How hands on should you be?
- Thread starter Jon Chema
- Start date
recordingwhiz
Well-known member
I agree with your assessment, However it really depends on his or her crew. If a director has a great crew that knows what they are doing he SHOULD get out of their way and let them do their jobs !!! and just direct, and focus on what he wants out of a scene and actors. then its the jobs of the cast and crew to deliver that.
I've seen too many "directors" try to be all things and end up pissing off the other people that are trying to do their job they were hired or volunteered for.
I think it IS a good thing if director is technical so they know what can and most importantly what CAN'T be done practically.
so it mainly depends on the level of crew the director is working with, and whether he can put his ego aside for the good of the film.
GG
I've seen too many "directors" try to be all things and end up pissing off the other people that are trying to do their job they were hired or volunteered for.
I think it IS a good thing if director is technical so they know what can and most importantly what CAN'T be done practically.
so it mainly depends on the level of crew the director is working with, and whether he can put his ego aside for the good of the film.
GG
Ted Spencer
Veteran
I agree that a well rounded knowledge set is ideal, that leadership is key, and that micromanaging others' jobs is to be avoided. But I also think two things are far too often absent in directors - acting skills/empathy for the actors experience, and most importantly writing skills and/or an ability to have profound respect for the script as written. This gets easier with better scripts, but the larger problem is the tendency of too many directors, even huge, A-List ones, to offhandedly rewrite on the fly, on the set, or in the trailer with (apparently) precious little appreciation/respect/understanding of the depth of attention to every facet of it that the original (presumably skilled) writer(s) invested in it.
If the script isn't well written then all bets are off, but then of course...why are you shooting it in the first place?
I find it interesting that in recent years this imperative has taken root much more deeply in scripted television dramas and sitcoms, of all things. Film, the much more weighty of the two, is usually described as "a director's medium", while TV is nowadays pretty much "all about the writers", at least as far as my ear to the ground tells me. And the latter is A Very Good Thing, IMO.
TV producers have evidently discovered (surprise!) that writing makes or breaks the show more than any other single thing. Stars help, but they can't carry the show - the writers do. Unknown actors are less of a draw, but give them great scripts to read and a star is born (King Of Comedy anyone?).
Conversely, the "directors medium" mantra in film is far too often a recipe for disaster where the script is concerned. When a director can basically completely gut a fine, meticulously crafted script by a brilliant writer on a whim (see Ridley Scott's Robin Hood movie for an...) oh wait no...don't see it...it's an awful film...read WC Martell's article about it and Ridley and a once-great script here instead:
http://sex-in-a-sub.blogspot.com/2010/05/robbing-from-poor-writer.html
...as I was saying...when a director with insufficient reverence for writing is God, terrible things happen to what should have been good movies.
So, in sum, what I really have to add to this discussion is:
If you can honestly say you're a skilled writer/director (Cameron, Nolan, Tarantino, Woody Allen, Coen Brothers, etc.) you're good to go. If you're a good director but not an especially good writer, hire a great one and treat the script like it's made of gold. Sure, you may need to change some things, that's to be expected. But if they're more than minor changes, consider them as carefully as if it were your face you were cosmetically altering. We all know how wrong that can go, right?
Same idea...
If the script isn't well written then all bets are off, but then of course...why are you shooting it in the first place?
I find it interesting that in recent years this imperative has taken root much more deeply in scripted television dramas and sitcoms, of all things. Film, the much more weighty of the two, is usually described as "a director's medium", while TV is nowadays pretty much "all about the writers", at least as far as my ear to the ground tells me. And the latter is A Very Good Thing, IMO.
TV producers have evidently discovered (surprise!) that writing makes or breaks the show more than any other single thing. Stars help, but they can't carry the show - the writers do. Unknown actors are less of a draw, but give them great scripts to read and a star is born (King Of Comedy anyone?).
Conversely, the "directors medium" mantra in film is far too often a recipe for disaster where the script is concerned. When a director can basically completely gut a fine, meticulously crafted script by a brilliant writer on a whim (see Ridley Scott's Robin Hood movie for an...) oh wait no...don't see it...it's an awful film...read WC Martell's article about it and Ridley and a once-great script here instead:
http://sex-in-a-sub.blogspot.com/2010/05/robbing-from-poor-writer.html
...as I was saying...when a director with insufficient reverence for writing is God, terrible things happen to what should have been good movies.
