Dirctors choices

Gord.T

Gord.T

Still "Senior Member"
I've recently gained an interest in directing.

In the last fest I asked 2 questions concerning the directing choices from the director and recieved no response from either. I also read a short post from someone in that fest mentioning something like "...but never critisize a director."

That's the kind of the vibe I'm getting too, but it's a questionable vibe.

In the past people like JD and Mark.H have been open about thier choices and even offering tips. But, damn if I ask some others why they chose to shoot in a hallway or why they choose to center the characters in a particular scene.

I feel like I'm not supposed to question directors choices. Holy ground maybe.

I mean, if you are calling yourself a director I would think you would be more than proud to talk about your choices.

Like I say, there's been a few that are willing and open to talk about it.
Personally, I'd give my left nut to talk about it if anyone asked.

Just an impression I've had recently, whether real or imagined, I'm afraid to ask directing questions now in the fests.

I guess if I had to put this in the form of a question, "If your calling yourself a director, are you willing to answer questions in your thread about your directing choices?"

Fair enough?
 
Here's a guess. One of 4things going on?


  1. They don't know why they made the choice you want to discuss (otherwise they'd be itching to share how clever they are).
  2. They can't or don't feel comfortable verbalizing why they did what they did - they know why on a gut level but aren't sure how to put it into words.
  3. They're taking the "don't get into defending" advice in the in receiving criticism sticky too literally / the wrong way. We're suggesting that you don't tell someone that's giving you feedback that they're wrong and "here's all the reasons why". But discussing choices should be what it's all about. And it's not hard to say something like "I chose to shoot with so many wide angle lenses in that scene because I wanted to exaggerate the actor's size who's closer to the camera in order to underscore how oppressive he is to the other actor further away. Sorry you found that so disorienting." Really the "don't get into defending" is advice for when someone attacks your work - it's just a not of caution that you can sound defensive if you make a case that the feedback recieved isn't valid because the person giving it doesn't know that the prop wouldn't work, that all the takes except for one were horribly out of focus, etc.
  4. They're the Coen bros. Kidding. Well sort of. Some directors feel that if you explain the choice that it either ruins the impact of the choice or that the film and the choices therein should stand on their own. So the Coen bros. never do a director's commentary.
So those would be my guesses as to what's going on.

We certainly don't want a "don't criticize the director" vibe. We want discussion and sharing about the choices that go ito the work. Unfortunately a lot of aspiring directors make choices solely based on what they think is "cool", which means they're making decisions in a void that has nothing to do with story, and also that they can't really discuss their choices.

Q: "Why did you stay on the bloody brains running down the wall for so long?"
A: "Because brains running down a wall is awesome!"
:)

Not saying that every choice has to have a writ behind it. Nor that choices can't be made because they're "fun", but that's a certain kind of film and a certain kind of story.
 
Thanks Jack. That's probably it.

Btw, my 2 questions were not of a critical nature. More inquisitive as to why it was done that way. I understand though. It's just that the word Director is such an easy term to bandy about but the actual directing is seldom discussed or even understood.
I'm finding it fascinating with the more I learn ofcourse. Thus, the more questions I have. :)

I wish there was more discussion in the threads about it, but, as you said.

Thanks again.
-Gord.
 
Gord - also depends on director's "preproduction" storyboard. If the director is 'winging it' on set, you're not going to get a viable answer.

There's overshooting a scene where the director can't make up his/her mind on camera placement, so the amateur thing is to shoot as much footage as possible.

So as far as camera angles a good book to read is one of Hitchcock's. One of the movies he did with Cary Grant had to many camera angles, that crazy scene was only a few minutes long! But the book got you into the head of Hitchock.

Today we have the advantage of digital, better transportable lighting equipment, etc. So the need to overshoot should be a bygone.

Sometimes the answer is this simple - the director has no idea how to tell a 'single' story through the lens, so he shoots from here, there, everywhere just hoping to find that cool angle.
 
For me, it just depends what people are asking about.

Some choices I like to talk about, and others I don't. When I don't, it's usually because there's a lot of different ways to read the scene and I don't want to limit people to my interpretation alone. And sometimes it simply destroys the magic of a film the way knowing a magic trick takes away the illusion.
 
Charli said:
Gord - also depends on director's "preproduction" storyboard. If the director is 'winging it' on set, you're not going to get a viable answer.

There's overshooting a scene where the director can't make up his/her mind on camera placement, so the amateur thing is to shoot as much footage as possible.

So as far as camera angles a good book to read is one of Hitchcock's. One of the movies he did with Cary Grant had to many camera angles, that crazy scene was only a few minutes long! But the book got you into the head of Hitchock.

