‘Everybody’s a Writer’ Theorizing Screenwriting as Creative Labour

27

Journal of Screenwriting | Volume 1 Number 1 copy 2010 Intellect Ltd Article English language doi 101386josc11271

JOSC 1 (1) pp 27ndash43 Intellect Limited 2010

KEYWORDScritical sociologycreative labour screenwritingindustrializationmarginalizationcollaboration

BRIDGET CONORUniversity of London

lsquoEverybodyrsquos a WriterrsquoTheorizing screenwriting as creative labour

ABSTRACTThis paper offers a theoretical agenda for a labourist analysis of screen-writing and critically evaluates the marginal status of screenwriting within film production systems On the one hand screenwriting offers an exemplary case study of creative work in post-modernized film production industries work characterized by freelancing and multivalent working pat-terns insecurity and hierarchization Investigating screenwriting as creative labour also offers unique insights into an intensely industrial vocation this requires a highly particular theorization of the contexts and conditions of writersrsquo working lives

This paper draws on sociological analyses of creative production and utilizes a Foucauldian understanding of lsquotechnologies of the selfrsquo as this concept has been applied in the analysis of creative labour This approach enables a critical examination of particular aspects of screenwriting labour including the rigidity of the industrial screenplay form and its pedagogi-cal frameworks the standardized mechanisms of control over screenwriting labour (such as inequitable collaboration and practices of multiple author-ship) and the heady mix of both creative fulfilment and punishment which characterizes this form of work

JOSC 11_5_art_Conor_027-044indd 27JOSC 11_5_art_Conor_027-044indd 27 82209 52932 PM82209 52932 PM

Bridget Conor

28

INTRODUCTIONSyd Fieldrsquos (1994 254) warning that lsquoEverybodyrsquos a Writerrsquo works as a rhetorical device in his lsquohow-torsquo manual to describe the widely held belief in Hollywood and beyond that many people aspire (but often fail) to make a living as a screenwriter Concurrently Fieldrsquos phrase warns that working screenwriters will constantly be offered advice comment criticism and suggestions for improvement from those they consult with those who likely harbour dreams of success and acclaim in the seductive world of film production like everyone else This paper presents a labourist analysis of screenwriting and one which works to critically evaluate the marginal status of screen-writing as a creative input within film production systems On the one hand screenwriting offers an exemplary case study of creative work in post-modernized film production industries work charac-terized by freelancing and multivalent working patterns insecurity and hierarchy Investigating screenwriting as creative labour also offers unique insights into a vocation that is often shaped by col-lective organizing that bestows benefits and privileges not provided for lsquobelow-the-linersquo film workers For Kohn (2000 303) screenwrit-ers now typically inhabit the familiar roles of new creative workers lsquocosmopolitan networked and networking brazen supremely self-confidentrsquo but argues that this masks a lsquohollownessrsquo and lsquoinsecurityrsquo which is perpetuated by the continued peripheral status of screen-writing as a creative form

I will argue in this article that the historical and continued margin-alization of screenwriting labour can best be understood and analysed by a) examining and critiquing standard theoretical paradigms for lsquocreative labourrsquo practices b) analysing how these standard paradigms can be applied to screenwriting labour and c) examining the unique practices of screenwriting labour and the exceptional labour market in which screenwriters work This actively challenges key aspects of established creative labour theory

THEORIZING CREATIVE LABOUR AND SCREENWRITING LABOURFirstly I will outline the theoretical framework in which I contend that lsquocreative labourrsquo can best be critically examined Developments and changes in the organization of production and the rise of supposedly new forms of work and working experiences in late capitalism have been analysed using a number of (sometimes conflicting) paradigms These range from what I would term lsquoliberal-democraticrsquo theories of the information society (following Banks 2007 and Brophy 2008) to post-Fordist readings of changes in production organization Autonomist-Marxist perspectives have also been deployed to emphasize the hegemonic influence of lsquoimmaterial labourrsquo in post-Fordist economies and more critical sociological accounts have outlined the features of creative labour in lsquofiercely neo-liberalrsquo societies (McRobbie 2002b 518)


lsquoEverybodyrsquos a Writerrsquo Theorizing screenwriting as creative labour

29

I Immaterial labour is defined as lsquohellipthe labour that produces the informational and cultural content of the commodityrsquo (Lazzarato 1996 133) Hardt and Negri argue that immaterial labour is now a qualitative hegemonic force within postmodern production systems

2 Note that the autonomist-Marxists both question the adverse effects of postmodernization and post-Fordism for immaterial labourers and also suggest the emancipatory possibilities of immaterial labour but do not offer a sustained critique and lack empirical evidence to back up their philosophical arguments See Gill and Pratt (2008) for a recent and very useful discussion

All have been employed in order to understand how the experiences of work have changed in recent decades and particularly how the work of artists and creatives is now constituted and experienced within the postmodernized cultural industries

LABOURING IN LATE CAPITALISMShifts in production organization since the 1970s and the rise of new working subjectivities have been analysed in numerous ways There is a vast array of accounts of these changes which are largely within a lsquoliberal-democraticrsquo paradigm that celebrates them as progressive and humanitarian in the benefits they offer lsquopost-modernrsquo workers (for example see Aglietta 1979 Bell 1973 Castells 1996 1997 1998 Lash and Urry 1987 Piore and Sabel 1984) This paradigm can also be seen at work in autonomist-Marxist accounts (see Hardt and Negri 2000 2004 Virno 2003 Lazzarato 1996) of these changes in production which focus on the nature of work in lsquoinformationalrsquo societies As Webster (2002) outlines most theories of the lsquoinformation societyrsquo and the shifts to postmodernized production systems focus on a number of quantitative changes that it is argued have led to a qualitatively new society On the one hand technological developments since the 1970s and the rise in the pervasive use of information and communi-cation technologies (ICTs) have been a starting point for analysis for others economic changes particularly the measured increase in the economic worth of lsquoinformational activitiesrsquo are paramount Occupational changes are also foregrounded ndash from a preponder-ance of workers in primary and secondary occupational sectors to the rise in service sector (tertiary) and now lsquoinformation-processingrsquo or lsquosymbol-manipulationrsquo (quaternary sector) jobs (Hardt and Negri 2000 292) Post-Fordist writers have produced parallel accounts of changes in various production sectors from car manufacturing to film production that emphasize shifts from mass production to small-batch production Hardt and Negri (2000 2004) offer a typi-cal and influential reading of these changes writing that the shift from an industrial to a post-industrial or information society can be termed the lsquopostmodernizationrsquo of production Most importantly Hardt and Negri argue that postmodernization lsquomarks a new mode of becoming humanrsquo (2000 289) and integral to this is the new and central role for immaterial labour in many areas of productive life1

