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

[DorkmanScott]

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

Well, I guess that's where you and I differ. The other people have the credits for what they contributed. The film as a whole ultimately came from the director.

If the "film by" credit was the only credit on the film, then I would agree with you. That's insulting and disrespectful to everyone else who did the work. But because it isn't, your argument just doesn't make sense to me. They all get the credit for everything they did.

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.

For me, humility means not pointing out how humble you are.

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.

No, taking credit for your portion of the process is the "directed by" credit. That is not taking credit for the entire process, and neither is the film by credit. The film by credit is, we agree, taking ownership of the results. Where we disagree is that you think it's a bad thing. I don't, because I think it's warranted.

The credit isn't "all the work done by". Again, you don't fault Picasso for signing his name on a painting when he didn't make the canvas, easel, brushes, paints, or subject of his portrait. He's the one who took the raw resources and used them together to create something. In film, your resources are often other people, but IMO it comes to the same thing.

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).

I think maybe that's where we disagree. To me they're essentially the same credit. Everyone knows the "film by" credit refers to the director.

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.

But how, and why would that matter? It IS his site. He pays for it, he maintains it, he created it. That doesn't automatically mean he's taking credit for everything on it.

 

[Sad Max]

.

If the "film by" credit was the only credit on the film, then I would agree with you. That's insulting and disrespectful to everyone else who did the work. But because it isn't, your argument just doesn't make sense to me. They all get the credit for everything they did.

I don't mean to diss you, or anything, but this suggests to me that your experience has not been primarily in the commercial feature film and television content production business. All people who work on productions most assuredly do *not* get credited. Frequently entire department staffs do not get credited. Now, as my father likes to say, the credit is secondary, so long as you got the cash, but no argument based upon the idea that everyone who contributes gets credited has any legs, at all.

And, for what little it's worth, Picasso did in fact usually prepare his own canvases, mix his own pigments and prepare his own brushes, as a lot of old-school painters used to (and some I guess, still) do. A poor analogy, anyway, since canvas/brushes/etc are akin not to the production process, but to the manufacture of film stock, optics, instruments, etc as distinct from their employment on-set and in post.

In film, your resources are often other people, but IMO it comes to the same thing.

A skilled crafstman or artist, is not a resource. He or she is a skilled craftsman or artist, and the suggestion that, say, a scenic painter who's spent ten or fifteen years refining her craft is a mere resource, akin to a tube of paint, is insulting. If a tube of paint and a skilled scenic artist are just interchangeable resources, then the mighty godlike director should be able to get identical results out of one, as well as the other...and save a lot of money, in the process.

 

[DorkmanScott]

I don't mean to diss you, or anything, but this suggests to me that your experience has not been primarily in the commercial feature film and television content production business. All people who work on productions most assuredly do *not* get credited. Frequently entire department staffs, do not get credited. Now, as my father likes to say, the credit is secondary, so long as you got the cash, but no argument based upon the idea that everyone who contributes gets credited has any legs, at all.

Okay, that's a fair comment. I know a lot of VFX artists and you're right, typically a film only "budgets" so many names in the credits and only a fraction of the people who did the work get their name in it. So okay, I spoke a little too generally.

But my point still stands. Taking the "Film By" credit is not eliminating the other credits, nor claiming to have done all of the work, nor dismissing the contributions of the other people involved. It's not because of the director that some people have to go uncredited, it's the producer/studio that makes those negotiations.

A skilled crafstman or artist, is not a resource. He or she is a skilled craftsman or artist, and the suggestion that, say, a scenic painter who's spent ten or fifteen years refining her craft is a mere resource, akin to a tube of paint, is insulting. If a tube of paint and a skilled scenic artist are just interchangeable resources, then the mighty godlike director should be able to get identical results out of one, as well as the other...and save a lot of money, in the process.

Part of being a good director is making good choices, and that means choosing the right people. Just as choosing a particular film stock will get you a particular look, so will choosing a particular artist or craftsman.

Surely you have heard the term "human resources" before? That's all I'm talking about. You pick an artist because they're good the same way you would choose a particular type of wood to make a piece of furniture.

