How do you spot a good director?

c.g._eads said:
Great directing is about 70% luck. There are simply too many variables to be able to control everything. Therefore, a lot of what happens is out of your hands. It is why the same director of American Beauty can make Jarhead and why the majority of directors make only one good film.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Yeah, there are a lot of factors you cannot control, but these point to some other key traits of the greats: tenacity, vision, the ability to choose your battles. Half of the battle is fought before the first day on set... simply by establishing the nature of the relationship between director and producers, director and cast, director and crew.

Every director is going to make a bad film eventually. But to say it's mostly luck does a great disservice to those who consistently manage to turn out quality movies.
 
I think it is. It's about 70% luck. It's what you do with that other 30% that makes you a great director. A large majority of directors have way more average films than good ones. How else do you explain so many "great" directors having so many average to bad films? It's because it's the only art form where so many things are out of your control.

Some famous person once said: "Film is the only business where a group of the best people at their jobs can make something terrible and a group of people who have no idea what they're doing can make something great." And it's true because of this very reality.
 
Hmmm, a good director can make a bad movie, but I don't think a bad director can make a good movie unless he unwittingly hands over his duties to someone else.
 
it is all relative. Some think Micheal Bay is bad director, some think he's great. this thread could go on forever. We have our own opinions of what is good and what is bad. But this is what these threads are all about and love reading them.

Just for record Michael Bay is a good at what he does. Uwe Boll is bad at everything.
 
i'm not sure that's true. remember, the director is the one guy on set who doesn't technically have to know anything. before making a snap reaction, think about it. If any of you have been on set with an inexperienced director, I know you've seen this. so they won't fall behind, the A.D. steps up and starts pushing the production on, and the director just stands there like a deer in headlights.

The director of Diner (Barry Levinson?) admitted he had no idea what he was doing when he directed that. The director of Field of Dreams, one of my favorite movies of all time - that was his first film. Ever! What other business in the world can someone who's never done something before in their life create something great??

It's not something we want to hear but it's true. I'm not suggesting that a knowledgeable talented director can't help make a good movie. But good movies can definitely be made without good directors.
 
c.g._eads said:
But good movies can definitely be made without good directors.
Click to expand...

This is the problem with your argument, I think. SOMEONE was clearly taking care of doing the directing. Maybe it wasn't the guy who got his name in the opening credits, maybe it was the producer or the AD or the DP or an actor. Maybe it was the ghost director. But someone had to be picking up the slack. Good movies don't just happen by accident.
 
No, that is my argument. That these other people, collectively, have more influence over the film than the director himself. If people in key positions understand the vision, don't understand it, are talented, aren't talented, don't feel like working hard because they're not interested in the project, if they're experienced, not experienced -- most of the time the director doesn't have control over those things. Therefore it's just like, put your hands together and pray.

A famous director in a book I read (the name escapes me) tells a story about how he was making his first film and kept getting back the dailies and they were all horrible. All the shots were bumpy or overexposed, or badly composed. He was wondering what the hell was going on. He finally confronted the D.P. and said "what's going on here??" The D.P. broke down crying and admitted he was so jealous that this "nobody" was making his first film and he wasn't, that he tried to sabotage it.

These are the kinds of things you as a director cannot control.
 
A bad director is vastly more likely to ruin the efforts of an otherwise good cast, script etc. A better argument might be about a movie with no director at all, or one that simply sat back and watched. If a riot doesn't ensue, there's a small chance a good movie could be made.

Regardless of what any individual might think about the outcome, a competent director will make a vastly better movie than the same with an incompetent one. That's what matters where directing is concerned.

Great movie directors are some of the smartest people you'll ever meet.
 
dougspice said:
Nonsense. Yeah, there are a lot of factors you cannot control, but these point to some other key traits of the greats: tenacity, vision, the ability to choose your battles. Half of the battle is fought before the first day on set... simply by establishing the nature of the relationship between director and producers, director and cast, director and crew.

