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

[skat]

"The Departed" title sequence says, "A Martin Scorsese Picture" - not, "A Martin Scorsese Film"

I wouldn't mind seeing more of that on screen rather than the "Film" credit.

 

[Zak Forsman]

not sure what the difference is. there's also 'a Spike Lee joint'. and at the end of Stakeout the screen reads 'a John Badham movie' in giant letters. just variations on a theme, really.

 

[DorkmanScott]

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"?

What exactly did the "director" do if she did all that? Sounds like he was more of a set wrangler to me. An AD at best.

IMO (not knowing the whole story) the woman in your story was the actual director, she just hired a guy to stand behind the camera and help realize her vision and gave him the directing credit.

"The Departed" title sequence says, "A Martin Scorsese Picture" - not, "A Martin Scorsese Film"

I wouldn't mind seeing more of that on screen rather than the "Film" credit.

I really don't understand what the difference is, unless you're one of those pedants who insists that "film is an emulsion" and the audio-visual final product should always be called "movies" or "motion pictures".

 

[Sad Max]

It's Barry's story, but I'll go out on a limb and guess that what the director did was...direct. Like, working with the actors, blocking the scenes, refining peformances, collaborating with the DP to set up shots...

...that sort of stuff.

Maybe.

Barry?

 

[skat]

not sure what the difference is. there's also 'a Spike Lee joint'. and at the end of Stakeout the screen reads 'a John Badham movie' in giant letters. just variations on a theme, really.

I really don't understand what the difference is, unless you're one of those pedants who insists that "film is an emulsion" and the audio-visual final product should always be called "movies" or "motion pictures".

I interpret it to mean exactly that, A Martin Scorsese Picture, as in photographs. Maybe that's not what is meant at all, but that's the way I read it. He is responsible for the images being presented. Yes, it certainly takes a mass of individuals to create a movie, but the director is responsible for the product. If it fails, he could very well never work again, while the DP, gaffers, electricians, etc... most likely will continue to work.

And as for being "one of those pedants" - I really don't understand what the difference is.

 

[Barry_Green]

It's Barry's story, but I'll go out on a limb and guess that what the director did was...direct. Like, working with the actors, blocking the scenes, refining peformances, collaborating with the DP to set up shots...

...that sort of stuff.

Exactly. All that stuff. More though, as he was also the stunt coordinator and even the lead editor, primarily through the first versions, but eventually another editor was brought in to finish it. She supervised the edit throughout, with both editors.

 

[Zak Forsman]

I interpret it to mean exactly that, A Martin Scorsese Picture, as in photographs. Maybe that's not what is meant at all, but that's the way I read it.

it's 'picture', as in motion picture. same as film, or movie, or joint.... or a 'j.r. hudson reel'.

 

[Sad Max]

Failed slang terms for "a (insert name) film:'

A Wolfgang Petersen Spliff

A Michael Bay Dookie

A Peter Jackson Schwatnz

 

[Prodigi Pictures]

I see a critical difference between the use of "film" and "picture" or "motion picture" (however it is unrelated to the main issue of this topic, which is the perception of narcissism caused by the use of such a title.)

On my last project I used the term "A Justin Evans Motion Picture." Why? Because I don't shoot on celluloid anymore. Motion Picture is a medium-agnostic term. Film refers to celluloid based projects.

I began making narrative shorts at a local cable access station near Gresham, Oregon. Whenever I refered to my projects as a short film one of the equipment managers would scold me.

"You're shooting on S-VHS. It's not a film. It's a video. Get your terms straight."

At first, I thought he was being a prick. Then, I got to know him. He felt the use of language should be consistent and clear. He didn't resent a 15 year old kid making narrative shorts...he just wanted to make sure the way I used language was accurate.

Unfortunately, there was the unspoken judgement in the terms as well. If I was making "video narratives" then I was a non-professional. Only professionals made "films."

However, that stigma is no longer accurate. Few of us on this site make films. I don't even make videos, since my data is captured directly to a P2 card (I've always hated how digital motion picture data is referred to as digital video...it's a clumsy and inaccurate term.) We make motion pictures. And some of us make damn good ones. Look at The Ore. I'd hardly call that amateur work.

