What IS the role of the director ?
Christos Talanoez
Recently I read that the role of the director is not agreed upon. The
article gave the impression a director is the main "coordinator" (which
sounded very bland). While I'm sure there is coordinating to do, I always
thought the director is the person providing and attempting to realize a
vision of what the movie is. So from your perspectve what is the role of the
director? I imagine in a production the movie must be a mixture of writer's,
the director's and the actor's vision.
John W Bottoms
Christos Talanoez <chri...@accessone.com> wrote:
>the article gave the impression a director is the main "coordinator" (which
>sounded very bland). While I'm sure there is coordinating to do, I always
>thought the director is the person providing and attempting to realize a
>vision of what the movie is. So from your perspectve what is the role of the
>director? I imagine in a production the movie must be a mixture of writer's,
>the director's and the actor's vision.
Let's talk about "the vision" thing first. Who's vision is it? There
are a number of ways to make a film but in the typical studio system
the vision is the writers. Then a producer reads the script and
appreciates the vision. The producer then has to find a director and
sell the vision to the director. From the director it goes to the
crew and cast.
Do you suppose the vision remains unchanged through this process? No,
we don't want it to. We want the art director to contribute technique
and inspiration. Same for wardrobe and all the creative people (including
light, sound, etc.) By the time we finish the vision should be better
than when we started. Sometimes...well, it just doesn't. Other times
it's M A G I C!
The director. His/her role depends on what type of film budget you have.
If you want to be a director think about how you want to work on the
set. Do you want full control or do you want to help by coordinating
the work of professionals who already know their jobs.
-jb
"Have fun, make movies" - Mikey
David Mullen
>The director. His/her role depends on what type of film budget you have.
>If you want to be a director think about how you want to work on the
>set. Do you want full control or do you want to help by coordinating
>the work of professionals who already know their jobs.
There are as many types of directors as there are people in the world. And
many of the different types can make good movies.
Whether a director collaborates a lot or a little with others, I think it is
his job to make sure that all the various contributions from the actors to the
crew help tell the story and feel like they are part of an overall design -
whether you call that having a "vision" (an overused term) or being an
artistic coordinator or just plain being a good storyteller is up to you.
David M.
Galaray
John W Bottoms <jbot...@world.std.com> wrote in article
<EnK4w...@world.std.com>...
> Do you suppose the vision remains unchanged through this process? No,
> we don't want it to. We want the art director to contribute technique
> and inspiration. Same for wardrobe and all the creative people
(including
> light, sound, etc.) By the time we finish the vision should be better
> than when we started. Sometimes...well, it just doesn't. Other times
> it's M A G I C!
>
> The director. His/her role depends on what type of film budget you have.
> If you want to be a director think about how you want to work on the
> set. Do you want full control or do you want to help by coordinating
> the work of professionals who already know their jobs.
Excellent post.
I might add that many believe (and I am among them) that, out of all the
responsibilities resting on the shoulders of the director, the primary
responsibility is to get the best possible performances from the actors.
Unfortunately it seems that there are very few working directors who feel
the same way.
Galaray
Screenline
One opinion is that a director can be an "actor's" director; that is that
he/she spends time directing the actors and the scene(s). Another is the
director who spends more time on the whole, involves himself with the look of
the film, the actors, etc.
Of course, this could be total bull. I've just heard this.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Screenline
Arts & Entertainment Industry Directory
Free listings for businesses, talent and crew.
Free classifieds, casting/audition posts, and more.
http://members.aol.com/screenline/screenline.html
scree...@aol.com
22203 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
(310) 317-2158
FAX (310) 456-6638
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PIERCEARRW
I liken a director to a general. He runs the operation. Though he has
"superiors," in the end the operation is his call.
webm...@film.tierranet.com
PIERCEARRW wrote:
>
> I liken a director to a general. He runs the operation. Though he has
> "superiors," in the end the operation is his call.
A director is many things depending on how he works with people and how
much control he has of his film. He's a collector and coordinator of
talents, an acting coach, blocks scenes, keeps a detailed vision of the
film, trys to get the best out of his talents, etc. He basically tries
to get the best film possible made.
