DGA and Schedules

The DGA and Schedules

A conversation between John Frankenheimer and Paul Rubell, A.C.E. regarding the recently concluded creative rights negotiations between the DGA and AMPTP.

John Frankenheimer (pictured left) and Martha Coolidge are co-chairpersons of the Director's Guild Creative Rights Committee. During this year's DGA contract negotiations, they met for several months with studio CEO's and network executives. Paul Rubell recently spoke with John about those issues in the negotiations which affect both directors and editors.

Paul Rubell:

Editors would like to know what the issues were in the negotiations that relate to post-production, and what the resolution was.

John Frankenheimer:

Well, there is no resolution. We have a "Code of Preferred Practices", which the studios have agreed to. This states the "preferred" industry practice, as opposed to the legislated. It defines the way things "ought" to be done.

The problem that we find is that many directors don't know what their creative rights are. In a feature film, a director is entitled to ten weeks for his or her cut*, after the editor's assembly. Some directors don't understand that they have that much time.

Paul Rubell:

Aren't there certain circumstances under which that period can be shortened, such as an accelerated release date?

John Frankenheimer:

Yes, but it has to be a bona fide release date. And directors have to be consulted. They can't just arbitrarily say you have to finish it because they're going to release the picture in three weeks. They have to get a waiver from the DGA Western Council.

Your main problem is in television. In long-form television you have twenty days for a director's cut. Sometimes that is shortened by air dates. The networks aren't going to back off that.

Paul Rubell:

Was there any discussion of shortening schedules due to digital editing technologies?

John Frankenheimer:

Yes. We were pretty much able to short-circuit that by saying that in the directors' view digital techniques do not shorten post-production schedules. They increase the number of choices. They improve the final product. They can complicate things.

Paul Rubell:

As negotiators, were you aware of the open letter that was published from the editors to the directors, expressing our common interest regarding post schedules?

John Frankenheimer:

We were very appreciative of that. We used that in the negotiations. We said, Look, you've got a lot of editors who are threatening to quit the business, feeling that their lives are being ruined by these accelerated schedules. The path that the editors took was very, very effective. It just cut them [the AMPTP] right off at the pass, so that it never became an issue.

The more people become aware of their creative rights, the less they're going to become as intimidated as some are today.

Paul Rubell:

I suppose there is the fear that by standing up for one's creative rights, one will simply not be hired again by the studio or network.

John Frankenheimer:

There's nothing you can do about the fear factor. As a director, if you're afraid, you're really in the wrong line of work. You have to be able to stand up to people. The word "director" means the person in charge. You're directing the action. If you just back off and become part of the scenery because you're afraid of losing a job , there's nothing anybody can do. No contract can protect that.

We still have a long, long way to go. It's an imperfect system, and we have to do the best we can within it.

* There is a provision for low-budget features, based on a sliding scale. Details are available from the DGA.

Click here to go to the DGA Home Page

Reprinted from
The Motion Picture Editors Guild Newsletter
Vol. 17, No. 3 - May/June 1996.

Guild Home | Newsletter Home | Top of Page

Copyright © 1996, All Rights Reserved by The Motion Picture Editors Guild, IATSE Local 776


	The DGA and Schedules A conversation between John Frankenheimer and Paul Rubell, A.C.E. regarding the recently concluded creative rights negotiations between the DGA and AMPTP.
	John Frankenheimer (pictured left) and Martha Coolidge are co-chairpersons of the Director's Guild Creative Rights Committee. During this year's DGA contract negotiations, they met for several months with studio CEO's and network executives. Paul Rubell recently spoke with John about those issues in the negotiations which affect both directors and editors.

	Paul Rubell:	Editors would like to know what the issues were in the negotiations that relate to post-production, and what the resolution was.
	John Frankenheimer:	Well, there is no resolution. We have a "Code of Preferred Practices", which the studios have agreed to. This states the "preferred" industry practice, as opposed to the legislated. It defines the way things "ought" to be done. The problem that we find is that many directors don't know what their creative rights are. In a feature film, a director is entitled to ten weeks for his or her cut*, after the editor's assembly. Some directors don't understand that they have that much time.
	Paul Rubell:	Aren't there certain circumstances under which that period can be shortened, such as an accelerated release date?
	John Frankenheimer:	Yes, but it has to be a bona fide release date. And directors have to be consulted. They can't just arbitrarily say you have to finish it because they're going to release the picture in three weeks. They have to get a waiver from the DGA Western Council. Your main problem is in television. In long-form television you have twenty days for a director's cut. Sometimes that is shortened by air dates. The networks aren't going to back off that.
	Paul Rubell:	Was there any discussion of shortening schedules due to digital editing technologies?
	John Frankenheimer:	Yes. We were pretty much able to short-circuit that by saying that in the directors' view digital techniques do not shorten post-production schedules. They increase the number of choices. They improve the final product. They can complicate things.
	Paul Rubell:	As negotiators, were you aware of the open letter that was published from the editors to the directors, expressing our common interest regarding post schedules?
	John Frankenheimer:	We were very appreciative of that. We used that in the negotiations. We said, Look, you've got a lot of editors who are threatening to quit the business, feeling that their lives are being ruined by these accelerated schedules. The path that the editors took was very, very effective. It just cut them [the AMPTP] right off at the pass, so that it never became an issue. The more people become aware of their creative rights, the less they're going to become as intimidated as some are today.
	Paul Rubell:	I suppose there is the fear that by standing up for one's creative rights, one will simply not be hired again by the studio or network.
	John Frankenheimer:	There's nothing you can do about the fear factor. As a director, if you're afraid, you're really in the wrong line of work. You have to be able to stand up to people. The word "director" means the person in charge. You're directing the action. If you just back off and become part of the scenery because you're afraid of losing a job , there's nothing anybody can do. No contract can protect that. We still have a long, long way to go. It's an imperfect system, and we have to do the best we can within it. * There is a provision for low-budget features, based on a sliding scale. Details are available from the DGA. Click here to go to the DGA Home Page
	Reprinted from The Motion Picture Editors Guild Newsletter Vol. 17, No. 3 - May/June 1996. Guild Home \| Newsletter Home \| Top of Page Copyright © 1996, All Rights Reserved by The Motion Picture Editors Guild, IATSE Local 776