Therefore, I embrace the medium-agnostic term "motion picture." I'll never shoot on celluloid again and I'm proud to shake myself free from celluloid constraints as well as filmstock terminology.

Film is dead. Long live the Motion Picture!

 

[Mark Harris]

I say I make "movies," and almost never say films.

But to the point of the thread, I remember when this whole thing was an big issue several years ago. And I'm sure there is a big ego component. But at the end of the day I can't help but think it's just business. Since usually when you see a "so and so film" that so and so is a star, like Scoscese, Spielberg, etc. And their name sells the film. Period.

This is what happened in the 70s when people like Marty, Coppola, etc made their marks, and the studios gave them a certain amount of latitude in their "personal expression," because the studios thought they would make money off these guys. Of course, many of their films went on to be over-budget, box-office flops, etc. And the studios returned to more conventional ways pretty quickly.

Anyway, I think it still - as always - boils down to money. And the studios either brand films as a film by so and so, or allow directors to do so because they see a benefit to it. And likely if the director is of such stature to demand it in his contract, he is also likely to bring a little more box office with his name above the title.

 

[alveraz]

I didn't read all the responses because I'm lazy. However, I'll chime in anyway. If I wrote it, and directed, you can count on a 'film by'. That's my stance. However, that's only if it's stipulated in my contract with the producer. If it's not, it's his/her call. These things vary, there's no definitive protocal for this. It's what the Prodco and filmmaker decide together. That's my humble take anyway. Carry on.

 

[Sad Max]

Have fun making that 'film by you' without a production crew. Or pre-production team. Or post-production services. Since you're doing all of those things, all by your single, solitary self. Plus acting in it, too. With no one else having made any contribution that shows up on screen.

 

[DorkmanScott]

I began making narrative shorts at a local cable access station near Gresham, Oregon. Whenever I refered to my projects as a short film one of the equipment managers would scold me.

"You're shooting on S-VHS. It's not a film. It's a video. Get your terms straight."

At first, I thought he was being a prick. Then, I got to know him.

Nah, you had it right the first time. He was being a prick.

"Film" is celluloid stock. "A film" has become a genericized term synonymous with motion picture/movie regardless of the acquisitional medium.

Having cut my teeth on digital to date, and with a reservation in for RED #1028, I may never shoot on celluloid stock, but I will probably always refer to the things I produce as either "films" or "movies", interchangably. Likewise, during production I will say "shooting" and "filming" to mean the same thing.

Words evolve from their original meaning and expand their scope, and people just have to learn to live with that.

Have fun making that 'film by you' without a production crew. Or pre-production team. Or post-production services. Since you're doing all of those things, all by your single, solitary self. Plus acting in it, too. With no one else having made any contribution that shows up on screen.

But it will, presumably, be through him that those contributions get onto the screen. Otherwise they are not a film. Thus, he made the film out of the contributions of the various departments.

I still don't understand what basis your argument has. They get the credit for the contributions they made. If the ONLY credit was "a film by you" then that's one thing. If it's not then your argument completely falls apart.

Here's an example I just thought of: The new Apple MacPros were just announced. Say the computers use Intel processors, NVIDIA graphics cards, Maxtor hard drives logic boards from another manufacturer, a power source from another manufacturer, etc. But it's still an APPLE computer. Why? Because otherwise all you have is a processor and a graphics card and a hard drive sitting on your desk, and each component on its own is just a component.

It's Apple that utilizes the components and creates a computer with them, and a different computer than Dell or Gateway or another company, even though many of them use the same component suppliers.

 

[Zak Forsman]

the thread that wouldn't die!!!

i think the simplest way i can put my feelings on the matter is that the director already gets credit for what he does (directed by). and taking an 'a film by' credit only serves to satisfy one's ego. there is no way the 'film' the director purports to be the author of would be the same with a different writer, a different actor, a different cinematographer, a different production designer, a different editor, etc. a director may very well choose who he works with in key positions, and guide and approve all the work from his collaborators, but that still doesn't make their work his. yes, they get their credit too, but 'a film by' is a declaration that treads on their name. and of course there is the fact that the directing credit already speaks to exactly what a director does: he or she provided the guidance for the cast and crew. 'a film by' is superfluous and insulting, imo.