Galaray
Heard on set:
Question: How many directors does it take to screw in a light bulb?
Answer: One. He just holds the light bulb and the world revolves around
him.
Galaray
Clay Leander
I think it was "Hearts Of Darkness", the documentary behind
the making of "Apocalypse Now", where Francis Ford Coppola
referred to directing being the last dictatorial post
in the democratic world.
Mart Weiss
Clay Leander wrote:
Now if that isn't weird... I just came back from watching "Hearts
of Darkness"...
I cannot but leave a little smart-ass remark: he actually says
one of the last dictorial posts.
Well, and here are my 1 1/2 Pence: whatever the role of the
director is, I do not think that he should spend his/her time
behind the video assist, telling the operator how to frame.
Anthony Stephens
In article <34ea55f6...@news.alt.net>,
asl...@the.wheel (2~Much Nyquil) wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Feb 1998 23:03:32 +0000, Mart Weiss
><mart...@earthling.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Well, and here are my 1 1/2 Pence: whatever the role of the
>>director is, I do not think that he should spend his/her time
>>behind the video assist, telling the operator how to frame.
>
>
>I think directors do that because they're afraid of doing their REAL
>job, which is directing the actors.
Proves a lack of knowledge of the job of the Director.
The Director is the overall artistic head of a production. HE is the one in
charge of the final product. If the director has a specific vision that
requires a certain sort of framing, then it is HIS responsibility to insure
that it happens.
The Director is in charge of shot composition, lighting, acting, dialogue, and
all the rest of the artistic elements that make up a finished production.
Every one works differently - and some are more hands-on than others. Some
look more toward the framing and lighting, others look more toward the acting,
but ALL have the job of bringing in the ultimate finished product.
Anthony Stephens
In article <34f0b6a9....@news.alt.net>,
asl...@the.wheel (2~Much Nyquil) wrote:
<...>
>>The Director is in charge of shot composition, lighting,
>
>So why do you hire a DP? Or a gaffer? If the director is in charge
>of lighting and shot composition, then what do these other people do
>on the set? Tell me. What is the job of the DP? Is he in charge of
>anything?
>
>>acting, dialogue, and
>>all the rest of the artistic elements that make up a finished production.
>
>So he's in charge of production design too? Then why do you hire a
>produciton designer.
>
>If the director is in charge of these things, then all you need to do
>is hire some art dept. pa's, a couple grips and juicers and you'd be
>fine. Is that how films get made?
You see, it's this little thing called "delegating" - the Director IS THE
BOSS, but a GOOD director knows how to get people who understand HIS vision.
You seem to think that when I say a Director is "in charge", he also does all
the work. A General is "in charge", but since when does he go out and drive a
tank?
You hire people who, supposedly, agree to work toward a specific vision.
generally, the vision comes from the Director. But apparantly, you seem to
think that all a Director needs to do is look at the actors. No wonder you've
had conflict...
Lets get practical:
Assume that a DP has an idea about a specific shot. But the Director knows how
that will fit narratively with certain other shots, and chooses a different
composition. Are you saying that the Director doesn't ahve the right to do
this? It would appear that you are.
Pick up any basic text on the art of directing, and you will find an
incredible amount of discussion about framing, composition, use of lighting,
moving compositions, staging, and other such things. But I guess all these
texts are wrong, since the Director only directs the actors.
I guess all the sets I've been on where the Director sits next to the DP and
discusses the next shot has been a fantasy - they were really discussing what
to have for lunch tomorrow.
>What about editing? Is the director in charge of the editing process
>too? Sound Design? These are "artistic elements that make up the
>finished product" too.
Ultimately, yes. It is up to the Director to see that all these pieces come
together. But I guess you like the anarchy stlye of filmmaking, where everyone
does his own thing and hopefully we get a movie out of it.
I would like to know - in your mind, just WHO is ultimately in charge of
seeing the film completed? The PA?
>And YOU claim that I have "a lack of knowledge of the job of the
>Director."?