Every director is going to make a bad film eventually. But to say it's mostly luck does a great disservice to those who consistently manage to turn out quality movies.
Click to expand...

I don't get it. I must have missed something. Jarhead was really good, for one, and American Beauty is really overrated. I prefer Jarhead.
 
c.g._eads said:
i'm not sure that's true. remember, the director is the one guy on set who doesn't technically have to know anything. before making a snap reaction, think about it. If any of you have been on set with an inexperienced director, I know you've seen this. so they won't fall behind, the A.D. steps up and starts pushing the production on, and the director just stands there like a deer in headlights.

The director of Diner (Barry Levinson?) admitted he had no idea what he was doing when he directed that. The director of Field of Dreams, one of my favorite movies of all time - that was his first film. Ever! What other business in the world can someone who's never done something before in their life create something great??

It's not something we want to hear but it's true. I'm not suggesting that a knowledgeable talented director can't help make a good movie. But good movies can definitely be made without good directors.
Click to expand...

I really agree with that statement. I think even I'm a decent example of that. I decided I wanted to direct and producer primarily because those were the two areas I could think of that not only have the most possible influence over the project as a whole but also require very little technical knowledge. While I now have a generally decent technical knowledge of everything, I mean I can tell you enough about being a grip, various electrical and lighting equipment, cameras, editing systems, workflow, etc., I don't know how to light any sort of complicated scene, I can't professionally edit my own projects, and I don't shoot. But I always figured, and I figured correctly I think based on my results so far, that my work ethic and drive to excel, my high standards and my emphasis on surrounding myself with talented people, would lead my projects to a high level of professionalism even if I am sort of "learning on the job."

I didn't have a 1st A.D. on my first music video shoot and learned the hard way that wasn't a great idea, or at least if I do that again (which I'm sure I will, budgetary reasons and all) I have to assume some of those responsibilities and figure out how to do at least a decent job of that. My 1st A.D. on the last music video I shot really helped keep my set organized and the shoot smooth and professional. With a crew of I think somewhere around 16, 17, not sure exactly, plus extras and actor, actress, band, etc., I might have been one of the least experienced people on the shoot. I would venture to say besides maybe one or both of the PAs I was the least experienced. But it was my vision, I had slaved away to setup that shoot as the producer (I called in a UPM to help 9 days before the shoot, though), and I had a clear idea what I wanted from everyone, so I hired my crew and made sure I put together good people and the shoot was amazingly smooth. I got so many comments about how people couldn't believe what a smooth shoot it was, they have been on record label shoots much more disorganized and less professional, etc. Yet I am still a new director.

I give credit to the people I work with for most of the results on my projects. I ultimately am not going to be mostly responsible for much of anything, I mean there is no one area where I'm going to be able to take the majority of the credit or do the majority of the work, but I can contribute my input throughout the process at every level, and that's something I think separates a good director from a bad one -- the good ones are able to get the best out of people, not just actors but everyone on the project, and the bad ones aren't really sure what they want or even how to communicate with other people effectively enough to get them excited about the project and doing their best.

I feel lucky so far that my projects have turned out so well because of the people I've worked with and the work they've done for me, but I know that if I get unlucky and have a crew that doesn't meet the professional standards I would expect then I might end up with a result that's really subpar. Especially because I don't have the ability to take over someone else's job and save a project. If the DP doesn't show up, I can't just light myself and shoot myself. I'd have to hope someone else on the crew was decent or make a few phone calls, haha. About all I can do is help with minor grip stuff.

Sometimes, when something turns out really well for X, Y, Z reasons that don't directly have to do with me, I think, "Wow I'm getting really lucky, things just seem to work out," but when I really think about it, I'm putting myself in positions to get lucky. If I hire people who happen to be really good, and I carefully reviewed applications and work to choose these people, it's not really luck that when we do the shoot they nail the material better than I thought they would or that the quality is above what I could have otherwise gotten.

