NiTRO Creative Matters

Perspectives on creative arts in higher education

Unlearning screen authorship

By Rowan Woods and Dr Duncan McLean — Film school programs are only useful to students and industry if attention is paid to the winds of change surrounding screen authorship.

With SVOD (Subscription Video On Demand) expansion and proliferating online platforms shifting workplace models and a post-#MeToo student body wary of over-indulging a singular auteur, the “future-focused” film school curriculum must reflect on the faltering relevance of the film director as auteur and the likelihood of the TV showrunner facing a similar fate.

The formula for critical and popular screen storytelling success is endlessly debatable. There is, however, a broad acceptance that while creativity by committee rarely results in work that excites audiences and resonates widely, a singularity of vision can create both a coherence of form and, antithetically, a compelling disruption that brings exciting screen stories to life. At an industrial level, recent decades have seen teams of creative producers, writers and directors jostling via agents and guilds for a pre-eminent authorship position within the development, financing and production of feature films and television series. They jostle because this perception of authorship has a real influence on artistic control, prestige and pay scale.

While the auteur theory began as a critical exercise to validate cinema as an artform, theorizing then assumed an industrial dimension. The auteur director became a box office draw, with marketing campaigns built around selling their presence, while the producer’s role as a creative shepherd, gauaging audience and finance throughout development and production, often failed to receive the authorial recognition it deserved. After years of hearing that “film was a director’s medium”, the TV series emerged as a fictional format led by creative producers. The emergence of the showrunner in the US in the late 20th century then ennobled the writer/creator with similar prestige and creative control as had been afforded the auteur film director.

The showrunner is a most unusual, multi-skilled, around-the-clock job description. Within the constraints of budget and schedule, this televisual polymath is responsible for the creative control of a television series: from leading the writing room, to writing the key episodes, overseeing all aspects of the pre-production, shooting and post-production, along with key communications between the network and the show. Crucially though, the showrunner role evolved within a specific, hierarchical US network system during an era of standardised 11- or 22-part television series, made for syndication with a regimented house style. It is a system that afforded the showrunner an established training pathway, not to mention phenomenal remuneration via a triple fee on every episode, as creator, writer and executive producer.

Very recent transplanting of the showrunner title into other national screen industries has happened within a wholly different historical and industrial context. SVOD no longer reflects the old US network/syndication model that birthed the showrunner. Instead, shorter series lengths, less rigid episode timings and a desire for more adventurous, less formulaic content has driven a commissioning process more akin to the golden era of independent cinema in the 1990s and 2000s, with the best, most celebrated SVOD series today reflecting both the writer’s and the director’s creative vision.

That a single creative person can take full control of storytelling decisions within a film or TV series assumes that work structures allow for unwavering support for that TV writer-creator or film director. In reality, TV and film projects are complex and unwieldy circuses with long timelines, requiring agile decision-making from a cohesive authorial team, a nexus of creative producer, writer and director. No project or authorial team is the same. There are no rules for a “lead voice”. One person or any flexible combination of authority is possible, guided by contractual obligations, ethical negotiation and common-sense collaboration.

For film schools, the aims and outcomes remain the same. Through theoretical, practical, and reflective learning, students build knowledge and skillsets fit for industry. But film schools are not simply training grounds for established pathways. They are institutions wherein future-facing students and industry expect questions and answers that illuminate notions of positionality, identity and the ethics surrounding the storytelling process. The immediate question to be answered is whether a partial or holistic unlearning of traditional authorship models will shift the paradigm within the screen industry or swirl within a conceptual cul de sac.


Rowan Woods is Head of Directing at the Australian Film, Television and Radio School and a board member of the Australian Directors Guild. He is an AACTA, AFI and BAFTA winning director of feature films and TV series within the Australian, UK and US screen industries. He completed graduate and post graduate courses at UNSW and AFTRS and is now completing a PhD at UTS, researching the evolution of screen language within new online platforms.