People and connections and relationships ARE resources, but you're giving the word a negative connotation that isn't there, due in part to my admittedly flawed analogy.

I'm not saying that people are faceless and replacable and interchangeable, nor that they don't deserve to be treated with respect and dignity. Quite to the contrary, I believe it's important to choose the right people for the right job. But ultimately, you hire them or you don't hire them, someone works for you or they don't. Their talent is important and respectable, but on a project to project basis, they are there to do a job.

A concept artist, however brilliant, doesn't make a film, he makes concept art. A set builder, however talented, doesn't make a film, he makes a set. A dolly grip doesn't make a film, he pulls the dolly. The film can't do without them and they deserve respect, but a tube of paint isn't a painting without an artist, and you have no film without a director, no matter how long the scenic artist has taken to perfect her craft.

 

[Zak Forsman]

Well, I guess that's where you and I differ. The other people have the credits for what they contributed. The film as a whole ultimately came from the director.

i don't think it did. i think a film is the sum of a small creative community's creative endeavors.

For me, humility means not pointing out how humble you are.

well, like I said. it is a discipline. but flat out taking credit for someone else's work is dishonest.

No, taking credit for your portion of the process is the "directed by" credit. That is not taking credit for the entire process, and neither is the film by credit. The film by credit is, we agree, taking ownership of the results. Where we disagree is that you think it's a bad thing. I don't, because I think it's warranted.

Dorkman, seeing as how the points that I made have guided you toward your rebuttals, i'm taking credit for all your responses to my posts. please tagged all further replies with "a post by Zak Forsman".

I think maybe that's where we disagree. To me they're essentially the same credit. Everyone knows the "film by" credit refers to the director.

i'm not sure what you're saying here. that because people know its the director, they can freely disregard his need to credit himself twice for the same job? huh?

 

[Zak Forsman]

A concept artist, however brilliant, doesn't make a film, he makes concept art. A set builder, however talented, doesn't make a film, he makes a set. A dolly grip doesn't make a film, he pulls the dolly. The film can't do without them and they deserve respect, but a tube of paint isn't a painting without an artist, and you have no film without a director, no matter how long the scenic artist has taken to perfect her craft.

actually, you have no film without financiers. the director is responsible to them. so then, why isn't it their film?

 

[DorkmanScott]

i don't think it did. i think a film is the sum of a small creative community's creative endeavors.

I totally agree. My point is that the person who does the adding to create that sum is the director, and that makes it his film. Any other person given the same parts would have had a different sum of them.

well, like I said. it is a discipline.

Well played. :beer:

but flat out taking credit for someone else's work is dishonest.

I agree, and if he was taking the "Edited by" credit when he didn't do the editing, or the "Craft Services" credit when he had nothing to do with the food, then we would have no question. But I don't believe the "film by" credit is implicitly or explicitly taking credit for the specific jobs or contributions that other people made. It is merely stating a fact: that the specific combination and utilization of the cast and crew's talent, skills, and contributions was overseen by one specific person, and became the film you are about to see. That person did not do everything on the film, but the film would not be what it is if it had been any other person.

Dorkman, seeing as how the points that I made have guided you toward your rebuttals, i'm taking credit for all your responses to my posts. please tagged all further replies with "a post by Zak Forsman".

That's you taking credit for my specific contributions, not for the sum of them. You can negotiate credit for the thread, if you feel so inclined, but not the individual posts.

i'm not sure what you're saying here. that because people know its the director, they can freely disregard his need to credit himself twice for the same job? huh?

Everyone credited at the beginning of a film is typically credited again at the end of the film.

actually, you have no film without financiers. the director is responsible to them. so then, why isn't it their film?

Money is not a film. If the financiers don't give the money to anyone, they don't have a film. If they give the money to a fishing company, they don't have a film. Only in the hands of a director does the money become a film.

 

[Sad Max]

It's not because of the director that some people have to go uncredited, it's the producer/studio that makes those negotiations.

I have seen directors fight tooth and nail, to get names into the credits that they strongly feel belong there. You're correct, inasmuch as what you wrote applies to tv, but on feature projects directors - especially the names you've listed - have a great deal of say over what names go where, should they choose to.

