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 a...@loc.gov www.loc.gov/avconservation Opinions are my own -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 2:19 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA 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 asch...@u.washington.edu 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:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Joan Wang >> Sent: May-13-13 1:21 PM >> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA >> 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. >