Duncan McLean is a Senior Lecturer in Screen Studies at the Australian Film, Television and Radio School. Duncan has a PhD from Macquarie University for a thesis exploring the impact of auteur theory on the emergence of the Film School Generation and has an ongoing interest in the role of film theory in practical film education. Duncan has also recently published on genre evolution and revisionism.

More from this issue

TransAuto

By EO Gill  — As COVID-19 corrodes our creative industries, I find myself scrambling to identify anything that might signal

Read More +
What’s the point?

By Dr Julia Prendergast — Jared Diamond asked the acclaimed evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr (1904-2005) why Aristotle didn’t come up with the

Read More +

More from this issue

By Alejandra Canales and Susan Danta — It is truly an honour and privilege to collaborate with NiTRO to co-edit an edition on the topic of Collaboration and Authorship. The ideas for this topic grow out of a lecture series within the capstone subject in the Master of Arts: Screen at Australian Film Television and Radio School (AFTRS).
By Professor Stacy Holman Jones  — Collaboration, authorship and preparing a new generation of storytellers who critically question and ethically engage with knowledge systems and representations is at the heart of a new minor in critical performance studies at Monash University.
By Associate Professor Cathy Henkel and Isabel Turner — Diverse and equitable representation, both on and off screen, is the subject of considerable debate in the screen industry sector. Screen Australia’s Seeing Ourselves report (2016) was a milestone study in representation on screen and prompted the formation of Screen Australia’s Equity and Inclusion Strategy and multiple state and industry initiatives to foster a culture of inclusive story-telling.
By Dr Romaine Moreton — Indigenous media production at the cultural interface is the ancient application of what is already known, an accumulation of knowledges gained through throughout millennia for the purpose of producing and reproducing Indigenous values of balance, harmony, and sustainability.
By Associate Professor Sue Joseph — My first experience of a university ethics committee was as a candidate in the latter days of my doctorate, investigating voicelessness and the media. I was a new academic, teaching into the journalism school.
By Associate Professor Beata Batorowicz and Dr Linda Clark — Women-artists often encounter a “double-bind” which involves an irreconcilable social demand of being “too much or not enough” within their personal lives and professional careers (Catalyst 2007; Williams 2018). The pressures of juggling family responsibilities and career are further exacerbated by making this undertaking appear effortless, with this overall set up leading to never being “good enough.”
By Dr Karen Pearlman — Film industries have poor records of treatment, opportunities, and recognition of women (see Loist & Verhoeven 2019). The Screen Australia media release on Gender Matters of 15/10/2020 states that “we aren’t seeing enough meaningful change in the sector”. It calls for “cultural change” to address the gender equity issues in the screen industries.
By Dr Kath Dooley, Associate Professor Marsha Berry, Margaret McHugh, Professor Craig Batty and Professor James Verdon — In recent years, cultural movements such as #metoo and #OscarsSoWhite have drawn attention to low levels of diversity on screen and behind the camera in the global screen industries.
By Pearl Tan — The push for diversity in many arenas is stronger than ever. In higher education, one way this can manifest, is in higher numbers of students from diverse backgrounds. With more diverse student cohorts, it’s certain that teachers will encounter students who are telling stories from cultures that we do not have lived experience of or are intimately familiar with.
By EO Gill  — As COVID-19 corrodes our creative industries, I find myself scrambling to identify anything that might signal a brighter future. At the same time, I am wary of pandemic-born states of panic, since rapid-response initiatives often work to further disenfranchise already vulnerable members of the arts community.
By Dr Julia Prendergast — Jared Diamond asked the acclaimed evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr (1904-2005) why Aristotle didn’t come up with the theory of evolution. Mayr’s answer was “Frage stellen” which Diamond translates as “a way of asking questions [sic]” (Byrne 2013).
By Anna Tow and Deborah Turnbull Tillman — In a world where there is daily anxiety around the economy, our health and public engagement, we offer a pedagogy that promotes resilience, self-reliance and employability. As Collaborator, Deborah Turnbull Tillman is curator concerned with disrupting conventional process and situating her students as expert in their own practice rather than as subjects within hierarchical models of curating.