How hands on should you be?

[Ted Spencer]

The problem with this is it's an unwinnable argument, on either side. There's tons of smart folks who will avidly take either position. And again, while admitting I'm a fan of Cameron's, I made sure to describe him and the others on that list collectively as "skilled", as opposed to "the best" or "genius". On the other hand, given that "critical acclaim", to borrow your phrase, is fairly quantifiable, Cameron and Nolan aren't separated by much at all in that regard.

In any case, it seems pretty self-evident that little is to be gained by such "Mac vs PC" kinds of opinioneering duels, no?

: )

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.

 

[Rolf Silber]

How hands on are you as a director? How much "tech knowledge" should a director have?

Know as much as possible but then stay out of the way of the people who actually do the job. The "knowing" part is especially important in preparation of the shoot. Find out what really can and what can not be achieved before you start. Have the movie done & ready & finished in your head the moment principal shooting is about to start and realize at the same moment that it will look different in the end.

The moment "the machine" - the team - starts rolling you are more in the role of a border-collie, rounding the flock, giving it a direction.... ;-) If you don't trust the people in your team, they won't trust you. Treat the script with respect but realize that it was conceived under the ideal circumstances of a writing desk and you will be in the very different real world. Every director I know at least once in a shoot started shouting: "Who wrote this crap"? Which holds especially true when he himself has had written it. But try know why the writer has written it the way he has before you attempt to change it. Repair an aeroplane in flight can become very dangerous.

If you have never had the urge to act yourself - and have stopped doing it because you know you are not that good - think again if you should be a director. You need to have "an ear" for what was written. Because when you read the script you should have at least a slight feeling how you yourself would move in a scene and speak the lines. And at the same time you need to know and accept that your actors will do it distinctively different way. And accept why this is - probably, hopefully - much better than what you had imagined. The moment they feel that, in a way, you are part of their tribe they feel at home with you. Without that your lost. And do not be so "hands on" as to act it out for your actors (unless they really ask for it).

And: Say "good morning" every day to your crew and cast if possible. That is a very good start to be "hands on" nicely and effectively.

 

[greymog]

I'm starting out with this now for a few years, and this question really manages to come up all the time. I have quite a few friends in hotel management (very popular here in lebanon) and some went to switzerland, where they have to do everything from cleaning the bathrooms to running the enterprise.

I do believe that a director should know about the aspects of filmmaking, I think it is necessary. All directors in any field (you ahve art directors, directors of photography, directors of this and that) are required to have a working knowledge of every aspect of their job. Am I thinking they should do it all? Yes and no. If it's a 'production', then no, there's a team for a reason. the other half of me says, waitaminnit, would it really hurt to try? I mean if it really takes trying to do everything five six times and botch it royally, then you really found out the best way. I don't think there's an easy way and a hard way. Me personally? yes I believe (very foolishly and ambitiously) that it is possible, soon, for one man to do it all, with nothing but a few actors and a DAMN GOOD STORY. It is foolish to depend on this logic to make money, and not offend the specialists you have on board. But it isn't foolish to shoot for it between you and yourself. I would feel much better getting involved in a big production after i've tried everything twenty small productions before that.

You have specialists for a reason, and humans aren't that good at multitasking, some are, the only way to find out is to try. You gotta feel the pain. It's like the feature you crave, and crave, and work around, and get screwed for, and when you finally get the piece that does that thing you wanted it to do, you feel great, cause you felt the pain of your first interlaced cam, and you finally went progressive, or your first videocam that didn't give you that shallow depth, it's the same. You have to know what a pain in the ass it is to do that stuff in every department, so you know what your guys are made of. If you really do get into the grit of it in every aspect, like really sweat, you're gonna know what your specialist (dp sound all of em) have to go through. You'll appreciate them a hell of a lot more. You'll appreciate the time you freed up. You can keep tabs on them, that's what before you shoot is about i guess.

We had a drawing teacher at Parsons force us to hold the model's pose every time for five minutes before we started drawing. He said he wanted us to see how hard holding that pose was for just five minutes out of the two hours or so this person was gonna do that, and it would show in our drawing.