OK - maybe you do know what a Director is - he only directs the actors. I
guess all those other Directors, and allthose guys writing textbooks about
Directing, and all those guys in Film Schools around the country teaching
about Directing - they are all going to suddenly change their tune, since you
have spoken.
>Have you ever even been in the office of a film that had a budget of
>more than $1million?
Have you?
And the answer is Yes, I have.
David Mullen
I don't think that Anthony and Nyquill are actually that far apart in
understanding the breakdown of authority on a film set, so we don't need name
calling. I think that Anthony is describing the ideal state where the
director actually does understand all the aspects of filmmaking over which he
is in charge. (He certainly has great responsibility for the final product,
although if a shot is out-of-focus, he's not the one who gets fired.)
Nyquill's objection is that many directors get overly concerned in technical
issues at the expense of the acting. As a DP, I have seen this many times. I
think dealing with a technical problem is a way some directors have of
avoiding dealing with actors.
David M.
Anthony Stephens
In article <ericusc.77...@ucla.edu>,
Actually, I must thank you - you put this much more succinctly that I have
been able to do. Why don't we leave it as the final word.....
Galaray
Anthony Stephens <DarkK...@Dark-Knight.com> wrote in article
<6conoq$hmm$2...@vnetnews.value.net>...
> You hire people who, supposedly, agree to work toward a specific vision.
> generally, the vision comes from the Director. But apparantly, you seem
to
> think that all a Director needs to do is look at the actors.
The direction of the actors is the one place in the production of which the
director has total, direct control. The problem I see over and over is that
too few directors have any idea whatsoever what to do with the actors, so
they micromanage the other departments. On the other hand, a director who
has done his job correctly in casting an appropriate DP will be able to
trust his DP's vision and ideas to not only work with his own vision but
also add depth to it.
> Lets get practical:
> Assume that a DP has an idea about a specific shot. But the Director
knows how
> that will fit narratively with certain other shots, and chooses a
different
> composition. Are you saying that the Director doesn't ahve the right to
do
> this? It would appear that you are.
If the DP is worth a shit he or she should also have an understanding of
how the shot should fit narratively. He should look to the director to set
the rhythm of the production and sync his work to it; but a DP that only
has ideas about specific shots, without regard to how they contribute to
the audience's overall experience, is nothing more than a hack.
> I
> guess all those other Directors, and allthose guys writing textbooks
about
> Directing, and all those guys in Film Schools around the country teaching
> about Directing - they are all going to suddenly change their tune, since
you
> have spoken.
I have been to film school, read the text books, and worked in film, and I
have to say that, in my experience, those books don't really mean shit. You
can't learn filmmaking from talking about it or reading a book. You can get
a *start* in it, but the only way to really learn about film is to do it.
Galaray
DMan
Galaray wrote:
>
>
> I have been to film school, read the text books, and worked in film, and I
> have to say that, in my experience, those books don't really mean shit. You
> can't learn filmmaking from talking about it or reading a book. You can get
> a *start* in it, but the only way to really learn about film is to do it.
>
> Galaray
I have to agree with you on this one Galaray. I also studied film in
college and have been in the movie business for many years. Sometimes
just for fun I will look in a film textbook to see what they teach and
am amazed at how far off base they usually are even in small things such
as the definitions of different terms and crew positions.
DMan
clo...@worldnet.att.net
I'm always asking stuff like this to these groups, but I've been offered
a new (free) film job and need some advice on what it means for the near
future.
Well, I've been asking a lot of P.A. questions here, and what happened
was I just got offered an office P.A. job for this film "200 Cigarettes"
in New York with hot stud of the moment Ben Affleck, and I want to take
it, but at the same time, I don't. I've had mostly office-type
production gigs (3 so far), two of them when I was in college so I was
starting out, but I find that most of these P.A. jobs don't hire for set
P.A.'s jobs unless you know the A.D.'s. I've found that after the
shoots, people really never wanted to help me anyway, so what good is
this "contacts" issue? Why does someone want to help me when they're
trying to make it in this business themselves? I've found they don't,
and my trying to ask or just be friendly meets a dead-end wall.
