WRITERS, DIRECTORS SPAR OVER AGREEMENT.

Byline: Valerie Kuklenski Staff Writer

It looks like a lopsided prizefight.

In one corner is the big, burly director, with his entourage behind the ropes telling him how powerful and invincible he is.

His challenger is the sinewy, scrappy screenwriter, known for his stamina if not his strength. His cornerman shouts words of encouragement, but a doctor is standing by and a car is idling just outside the nearest exit.

The referee, in an imported silk striped shirt, Armani trousers and Gucci loafers, slaps their backs with perfectly manicured hands and cues the opening bell. He is supposed to ensure it's a reasonably fair fight, but he steps back, hoping they'll both be left weak and battered.

That's a simplistic breakdown of talks concerning the Writers Guild of America's work agreement, which is back on the bargaining table today. Reality is a bit more complicated.

Technically, the writers' agreement is being negotiated with the Association of Motion Picture and Television Producers (representing studios and production companies), but in reality that's just the money package, which includes increases in minimums and residuals. The two sides are still a great distance apart on those matters.

The key creative-rights portions are being fought over in separate talks between the WGA and the Directors Guild of America, with the AMPTP standing in the middle, ready to sign whatever agreement the two artists' groups reach.

The writers are seeking improved working conditions on features that would earn them greater respect. But if the measures are approved, they would take directors down a peg in terms of control and credit.

``Our CEO committee - Jeffrey Katzenberg (DreamWorks), Sherry Lansing (Paramount) and Alan Horn (Warner Bros.) - has been working very hard mediating between the two to achieve a solution that's acceptable to both guilds,'' said Nick Counter, AMPTP's president and chief negotiator. ``It's not easy.''

It remains to be seen how binding any creative-rights agreement would be. It is possible some terms resolved now to the writers' satisfaction could be undone next year when the DGA's own pact with the producers is negotiated. ``It would obviously be useful to have one that the directors would keep in place during their negotiations,'' WGA counsel Tony Seagall said.

Among the provisions in the writers' proposal:

--Writers' bios and credits are included on Web sites and in movie press kits given to critics and feature writers.

--They're invited to attend film press junkets, as stars and directors already are.

--They get on the invitation list for movie premieres and parties, as camera loaders, truck drivers and accountants already do.

--Writers are welcomed on film sets and locations and allowed to give input on script changes, unless there is an expressed objection from the director.

--The biggest bone of contention: restricting the rampant use of ``a film by'' possessory with directors' credit, which the writers say undervalues their contribution.

Consensus is those first three should be a snap to resolve. They don't add a lot to a film's budget, and they don't step on anyone else's toes.

But the other two could undercut the director's clout. DGA president Jack Shea has said his guild won't put up with such demands, and individual members have been even more outspoken against them.

``Some people don't know how a show works, that you need only one captain. They get a little crazed and try to go around the director and make kind of a big mess,'' veteran director Robert Butler said in the March issue of DGA magazine. ``The director has creative rights - it's not about being arrogant. It's about being adherent to the process. . . . It works better when there's one person in charge. It eliminates mixed messages and confusion.''

Veteran TV movie writer Paris Qualles, a member of the WGA negotiating team, has been surveying members since talks broke off March 1, trying to get a handle on how they feel about the issues, particularly the possessory credit.

``There's a lot of support for that,'' Qualles said. ``That's the public-relations war that I think we've won.

``I think on a fundamental level you have writers who may not be vested personally in the possessory credit, but they understand that it's a fight worth fighting,'' Qualles added. ``Is it something they'll go to the mat for? Who knows? We'll cross that bridge when we come to it.''

Of course, there are WGA members who could be hurt by that change.

Current writer-directors who already get the above-the-title privilege - Warren Beatty, Wes Craven, Francis Ford Coppola and Oliver Stone, for instance - would keep it, but up-and-comers might sacrifice it.

``That's always sort of the hidden tiger in our guild, the hyphenates,'' said TV and feature veteran Lionel Chetwynd, writer-director of ``Varian's War'' premiering Sunday on Showtime. ``Since (the 1973 strike), the membership has always managed to understand that, in the end, they have to think as working writers and not as writer-producers and not as writer-directors. And hopefully that will remain, because if they start thinking like producer-writers and director-writers instead of writer-directors and writer-producers, they start to jeopardize the very glue that keeps the union together. They weaken its immune system.''

Chetwynd noted that even the most successful WGA members have benefited from its hard-won arbitration rules and health and pension plans.

Carrying the banner for the WGA is its president, John Wells, one of the most powerful and respected hyphenates out there as an executive producer of ``ER.'' The majority of the guild's members work in television, and a significant number of those have a producer credit and a financial stake in their programs that could leave them personally conflicted about such matters as residual payments.

AMPTP spokesman Barry Liden says Wells has been a ``strong adversary'' so far.

Chetwynd said Wells and other WGA executives are ``the most pragmatic leadership'' he has seen. ``That's going to make it easier for them to rally.''

``I can imagine that he's under a fair amount of pressure from his own studio,'' Qualles said of Wells. ``He didn't have to do this, and I'm sure it's costing him on a number of levels. He's the perfect gladiator for this battle and he's very well thought of by the writers.''

One veteran writer said how Wells and other powerhouse writer-producers, such as David E. Kelley, Steven Bochco and Dick Wolf, handle their job-description dilemma depends on their individual mind sets. It hasn't proved to be a problem in the last 25 years or so.

``But I think each time it comes up, it's up for grabs, because it's a matter of honor,'' the writer said. ``You can't legislate that.''

CAPTION(S):

2 photos

Photo:

(1 -- 2) Writers who also wear producers' or directors' hats, such as Lionel Chetwynd, left, and Steven Bochco, right, face a potential dilemma in their union's fight for possessory credit.