conflict between DP and director

ok....

now if i were working, and i spoke to an actor and the Director had a problem with it i'd walk. The DP HAS to talk to actors, we have to work out blocking because i am looking thorugh the camera, i can see whats happening. Something that looks awesome to the eye doesnt always trandslate to camera, sometimes the DP has to tweak action slightly to get the desired effect. Now the Director should be notified that something isnt working. but even on shoots where im not operating camera, just setting framing and lighting while someone else operates, its up to the Operator to communicate with the actors and director to make sure its working.

The director can make final judgement calls for sure, but technihcal things like Fstops, are the domain of the Dp unless there is a VERY specific reason they want something different. The DP is trying to get you the most useable , post tweakbale even flat clean image possible.if yo uwant a shot dark, you can darken it in post, its not wise to shoot it dark.

Your mistake is not communicating to him, WHY you want things your way. this is very important, in any business, or social work place. Granted he may not be a competent DP, and thus if you are noticing mistakes then you are right, but a Director who maintains "Rigid" controll over a set where the Dp and Producer cant interact with the actors, is being unrealistic.
 
As has been said, it really depends on what kind of a director you are. If you are a very hands on, visual, technically savvy director, you will do a lot of what TimCurvan is suggesting is the domain of the DP. There are many directors who are content to just let the DP basically do everything from setting up shots to moving actors about. Others wouldn't dream of letting the DP work our the blocking - what an appalling idea! As an example, a director like Polansky blocks all his shots and is very specific about what lenses or Fstops to use at any given time - same as Kubrick. I think they'd faint (well, Kubrick is dead<g>), if they were told "sorry, lenses, f-stops and blocking is the domain of the DP!". NO IT IS NOT!!! I've worked with directors who sit and watch the video assist like a hawk and correct the framing along with lighting and everything else. They actually tell the DP and camera operator exactly what to do.

Different strokes for different folks. Many directors just don't have the qualifications to meddle in what the DP does. But many, many, many do. It's different for every case.

So first, you must hash out what kind of a director you are, and what your qualifications are. On my very first shoot years ago (I was producing), there was a huge conflict between the director and the DP. The director was extremely hands on, and would tell the DP what lens to use at a given time - the DP had a fit, because he thought it was all wrong, and threatened to take his name off the project. The DP then proceeded to encourage mutiny among the rest of the crew. It was extremely awkward and I had to step in. I couldn't fire the DP, cause he was the only competent local DP who'd work for that kind of money (this was in Eastern Europe) and who spoke English. Anyhow, it was a nightmare. Ultimately, the film went to Cannes and was selected for special distinction - the DP went on to become a very prominent one internationally (I won't use names<g>). However, the DP later admitted, that the director was 100% right in his choices, just that the DP didn't appreciate it at the time, and only once the whole film was edited together.

Basically, you must reach an understanding. If the director knows what he's doing, and the DP balks - I say fire the DP. So, this way I disagree with Tim. Sure, the director should hear out what the DP has to say, but ultimately, once he makes his final decision, the DP should go along. To walk at that point is a bit unprofessional, cause it may disrupt the whole production. And to undermine the director's authority with the crew is unforgivable... I'd blackball a DP who did that - I'd never work with him again, and I'd tell everyone what happened... the reputation will follow you.

Sorry, but the DP works for the director, not the other way around.
 
OldCorpse said:
However, the DP later admitted, that the director was 100% right in his choices, just that the DP didn't appreciate it at the time, and only once the whole film was edited together.
Click to expand...

Yea but all the director has to say is, " it will work in editing, trust me.... " and the conflict is over.
 
TimurCivan said:
Yea but all the director has to say is, " it will work in editing, trust me.... " and the conflict is over.
Click to expand...

Or should be over :)

The director was also a bit at fault, cause he was very uncommunicative, would never explain the reasons for his choices and so on. I asked him to talk to the DP more, and he'd go "I can't afford to stop the shoot so I can take out a bunch of time to educate the DP". Sigh. It wasn't easy.

Anyhow, my attitude has always been: know your place, and behave professionally. I give my reasons for why I disagree with something, and once I do that, I go ahead and do whatever my client asks me to do if he/she doesn't change their minds. If it's a bad experience I just don't work with that person in the future. But I think you have an obligation to see the job through, once you contracted for something.
 
capitalP said:
Why don't you just write and shoot your own stuff?
Click to expand...


