"a Glory Hog film" - I just don't get it

[adventusfilms]

First of all, I don't want to denounce any filmmakers by insinuating that the director has an easy job or lesser stature than anyone else on a film. Most directors have earned their title by the end of production and I usually applaud their efforts.

But as another filmmaker who usually won't direct, I don't see the legitimacy of labeling a film as "the director's film" in the credits. I know this title is used in almost every motion picture to date, but I still can't seem to validate it myself. Maybe someone can help with the notion.

I want to take the practical approach first. I understand that maybe this is a way of honoring the "director's vision" from start to finish, but I think it has turned into more of a habit to make the film tied to one person and labeling it as their own. But we know that without the DP or production designer or maybe even the editor or financier, the vision wouldn't make the film what it is on the answer print. It just kind of seems like a cliché these days (I'm lookin at you Shyamalan).

I know not all directors who use the "a ____ film" title in the beginning of the picture are seeking glory and that it's probably more of an industry standard these days than anything. But I think it still reflects a certain mentality and maybe a production value that wouldn't sit well with people outside of the film community.

I also want to point out that indi-directors USUALLY earn the right to flash their name everywhere more than a larger production where people are paid to do the jobs that a smaller budget film has to compensate for. They're under-exposed, under-paid and under-fed...so they of course want it more and work so much harder, doing 5 times as many jobs as a director should do, including the common Investor-via-Master Card position.

One last thing. If I decide I do want to direct something else in the future, I will reframe from including my name in anything else but "directed by". Do you really need anymore than that?

I figured I post this in the director's section first and maybe get the battle brewing.

Chris

 

[ozduc]

I don't see the legitimacy of labeling a film as "the director's film" in the credits. I know this title is used in almost every motion picture to date, but I still can't seem to validate it myself. Maybe someone can help with the notion.

There are some guidelines that have to be met for a film to have a credit saying "a film by"

I know not all directors who use the "a ____ film" title in the beginning of the picture are seeking glory and that it's probably more of an industry standard these days than anything.

No that is not the industry standard.

One last thing. If I decide I do want to direct something else in the future, I will reframe from including my name in anything else but "directed by". Do you really need anymore than that?

Chris

Well if you were to write the script and are responsible for obtaining the financing, producing and directing the film, you would be more than entitled to have a credit saying "a film by Chris....." or "A Chris....film".

If you would like to familiarize yourself with some of the industry standards you can check out the DGA and PGA websites.

http://directorsguild.com/thedga/gi_credits.php3
http://producersguild.org/pg/about_a/pcoc.asp

 

[adventusfilms]

Well, it looks like if it weren't for the WGA, the guidelines would be nonexistent. I admit that you are right, THESE DAYS it is not the industry standard, but three years ago it was.

But that furthers my point. The DGA wants to go to war over a title card? You have to admit it's a little self indulgent. Do you think a novice director who is barely able to squeak by in meeting the guidelines deserves to use that credit when given a script written by an established veteran writer?

I just think that the majority of films that include that title in the credits give disregard to the collaborative process that took place to get the piece made. Screw all your "rules" that the DGA had to ***** about for the better part of a century to get changed. But I am glad there are at least some rules now.

 

[Zak Forsman]

i'm down with that. my filmmaking process is highly collaborative, moreso than most. so for me to claim an "a film by" credit would fly in the face of my principles. i still use the credit, but in different ways. on Blue in Green "a film by...." was at the top of the scrolling credit roll, effectively giving that credit to everyone. currently, i use it as a bit of a marketing gimmick. on all marketing materials it says 'a film by sabi'. Sabi Pictures is my production company. actually that's my DBA. the company is Sabi, LLC. anyway, the 'a film by sabi' also appears in the studio logo that precedes the films. don't use it anywhere else.

i shouldn't really dismiss it as a gimmick. because at the heart of it, Sabi is an aesthetic, a set of principles, the banner underwhich a small community of artists and craftsmen have come together on a creative endeavor. and that, ultimately, is where i'm placing credit for the film's authorship.

​

 

[DorkmanScott]

But that furthers my point. The DGA wants to go to war over a title card? You have to admit it's a little self indulgent. Do you think a novice director who is barely able to squeak by in meeting the guidelines deserves to use that credit when given a script written by an established veteran writer?

Yes, I do think so personally, and between the two I consider myself to be a writer first.