So, in sum, what I really have to add to this discussion is:
If you can honestly say you're a skilled writer/director (Cameron, Nolan, Tarantino, Woody Allen, Coen Brothers, etc.) you're good to go. If you're a good director but not an especially good writer, hire a great one and treat the script like it's made of gold. Sure, you may need to change some things, that's to be expected. But if they're more than minor changes, consider them as carefully as if it were your face you were cosmetically altering. We all know how wrong that can go, right?
Same idea...
Last edited:
Great points. I think you brought up a good point about volunteers too. I've been around a few directors and AD's that forget that volunteers are working for free and consequently order them around like slaves. This does nothing to motivate them and just brings down the overall morale of the whole crew. I think the best thing a director can do is keep a positive attitude throughout the shoot and make sure to praise their crew throughout.
Great point...often overlooked today
Nobody watching a film cares how much the director knows about light wattages or sound equipment or scene file settings. They do care about story, acting, and visuals.
I agree with being well-rounded, but your priority as director is the creative aspect.
I agree with being well-rounded, but your priority as director is the creative aspect.
Jordan Scott Price
Veteran
Cameron? James Cameron? Next to Nolan? Hmm...
On topic, I think directors should have an understanding of the mechanical and technical side of filmmaking - everything from lights to camera to sound - so, as others said, they know what is feasible and what is not, but also so they can think creatively on a technical level.
I think it would be far more beneficial to be a technically versed director rather than just a laissez-faire leader because the technical comprehension has no downside. If you have a small crew on a micro budget, it is appropriate for the director to dip his hands into the goings-on of the set technicians - this is just my opinion - without slowing production, if it means his or her vision is materialized. On a major set with a large budget, the director can step back and let the paid professionals do their jobs, instructing as he or she sees fit.
In short, I think the degree to which the director is hands-on is dependent on the size of the crew, not to mention the crew's capability.
But I'll repeat that a director with a deep understanding of the technical world would likely outshine the director who tunnels and can only think of his vision. I worked a few months ago on a set with a director who knew nothing...nothing...about the technical side of filmmaking, but he wants to make it in Hollywood as a writer-director. I was his DP. I asked him what lights we would have - he bought 300W halogen lights from China for $200, which came with nothing but barn doors. (The lights eventually ceased to function on that very shoot.) He wanted to shoot on his camera - an XL2 he bought off eBay because it looked professional - instead of on my 7D. He needed to record voice over at one point, so he used the on-camera mic in a reverberant room instead of the mics in the state-of-the-art recording studio at his disposal on campus. He bought a $300 crane off eBay that weighed next to nothing, which he wanted to use on the concrete shoulder of a major highway. The list goes on...
How do you think the film turned out? It is complete garbage. The script was horrible to begin with, but even if it were good, it was sunk before production even began because of the director's sheer lack of technique.
Having an understanding - even fundamental - of the technical side of filmmaking is grounds for the creative, in my book, because one can learn to work inside the limitations of available equipment, crew, and funds, which is where true creativity really lies. Rise to Hollywood and you will have the budget to make the impossible happen, but that is an option for a fraction of a fraction of individuals.
Batutta
Major Contributor
I'd put him there for Aliens and Terminator, both great screenplays. His work sans Gale Anne Hurd is not at the same level but those two are as good as it gets for their genres in my opinion.
Mattykins
Cute Member
I'm not sure I agree with treating the script as gold. The Directors job is to interpret the script. They need to find every little motivation. Every little piece of subtext the writers never even thought about. There are thousands of ways the same script could be directed. Even in the projects I run, if I am a part of the writing - when it comes to directing I have to look at it in a totally different way. Everything has to make sense and have a purpose.
If you aren't reading into the script - you aren't doing your job. But I have a different view on it than others.
Personally, I have a background in almost everything on set. Not a "I know exactly what I am doing" background. But I can communicate my vision. If you can do that - you have all the technical knowledge you need.
You really want to be in a position where you can set the vision, talk to the actors, and let things happen. You need to have a good attitude, but also know when to get down to business.
If you aren't reading into the script - you aren't doing your job. But I have a different view on it than others.
Personally, I have a background in almost everything on set. Not a "I know exactly what I am doing" background. But I can communicate my vision. If you can do that - you have all the technical knowledge you need.
You really want to be in a position where you can set the vision, talk to the actors, and let things happen. You need to have a good attitude, but also know when to get down to business.
Ted Spencer
Veteran
Say what you will about James Cameron as a writer/director, but he wrote and directed the two highest grossing films in history.
