'Yesterday' Credits Row is Sad But Inevitable

Why Universal, the Writer's Guild and Richard Curtis might have mutually benefited from adopting a similar approach that Neil Jordan took for 'Greta' when dealing with a unknown writer who created a killer original idea

Danny Boyle and Richard Curtis on set of 'Yesterday' (CREDIT: Universal Pictures)

by Jack Linsdell

A few weeks ago, Universal Pictures and Working Titles' Beatles-themed romantic-comedy Yesterday made headlines when screenwriter Jack Barth claimed he had been miscredited by Richard Curtis. Now, before I give my two pennies worth on the subject, I first need to explain the guidelines around writing accreditation in film. 

During the end credits of any movie you watch, if you pay attention, you'll notice that when it comes to screenwriting, there are many different credits given to writers. First up, a popular credit seen today is "screenplay by". This is self-explanatory but to be eligible writers need to have contributed at least 33% of the final script used for production to receive the credit. If you help form a treatment or create the story/idea for a script, without actually physically "writing" it, you could get a "story by" credit. For example, for Wonder Woman, producer Zack Synder and Jason Fuchs (who wrote a previous script draft) were given a "story by" credit alongside screenwriter Allan Heinberg who also received a "screenplay by" credit. That's because Synder and Fuchs contributed key ideas and/or story structure to what became the final script put together by Heinberg, but their involvement was either below the 33% making them eligible for a screenplay credit or they only worked on the treatment anyway. 

We then have the most common credit seen around which is "written by". This means that the writer(s) involved in the project contributed to both story and script therefore making them eligible for both. The key difference here is that all writers worked on both story and script. The only need to distinguish is if a writer only worked on the one but the rest did both. So, for Spectre, a "story by" credit was given to Neal Purvis & Robert Wade and John Logan, with all three and Jez Butterworth getting "screenplay by". Clearly Butterworth only worked on the script. Whereas for Skyfall, Purvis, Wade and Logan jointly recieved a "written by" credit as they clearly all worked on story and script equally. 

Anyway, back to Yesterday. Now, the credits given were "story by" Richard Curtis and Jack Barth, with Curtis then receiving a standalone "screenplay by" credit. Now, Barth claimed that as the original writer who came up with the idea, he deserved more than just a story credit. In fact, if he's to be believed (and I personally do but make your own minds up) he also wrote two or three script drafts before it was bought by Working Title and Curtis did his work on it. Now, Barth claims Curtis only did rewrites, whereas Curtis and the studio behind the movie advocate that he merely took the idea and formed the script himself. However, the most alarming and disturbing part of Barth's story is the fact that the final movie (and script) contains many specfic elements of his original drafts. For example, the Harry Potter joke at the end of the film, and even the name of Lily James' character (going from Ella to Ellie) are strikingly specific details which don't support Curtis' claim he never used Barth's original drafts and did his own, separate version. Furthermore, Barth claims that although he settled for a payment on the script (the studio ultimately brought it from him) stripping him of rights, he didn't expect to be miscredited by Curtis who (he claims) underplayed Barth's significance in creating the idea and writing the initial drafts, and then kept from the spotlight by Universal's marketing team. 

Now, let me be clear. I've never read the script and I wasn't involved in production, so my opinions are only based on the story and facts both sides have presented. What I do know is the frustration Barth, as a struggling writer in the business for many years must be feeling having created the idea to a (commercially) successful film only to walk into pitch meetings saying "I wrote Yesterday" only to be told by executives that they thought that was a Curtis movie. I feel sorry for him that he's got little recognition and work as a result of the film, especially considering he laid the fundamental blueprint for the story and characters which Curtis at least worked off. 

However sad his story is, it's an inevitable one in Hollywood. You see, to get a film financed (let alone seen) you need names with a certain prestige and/or popularity to be attached to the project. "A Curtis comedy directed by Danny Boyle" is a much easier sell or more enticing attraction for audiences than "clever hook by writer you've never heard of" (although I'd argue that worked well for the Rasmussen Brother's Crawl). Sadly, those writers who are unknowns often come up with the best new ideas and stories, yet suffer at the hands of an arbitration system that focuses on stars and big names. 

Ideally, and from an outside perspective, it seems Yesterday should have recieved a credit along the lines of the Chloe Grace Moretz thriller Greta. That caulking original hook of an idea came courtesy of original writer Ray Wright who created the story and wrote initial drafts like Barth did before he sold the script. However, when director Neil Jordan came along, he worked with Wright on the script, involving him in the process and listening to his ideas, which helps an unknown writer not only receive the appropriate credit but feels like their baby was handled with care. Ultimately, Wright received a "story by" credit and then a co "screenplay by" with director Neil Jordan. To me, it seems that Yesterday should have adopted the same credit format as Greta. But, beyond that, Curtis should have made Barth feel part of the project and collaborated with him on it just like Jordan did with Wright. The result is free "prestigious filmmaker helps longtime struggling unknown writer" media publicity but also the chance to help a fellow writer out by making him feel involved and even sharing a few tips and lessons with them. Because, before Four Weddings and a Funeral, Curtis too was an unknown name and using his fame and experience to help a writer in a place he once was, would have been a nice thing to do.

However, as long as big names are used in front of and behind the camera to sell a project, unknown writers like Barth will always face an uphill battle when it comes to screenwriting arbitration. Yes, I don't know all the facts about the production of Yesterday, but I think above all else and regardless of your opinion of Barth's claims, what's most sad is that Curtis didn't approach the film like Neil Jordan did with Greta. He made an unknown writer part of the process in bringing his brainchild to the big screen, whilst passing on his knowledge and giving him a fair and long overdue platform/credit for his work. The fact that all writers (big and small) start in the same place as a nobody, makes Barth's alleged exclusion even more of a missed opportunity.