenplays under arbitration, I can tell you that the only way one can judge is to read all of the drafts in question. Of course the later writers are now trying to yell about credit. Just as the first writer often does. But it's irresponsible to print one side of this, based on rumor or opinion and to present it as fact. Anne, pull this post down, read the scripts, and then post. Apply your normal, excellent journalistic talents.
Posted by: b. | May 20, 2007 at 04:56 PM
Hey, isn't this a movie about someone's HEAD BEING CUT OFF???
And this is what Michael Winterbottom and Laurence Coriat choose to discuss???
Wow.
A Mighty Ego, indeed.... er, Mighty Heart.
Posted by: b | May 20, 2007 at 05:25 PM
Wow...slander, and ignorance, wrapped up in one snarky, unattributed package. As others have noted, unless you've read both drafts, and know something about the specific development process, all of it, on this particular film, this is a pretty inflammatory and irresponsible post. And, it demonstrates a pretty unacceptable lack of knowledge of WGA process for someone with such a fancy job at such a fancy trade rag. Who, exactly, might grant the "special thanks" credit that Mr. Dawtrey suggests Ms. Coriat might have earned? The original writer has nothing to do with that--such a puffy non-credit would be solely at the discretion of the producers and distributors. In fact, other than making an argument for the extent of his contributions to the script to the WGA arbiters--and arbitration was automatic for this project--Orloff has had exactly zero to do with what credit was ultimately awarded. Earlier posters were also correct in noting that the bar is very high for directors to gain screenplay credit when they rewrite. Again, not the original writer's decision. Shame on you, and your publication--you should know better than to slam someone's work in so cavalier a fashion.
Posted by: colco | May 20, 2007 at 06:40 PM
"So when those titles roll today, and the screenwriter credit comes up, please don’t upset the filmmakers by applauding too loud."
And when praising your English teacher for all of her help with adverbs, try not to applaud too LOUDLY.
Jesus.
Posted by: JL | May 21, 2007 at 09:02 AM
To get credit on an adaptation is SO MUCH EASIER than if you are rewriting something not based on previous material. Winterbottom and his partner obviously didn't contribute as much new material to the script as they thought.
Posted by: Andrew | May 21, 2007 at 09:28 AM
Sock puppets, anyone? My guess is that all these earlier comments were posted by the same person. Probably by someone "close to the production."
Posted by: David C | May 21, 2007 at 09:38 AM
Interesting that the saviours of the orphans of the world, the rebuilders of New Orleans, would choose to try and discredit the screenwriter of their joint production,,A Mighty Heart..Maybe you just never say no to the Pitt Jolie duo.. Shows the Jolie-Pitts in a whole new light, eh?
Posted by: W | May 21, 2007 at 10:08 PM
Sour grapes. John Orloff is one of our premiere up and coming screenwriters of today's rather arid Hollywood climate. The WGA decision was of course correct, and if you had the courage to disclose what your post is really about...well, then, that would really be something to read, now wouldn't it?
Posted by: fredflintstone | July 08, 2007 at 01:33 PM
I am shocked to read such a cavalier disregard for the truth in your article. I manage writers and directors for television and film and have been involved in quite a few arbitrations in my career, it is the Writer’s Guild standard procedure that when a director is trying to claim writing credit that the WGA must read all drafts involved and attribute proper credit to whomever deserves it. This, of course, is because of the grotesque habit so many directors have of trying to lay claim to all things creative in “their” films. Orloff had no role in the decision for the WGA to try to assess who deserves sole or shared credit for a film anyone who’s worked in this industry knows that.
It appears to this reader that there is something afoot in this biased, unbalanced, unfair accusation. You look like a pathetic mouthpiece for Mr. Winterbottom or the Jolie-Pitt camp. Which is it? Who’s favor are you trying to garner? It’s so transparent.
Posted by: Mieke | July 12, 2007 at 08:44 PM