Part of being a good director is making good choices, and that means choosing the right people. Just as choosing a particular film stock will get you a particular look, so will choosing a particular artist or craftsman.

This is a really pernicious concept. The film stock is a piece of plastic with some chemistry applied to it. One bit of that stock is fundamentally identical to any other bit of the same stock (or so Kodak would have us believe, anyway). Artists and craftsmen are individual human beings with individual professional histories who do highly variable work from project to project. They don't perform with the rigid predictability of a film stock, they create as they work. The fact that they are creating in an effort to fit a director's expectations, does not reduce them to the level of predictable and repeatable photo-chemistry.

Surely you have heard the term "human resources" before?

Sure. It's an unfortunate and despicable usage with no place outside an accountant's office. I wouldn't mind seeing it evaporate.

That's all I'm talking about. You pick an artist because they're good the same way you would choose a particular type of wood to make a piece of furniture.

What's missing, there, is the understanding that you need the artist to turn the particular type of wood into a piece of furniture. Does the wood sit there and turn itself into what you want? No. Does an artist or craftsman take the wood and make something of it? Yes. Heck, your perspective suggests that carpentry consists of choosing lumber, and then telling it to magically turn itself into a deck.

People and connections and relationships ARE resources, but you're giving the word a negative connotation that isn't there, due in part to my admittedly flawed analogy.

The way it's used daily in the environment in which I operate, is what's given the term a negative connotation. Not your fault, at all.

Their talent is important and respectable, but on a project to project basis, they are there to do a job.

That's correct. Does that mean then, that someone else is entitled to claim credit for their important and respectable work, as if he performed it himself?

A concept artist, however brilliant, doesn't make a film, he makes concept art.

Is Blade Runner still Blade Runner, if you were to subtract the work of Syd Meade? Nope. It would be virtually nothing.

A set builder, however talented, doesn't make a film, he makes a set.

Is Alien still Alien, or Amadeus still Amadeus, sans sets? I don't think so.

A dolly grip doesn't make a film, he pulls the dolly.

And without someone in his position, you have a film composed of locked shots. Maybe still a great film, but certainly not Saving Private Ryan or Poltergeist.

The film can't do without them and they deserve respect, but a tube of paint isn't a painting without an artist, and you have no film without a director, no matter how long the scenic artist has taken to perfect her craft.

The scenic artist is the individual who uses the tube of paint, not the director. Take away every last thing that the director didn't do with his or her own hands, and whatever you have left, then, can properly be titled 'a film by' that director. And if that's the way they would like to use the credit, well, more power to 'em.

 

[DorkmanScott]

I have seen directors fight tooth and nail, to get names into the credits that they strongly feel belong there. You're correct, inasmuch as what you wrote applies to tv, but on feature projects directors - especially the names you've listed - have a great deal of say over what names go where, should they choose to.

Fair enough, but you're making my point. Why would they do that if they ultimately see themselves as "taking credit" for what everyone else does?

This is a really pernicious concept. The film stock is a piece of plastic with some chemistry applied to it. One bit of that stock is fundamentally identical to any other bit of the same stock (or so Kodak would have us believe, anyway). Artists and craftsmen are individual human beings with individual professional histories who do highly variable work from project to project. They don't perform with the rigid predictability of a film stock, they create as they work. The fact that they are creating in an effort to fit a director's expectations, does not reduce them to the level of predictable and repeatable photo-chemistry.

True. But if you hire H.R. Giger, you know the kind of thing he's going to give you and you hire him to give it to you. Even though what he's going to give you is unique and something he hasn't done before, it's going to have his style and you're not going to hire him unless you're sure you want that style.

What's missing, there, is the understanding that you need the artist to turn the particular type of wood into a piece of furniture. Does the wood sit there and turn itself into what you want? No. Does an artist or craftsman take the wood and make something of it? Yes. Heck, your perspective suggests that carpentry consists of choosing lumber, and then telling it to magically turn itself into a deck.