Without a director, the script is just text on a page. Yeah, you can argue that you need actors and a cameraman and all that stuff, but a plane won't fly without a pilot.

It did used to be policy through the DGA that credit had to be taken a certain way. Recall, for example, that George Lucas got in a lot of trouble for not having opening credits on Star Wars.

I just think that the majority of films that include that title in the credits give disregard to the collaborative process that took place to get the piece made.

I disagree. I don't think it disrespects or belittles the collaborative process at all. But if you've got a director who is really doing his job, everyone else is working to make the film the way he sees it. You've got a hundred people doing a lot of hard work, and the director is the one it all funnels through to become a unified whole.

When a dish is "cooked by Wolfgang Puck", you don't make a big deal over the fact that the guy didn't raise or slaughter the cow or grow the herbs or make the knives, do you? He is still the one combining them all together to make magic. In the same way, the director is the "chef" bringing together all the disparate elements.

It is 100% true that without the actors, makeup artists, grips, screenwriters, and what have you, a director can't make a film. But, on the other hand, without a director, none of those talents individually makes a film, either. It is specifically through the director that those things come together and create a film, and I don't think the "A Film By" credit is off the mark at all.

I might give your argument some merit if that was the only credit that appears on the film. But you've got at least 2-3 minutes at the end of the film listing the names of everyone who made the film a reality, and I think it's pretty clear that all of them contributed to the production.

On smaller budget films where everyone is your close friend and you're not paying them much, I can see how it might be important to you to make sure that everyone feels valued and respected, achieved in one way by not elevating yourself, as director, above the others by claiming what some people seem to construe as "sole credit" for the work of making a film.

And, perhaps, you truly feel on such a small set that everyone DOES have equal input into the film. When you've got four people doing twenty jobs, everyone's got to have a certain degree of autonomy and it probably does become a case of it being a true team project.

On a big set, not so much. There's a lot of people and very few of them report directly to you, and those that do are asking questions that you have to answer to keep the film moving in the right direction. A good director listens to suggestions and decides which to take and which not to. It's still a collaboration, but the responsibility of the final decision IS on the director's shoulders.

If a film is great, the director gets the credit. If it goes badly, he gets the blame. Given the amount of risk involved, I don't think there's anything wrong with proclaiming ownership of the film. Especially considering that you're going to get pinned with it anyway by viewers, for good or ill.

All that being said, I haven't personally used it on any of my films to date, but mainly because opening credits aren't my preference, and in the end credits I just go with a "Written and Directed by" credit. I don't have a problem with other people doing it.

 

[jpbankesmercer]

Of course filmmaking is a collaborative process. The aesthetic choices should be finally decided upon the director and so the final blame can also be levelled if the decisions were not the correct way to go. Of course this overall vision and script interpretation can then be pinned down to one individual. As you concisely put, indie filmmaking is a different ballgame with the director donning many hats and so earning this privilege. I personally think that on bigger productions, putting you name to a feature in today’s high risk market is a brave thing to do (see Directors Prison ), many careers have begun and ended with this kiss of death. If the film is a flop the crew can still work on other productions but the director will never forget that his own name signed his/ hers death warrant.
Jp

 

[Arson]

What if the Director is also the Writer, DP and Production Designer? Would the Filmmaker be obligated to credit Visa for arranging financing?

 

[Sad Max]

It's about contractual entitlement, pure and simple, at least on studio and studio-backed shows. A great number of things are underpinned by what satisfies very well-compensated, very emotionally fragile people that they are getting what they want, and the 'a film by' line is something that's come into common usage, that some of those people want. A lot. So there's contractual language covering it and the practice persists. It's like the badge on your brand-spanking-new Porsche. Everybody sees it. You like that. You know who you are; don't deny it.

And yes, a professional crew is there to practice their various crafts toward the purpose of realizing for the director what he needs to tell the story, at least something like the way he'd like to tell it.

I find the sabi practice very appealing. I always liked the gang a film by roll, but the sort of anonymous creativity suggested by sabi is better. Also, admirably inegotistical.

 

[Zak Forsman]

i think a more relevant question is, if taking an "a film by" credit is important to you, why?

 

[DorkmanScott]

Equally relevant is "why is it significant to you". I would bet that almost none of the general audience thinks anything of the credit, and probably don't pay much attention to the credits at all.

 

[Zak Forsman]

yes, equally relevant because its the same question.