It's the difference between an artist and a craftsman, in the sense where 'artist' is loosely defined as that person that can just 'go', without heed to the technical limit, and that that can be achieved with just balls, is a little bit bogus i think. This is what artist means in this town for like 3 years now, it's like a job you get. i work as an artist, and they just 'go', all over the place, without knowledge of the craft. They cost money whether or not their end result is a pure as a child's and all. That 'just go' ability is a truly difficult place to get to when it's for real. And to command it takes even longer. I'm not dissing it, but yes I think it's absolutely necessary that it rest on a bed on knowledge of the craft.

A director has gotta know. He's gotta have tried. Make a scene on your own. A scene of that feature that's gonna involve way more people, and gauge yourself. feel where it hurts. Do it get sound and picture and acting and ALL OF IT. it could be ridiculous, but you gotta try. Then just add people. Ok I got this this this this this I just need one guy to hold that coz I ain't got 3 hands. Get him. Feel the improvement, but you know what you want the guy to do. So it feels like relief. Earned relief. Then another guy, who's gonna do this, but this guy is an expert. This part feels great. Two shots down the line the guy makes a suggestion that blows yer mind. Two more of those now you trust him to make a call.

You gotta try is my point. And yes, i think, in principle, a director should be knowledgeable in every aspect. acting, sound, picture, art, story, he's got to have a grasp. Not 'I have the capability to build my own sensor and implant it in my forehead' knowledge, but enough for his/her needs.

A director is basically a polymath, something cool i read yesterday actually, when i learned that word. http://moreintelligentlife.com/content/edward-carr/last-days-polymath

Why not. It never hurts to try. It's better to prove to yourself that you tried and couldn't hang and know what it feels like than to listen to someone else.

P.S. I am INCREDIBLY SICK and realized how long I ahve been typing for. I usually don't take medicine it scares me, but this was too much and I caved. I'm very happy and feel a bit woozy. Someone pls tell me if I rambled like an idiot. Medicine is messed up stuff.

 

[Rolf Silber]

The polymath-thing seems to be cool. Will read it this evening.

I'd say the artistry of the director is to be a master in connecting and playing with nine arts.... but not to be a master in this nine arts. He should know the principal rules, possibilities and problems of this nine arts though.

Beirut? Interesting. Hope you are well soon.

 

[greymog]

The polymath-thing seems to be cool. Will read it this evening.

I'd say the artistry of the director is to be a master in connecting and playing with nine arts.... but not to be a master in this nine arts. He should know the principal rules, possibilities and problems of this nine arts though.

Beirut? Interesting. Hope you are well soon.

It's a damn good read.

I feel dim. You said it in two lines. Exactly. Trying stuff gets you there I think.

Beirut? very interesting. Total love/hate relationship. Thank you, its my first flu in years and i forgot how terrible it feels.

 

[Dallo]

"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."

Hehe, thanks for the biggest laugh I've had all day. I needed that, cheers!

 

[MeAgain]

What's really funny is when people use awards and money as arguments for artistic skill. Box office intake has absolutely nothing to do with how good you are. Zero. ZERO. I'm personally not impressed with either director because of their techniques and films, not because of how much money they made.

But I'd like to direct everyone's attention to greymog's post though...his take is pretty good. You should try every aspect of filmmaking at some point, so you know. Empathy is a big part of being hands on as a director.

 

[Jordan Scott Price]

What's really funny is when people use awards and money as arguments for artistic skill. Box office intake has absolutely nothing to do with how good you are. Zero. ZERO. I'm personally not impressed with either director because of their techniques and films, not because of how much money they made.

In an effort to not further derail the thread, this will be concise: By what do you measure a filmmaker outside of critical acclaim and box office pull? Those are the two foundations on which major films are made: Will they make us money? Will they earn awards?

It is important to remember cinema is a multi-billion-dollar industry. It is also worth noting that the pedestrian moviegoer does not worry with how something was shot or with what camera, or how the sound design was done, or how they lit a particular scene, or how hands-on the director was. Filmmakers and students analyze films with the terms on which they have built their careers - studying camera angles and speculating on the rigs used to achieve a shot - a chore that the moviegoer (e.g. the aggregate ticket buyers) does not take part in. They pay for a movie. They want to be entertained.

