What does it mean when one or two people get the "Story by" credit? Were those the people that thought of the main plot points or just the concept of the film?
--Ravi Kiran, Dallas, TX

On American feature films, credits for "written by," "screenplay by," "story by" and so forth are determined by a panel from the Writers Guild of America, who has final authority over deciding which writer(s) actually wrote the picture. In other countries, it works a little differently, so don't expect these rules to hold universally.

In terms of movies, the WGA says that filmic writing is considered to have two parts. First is the underlying story, which includes the characters, the basic plot, and the "essence" of the narrative. The "story" part could come from a novel, a magazine article, a treatment, or in the case of a spec script, the screenwriter's imagination. The WGA might award credits like, "story by," "screen story by," or "based on the novel by." For instance, for Titan A.E. the "story by" credit was awarded to Hans Bauer and Randall McCormick, because Bauer had written a treatment and McCormick had written an early script that contained several of the main characters and themes.

The second part of the written work is the screenplay, which is defined as the individual scenes, in order, complete with dialogue. That leads to the "screenplay by" credit, or in rare cases, the "adaptation by" credit. ("Adaptation" is almost never used.) For Titan A.E., the "screenplay by" credit was awarded to Ben Edlund, myself and Joss Whedon, who had all done significant work on the script at different times.

If it's determined that BOTH "story by" and "screenplay by" credit should go to the same writer(s), the two credits merge into one "written by" credit. That's my credit on Go, for example.

Just to make things more confusing, there's a difference between two writers whose names are listed with "and" between them (who wrote separately), and writers with an ampersand ("&") between them, who wrote as a team. That's why for Charlie's Angels, the credit reads "written by Ryan Rowe & Ed Solomon and John August." They worked together; I worked alone.

If you want to know even more specifics, you can check the WGA website. Be warned that these are written in something approaching legalese.

Previously, you recommended film school as an invaluable asset to one's quest to become a director. I've studied film and television at the undergraduate level, and I'm currently applying to graduate programs across the country.

Throughout this process, I keep struggling with the same question: While attending film school is important, do certain film schools give a novice more leverage in the industry? In other words, does an aspiring director gain something more from attending, say, NYU rather than another -- albeit smaller and lesser known -- university?
--Kevin

I have not really ever noticed that any given film school will give a new director more leverage. Great filmmakers come from every place imaginable.

I would not think that a studio or production company would choose one director over another because she or he went to NYU or SC or UCLA or wherever. It really is more about your talent, your ability to charm them in a pitch room and who the competition may be.

I, personally, encourage education for young filmmakers, no matter where it comes from. I spent many years at UCLA in the graduate program because I was able to keep making film after film. They provided equipment, some film stock, and you got a good deal at the lab. I stayed longer as a teaching assistant because it was yet another way to learn. When I finally left, I had an amazing knowledge of the technical aspects of filmmaking.

The irony is that I never once showed my Master of Fine Arts Degree to anyone in the industry. They never asked to see it. I did show it to my mother, who said, "Great honey, what does that mean?"

I've seen documentaries on the making of films, and the lighting on the set looks completely different from what the film actually looks like. Is it because of lens, film stock, or am I not getting the whole picture?
--Tallman Boyd

What you are seeing, Tallman, is essentially the difference between film and video. The reason the set looks terrible, overlit and devoid of atmosphere is that there is a videographer at work, and not a cinematographer: and that unfortunate individual may be able to create very good work when he or she has the control of the light and is able to balance it correctly for video, but when you point a "news gathering" type camera at a film set you are going to get a "news gathering" look.

You have done us all a favor by pointing this out, because it actually is a wonderful illustration of the craft of the cinematographer: the lighting is designed for the lens/stock/lab process that has been carefully thought out by the cinematographer to achieve "the look." This means that when you point a different device at the same set, the "magic" disappears and you just have a recording rather than a crafted image. Viva Film!

I recently completed a low-budget short film, on 16mm. I lit the film very simply as I only had a few lights at my disposal. Still, I feel that I could've come up with better results. The main question I have going into my next project is this: Is there any particular setup that gets an initial "Hollywood Look" that you then alter as needed for the scene?
--Will Nicholson

I don't really know what the "Hollywood Look" is but my advice would be to avoid it, assuming you manage to identify it. I've never found copying anything to be either stimulating or satisfying: best to work from what is there, and if it isn't there, have a word with the designer!

There is a "look" attached to, say, romantic comedies (soft, no shadows) and action films (blue, smoke, etc.) but it's very easy to find examples that don't conform to the norm, and they'll usually be the better for it.

As well as studying the light used by cinematographers, look at the light provided for you every day in the world around you. Many a time I have arrived on a location in the morning and thought: it should look just like it does now (i.e. the natural light). Learning how to do that takes a while and it never seems to be complete... but the journey's the thing.

John August wrote and co-produced Go (1999) for Columbia Pictures, and co-wrote the features Charlie's Angels (2000) and Titan A.E. (2000). His current projects include the fable drama Big Fish for director Steven Spielberg, the sequel to Charlie's Angels and a new version of Barbarella (2001).

Born and raised in Boulder, Colorado, John earned a degree in journalism from Drake University in Iowa, and an MFA in film production from the Peter Stark program at the University of Southern California. He lives in Los Angeles.

Got a question about screenwriting? Send it to Ask a Writer.

Got a question about directing? Send it to Ask a Director.

If you are considering working in the movie industry, Oliver Stapleton has written a brief guide available at www.cineman.co.uk.

Got a question about cinematography? Send it to Ask a Cinematographer.