Skip to main content

Authorship and Organisation

  • Chapter
The Screen Education Reader

Abstract

Commentators who have considered the role of the writer in television drama have tended to start either from notions of authorship and creativity, or from the organisation of production. The first approach stresses the writers’ relative autonomy and their pre-eminent role in shaping the final text. In this version they are assimilated to the romantic stereotype of the artist ‘working alone to carve a personal vision out of the marble of his sensibility’.1 Organisationally-oriented approaches, on the other hand, present writers as relatively powerless and enmeshed in a web of ideological and economic pressures which curtail their choices and channel their work in certain directions. In these accounts they appear as craftsmen rather than creators, professionals on a par with journalists and copy-writers, working within well-understood constraints to turn saleable ideas into shootable scripts. The text is no longer the unique expression of the author’s sensibilities, but a collective product manufactured by an industrial process and subject to the insistent pressures of time, resources and market competition.

Screen Education, no. 35, Summer 1980.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Richard Corliss, Talking Pictures: Screenwriters in the American Cinema, New York: Penguin Books, 1975, p. xvii.

    Google Scholar 

  2. See, for example, Manuel Alvarado and Edward Buscombe Hazell: The Making of a TV Series, London: British Film Institute/Latimer, 1978, and

    Google Scholar 

  3. Muriel Cantor, Prime-Time Television: Content and Control, Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Shaun Sutton, ‘The New Television Drama Writers’, EBU Review, vol. XXX, November, 1979, p. 14.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Roderick M. Graham, ‘Coming to Terms with Video for Location Drama’, Television: Journal of the Royal Television Society, vol. 18, no. 3, May/June, 1980, p. 15.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gaye Tuchman, ‘Objectivity as Strategic Ritual: An Examination of Newsmen’s Notions of Objectivity’, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 77, January 1972, pp. 660–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. See Peter Burke, Tradition and Innovation in Renaissance Italy, London: Fontana, 1974, p. 71.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Karl Marx, Theories of Surplus Value: Part One, London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1969, p. 401.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Karl Marx, ‘Debates on Freedom of the Press’, in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Collected Works: Volume One, London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1975, p. 174.

    Google Scholar 

  10. I have borrowed this distinction from Herbert Gans, Popular Culture and High Culture, New York: Basic Books, 1974, p. 62.

    Google Scholar 

  11. See Lewis A. Coser, Men of Ideas: A Sociologist’s View, New York: The Free Press, 1979, p. 46.

    Google Scholar 

  12. For a classic statement of this point, see Pierre Macherey, A Theory of Literary Production, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978, Chapter 11.

    Google Scholar 

  13. John Sturrock, ‘Roland Barthes’, in John Sturrock (ed.), Structuralism and Since, London: Oxford University Press, 1979, p. 67.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Roland Barthes, ‘The Death of the Author’, in Music-Image-Text, London: Fontana, 1977, p. 143.

    Google Scholar 

  15. See Raymond Williams, ‘The Writer: Commitment and Alignment’, Marxism Today, vol. 24, no. 6, June 1980, p. 25.

    Google Scholar 

  16. This phrase is taken from Bernard Sharratt, ‘The Politics of the Popular — From Melodrama to Television’, in David Bradby et al. (eds), Performance and Politics in Popular Drama, London: Cambridge University Press, 1980, p. 275.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. See Phillip Drummond, ‘Television Drama: Discursivity and Determination in Hazell’, Paper presented to the BFI Television Seminar, March 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Colin McArthur, Television and History, London: BFI, 1978, p. 40

    Google Scholar 

  19. Terry Eagleton, Criticism and Ideology, London: Verso, 1978, pp. 58–60.

    Google Scholar 

  20. See Catherine Itzin, ‘Production Casebook No 6: Upstairs, Downstairs’, Theatre Quarterly, vol. 11, June 1972, p. 29.

    Google Scholar 

  21. See Alfred Shaughnessy’s autobiography, Both Ends of the Candle, London: Peter Owen, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Interview with Melvyn Bragg, South Bank Show, London Weekend Television, 24 February 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Quoted in Mairède Thomas, ‘A Play for Today: An Interview with Roland Joffe’, in Truth The First Casualty: The British Media and Ireland, London: Information on Ireland, 1979, p. 12.

    Google Scholar 

  24. For documentation, see Colin R. Munrow, Television, Censorship and The Law, Farnborough: Saxon House, 1979, pp. 155–160 and W. Stephen Gilbert, ‘An Angle on Solid Geometry’, Broadcast, no. 1049, 17 March 1980, pp. 12–16.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Manuel Alvarado Edward Buscombe Richard Collins

Copyright information

© 1993 Graham Murdock

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Murdock, G. (1993). Authorship and Organisation. In: Alvarado, M., Buscombe, E., Collins, R. (eds) The Screen Education Reader. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-22426-5_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics