This is true, but in many ways, directing for episodic television is in general superfluous. It's not at all the same as directing a film.
Enough Bowing Before Actors: Take Time to get Actors Who Trust The Director!
- Thread starter john threat
- Start date
- Status
This is true, but in many ways, directing for episodic television is in general superfluous. It's not at all the same as directing a film.
Yep, I agree here. I hate when people say a directors main focus should be the actors. Not true. It's a big part of it, but you can't say it's the MAIN focus. A ton of commercials for car/food/products don't even have actors or dialog... so by that logic, they would not need directors. ... which is obviously false.
I think the people that make statements like that are just people that can't shoot or edit and are just trying to find a crutch. A director should know all the film-making crafts before stepping up to the plate. Hollywood tries to make all the jobs mutually exclusive... but they really aren't.
You can make a film without actors that still tells a story. So the real definition of a director is beyond "just working with actors". It's someone who has a complete understanding of the crafts of film-making (editing, cinematography, sound) and can use them to craft a final project.
Last edited:
Rolf Silber
Veteran
A director's main focus should be telling a story. So the story may define what the most important devices for telling it in the right way are in the end. In a narrative this usually are actors. If you do animation, it's the characters. If you do a commercial about French fries it may be the French fries (or the people buying it). If it's a documentary about the naked mole, than it's the naked mole. All other things are instrumental (and so instruments) for telling the story. You have to find out what the story is and if you are more interested in the instruments or in the story. That defines a director. So: A directors's main focus should be telling a story.
Last edited:
john threat
Carbonite Member
the director is the totalitarian ruler of the story! all do his or her bidding in this regard.
It's a silly director who thinks of himself as a "totalitarian ruler" where all merely "do his bidding."
Rolf Silber
Veteran
The story has a power of it's own. It develops, changes, becomes alive under the influence of a director as a centre piece but with all the others involved - this is the true wonder of the profession. And yes: It will be different with every director as he holds the thing together and forms it.
If you personally have a need and want to believe in a General Patton / Attila the Hun attitude towards directing you are absolutely free to do that and find out how far this will get you.
But if you say this is the law of every set, the rule of the profession, the only dogma you allow to exist - you are just plain and utterly wrong. Film making is much richer.
I would disagree here again. I'd say the directors main focus is the execution or tone of a story. The writers job is telling or creating the story. I believe that if a director sets out to literally "tell a story" then they are going to fail. A director should be using the crafts of filmmaking (editing, cinematography, music) to create an experience that CONVEYS a story. Experiencing a story, and telling a story are very different.
I also stand by my statement that any good director needs to know editing and cinematography themselves. Those two crafts are what makes cinema, cinema. They're are the heart of it all. If you approach movie-making with the idea that films are just stories told by actors, that someone records with a camera... then you are going to fail miserably. This is missing the entire concept of cinema. Now directors don't have to always be the ones executing the editing and cinematography, but they do really need to know them. A good director IMO, should be able to DP or edit their own movie if time allows. A good editor and cinematographer are there to help you work faster and meet deadlines... they absolutely should NOT be executing crafts that you cannot yourself perform. If you just want to "work with actors" than directing live theater is probably the way to go. Film is more than that though. Sure actors bring TONS to the table in terms of performance in film... but the essence of the medium is how those performances are perceived through the lens, with editing and music. The audience doesn't care about, and won't ever see, the performance the actors gave on set.
Like I've always said... you could have the best actors in the world perform the most emotional scene in history on set... but if you shot it with a 14mm lens from 20 feet away, the editor cuts every 10 frames, and the score is circus music... then the acting counts for absolutely nothing.
Rolf Silber
Veteran
Maybe you build a slightly wrong dichotomy here. Clearly the script is the "written simulation" of the story, a model, a proposition - but it's the directors choice how he or she interprets this story and brings it to life. Which is much, much more than just execute it and give it a tone. I believe that a director needs to really find out what will make the story "tick", where he/she wants to bring it, when to accelarate it or slow it down, which overall rhythm and rhythm changes, what colour, which tone it needs, where it needs to be shortened, where something which was a two page dialogue scene in the script may be better told by one look, where the story needs to expand, where it misses things ..... and, and, and ...... so, yes: the script delivers the story up to a point, but you can say the director delivers "the telling". And this is crucial. This is why, say, a Tarkovsky movie will always look and feel like a Tarkovsky movie. And this is even true whith directors who have the ability to really change their style of story telling.
