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

[Barry_Green]

The "a film by" credit has been a root source of tension among the various crafts since the words were first printed on the screen.

Dorkman, I can see a lot of your points, but do you not recognize that most everyone BUT directors finds that particular credit somewhat offensive? It aggrandizes the director's role. You talk about how the director selects the props maker and the set designer and whatnot... what about the producer who selects that director? In fact, let's spell that out -- in all cases it is THE PRODUCER'S FILM. The producer hires the director, and if necessary the producer fires the director. The producer has final say over the edit. The producer has final say over the casting. The producer has final say over the marketing and the advertising and the release. The producer owns the film. The director is merely a hired gun. Should the "a film by" credit not, appropriately, go to the producer? And, isn't that kind of what the Academy is saying when they award the "Best Picture" Oscar to the producer?

Hmmm. I think a whole lot of directors, facing that brave new world, would start to understand why a lot of craftsmen resent directors grabbing the "a film by" credit. If producers started routinely claiming "a film by", I can guarantee you the directors would start feeling exactly like the writers currently do!

The people with the biggest beef are usually the writers. For a director to take a writer's finished script and then go claiming "a film by" is... well, it's offensive to writers. It's just wrong. Back in 1963 the WGA contract said that directors could not take the "a film by" credit unless they at least wrote the script too! Doesn't that seem reasonable? Let's just say the DGA didn't think so.

I speak from the perspective of a writer, but I think it's absurd for a director to claim that he is the sole auteur of the finished product, unless he also wrote the script. The screenplay is the only piece of "auteur"ing going on; that's usually the work of one person's genius, by themselves, alone. That's being an "auteur." If the director also wrote the film, then I have very little resistance to him/her claiming "a film by." If the director did not write the film, then I think it's just silly for them to claim "a film by." As you've seen in this thread, other crafts tend to agree.

Directors disagree, they see the script and the finished film as two different works, and truly, they are; but to claim to be the "auteur" of that second work demeans the first, unless the same person is the author of both.

Anyway, there's .02, do with it what you will...

 

[Sad Max]

I just wanted to point out that the director virtually never selects a propmaker or a set designer. The director is generally unaware of the presence and purpose of a propmaker or a set designer; there's no particular reason that he ought to be, either, although some directors may know those roles based on their own professional experience.

Both of those hires, and many others, will have the stamp of a producer's approval on them, without the director being in the loop, or for any practical purpose, needing to be.

 

[DorkmanScott]

Barry,

Everything you say is true insofar as the facts are concerned, and particularly with the writers having the biggest beef with the "film by" credit. And yes, I recognize that members of other crafts find it offense, but I don't share that perspective.

Nothing I say is meant with any disrespect to you, or any other writer. I'm a writer myself and will probably be doing more of that than actually running the show. But point a camera at your script, black text on white paper, sitting on a table, with an occasional page turn, and tell me how many Oscars that's going to take home.

It's the same with the Producer. A producer has a crew, and an idea, but he doesn't have a film. If he did, he wouldn't have to hire a director. You take the same producer hiring all the same people, with the exact same script, but with two different producers, and each director will deliver an entirely different film even with all other things being equal.

The writer wrote the screenplay and deserves the "screenplay by" credit. The storyboard artist made the storyboards and deserves the "storyboard by" credit.

The director made the film and deserves the film by credit. A film cannot exist without its parts, but those parts are not a film except when they pass through the hands of the director. He made the film, the others made the components, and I don't see anything wrong with crediting accordingly.

 

[Sad Max]

So a film can't exist without a director, and it also can't exist without everyone else who's involved, but it's the director who deserves the 'a film by' credit, all to himself, as though he were the only person whose work counts.

 

[sbryan]

About time somebody started the discussion. I just find "a film by" for shorts to be pretentious, and it's vexing enough that I will not watch a short that uses it. The same holds true for other credits I find annoying.

Call it what it is: "a short by Your Name". You could even stick to the tried and true "directed by".

A select few have earned the right to use "a film by". Those people are in the ranks of Scorsese, Eastwood, Spielberg, and Cameron.

What's to stop anyone from using "a Joe Blow experience"?

 

[DorkmanScott]

So a film can't exist without a director, and it also can't exist without everyone else who's involved, but it's the director who deserves the 'a film by' credit, all to himself, as though he were the only person whose work counts.

In terms of the existence of a film, yes. The director is the person whose work counts the most toward the making of the film, because his work is the only thing that makes the separate parts coalesce and become what you would call a film. Without a director you've got a lot of artists making different and essentially unrelated kinds of art. You only have a film because of him.

About time somebody started the discussion. I just find "a film by" for shorts to be pretentious, and it's vexing enough that I will not watch a short that uses it. The same holds true for other credits I find annoying.

According to the majority argument of the thread, the "film by" credit on a short is MORE warranted, given that the director of a short often has his hands in almost all aspects of production.