 

[DorkmanScott]

Not exactly. Your question is "Why does a director want a 'film by' credit." My question is "Why do you care if a director wants a 'film by' credit."

 

[Sad Max]

i think a more relevant question is, if taking an "a film by" credit is important to you, why?

You're a fundamentaly weak, insecure individual with a hugely distended and pathetically fragile ego, and the stroke is just too good to pass up. Implicitly taking credit for the work of others, in addition to your own, makes you feel like a big, important person and - temporarily - silences that quiet, honest, nagging voice that whispers in the dark that maybe you aren't the Gods' gift to the world of creative artistry, after all.

One theory, anyway.

Personally, I don't care. I wouldn't take an emotional crutch away from someone who desperately needs it, any more than I would kick a material crutch out from under a physically disabled person who needs it, too.

 

[jpbankesmercer]

I've reopened this one as I miss-interpreted sadmax’s response as a personal attack, soz max..
J.P.

 

[DorkmanScott]

You're a fundamentaly weak, insecure individual with a hugely distended and pathetically fragile ego, and the stroke is just too good to pass up. Implicitly taking credit for the work of others, in addition to your own, makes you feel like a big, important person and - temporarily - silences that quiet, honest, nagging voice that whispers in the dark that maybe you aren't the Gods' gift to the world of creative artistry, after all.

Doesn't that fundamentally describe every artist?

You're talking about Steven Spielberg, Ridley Scott, Martin Scorsese, Peter Jackson, Luc Besson, Robert Rodriguez, Quentin Tarantino, Ang Lee, Tim Burton, David Croenenberg, John Carpenter, Gore Verbinski, Michael Bay, Ivan Reitman, Guillermo Del Toro, Alfonso Cuaron, M. Night Shyamalan, Mel Gibson, Christopher Nolan, Wolfgang Petersen, The Coen Brothers, David Fincher, Jim Henson, Frank Oz, Robert Zemeckis, Ron Howard, James Cameron, Bryan Singer...to name a few.

You may or may not like all of them, but you've lumped them all into your category of weak, insecure, and egotistical people. And you may be right -- as I said above, I believe that's the core of an artist and the reason they try to express themselves creatively. But if that's the company such an individual is in, I can't see how that's a bad thing.

A film cannot exist without a director. Someone has to pull all the different departments together into a coherent piece, and that person is the de facto director, even if the concept is "experimental" and the idea is to be "directorless".

A film cannot be edited without an editor, it cannot be produced without a producer, and it cannot exist without a director. I really don't see anything wrong with taking that credit, or with not taking it. But I think the choice not to take it, particularly if it's for reasons of "not being a glory hog", is equally the result of being insecure and self-aggrandizing.

You still want people to think you're awesome and talk about you -- and particularly about how awesome you are not to take a big credit by thinking of all the little people. One is directly seeking praise and the other is seeking it through reverse psychology, but it's the same mentality stemming from the same place.

Besides all these proclamations of weak egos, don't forget the fact that it can also be a selling point, both for the film and the filmmaker. If you love Tim Burton, you want to know that an upcoming film is by Tim Burton; same thing with Ridley Scott, or Christopher Nolan, or Steven Spielberg.

If the filmmaker is more of an up-and-comer, it's also important to have his name up there because then people start to recognize it and, if he makes good films, his name can become a marketing tool as above.

Like I said before, it's a gamble to take that credit and make your name prominent. If the movie is great, you win and will probably get a lot of attention and work and accolades. If it's not as good as you think it is, it makes you an easy punchline.

 

[Zak Forsman]

I dont think you can deny that ego is a bad thing. the ego spawns desire, or the idea that "if I only had X, i would be happy". and as we know desire is the root of suffering, of broken hearts, of stepped upon toes, etc.

the credit itself has no other advantage. it doesn't change anyone's understanding of who directed the film. it won't help an up and comer the way a good agent will. in marketing, the titles of other films are more useful than the name of the director. in fact, having worked in trailers, i can tell you that when you do hear the VO read "a film by such-and-such" it is because he negotiated for that, not because marketing necessarily thinks they can sell the movie on his name.

and i stand at odds with the notion that not taking the credit is equally self-aggrandizing. I dont take it because i genuinely feel it would be a lie to claim authorship of the entire work, especially in such a collaborative artform. its use takes something away from everyone who worked on the film. believe it or not, some filmmakers and artists see ego as detrimental to the process of making a film. [see Blue in Green] some of us actively keep ego in check because we're more concerned with the work than the career. humility is a discipline, not a selling point.