I don't really like that word because it has been over-used - but as a directors you do need to have a "holistic" take on the story first, a structural view - or even better: a clear view on it's structures how and why you as the directors want to present it - an idea about it's statics and it's dynamics will work. This is the first step. And this is something that is both an intellectual task and an emotional one - it's kind of bringing the brain and the guts together and work in accordance. THIS is the job description. Only then comes the decision how you will work with "the elements" to make the clockwork move and tick.
An one of the most important of those "second steps" - at least for me - is to find out, which scene of a movie will be "owned" by whom. Meaning: will it be more owned by the actors or by the camera. Which element will further the story here. Maybe it's the music that rules it's, maybe it's a landscape, a mood. These are the grand toys we have to bring into an order.
And clearly in most movies apart from big budget action movies the first and utmost important decision for a director is: Who will pay the leading parts, how shall they play it, what dynamics will unfold, what unexpected possibilities will "they" have, what constraints..... becasue, as I have always said .... you can have the camera concentrating in an extreme close up, uncut for a minute, on a lousy actor who has no idea why he plays the part, what the character is about, with a director who has no idea what the scene or the whole movie is about or why he does this job for a different reason than standing on set and pretending to be "the boss" ..... and this whole movie will count for absolutely nothing.
Michele Seidman
Well-known member
First I will address this.... any idiot can use a gun to hold people hostage and force them to do what they want. So, any director worth his or her salt does NOT use the barrel of a gun. Other than some crew folks and one or two other talent here... I have worked with hundreds of directors over the last 38 years and the BEST.... smart, sharp and good not only at casting their talent but knowing the balance of power IS indeed equal if they want a great project in the long run.
As one person here said... "At best this is a team sport". And THAT is the truth.
As for the above comment on what a female director should wear... please be glad we are not in the same room right now because you would not like or handle the intensity of the looks and comments I would give right this moment. Those attitudes are how women get pushed away from directing.
A few others have pointed out the fact that as a director should...he should make good casting choices and he or she will seldom have issues on set or divas. Problem with some of you new directors....I am going to point out based on the fact I have done 100's of small indies with new directors that I will never get a credit out of or list on my resume... but that should tell you I have a clue on this.
NEW DIRECTORS FLAWS:
Not being good at casting is first. I have seen so many of you get a hard on over some talent you are convinced is perfect even when their resume should scream don't hire them. I have seen it thousands of times and later had young directors come back and tell me I was right. They jumped at hiring someone even though everyone warned them not to. That is always on the directors head. You hire the wrong talent and YOU get what comes with it. Diva's, inability to hit marks, lack of basic acting technique for camera, etc etc etc.
Fix for that: Read the friggin resume....and double check it. And make them audition more than once. Make sure they are consistent. Ask others who may have worked with them how they are on set. Heed warnings. If you decide to take a chance with any talent who you got warnings on....then sit down with that talent and tell them point blank "I have been warned not to hire you but want to work with you, but this is what I heard and I won't put up with it on set"...and if they get defensive and argue...don't hire them. If they listen, take the notes and are willing to avoid those same issues to get the part... then you hire them.
Another issue with new directors is some of you are INCREDIBLE technical directors but you do not have a single clue about working with actors.
Fix for that: Take some acting classes. Some of the best directors in the world have done so, or started out as actors. If you know how actors are trained to work... you will work better with them.
I will mention one more minor problem with new directors. They don't understand they can do a take multiple ways to have choices in editing and then they want to claim the actors sucked because they did what they were told but it was not good in post.
Fix for that: Playback on set for one... and it does not take long if you are already set up to simply do the take more than one way so you have choices in editing in case YOUR first direction to us did not end up looking right for the final project. I know tons of directors and producers who make sure that is done and in post they have a lot more fun and options.
In the end folks....directors need actors, actors need directors, we all need the crew. This is not an 'island unto yourself' industry no matter which side of the fence you sit on.
But don't come and blame the actors because you don't know how to analyze a resume, don't know how actors are trained, or don't bother to get the coverage you need. ALL too often the actor is made the scape goat. It is easy to do since there are some who are just idiots. But you get the blame for hiring them...not the rest of us actors!
