Director... the nice guy?
- Thread starter Jbadham77
- Start date
vertigoanton
Active member
Maybe that mantra works for people in the "industry", but what if you're just starting out? If you're not a good person, then how would you get people to work for you?
Prodigi Pictures
Carbonite Member
It's a terrible concept and horribly false.
If "good" means "nice" in this context:
- It is the director's responsibility to nurture the actors, to make them feel safe, to create an environment where they can take crazy risks in front of the camera and know they won't be judged for pushing their performance beyond the safe choices.
- It is the director's responsibility to gain the trust of the crew so they understand they're more than grunts, that they're working hard on a valuable piece of art and that they're part of something bigger than themselves.
- It is a director's responsbility to gain the trust of the producers and investors, who rarely understand storytelling as well as the director and are taking a major leap of faith with their time, money and connections that this director understands how to tell create stories exceptionally well.
if "good" means "honest" or "moral" in this context:
- A director can't achieve his or her vision by being profligate with other people's money.
- A director will hurt the success of their project if they're perceived to be immoral by the general public
- A director will fit right in with a large part of Hollywood culture, but that's not the part worth fitting in with.
Its the same as the ridiculous statement "nice guys finish last."
I have a loyal, close knit team who works on my movies because I treat them with respect, honor my contracts, pay on time and don't act like a prima donna on a set.
If "good" means "nice" in this context:
- It is the director's responsibility to nurture the actors, to make them feel safe, to create an environment where they can take crazy risks in front of the camera and know they won't be judged for pushing their performance beyond the safe choices.
- It is the director's responsibility to gain the trust of the crew so they understand they're more than grunts, that they're working hard on a valuable piece of art and that they're part of something bigger than themselves.
- It is a director's responsbility to gain the trust of the producers and investors, who rarely understand storytelling as well as the director and are taking a major leap of faith with their time, money and connections that this director understands how to tell create stories exceptionally well.
if "good" means "honest" or "moral" in this context:
- A director can't achieve his or her vision by being profligate with other people's money.
- A director will hurt the success of their project if they're perceived to be immoral by the general public
- A director will fit right in with a large part of Hollywood culture, but that's not the part worth fitting in with.
Its the same as the ridiculous statement "nice guys finish last."
I have a loyal, close knit team who works on my movies because I treat them with respect, honor my contracts, pay on time and don't act like a prima donna on a set.
vertigoanton
Active member
Well said, prodigi. To me, integrity means a lot in a profession where collaboration and teamwork is so crucial to the process.
clang
Veteran
yeah, if you're a famous director whose movies make billions, then just maybe you can be a megalomaniac prick, coz just maybe people will put up with you (and even then, others won't). For anyone else, you need to be a decent human being, coz reputations spread, and if no-one wants to work with you, you ain't going to get a lot of directing jobs.
I think the film should come first, if you are a director but you are afraid to be rude or pushy then you are not very good. People need you to make the decisions so don't be afraid to make some. The power and frustration that come with directing make it very easy to behave like a prick and get away with it, so some people do. I think that it is not very productive to be an ass. Trying to be humble and cooperative as a director can help you build a team that is willing to give its best.
But i still think the film should come first; for instance, you have an actor that is performing badly because of personal problems, say a death in the family. A "good" person would try and help the actor with his problems. A good director might need to just fire the actor and find another.
But i still think the film should come first; for instance, you have an actor that is performing badly because of personal problems, say a death in the family. A "good" person would try and help the actor with his problems. A good director might need to just fire the actor and find another.
You don't need to be rude or pushy to be a good director, you need to be honest, direct and firm.
If people see they can push you around, they will. But if you work with people, you should be able to get the performance you want out of them without making it so they'll never want to work with you again. As said above, reputation is everything in this business, and I get all of my work these days through word-of-mouth, because people don't want to deal with jerks.
And menu, I don't think your example is good at all. If an actor is having family problems, firing them is not going to make them a better actor, it's not going to increase the chances of your film's success, and it certainly won't want to make other actors or crew work with you.