The rise in the centrality of immaterial labour is tied in with changes in production and work since the 1970s and modern management techniques which Lazzarato argues have increasingly sought to co-opt the soul of the worker ndash to make the workerrsquos personality and subjectivity lsquosusceptible to organisation and controlrsquo (Lazzarato 1996 134)

The conceptual problems with broadly lsquoliberal-democraticrsquo theo-ries of changes in production organization and more specific the-ories of immaterial labour2 are their tendencies (both subtle and


Bridget Conor

30

3 For example de Peuter and Dyer-Witheford (2005) have emphasized the consequences of the now stark divisions of labour within postmodern or post-Fordist production systems ndash separating out high-tech research and development workers in Silicon Valley from young women in developing nations who assemble

microchips for example New hierarchies within post-Fordist workforces often reinforce traditional

stratifications along gender ethnic and socio-economic lines issues which proponents of post-industrial or information societies and workers often neglect entirely

4 Castells (1996 1997 1998) offers a more nuanced account of these changes arguing for both transformation and continuity and is one of the most authoritative scholars on these various trends

5 Braverman and labour process theorists have been criticized for their lsquoneo-Luddismrsquo for romanticising forms of brutalizing industrial work and for embodying a lsquoradical pessimismrsquo which leaves little room for the subjectivities of workers themselves (see Dyer-Witheford 2004) As Blair (2003) notes the lsquomissing subjectrsquo within Bravermanrsquos work has been a sticking point for many

overt) to celebrate the lsquofreedomrsquo and lsquoautonomyrsquo which post-Fordism flexible specialization and other incantations of the lsquoinformation societyrsquo promise thus often masking issues of increased exploita-tion precariousness marginalization and discrimination which new forms of immaterial work have also made visible3 Whilst they have varying philosophical agendas they also tend to lack empirical evi-dence for the trends they discuss or they offer quantitative data on changes in occupational structures (Bell 1973 for example) but then make sweeping claims about changes to the nature of work and society whilst neglecting the continuities also visible between industrial and informational capitalism4 In fact such theories also raise further issues by using ambiguous concepts such as lsquoimmate-rial labourrsquo or lsquosymbol-manipulationrsquo to crudely hierarchize labour in new and problematic ways (between skilledcreative and unskillednon-creative jobs for example) Such theories whilst providing important tools for understanding the disparate changes precipitated by declining manufacturing industries rising employment in new types of lsquoimmaterialrsquo work and the pervasive influence of informa-tion technology offer a partial and distorted theoretical framework for understanding changes in labouring practices in late capitalism Critical sociological frameworks that recognize these changes but also foreground the marginalization of labour within lsquoknowledge economiesrsquo provide a sharper and more incisive theoretical frame-work These accounts have some affiliation with the earlier seminal work of Braverman (1974) and labour process theorists who provide the most scathing critique of the degradation of work in advanced capitalism emphasizing the spuriousness of claims made about labour lsquoflexibilityrsquo (for example Pollert 1988) However Braverman is now dated and has also been extensively criticized and this signals that a more sophisticated approach is needed to questions of labour in postmodern production systems5 I argue that critical sociology coupled with a neo-Foucauldian understanding of governmentality and lsquotechnologies of the selfrsquo as they are mobilized within working selves offers a more satisfying critical base

CREATIVE LABOURThe theories outlined above have been mobilized to examine the par-ticular changes that are visible within creative occupations and the production of cultural goods Certain cultural industries such as the Hollywood production system have been analysed as exhibiting a post-Fordist model in its changing organization (from mass production to independent and contract forms of film-making see Christopherson amp Storper 1986 1989 Storper 1989 1993) and the term lsquoimmaterial labourrsquo has been utilized in relation to creative occupations within new media production (such as game developers see de Peuter and Dyer-Witheford 2005) Celebratory accounts of a new lsquocreative classrsquo (for example Leadbeater 1999 Landry 2000 Florida 2004) have argued



31

6 Ursell (2000) also provides an important account of self-enterprise in television production work as a powerful form of pleasure in creative work and thus also a technology of the self

that the freelancers and independent creative workers have become more visible within the economic growth patterns of cities and nations These workers are described as the vanguard of the workforce in lsquopost-industrialrsquo societies embodying the traits ndash entrepreneurialism networked multivalent flexible ndash most valued in advanced neo-liberal economies These celebratory accounts have in turn been taken up by governments keen to invest in their lsquocreative industriesrsquo and lsquoknowledge economiesrsquo and hoping to reap both economic and cultural rewards Thus discus-sions and analyses of creative labour are developing at a particularly interesting and rich intersection of a number of theoretical and policy-directed paradigms

Critical sociological accounts of creative labour (such as Ryan 1991 McRobbie 1998 2002a 2002b 2004 Ursell 2000 Blair 2001 2003 Gill 2002 2007 Ross 2003) provide an incisive basis for analysis when combined with a Foucauldian understanding of work and subjectiv-ity and this mitigates against simplistic accounts of brutalized and exploited workers As Hesmondhalgh writes in his assessment of theories of creative labour as they have developed in recent years the work of McRobbie and Ross provide the most promising openings because lsquothey join theoretical sophistication with empirical sociologi-cal analysis of the specific discourses of creativity and self-realization in particular industriesrsquo (2007 67)

The most penetrating accounts of creative labour to date (McRobbie Ross Ursell) have illuminated trends in late capitalist workplaces (towards increased individualization self-reflexivity and uncertainty see also Beck 1992 Du Gay 1996 Sennett 1998 Bauman 2001) whilst also offering prescient critiques of neo-liberal working cultures and claims to increased freedom and creativity in work What these accounts do not neglect unlike labour process theory and some sociological accounts is the self in work A Foucauldian perspective focuses on the lsquotechnologies of the selfrsquo or lsquoself-steering mechanismsrsquo (Foucault 1988) that creative workers embody and employ in order to conduct themselves in their work Thus buzz-words such as lsquofreedomrsquo and lsquoflexibilityrsquo within creative labour practices are lsquonew languages and techniques to bind the worker into the productive life of societyrsquo (Rose 1990 60) and are also embod-ied and enacted by workers themselves Angela McRobbie writes

By handing over responsibility of the self to the individual power is both devolved and accentuated So it is with creativitytalent Where the individual is most free to be chasing his or her dreams of self-expression so also is postmodern power at its most effective

(McRobbie 2002a 109)6

I argue that the work of screenwriters not only exemplifies creative labour as it has been theorized by critical sociologists but also ena-bles an analysis of a unique set of self-actualizing practices tech-nologies of the self and disciplinary techniques in film production work Overall a theoretical lens that combines critical sociology