Because those were paid works. Commissioned from external people, and he was already in pre-prod when i jumped in (for the three first shorts). I think he was hoping i helped him when i got the XL2, because his camera broken down. Is hard to tell how those shorts were made without me. I don't want to sound presumptuos, but sure they gained some points from the visual side.
I plan to do my own stuff. I wanted to make a short for the dramafest, i got a story (not finished yet) and even some test shooting; but i don't have too much time (camera op is for now my 2nd work).
I must say that i found that dramafest test shooting, the work i've done that i like more.

Plus he has way more contact than i do. I work with him in hope to make more, better works in the future. I hope is just a time of transition, and the more we work, the better product go out.

TimurCivan said:
Your mistake is not communicating to him, WHY you want things your way. this is very important, in any business, or social work place. Granted he may not be a competent DP, and thus if you are noticing mistakes then you are right, but a Director who maintains "Rigid" controll over a set where the Dp and Producer cant interact with the actors, is being unrealistic.
Click to expand...

Timur, don't know if you're talking to me, but i take your point: i might have shooted things my way, but always with the eye of the "audience" and explaining why. And i always said if i thinks "this is'nt going to work"
I.e. the cellar, was an room with yellowish walls. The kind of room that, when the short is projected or seen in a tv, looks ugly, boring and flat looking. The original idea was that the guys sneaked into a dad's office at night, set up some computers to take full monitoring of a house; for that we could have used the townhall, wich is a modern office setting. Instead, all we got is a cellar, a wooden table and a laptop. The key here, and in all the scenes that i don't like, is "credible". Is what those scenes, dialogues, actions lacks of.

I always push to shoot a scene to be the best "eye looking image"

Another ex. is anothe line of the script. One of the guys accidentaly throw a ball into the farmer field. He try to get back the ball but the farmer caught him. The lines of the guys were so... strange... i telled him that imho this was a wrong line, not the way the guys talk now. He said that he wanted a "Goonies" feeling. That will be ok if everything has a goonies feeling, but if all the other guys lines are realistic, this one is out of place. Key: credible.

I was pushing him to make a thing for the Adfest just finished. To see what he can do, starting from the same conditions as the others. I think he never encountered someone that clearly said that did'nt like his shorts.
 
Last edited:
You really want my suggestion?
FIRE HIM!!!
The first rule in a shooting environment is that Director and DP MUST be a team, that work in harmony.
It doesn't matter if the DP is a good one. He must have the same vision as the director, or find one toghether during the pre production before the shooting day 1
 
Well.. i was not really the DP, but i was the closest thing to a DP that we got. I can't fire him. He can eventually fire me, or i can not work no more with him. And, as i said, he has more contact and works in the future also with a higher budget. The problem is that our partnership started as a friendship.

Sometimes i tell myself "Well... my job was to shoot only. If the images are good, that's my work, if the images are bad, that's my fault; nothing else." But, really... i'm a bit angry 'cause i really take care of this shorts ad i like that they will be out as a good products.

I like to show you something, because maybe is just my impression that is amateurish works, and maybe you may see it as a more pro work; but all those shorts contains underage guys and i don't think i can show you. But maybe i can take out something.
 
It may be difficult, but be objective to the film. Communication is KEY. I agree with some of the other posts. Go into a room and set the tone is professional manner. Remember, this may come to a shock to the DP and although you're laying the ground rules, there must be boundaries set.

The DP is going to have to talk to actors. Period. It can be about lighting, hitting marks, etc. Performance and vision is in eye of the director. However a certain TRUST must be in place with how you communicate TO the DP. If the DP doesn't understand, you're going to have to find alternatives. For instance....

Did you have a shot list created? Perhaps a storyboard for some of the MONEY scenes and/or shots you're working on? These can be priceless and essential to properly communicating with a DP. It's good to be questioned or told certain shots may not work, but then again it's not the directors job to CONVINCE a DP. If a DP questions you, the director has final say. PERIOD.