I do think a high percentage of the final outcome of a project depends on things out of the director's complete control, however. I see myself more like a coach of a sports team -- I can try to get the best out of my people and use the resources I have, but ultimately I can't always win. If you give a coach a $200 million team like the Yankees and some of the best players ever to play the game, of course he's going to have an easier time competing than if you give him a $40 million team with mostly guys who don't have high expectations for the task at hand (i.e. their season). So if I have a small budget and consequently have to hire a smaller or less professional crew, I'm in danger of looking bad because I'm just hoping against hope that somehow I luck out and the people I'm underpaying are actually legitimate professionals and that I can motivate them to give me good work.
 
Nowadays I prefer to be the only one behind the camera, so I can't say who's a good director anymore without blushing :-) But I think a good director should also know when to say, "cut", otherwise the movie will go over schedule and over budget, no? LOL

I enjoyed reading this thread; it's like being on a movie set after the day is done and everyone is shooting the breeze -- just love this type of discussion.

Oh, and I should add, a good director should know what to say after he or she yells, "cut" and goes over to the actors and tells them what how they should proceed. "I loved the way you did that."

"Now try it my way!"

Just kidding. A good director loves making movies and everybody on the set should feel that.
 
I have this theory that only a handful of directors all throughout history have made more than 1 great movie. Of course, this is based on my taste (and I tend to be a pretty harsh critic) but I believe it to be true. Whenever someone asks me, "Who are your favorite directors?", I realize I'm always at a loss for words. I have tons of favorite movies - but directors that consistently make movies that I love? I can think of Cameron. Maybe Spielberg. Almost every other director has let me down after their first good movie. I don't think anything measures up to Tarantino's Pulp Fiction. I don't think M. Night has come close to making a good film since The Sixth Sense. Danny Boyle can't touch Trainspotting. Richard Linklater will never make as good of a movie as Dazed and Confused. Ditto for Van Sant and Good Will Hunting, Guy Ritchie and Lock Stock, Farrelly Brothers and There's Something About Mary (although I do love Dumb and Dumber), Wes Anderson and Rushmore. Gary Marshal and Pretty Woman. I could go on and on. And again, I realize this is my opinion. But if the *directors* had so much influence over these movies, why can't they repeat their success? I think it's because there are far too many things on the table left up to luck. I even think Scorcese's only great movie is Goodfellas (I know I'm going to get yelled at for that one).

The best example, in my eyes, is George Lucas. Here is a man who made what I think may be the best movie of all time (The original Star Wars). How the man who directed the best movie of all time, could make those 3 prequels - what I believe to be three of the worst big-budget films in history - is what solidified to me that the director is not nearly as important as a lot of people think. In time, we've learned that Lucas is quite a terrible director (with his infamous actor adjustments: "faster" "slower") and that Star Wars came together almost in spite of Lucas. Left to make every directorial decision for three straight films with not a single person challenging him - well, we see what that led to.
 
Last edited:
Well we all have a right to our opinions, but I beg to differ with the notion that few directors have made more than one great film. And while I agree that "Star Wars - A New Hope" (aka Episode IV, aka "the first one") was a great film, for me it's far from the greatest film ever made. Way far. Different strokes...

But as to directors who consistently make great films, I have to say that the notion that there are none is...well...in my humble opinion...dumber than a day-old bag of rocks. Sorry to put it that way...really.

Here are just a few that, I think most people would agree, support my side of the argument:

Coen Bros: Fargo, Raising Arizona, No Country For Old Men, others

Spielberg: Raiders Of The Lost Ark, Close Encounters, Schindler's List, Catch Me If You Can, ET, Jurassic Park

Hitchcock: Psycho, The Birds, Raer Window, Vertigo, many, many others

Frank Capra: It's A Wonderful Life, Lost Horizon, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, many others

Martin Scorsese: Gangs Of New York, The Departed, Raging Bull, The King of Comedy, many others

Francis Coppola: Godfather I, Godfather II, Apocalypse Now (all masterpieces)

Enough...
 