besides, the directed by credit satisfies my desire to be "noticed" without insulting and dismissing others' work by taking credit for the whole thing. it would be like Jarred Land taking credit for everything the DVXUser community has contributed to this site over the years.

a post by Zak Forsman

 

[DorkmanScott]

and i stand at odds with the notion that not taking the credit is equally self-aggrandizing. I dont take it because i genuinely feel it would be a lie to claim authorship of the entire work in a collaborative artform. its use takes something away from everyone who worked on the film. believe it or not, some filmmakers and artists see ego as detrimental to the process of making a film. [see Blue in Green] some of us actively keep ego in check because we're more concerned with the work than the career.

So Jim Henson was selfish and egotistical? He took the "film by" credit on Labyrinth, after all. Or Spielberg on all his film is disrespectful to all the other people who work to make the film happen?

I don't think that taking the "film by" credit is automatically a sign of egotism, just as I don't think not taking it is an automatic sign of humility.

besides, the directed by credit satisfies my desire to be "noticed" without insulting and dismissing others' work by taking credit for the whole thing. it would be like Jarred Land taking credit for everything the DVXUser community has contributed to this site over the years.

There's a difference between taking ownership of the result, and taking credit for the entire process.

What's on the screen is there because of the director, for better or worse. You could have a brilliant make-up artist do a crappy job because of the director's requests, or you could have a mediocre actor win an Oscar because the director is brilliant. The director is the ultimate author of the piece, and everyone else is helping him achieve it. They all get their credits too.

The movie is the way it is because of the director. You could take the same script, cast, and crew, give it to two different directors, and they would give you two completely different movies. I don't see how you could deny that the film is "by" the individual director.

By your logic, Jarred using the title "Founder" on his profile IS him taking credit for everything on DVXUser.

 

[Zak Forsman]

So Jim Henson was selfish and egotistical? He took the "film by" credit on Labyrinth, after all. Or Spielberg on all his film is disrespectful to all the other people who work to make the film happen?

i can't speak to how egotistical these people are. but i do think it's disrespectful to the people they worked with.

I don't think that taking the "film by" credit is automatically a sign of egotism, just as I don't think not taking it is an automatic sign of humility.

what other purpose does the existance of this credit serve then? as i said before, for me humility is a discipline, not a selling point.

There's a difference between taking ownership of the result, and taking credit for the entire process.

that's true. and taking credit for the process is illustrated in the 'directed by' credit. taking ownership of the results is the 'a film by' credit.

What's on the screen is there because of the director, for better or worse. You could have a brilliant make-up artist do a crappy job because of the director's requests, or you could have a mediocre actor win an Oscar because the director is brilliant. The director is the ultimate author of the piece, and everyone else is helping him achieve it. They all get their credits too.

i guess the question is why would a director feel the need to say he did more than direct the picture? that he is not only taking credit for telling people what to do (directing), but also taking credit for the actual work and results of what they did (a film by).

By your logic, Jarred using the title "Founder" on his profile IS him taking credit for everything on DVXUser.

no, i think that's like his directed by credit. it states his role in this whole thing. if the site was called "Jarred Land's DVXUser.com" that would be another story.

 

[Sad Max]

Doesn't that fundamentally describe every artist?

No.

You're talking about Steven Spielberg, Ridley Scott, Martin Scorsese, Peter Jackson, Luc Besson, Robert Rodriguez, Quentin Tarantino, Ang Lee, Tim Burton, David Croenenberg, John Carpenter, Gore Verbinski, Michael Bay, Ivan Reitman, Guillermo Del Toro, Alfonso Cuaron, M. Night Shyamalan, Mel Gibson, Christopher Nolan, Wolfgang Petersen, The Coen Brothers, David Fincher, Jim Henson, Frank Oz, Robert Zemeckis, Ron Howard, James Cameron, Bryan Singer...to name a few.

Did I mention any of those names? checks previous posts No, you did. Please notice that I offered it as "one theory." Not as a "one size fits all" theory.

You may or may not like all of them, but you've lumped them all into your category of weak, insecure, and egotistical people.

No, you have. See above.

So far as 'liking' any of them...I know from experience that some of the people on your list, fit my model perfectly, that some of them do not, and as for the rest, I've either not worked with them, or didn't form a personal impression that would let me suppose anything, one way or the other.

