Is directing an acquired skill or a gift you're born with?

[atarijedi]

Skill will make you a good director.

Talent will make you a great director.

But you need to become a good one before you can become a great one, and really, this applies to most things, not just directing.

[Gary Huff]

Can you provide an example of specifics when it comes to skill vs talent? What quality is found in a skilled director vs the quality found in a talented director?

[gonzo_entertainment]

Talent gives you good ideas. Skill allows you to execute them.

[Gary Huff]

So if you don't have talent, and only skill, you don't get good ideas?

[gonzo_entertainment]

So if you don't have talent, and only skill, you don't get good ideas?

Not as many.
Why is Vladimir Nabokov a better writer than Dean Koontz... They both know how to form sentences. They both know how to tell a story in novel form. Koontz certainly had good ideas from time to time, but too often he didn't so he falls back on the same old tired tropes he recycles over and over.

[Gary Huff]

Why is Vladimir Nabokov a better writer than Dean Koontz...

So is Nabokov a better writer than Koontz because Koontz uses trope plotpoints? If so, how is talent more of an indication of not resorting to tropes than skill?

[gonzo_entertainment]

So is Nabokov a better writer than Koontz because Koontz uses trope plotpoints? If so, how is talent more of an indication of not resorting to tropes than skill?

Well there are about 1000 reasons he's a better writer. That is just one easy example (poor Dean Koontz gets so picked on).

In a sense this is a "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" argument. There is no real answer. Talent is one of those things that "you know it when you see it". Training and practice can make almost anyone competent in almost anything. What makes someone more than competent, what makes them "special"... talent, whatever it is.

[Gary Huff]

Talent is one of those things that "you know it when you see it".

But that's kind of bulls*%ty. I think "talent" is an American idea that people are more with an innate ability to do certain things that doesn't require work, while "skills" does. But the truth of the matter is that no one is born with an innate talent to direct. They may develop interests early in life that lead to them having an interest in pursuing and working at the elements that lead to them being described as a "talented" director, but that's all there is to it.

[gonzo_entertainment]

That's just patently ridiculous.
You aren't "born" with all of it. It's also shaped by your environment and what you are exposed to. However, you can want to be and work your ass off to be Einstein or Goddard or Picasso or Woody Allen all you want, but it will never happen. They have more of something than you. Aptitude, talent, call it whatever you want. It exists.

Nothing "doesn't require work". It's that if you work really hard at theoretical physics and Einstein works really hard at theoretical physics, he will be better than you. because he had "talent" in that endeavor.

[jghenderson]

But that's kind of bulls*%ty. I think "talent" is an American idea that people are more with an innate ability to do certain things that doesn't require work, while "skills" does. But the truth of the matter is that no one is born with an innate talent to direct. They may develop interests early in life that lead to them having an interest in pursuing and working at the elements that lead to them being described as a "talented" director, but that's all there is to it.

I definitely disagree. I understand you want to believe that you can do anything you put your mind to, and to an extent that is true, but there are still certain people who have more of a knack for something than others.

Here's an example. You're directing a scene, and the performance is just not what you want it to be. A director who might be very skilled will have an idea of what to do. They've read a lot of books and understand why for instance giving result direction is usually bad. They try some of the tricks they've picked up over the years, etc. But in the end the performance is still not working. In instances like this, what is needed is a deep and true understanding of people. There will be directors who in an instance like this will be able to dig deep and get to the root of the problem. But a lot of people won't. Now you could argue that understanding people is also a skill that can be learned, but I don't think so. I'm not talking about understanding in a psychological sense, I mean more in an empathetic sense.

The fact of the matter is, people are different. For instance, some people have a higher IQ than others. This doesn't mean that people with lower IQ's can't be successful or smart (and in fact a very hard working person with a lower IQ will probably do better than a very lazy "genius"), but there are things that the high IQ people will be able to do and figure out that others simply can't, no matter what.