People.

Directors don't make films. Producers make films.

Films are just spending money. Anyone who can spend money can make a film. Of course, if it's their money, then they're the producers, whatever other hat(s) they might wear.

Directors give those films a direction, for better or worse.

Primary areas of technical / crafts competence and responsibility include: story craft / dramaturgy, acting, communications, cinematography, sound, music, graphics / iconography, and editing.

Career competency includes management and communications skills and social adeptness.

In Hollywood, the director is in charge of the actors, the storytelling (choice of imagery), the camera placement and movement, and production aspects of scheduling and thus of the budget (that last, of course, hotly contested by the producer).

There's no qualification to be a director apart from that. If Mel Gibson says you're the director of his latest movie, then you're the director. If not, not.

"Good" and "great", IMO, requires at least a passing knowledge of aesthetics and social psychology to make communication and discussion succinct and thus meaningful.

Don't forget that a commercial movie still takes many months to make. So something that seems hot today is a product of a guess someone made at least two years ago, when the project was green-lit.

So the making of a commercial movie and the screening and results of that movie are many steps removed from the immediacy that most of us are used to when we make our own projects and show them immediately thereafter.

Now you have showmanship, public relations, the internet, and the rest all playing major parts in how the public eye perceives the goodness of the film, and, by association, of its makers.

And of course, let's not forget that the greatest profit to a showman (read: distributor) comes when he pays the least amount for a product and can hype it the most to get the highest income.

So. My two cents is that a good director brings the ship home in a coherent direction with all the elements (story, visuals, sounds, people) in good health. That's competency. If one or more of those things fail, then generally that's not good direction.

A great director? I'd point at synergy, at the consistently successful coordinator of the creative efforts and energies of all the people and materials brought by the producer to play in the making of the movie to yield an invisible (yet readily and universally perceivable) impulse of human energy contained in that movie that is far greater than just the sum of its parts.

Like that.

JM2c, YMMV etc.
 
emotepix said:
People.

Directors don't make films. Producers make films.

Films are just spending money. Anyone who can spend money can make a film. Of course, if it's their money, then they're the producers, whatever other hat(s) they might wear.

Directors give those films a direction, for better or worse.

Primary areas of technical / crafts competence and responsibility include: story craft / dramaturgy, acting, communications, cinematography, sound, music, graphics / iconography, and editing.

Career competency includes management and communications skills and social adeptness.

In Hollywood, the director is in charge of the actors, the storytelling (choice of imagery), the camera placement and movement, and production aspects of scheduling and thus of the budget (that last, of course, hotly contested by the producer).

There's no qualification to be a director apart from that. If Mel Gibson says you're the director of his latest movie, then you're the director. If not, not.

"Good" and "great", IMO, requires at least a passing knowledge of aesthetics and social psychology to make communication and discussion succinct and thus meaningful.

Don't forget that a commercial movie still takes many months to make. So something that seems hot today is a product of a guess someone made at least two years ago, when the project was green-lit.

So the making of a commercial movie and the screening and results of that movie are many steps removed from the immediacy that most of us are used to when we make our own projects and show them immediately thereafter.

Now you have showmanship, public relations, the internet, and the rest all playing major parts in how the public eye perceives the goodness of the film, and, by association, of its makers.

And of course, let's not forget that the greatest profit to a showman (read: distributor) comes when he pays the least amount for a product and can hype it the most to get the highest income.

So. My two cents is that a good director brings the ship home in a coherent direction with all the elements (story, visuals, sounds, people) in good health. That's competency. If one or more of those things fail, then generally that's not good direction.

A great director? I'd point at synergy, at the consistently successful coordinator of the creative efforts and energies of all the people and materials brought by the producer to play in the making of the movie to yield an invisible (yet readily and universally perceivable) impulse of human energy contained in that movie that is far greater than just the sum of its parts.

Like that.

JM2c, YMMV etc.
Click to expand...

Yeah! Yeah, what he said! :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top