In your example, you don't have to help the actor with their "problems," you need to get aperformane out of them. You figure out how to turn that emotion into what's needed on screen. If it's just absolutely not possible at this time, then picking up another actor is not the worst case scenario, but you don't want to just fire somebody. You have an entire crew to deal with and if you just start firing people because their parents died, you're not going to get a good performance. Instead, I would work it out w/ the actor that, if they really want to do the film and need more time, reschedule the shoots to work them in later. If this isn't possible, then mutually (and amicably) part ways, with the knowledge that you two will work together again in the future.
Your film isn't "your" film, and it isn't just made by the director - it's made by the crew and the cast, and all of their combined performances. A good director gets the best performance out of the cast and crew, and you won't get that out of them unless they *want* to give you their best. Trying to be a dick about it just means no one will care about you or your film long enough to make that effort.
OP, I think the point of the saying is, "don't sugarcoat things." Nothing more. If your actress is trying a certain style but it's just not flying, let her know. Be firm, but don't be so accomodating as to let them take away from the vision. When it comes out later and their performance works, they'll thank you for it. If your approach doesn't work and theirs would have been stellar, well, chalk it up to a lesson learned.
If people see they can push you around, they will. But if you work with people, you should be able to get the performance you want out of them without making it so they'll never want to work with you again. As said above, reputation is everything in this business, and I get all of my work these days through word-of-mouth, because people don't want to deal with jerks.
And menu, I don't think your example is good at all. If an actor is having family problems, firing them is not going to make them a better actor, it's not going to increase the chances of your film's success, and it certainly won't want to make other actors or crew work with you.
In your example, you don't have to help the actor with their "problems," you need to get aperformane out of them. You figure out how to turn that emotion into what's needed on screen. If it's just absolutely not possible at this time, then picking up another actor is not the worst case scenario, but you don't want to just fire somebody. You have an entire crew to deal with and if you just start firing people because their parents died, you're not going to get a good performance. Instead, I would work it out w/ the actor that, if they really want to do the film and need more time, reschedule the shoots to work them in later. If this isn't possible, then mutually (and amicably) part ways, with the knowledge that you two will work together again in the future.
Your film isn't "your" film, and it isn't just made by the director - it's made by the crew and the cast, and all of their combined performances. A good director gets the best performance out of the cast and crew, and you won't get that out of them unless they *want* to give you their best. Trying to be a dick about it just means no one will care about you or your film long enough to make that effort.
OP, I think the point of the saying is, "don't sugarcoat things." Nothing more. If your actress is trying a certain style but it's just not flying, let her know. Be firm, but don't be so accomodating as to let them take away from the vision. When it comes out later and their performance works, they'll thank you for it. If your approach doesn't work and theirs would have been stellar, well, chalk it up to a lesson learned.
When you're on a deadline and there's thousands of dollars riding on every shoot date a director doesn't have the luxury of playing babysitter. He can certainly sympathize with the problem but ultimately unless the actor get it together firing him might be the only good decision. It's the same in any job actually. If you go to work saddled with emotional problem then your supervisor isn't an ass for firing you; he has the department or the company to consider.
I'm not saying that you can't fire someone who can't do their job, I said that you should look at all your options and, if you're going that route, make the decision mutual and amicable. Nobody's gonna work with you if you're an ass, and regardless if the supervisor has to fire or not, that decision will echo with all of those that are in a similar position as the fired actor. Don't burn bridges.
That said, though, if it's something stupid like they're out partying with Lindsay Lohan, then don't be afraid to show them the door. But I mean, if someone close to one of your cast or crew dies, I'm not willing to come across as heartless. It depends on the problem - if they deserve the slack, then work it, but if you have to cut them loose, then don't be afraid to - it just shouldn't be a lightly-made choice. If you've invested this much into the actor, are you really gonna just up and start with a new actor? I mean, supposedly you picked this guy for having the right combination of everything, that's gonna be tough to just replace on the spot with someone who may not have even looked at the script before.
