1) The screenwriters aren't responsible. Too many other hands tinker with a screenplay and the final result is beyond the scribes' control.
Issue: Yet some are perfectly willing to give P&W full credit for a film of sixteen years ago--Let Him Have It--while not holding them accountable for their projects since then. Isn't it equally possible that LHHI was the result of many other hands?
LHHI wasn't a major production featuring huge stars, product placement and the significant financial future of a major corporation. The difference between the corporate demands of the two films should be blindingly obvious.
I don't give FULL credit to them for that film. It's also smartly cast and directed. which, in turn, is good producing. As is choosing to make a script as-witten. With a screenplay that no other writers re-wrote, produced in line with the original intentions, they are entitled to be be given credit for the structure and tone. Just as the director should. Everyone gets some credit, there.
Nor does anyone say 'You can't blame them for anything in TWINE and DAD'. We're just saying that, as Goldman would agree, trying to judge writers on blockbuster screenplays like this is like trying to assess a wine by licking a carpet it was spilled on. It's there, but there's too much fluff to make a reasonable negative assessment.
2) The screenwriters can't be incompetent--or, more kindly, not up to the task--because they've been rehired three times.
Issues: William Goldman (I believe) once wrote that screenwriters always keep working. Joe Eszterhas wasn't affected at all by the ka-ka that was Showgirls. No one likes to admit that they've made a mistake and there's a Blue Line among writers as strong as the one among cops. Paul Haggis will, and must, praise their invaluable contributions.
--A six-month rewrite isn't common script-doctoring--it is script brain surgery.
That Eszterhas 'fact' is nonsense. He's barely worked as a writer since Showgirls - dropping from the highest paid writer in town to someone struggling for work. He switched to a low-budget semi-autobiography in an attempt to regain some reputation of integrity, but check the IMDb - he was on the way out the minute it happened. No doubt Jade would have been dropped, too, if it hadn't already got so far into production.
What does this tell us? That the industry knows. Showgirls was made under little studio interference - the director and writer doing exactly what they intended. Sticking to the script. It's flaws belong to both men. And both men's careers suffered.
Let me hit that again: it was the script Eszterhas wrote, everyone knew it, and it hurt his career.
Of course that was far more financial than it was critical - had the film made cash, he'd have been fine, quality be damned. Which, I'm sure you'll happily argue, is how P&W survive.
Unwilling to admit a mistake? By, what, spending yet more money on a screenplay you anticipate being rubbish? Sicne when did the Bond team have any difficulty bringing in and sending out their writers? Didn't you hear how TND was written? A hotel full of writers pitching!
You've got no evidence that P&W do anything but live up to what the producers want and need. That they don't live up to what you want is a separate issue.
Me, I still insist that CR is excellent, and they must have written a minimum of 40% of that script to retain full screenplay (rather than 'story') credit. I also see a lot of good in what TWINE was attempting. And DAD is packed with good ideas.
Still, you need only compare their three films to see that they have zero control over the tone and balance final movie. And we know, clearly, the the director can totally restructure if he has the producers on-side.
As for "brain surgery", you need to know a little about how the process works. Daniel Craig's rquested rewrite has to happen, but won't come until after the director's, which will be followed by the producers'. And then umpteen rewites will follow as X location becomes unavailable, a new tax break allows a change in setting, a plane can't be used but a train is available, etc. etc. Oh, and did I mention yet the stack of input Sony, the licensees, and the sponsors will want?
SOMEONE has to perform those rewrites - and it's inefficient to have three writers doing them. Especially when one is coming in anyway to add his own layers of texture to the script.
3) The director's not responsible for anything but the directing. He doesn't write the screenplay and the second-unit's in charge of the action.
Issues: Forster's co-authoring the rewrite, so he'd better shoulder his share of the blame or, God willing, the praise. And we've seen what happens when inexperienced action directors turn the reins over to the second-unit. Since Forster's already taking so much control, he might as well go all the way--and really get into the acttion as Martin Campbell and Peter Hunt did. Full responsibility.
Please stop repeating this ridiculous rumour that Forster is co-writing. He isn't. It's just a mis-reading of the reported fact that Forster is working on the screenplay with Haggis. Which is also what the producers and various units will be doing. He's not re-writing - he's directing the re-writes. Which is a normal part of the process for any screenplay.
As for inexperience - everyone starts somewhere. But the second unit isn't in sole control of the action, never has been. Not unless the director's lost all control. Don't know why this myth exists, but it hardly needs refuting.
If 22 should disappoint, whom would you hold accountable?
In succession? The producers first, as these are producer-led films and they are the only ones with full control. They also assign/approve the cast and crew roles. They picked the director, the writers.
Next, the director. If the action fails, it's the director. That's about control of the shots collected. Apted couldn't do it himself, nor successfully guide his second unit, Campbell could.
Third come the writers. All the writers. If the dialogue itself is poor - as I happily admit some of P&W's to be - they take some blame for that.
Plot holes are harder, as they often come from having too many cooks - both writers and other voices. Everyone wants something added/changed, and sometimes you end up doing it not realising that it has a knock-on effect to other scenes. The director and writers are all meant to retain an overview on this - but that's tough for writers only booked for the pre-pre-production stage.
Overall structure and tone is a combination of all the above, plus any star power that comes through. Plus executive influence on a grand scale - which is why dark comic book movies are harder to get made than colourful ones you can slap on a Happy Meal.
After that, it depends on the flaws. Acting? Actors, and director. Photography? DP, director, and also editor. Editing? Editor, director, but also DP, actors and continuity crew.
My point being - directly blame is hard to attribute on a movie. On a big movie, it's harder. And when a critic doesn't comprehend fully the nature of production, it's harder still.
Or maybe it's easier...