Batutta
Major Contributor
I was going to say something similar. A director should have a profound UNDERSTANDING of the script, but he has to have the freedom to make the words come alive on set. Sometimes they come alive exactly as written. Sometimes they don't. I think television respects the writing simply out of necessity. They have short schedules and just need to get stuff out the door and on the air. And as far as the theater, they respect the play once its working on stage, but plays are workshopped and rehearsed for months before going on and things are changed constantly up until then.
DecadenceFilms
Active member
I think what Machiavelli said about leaders applies to Directors.
You either want someone who is expert at everything and can control it all, or you want someone who understands great advice.
I don't necessarily agree with the poster before who said this:
The reason being because I think a director who "tunnels and can only think of his vision" is a bit of an oxymoron for a real Director. That vision should encompass EVERYTHING...the lighting, mood, pace, production design etc.
However, I really don't think you have to be a technical expert to communicate your vision.
Someone with zero technical knowledge can still watch films, pick out scenes that they like the look of, view images on Google, flick through photography and Cinematography books, visit Art Galleries and look at paintings..in short they can build a vision of their look and lighting scheme for a film without knowing anything about individual lights. They then communicate with a DOP etc who IS an expert and can suggest various methods of accomplishing the vision, depending on the budget.
I think this is true of almosty any aspect of filmmaking.
Perhaps the one area of it all that is most essential for a director is having an extensive knoweldge of cinematic language...which is technique and the application of which would be art.
You either want someone who is expert at everything and can control it all, or you want someone who understands great advice.
I don't necessarily agree with the poster before who said this:
The reason being because I think a director who "tunnels and can only think of his vision" is a bit of an oxymoron for a real Director. That vision should encompass EVERYTHING...the lighting, mood, pace, production design etc.
However, I really don't think you have to be a technical expert to communicate your vision.
Someone with zero technical knowledge can still watch films, pick out scenes that they like the look of, view images on Google, flick through photography and Cinematography books, visit Art Galleries and look at paintings..in short they can build a vision of their look and lighting scheme for a film without knowing anything about individual lights. They then communicate with a DOP etc who IS an expert and can suggest various methods of accomplishing the vision, depending on the budget.
I think this is true of almosty any aspect of filmmaking.
Perhaps the one area of it all that is most essential for a director is having an extensive knoweldge of cinematic language...which is technique and the application of which would be art.
But does highest grossing necessarily mean they were the best films ever? All it seems to take today to bring in tons of money is a great deal of marketing money and clever promotion.
DecadenceFilms
Active member
The Terminator, the Abyss and Aliens are all incredible films. He earned the right to make Titanic and Avatar (which despite a slightly hokey story was perhaps the greatest cinematic experience of my life).
No I agree with ya, my point was simply highest grossing doesn't always equal best film
DecadenceFilms
Active member
No, it certainly doesn't...but quality is highly subjective at best. Great big piles of money that audiences throw at films through multiple viewings are at least objective to a degree.
Ted Spencer
Veteran
No, of course not.
But IMHO (which is all I've got), the success of these films as well as the rest of Cameron's almost invariably well-received filmography, almost all of which he wrote, qualified him to be characterized as a "skilled" (my original words here) writer/director. For my money, i think he's a great fillmmaker and a fine screenwriter with some caveats to the latter as regards dialog, similar to George Lucas, but, also like Lucas (at his best), Cameron consistently tells good (or great) stories, which is the essence of the screenwriting craft.
Expensive, heavily promoted films have been flopping at the box office since the beginning of cinema, and will continue to do so as long as such turkeys are still tossed up to (not) fly. Think Gigli, or Last Action Hero among too many others to list...
Ted Spencer
Veteran
I'm with you 110% on this...
By treating the script as "gold", I only meant to suggest a profound respect for the (skilled) writer's work. As in not f-ing it up casually by treating the (good, well worked out) script as a sort of jumping off place for a director's ego to run amok (again, see the Robin Hood article I linked earlier for a great account of how this sort of thing can happen even with A-Listers).
So, ideally (IMO), while treating the (good) writing as "gold" (and one shouldn't be making the film at all if it's *badly* written, right?), the director then (as you put it well) *directs* the script into a fine film by skillfully, artfully, interpreting the story/script/action/dialog/intention of the thing into a work of art. This involves all of the things you described above.