What's missing, actually, is the understanding that is is EXACTLY my point. None of the discrete artists doing their thing -- no matter who they are or how talented -- will become a film without the director.

The comparison to wood and furniture is meant to be an analogy, a metaphor, not a literal 1:1 comparison.

Wood = concept artist.
Furniture maker = director.

Wood and nails will not magically become furniture, and concept art and acting and words on a page will not magically become a film.

The way it's used daily in the environment in which I operate, is what's given the term a negative connotation. Not your fault, at all.

Fair enough.

That's correct. Does that mean then, that someone else is entitled to claim credit for their important and respectable work, as if he performed it himself?

No. But I don't believe that's what you're doing when you take "a film by" credit. You're not taking credit for the work, just the implementation as part of a greater whole, which IS part of the director's job.

Is Blade Runner still Blade Runner, if you were to subtract the work of Syd Mead? Nope. It would be virtually nothing.

Right. But if you were to subtract Ridley Scott, would Syd Mead's work be a film? Nope. It would be a painting on a wall.

They have a few of those very paintings at the UCLA film school, incidentally. They're quite stunning. But they aren't Blade Runner, and they didn't BECOME Blade Runner until Ridley Scott combined them with the other elements contributed by the other artists.

Ridley Scott takes the "film by" credit on Blade Runner. He does not take the credit for the city backgrounds or vehicle designs, Syd Mead gets that credit and that's why you know his name.

And without someone in his position, you have a film composed of locked shots. Maybe still a great film, but certainly not Saving Private Ryan or Poltergeist.

I completely agree, he's an integral part of the film. I never ever said he isn't. Although I could point out that instead of a dolly grip, you might have a steadicam operator. What dictates that? The style of the film. Who dictates that? The director.

The point I keep making, and everyone keeps ignoring, is that no one part is itself the film. Only the film is the film, and it is the director who takes those parts and creates the film from them.

The scenic artist is the individual who uses the tube of paint, not the director.

Are you doing that on purpose or do you really not know an analogy when you see one? Admittedly it's perhaps confusing to talk about a literal painter and a metaphorical painter one after the other, but I didn't think it was that unclear.

Take away every last thing that the director didn't do with his or her own hands, and whatever you have left, then, can properly be titled 'a film by' that director.

No, then those specific parts can be referred to as having been performed by that particular person. It is not a film because a film is the sum of all the parts.

Let's try one more: an author of a book. The author didn't invent the words of his language of choice (unless he's Dr. Seuss), but it is the specific combination of those words, unique to that author, that make up the book.

A director may not do every job on a set, but it's his decisions on how to combine the results of each job into the finished product, that create the film.

 

[Zak Forsman]

if you think a director that is doing the job, for which he is already credited as director, is entitled to a second, somewhat redundant, credit of authorship, i'm not going to piss in that same coffee cup sadmax referred to earlier. i simply feel that the type of films we're talking about are made by a community of artists and craftsmen under the direction of one person. and ego is the reason why a director would feel the need to take ownership of their creative contributions.

 

[DorkmanScott]

It's not ownership of the contributions, it's ownership of the final manipulation and utilization of those contributions. In other words, ownership of the job that he is supposed to do.

It's also forming a statement. "Universal Studios presents a film by Steven Spielberg, 'Jaws.' "

 

[Zak Forsman]

It's also forming a statement. "Universal Studios presents a film directed by Steven Spielberg, 'Jaws.' "

fixed.

 

[DorkmanScott]

fixed.

And as I've pointed out, I believe they mean the same thing. It's just a matter of semantics.

I still have to wonder why this bothers you so much. You've already decided that you're not personally interested in that credit. Good for you. Why do you care so much if other people decide to take it?

 

[Zak Forsman]

And as I've pointed out, I believe they mean the same thing. It's just a matter of semantics.

if they meant the same thing, why would you need both?

I still have to wonder why this bothers you so much. You've already decided that you're not personally interested in that credit. Good for you. Why do you care so much if other people decide to take it?

yeah, god forbid i take filmmaking seriously. not that this really has anything to do with that. it has more to do with illustrating what i believe to be a symptom of the flawed conventions of mainstream filmmaking.

