Books on Directing

Re: Books on Directing


What we regard as the format of filmmaking, (Establishing shots, 2 shots, voice overs, POV, crane shots, whatever you want to use as an example) were all done first by somebody.  It's just that some of them worked so well they have become a part of the process.  We are all influenced by what we have seen, and it's bound to show up in what we've done.
I will concede that this is not the same thing as consciously mimicing something specific.  But all of what we now take for granted was once copied directly and deliberately.  It's just that it's been plagiarised so often, we just think it's a natural part of filmmaking.
 
Re: Books on Directing

[quote author=Jim Brennan link=board=Directing;num=1098323126;start=15#18 date=10/25/04 at 06:22:53]Homage is a creative reference to your admiration for someone else's work.[/quote]

That's stretching it's definition a bit. It's really just paying respect, such as bowing down, to somone of "higher" authority.

[quote author=J_Barnes link=board=Directing;num=1098323126;start=15#17 date=10/25/04 at 06:22:53] For a lot of people, it is perfectly ethical to rip an entire sequence/character/plot/scene or other creative touch...for a lot of people it isn’t. [/quote]

Oh poor Shakespeare... I wonder how he feels? :D
 
Re: Books on Directing

david mamet 'on directing'

fantastic

cuts through alot of the artsy bull crap in alot of other books and very good info on how to deal with actors.

as far as set ups and compositions, thats from experience and talent and instinct. figure out what you want and then look up how to get that in books such as 'directing film', etc.
 
Re: Books on Directing

Just shoot your first short with two actors in a public place with a guy holding boom and another shooting.

You will learn much more than reading hundreds of books. And you will learn faster.

If you really want to read something I would reccomend:

David Mamet, "On Directing"


have fun!
 
Re: Books on Directing

I'm surprised that no one has suggested any acting books in addition to the standard directing texts.

Anything by Stella Adler, Sanford Meisner, Uta Hagen, Stanislavsky or Lee Strasberg will give a hopefull director a solid edge over their technicaly inclined counterparts.

Reading a book oriented towards actors rather then directors will often get you a more pure view of the acting process then a book about directing can give.  Books about directing are written less objectively because they approach acting from the writer's specific experience and interperetations.  Books about acting, because they are written for the actor, all you to form your own opinions and assumptions without assuming someone else's perspective.

EDIT: and I mean these to be considered in addition to books about directing and filmmaking. It's all part of a well-balanced diet of direction.
 
Re: Books on Directing

If you want to learn about actors, and directing them and understanding both sides, these books I recommend..

Directing Actors: Creating Memorable Performances for Film & Television
by Judith Weston

The Film Director's Intuition: Script Analysis and Rehearsal Techniques
by Judith Weston

other good books...

Making Movies
by SIDNEY LUMET

What They Don't Teach You At Film School : 161 Strategies to Making Your Own Movie No Matter What
by Tiara White, Camille Landau

Directing Feature Films: The Creative Collaborarion Between Director, Writers, and Actors by Mark W. Travis


My all time fave..

Rebel Without a Crew: Or How a 23-Year-Old Filmmaker With $7,000 Became a Hollywood Player
by Robert Rodriguez


But I agree with Voytek_Stitko, best thing to do is go out there and do it yourself. Find out your style, how you want to do your thing and be yourself.
 
Re: Books on Directing

Certainly, "Shot by Shot" is a must, as is "Directing Actors" by Judith Weston, plus "The Visual Story" by Bruce Block and "The Set Lighting Technician's Handbook" by Harry C. Box. In my experience, a good director had better know everyone else's business as well, at least enough to know what they can do for your vision and so you at least know their lingo. Needless to say, especially for the non-technoids who want to direct, you had better know about photography and how to use a lightmeter, even if most of us are using mainly digital tools these days. You can complete your education when you try to edit your first directing effort...
 
Re: Books on Directing

ALso the 5 C's of Cinematography. It's not in front of me, so I can't tell you the author. It's not only good, but it has tons of pictures from old films. See how many you can name.
 
Re: Books on Directing

Books can teach the technical aspect, but they can't teach you how to truly mold a perfomance from an actor such as Gregory Peck and director John Mulligan's "To Kill a Mockingbird".  This takes an understanding of interpersonal dynamics and psychology of the human condition.

To me, there are three types of directors: technical and humanitarian and combination.  The technical types are John Woo, John McTiernan, Paul Rodriquez, etc.  Now don't get me wrong, these men have made some memorable, fun films.

The humanitarian types are Frank Capra, Mike Nichols, Albert Brooks, etc.  

The final is a combination of the previous two and the membership is small:  Steven Spielberg, Roland Emmerich, James Cameron, etc.  These men can craft well between
action and characters.

Someone on another thread remarked that "if you don't have a DP you don't have a film."
Actually it's "if you don't have characters that the audience likes and roots for, you don't have a film.







A very talented director once said something like, "If you have a great script that is cast with great actors, 70% of the directors job is done."  :)
 
Re: Books on Directing

Yes yes, stories matter. But not always. Depending on what your goal is. There are a lot of bad films with shitty stories, even straight to video and the filmmakers are bringing in lots of dough for themselves.

