Luis Caffesse
Admin
Hmmm, well at least I'm insecure..... at least I've got that going for me.
(probably not insecure enough though)
Director vs Cinematographer
- Thread starter salils
- Start date
Hmmm, well at least I'm insecure..... at least I've got that going for me.
(probably not insecure enough though)
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Luis:
You are far too nice to become a successful Hollywood director. Very few of them are nice guys, although there are a select few. It's not just the successful actors who are all neurotic egomaniacs, most of the really successful ones behind the camera are similar.
Dan
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
really? of all the sets i've been on documenting the behind the scenes (half a dozen per year for the last three years), i could only apply that description to one of the directors i've seen at work. michael bay's set is really the only one where the director was out of control and genuinely abusive toward crew members. george clooney, soderbergh, m. night, judd apatow, and most others were very committed to fostering a family-like atmosphere. nothing like what you're describing here.
same thing really for the no-name directors too. in my experience, it's the publicists you've got to watch out for! sharks!!
puredrifting
Major Contributor
really? of all the sets i've been on documenting the behind the scenes (half a dozen per year for the last three years), i could only apply that description to one of the directors i've seen at work. michael bay's set is really the only one where the director was out of control and genuinely abusive toward crew members. george clooney, soderbergh, m. night, judd apatow, and most others were very committed to fostering a family-like atmosphere. nothing like what you're describing here.
Yes, I've worked alongside Bay, he is one of the ones I am thinking of when I coined these adjectives. I have not worked with Clooney, but he is an excellent actor who can direct. There is a certain Mr. Ratner who also exemplifies these qualities, a certain Mr. Tarantino, I can go on. Not saying that they aren't talented, they are. Just not normal nice people. Huge egos, neurotic, insecure, varying levels of insanity and ego. M Night? Don't even get me started! Haven't worked with Soderbergh or Apatow.
Dan
Batutta
Major Contributor
I do not believe you need to be an egomaniacal a-hole to be a successful director. However, I think it's a job many egomaniacal a-holes pursue, because it allows them to be rewarded for being egomaniacal a-holes.
Luis Caffesse
Admin
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Either grateful or work on your degree in egoism! ;-)
Dan
Dan
Geoff_R
Veteran
Apparently I have not according to you...
But just to elaborate a tad bit. I meant common sense in how it relates to storytelling, not generalized common sense. Good stories are good stories, period. Some people get that, some don't. A good director should be able to use rationality and common sense to say, "this scene isn't working" or "this actor just isn't cutting it right now". Perhaps common sense was a bad way to describe it, maybe a better way would be to relate it to the 'it' factor. Some get it, others don't. I've been shocked from both directions; I've worked on simple little sets and been blown away by how talented the director is and how little credit they're getting. I've also been shocked on how incredibly awful some big directors are on a huge, expensive production. The only reason their films turn out moderately well was because they had a great DP, producer, editor and sound team.
Also, the phrase, 'big hollywood director' accounts for a very small percentage of working directors in the entertainment industry and quite frankly, a good deal of these big directors make a ton of crappy movies loaded with an A-list cast and special effects. And they continue to survive due to the very talented people that surround them.
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
I worked with Tarantino cutting the first Kill Bill teaser back when I was working exclusively as a trailer editor. he's friendly. but kind of a douche. i have a mental image of him eating barbecue wings across the table from me with sauce all over his face and fingers that is hard to get rid of.
Ratner -- you're right. I actually turned down Rush Hour 3.
M. Night's reputation as an egomaniac is vastly different from my own experience with him on Lady in he Water and The Happening. i can't say enough nice things about the guy. i never saw him yell or throw a tantrum in a combined 50 days of shooting him on set. i'm actually meeting him in a few days while he's in town to nail down the DVD bonus features and to schedule his interview.
i surmise that your experience with him was different. please elaborate, i'm curious.
I wonder if that's the part of directing that needs to be learned though? Can a person just "have a sense for it" without having gained it through experience? my thought is that this ability for concentrated attention to the pieces that eventually form the whole, comes with experience and a learned knowledge of story mechanics, acting technique and acquired problem solving ability.
Last edited:
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Bingo! I first exeprienced this when I was production coordinator on a huge Ford campaign. We shot commercials for two weeks all over the country. The director was a talentless hack, his claim to fame was that he was an ad writer who happened to have come up with one of the biggest commercial slogans of the 90s, from there, he decided, "I'm a director". I listened to him work with the actors, he didn't have a clue. He had a very talented DP and a bunch of agency clowns from Young & Rubicam kissing his ass and telling him how great he was. It was a completely eye opening experience, the guy was making $25,000.00 per day and my 9 year old son could have directed better.
I have seen the same thing on numerous televsion sets and feature sets. It is my opinion that there are very few truly talented directors working today. There are a LOT of people who are as you describe, they are smart enough to surround themselves with talented people and their product ends up looking good, but often by little of their effort. People like Ratner got their leg up from their moms money and know how to throw good parties with good drugs and women. Plus their movies make bank, what's not too like? 98% of films today don's have any component or remnant of art anyway, they are product and if the product sells, they are considered good directors.