Bridget Conor

32

7 McRobbie (2002a and 2002b) also highlights the issue of the lack of diversity within creative workforces and the brutal working conditions that often disadvantage and marginalize particular social groups such as women and ethnic minorities and this is an issue raised in much of the current creative labour research ndash Gill (2002 2007) Ursell (2000) and de Peuter and Dyer-Witheford (2005) also identify lack of diversity as an inherent consequence of the conditions of new creative work Within the screenwriting sector this is also an acute concern See the Film Council reports that have investigated these issues in the context of the UK screenwriting industry (UK Film Council 2006 2007)

with Foucauldian concerns enables an investigation of the extremes of both self-fulfilment and pleasure in screenwriting work and also the vagaries of marginal labour conditions in the film production industry I will now explore some of the specific discourses I see at work in contemporary screenwriting labour practices

SCREENWRITING AS CREATIVE LABOURAngela McRobbie (1998 2002a 2002b 2004) has been concerned with the development of the lsquonew cultural economyrsquo in the UK the develop-ment of the discourses of creative workers as lsquopioneersrsquo in their multiva-lent working lives and in their lived experiences of work in lsquospeeded-up creative worldsrsquo (2002a) She identifies a number of features of lsquocreative workrsquo which now make up the standard creative labour vocabulary and these can be analysed in relation to screenwriting labour ndash the freelance nature of much of the work in screen production the insecurity of such work the lsquoportfolio careersrsquo which creatives must assemble in order to make a living and the constant networking and entrepreneurial skills required to make contacts in cultural industries in order to build and maintain a reputation and secure future work

For example McRobbie writes lsquocreativersquo working practices are characteristic of lsquoportfolio careersrsquo (2002a 111) which are collated by individuals in order to offset the insecurity and capriciousness which is now built in to lsquoflexiblersquo production systems such as film- or television-making This then requires creative individuals to be intensely lsquoself-promotionalrsquo echoing the constant need to lsquowork on oneselfrsquo within a new enterprise culture that writers such as Du Gay (1996) and Rose (1999) articulate For screenwriters this has become an inherent feature of getting by and particularly moving up in their field ndash the skills required to network take meetings and pitch ideas have become central to everyday screenwriting careers McRobbie writes that the pleasure workers express in their work through these studies is a lsquocritical and intransigentrsquo factor ndash despite chronic condi-tions of low remuneration extremely long working hours and lsquovolatile and unpredictablersquo work patterns (2002a 109)7

Another key feature of creative work for McRobbie is the uneven spread of rewards across labouring sectors a theme echoed by Gill Ursell who observes

Acclaim reward recognition characterise the top end of the television labour market and arguably it is the attractiveness of such attributes which helps keep the bottom end entranced and enlisted Truly this is a technology of the self which turns on self-enterprise

(Ursell 2000 818)

This trend is certainly visible within Hollywoodrsquos screenwriting labour force Levels of remuneration vary considerably between the minimum



33

8 The lsquoSchedule of Minimumsrsquo is broken up into yearly periods from 2008ndash2011 and these figures are for the first period effective 21308 to 5109 See Writers Guild of America (2008)

9 A number of factors are influential here including the commercial sensitivity of these top-end figures for production companies and studios as well as for the established writers But also and even more slippery the notorious Hollywood rumour mill which thrives on such speculative figures serves to inflate hype and prestige around particular projects during the development process Arguably this further veils the material conditions of the pay negotiations that are routinely conducted within the industry distorting the perception both within and outside screenwriting labour networks about what screenplays and screenwriting work is lsquoreally worthrsquo and perpetuating such catch-all industrial axioms as lsquonobody knows anythingrsquo (see Goldman 1996)

10 Because the focus of this theorization is industrial screenwriting labour it is important to examine the Hollywood labour market as the industrial centre for film production and screenwriting work particularly Certainly British writers work outside this centre but with British film production inextricably tied into Hollywood-centric networks of film-making writers constantly engage with and function within

wages set by the US Writers Guilds for writing a treatment or first draft in comparison with the very high retainers which are paid to the few lsquosought-after rsquo screenwriters at any particular point in time Within the 2008 Writers Guild of America lsquoSchedule of Minimumsrsquo the delivery of an original screenplay including treatment8 ranges from US$58477 to US$109 783 Figures for the top end of the pay spectrum are more difficult to accurately document9 but widely cited examples in the last ten years include the fees paid to writer-directors such as M Night Shyamalan paid US$5 million for Unbreakable in 2000 (Anon 2009) and David Koepp paid US$35 million for Zathura A Space Adventure (2005) (Laporte 2004) Published interviews with screenwriters are also littered with references to the glamour excitement creative fulfilment and prestige possible within the industry as compelling reasons to pur-sue such work Again creative screenwriting labour like other crea-tive occupations offers simultaneous limitations and rewards potential autonomy and creative freedom as well as exploitation and insecurity and these are not binary oppositions but are enmeshed within the eve-ryday working experiences of screenwriters

Broadly screenwriting labour must be separated out from the theorizations of other creative labour forms firstly because of the inherently industrial nature of the work ndash screenwriting is a histori-cal and contemporary industrial creative labour form which exemplifies idiosyncratic characteristics enables distinctive working experiences and facilitates particular mechanisms of organization and control For screenwriters the inherent industrialization of their largely independ-ent creative pre-production or inception-oriented work means that they have always experienced their labour as highly intensive and personal individualized and collaborative competitive and hierar-chized marginalized and elite ndash which then offers a rich mixture of both pleasures and pains (Caldwell uses the term lsquotrade painrsquo 2008 221) which can only be understood by examining both the historical and contemporary industrial conditions within which screenwriting functions

INDUSTRIAL FILM PRODUCTION AND SCREENWRITING LABOUR MARKETS In particular the development and contemporary workings of the Hollywood labour market in which screenwriters now function10 provides key insights into the unique set of trends and conditions that mark out the distinctive case of film writers as creative workers A brief examination of some of these trends and conditions in the industryrsquos lsquopost-Fordistrsquo phase emphasizes not only this uniqueness (unionized creative workers are rare for example) but the clear paral-lels with other forms of creative work that encourage partialization for most workers ndash hierarchization a dual labour market entrenched insecurity individualization and compulsory entrepreneurialism Dichotomies that have now developed in the film production industries


Bridget Conor

34

these networks Many British writers belong to the US Writers Guilds (more so than the UK Writers Guild) and have US-based agents See UK Film Council (2007) for one of the few studies of writers for British films which highlights these dynamics

and the screenwriting labour market specifically signal these issues ndash above vs below-the-line and entrepreneur property-holders vs wage workers for example

