Daft question but - What exactly does a director DO?

MalcolmOng

MalcolmOng

Veteran
Alright, I'm pretty new to this, but from what I've read, a director DOESNT hold the camera, thats the dp's job.

A director DOESNT do much admin, thats the producer's job.
A director DOESNT do sound - thats the sound guy's job.
A director DOESNT write the story or script - thats the scriptwriter's job.
A director DOESNT edit, thats the editor's job.
etc, etc...

I know for indie productions, directors normally wear several hats, with director and dp the most common combination...but i'd like to know what directors are actually supposed to do for a production?

Thanks alot
Mal
 
MalcolmOng said:
Alright, I'm pretty new to this, but from what I've read, a director DOESNT hold the camera, thats the dp's job.

A director DOESNT do much admin, thats the producer's job.
A director DOESNT do sound - thats the sound guy's job.
A director DOESNT write the story or script - thats the scriptwriter's job.
A director DOESNT edit, thats the editor's job.
etc, etc...

I know for indie productions, directors normally wear several hats, with director and dp the most common combination...but i'd like to know what directors are actually supposed to do for a production?

Thanks alot
Mal
Click to expand...

To paraphrase King George the First... the director is the 'decider'...

There are varying theories on who, but for most current films the director is the who that decides the presentation of the film, and in shooting, the presentation of the acting talent. With big productions and second-unit operating in parallel, it may be that the directorhas a f 'go/no-go' decision, as the film was not shot when he/she (would that be a directrix...) was present, but still the director decides what will be included in the final film.

There are exceptions to such, especially in the ever popular point of contention, 'final cut', but essentially if the film is good or bad, economically successful, or not, it falls on the director... usually if it's really bad... its all the director's fault... I don't think I've ever heard of a producer stepping up and admitting they 'just didn't do their job' in getting enough money, or finding the 'right' people to get the movie shot... its usally the director's fault for not kicking the producer in the ass to get the right money and right people, at the right time...
 
A director gives all the elements of a film direction -- there job is to keep everything moving in a cohesive way toward the goal of a fully realised film. Beyond merely passively deciding what's right among options laid out before them, a good director brings a personal vision to a project and asserts this vision across all the film's elements by also creating original elements that support and enrich the films themes and overall texture.

But mostly you can say there are really only two elements of any film: techniquery, and people. Manage either reasonably well and there's a career for you somewhere. Manage both well and you're a cinematic genius.

Personally, I feel to be an accomplished director, your job begins with conceptualizing the film, or partnering with someone to do so (script or not); continues into the production process where you keep the elements aligned to the over-arching concepts and themes laid out in the initial conceptualization; and ends with having at least a strong hand in the film's editing. If you do a good job, your film should convey the various "meanings" of the initial concept clearly and stand as an elaborately orchestrated "discussion" with the audience about its various facets.

Take that for what it's worth -- though I would hardly consider myself accomplished as a director, I have the conviction of years of experimenting with what not to do behind figuring the above out.

Not to seem like a broken record, but I have often recommended people read the Jean Pierre Geuens book "Film Production Theory." Paired with Michael Rabiger's "Directing," you could get a very good sense of the director's purpose.
 
Last edited:
these answer's are excellent. My short answer is director chooses where the camera goes, and directs the actors. you can delegate pretty much everything else if you want
 
Some BIG time directors also write (Francis Ford Coppola, James Cameron, Quenton Tarrantino, Robert Rodriquez--who also edits, does music etc) among others. The directors primary focus however is to set the look, the tone, and the mood of the movie as I see it by working with the DP to set the camera and lights for the look, working with the actors to bring out the action he wants, and with the production staff to keep everything on schedule. At least that's the way I see it.
 
A script is written by a screenwriter -- a director interpets the vision of that story.

Charli
 
Cryogenic Filmworks said:
Some BIG time directors also write (Francis Ford Coppola, James Cameron, Quenton Tarrantino, Robert Rodriquez--who also edits, does music etc) among others. The directors primary focus however is to set the look, the tone, and the mood of the movie as I see it by working with the DP to set the camera and lights for the look, working with the actors to bring out the action he wants, and with the production staff to keep everything on schedule. At least that's the way I see it.
Click to expand...