If I had one dollar for every young director who came back to me and said "I should have listened to you but now I know"....
And for the record, I am now directing myself. BUT... I spent the last few years learning the technical side so I could handle both. Have you? From a few comments here... I am guessing not!
john threat
Carbonite Member
I disagree there sonny! There is a difference in being able to see a film in your minds eye and communicate that to your team (as the totalitarian ruler!), and knowing how to do everything yourself. That , like most things directing is not one size fits all. Also, you can shoot an emotional scene with any lens you want, and make it work. Its about creativity not rules.
I agree with this, and thats why directing skills also need a healthy dose of reading, and absorbing ideas and people so that you can have an innate toolbox of the human condition and how to express that in a story. This might bite me in the back one day, but often moron directors make very flat movies.
You make a lot of awesome points! Reading a resume is hard for most directors, i personally don't subscribe to the resume thing. People lie on the resume. 100 u5 on a soap opera and Law and Order do not an actor make. After some auditions you will know if they have the three things you need for an actor (understanding the role, ready to rock, and open enough to express themselves) all three of these things could come from school - or in some cases none of them will. Thats the thrust of the original post I made - is to learn to skill to do battlefield triage. If you move forward after making an error in casting - one solution might be to minimize that persons role. Especially if they are a supporting character. Maybe even recast and reshoot while you are in motion on the film.
oh and the other point - buck stops at the director most often, so you better, you know. except the totalitarian idea, or accept that your film will run away from you.
Last edited:
I don't think so. It's not all about rules... but seriously, go try to film the the most emotional conversational apex of your film with a 14mm lens from 20 feet away. It's just not going to work.
Take it from the word of Mr. Eli Roth... "As a director you need to know everything, if you don't, you shouldn't be directing." Kind of paraphrasing, but that's the point he's making.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/268320/the-directors-series-eli-roth
I really like his no-bs attitude. It's just a good interview also.
Well, hey, it may TAKE a team of people... but let's not beat-around-the bush here... the director gets credited with it all. It's honestly really insulting when I hear people and other directors try to pretend like it's a team effort... besides everyone besides the director/writer/producer get SCREWED in the end (besides monetary compensation). You did a great job as a DP? Nobody cares. Director gets credit. It was their "vision". You poured countless hours into the edit? Nobody cares. Director gets credit. It was their "vision". Well, it's not entirely true... the director probably cares... so he/she can leach of their talent again on the next shoot as they continue to pretend like it's a "team" effort.
I, personally, respect all the crafts of filmmaking, but I took it upon myself to learn all of them myself. So I have such a deep respect for them, I just can't use another person for something that I can't do myself. Hell, I even started composing music because I hate taking credit for other people's music. I said to myself in the beginning... if I can't direct, shoot, and edit my movies... then I can't make them. I hold myself to this maxim, as well as all others.
You have a great "vision" for a painting? Then learn to paint. You can't hire a painter, tell him what to paint, and then pretend like it's your piece of art work. I view film-making the same way. You either know all the crafts to create a film, or you don't. DP, cinematographers, editors, are there to help meet deadlines... they shouldn't be performing a craft that the director cannot personally do.
So to sum it up... Does it take a team effort? Yes, definitely. But is it credited as one? No way. I agree with John Threat in that area. It is totalitarian in the end, no matter how you try to slice it.
Last edited:
OK.
Some of you guys are saying some of the most preposterous, thick-headed, narrow-minded horsecrap about directing -- and (dis!)respecting the people around you -- as could be said.
It may not come back to bite you for a while if you're dinking around with people who don't know any better, but if you actually try to pull that "totalitarian" crap with any professionals worth their salt, especially if they've got some years in the biz, your career will be very, very short, unless you happen to win the lottery and make a studio millions on your first outing. And then you better keep doing it.
Some of you guys are saying some of the most preposterous, thick-headed, narrow-minded horsecrap about directing -- and (dis!)respecting the people around you -- as could be said.
It may not come back to bite you for a while if you're dinking around with people who don't know any better, but if you actually try to pull that "totalitarian" crap with any professionals worth their salt, especially if they've got some years in the biz, your career will be very, very short, unless you happen to win the lottery and make a studio millions on your first outing. And then you better keep doing it.