Call it what it is: "a short by Your Name".

What's the difference?

You could even stick to the tried and true "directed by".

What's the difference?

A select few have earned the right to use "a film by". Those people are in the ranks of Scorsese, Eastwood, Spielberg, and Cameron.

Why them? Among them, only Cameron writes his own scripts most of the time. They don't paint the concept art or build the sets or perform the roles (except Eastwood). According to everyone's argument, they don't have any more right to use that credit than anyone else, except that they're famous and successful and it's a good selling point. They haven't "earned" anything according to the prerequisites everyone else is suggesting for that credit.

What's to stop anyone from using "a Joe Blow experience"?

I find that to be a great deal more pretentious than "A Joe Blow Film." If it's not very good it may not cause me to "experience" anything.

 

[Zak Forsman]

You only have a film because of him.

can't you see how this is a fundamentally flawed argument? unless you're writing, directing, shooting, cutting, producing, gripping, gaffing, painting, dressing, scoring and starring in it then any fim is a collaborative effort. and 'directed by' sufficiently credits you for your role in the produciton. the exception would someone like Stan Brakhage.

 

[DorkmanScott]

can't you see how this is a fundamentally flawed argument? unless you're writing, directing, shooting, cutting, producing, gripping, gaffing, painting, dressing, scoring and starring in it then any fim is a collaborative effort.

Correct. But all the writing, shooting, editing, producing, gripping, gaffing, painting, gaffing, scoring, and acting in the world won't become a film unless you have a director guiding it.

My argument isn't flawed at all. Just unpopular.

and 'directed by' sufficiently credits you for your role in the produciton.

I agree. The difference is I don't see the "film by" credit as being a statement of your role in the production so much as taking pride and responsibility (not credit) for the final product.

If an actor is bad, it's the director's fault. If the music is inappropriate, it's the director's fault. The director IS responsible for the final outcome and final product of everyone else's hard work. I don't see what's wrong with embracing that fact.

I think I see it more as a "brand name" type of thing, as opposed to an "I did everything and nobody helped."

 

[Sad Max]

Correct. But all the writing, shooting, editing, producing, gripping, gaffing, painting, gaffing, scoring, and acting in the world won't become a film unless you have a director guiding it.

Something you skipped addressing, a page or two back, is what happens to your argument when you consider films completed by multiple directors, working one after the other, each selected by the producers to pick up where the previous director left off. It thoroughly undermines the idea that the director is somehow singularly responsible for every aspect of the end product. What it confirms, is that if anyone merits that nod, it's the producers.

My argument isn't flawed at all. Just unpopular.

It's both - unpopular, because it's flawed.

I don't see the "film by" credit as being a statement of your role in the production so much as taking pride and responsibility (not credit) for the final product.

Huh? "I'm proud of and responsible for everything you see here, but that's not to say that I deserve any credit?"

If an actor is bad, it's the director's fault.

Nope. Since the director casts in concert with the producers (and frequently studio execs), it's a shared responsibility. Unless we're talking about actors who are known to be excellent actors, from whom the director fails to extract a good performance (coughcough*georgelucas*coughcough). And that's because working with the actors to get a performance out of them, is specifically one of the director's duties. So if he blows it, it's appropriate to hang it on him.

If the music is inappropriate, it's the director's fault.

Nope, again. Directors select composers in concert with the producers, too. Also frequently with plenty of interference from studio executives.

The director IS responsible for the final outcome and final product of everyone else's hard work. I don't see what's wrong with embracing that fact.

Nothing, save for it not being a fact.

I'll apologize in advance if I'm shortchanging you at all, but your perspective reads like that of someone with a great deal of enthusiam, but very little professional experience. If that's a fair impression, I suspect that your ideas regarding directors' contributions and credits will shift with accumulated working time on-set.

I think I see it more as a "brand name" type of thing, as opposed to an "I did everything and nobody helped."

We hit this in earlier posts, as well - Directed By on a poster, or in an ad, or a trailer, pulls asses into seats in an identical fashion to A Film By. So the "brand name" idea doesn't carry any weight, if the former line communicates the precise same thing to the audience, as the latter.

 

[-zach-]

Peter Jackson
co-wrote
directed
and produced
King Kong. I believe that the promotional title Peter Jackson's King Kong isn't hurting any of the thousand+ people who worked on that film. Common sense tells us that the director can't do everything by himself.

Steven Soderbergh
does just about everything for his films.
because he's not a retentive jackass, i don't see a film by steven soderbergh jumping out at me anywhere.

I think that it's okay for a director to have the "film by" credit. Granted they wrote, directed, produced... etc. DP'd even, in Soderbergh's case.

 

[DorkmanScott]

I didn't realize an IMDB profile was a prerequisite for holding an opinion and debating it logically.