I mean, you shouldn't be afraid to make hard decisions, but you should also be thinking about everyone on the set. This is a group production
That said, though, if it's something stupid like they're out partying with Lindsay Lohan, then don't be afraid to show them the door. But I mean, if someone close to one of your cast or crew dies, I'm not willing to come across as heartless. It depends on the problem - if they deserve the slack, then work it, but if you have to cut them loose, then don't be afraid to - it just shouldn't be a lightly-made choice. If you've invested this much into the actor, are you really gonna just up and start with a new actor? I mean, supposedly you picked this guy for having the right combination of everything, that's gonna be tough to just replace on the spot with someone who may not have even looked at the script before.
I mean, you shouldn't be afraid to make hard decisions, but you should also be thinking about everyone on the set. This is a group production
Last edited:
Prodigi Pictures
Carbonite Member
Firing an actor because someone died in their family would expose you and the production to a civil suit. They could claim they were fired without cause.
Firing an actor because they're consistently late, consistently aren't performing to the standards of the project or consistently treat the cast and crew with hostility are legitimate reasons for dismissal.
How we use language is very telling. I don't believe anyone is so cruel that they'd fire someone because they had a death in the family. That's downright evil. I do believe that if an actor was consistently late or couldn't perform to their previous standards of acting it might be necessary to replace them.
I'm hoping that Menu simply hadn't thought through his/her example well...I want to believe no one is so obtuse or cruel that they fire people for suffering a personal tragedy. I want to believe that Menu's words jumped to the conclusion that if an actor had a loved one pass away they might be unable to perform their role anymore.
I'd hope that Menu would have the decency to sit down with that actor and talk to them first...and not talk about the movie. Just listen to the actor and let them grieve a bit. Then, quietly and politely, ask them if they feel up to continuing their work. And guide the actor to the conclusion that it is in everyone's best interests to finish the film with professionalism and a dedication to craftsmanship...with a final reminder that if the actor needs some time alone between takes or would like to talk to someone that the entire cast and crew is there for them.
This would achieve a far better result than firing the actor.
Firing an actor because they're consistently late, consistently aren't performing to the standards of the project or consistently treat the cast and crew with hostility are legitimate reasons for dismissal.
How we use language is very telling. I don't believe anyone is so cruel that they'd fire someone because they had a death in the family. That's downright evil. I do believe that if an actor was consistently late or couldn't perform to their previous standards of acting it might be necessary to replace them.
I'm hoping that Menu simply hadn't thought through his/her example well...I want to believe no one is so obtuse or cruel that they fire people for suffering a personal tragedy. I want to believe that Menu's words jumped to the conclusion that if an actor had a loved one pass away they might be unable to perform their role anymore.
I'd hope that Menu would have the decency to sit down with that actor and talk to them first...and not talk about the movie. Just listen to the actor and let them grieve a bit. Then, quietly and politely, ask them if they feel up to continuing their work. And guide the actor to the conclusion that it is in everyone's best interests to finish the film with professionalism and a dedication to craftsmanship...with a final reminder that if the actor needs some time alone between takes or would like to talk to someone that the entire cast and crew is there for them.
This would achieve a far better result than firing the actor.
Last edited:
I did not say that you have to be rude or pushy to be good, but that you should not be afraid to be, because i think it can stand in the way of being "honest, direct and firm" (as mrwong put it)
The dead family member is a crude example and too strong to make my point.
I strongly disagree with Jade8472, i think an employer has an obligation to care for his employees when the fall sick or are otherwise troubled. Where I live it is the law .
But i do think that a movie director working on his work of art is allowed to be harsh sometimes for the sake of the movie.
The dead family member is a crude example and too strong to make my point.
I strongly disagree with Jade8472, i think an employer has an obligation to care for his employees when the fall sick or are otherwise troubled. Where I live it is the law .
But i do think that a movie director working on his work of art is allowed to be harsh sometimes for the sake of the movie.
No offense, but that would be one messed up place you're living in. An employee has to be of an asset to the company or else he's dead weight. Let's make right away the distinction that his emotional problems (dead family member, whatever) is interfering with his productivity at work. Then he's a liability to the company. He should be given a chance to improve but if he cannot the employer has to fire him. You're probably misinterpreting the law because if every employee claimed that he's "troubled" nobody can ever get fired.