Postmaster
Dark Side of the Camera
There are many roads, leading to Rome.
There is the dictator type of director. He hired you and he can fire you. So as a DP, gaffer or actor you better play by his rules, ore you are unemployed.
At a no budget indie film, where everyone works for free in their leisure time, it´s different.
If you don't pamper crew and actors, they walk from the set and you are screwed.
So between those two extremes - the director as boss and the director as applicant - there are many other shades of Grey.
The director as god, for example.
The whole crew thinks he is a genius. They adore him and take every word of his mouth as a golden epiphany.
They love to work with and for him - heck they would even work for free.
A fanboy crew is easy to handle, you don´t need a gun barrel and they even forgive you the jodhpurs and riding stick.
Then there is the lost director. He comes to the set without exactly knowing what he wants and how to get it.
He says things to actors like: "what can you offer me?"or "how would you light that" to a DP.
He leans back and let the crew and actors do his job.
Non of this is ideal - but some pretty successful films where made that way though.
I´m with GH2user, when he says, that a good director should be able to do every job on the set - or at least have a good clue about it.
He is the hub of the film, where everything comes together. It´s his responsibility to make sure that everyone is in his comfort zone and knows what the director wants him to do.
Everyone of the crew is a specialist, but he needs precise orders to perform his duty. So most crew and actors I know, prefer a director, that knows exactly what he wants, how he wants it and how to get it.
If he is good at that, he doesn´t need a gun barrel.
If he is bad at that, the crew (at some point) leans back, and watches the disaster (they have seen it coming since 3 hours) while eating popcorn and making "I told you so" jokes.
So you better be damed good, and you better listen to your crew and actors, if you not 100% sure, or they let you run straight into the knife.
I personally prefer to write, direct, shoot and edit my projects - I feel more comfortable that way. Though it can be done by different people, for me, those tasks belong together and they are called filmmaking. And maybe that is something, that differs a filmmaker from a director.
my ct2
Frank
There is the dictator type of director. He hired you and he can fire you. So as a DP, gaffer or actor you better play by his rules, ore you are unemployed.
At a no budget indie film, where everyone works for free in their leisure time, it´s different.
If you don't pamper crew and actors, they walk from the set and you are screwed.
So between those two extremes - the director as boss and the director as applicant - there are many other shades of Grey.
The director as god, for example.
The whole crew thinks he is a genius. They adore him and take every word of his mouth as a golden epiphany.
They love to work with and for him - heck they would even work for free.
A fanboy crew is easy to handle, you don´t need a gun barrel and they even forgive you the jodhpurs and riding stick.
Then there is the lost director. He comes to the set without exactly knowing what he wants and how to get it.
He says things to actors like: "what can you offer me?"or "how would you light that" to a DP.
He leans back and let the crew and actors do his job.
Non of this is ideal - but some pretty successful films where made that way though.
I´m with GH2user, when he says, that a good director should be able to do every job on the set - or at least have a good clue about it.
He is the hub of the film, where everything comes together. It´s his responsibility to make sure that everyone is in his comfort zone and knows what the director wants him to do.
Everyone of the crew is a specialist, but he needs precise orders to perform his duty. So most crew and actors I know, prefer a director, that knows exactly what he wants, how he wants it and how to get it.
If he is good at that, he doesn´t need a gun barrel.
If he is bad at that, the crew (at some point) leans back, and watches the disaster (they have seen it coming since 3 hours) while eating popcorn and making "I told you so" jokes.
So you better be damed good, and you better listen to your crew and actors, if you not 100% sure, or they let you run straight into the knife.
I personally prefer to write, direct, shoot and edit my projects - I feel more comfortable that way. Though it can be done by different people, for me, those tasks belong together and they are called filmmaking. And maybe that is something, that differs a filmmaker from a director.
my ct2
Frank
And if you're worth your salt, you'll find another director to work for, and word will get around about how much of a (bad word) the director is, and said director will have trouble finding anyone good who wants to work for him.
The film community in any town, from LA to Fargo to Winnipeg to Perth to Budapest, is a tight-knit group, and everyone knows what happens. If you treat your cast and crew like cattle, everyone will hear about it, and your name will be mud. You will only be able to get the greenest of the green to work for you, and only once.
Not to mention that you simply don't get the best work out of people by treating them that way.