Most of the directors I see today shoot with multiple cameras and do fifteen angles so basically, they haven't shot a scene, they have blanketed it with all possible choices.
One director who impresses the hell out of me though is Jason Reitman, which is ironic since we know who is dad is. You would think that he could just coast on his name but he is a really talented guy who knows how to work with the actors and is truly creative.
Yes, you are talking about the working directors who do tv and smaller features. Most of them have quite a bit more talent than the names we are discussing. I've worked with a lot of those people and most of them are pretty down to earth and not egomaniacs. I am talking about the people with the three personal assistants and the entourage. The ones that I have an appointment with for 6 months and on the day of the appointment, they flake. There are a lot of those too!
Dan
Geoff_R
Veteran
I think you're right concerning the combination of those elements. They're some of the many tools a talented and attentive director needs in order to get his story out and onto the screen. The idea of someone just 'having a sense for it' has always intriqued me because I've often read about first time directors (I'd even included second time directors) whom go out and make a really good first (or second) film. And then I discover that they've had little if no other work prior to that film.
Right now I'm thinking about Frank Miller... I might be wrong but I think he is directing Sin City 2 or at least co-directing with R.R. Whether it's natural or developed through all of his prior work as a writer and graphic novelist, Frank seems to have a pretty good idea on how to tell a story. I'm guessing, but he probably doesn't have much professional training in regards to directing. He may have picked up some pointers from R.R. along the way, but he surely doesn't have a slew of short films, music videos or other narrative features to back him up and draw experience from. I think he'd look at directing the same way he looks at writing or drawing. He knows what he wants in his head, he sees the shot, it's now a matter of how capable he is of getting that image from his head onto the screen. Perhaps here is more where mechanics come into play...he needs 'this' reaction/tone/mood, ect, now how best does one achieve it?
A little bit of a ramble...it's late...
I'm actually at film school myself. I actually started film school with the same dilemma as you -- director or DP.
After halfway through the course, after making many projects, I found that I was actually enjoying the directing more. Cinematography was just too 'technical' for me. I also came to the conclusion that if I did pursue cinematography, because it has so many departments/ladders to climb, that there would be a possible danger of me so involved in the camera dept, that I would have very little time to, well, direct my own stuff.
So I've chosen editing as my bread and butter. I like to keep things simple. I'm 28, so if I was younger, I would probably pursue more areas in film. There is a danger of becoming a 'jack-of-all-trades' if you want to do everything, but's that's just my opinion.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
That could be a danger but it also is a fact of life if you are not lucky enough to be an A-list director. The days of picking one craft and making a go of it seem to be narrowing. I know several young guys who are excellent at almost all of it and they produce great stuff. If you can only direct and nobody is hiring directors, what do you do, starve?
These days, if you are good at editing, writing, cinematography, audio, etc. you have have a better chance of being employed more of the time. In 2007, I made almost 50% of my income as a DP, even though I primarily produce. I also edited two projects at the end of the year because they were simple enough for me to do them myself, even though I am by no means a great editor.
It's fine to aim yourself at one discipline and work toward that but if you are talented in multiple areas and have the work to show it, you will eat more and starve less in Hollywood. I always encourage young talent coming up to have at least one, if not two or three fallback plans. It's even bettter if one of your fallback plans has nothing to do with media and entertainment. As many are experiencing right now, when things get lean in entertainment, having another trade to fall back on can be a lifesaver.
Dan
I couldn't agree more with this statement. Ivan Reitman is one of my top-list directors, and I can't believe how great Jason is. Completely different than his father, but just as successful and at this moment consistent.
On topic-- Not just Cinematography, but I think that any up-and-coming wanna-be needs to have his or her hands dipped in more than just one aspect of the creative process. Coming from another background (Visual Effects, for example) often lends you a leg-up as a Director or even a Writer. Knowing what you can or cannot pull-off.
Actors that move from Acting to Directing know how to work with other Actors to achieve performances they want (George Clooney.) DP's to Directors, so-on-and-so-forth. While you don't want to become a jack-of-all-trades and focusing on one aspect is great, climbing the ladder to that seat may see you accumulating a host of very useful skills on the way up.
Mark Harris is right: Writing and Directing is everyone's "thing", especially in Los Angeles. The DPs, Sound, Camera Owners and Operators (DIT Techs) are the ones that really get out there to see and learn the stuff that you need to get a feel for before transitioning into Directorial work. Even doing BTS affords you a certain understanding of things.
Writing? That's more of a "keep doin' it, you'll never get good at it" thing. =( I still suck after eight years.
salils
Well-known member
Yeah, luckily I've started early and have been making films for 5-6 years now. The only problem with that is...I've been doing everything for 5-6 years so it's hard to abandon something and specialize.
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
reading will improve your writing faster than anything.
salils
Well-known member
"...the fact is that people don’t read anymore..." - Steve Jobs
I'm sure we can expect some great next-gen screenwriters
Oh, definitely. I still read, and write, every day. I'm just a lil' young so I write young. Y'know?