Scott (2005) provides an analysis of the increased hierarchiza-tion of the Hollywood labour market in the period since the 1950s emphasizing the externalization of the employment relation and the shift to predominantly temporary and freelance work for film work-ers Scott (2005) and Miller Govil McMurria Maxwell and Wang (2005) write that a key element of this profound change was codified within the new classification system which distinguished workers according to labour-market power and was then enshrined within the production budgets of the films themselves So lsquoabove-the-linersquo workers (such as stars directors and writers) considered to be the key creative inputs for a film have individually negotiated salaries are guild represented and lsquoare named explicitly as line item entries in any project budgetrsquo (Scott 2005 121) Miller et al (2005 119) note that these workers are subjectively viewed as lsquocreativersquo and lsquoproactiversquo In comparison lsquobelow-the-linersquo workers are the mass of lsquoreactiversquo or proletarian workers whose wages are determined by collective agreements or wage schedules

Christopherson (1996) analyses the consequent shifts in the rela-tionships between workers and firms in Hollywood after the 1950s and argues that as the major studios divested themselves of once per-manent workforces and began subcontracting production there were concomitant changes in labour organizations ndash mechanisms such as health and pension benefit schemes and certification of skill and experience came under threat and the unions were forced to adapt Particular strategies in response to flexible specialization were a roster system to certify skills based on seniority and experience health and pension systems independent of any one employer and a system of residuals payments for creative workers (Christopherson 1996 103) Overall these changes made it possible to lsquomaintain and reproduce a skilled and specialised labour force without long-term employment contractsrsquo (Christopherson 1996 104)

Christopherson also provides insight into new hierarchies that emerged within the labour force at this time She states

The talent work force became more heterogeneous with respect to gender and (to a much lesser extent) race and access to work and property rights For example a split emerged between lsquowrit-er-producersrsquo ndash with entrepreneurial skills and property rights in the film or tape product ndash and a vastly increased pool of writers with dramatically varying access to work This heterogeneity is contained within the talent guilds leading to serious differences between segments of the workforce whose primary interest is access to work and those whose interests focus on property rights in the form of residuals payments

(Christopherson 1996 104)



35

11 This is reflected by the large number of possible modes of screenwriting work now mobilized which link to variable pay rates eg treatments first and subsequent drafts rewrites polishes and so on

12 In 2007ndash2008 the most recent strike action of the Writers Guilds in the United States highlighted residuals payments as a key area in which screenwriters continue to fight to maintain security and some control over their work In eighteen of twenty-one strikes by above-the-line guilds since 1952 the issue of residuals was the major or at least a prominent issue (Paul and Kleingartner 1996 172)

These new hierarchies are fundamentally important to the exceptional analysis of screenwriting labour ndash while on the one hand their sta-tus as lsquoabove-the-linersquo creative and lsquoproactiversquo workers bestows some prestige on the profession overall (and enables certain levels of job security and industrial power in the form of the Writers Guilds) signif-icant hierarchization is now a feature of the profession and this opens up new fault-lines and serves to stratify workers within the field

Christopherson also identifies the new entrepreneurial culture that developed and contributed to new divisions of labour as well as new opportunities for acquisition of skills and working alliances across the production sector As she puts it

The historical social division of labour between craft and tal-ent manager and worker was undermined and new divisions such as those between entrepreneur-property holders and wage workers were constructed This transformation created new ten-sions between individual skills and collective identities


Scott argues that Hollywoodrsquos occupational structure can now be viewed as two overlapping pyramids lsquoone representing the manual crafts and technical workers in the industry the other ndash which has many more tiers in the upper ranges ndash representing the creative or talent workersrsquo (2005 127) Scott also writes that the labour market is characterized by an intricate system of occupational categories (now codified within collective bargaining agreements) that illustrates the myriad divisions of labour both above- and below-the-line and which then often links directly to rates of pay credits awarded to various roles undertaken on particular films and prestige and status within the industry11 The creative pyramid of the labour system is characterized by chronic bloating at the base of the employment pyramid because as Scott illustrates there is a constant over-supply of lsquoaspirantsrsquo who are then slowly filtered through the system along various paths into routine relatively secure lsquoday jobsrsquo such as television writing out of the industry altogether or up into the higher echelons where reputa-tion credits asking prices and interpersonal networks all play signifi-cant roles in maintaining onersquos status (Scott 2005 128) Networking is also complemented for Scott by other lsquoinstruments of social coor-dinationrsquo (2005 130) such as the prevalence of intermediaries (talent agents managers etc) This also means that particular mechanisms of control become the pivots of prestige and security within the screen-writing labour market such as the complex processes of residuals pay-ments and credit allocation12

I argue that at one level there are two broad modes of industrial-ized screenwriting labour which can be identified and which broadly determine the amount of autonomy and authority individual writers have to control their own creative work and the uses to which that work is put This fits within the lsquodual labour marketrsquo picture outlined


Bridget Conor

36

by creative labour theorists and can be articulated using Ryanrsquos theori-zation in which he distinguishes two kinds of labour positions within industrial creative production systems lsquocontracted artistsrsquo and lsquoprofes-sional creativesrsquo (Ryan 1991 136) The former category is lsquopersonal-ised labourrsquo and represents for Ryan not labour-power but the roles of lsquopetty capitalistsrsquo who supply intermediate artistic goods to corpo-rations such as production companies For screenwriting this maps on to the labour market in which a small number of writer-producers or well-known consecrated writers function survive and flourish at the top end (Christophersonrsquos lsquoentrepreneur property-holdersrsquo) They are generally able to secure ongoing and rewarding work are well-remunerated critically recognized and are more able to resist attempts to extensively rewrite or change their work On the other hand lsquopro-fessional creativesrsquo are lsquosupporting artists in the project team [who] are employed on wages or salaries in permanent or casual positionsrsquo (Ryan 1991 138) This is rationalized work supporting work lsquovari-able capital to be put to work across continuous cycles of productionrsquo (Ryan 1991 139) Professional creative screenwriting labour represents the vast majority of screenwriting work undertaken in contemporary film production industries at the bloated bottom of the occupational pyramid Within this category the multiple modes of piecemeal screenwriting work come to the surface ndash treatment writing drafting rewriting polishing and so on Screenwriters working at this blunt end of the industry are concerned with security they are constantly scrambling to secure future work may lack autonomy and control and routinely face brutalizing and intense industrial conditions the lsquoserial corporate churnrsquo characterized by Caldwell (2008 113)

THE PARTICULARITIES OF SCREENWRITING AS CREATIVE LABOURTo more forcefully carve out a theoretical agenda for a consideration of screenwriting as a creative labour however I argue that screenwrit-ing labour must to some extent be separated out from the accounts of postmodernized productionFordism-post-Fordismcreative indus-tries altogether The standard vocabulary that supports and makes up these accounts must be broken down and new terms dialectics and subjects be produced