 

[DorkmanScott]

if they meant the same thing, why would you need both?

Director, actors, cinematographer, composer, and producers all get credits at the beginning and end of a film -- when a film has opening credits at all, which is not always the case.

It's the same as "Starring Tom Hanks" and "Tom Hanks as Forrest." Two credits, different places, different contexts, same meaning.

yeah, god forbid i take filmmaking seriously. not that this really has anything to do with that.

It really doesn't have anything to do with taking filmmaking seriously. I take it pretty seriously too and I would be hard pressed to care less whether someone took such a credit or not. I personally never use opening credits, purely for aesthetic reasons. I think they make it hard to engage in the film and suspend disbelief because you're keeping people aware of the fact that they're watching a film. Since I don't usually use opening credits, I won't have to decide whether or not to take a "Film by" anyway.

I just think a director has every right to do so if they're so inclined, because it's a credit that they earned.

it has more to do with illustrating what i believe to be a symptom of the flawed conventions of mainstream filmmaking.

I can give you that, but really, there are much bigger flaws in the system.

 

[Zak Forsman]

Director, actors, cinematographer, composer, and producers all get credits at the beginning and end of a film -- when a film has opening credits at all, which is not always the case.

i don't know what films you're referring to. principle cast are usually the only ones credited at the beginning and end. just about everyone else is either or.

Since I don't usually use opening credits, I won't have to decide whether or not to take a "Film by" anyway.

it's rarely the director's decision to make. take a look at Hard Eight. PT Anderson wanted no opening credits and got everyone to sign off except for one producer who insisted on having his credit up front.

I can give you that, but really, there are much bigger flaws in the system.

i didn't say it was a flaw, i said it was a symptom of the flaws.

 

[DorkmanScott]

i don't know what films you're referring to. principle cast are usually the only ones credited at the beginning and end. just about everyone else is either or.

You're right. I grabbed a few films off my wall that I knew had opening titles and had a look, and I was mistaken. I withdraw the claim that there's double-crediting of any but the principle cast.

it's rarely the director's decision to make. take a look at Hard Eight. PT Anderson wanted no opening credits and got everyone to sign off except for one producer who insisted on having his credit up front.

Well, that's the beauty of being indie for now.

 

[Sad Max]

Heck, that's nothing.

Where I come from, we create screenplays based upon each individual's contribution of one single letter.

And, what's with humbly humans? Aren't we getting a little above ourselves, with all this human business? I think I shaved apes is good enough, for the likes of us...

 

[Sad Max]

Originally Posted by Sad Max
I have seen directors fight tooth and nail, to get names into the credits that they strongly feel belong there. You're correct, inasmuch as what you wrote applies to tv, but on feature projects directors - especially the names you've listed - have a great deal of say over what names go where, should they choose to.

Fair enough, but you're making my point. Why would they do that if they ultimately see themselves as "taking credit" for what everyone else does?

I don't think I'm making your point; from the beginning I said that one model doesn't cover every director. Seems unlikely that everyone who takes the 'a film by' line, has the same outlook.

Originally Posted by Sad Max
This is a really pernicious concept. The film stock is a piece of plastic with some chemistry applied to it. One bit of that stock is fundamentally identical to any other bit of the same stock (or so Kodak would have us believe, anyway). Artists and craftsmen are individual human beings with individual professional histories who do highly variable work from project to project. They don't perform with the rigid predictability of a film stock, they create as they work. The fact that they are creating in an effort to fit a director's expectations, does not reduce them to the level of predictable and repeatable photo-chemistry.

True. But if you hire H.R. Giger, you know the kind of thing he's going to give you and you hire him to give it to you. Even though what he's going to give you is unique and something he hasn't done before, it's going to have his style and you're not going to hire him unless you're sure you want that style.

Hiring him because you figure his particular style is what you want, doesn't suggest that you are entitled to very much credit for what he does, while working in his particular style. Any more than someone who hired Wolfgang A. Mozart to write a requiem, deserves credit for the artistry that went into the requiem. Although of course they deserve props for being smart enough to hire Wolfgang, just like a producer or director would be entitled to credit for having been smart enough to hire Giger - just not for the actual product of his mind, or his hands, or derivatives thereof.