I did not mean in any way shape or form to diminish the importance of a (skilled) director. Good scripts and good actors can all to easily be (mis)led by bad directors into making a bad movie that had every right otherwise to be a good one. I'm in the middle of slogging through one on DVD right now, made by some nice folks I know well, and starring some very famous actors (who I will not name, to protect those friends I am criticizing). The film, quite frankly, just plain sucks, and IMHO the likeliest culprit (based on the awful performances by the fine actors) is bad directing. Directing is a very specific skill (although very broadly based).
Some directors know how to consistently deliver the goods and some just don't...
The more a director knows about everything that goes into a film, the better. Why? Because then he can do his job better- realizing the vision of the film.
Let's say you want a scene to have a certain atmosphere- the more you know about lighting and camera work means you can better communicate to the cinematographer and his team how the scene should be.
Same goes for acting, editing, and sound. With acting I think it's important to know the person you're working with- stage actor, screen actor, voice actor, non-actor- and how to work with them. The things that you can do to get a better performance out of a non-actor probably won't work with a professional actor and vice versa. And it really varies from person to person.
Overall, learn everything you can. Try to do every aspect yourself at some point, and never just leave a job entirely up to someone else- if it turns out bad or not the way you like, it's your fault. This doesn't mean you should bare down on your boom op or camera man, checking to make sure he's doing it right. It means make sure you know the people you're working with are as competent as they claim to be and that you can trust them.
Most importantly, communicate well. Physically touch the back of an actor's shoulder when you're trying to communicate something important to them (obviously I don't mean in a creep way). Check to see how the lighting crew is holding up, just to show you care that they're there. Discuss things heavily and seriously before the shoot with your DOF. Let people know you actually care about the film and that it's the most important thing in the world to you. Whenever I've worked on a film, either as a technician or actor, nothing has made me less enthusiastic then a director who said "Yeah, whatever whatever" to an important question I was asking him. Made me not care and inadvertently do my job worse. I would never aim to do a bad job on a film, but the director doesn't really care how it turns out, then all I can do is shrug and guess what he wants. I'll wind up giving 100% rather than 130%
Let's say you want a scene to have a certain atmosphere- the more you know about lighting and camera work means you can better communicate to the cinematographer and his team how the scene should be.
Same goes for acting, editing, and sound. With acting I think it's important to know the person you're working with- stage actor, screen actor, voice actor, non-actor- and how to work with them. The things that you can do to get a better performance out of a non-actor probably won't work with a professional actor and vice versa. And it really varies from person to person.
Overall, learn everything you can. Try to do every aspect yourself at some point, and never just leave a job entirely up to someone else- if it turns out bad or not the way you like, it's your fault. This doesn't mean you should bare down on your boom op or camera man, checking to make sure he's doing it right. It means make sure you know the people you're working with are as competent as they claim to be and that you can trust them.
Most importantly, communicate well. Physically touch the back of an actor's shoulder when you're trying to communicate something important to them (obviously I don't mean in a creep way). Check to see how the lighting crew is holding up, just to show you care that they're there. Discuss things heavily and seriously before the shoot with your DOF. Let people know you actually care about the film and that it's the most important thing in the world to you. Whenever I've worked on a film, either as a technician or actor, nothing has made me less enthusiastic then a director who said "Yeah, whatever whatever" to an important question I was asking him. Made me not care and inadvertently do my job worse. I would never aim to do a bad job on a film, but the director doesn't really care how it turns out, then all I can do is shrug and guess what he wants. I'll wind up giving 100% rather than 130%
Jordan Scott Price
Veteran
That he did. But, again, compare him to his neighbor in that post: Christopher Nolan.
Nolan wrote and directed the seventh highest grossing film of all time, which garnered equal if not higher critical acclaim than Avatar, as well as the (currently) twentieth highest grossing film, which was an enormous box office and critical success and will be a heavyweight contender at the awards. Nolan's filmography, in my book, is far more impressive than Cameron's. And Nolan is fifteen years younger...
I am a businessman first, so I applaud both gentlemen. The ability to draw gargantuan amounts of money at the box office and critical acclaim is no small feat, and I believe it to be the pinnacle of Hollywood success today. It was just the juxtaposition of the two names. I think Cameron is an egomaniac, and I believe his most recent films to be melodramatic and written as flat as an opened can of Coke; Nolan is a much smarter writer, and he's managed to crank out box office hit after hit. Right now, he has the keys to Hollywood. And he's 40.
Sorry. I didn't mean to derail this thread.