Screenwriting labour can be viewed within a creative work para-digm but can certainly not be considered to be a wholly new form of creative work unlike other occupations such as those in new media for example (see Gill 2002 2007 and de Peuter and Dyer-Witheford 2005 for example) The history of Hollywood-centric screenwriting illustrates the historical development of industrialized writing and suggests that many of the rigidities which characterize the labour process and limit the autonomy of individual writers in a contempo-rary setting can be traced through the history of screenwriting (par-ticularly as it was standardized within the Hollywood studio system



37

13 For example Thomas Ince is cited as ushering in a process of script development and film production which separated conception from execution In evidence here is the first sign of the degradation of the screenwriterrsquos creative process under the strictures of an industrial production system As Staiger writes the application of scientific management to screen production leads to a separation which lsquohellipdestroys an ideal of the whole person both the creator and the producer of onersquos ideasrsquo (1982 96 my emphasis) Arguably this separation is applied vigorously to screenwriting in later years and is thus acutely felt by screenwriters themselves

14 The strategies of a studio boss such as Irving Thalberg can be highlighted here ndash he developed the routine practice of hiring multiple writers andor teams of writers for a single project without the othersrsquo knowing see Stempel (1988 71) for an account of this and Norman (2007 135) who refers to this by the insider term lsquofollowingrsquo

15 This is the premise and focus of Beckerrsquos sociological account of collaborative networks and collective production within lsquoart worldsrsquo lsquoArt worlds consist of all the people whose activities are necessary to the production of the characteristic works which that world and perhaps others as well define as artrsquo (2008 34)

16 This practice of lsquodistanced collaborationrsquo is

and into other industrial film production contexts such as in the UK see Stempel 1988 and Norman 2007 for historical accounts in the US) For example the divisions of labour formalized in the Studio era of Hollywood production which separated out conception from execution and offered a standardized screenplay model13 can be highlighted as well as the coordinated mechanisms of control that solidified routine practices such as multiple authorship in the film production system eroding claims to individual creative authorship by screenwriters14 Changes in the organization of the film produc-tion industry have certainly followed broader changes in production organization but again screenwriters cannot be analysed as exempli-fying new flexible post-Fordist labour practices

Firstly this is because screenwriters have always and continue to be inherently individualized and atomized in the experiences of their working lives ndash by nature of their work and its placement in the incep-tion stages of a film production often before a lsquoproject-teamrsquo has even been assembled Simultaneously writers are called into being within daily industrial working contexts as collaborative and therefore inher-ently partial ndash their work only becomes productive useful and thus meaningful when it is subject to development notes and input from other film-makers It is then produced in filmic form leading to a con-stant and chaotic tension between individualized and collaborative modes of work15 So whilst some screenwriters may work in teams most experience the writing itself as solitary even if working within larger television writing teams or other agglomerations Also more commonly they experience competition on numerous professional levels as well as both productive and punishing forms of collaboration during the writing process Examples of this potent mix of solitude competition and collaboration can be seen in the narratives recounted by screenwriters such as Mark Andrus (who co-wrote As Good As It Gets 1997 with James L Brooks without the two writers ever meet-ing see Katz 2000)16 Ron Bassrsquos self-described lsquoordealrsquo writing Rain Man (1988) is another telling example (Engel 2002 55) his experience involved initial collaborative work with Stephen Spielberg a firing with the arrival of a new director (Sydney Pollack) and the eventual re-hiring of Bass Macdonald (2004 204ndash5 citing Petrie 1996) also pro-vides a fascinating inventory of the collaboration between the Scottish actor and writer-director Peter Capaldi and Miramax in 1995ndash1996 which includes numerous approvals and disapprovals suggested rewrites delays and a threat to bring on a new writer17

Additionally the creative drive of screenwriting labour is and has historically been highly marginalized but this must be simultane-ously viewed alongside the organized (and thus securitized) and elite positionings of screenwriters The liminal status of the screenwriter as an authorartist and the questionable status of the screenplay as lit-erature or art (visible in the rhetoric of auteur theory for example18) are important elements of broader arguments for crude marginaliza-tion and brutalization of screenwriting but these discussions cannot


Bridget Conor

38

common ndash Tom Stoppard and Marc Normanrsquos work for Shakespeare in Love (1998) is another example recounted in Katz (2000)

17 For Macdonald this example lsquohellipunderlines Capaldirsquos status as a supplicantrsquo (2004 205)

18 This is a complex issue which I am not able to elaborate on here ndash it raises much broader philosophical issues about notions of authorship in film-making See Stam (2000) and Corliss (1974) for relevant discussion

19 See Stempel (1988) and Norman (2007)

for more in-depth accounts of the

progressive standardization and marginalization of screenwriting work in Hollywoodrsquos Studio era Collected interviews with screenwriters for example Katz (2000) and Engel (2002) offer a good starting point for first-person accounts of contemporary screenwriting collaborations of both the productiverewarding and destructivedisheartening kind Note that these are not necessarily mutually exclusive categories but that screenwriters can and do frequently experience these highs and lows within a single project development experience Again the previously cited anecdotes from writers Ron Bass (Engel 2002) and Peter Capaldi (Macdonald 2004 204ndash5) are indicative examples

20 I offer here a number of lsquodirectionsrsquo that I believe through

be viewed in isolation The long-term organization and unionization of the Hollywood-centric screen production industries also offers an important diversion from creative work as it is conceptualized by McRobbie and others and arguably mitigates against the worst vagaries and brutalities of the industry It is also impossible to dis-miss the elite status of screenwriters here ndash they are lsquoabove-the-linersquo workers largely educated often able to produce work in a number of literary fields and potentially able to command significant amounts of remuneration and lsquoconsecrationrsquo An analysis of the processes and experiences of screenwriting labour indicate that a renewed and reinvigorated vocabulary for the theorization of screenwriting crea-tive labour is productive and essential here ndash one that foregrounds a number of terms old and new individualized and collaborative atom-ized and partial standardized elite entrepreneurial and disinvested These terms should not be viewed as binaries or polarities but they complement complexify and play off each other and serve to rein-vigorate creative labour theory itself19