Of course there are exceptions. The problem is, you (whoever you are) and what you do are almost never the exception.
Postmaster
Dark Side of the Camera
Nice Theory David. Don´t know the situation in LA, but here in Germany I can see a lot of good crew, that are absolutely "worth their salt" starving.
They would probably work for everyone, before the start flipping burgers again.
They would probably work for everyone, before the start flipping burgers again.
Oh, I'm sure there are places where you can get away with it. But is it really the reputation you want to have?
john threat
Carbonite Member
Pretty sure this 2 cents encapsulates the idea of director as totalitarian ruler who should be aware of all departments. I've never personally treated my crew or cast like cattle - I dont think totalitarian equates to cattle. There are some famous directors who actually called their cast cattle. Thats not how I view it and I hope I have been eloquent enough for a few to grok what I am saying without knee jerk reactions about some mean yelling director.
Feel free to mix apples with oranges. I like a fruit basket now and again
Why? Why do we have to drink the cool-aid like this? Only a coward would end somebody career, because they're not "obeying" the rules of the industry. If I was some big shot director and some young-punk challenged my integrity, I'd just challenge him (film making wise) publicly and then let the out-come speak for itself. Only a very weak man/woman would use their position atop an industry to end someone else's. Simply the fact that even talking this way could end with my career being "very short" is just PROOF of the totalitarian nature of the industry. It's why I decided to learn EVERYTHING myself. I'm not interested in working under other directors, and I'm not interested in others working under me.
I also think that any director worth his/her salt would agree that it is totalitarian. Sure, you can collaborative, and this is good. But in the end, one person needs to make the calls. This is not a good or bad thing... it just is what it is. Niether of us never even ment "totalitarian" as an insult... people interpreted it this way on their own. We just objectively said, "it's totalitarian". I also said that I find it insulting when directors and other people try to pretend like it's this big-happy "team" effort when it's not credited that way at all. Directors say this round up talent for a project, then take all the glory in the end. It just doesn't seem right to me.
If film is TRULY collaborative, then the director position wouldn't even exist. There would just be something like a "performance supervisor" credit that comes after the editor or something. But as long as the director is seen as the author of a film, then yea, it's completely totalitarian. In the most objective kind of way.
Last edited:
Doc Bernard
Indie Arms Member
GH2, I think there is a disconnect in the definition of what a "totalitarian" director is. There is a dictator, who does think his offal does not stink, but has not the creds and experience to back that attitude up; and then there is the director who knows what he is doing, has the respect of the crew and they will do what he asks without question.
To get to that latter stage, a director better know what he is talking about, have the experience AND attitude to back it up (BTW, that attitude is usually one that acknowledges every talent being brought to bear to make that director shine).
Look, a Director is somewhat the captain of a ship. That's how I look at it. Sure there are owners of the ship in question, but underway....the captain is pretty much in leadership. But if he acts like Captain Bly, he will suffer the same fate. The crew will mutiny or give him just enough rope to hang himself. No one will assist him with their experience and just let him call all the shots.
Diplomacy in a director........an unbelieveable and valuable character trait. He/she doesn't have to be wishy-washy or very uncertain, and if he/she disagrees, great. But be open to people making suggestions, especially from those in key positions around him......including talent.
You've entirely missed the point of what I was saying.
It's not about "obeying the rules of the industry." It's about treating the people in the cast and crew with the respect they deserve, especially if they've been in the business longer than you have.
It's not about someone higher up abusing their position to end your career. It's about having the reputation of a tyrant -- or prima donna -- that no one will want to work with.
And here's the dirty little secret, once you get to a certain level -- unless you're a celebrity director, you're not the one who's the bankable draw for the film; your talent is. If you're halfway through a film, and there are huge problems between you and the actors, guess who's easier to replace? It's not the actors.
And even if you don't get to that level, even if you stay small-time and work only on the things you self-finance, self-produce, write, and direct, once word gets out you're that kind of a director, you're going to find that the best people have better things to do.
Believe me, I can name at least three people in this town that no one of any actual experience will come within a hundred yards of, for exactly this reason. And I can name about six very-respected people whose mass texts or Facebook posts will serve to ostracize anyone.
So, do you want to work with professionals? Then be one. That's all there is to it.
- Status