Of course this is all subjective and depending on where you are in the nature of this film will depend on what you may have to do. Either way, get your point across professionally and do your best to not offend. If the arguing continues, you may have a tough decision ahead of you.
 
in my opinion a dp should never direct the actors, it is the directors film, if the dp thinks something isn't working, he says to the director, out of ear shot of the actors and other crew, this doesn't work, if there is a conflict, its out of ear shot, the DP must always remember he isn't really working with the director, he is working for the director. as is everyone else.

as far as the tech side goes, yes that to is up to the director to trust the dp with it or not. but either way, camera settings should be cleared with the director. DP should always go to him and say, with this light, the skin tone, this reason that reason, the camera should be set like this for this reason.

in other words, al explaining is up, all orders are down. the Director is the bose, he gives the orders, the DP is the employee, he explains his actions to the boss.

Jason
 
Jason Miller said:
in my opinion a dp should never direct the actors, it is the directors film, if the dp thinks something isn't working, he says to the director, out of ear shot of the actors and other crew, this doesn't work, if there is a conflict, its out of ear shot, the DP must always remember he isn't really working with the director, he is working for the director. as is everyone else.
Click to expand...

I actually couldn't disagree more. The DP works for the producer, not the director. The producer is the boss - he hires everyone, including the director. If you have a producer/director that's a different story. That's not to say that the DP runs the show, but the DP and the director should have a mutual respect for each other's authority. As for myself, I want a DP that I can trust enough to give certain elements of direction to the actors. If there is a blocking issue and a small change is in order then the DP should have the freedom to bring this to the attention of the actor. Actors aren't oblivious to the fact that there is a camera there with someone behind it. Some actors even want to look through the lens to see what the DP sees. Point being, they communicate. They want to know if they're hitting their marks. I would like to think, however, that most DPs would make adjustments while in the presence of the director, that way if he/she disagreed, they could resolve the issue without any incident.

If effective communication has been established from the beginning, and the DP and the director are on the same page about the look and feel of the film, why wouldn't you want a DP to make adjustments as necessary? In any work situation employees need the freedom to operate in their area of expertise. If everyone has one common goal, the end result will be desirable. What good can come of holding a tight leash on each 'employee'?

That being said, you see this all the time in the business world - some people micro-manage and some don't. Frankly I hated being micro-managed and therefore, I don't micro-manage my business. I feel as though I have much better results because of it. In the end, you do what works for you - just make sure it works for everyone else too.
 
Sorry, I think that's 180 degrees off. The DP may have suggestions on what makes a particular shot look better, but the DP may not have any idea what impact that has on the overall film. Blocking and staging are important tools in the director's arsenal, and a simple change that seems "obvious" to the DP may in fact undercut or ruin the overall emotional impact of the scene in context of the larger film.

There are only two people who are tasked with understanding the film in its entirety: the writer, and the director. Everyone else works "within their craft" to do the best they can. But if an actor changes a line in a scene because it's easier to say, or it makes more sense "to them" in context in that scene, can the actor be expected to know that they could potentially have undercut another scene? In a properly-written script the words that are put there are there for a reason. They should only be changed by someone who knows exactly what the overall impact will be. And the only people who know that are the writer and (hopefully) the director. The same applies to blocking, staging, wardrobe choices, lighting choices, everything. It's all there to serve the overall purpose of the film, and individual craftspeople may or may not know what unintended consequences their changes may have.

Nobody should overrule the director's decisions. If the DP has a suggestion, s/he should make that suggestion to the director, so the director can evaluate it in context with the rest of the film and all other scenes, to make an informed decision on whether it will work or not. This isn't "micro-managing", this is recognizing that every scene, every line, every prop, every decision made has repercussions and ramifications on the whole project, and if things are changed without taking their overall consequences into consideration, they will have an overall negative impact on the project (which is quite the opposite of the DP's intentions, of course, but it's not the DP's job to know the overall consequences).

Now -- if it truly is a case of the DP having a better suggestion or fixing something about a scene, and it truly does make it better, then that points to a failing on the director's part. The director should have adequate vision and skill to know what the impact of blocking/staging, line readings, unspoken character actions, etc. all are. If it's possible that some on-set suggestion actually makes things better, it's more than likely because the director didn't do his/her job properly in the first place.

The DP should do the very best job that he or she can, with as much freedom as possible, within the context of the requirements of the scene. There is certainly no need for the director to micro-manage the DP's work; frequently it can be enough to say something as vague as "give me a warm, intimate feeling for this scene" and the DP can run wild, as long as the director's intent is preserved, and the DP's skillset warrants such freedom. But that freedom must be used to serve the director's vision, because the director is responsible for all departments' work. If the director and the DP disagree, the DP loses, because it is the director's vision that is important. If a DP were to go changing something that negatively impacts the film (without the director's knowledge/consent), then I as a producer would can that DP immediately. (Unless the DP can prove negligence or idiocy on the part of the director, in which case I should a) can the director, and probably b) can myself for having hired an idiot director in the first place).

(and yes, there will be minor changes here and there that can be made with no impact to the overall story, of course. But how do you know which ones those are? If a character is standing or sitting, that can have a huge difference in the way a scene is perceived, and the way the relationship between two characters is perceived... McGonagall and Umbridge's little pecking-order issue on the stairs in Harry Potter 5 is an example; the staging of Butch & Sundance & Katherine Ross on the porch is another. Or the scene McKee points out in Casablanca, between Bogey and McCall in the marketplace -- he illustrates how the wardrobe, the set direction, the staging, the set dressings, and the dialogue all combine to send one particular message. How could each individual craftsperson be expected to know that if they "improved" here or there, that they might actually be changing too much and actually detracting from the underlying message of the scene?)

Nobody wants the people on the crew to act like mindless meat puppets and/or robots. But they do have to all understand that their individual crafts are there to serve the greater overall goal, and that they do not have the knowledge or responsibility for those overall goals. Therefore their decisions and changes are subject to the director overruling them, which is the way it should be.
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
The DP should do the very best job that he or she can, with as much freedom as possible, within the context of the requirements of the scene. There is certainly no need for the director to micro-manage the DP's work; frequently it can be enough to say something as vague as "give me a warm, intimate feeling for this scene" and the DP can run wild, as long as the director's intent is preserved, and the DP's skillset warrants such freedom. But that freedom must be used to serve the director's vision, because the director is responsible for all departments' work. If the director and the DP disagree, the DP loses, because it is the director's vision that is important. If a DP were to go changing something that negatively impacts the film (without the director's knowledge/consent), then I as a producer would can that DP immediately. (Unless the DP can prove negligence or idiocy on the part of the director, in which case I should a) can the director, and probably b) can myself for having hired an idiot director in the first place).
Click to expand...

I don't think what you and I are saying is so different. I agree completely with the above statement. It is the director's vision. If I didn't make that clear before, let me make it clear now. That's essentially what I was getting at when I emphasized the importance of communication during preproduction. When I suggest that the DP should have freedom to operate in his area of expertise, I am taking for granted that this freedom will lie within the predefined vision of the film - The director's vision.

My response was directed more to the attitude that the DP should remain in silence and only speak to the director. In my book, that's micro-managing. If the actors/director/DP have gone over blocking of a particular scene and an actor misses their mark, I believe the DP should have the freedom to address that issue with the actor. If however he decides that it would be better for the actor to sit on the floor instead of a chair, well then yes, that needs to be run by the director first.
 
That's all completely valid, yes. Once the scene is established and people know what's expected, all should work together to get that scene properly. People certainly shouldn't stand idly by while a necessary element was missed, of course.

What I'm opposed to (and obviously not what you were meaning), is the notion of people basically "making it up as they go", or someone stepping outside their job description to offer some "collaborative help." I mean, if it's a first-timer's film and it's obviously not going anywhere, then that type of workflow might work, and advice from a professional cameraman might actually assist the train wreck of a production to be less of a train wreck, but it all probably amounts to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, if you know what I mean... :thumbsup:

The responsibilities placed on the director are enormous. If someone doesn't know every aspect of their film and their scenes and all the interrelated themes and how every department is working together to support that, then they shouldn't be calling themselves a director. And if they do understand all that, then it's vital that all other departments make their corrections/assistance/suggestions to the director, with the understanding that the director knows more about the overall film than they do, and should be working to support the director's vision even if they don't understand it.
 