ANALYSING TECHNOLOGIES OF THE SELF WITHIN SCREENWRITING LABOURThe material and frequently brutal conditions of the screenwriting labour market have profound effects on how screenwriters them-selves function ndash their career trajectories their creative and craft practices their daily working lives and their self-perceptions are shaped by these specific dynamics of cultural production The key question examined here is what particular mechanisms of screen-writing labour and lsquotechnologies of the selfrsquo are mobilized within screenwriting labour practices in order for writers to at least survive and perhaps prosper within this labour market and how do these both marginalize and empower screenwriters Nikolas Rose empha-sizes this lsquodouble bindrsquo writing that modern power is exercised by both producing individual selves and constraining individuality (see Rimke 2000 72) By way of conclusion I offer a few preliminary thoughts on the areas in which disciplinary techniques and lsquotech-nologies of the selfrsquo mobilized within screenwriting labour are visible and using a reinvigorated theoretical framework can be empirically investigated and analysed20

In particular certain features of the production of screenplays strike me as pivotal mechanisms in the dialectical process of the production and constraint of screenwriting labour in both historical and contem-porary terms Firstly the fairly rigid structure of mainstream screen-plays arguably acts as a set of coercive tools and sets standards and expectations within the industry These rigidities are then perpetuated within lsquohow-torsquo screenwriting manuals screenwriting courses and film and television commissioning and funding bodies21 Secondly the encouragement (usually by producers studio bosses agents and so on) of disinvestment in the screenwritersrsquo own work through concrete



39

qualitative empirical research will mirror Hesmondhalghrsquos ideal approach for creative labour research lsquohelliptheoretical sophistication[and] empirical sociological analysis of the specific discourses of creativity and self-realisation in particular industriesrsquo (2007 67)

21 Ryanrsquos analysis terms this lsquoformattingrsquo lsquoloosely-connected parameters pointing to preferred outcomesrsquo (1991 180) but which nonetheless exert a lsquocoercive powerrsquo over creative labouring such as screenwriting

22 I use this term to connote particular routine practices and discourses perpetuated within the film production industry over time and now invoked in lsquohow-torsquo screenwriting manuals and within production meetings that routinely place screenwriters in the position of (as Macdonald 2004 terms it) supplicants These practices demand andor assume that screenwriters be ready and open to collaboration open to lsquosuggestionsrsquo and changes from other creatives (particularly directors producers and stars) to be ready and willing to make these changes and rewrite scenes or whole scripts or be summarily fired or otherwise forced off a project and to be accustomed to lsquomultiple authorshiprsquo practices ndash working either simultaneously or serially with many writers on one project and then often fed into complex credit arbitration processes that encourage intense competition between

practices such as lsquoinequitable collaborationrsquo22 which dilutes the author-ity of the screenwriter as a primary creative input and therefore affects the ability of the screenwriter to maintain control of their own work Also the entrepreneurial mechanisms that require constant network-ing pitching negotiation and meeting-taking are all practices that can discourage screenwriters in their pursuit of secure and rewarding work or force them to lsquoplay the gamersquo (often to their detriment) within a corporate cultural production system All these factors are experienced by screenwriters at the deepest levels of the self ndash lsquohow-torsquo screenwrit-ing manuals that encourage writers to put their hearts and souls into their writing then on the following pages remind writers to subject and adapt those screenwriting selves to the everyday vicissitudes and brutalities of the industry

However all this does not preclude the very real benefits that screenwriting labour provides and the creative and artistic as well as economic rewards which the work offers As Caldwell writes in relation to the resilience of the film and television production indus-tries and workers lsquoreflexivity operates as a creative process involving human agency and critical competence at the local cultural level as much as a discursive process establishing power at the broader social levelrsquo (2008 33) Screenwriters are able to exercise creative autonomy and freedom not possible for many other film production workers they can and do experience fruitful collaborations with fellow creatives and may be rewarded with both high remuneration and also critical rewards and recognition It is this rich mix of individualization and col-laboration constraint and reward exploitation and autonomy within this work that an examination of screenwriting as creative labour can illuminate

REFERENCESAglietta M (1979) A Theory of Capitalist Regulation The US Experience London

NLBAnon (2009) lsquoM Night Shyamalan Variety Profilersquo Variety httpwww

varietycomprofilespeoplemain35525M+Night+ShyamalanhtmldataSet=1ampquery=m+night+shyamalan Accessed 21 March 2009

As Good As It Gets (1997) Wr M Andrus and J L Brooks Dir J L Brooks US 139 mins

Banks M (2007) The Politics of Cultural Work Basingstoke PalgraveBauman Z (2001) The Individualised Society Cambridge PolityBeck U (1992) Risk Society Towards a New Modernity London SageBecker H (2008) Art Worlds Twenty Fifth Anniversary Edition Berkley

University of California PressBell D (1973) The Coming of the Post-industrial Society New York Basic BooksBlair H (2001) lsquoldquoYoursquore Only as Good as Your Last Jobrdquo The Labour Process

and Labour Market in the British Film Industryrsquo Work Employment and Society 151 pp 149ndash169

Blair H (2003) lsquoWinning and Losing in Flexible Labour Markets the Formation and Operation of Networks of Interdependence in the UK film industryrsquo Sociology 374 pp 677ndash694


Bridget Conor

40

writers Screenwriting is an inherently collaborative form of creative work and these practices do differ within modes of writing and types of screen production work However the term lsquocollaborationrsquo is I believe often used to mask marginalizing practices that consistently work against writers and in favour of more lsquopowerfulrsquo or visible creative inputs

Braverman H (1974) Labour and Monopoly Capital New York Monthly Review Press

Brophy E (2008) lsquoThe Organisations of Immaterial Labour Knowledge Worker Resistance in post-Fordismrsquo PhD thesis Kingston Ontario Queens University

Caldwell J T (2008) Production Culture Industrial Reflexivity and Critical Practice in Film and Television Durham Duke University Press

Castells M (1996) The Rise of the Network Society Malden MA BlackwellCastells M (1997) The Power of Identity Malden MA BlackwellCastells M (1998) End of Millennium Malden MA BlackwellChristopherson S and Storper M (1986) lsquoThe City as Studio The World

as Back Lot The Impact of Vertical Integration on the Location of the Motion Picture Industryrsquo Environment and Planning D Society and Space 43 pp 305ndash320

Christopherson S and Storper M (1989) lsquoThe Effects of Flexible Specialisation on Industrial Politics and the Labour Market The Motion Picture Industryrsquo Industrial and Labour Relations Review 423 pp 331ndash347

Christopherson S (1996) lsquoFlexibility and Adaptation in Industrial Relations The Exceptional case of the US Media Entertainment Industriesrsquo in L Gray and R Seeber (eds) Under the Stars Essays on Labour Relations in Arts and Entertainment Ithaca and London ILR Press pp 86ndash112

Corliss R (1974) lsquoThe Hollywood Screenwriterrsquo in G Mast and M Cohen (eds) Film Theory and Criticism Introductory Readings Fourth Edition Oxford Oxford University Press pp 541ndash550