My question is what can I really do with this office P.A. job? I'm not
really angry, but when I hear the line about how much I'll learn in an
office even after someone's seen that I've done this stuff on my resume,
I want to say it's a lie. I've begun to think that being an office P.A.
will help my career about the same as much as being a set P.A., just
won't pay and won't be as interesting. I keep having these weird
Marxist ideas about film and the means of production, as if maybe the
office people represent, or are connected to, the means of production.
What I mean is, without sounding like a cold brute, what can I "get" out
of the internship other than what I've gotten? How can I wring it dry
and use a molehill to make a mountain? If this is the best I can hope
to get until I actually make a film, how can I use it to my advantage,
bearing in mind that I'd probably be doing it for the namesake of the
project and not for the experience.
Sorry folks. Thanks,
Ben Lauter
Michael Ajero
In article <6ctp9h$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, clo...@worldnet.att.net
wrote:
If you want to earn money doing office PA work, then work on commercials.
Why work for free when there are people out there who do pay the PA's. You
can't make a film for no money. If you want to make a film and have a good
idea/script and have money, then do so. Who cares if you work on a big
film with a big name star or director or company. The only thing you can
gain from what you are doing now is that you'll know how the process of
filmmaking is done. After that, PAs won't get far. Besides, if you WANT to
be a PA for the rest of your life, I'd tell you to seek help. Get as much
money out of it as possible then do what you want to do. Why help someone
elses production when you could be helping yourself.
--
Human input is better than computer output
Anthony Stephens
In article <01bd3fc9$7c50fa20$495f...@fsu.edu.fsu.edu>,
"Galaray" <No.no....@for.me> wrote:
<...>
>The direction of the actors is the one place in the production of which the
>director has total, direct control. The problem I see over and over is that
>too few directors have any idea whatsoever what to do with the actors, so
>they micromanage the other departments. On the other hand, a director who
>has done his job correctly in casting an appropriate DP will be able to
>trust his DP's vision and ideas to not only work with his own vision but
>also add depth to it.
OK - no argument there.
<..>>
>If the DP is worth a shit he or she should also have an understanding of
>how the shot should fit narratively. He should look to the director to set
>the rhythm of the production and sync his work to it; but a DP that only
>has ideas about specific shots, without regard to how they contribute to
>the audience's overall experience, is nothing more than a hack.
And again no argument. Putting it that way makes more sense to me. It's just
that what I was seeing earlier was implying that the Director had NO place in
doing this. - at least that's how it seemed to me.
WIth this particular phrasing of yours, I would think that we are more in
agreement than otherwise.
Anthony Stephens
In article <34f438e6...@news.alt.net>,
asl...@the.wheel (2~Much Nyquil) wrote:
<...>
>works. You stupid little fuck. Why don't you read the rest of the
>replies to your ignorant response to me.
You know, a few days back, somebody (don't remember who), made a much clearer
statement of what I was trying to say than I was accomplishing, and I stated
my agreement and thanks, and said that I felt the last word was said,
and I was dropping the subject. Which I have.
What I'm wondering, though, is why is it necessary to start with
the name-calling and cursing? It accomplishes so little.
Anthony Stephens
In article <34f8fa74...@news.alt.net>,
asl...@the.wheel (2~Much Nyquil) wrote:
<too much to quote here>
I'll admit - looking back, I would say I jumped on too quickly and too
strongly in my original response.
For this I apologize. You and I have had discussions before, and I don't think
they were ever this heated. I know something about you from your posts here,
and you do indeed come across as a professional.
I have been dealing with some REAL crap in another NG, and I let my emotions
get the better of me.
As for the actual topic - I would venture to say that were we to actually sit
down and discuss this in person, we would find ourselves more in agreement
than otherwise. I should have read more on the thread before jumping in.
May we put it to rest?
Christos Talanoez
I've been following this thread and now I'm curious :), since you are no
doubt
a pro can you share here what area of film you work in ? If this is a
sensitive question regards to privacy, I apologize, I'm just being nosy,
sorry.
>>May we put it to rest?
>
>No problem. :)
>
>Sorry about the my abusiveness. Too much job stress often gets the
>best of me.
>