 

[adventusfilms]

I know it's been a long 6 months since the last post to this thread, but I'm glad a few more people stated their claim, that's really what I was going for when I posted.....

I was worried for a while there that it was going to be just a few people rebutting each other for several weeks.

I'm pretty sure that most people on DVXUSER are independent filmmakers. I don't think that's too big of an assumption. I had a feeling that a lot of people who felt strongly about the content on the thread would have a negative comment about the "a film by" anomaly.

I'm just glad to hear that I ain't the only one.

 

[Sad Max]

But it will, presumably, be through him that those contributions get onto the screen. Otherwise they are not a film. Thus, he made the film out of the contributions of the various departments.

The executive producer could just as easily make the same claim.

In fact, the ExecProd has a much better claim to the title, by this logic, since the director works for him, and the director's contributions are therefore subsumed under contributions that everybody made, at the producer's ultimate behest.

I still don't understand what basis your argument has. They get the credit for the contributions they made. If the ONLY credit was "a film by you" then that's one thing. If it's not then your argument completely falls apart.

"A film by" remains a singular and exclusive credit, no matter what other credits other people get.

Subtract everything that the director didn't personally do himself, and whatever you have left, can properly be labelled "a (whatever is left) by the director."

Here's an example I just thought of: The new Apple MacPros were just announced. Say the computers use Intel processors, NVIDIA graphics cards, Maxtor hard drives logic boards from another manufacturer, a power source from another manufacturer, etc. But it's still an APPLE computer. Why? Because otherwise all you have is a processor and a graphics card and a hard drive sitting on your desk, and each component on its own is just a component.

It's still an Apple computer, because Apple is a branding identity. Which is the only practical level at which the "film by" construction works; as a marketing tool to promote the project. And, individual electronic components still have value, without necessarily being part of the whole. Unlike a film, where a set by itself, an individual effects shot by itself, a prop by itself or an unedited chunk of footage, by itself, is valueless (unless you count the collector-market, but collectors don't spend much on memorabilia for films that were never completed, with all the extra labor and creativity beyond the director's, that involves).

Anyway, a very poor analogy that can only be forced to work, at one barely-relevant level.

It's Apple that utilizes the components and creates a computer with them, and a different computer than Dell or Gateway or another company, even though many of them use the same component suppliers.

Yup, there you indicate yourself that the components have value, independent of what brand logo is stuck on the front. Take away the brand logo, and you still have components that work together as a computer. Take away the components, leaving the brand logo, and you have nothing.

 

[DorkmanScott]

I'm a little disappointed that a) this came back after six months, and b) that's the best you've got.

I've already spoken to your points, several times. In fact, I MYSELF addressed the fact that I see it as "branding" WAAAAAY back on page 5 (that was nearer to *eight* months ago). You were the first to respond to that post, as a matter of fact.

If you really want to hear my argument, you may feel free to read this thread again in as many circles as you would care to travel. As neither of us finds the other's points convincing, we might as well move on.

 

[Sad Max]

I'll take my own seventeen years' experience in how large-scale film and tv projects get made, over your based-upon-what-again? personal perspective. Which, I totally and wholeheartedly agree, you are 100% perfectly entitled to, no matter how ill-informed it may appear to be.

 

[DorkmanScott]

Ah, an ad hominem attack. Very professional, and not at all a failure to actually address my points.

Personally, I see no need to get into a pissing contest, nor do I feel the need to prove anything to you or anyone else; and I would hope that as someone with 17 years of experience in the industry, you don't either. I think both our opinions have been stated repeatedly with little left to add.

This has been my last response in this thread. Happy trails to it. :beer:

 

[Sad Max]

Don't let the door hit you.

Pointing out that my opinion is a professional one, based upon years of experience in the field we're discussing, while - so far as I know, and so far as you've indicated - yours is not, does not constitute an ad hominem attack. It constitutes an attack upon your qualification to make judgments about the practices of an industry in which you apparently have very little, if any experience.

Since all you can fall back on is whinging about ad hominem attacks, I suspect that indeed you don't have any personal or professional experience to back up your conclusions...or you would have indicated that you *do*.

Anyway, signatory directors will continue to get what they have contracted for, regardless of what other-ranked professionals and aspiring wannabees may think, pro or con.

:beer: