Few Directors Become Famous

Status
Not open for further replies.
You guys can make all the sarcastic, knowing statements you want. You may represent orthodoxy but at the same time my beliefs don't exist in a vacuum.

I've never directed a feature or short. but I have directed a lot of commercials. Every time I've had a good script and professional actors, things just seem to fall into place. Lousy script and amateur actors? different story.

A good example of why I don't follow the status quo is this remark:

"Just talking to actors and helping to guide them towards a performance alone takes a huge amount of talent ".

You know what? I don't think so. Sorry, I just don't define that as great talent.
Secondarily, if you have a great actor like Robert Duvall, you really think you're going to "Guide" him? I can imagine "Bobby Bobby Bobby, I'm not feelin' it...come on Bobby, we're on the clock here..."

Does a director need to multi task? yes
Does he have to work his ass off? yes
Does he have the weight of the world on his shoulders? yes

But does it require a huge amount of talent? In my opinion? No.
 
Kholi said:
Where-as, it might not take a GENIUS to recreate Sin City. It sure as hell WILL take a director that understands the fundamentals and one with his (in this case, because there ARE excellent female directors) own flare.

.
Click to expand...

This is more or less what I believe about directing.

I haven't seen Sin City, but if memory serves me, it's all green screen. Something like that takes a director with technical chops. So right there, another skill the director needs. But again, technical knowledge is just that, technical. I don't rate it with the creative talent you get with a Cate Blanchet or a David Peeples.
 
Sometimes a person crosses the line of opinion and rapes it and one has to just walk away; but like a black hole, the outlandish demands our attention.

You could not be more wrong Brian. And that is not a matter of opinion.

There are reasons that great directors exist and there are reasons crap directors exist. Great directors makes great films. **** directors make ****. Great directors can take average and turn it into greatness.

You can take Scorsese and Taxi Driver and say the film would be the same / similiar with any average director is asinine, ludicrous and a laugh riot.

-

But then I could have just read this ...

I've never directed a feature or short. but I have directed a lot of commercials. Every time I've had a good script and professional actors, things just seem to fall into place. Lousy script and amateur actors? different story.
Click to expand...

... and said "Oh".

-

Your thoughts are indeed in a vacuum.
 
brianluce said:
A good example of why I don't follow the status quo is this remark:

"Just talking to actors and helping to guide them towards a performance alone takes a huge amount of talent ".

You know what? I don't think so. Sorry, I just don't define that as great talent.
Secondarily, if you have a great actor like Robert Duvall, you really think you're going to "Guide" him? I can imagine "Bobby Bobby Bobby, I'm not feelin' it...come on Bobby, we're on the clock here..."
Click to expand...

All this proves is:

a) You know nothing about how actors work - Esp a real actor like Duvall.

b) You clearly know nothing about working with actors as a director. Only a lousy director would say: "Bobby Bobby Bobby, I'm not feelin' it...come on Bobby, we're on the clock here..." Which is what came out of your mouth, not mine. So maybe you're just a lousy director and assume everyone else is too.
 
Dang, Brian... I wanted to be on your side and understand where you're coming from...

I can't.
 
Michelangelo wasn't so hot. Now the 16th century nude models, canvas-makers, and paint-blenders...them were some genius motherpoo pooers.
 
You know, I wasn't going to comment, but I have to. Saying that a director doesn't have to have any talent is a blatantly ignorant statement. Give an inept director a script like "Full Metal Jacket" - which, in my opinion is an amazing film - and he (or she) will screw it up.

There's so much input that the director has in a film. A script is just words on a page, like sheet music for a Mozart symphony is just notes on a page. If you have a symphony from Mozart and a talented group of music, you still need a fantastic music director to bring out the performance and guide it along.

As far as Clint Eastwood is concerned, I believe he is one of the most talented and hard working individuals in this business.
 