De Peuter G and Dyer-Witheford N (2005) lsquoA Playful Multitude Mobilising and Counter-mobilising Immaterial Game Labourrsquo Fibreculture issue 5 httpjournalfibrecultureorgissue5html Accessed 4 October 2007

Du Gay P (1996) Consumption and Identity at Work Cambridge PolityDu Gay P and Pryke M (eds) (2001) Cultural Economy Cultural Analysis

and Commercial Life London SageEngel J (2002) Oscar-winning Screenwriters on Screenwriting The Award-

Winning Best in the Business Discuss their Craft New York HyperionField S (1994) Screenplay The Foundations of Screenwriting Third Edition

New York DellFlorida R (2004) The Rise of the Creative Class and How its Transforming Work

Leisure Community and Everyday Life New York Basic BooksFoucault M (1988) lsquoTechnologies of the Selfrsquo in L Martin H Gutman and

P Hutton (eds) Technologies of the Self London Tavistock pp 16ndash49Gill R (2002) lsquoCool Creative and Egalitarian Exploring Gender in Project-

based New Media Work in Europersquo Information Communication and Society 51 pp 70ndash89

Gill R (2007) Technobohemians or the New Cybertariat Amsterdam Notebooks Institute for Network Cultures

Gill R and Pratt A (2008) lsquoIn the Social Factory Immaterial Labour Precariousness and Cultural Workrsquo Theory Culture and Society 25 7ndash8 pp 1ndash30

Goldman W (1996) Adventures in the Screentrade A Personal View of Hollywood and Screenwriting London Abacus

Hardt M and Negri A (2000) Empire Cambridge Mass Harvard University Press

Hardt M and Negri A (2004) Multitude War and Democracy in the Age of Empire London Penguin



41

Hesmondhalgh D (2007) lsquoCreative Labour as a Basis of a Critique of Creative Industries Policyrsquo in G Lovink and N Rossiter (eds) My Creativity Reader A Critique of Culture Industries Amsterdam Institute of Network Cultures pp 59ndash69

Katz S B (2000) Conversations with Screenwriters Portsmouth NH Heinemann

Kohn N (2000) lsquoThe Screenplay as Postmodern Literary Exemplar Authorial Distraction Disappearance Dissolutionrsquo Qualitative Inquiry 64 pp 489ndash510

Landry C (2000) The Creative City London Earthscan ComediaLaporte N (2004) lsquoInside Move Best Koepp ldquoSecretrdquorsquo Variety 14 March http

wwwvarietycomarticleVR1117901643htmlcategoryId=1228ampcs= 1ampquery=david+koepp+2B+panic+room Accessed 21 March 2009

Lash S and Urry J (1987) The End of Organised Capitalism Cambridge Polity

Lazzarato M (1996) lsquoImmaterial Labourrsquo in M Hardt and P Virno (eds) Radical Thought in Italy A Potential Politics Minneapolis University of Minnesota Press pp 133ndash147

Leadbeater C (1999) Living on Thin Air The New Economy London VikingMacdonald I (2004) lsquoThe Presentation of the Screen Idea in Narrative Film-

Makingrsquo PhD Thesis Leeds Metropolitan UniversityMcRobbie A (1998) British Fashion Design Rag Trade or Image Industry

London RoutledgeMcRobbie A (2002a) lsquoFrom Holloway to Hollywood Happiness at work in

the new Cultural Economyrsquo in P Du Gay and M Pryke (eds) (2001) Cultural Economy Cultural Analysis and Commercial Life London Sage pp 97ndash114

McRobbie A (2002b) lsquoClubs to Companiesrsquo in J Hartley (ed) Creative Industries Oxford Blackwell pp 375ndash390

McRobbie A (2004) lsquoMaking a Living in Londonrsquos Small Scale Creative Sectorrsquo in D Power and A Scott (eds) Culture Industries and The Production of Culture New York and London Routledge pp 130ndash144

McRobbie A (2005) The Uses of Cultural Studies London SageMiller T Govil N McMurria J Maxwell R and Wang T (2005) Global

Hollywood 2 London BFI PublishingNorman M (2007) What Happens Next A History of American Screenwriting

New York Harmony BooksPaul A and Kleingartner A (1996) lsquoThe Transformation of Industrial

Relations in the Motion Picture and Television Industries Talent Sectorrsquo in L Gray and R Seeber (eds) Under the Stars Essays on Labour Relations in Arts and Entertainment Ithaca and London ILR Press pp 156ndash180

Piore M and Sabel C (1984) The Second Industrial Divide New York Basic Books

Pollert A (1988) lsquoDismantling Flexibilityrsquo Capital and Class No34 pp 42ndash75

Rain Man (1988) Wr R Bass and B Morrow Dir B Levinson US 133 minsRimke H (2000) lsquoGoverning Citizens Through Self-Help Literaturersquo Cultural

Studies 141 pp 61ndash78Rose N (1990) Governing the Soul The Shaping of the Private Self London

RoutledgeRose N (1999) Powers of Freedom Reframing Political Thought Cambridge

University Press Cambridge


Bridget Conor

42

Ross A (2003) No Collar the Humane Workplace and its Hidden Costs New York Basic Books

Ryan B (1991) Making Capital from Culture The Corporate Form of Capitalist Cultural Production Berlin Walter de Gruyter

Scott A J (2005) On Hollywood The Place the Industry Princeton Princeton University Press

Sennett R (1998) The Corrosion of Character The Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism New York and London WW Norton

Shakespeare in Love (1998) Wr M Norman and T Stoppard Dir J Madden USUK 123 mins

Staiger J (1982) lsquoDividing Labour for Production Control Thomas Ince and the rise of the Studio Systemrsquo in G Kindem (ed) The American Movie Industry The Business of Motion Pictures Carbondale and Edwardsville Southern Illinois University Press pp 94ndash103

Stam R (2000) lsquoIntroductionrsquo in R Stam and T Miller (eds) Film and Theory An Anthology Malden MA Blackwell pp 1ndash6

Stempel T (1988) Framework A History of Screenwriting in the American Film New York Continuum

Storper M (1989) lsquoThe Transition to Flexible Specialisation in the US Film Industry External Economies the Division of Labour and the Crossing of Industrial Dividesrsquo Cambridge Journal of Economics 132 pp 273ndash305

Storper M (1993) lsquoFlexible Specialisation in Hollywood A Response to Aksoy and Robinsrsquo Cambridge Journal of Economics 174 pp 479ndash484

UK Film Council (2006) lsquoScoping Study into the Lack of Women Screenwriters in the UKrsquo commissioned from Institute for Employment Studies httpwwwukfilmcouncilorgukmediapdf4r0415womenscreen_-_FINAL_090606pdf Accessed 12 August 2008

