A Film by [Your Name Here]

The credit might read “A Steven Spielberg Film,” “An Oliver Stone Movie” or “A Martin Scorsese Picture.” Spike Lee has his own unique spin: “A Spike Lee Joint.”

Even lesser-known directors fresh out of film school or plucked from the ranks of TV commercials have been known to take one when making their first feature-length films.

It’s called a possessory credit, and many directors are given one in addition to their basic “Directed by” credit. Possessory credits almost always appear at the start of the film.

Today, the possessory credit--also called “A film by” credit--is at the heart of a raging debate among Hollywood screenwriters and directors.

Many writers would like to see the possessory credits curbed, if not abolished. Many directors argue that anyone--writers included--should have the freedom to negotiate for extra credits. Caught in the middle are the studios that ultimately decide who gets the coveted credit.

The debate underscores tensions between directors and screenwriters for control, power and prestige in the filmmaking process. And it has strained relations between the two guilds that represent Hollywood directors and writers.

Officials at the Directors Guild of America, for example, were outraged last year when the Writers Guild magazine quoted a screenwriter calling a former DGA president an “[expletive] coward” when the official failed to appear at a public forum where the writer hoped to debate him over the possessory credits issue.

Derisively calling them “vanity” credits, a number of established screenwriters are now refusing to take the possessory credit when they cross over to direct.

“As a writer-director, I’ve taken that credit in the past--I’m not going to take it anymore,” said Phil Alden Robinson, who wrote and directed such films as “Field of Dreams” and “Sneakers.” He contends the credit “dishonors all the other people who have worked on the film.”

Daniel Petrie Jr., president of the Writers Guild of America, west, adds: “I’m embarrassed to say I took it on a couple of films as a first- and second-time director.”

Why are writers so irritated with the possessory credit?

“It demeans the credit of directors, especially in view of the fact that it has been given in recent years to people just out of film school,” writer-director Frank Pierson, a former Writers Guild president. Pierson noted that writers have proposed, half-jokingly, that first-time directors should have their credit read: “The [director’s] Film.”

Screenwriter Naomi Foner [“Losing Isaiah”] contends that filmmaking is a collaborative process and the possessory credit implies that the director is the sole author of a film.

“It undermines the work a writer does and the work everybody else on a film does,” Foner said. “It’s a very unfortunate use of words.”

But directors are firing back.

John Frankenheimer, whose long and illustrious directing career includes such films as “The Manchurian Candidate” and “Birdman of Alcatraz,” said if studios ever bow to demands by a “militant” faction within the Writers Guild to abolish the possessory credit, he and other directors will simply refuse to helm their movies.

“That is a make-or-break issue for me in a contract,” Frankenheimer said. “I want [the possessory credit] because I’m the first one there and the last one to leave. I’m the guy who is responsible for the movie.”

Frankenheimer, who said he has used “A John Frankenheimer Film” on some 30 movies, added:

“I’m the point man out there. If the film is going to get knocked [by critics], they are going to knock me. I’m the person who’s going to get it. Conversely, if it’s good, they’re going to say that too. Since I’m the point man out there, why not accept it?”

Director Martha Coolidge (“Rambling Rose”) also said she opposes placing any limitations on giving out the credit.

“The possessory or special credits--credits which are above the guild minimum--should be negotiated by individuals,” Coolidge said. “Otherwise, you are causing limitations to be placed on people who have earned special attention.”

Director Gil Cates said denying filmmakers the right to negotiate for a special credit runs counter to the free-market system.

“This is America, not China,” said Cates, who has directed eight feature films and many television movies in his career.

“There is controversy because some folks are misinformed as to who gets that credit and who decides when it is received,” Cates explained. “Essentially, anybody can negotiate for that credit. [Writer] Neil Simon has had that credit. [Producer] Darryl F. Zanuck had that credit. And, in most instances, a director gets that credit. Sometimes the credit may be given where it isn’t deserved, but anybody can negotiate for it. Many writers don’t understand that.”

Looking at it from outside the fray, producers see the bickering as symptomatic of the zeal in Hollywood to take credit for a film.

“It’s all about egos,” said producer David Foster (“The Mask of Zorro”). “At the end of the day, the audience doesn’t give a damn about any of it. They just go to the movie and either like it or don’t like it. We’re not curing cancer here, are we?”

Few directors, writers or studio executives dispute the fact that there has been an explosion of credits in recent years, but the Directors Guild says that the possessory credit has been used throughout Hollywood history, including D.W. Griffith’s “Birth of a Nation,” King Vidor’s “The Big Parade,” Ernest Hemingway’s “The Old Man and the Sea” and Samuel Goldwyn’s “The Best Years of Our Lives.”

Through the years, possessory credits have been a bone of contention for both writers and directors during contract negotiations with producers.

Former DGA President Delbert Mann said the issue nearly led to a strike by directors about 30 years ago after they discovered that the Writers Guild had wrested control over the possessory credit in contract talks with producers.

“The directors did rise up in anger, they were furious,” Mann recalled. “Many meetings were held and attempts were made to get the writers to quit this nonsense.”

Director David Lean even joined the fray, cabling his fellow members:

“We directors who have possessory credits have hard-earned them over many years for good reason. We are paid big money because we can bring audience-pulling star quality to our films as a whole. We bring it by our personal influence over all including the writer.”

Mann said his guild finally pressured producers into taking back control of the credit when the Writers Guild contract expired.

“That, in a way, sort of opened up the field to directors who probably should not receive that kind of credit,” Mann said. “They are new directors, beginning directors. . . . It has become a source of great irritation to the writers.”

Pierson said the proliferation of possessory credits occurred after the studios, led by former MCA chief Lew Wasserman, received waivers from the Writers Guild so that the names of a few high-profile directors like Alfred Hitchcock could be used in advertising.

“That set up a free-market where everybody could negotiate for whatever they wanted,” Pierson said.

Manager Pat Dollard, who spent nine years as an agent at the William Morris Agency and United Talent Agency, said the possessory credit is driven by agents who are fearful of losing their clients to rival agencies.

“Anything you can get for your client is a self-defensive measure,” Dollard said. “In the culture of the agency, you’re always drilled to get as much as you can for your client, whether money or other rewards. Oftentimes, your credit drives your reputation and that often drives your price.”

Although few dispute that high-profile filmmakers like Spielberg, Stone, Scorsese and Lee deserve a possessory credit on their films based on their body of work, they are concerned with the wording of the credit.

“I don’t think writers would object to a prominent director getting two credits, if it was ‘A film directed by so-and-so’ and not ‘A so-and-so film,’ ” WGA president Petrie said. “It’s the implication . . . that that credit implies an exclusive authorship to a film that is clearly in our mind. This is a collaborative effort.”

Screenwriters Robin Swicord (“Little Women”) and Ed Solomon (“Men in Black”) concur.

“I don’t think that a film belongs to any one person,” Swicord said. “There isn’t a single author. On the face of it, the possessory credit is a lie.”

“Certainly the director is ultimately responsible for the film,” Solomon said. “That’s why they are the director. My problem with ‘A film by’ credit is that it imputes authorship or at least preeminent authorship and that’s inappropriate.”

But director Cates summed up the feelings of his guild when he said:

“The writers write the script. The directors make the movie. Sometimes many writers write the script. Only one director makes a movie. The issue is not who the author is. That’s a bogus issue, an emotional issue. It’s a free country and anyone can negotiate for anything they want. You can’t legislate in a free marketplace who can and who cannot get credit.”