Alas when you are working to a schedule and budget, there's very little margin for indulging people's personal difficulties. You certainly don't have to be a prick about it, but an actor who understands the importance of their role in the project, should be able to deal with that role being given to someone else, if the director's/producers' choice is to scuttle the whole project and the resources invested in it, because one member of a large team needs to take time and energy to deal with a personal problem.
FWIW, there is one director for whom I will not work again, unless the only alternative is eating dry dog food (moist would be okay). And it is entirely because he is so gratuitously, bastardly, over-the-top nasty to everyone around him. As it happens, yes, he is a very commercially successful director (whose movies I don't generally like). If not for the returns on his films, no one would put up with his bullshit...
FWIW, there is one director for whom I will not work again, unless the only alternative is eating dry dog food (moist would be okay). And it is entirely because he is so gratuitously, bastardly, over-the-top nasty to everyone around him. As it happens, yes, he is a very commercially successful director (whose movies I don't generally like). If not for the returns on his films, no one would put up with his bullshit...
emotepix
Well-known member
Ummm... guys.
On the subject of directing and scheduling, I think you all know that the ADs are in charge of that side of things. In particular, the 1st AD usually is the "good cop" and takes care of the director and the background actions, whereas the 2nd AD is usually the ramrod who is the pushy one on set. At least, the sets I've been on.
Otherwise, on smaller crewed projects, intelligent scheduling would be much more a factor than whether or not someone is pushy or not.
Let's not forget that when the show is done, nobody cares how long it took to shoot, or how fast it was edited, or how much it cost or didn't cost.
If your movies gets airtime it will go up against million dollar projects and also against ones that cost less than yours did - but are equally as good.
And in ten years from now, your film will either be dead and gone with all the fast food and quick junk out there, or... not.
A director doesn't have to be bossy, or pushy, or even terribly articulate.
The director just has to have a clear vision of the show and the determination to see it through to the end, which, depending on the strength of this or her vision, will bear more or less resemblance to the intended show. (Oh, and it helps to have actors to work with who understand your vision, and like to work with you, if you have actors in your film.)
If there's any strength that all directors share, it's in that sense.
On the subject of directing and scheduling, I think you all know that the ADs are in charge of that side of things. In particular, the 1st AD usually is the "good cop" and takes care of the director and the background actions, whereas the 2nd AD is usually the ramrod who is the pushy one on set. At least, the sets I've been on.
Otherwise, on smaller crewed projects, intelligent scheduling would be much more a factor than whether or not someone is pushy or not.
Let's not forget that when the show is done, nobody cares how long it took to shoot, or how fast it was edited, or how much it cost or didn't cost.
If your movies gets airtime it will go up against million dollar projects and also against ones that cost less than yours did - but are equally as good.
And in ten years from now, your film will either be dead and gone with all the fast food and quick junk out there, or... not.
A director doesn't have to be bossy, or pushy, or even terribly articulate.
The director just has to have a clear vision of the show and the determination to see it through to the end, which, depending on the strength of this or her vision, will bear more or less resemblance to the intended show. (Oh, and it helps to have actors to work with who understand your vision, and like to work with you, if you have actors in your film.)
If there's any strength that all directors share, it's in that sense.
No; ADs do not direct, and are not in charge of scheduling (directors direct, and scheduling is a collaboration in which the UPM/Line Producer usually has the uppermost hand).
The thread is about the necessity of pushiness. People may or may not be inclined to be pushy jerkwards, regardless of whether a show is well- or poorly-scheduled. Poor scheduling just exacerbates everything.
The people who footed the bills, care. And unless you are independently wealthy, your ability to find financing for future projects is most certainly influenced by your ability to bring in product on-schedule and at-budget
Working with inarticulate directors, is a rampaging nightmare. What do they want? When do they want it? What do they need? How should this look? How should that play? If they can't communicate this to their crew, do you really believe that anyone will be able to deliver the best possible contributions to the project?
No other knowledge, skill or discipline required? Not hardly.
And of course the cinematographer's, writer's and designers' contributions are essentially irrelevant. "Vision" and an empty sound stage, that's all you need...maybe not even the sound stage.
Perhaps the directors with whom you work; can't speak for them. My experience has been a little different.
