I agree with Nikki that it's a concern when early drafts of screenplays are reviewed - given how many incarnations they go through, how many changes, and that they should be clear and upfront about this - which draft it is. The Times could also use that to their advantage, tracing the process of revising (something I am now all to painfully aware of).

However, I agree with Jeffrey - what's all the hubbub, bub? Screenplays are the long neglected art form of Hollywood, the blue prints for every film. I think people understand this at a fundamental level yet scripts are remain generally ignored in mainstream media and even today many film critics tend to gloss over that aspect of a film in reviews (though this has become more respectful in recent times). So now there's a section of the Times devoted to screenwriting and some people get all in a snit about it.

Again, I think there are some valid points made here, but I for one am still kind of happy to see this section - as progress.

C

Reviewing scripts that have not been shot is deadly, deadly, deadly. The idea behind this column seems to be to dissect scripts before they're shot... Perhaps the Times should publish sections of the code in Microsoft's new Windows operating system (to be introduced sometime this century) and critique its likely structural failings, making prescriptive suggestions to its many makers?

To discuss purloined work (especially that which has not yet found finance) also brings to mind Paul Schrader's deadly distinction between the work of the filmmaker and the critic--it's the obstetrician versus the coroner. As well, Nabokov's "Only ambitious nonentities and hearty mediocrities exhibit their rough drafts. It is like passing around samples of one's sputum."

Maybe so - it would surely be better to dissect finished (shot) scripts. I think I just like the idea of the column more than how they're actually using it so far, and do think something good could be made on the (torturous) process of writing a draft (or draft after draft) without going into too much detail about what the draft actually is. I also was recalling the (late, lamented) magazine Scenario would occasionally publish unproduced scripts - granted these were long ago completed scripts that were highly regarded but had for one reason or another never been made. Perhaps that is more the way the Times should go - either long ago written scripts that are unproduced, or produced/shot scripts. You do make good points, Ray.

Maybe a screenwriter should be the one coordinating/writing that column, too.

Agreed, Craig. American Film, among other successor mags, used to do a "best unproduced script" roundup, which encouraged a couple to get made, and which increased the reputation of talented writers. This one particular example of this column, though, is little more than disingenuous satire of self-serving bloggotry that well-remunerated newspaper editors ought to recognize as junk.