Then there's Russ Meyer and Ed Wood... where big busted women meet geeky looking men in mohair... but they both did 'everything' for their movies...
 
i think the 2 main things the director does is decide where to put the camera, and give feedback to the actors.

some directors are very camera oriented, and tell the dp exactly what he wants, some or more actor oriented, and gjve the dp deal more freedom with camera set ups.

the director tells the actor what adjustments to make in their performance. he helps the actors by giving them direction, by inspiring the actors to do their best each take.

the director also is involved in every stage of preproduction from script, to location scouting, casting, costume and wardrobe, to the actual shooting. he must rehearse with the actors, meet with all key crew members to make sure everyone is on the same page. the director must manage all the people involved, and give them enough freedom to do their job, but also guide them toward his vision of the movie because the director is the leader.

after production, he must oversee the editing process, oversee the score and soundtrack.

it's not an easy job.
 
It is your job as the director to get your film made. You are funneling a pool of talent to help put up on screen your vision.

Some directors like to on the camera (ala Steven Soderbergh) others like to just work with the actors and leave any sort of "technical" work to people they trust.

Directing is not a science. To me it is an art, a collaborative one, and each artist is different in how they approach their work, how much they leave in the hands of others and so on and so forth.
 
bklyndv said:
A director gives all the elements of a film direction -- there job is to keep everything moving in a cohesive way toward the goal of a fully realised film. Beyond merely passively deciding what's right among options laid out before them, a good director brings a personal vision to a project and asserts this vision across all the film's elements by also creating original elements that support and enrich the films themes and overall texture.

But mostly you can say there are really only two elements of any film: techniquery, and people. Manage either reasonably well and there's a career for you somewhere. Manage both well and you're a cinematic genius.

Personally, I feel to be an accomplished director, your job begins with conceptualizing the film, or partnering with someone to do so (script or not); continues into the production process where you keep the elements aligned to the over-arching concepts and themes laid out in the initial conceptualization; and ends with having at least a strong hand in the film's editing. If you do a good job, your film should convey the various "meanings" of the initial concept clearly and stand as an elaborately orchestrated "discussion" with the audience about its various facets.

Take that for what it's worth -- though I would hardly consider myself accomplished as a director, I have the conviction of years of experimenting with what not to do behind figuring the above out.

Not to seem like a broken record, but I have often recommended people read the Jean Pierre Geuens book "Film Production Theory." Paired with Michael Rabiger's "Directing," you could get a very good sense of the director's purpose.
Click to expand...

A truly insightful answer. People and Technology. Directors can fit into many roles, The Writer/ Director , Producer/ Director. I've learned to let go of the technical side and let others shine getting back to understanding and interpreting the script, telling it through my perspective and working with the actors to convey it.

Sounds simple...If I knew what I do now at the start of my career, would I really have set myself up to do it?? :)

Jp
 
Think of a war

Think of a war

This is my meager contribution.

The director is like the general of an army. He tells the sniper to hide in the shadows, a radio man to communicate and a gunner to storm a building to win a battle. He still has to take some orders from above, but he doesn't deal with logistics, the battlefield commanders do that.

A director decides the 'battle plan' for making a movie. He has the DP decide where and how to point the camera. He has the sound engineer capture sounds and dialogue. The director looks out for the overall execution and the artistic vision used to execute a movie, but the producer deals with logistics to help the director.

-Michael

BTW: Associate producer is a BS job given to someone who got on the good side of either the director or the producer. They didn't really DO anything. I could give my dog a credit for associate producer.

BTW 2: Hug a DP. They don't get any credit.
 
The director bears ultimate responsibility for how the film turns out. There is nobody (nobody) on the set with a bigger job, or more responsibility, than the director.

There are only two people who conceptualize the film in its entirety -- the writer, and the director. Everyone else works scene to scene, but it's the director's responsibility to understand every element -- every shot, every light, every wardrobe choice, every intonation and pause, every line of dialogue, every element in every way to make sure that the story itself is getting told, properly.

To that end the director storyboards the film, hires all the key crew (director of photography, art director, etc) and meets with all department heads to guide them in delivering the elements that will properly integrate to make a comprehensive motion picture experience. The director casts the film, works with the actors and the crew, stages the scenes, works with the director of photography to design the shots, executes the scenes, and supervises the editor and post sound departments to deliver the best most accurate version of the "director's vision" possible.

So if a film soars, the director gets the credit. And if the film stinks, the director gets the blame.

The director doesn't have ultimate authority or control, that rests with the producer (who hires, and who can fire, the director). And on big-budget films typically the director doesn't have final authority over the final edit, although the director can and will deliver his/her "director's cut", but the producer and production company may decide to cut it differently.

Ultimately, the director's job is the hardest of all. You're working months before any crew members are even attached to the picture, and on shoot days you're working LONG before anyone else shows up, and LONG after they've all gone home. And it all, all, all comes down to you.
 
Think of a director as an symphony orchestra conductor. The conductor doesn't play any instruments, yet he is responsibe for up to 100 musicians to play together in unison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top