And what happend to making films for yourself and not for the audience. Well that depends. Maybe if you want to be a producer. I don't know.

Can you explain me more of the The humanitarian type director?
Never heard of these things, and that Directors have labels.
 
Re: Books on Directing

Hey Woodson,

Yes yes, stories matter. But not always. Depending on what your goal is. There are a lot of bad films with shitty stories, even straight to video and the filmmakers are bringing in lots of dough for themselves.

Yes, if the goal is only dough, then one shouldn't concern themselves too much with story, but if one wants a ton of dough and to be recognized and to be proud of themselves in that "I tried my best to rise above the chaff and make something fresh and new" - stick with story.

I believe that everyone at heart sets out to make something great, but most of the time it just doesn't happen due to personal or professional or financial limitations.

When home video was in it's infancy, anyone and I mean anyone could make a film and it would get bought, just because dime store distributors had to fill a void. Today it's the complete opposite, first timers trying to get any disributor is very hard work and a lot of luck.  There are still "bottom feeders" - distributors that will take a film (usaully a film that has been turned down by every other) and receive a nice tax write-off while not paying you a dime.

And what happend to making films for yourself and not for the audience. Well that depends. Maybe if you want to be a producer. I don't know.

I think you always have to make a film for yourself (though this in no way excuses you from trying to make it the best it can be) then hope the audience likes it too.

Can you explain me more of the The humanitarian type director?
Never heard of these things, and that Directors have labels.

The humanitarian director strives to understand the complex dynamics of human realtionships and the human condition. Then they incoporate these insights into the evolution of his/her characters.  I believe this is what makes the audience like the characters and it's what makes them root for and cry for the characters.

These are my own labels and I would like to hear your ideas on the subject.
 
Re: Books on Directing

Yes I agree with you, and if you gotta a great story you have a better chance at getting it out there. But there is crap out that that still makes tons of cash, not saying I rather do that, I'm just saying there is no story out there and even distributed by majors also.

And people do make great films and bad films. Both are successful and not successful, I think the buttom line is who you know and who you have contacts with, hey just like any profession.

Well I know there are films that still make money with straight to video, even if it's crap, is still does get distributed, more in the international market that is.

Sure, hope that the audience will like it, but don't stress about, if ppl hate your film and you think you made the best thing possible and you love it, be happy. That's success if you are happy with yourself, same goes with musicians.

Well I'm not familiar with these labels, but I did hear of Surreal, Imperalist, Visionary Directors. Are Humanitarian any of those. I'm not familar with these terms, but I love to find more about this. Do the technical directors usually don't tell a great story? but have crazy effects and cinematography? Shouldn't all directors be technical, at least a little bit so they know what the camera does and what he would like it to do.
 
Re: Books on Directing

sojrn here. I didn't realize I was in under my wife's user name.

Agreed, crap still exists, but then one man's crap is another man's popcorn, wouldn't you say?.  Marketing is very good with the unknown films that come out to the Blockbusters, etc.  Great copy, nice artwork and/or photographs on the DVD cover, but when you get them home you find out that the best thing about the film is the great DVD cover. (LOL)
Personally I know a movie (tv or rental) is doomed for me when I pick up something to read instead.

A lot of times with the major studios, a film being made is political.  The script may not be great but they'll greenlight anyway to keep the star or director or producer happy, because they (the studios) know another hit may be with them just around the corner.  

I remember an interview with Steven Soderbergh in which he was asked "what happened to your career."  He remarked that after Sex, Lies and Videotape, he thought he could pick any project and make it a hit.  After a string of bombs, it took
Erin Brockovich to finally get his career back on track.

Humanitarian is my own label for the type of director I described earlier.  They are also known as the "actor's director."

Yes, technical (another one of my own labels) directors can tell great stories, but alot of these films are supported or even overwhelmed by the action.  
I think of over a dozen action films right now that are masterpieces.

You wouldn't hire Mike Nichols to direct (he would turn it down anyway) Die Hard V, just as you wouldn't hire John Woo to do a romantic comedy.  But I think Quentin Tartino might be interested in a combination of the two!
 
Re: Books on Directing

So Sidney Lumet would be a Humanitarian. Actor's director correct? What other directors?

So these Humanitarian directors work more with actors right? and the technical directors don't care much about the actors and focus on the technical and visual sides more that for the actors. ?

Also I got a question about the directors that stick to the same style of films that they direct for example Tarantino and the ones who direct different styles for example Ridney Scott. What is your opinion on that.
 
Re: Books on Directing

I think it's not so much a matter of caring...it's a matter of how their brains are oriented and how they learned to do what they do.

I think there are just some directors that think in terms of sequence, picture, color, sound, pacing, and technique, while others think in terms of intention, motivation, mood, subtext, emotion and conflict.

As stated, there are a few that cross between.

Robert Altman would be a character director.  He approaches films with intentions set upon story, character, conflict and subtext.

David Fincher would be a camera director.  He approaches films with intentions set on camera angles, CG, lens choices and lighting mood.

I don't think one orientation excludes the other...it just indicates a director's creative interest and technical strengths.  