Originally Posted by Sad Max
What's missing, there, is the understanding that you need the artist to turn the particular type of wood into a piece of furniture. Does the wood sit there and turn itself into what you want? No. Does an artist or craftsman take the wood and make something of it? Yes. Heck, your perspective suggests that carpentry consists of choosing lumber, and then telling it to magically turn itself into a deck.

What's missing, actually, is the understanding that is is EXACTLY my point. None of the discrete artists doing their thing -- no matter who they are or how talented -- will become a film without the director.

Or without the producer. Or without the DP. Still seems your policy that an individual creative artist or craftsman, is a lump of raw material, like a board or a dollop of paint*, and that the director's intervention makes that board or dollop of paint into something more. All the director usually knows, is that he'd like a set, and he might even like it to be a particular color okay yeah I know, too far... And then a team of other people, usually possessing skills that the director does not, gives him that set, and makes it that color. Those people are not raw material shaped by the director. The paint and lumber are the raw material, shaped by the craftspeople, for the director's benefit to assist him in telling his story the way he wants to tell it. Put a director on a stage with a pile of boards and a bucket of paint, and (usually) all you can expect by the following morning, will be a pile of boards, a bucket of paint, and a sleepy director in need of someone to make a Starbuck's run.

Unless he's James Cameron. In which case you will have a detail-accurate 19th century French villa interior, fully plumbed for water and gas, wildable in three-foot-sections, with a dozen camera ports and accurate period dressing. But that's James Cameron, who by no coincidence was once an Art Director.

The comparison to wood and furniture is meant to be an analogy, a metaphor, not a literal 1:1 comparison.

Wood = concept artist.
Furniture maker = director.

Wood and nails will not magically become furniture, and concept art and acting and words on a page will not magically become a film.

I get that it's an analogy, but - no offense - it's not a good one. Sticking with furniture-type analogies, a more accurate construction might be:

Wood = base materials

Furniture Client = director

Furniture Maker = craftsman who makes those base materials into what the director wants, within the limitations of schedule and resources.

It's a real different model. Just like wood and nails won't become furniture without (a) a client who knows what he'd like and (b) a craftsman to put it together for him, acting and words on a page will not become a film without (a) a director who (we hope and pray) knows what he'd like and (b) a team of craftspersons to put it all together for him.

Originally Posted by Sad Max
That's correct. Does that mean then, that someone else is entitled to claim credit for their important and respectable work, as if he performed it himself?

No. But I don't believe that's what you're doing when you take "a film by" credit. You're not taking credit for the work, just the implementation as part of a greater whole, which IS part of the director's job.

Yes, implementation of the project as a greater whole is the director's (and, really, the producers') job. That's what's covered admirably, by Directed By. We all know pretty well what a director does. So Directed By tells us what we need to know, about what the director did as his or her part of bringing us the film. A Film By suggests a lot more, than just having directed. It suggests that his/her part was somehow more than just directing, with its attendant responsibilities. It suggests top-to-bottom ownership of every facet of what's there on screen. Which is maybe kind of ridiculous.

I mentioned this conversation to the designer with whom I'm presently working, who is a feature producer in his own right. He rolled his eyes at the whole a film by business. But, admittedly, that's just him.

Originally Posted by Sad Max
Is Blade Runner still Blade Runner, if you were to subtract the work of Syd Mead? Nope. It would be virtually nothing.

Right. But if you were to subtract Ridley Scott, would Syd Mead's work be a film? Nope. It would be a painting on a wall.

Syd Meade's work would be in a bunch of other films. But I get your drift.

They have a few of those very paintings at the UCLA film school, incidentally. They're quite stunning. But they aren't Blade Runner, and they didn't BECOME Blade Runner until Ridley Scott combined them with the other elements contributed by the other artists.

Ridley Scott takes the "film by" credit on Blade Runner. He does not take the credit for the city backgrounds or vehicle designs, Syd Mead gets that credit and that's why you know his name.