Mark Harris said:
All this proves is:

a) You know nothing about how actors work - Esp a real actor like Duvall.

b) You clearly know nothing about working with actors as a director. Only a lousy director would say: "Bobby Bobby Bobby, I'm not feelin' it...come on Bobby, we're on the clock here..." Which is what came out of your mouth, not mine. So maybe you're just a lousy director and assume everyone else is too.
Click to expand...
this makes the most sense to me. how could brianluce understand the skill it requires to speak an actor's language and to guide their performance, if he doesn't have the required knowledge to see that these skills (or talents) even exist. looking at myself, i can assume a certain degree of confidence in my ability to work effectively with actors. but i know enough to know there's plenty to learn. one of the most important lessons i've learned was to take responsibility for the actor. if i've casted a capable actor and the performance is flawed, then i've likely failed them somehow.
 
John_Hudson said:
Your thoughts are indeed in a vacuum.
Click to expand...

Just because you haven't heard these thoughts before doesn't mean a lot of others don't share them. As I said before, it's a minority opinion, but that doesn't mean it's unique, exotic, or even wrong.
 
brianluce said:
Just because you haven't heard these thoughts before doesn't mean a lot of others don't share them. As I said before, it's a minority opinion, but that doesn't mean it's unique, exotic, or even wrong.
Click to expand...
likewise, just because this is your thought doesn't mean it isn't misinformed. admittedly i have no experience directing a commercial. but i can intuit that unless you are really pushing the envelope of the :30 second tv spot, the scope of everything from concept to your relationship with your actors is limited. and so, your point of view is at the very least, understandable, in this context.
brianluce said:
Yes, I agree. You're extremely wonderful.
Click to expand...
that wasn't self-congratulatory and you know it.
 
Last edited:
Mark Harris said:
All this proves is:



b) You clearly know nothing about working with actors as a director. Only a lousy director would say: "Bobby Bobby Bobby, I'm not feelin' it...come on Bobby, we're on the clock here..." Which is what came out of your mouth, not mine. So maybe you're just a lousy director and assume everyone else is too.
Click to expand...

Mark, this was an attempt at levity--an attempt to lighten up things around here. Sheesh, you'd think I was arguing the holocaust was a hoax.

The majority of rebuttals here are personal attacks. I think you guys are really mean and if you don't stop I will tell on you.
 
Zak Forsman said:
r. if i've casted a capable actor and the performance is flawed, then i've likely failed them somehow.
Click to expand...

I would argue, that if the actor was in fact capable and the performance was flawed, that your failing was in the casting not the directing. Good even great actors can be miscast. An example might be Kevin Spacey in "Shipping News". Spacey can be tremendous with the right material, but that doesn't mean he can play any role.

Casting is one of the most important things a director does--and IMHOP DOES require talent and a profound understanding of the material.
 
haven't you ever wondered how a certain actor could have been brilliant in one film but so dreadful in many others? cases in point: richard gere, sharon stone, louise fletcher, john travolta, nick cage, etc.
 
Zak Forsman said:
haven't you ever wondered how a certain actor could have been brilliant in one film but so dreadful in many others? cases in point: richard gere, sharon stone, louise fletcher, john travolta, nick cage, etc.
Click to expand...

Totally disagree--I assume you're implying it's the director's fault. No way, not at that level. As I said above, I think it's the casting and more commonly BAD material. It's the rarest of actors capable of transcending bad material. Morgan Freeman seems to do it on a regular basis.
 
Last edited:
CallaghanFilms said:
Michelangelo wasn't so hot. Now the 16th century nude models, canvas-makers, and paint-blenders...them were some genius motherpoo pooers.
Click to expand...

By inference you're slamming actors and all the other people it takes to make a film happen.

And you guys thing I'm the bad guy? I'm the Rodney Dangerfield of this place. No respect I tell ya...
 
brianluce said:
The majority of rebuttals here are personal attacks.
Click to expand...


When you're wrong, your're wrong. That is not a personal attack, just the facts.

You had an opportunty courtesy of Kholi to ellaborate and only smeared it around.

The idea you are proposing is outright a falsity. Every person in this thread has told you this, common sense dictates this

Show us an example of what it is your saying ? You cannot, but we can show you examples of our sided point.

-

You've been on these boards a lopng time and I respect you and all; but I never knew this was your take on the art if the director. Truly one of the most bizarre statements I have ever read

-

You are wrong. That is not a personal attack.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top