A hybrid between the two is someone like Terry Gilliam...who personally storyboards every frame of his own films, yet also approaches them very much oriented towards the character and story.
 
Re: Books on Directing

...and whose vision often flies right over my head.

It's usually easy to spot a writer/director as well. Their films are usually pretty chatty and are focused on the dynamic between people. The circumstances are a device to move the story along, while focusing on the growth of the character(s)....Usually.
 
Re: Books on Directing

Yes Sidney Lumet would and as J_Barnes suggested, Robert Altman, along with Sidney Pollack and Mike Nichols.  These men for the most part choose character-driven scripts to direct.

There are very good technical (action-driven) directors but I think they focus primarily on what they like and do best and there certainly is a market for it.  
Personally, if I don't like characters in a film, I don't care what happens to them and this goes for all genres of movies.

I think the best directors are hybrids.  James Cameron IMO is one of the best with his ability to create well developed, likable or hated characters within action oriented films.  T2 and Titanic are prime examples.
Ron Howard has also hit box office gold with BackDraft, Ransom (Gary Sinise was brilliantly evil), and Apollo 13.

Taratino is in a genre that he compliments extremely well and he knows this.  I think his following wouldn't accept anything else from him  I loved Kill Bill 1 & 2.

I used to be able to spot Ridley Scott films within seconds of viewing them, but ever since his brother Tony got into the business, it's hard to tell them apart visually.  I think Tony Scott is the better director when it comes to characters, though.

So I believe that any genre script, to be the best it can possibly be, must have likable or love to hate, well developed, three dimensional characters.
 
Re: Books on Directing

If I might disagree a slight bit with what I assume is your take on this...

I think what you're describing is largely character driven plots versus action driven ones, which really has very little to do with directing methods. Sure, it has everything to do with what a director likes to work on, or the genre they like to work in, but it doesn’t necessarily say anything about their actual approach to the process of direction.

Well-developed or likeable characters are really more created by writing and the actor's character development, both of which can happen long before a director begins the first discussions. Obviously there are directors with a strong hand in the writing process, and others who have the luxury of an extended development or rehearsal period before shooting, but it isn't the rule in the industry today.

What I'm suggesting is that there are directors who think in terms of character, writing, plot and subtext...absent of any real assumptions of the genre. I don't suggest that these are directors who seek out character driven plots as a rule, I'm saying that this style of director approaches the process of directing in terms of how he can get the character to exist.

The pursuit of that goal leads them to interact and focus more on acting then camera. And thus, perhaps I should describe them as performance-oriented directors. Realistically this directing style can be employed on any genre of film successfully regardless of the focus of the script.

Older directors are more likely to assume this style of working, as their process is more likely to extend from the theater. Frankenheimer and Lumet cut their teeth in Playhouse 90, with very theatrically oriented actor-centric productions.

The most blatant example of this kind of director is Woody Allen who employs extensive actor-centered direction while allowing his films to ultimately take on the a lot of the visual style of whatever cinematographer works on them. Thus you’ve got a film like Manhattan and a film like Deconstructing Harry with vastly different filmmaking techniques employed in each, yet a strong body of performance in both.

Both Frankenheimer and Lumet have made films that are extensively character driven and films that are extensively plot driven, with a wide variety of visual presentations between.

I think of camera-driven directors as those that approach directing in terms of focusing on the visual means to present and capture a story. The actor’s performance is a setpiece in their presentation, but their minds really are intent on telling the audience where to look.

These directors are far more likely to be younger, with little to no education in drama or theater. Many of them come from other visual media, including photography, effects work, music video and commercial work, and they tend to pick very strong, independent actors to be the caretakers of character.

Someone like David Fincher is a perfect example of this kind of director. He comes from the music video world, he has extensive camera experience and he directs in a completely visual way. Of course, I think the distinction that must be made here is that Fincher has chosen some very character-driven scripts, but he has directed them in a very camera-oriented fashion.

A film like Fight Club, for all it's visual appeal, it's essentially a character-driven film. It's completely about conflict, subtext and intentions...but his directing style on that film was not oriented towards the performance, it was completely concerned with the camera...so much so that he dictated every lens to be used in every shot.

Still, with very capable actors and a very strong script, it evolves into a very visual character-driven film.

I think I just mean to say that there must be some distinction between a director's methods of directing and the genre of script that is being directed. I think they're very exclusive in many cases and the choice of one does not always indicate a specific method of direction.

Finally, while I think James Cameron has made a couple of fun action films, I don’t see any ability in character portraiture. He is purely a technical director, so much so that he’s never made a film that wasn’t entirely centered around a gimmick or effect. Aliens comes close, but in truth is almost a purely action film as the two main characters are Sigorney Weaver and a rubber alien mask.

The Abyss is really his only character-oriented film, that is…until the cosmic jellyfish shows up.

If I may suggest a better “cross over” example: Richard Donner.

Donner turned out a vast variety of films, including Lethal Weapon 1, 2 and 4, Scrooged, The Goonies, Radio Flyer, Conspiracy Theory and The Toy among others. All very different films, including some very action and plot oriented films and some very character oriented films….all with a different visual look.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top