Well, the distinctiveness of Blade Runner resides in very large part in those city backgrounds and vehicle designs. And if we're still on the premise that the distinctiveness of a director's "vision" is what we see on the screen, that makes the film exclusively "by" that director, we run into problems when you subtract some other schmoe's work and are left with nothing remotely like the original product that's supposedly a "vision" for which the director is entitled to label the entirety of the work as his own.

Originally Posted by Sad Max
And without someone in his position, you have a film composed of locked shots. Maybe still a great film, but certainly not Saving Private Ryan or Poltergeist.

I completely agree, he's an integral part of the film. I never ever said he isn't. Although I could point out that instead of a dolly grip, you might have a steadicam operator. What dictates that? The style of the film. Who dictates that? The director.

And by picking one operator (with a distinctive style and skill set) over another, the director has assigned an important chunk of creativity and artistry or craft, to someone else, to realize that style for him. Which is once again well-covered by directed by. And over-reached, by a film by.

The point I keep making, and everyone keeps ignoring, is that no one part is itself the film. Only the film is the film, and it is the director who takes those parts and creates the film from them.

The director doesn't take a bunch of disparate parts and make a film from them - an editor does (and if he's lucky, the parts won't be too disparate...)

The director hires a bunch of professionals (he hopes) to practice their respective crafts on his behalf, toward the goal of creating a picture that tells his story the way he wants to tell it.

An awful lot of your perspective seems to be based upon the idea that everything - and everyone - is just undifferentiated raw material until the director comes along and shapes it into what he's after. In a lot of time spent as a working professional I have never seen that to be true. Not even on shows where it's pretty clear that the director himself is under the impression that's how it's working.

I acknowlege that you may have your own store of working experience, and that your experience may have been different. All I can say, is that I'd like to work with some of the people with whom you've worked, so that I can see the dynamic you appear to describe, in action.

Originally Posted by Sad Max
The scenic artist is the individual who uses the tube of paint, not the director.

Are you doing that on purpose or do you really not know an analogy when you see one? Admittedly it's perhaps confusing to talk about a literal painter and a metaphorical painter one after the other, but I didn't think it was that unclear.

Again, no offense, but it was an unworkable analogy.

Originally Posted by Sad Max
Take away every last thing that the director didn't do with his or her own hands, and whatever you have left, then, can properly be titled 'a film by' that director.

No, then those specific parts can be referred to as having been performed by that particular person. It is not a film because a film is the sum of all the parts.

Then the sum of those parts - the film - is not "by" the director. It was simply directed by the director, with all that implies.

Let's try one more: an author of a book. The author didn't invent the words of his language of choice (unless he's Dr. Seuss), but it is the specific combination of those words, unique to that author, that make up the book.

A director may not do every job on a set, but it's his decisions on how to combine the results of each job into the finished product, that create the film.

I guess that's a better analogy, but still not a very good one. What's missing, is that the director most frequently didn't create the cinematic language he's utilizing, any more that the author created the written language he uses. What's also missing, would be the five or six (or five hundred or six hundred) people between the author, and his typewriter, making individual decisions based upon the author's expressed intent, that all combine toward individual typebars smacking ink onto paper. Which is why it's a poor analogy; there is no form of individual artistic expression (painting, drawing, writing, sculpting, etc) done by one person, entirely with their own hands, that compares with any production much more involved than one individual person with a Bolex going out and doing every last task, himself.

* or not far from it, yes?

 

[Gohanto]

I think a many directors have a right to take the "film by" credit based on how much of the movie they're responsible for. Spielberg, Hitchcock, and Scorsese, for example, all have their films very specifically made so that every was matched with what they wanted. Had the editor, cinematographer, actors, and composers all done what THEY wanted to do without the director (hypothetically since the movie would likely never actually get finished), everyone would've been doing different things.

I think it boils down to.... if the movie would've been made by another director (same cast, same crew), would it have been the same movie? Not for anything I make it wouldn't be. I listen to other people's ideas and use a lot of them, but it's usually minor changes. About 90% of what I have in pre-production is what I have in the final cut.

 

[Sad Max]

Wow. 90% is beyond impressive.