No offense to Sad Max. That is a very impressive list. But last time I checked we were just two guys talking.

 

[Sad Max]

uh...you're very kind, but I'm just one working pro among many, many, many others. Plenty of whom are a lot more expereinced, than I am.

And DorkmanScott's right, so far as I'm concerned. Experience can underwrite an opinion, but it doesn't mean a lack of experience invalidates anyone's opinion, either.

 

[-zach-]

uh...you're very kind, but I'm just one working pro among many, many, many others. Plenty of whom are a lot more expereinced, than I am.

On this forum, okay. Does that mean that I should take down what I said? If it's that important, I will.

I didn't realize an IMDB profile was a prerequisite for holding an opinion and debating it logically.

Sorry then. I'll edit my edit.

 

[Sad Max]

I'm not offended by anything. The 'bunch of guys talking' is what we all come for, yes?

 

[Zak Forsman]

i'm here for the girls.

 

[Sad Max]

you dog

 

[sbryan]

I can see your point of the director having the most hands on experience in a short film. However, our technological expertise is limited compared to professionals working on those box office darlings, and I don't think there's a user here where I can say something like "Hey, that film is full of _______ moments" or "Hey, that looks like it was done by _______."

Why? Because our styles aren't clearly defined.

I can feel the touch of Spielberg, Scorsese, and Lucas on their films. That's why they use the "film by" credit (although I think Lucas still uses Directed By). Isn't that what great directing is? Working with thousands of people and somehow in that jumble, something is created that feels like your film.

And yes, I came here for the girls. That didn't work out.

Oh, and before I get asked what are these "moments" I speak of? The moment where E.T. tries to cure the "ouch" of the fake knife in the head, or the moment in Munich where the Israelis and the Palestinians fight over the radio and finally settle on a song -- which is something smooth like "let's stay together". Yes, I suppose they are contrived, but so is everything you create.

 

[DorkmanScott]

I can see your point of the director having the most hands on experience in a short film. However, our technological expertise is limited compared to professionals working on those box office darlings,

I would bet you a random sampling of the lot of us here knows WAY more about the technical end of things than a random sampling of big budget directors do. That's not saying it makes one inherently more talented, but I'd be surprised if the majority of directors out there had any idea what you meant by saying, for example, "4:2:2".

and I don't think there's a user here where I can say something like "Hey, that film is full of _______ moments" or "Hey, that looks like it was done by _______."

Why? Because our styles aren't clearly defined.

I think you're confusing "clearly defined" with "iconic". Perhaps no one here has a style so iconic that you would know they directed it just from watching a portion of their film, but I don't think that means the styles aren't "clearly defined."

If you and I took the same script, do you think we'd make the same film? Of course not, because two people have two distinct styles informed by their sensibilities, visual tastes, etc.

I can feel the touch of Spielberg, Scorsese, and Lucas on their films. That's why they use the "film by" credit (although I think Lucas still uses Directed By). Isn't that what great directing is? Working with thousands of people and somehow in that jumble, something is created that feels like your film.

Bingo. My argument exactly, except that I extend that concept to include all directors, not just the people currently recognized as "visionaries." No two directors will make the same film, even with all other factors being equal.

Lucas takes "Written and Directed by" on the Star Wars films, but those don't have opening credits anyway.

Oh, and before I get asked what are these "moments" I speak of? The moment where E.T. tries to cure the "ouch" of the fake knife in the head, or the moment in Munich where the Israelis and the Palestinians fight over the radio and finally settle on a song -- which is something smooth like "let's stay together". Yes, I suppose they are contrived, but so is everything you create.

Unless I'm mistaken (which I often am), those are both scripted moments, and he didn't write the screenplay for either film.

I know I'm arguing the opposite of my point, but my point is that you're giving people like Spielberg a blank check to use the "film by" designation when he doesn't really "deserve" it more than anyone else, at least not by the standards you've defined. If he deserves it, IMO, any director does.

 

[Zak Forsman]

for curiosity's sake -- do you consider Poltergeist to be a film by Tobe Hooper? does it look like any other film he's directed? no, looks more like Spielberg. what about all those action films Bruckhemier produced in the 90's with different directors, but the same visual aesthetic -- Bad Boys, Con Air, etc. whose films are those?

 

[Barry_Green]

I guess my biggest beef with this is the notion that somehow the director is the only one entitled to claim that credit.

Last indie I worked on, there was one person who made that film happen. She lived the life it was based on. She wrote the story. She financed it. She produced it. She practically production-managed it. She starred in it. She supervised the edit. She marketed it. It's her story through and through, no doubt about it.

The one job she didn't do? Director. She's not a director, so she hired one. Three, actually, because it took a while to find someone who could do the job, who she saw eye to eye with. He came on board, directed the film, did most of the edit, and then left the project.

So I put it to you: should that director claim "a film by"? Or simply "directed by"?