Luis Caffesse
Admin
I think SadMax and Prodigi have both brought up some very interesting and valid points.
I've always viewed the role of director as that of a communicator.
It's not just the 'vision' that is required - but the ability to communicate that vision to your cast and crew. Of course, that doesn't just mean sitting anyone down that will listen and giving them your overall vision for the film - it means knowing who needs to know what at what point in time. It means being able to communicate concisely and effectively with people. And, esspecially when dealing with actors, I think it requires a certain amount of empathy. When a director can communicate effectively, there is little reason to be pushy or angry on set.
Communication, I think, is the key to making certain that everyone is making the same film.
So sure - you need a 'vision' in so far as you need to know what movie you're making.
But at the end of the day - you must be able to communicate that vision to those around you - otherwise it's worthless.
Just my 2 cents.
I've always viewed the role of director as that of a communicator.
It's not just the 'vision' that is required - but the ability to communicate that vision to your cast and crew. Of course, that doesn't just mean sitting anyone down that will listen and giving them your overall vision for the film - it means knowing who needs to know what at what point in time. It means being able to communicate concisely and effectively with people. And, esspecially when dealing with actors, I think it requires a certain amount of empathy. When a director can communicate effectively, there is little reason to be pushy or angry on set.
Communication, I think, is the key to making certain that everyone is making the same film.
So sure - you need a 'vision' in so far as you need to know what movie you're making.
But at the end of the day - you must be able to communicate that vision to those around you - otherwise it's worthless.
Just my 2 cents.
I just watched a fascinating short that deals with this arena, called "Home James And Don't Spare the Horses." It's on the Wholphin #2 DVD (check them out--like a film festival in a box). Anyhow, the gist of the short is that people don't respect an artist who isn't an a-hole.
I'm not sure where I fall on this issue. But I have noticed that several directors who I thought were not especially nice--in fact they were arrogant and very "un-nice"--have gotten pretty darn far!
I'm not sure where I fall on this issue. But I have noticed that several directors who I thought were not especially nice--in fact they were arrogant and very "un-nice"--have gotten pretty darn far!
Like what was said already in the thread, IMO the director has to be respected. In small independent films, its a lot harder for a director to be "nice". You need to be on your toes to have everything under control.
I just recently shot a short film that took me 6 months just to shoot (no joke). It was mainly shot at weekends, with much of the team (excluding key positions like camera and sound) made of amateur people. These people are terrible. They are there for fun, and can't stand the "borringness" of takes and setups. So they start talking, joking, messing around.
Over here, there's NO filmmaking. So its impossible to find film school students and professional collaborators.
So, in the end, I ended up being that guy that's always with a serious face. Always passing orders, saying people to be quiet. In the end of the shoot, lets just say I didn't end up with many future collaborators. But I brought the film home, the way I wanted it. If I was working with professionals, with people that knew how to be on set and knew what they where doing, I would certainly have a different attitude. But with a group of amateurs, either you take control of the situation, showing everyone you know what you're doing, or you'll get anarchy. They'll eat you alive, and your project will be a mess...
Being a prick, stubborn and with lots of determination, worked on this project. It wasn't fun, it was a struggle, but made the film possible.
I just recently shot a short film that took me 6 months just to shoot (no joke). It was mainly shot at weekends, with much of the team (excluding key positions like camera and sound) made of amateur people. These people are terrible. They are there for fun, and can't stand the "borringness" of takes and setups. So they start talking, joking, messing around.
Over here, there's NO filmmaking. So its impossible to find film school students and professional collaborators.
So, in the end, I ended up being that guy that's always with a serious face. Always passing orders, saying people to be quiet. In the end of the shoot, lets just say I didn't end up with many future collaborators. But I brought the film home, the way I wanted it. If I was working with professionals, with people that knew how to be on set and knew what they where doing, I would certainly have a different attitude. But with a group of amateurs, either you take control of the situation, showing everyone you know what you're doing, or you'll get anarchy. They'll eat you alive, and your project will be a mess...
Being a prick, stubborn and with lots of determination, worked on this project. It wasn't fun, it was a struggle, but made the film possible.