UK Film Council (2007) Writing British Films Who Writes British Films and How They Are Recruited prepared by S Rogers httpwwwukfilmcouncilorgukmediapdf5rRHUL_June_27_2007_-_Final_for_Cheltenhampdf Accessed 12 August 2008

Unbreakable (2000) WrDir M N Shyamalan US 106 minsUrsell G (2000) lsquoTelevision Production Issues of Exploitation Commodification

and Subjectivity in UK Television Labour Marketsrsquo Media Culture and Society 226 pp 805ndash825

Virno P (2003) A Grammar of the Multitude London Semiotext(e)Webster F (2002) Theories of the Information Society New York RoutledgeWriters Guild of America (2008) Schedule of Minimums Theatrical and Basic

Agreement February 13 httpwwwwgaorguploadedFileswriters_resources contractsmin2008pdf Accessed 21 March 2009

Zathura A Space Adventure (2005) Wr D Koepp and D Kamps Dir J Favreau US 113 mins

SUGGESTED CITATIONConor B (2010) lsquolsquoEverybodyrsquos a Writerrsquo Theorizing screenwriting as creative

labourrsquo Journal of Screenwriting 1 1 pp 27ndash43 doi 101386josc11271

CONTRIBUTOR DETAILSBridget Conor is a PhD candidate in the media and communication stud-ies department of Goldsmiths College University of London Her disserta-tion is a critical analysis of screenwriting as creative labour in the British



43

and North American film industries She is also a lecturer in media and film theory in the UK Previously Bridget taught and studied in Auckland New Zealand her research focusing on the globalisation of the New Zealand film industry

Contact Goldsmiths College 8 Lewisham Way New Cross London SE14 6NWE-mail cop01bcgoldacuk


JOSC 11_5_art_Conor_027-044indd 44JOSC 11_5_art_Conor_027-044indd 44 82609 105249 AM82609 105249 AM

Bridget Conor

28

INTRODUCTIONSyd Fieldrsquos (1994 254) warning that lsquoEverybodyrsquos a Writerrsquo works as a rhetorical device in his lsquohow-torsquo manual to describe the widely held belief in Hollywood and beyond that many people aspire (but often fail) to make a living as a screenwriter Concurrently Fieldrsquos phrase warns that working screenwriters will constantly be offered advice comment criticism and suggestions for improvement from those they consult with those who likely harbour dreams of success and acclaim in the seductive world of film production like everyone else This paper presents a labourist analysis of screenwriting and one which works to critically evaluate the marginal status of screen-writing as a creative input within film production systems On the one hand screenwriting offers an exemplary case study of creative work in post-modernized film production industries work charac-terized by freelancing and multivalent working patterns insecurity and hierarchy Investigating screenwriting as creative labour also offers unique insights into a vocation that is often shaped by col-lective organizing that bestows benefits and privileges not provided for lsquobelow-the-linersquo film workers For Kohn (2000 303) screenwrit-ers now typically inhabit the familiar roles of new creative workers lsquocosmopolitan networked and networking brazen supremely self-confidentrsquo but argues that this masks a lsquohollownessrsquo and lsquoinsecurityrsquo which is perpetuated by the continued peripheral status of screen-writing as a creative form

I will argue in this article that the historical and continued margin-alization of screenwriting labour can best be understood and analysed by a) examining and critiquing standard theoretical paradigms for lsquocreative labourrsquo practices b) analysing how these standard paradigms can be applied to screenwriting labour and c) examining the unique practices of screenwriting labour and the exceptional labour market in which screenwriters work This actively challenges key aspects of established creative labour theory

THEORIZING CREATIVE LABOUR AND SCREENWRITING LABOURFirstly I will outline the theoretical framework in which I contend that lsquocreative labourrsquo can best be critically examined Developments and changes in the organization of production and the rise of supposedly new forms of work and working experiences in late capitalism have been analysed using a number of (sometimes conflicting) paradigms These range from what I would term lsquoliberal-democraticrsquo theories of the information society (following Banks 2007 and Brophy 2008) to post-Fordist readings of changes in production organization Autonomist-Marxist perspectives have also been deployed to emphasize the hegemonic influence of lsquoimmaterial labourrsquo in post-Fordist economies and more critical sociological accounts have outlined the features of creative labour in lsquofiercely neo-liberalrsquo societies (McRobbie 2002b 518)



29








Bridget Conor

30










31









Bridget Conor

32







(Ursell 2000 818)




33








Bridget Conor

34










35










Bridget Conor

36






37









Bridget Conor

38













39















Bridget Conor

40

























41

























Bridget Conor

42























43






29








Bridget Conor

30










31









Bridget Conor

32







(Ursell 2000 818)




33








Bridget Conor

34










35










Bridget Conor

36






37









Bridget Conor

38













39















Bridget Conor

40

























41

























Bridget Conor

42























43





Bridget Conor

30










31









Bridget Conor

32







(Ursell 2000 818)




33








Bridget Conor

34










35










Bridget Conor

36






37









Bridget Conor

38













39















Bridget Conor

40

























41

























Bridget Conor

42























43






31









Bridget Conor

32







(Ursell 2000 818)




33








Bridget Conor

34










35










Bridget Conor

36






37









Bridget Conor

38













39















Bridget Conor

40

























41

























Bridget Conor

42























43





Bridget Conor

32







(Ursell 2000 818)




33








Bridget Conor

34










35










Bridget Conor

36






37









Bridget Conor

38













39















Bridget Conor

40

























41

























Bridget Conor

42























43






33








Bridget Conor

34










35










Bridget Conor

36






37









Bridget Conor

38













39















Bridget Conor

40

























41

























Bridget Conor

42























43





Bridget Conor

34










35










Bridget Conor

36






37









Bridget Conor

38













39















Bridget Conor

40

























41

























Bridget Conor

42























43






35










Bridget Conor

36






37









Bridget Conor

38













39















Bridget Conor

40

























41

























Bridget Conor

42























43





Bridget Conor

36






37









Bridget Conor

38













39















Bridget Conor

40

























41

























Bridget Conor

42























43






37









Bridget Conor

38













39















Bridget Conor

40

























41

























Bridget Conor

42























43





Bridget Conor

38













39















Bridget Conor

40

























41

























Bridget Conor

42























43






39















Bridget Conor

40

























41

























Bridget Conor

42























43





Bridget Conor

40

























41

























Bridget Conor

42























43






41

























Bridget Conor

42























43





Bridget Conor

42























43






43





‘Everybody’s a Writer’ Theorizing Screenwriting as Creative Labour

Documents

Transcript of ‘Everybody’s a Writer’ Theorizing Screenwriting as Creative Labour