Barry_Green said:
What I'm opposed to (and obviously not what you were meaning), is the notion of people basically "making it up as they go", or someone stepping outside their job description to offer some "collaborative help."
Click to expand...
i'm curious to what degree you abide by this. if i can offer my own perspective, i actually encourage my crew to offer "collaborative help". i cultivate and nurture an unconventional, family-like atmosphere on my sets. i sincerely believe in harnessing the benefits of meaningful collaboration. and have learned how to avoid the problems it can cause -- first and foremost, nothing is discussed or "figured out" in front of the talent or in between takes. still, at the appropriate time, i personally want to hear my DP's ideas on aspects of the production that lie outside her domain because I value her insight as a "first impression" to what we're capturing. it's all top down of course, and I have the final say on all creative decisions in order to preserve the integrity of the piece. which is what you're saying too.

and while I do a great deal of preparation in terms of defining the visual language we'll be using to tell the story, i wait until I get on set to determine the blocking and composition. I have my pre-established "rules" of course. but even then, its fluid. "making it up as we go" is what I call being able to think on my feet, in the moment, adjusting and refining and incorporating the little surprises to capture genuine human interaction and the spontaneity I seek in my productions.

anyway, it works for me and has proved extraordinarily fruitful. but i'm curious to know what advantages you gain from running things in the manner you wrote about (if i'm not misunderstanding you). i've been on dozens of studio pictures and have seen how it's conventionally done. but it all seems so devoid of passion -- no cares about the picture they're making, only their paycheck or the needs of their department. i don't know, it never seemed like real filmmaking to me. oddly enough, I was on 'good night and good luck' and admire very much, again, the family like atmosphere Clooney encouraged on set. that one was unique to the others in that everyone involved had a real interest in making a great picture. everyone. you could feel it. all right, i'm rambling. just my 2¢.
 
Last edited:
offering help, is one thing, but always do it with the direcotr is private, the Diector is the captain of the ship, once that camera starts rolling the producer is like the admiral who broke the bottle on the ship, and the radios in from land.

the director is the captain, and everyone else ishis crew, period. I would not work on a film as director is I did not have the the athority to deside what was happening in every aspect of the production, now pre and post, I can let those go a bit if needed.

if a captain desides on an action, and his helmsman says no sir, thats a bad idea in front of other crew? he is off the bridge, and thats is what the dp is, the helmsman. he stirs the boat, where the captain wants to go.

the Director must maintain a certain amount of control in every aspect of production, thats what a good leader does.


Jason
 
I agree with Barry 100%

Assuming everything is equal -

The DP is hired to help the director get his creative vision on screen. His opinions and suggestions are secondary to the directors. Period.


-

The DP may be hired by the producer and at the end of the day everyone is, but a good producer hires the director to run the show. I don't want any DP making any adjustments unless authorized by me.

Collaboratoin and suggestion are always welcome and encouraged, but I'd never get into a pissing contest with a DP because he thinks something else may or may not work
 
I've yet to use a DP, but I am really looking forward to the day I do. But in the real world (lol) I am a general contractor who trust certain skilled subcontractors to come in and perform certain desired work within there trade. There is no way a plumber is going to speak out of place to me on my worksite, nor tell another subcontracted tradesman what and when he should do something without my permission and consent. I have fired subcontractors for less and still got the job done. Because thats my job, to get it done. If the project fails no one is going to remember the fact that the DP was an A hole. There going to say that the director lost control. I've learned that some people just have a way of causing total chaos and if you don't take total control of the situation it will only get worst.
 
I just think its important that there is communication on set. There were waaaay too many sets ive shot that the director was in the next room taking a nap.... literally, during scenes. leaving it to me to get the shots. The movie sucked to say the least.
 
TimurCivan said:
There were waaaay too many sets ive shot that the director was in the next room taking a nap.... literally, during scenes. leaving it to me to get the shots..
Click to expand...

Dude, why you gotta call me out like that? I was tired!!!

I am with Barry on this. Perhaps the largest and most important job of the director is to keep an eye on the big picture. I've had people on set before try to make suggestions about trying this or that, and getting upset when I tell them no, because they did not understand how their suggestions simply do not fit into the whole.
 
Hehe... obviously by nap i meant "directing while asleep" is that better? jkjk

Clearly judging by marks work he isnt asleep on the job. I totally agree that the big picture is whats important, but isnt it up to the cinematographer to know the whole picture insideout and backwards as well? at least i think its equally important for me to really know whats going on. This way i can introduce the creative aspects of my job while bringing the directors vision to life.

Mark trusts me with alot during the shoots. The light is mine, of course he gets final say, but because he trusts my eyes, usually there is no conflict, he just says, "Yeah! yea!yea!yea!yea!yeaaaa!" excitedly, and we shoot. Also i usally story board the entire film, with detialed drawings. and from there he makes chages and builds a shotlist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top