The Vanity "a film by" Credit: Does it alienate or celebrate?

When a director, or studio on their behalf, claims a film as their own through a vanity credit, does it alienate the cast and crew who worked on the movie too, or it is valid accreditation for an auteur? 

Steven Spielberg directs Tom Hanks in 'Bridge of Spies' (CREDIT: 20th Century Films)

by Jack Linsdell

With the coronavirus bringing the world to a stand-still, there's no new film reviews, box office analysis or film news stories to talk about. So, I thought it would be good to dive into the some movie history. Yes, I'm talking about the vanity film credit. Does it alienate or celebrate? 

For those unaware, the vanity credit is when a director, or sometimes a movie studio on their behalf, declares a film there own - what's mostly described in Hollywood as the possessory credit. The most common being "a film by", or some variation thereof. For example, if you read the credits to A King's Speech or The Danish Girl you'll find them to be "a film by Tom Hooper". Other directors forgo the possessive for a declarative. The careers of most of the "big" directors like Danny Boyle, Clint Eastwood or Steven Spielberg arguably produce more "prestigious" movies, which means every Spielberg film, like Lincoln and Bridge of Spies, will all be credited as being "a Steven Spielberg film". We get variations too like "A Spike Lee joint", "a Martin Scorsese picture" or, if you want the audience to remember how many films you've made, "the 9th film by Quentin Tarintino". Other people like Paul Greengrass interchange. Most of his films, starting with 2006's Oscar-nominated United 93 are "a Paul Greengrass film", whilst Captain Phillips is merely "a film by Paul Greengrass". 

What's the difference I hear you ask? Well, "a film by" is seen as more possessive, often signifying the director has had an increased role in all aspects of the film (writing, producing, cinematography etc.) without the credit. On Captain Phillips, this makes sense as Greengrass had a large uncredited hand in the screenplay, casting and other such production choices despite only getting a "directed by" credit. Whereas, most often, the movie studios will use, if not publicise, "a Steven Spielberg film" credit, as a form of marketing on the poster and trailers. For example, audiences will turn up to a Spielberg picture because of his name (he is a brand on his own), and therefore, he may have only directed Bridge of Spies (although he had a big say in other production aspects no doubt) but the studio will declare it his movie to get people to see it. 

But, why do people care, I know you're thinking? Well...it's been a long battle throughout the 100 year history of Hollywood, which is still ongoing between directors and everyone else whose name is credited at the end of a movie. In short, the possessory (vanity) credit is seen as alienating and ignoring the work of all the cast and crew on a film by only declaring it as the directors film. As movies are a collaboration, many despise the vanity credit. Some directors are too humble, or appreciate they are one of many whose input affects the final cut of a movie, to take a vanity credit. The highest profile of these include Christopher McQuarrie and Steven Soderbergh, the latter of which acts as his own editor and cinematographer on each of his films, yet credits those areas under fake names to avoid it being "Soderbergh, Soderbergh, Soderbergh" on the final credit roll. 

The vanity credit goes all the way back to 1915, with the poster declaring D.W. Griffith's latest feature as "D.W. Griffith's stupendous motion picture production of Thomas Dixon's famous story" Birth of a Nation. You have to remember that up until this time, directors, like actors, remained uncredited in movies because producers wanted deny raises. And, considering Griffith co-wrote, directed, produced and edited Birds of a Nation it could be that he just had enough of not receiving credit for his work. The vanity credit remained dormant until visionary, auteur-branded directors were seen to save Hollywood in the 1950s and 60s from it's studio system, which led to 2001: A Space Odyssey being named Stanley Kubricks' 2001: A Space Odyessy. 

That brings us to today. And, Oscar season. Here's a fun fact for you. 11 out of the last 15 (as of 2015) Best Picture Oscar winners all had vanity credits. This year's ceremony saw all nine Best Picture nominees (Ford v. Ferrari, 1917, The Irishman, Jojo Rabbit, Little Women, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Marriage Story, Joker and the winner Parasite) all had some variation of a vanity, possessive credit. This tells us, maybe, that for a movie to be recognised by the academy, it needs to have been in some-shape-or-form the vision of it's popular/auteur director, or at least that's the impression the director (or more likely) the studio behind the movie wants us to believe. 

As a filmmaker myself, someone whose made many films all by myself (mostly), I have used "a film by..." credit because the film is mine. By that I mean, I've done everything on the film and therefore have the right to claim it as my work. So, does the vanity credit alienate or celebrate? Well, it celebrates the work of a filmmaker, especially if they're not credited for the other roles/decisions they played a part in, when they use "a film by" possessive credit. And, to use Captain Phillips again, I can assure you that it would've been a very different (and inferior) movie had original director Ron Howard not switched with Greengrass to helm Rush instead. So, in that respect I support the vanity credit. In the sense of it being a declarative, I think it alienates. Yes, Spielberg is a genius and Bridge of Spies (which is one of my favourite films) wouldn't be half the masterpiece it is without him. However, the script (by the Coen Brothers and Matt Charmain), the acting (Tom Hanks, Amy Ryan, Mark Rylance etc.) and music (Thomas Newman) are just some of the key elements of this movie that also make it as good as it is. When the vanity credit is used for commercial, marketing interests by studios to sell a movie, I think it does alienate the important contributions of others, although I understand why they do it. 

Look, as an aspiring director myself, to get a film declared as "yours" is a childhood dream come true. But, the humble approaches of directors like Christopher McQuarrie are also equally valid. At the end of the day, it shouldn't matter how you're credited. As long as your name is attached in some form to a successful and well-liked movie that stands the test of time, then well...I think that's the best form of credit anyone ever really needs.