And you may be right -- as I said above, I believe that's the core of an artist and the reason they try to express themselves creatively.

One of our professors offered the opinion that the artist's drive to create and show his work, is identical to the two- or three-year-old's desire to smear his excrement on the walls for all to see and appreciate. At the time, we muttered that maybe he ought to just speak for himself, but with time I've come to take the concept a bit more seriously.

But if that's the company such an individual is in, I can't see how that's a bad thing.

I dunno. Seems like advocating alcoholism and heroin addiction, since they put you in the company of Ernest Hemingway, Jack Kerouac, Somerset Maugham and William S Burroughs. Bad behavior remains bad behavior, no matter what company it suggests you keep.

A film cannot exist without a director.

If you like. At which point the definition of 'director' starts to get very diffuse.

Someone has to pull all the different departments together into a coherent piece, and that person is the de facto director, even if the concept is "experimental" and the idea is to be "directorless".

If the coherence of the final product is what determines 'directing,' then there are an awful lot of undirected releases out there. Can you count the number of fundamentally incoherent works you've seen, that have someone credited along the way as the director? I know I can't.

A film cannot be edited without an editor, it cannot be produced without a producer, and it cannot exist without a director.

Okay. And this underwrites the propriety of the 'a film by' credit...how? Seems like you've just made an argument against it, since without the producer and editor, there won't be anything for which the director can claim credit. There aren't a lot of un-produced or un-edited films out there, any more than there are a lot of un-directed ones.

And, if the director is defined as some sort of singular, indispensable, unique individual...I remember one particular feature where we had four directors over the course of the project (three of them after the start of principal photography!) and the final product was so embarrassing that the 'a film by' credit went to Thomas Lee - who doesn't even exist.

Apparently the dierctor is so indispensable, that he can be replaced on a weekly basis, and in the end not even be an extant person. That sure merits being singularly credited for a couple hundred other people's work and productivity...

I really don't see anything wrong with taking that credit, or with not taking it.

Well, I'm not sufficiently worked up over it, that I'm going to go piss in anyone's coffee, either.

But I think the choice not to take it, particularly if it's for reasons of "not being a glory hog", is equally the result of being insecure and self-aggrandizing.

That's interesting. An individual who declines to put their name in a proprietary fashion on many other people's work, is insecure and self-aggrandizing to the same degree as a person who chooses not to put their name in proprietary fashion on many other people's work?

You still want people to think you're awesome and talk about you -- and particularly about how awesome you are not to take a big credit by thinking of all the little people. One is directly seeking praise and the other is seeking it through reverse psychology, but it's the same mentality stemming from the same place.

I think that's a little too theoretical. When's the last time you heard a director being praised for his or her decision to eschew the 'a film by' credit? Be honest, really, when was the last time?

Besides all these proclamations of weak egos,

Less a proclamation; more a mere statement. I think proclamations involve trumpets and pages in tights, and stuff.

don't forget the fact that it can also be a selling point, both for the film and the filmmaker. If you love Tim Burton, you want to know that an upcoming film is by Tim Burton; same thing with Ridley Scott, or Christopher Nolan, or Steven Spielberg.

There's no secret made, of *any* of those individuals having directed an upcoming release, which is over on the marketing side, which is separate and distinct from the credits. Asses land in theater seats based upon ad campaigns, not opening credits...I mean please just think about it for a moment: by the time you're sitting watching the 'a film by' credit, you've already heard about the film and have already paid for your ticket. Right?

If the filmmaker is more of an up-and-comer, it's also important to have his name up there because then people start to recognize it and, if he makes good films, his name can become a marketing tool as above.

See above. Anyway, his/her name is still there, every bit as readable, when credited with "Directed By" as it is, with "A Film By."

Like I said before, it's a gamble to take that credit and make your name prominent. If the movie is great, you win and will probably get a lot of attention and work and accolades. If it's not as good as you think it is, it makes you an easy punchline.

Somehow I'm not quite on board, with interpreting demand for the 'a film by' tag, as a manifestation of personal bravery.

 

[Sad Max]

I dont think you can deny that ego is a bad thing. the ego spawns desire, or the idea that "if I only had X, i would be happy". and as we know desire is the root of suffering, of broken hearts, of stepped upon toes, etc.

Somebody's a Buddhist at heart!