Andrea,
I think you are reading too much into the word "filmmaker" - this is just
the term that the JSC chose to use to describe the relationship of a
person/family/corporate body as the sole creator of a film. A person who
makes a YouTube video entirely themself, with no other collaborators, is
by RDA definition, the filmmaker responsible for the creation of that
work. Doesn't matter whether or not they think of themselves as a
filmmaker/auteur.
As for screenwriter, I think you have to think about the screenplay as a
work in and of itself. These are published commonly, and in that context,
the creator is at the level of the work, and could be labelled as an
author, or, more specifically because RDA provides such a more specific
term, as screenwriter. Perhaps in the context of the motion picture as a
work itself, the screenwriter is not a creator, but in the context of the
screenplay published as its own separate work, he/she certainly is, just
as the playwright for a published play is.
Adam
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
[email protected]
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Mon, 13 May 2013, Leigh, Andrea wrote:
I used to create home movies and student films, but I would not consider myself
a filmmaker, any more than someone who writes a short story as part of an
assignment for a class would necessarily think of themselves as a writer. I
would tend to think someone who puts up a YouTube video they shot of their
backyard during a snowstorm would not necessarily think of themselves as a
filmmaker, either.
I tend to think of filmmaker in the context of the RDA definition as someone like a John Sayles or
John Cassavetes or even Spielberg, Scorsese, and Clint Eastwood-- all auteurs who have a personal
style and who generally can choose their own projects and have creative control over all aspects of
the production. Even in this context, I still would not think of any of these filmmakers as
"individually" responsible for the conception and execution of all aspects of the
production. Part of their "personal" style is dependent on the cast and crew that they
elect to work with-- Steven Spielberg relies on John Williams as composer, Eastwood on
cinematographer and production designer Henry Bumstead, Sayles and Cassavetes with their repertory
of actors, Scorsese with editor Thelma Schoonmaker and his repertory of actors, notably DeNiro and
now Leo DiCaprio.
There's also screenwriter listed as a relationship designator under creator of
work, yet I admit to having trouble with a screenwriter as creator of a moving
image work, while the director, producers, production company, director of
photography are all under others associated with the work. Screenwriters are
assigned as a core element when the relationship is to a publication of the
screenplay, but not in the context of a moving image work of mixed
responsibility, particularly since the screenplay goes through numerous
revisions during the production process. If any of you have seen the
interstitial on TCM about Dog Day Afternoon (1975) that's been running over the
last few days, it's one example of this process. Rather than follow the script,
the actors were encouraged to ad lib the dialogue, and then each night, the
director and screenwriter would document the ad libs and restructure the script
to incorporate the adlibs that worked.
Andrea
-------------------------------------------
Andrea Leigh
Moving Image Processing Unit Head
Packard Campus for Audio Visual Conservation
19053 Mt. Pony Rd.
Culpeper, VA 22701
202.707.0852
[email protected]
www.loc.gov/avconservation
Opinions are my own
-----Original Message-----
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 2:19 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] authorized access point for person/family/corporate body
Thomas,
What you said about films is not quite totally correct. Appendix I does have a
relationship designator under creator of work:
filmmaker A person, family, or corporate body responsible for creating an
independent or personal film. A filmmaker is individually responsible for the
conception and execution of all aspects of the film.
For a very small subset of films, if one person/family/corporate body were responsible
for all aspects, that entity would be the creator of the work and the film would be named
using the combination of Creater/Preferred title. This is most likely to happen for
student works and home movies, I imagine. If you think of all of those YouTube videos
where someone points a camera at themselves and just talks to the camera, I think that
would be a case that would fall under the designator "filmmaker".
Adam
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
[email protected]
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Mon, 13 May 2013, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
If an "other" person/family/corporate body associated with the work is used to
construct the authorized access point representing the work, then that *one* person,
family or corporate body associated with the work is the core element.
Another way to state this is to say whoever became the main entry in AACR2 is a core element value
in RDA (the instructions for authorized access points for works in RDA 6.27-6.31 are where one
finds the equivalent to AACR2 main entry rules). Only one person, family or corporate body is
chosen for that spot, whether it's a "creator" or an "other associated with the
work."
In MARC terms, what RDA 18.3 is saying is that the name found in the 1XX field
is the core element, but names found in 7XX fields are not core elements.
Interestingly, for moving image works like movies, there is no core relationship element. All
persons or corporate bodies associated with the work when it comes to movies fall under the element
"Other Person, Family or Corporate Body Associated with the Work" (examples: film
director, film producer). There are none that fall under the "Creator" element.
But because the authorized access point for a moving image work is formed only
with the preferred title (RDA 6.27.1.3) then there is no person or corporate
body that becomes part of the authorized access point for a moving image work.
Therefore, the director or producer for a moving image work are not core
elements.
In other words, in the case of a movie, there may be several people that fall under the
element "Other Person, Family or Corporate Body Associated with the Work" but
not a single one of them becomes a core element because none of them are used to form the
authorized access point for the movie.
Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
Access [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joan Wang
Sent: May-13-13 1:21 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [RDA-L] authorized access point for person/family/corporate
body
Hi, all
I have two questions about authorized access points for person/family/corporate
body.
Q1:
RDA 18.3 says that creator is a core element. If there is more than one, only the
principle or the first-named creator is required. It also says that other
person/family/corporate body associated with a work is a core element (if the access
point representing that person/family/ corporate body is used to construct the authorized
access point representing the work). But it does not mention the situation of "more
than one". I assume that we can follow the requirement for creator if there is more
than one person/family/corporate body associated with a work other than a creator.
