adventusfilms
Active member
First of all, I don't want to denounce any filmmakers by insinuating that the director has an easy job or lesser stature than anyone else on a film. Most directors have earned their title by the end of production and I usually applaud their efforts.
But as another filmmaker who usually won't direct, I don't see the legitimacy of labeling a film as "the director's film" in the credits. I know this title is used in almost every motion picture to date, but I still can't seem to validate it myself. Maybe someone can help with the notion.
I want to take the practical approach first. I understand that maybe this is a way of honoring the "director's vision" from start to finish, but I think it has turned into more of a habit to make the film tied to one person and labeling it as their own. But we know that without the DP or production designer or maybe even the editor or financier, the vision wouldn't make the film what it is on the answer print. It just kind of seems like a cliché these days (I'm lookin at you Shyamalan).
I know not all directors who use the "a ____ film" title in the beginning of the picture are seeking glory and that it's probably more of an industry standard these days than anything. But I think it still reflects a certain mentality and maybe a production value that wouldn't sit well with people outside of the film community.
I also want to point out that indi-directors USUALLY earn the right to flash their name everywhere more than a larger production where people are paid to do the jobs that a smaller budget film has to compensate for. They're under-exposed, under-paid and under-fed...so they of course want it more and work so much harder, doing 5 times as many jobs as a director should do, including the common Investor-via-Master Card position.
One last thing. If I decide I do want to direct something else in the future, I will reframe from including my name in anything else but "directed by". Do you really need anymore than that?
I figured I post this in the director's section first and maybe get the battle brewing.
Chris
But as another filmmaker who usually won't direct, I don't see the legitimacy of labeling a film as "the director's film" in the credits. I know this title is used in almost every motion picture to date, but I still can't seem to validate it myself. Maybe someone can help with the notion.
I want to take the practical approach first. I understand that maybe this is a way of honoring the "director's vision" from start to finish, but I think it has turned into more of a habit to make the film tied to one person and labeling it as their own. But we know that without the DP or production designer or maybe even the editor or financier, the vision wouldn't make the film what it is on the answer print. It just kind of seems like a cliché these days (I'm lookin at you Shyamalan).
I know not all directors who use the "a ____ film" title in the beginning of the picture are seeking glory and that it's probably more of an industry standard these days than anything. But I think it still reflects a certain mentality and maybe a production value that wouldn't sit well with people outside of the film community.
I also want to point out that indi-directors USUALLY earn the right to flash their name everywhere more than a larger production where people are paid to do the jobs that a smaller budget film has to compensate for. They're under-exposed, under-paid and under-fed...so they of course want it more and work so much harder, doing 5 times as many jobs as a director should do, including the common Investor-via-Master Card position.
One last thing. If I decide I do want to direct something else in the future, I will reframe from including my name in anything else but "directed by". Do you really need anymore than that?
I figured I post this in the director's section first and maybe get the battle brewing.
Chris