Today we have the advantage of digital, better transportable lighting equipment, etc. So the need to overshoot should be a bygone.

Sometimes the answer is this simple - the director has no idea how to tell a 'single' story through the lens, so he shoots from here, there, everywhere just hoping to find that cool angle.
Click to expand...

sounds more like lack of direction than direction. :)

I'm one of those directors who appear to "wing it" on set. no storyboards. but I'm making choices based on the real world parameters of the location, rhythms of the scene, perfomance, light - all filtered through my personal ideas of what compositions are appropriate for each moment. for example, watch model/photographer and see how I either open or close off each character's personal space depending on their empathy or engagement with the other character. all done in the moment and organically tied to performance.

I'm also making consideration for the edit and matching the viewer's point of attention within the frame between complimentary shots. Walter Murch calls this eye-trace.
 
I'd be happy to answer any question, personally. So feel free to ask away! I too wish there were more genuine discussions about the art of directing here. It's such a ridiculously hard thing to do correctly, and I feel like more often than not the only thing anyone wants to discuss is "what lenses did you use on that?"
 
mp - fix it in post.

Zak - I believe in "Saving Private Ryan" that was the first film Spielberg did not use story board or allow anyone to do the b-roll. Will someone correct me if I'm wrong on that.

One of the reasons scripts get messy is because the screenwriter couldn't find that single story to tell, so by adding a lot of characters and situations, it's a theory it will work. Same theory applies to overshooting, just get as many 'good angles' and fix it in post.

I believe some directors have an organic feel to camera movement because they are looking at it all from an "editor's" point of view. If you know how the film is
going to look cut, then you'll know what story you're going to tell.

While camera angles do have "meaning" as to close-ups and etc., you can tell when a flick is off because everything is "cutsy."

I thought one of the "Highlander" films was like that. Let's shoot every cool angle (reflection on mirrored sunglasses on floor) and go that way. I found the
movie hard to watch.

Think organically with one story in mind, I think the storyboarding or lack thereof is fluid because the story just streams out of you.
 
I think of editing more than "fixing it in post". The angle you choose, when to cut in, when to cut out, all drive the story forward creatively - it's not about "that was a pretty angle" but does it support what is trying to be said in the beat, moment, scene, arc, entire film. That's the difference between editing and assembling.

Michael
 
Jack, I'm trying to order the book. I go through my brother because he handles the account stuff.

He sais...

"They can't deliver the book outside the USA and I have no credit cards to pay for the DVD.
They have no PayPal."

?

(The DVD mention I think is Brandons DVD. I'll mention that to him.) Sheesh.
 
I'll try it again. Maybe that'll work.

Good luck in the fest btw, if I heard right.
 
Ummmmm, just a rumor. Sorry. Probably false.

( I read a post somewhere else that Jack and Zak were teaming up for an entry. The poster was probably kidding around but I wasn't sure.
I just caught that one line and thought maybe they were entering.)
 
Last edited:
Charli said:
There's overshooting a scene where the director can't make up his/her mind on camera placement, so the amateur thing is to shoot as much footage as possible.

So as far as camera angles a good book to read is one of Hitchcock's. One of the movies he did with Cary Grant had to many camera angles, that crazy scene was only a few minutes long! But the book got you into the head of Hitchock.

Today we have the advantage of digital, better transportable lighting equipment, etc. So the need to overshoot should be a bygone.

Sometimes the answer is this simple - the director has no idea how to tell a 'single' story through the lens, so he shoots from here, there, everywhere just hoping to find that cool angle.
Click to expand...


Do not mistake shooting many angles, or shooting coverage, for an 'amateur' thing to do. That is absolutely false. Anyone who has ever sat through a painful edit of an amateur director knows this all to well. Most amateur directors actually suffer from the opposite problem, they shoot too little - overestimating their skills as an 'auteur'. Then when they get to the edit, they realize that nothing cuts together, and they are screwed. Now, if they are just willy nilly putting the camera here, there and everywhere, that is a different story. But if someone has a basic understand of the craft of directing, shooting a lot of coverage is generally a GOOD idea if you have the time and budget. And most good producers will REQUIRE coverage if you are trying a one-er that is extraordinarily difficult/tricky, etc.

Hitchcock is absolutely the WORST director to emulate if you're new. You are not Hitchcock, probably never will be. Even HUGE directors like Peter Jackson shoot TONS of coverage because they know that the edit suite is where the movie is actually 'made'. It's much easier to do a couple of additional setups (assuming you know what you're doing) on set when everything is lit, actors are in place, set is decked, etc. than to do a re-shoot or have to cut a potentially critical scene from a piece.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top