This is likely a great topic for another thread; I'd wager it already has been.

But I'd like to direct everyone's attention to greymog's post though...his take is pretty good. You should try every aspect of filmmaking at some point, so you know. Empathy is a big part of being hands on as a director.

I agree. It also would not hurt to try everything on the buffet because you may find you have a talent for another facet of the filmmaking process. So many people want to be directors but get lost in the mindset that it is the most important job on set. I am not at all saying that is the case for the members in this thread - quite the opposite - but wholeheartedly agree that in order to direct, you should learn the fundamentals of every aspect of the process.

To be the president, it's imperative to know how the treasury, the military, and the levels of the judicial system are run, but should the president be so well-versed in tax law that he can quote it, chapter and verse? That is someone else's job.

 

[Jon Chema]

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).

Great point about Robin Hood.

 

[MeAgain]

In an effort to not further derail the thread, this will be concise: By what do you measure a filmmaker outside of critical acclaim and box office pull? Those are the two foundations on which major films are made: Will they make us money? Will they earn awards?

It is important to remember cinema is a multi-billion-dollar industry.

Well I can reply to this while still staying on topic...I measure a film or any art form through many factors- the techniques used, what new ideas it starts with and where it takes those ideas, experiences it puts me through, how the film is structured, where it could have gone further, the emotions it made me feel and if those emotions were cliche or felt honest, the editing and how it effects the overall film, etc. I form my OWN opinions on film...and pretty much everything else. Basing good directing techniques on what makes money or awards is very very dangerous for your craft.

Also, a lot of movie audiences, especially today, are much smarter than people think. They just don't get anything new or different. And that's just the "mass" audience...there are plenty of people nowadays into all sorts of films and they're very intelligent and critical of them. And they hunger for something new that much more.

There are tons of capable directors on this site who are very professional and don't make a dime. It'd be silly to essentially call them worthless or failures because they never make any money from their movies.

I'm saying all this because I think it's very important that we're talking about directing and how to improve your techniques. The thread is not "How to make a lot of money" and if you're going to cite directors, we should keep it focused on their techniques and WHY you think these techniques work, not their wallets or award shelves. We should be explaining and defending our ideas on this, not just saying "Hey, he made a lot of money!" So did Blair Witch. So did the Saw films.

And also: cinema is not a multi-billion dollar industry. It's an artform. Hollywood is a multi-billion dollar industry, and there's definitely a big difference here.

 

[Rolf Silber]

Yes. Let's not go into an artist vs. craftsmen-discussion.

Read that article about polymath's and have to agree and disagree with it at the same time concerning directing film.

I'd say while it is highly recommendable that as an director you should be able to make a living in at least one or two or even three fields of film-making (without needing to be an actual "master" but a good craftsman in those) the "polymathism" of your ability alone won't make you a director, but the qualities that come from this set of abilities combined with a certain and very distinctively "filmic" knowledge of - and urge for - story-telling.

This combined with certain social skills that let you survive all the discussions you need to have before a film can actually start, prevent you from getting fired and the skills that - hopefully - make you kind of a leader of a pack of artists and technicians once the thing gets "greenlighted" by what ever powers to be. One could argue though that all of this is just another capacity of "polymathism". One could also say it's a certain (overruling the others, master-) ability for itself - the ability to deal with a broad set of quixotic technical, artistic and human complexities at the same time. And to give them a distinctive form.

The polymaths as I understand the term did not really have in the end a universal "theory of everything", one certain goal, but were masters in different fields. Directors bring all of this abilities into one form: The Movie.

But, for sure, without certain knowledge of technical things and conditions under which all of this works you will get lost quickly.

 

[Cliff Wildman]

Steven Soderberg once said (paraphrasing) "If you want to get into filmmaking, Director is the easiest job to get."

Why is that? Because you don't have to be technically knowledgeable about all aspects of filmmaking, or any one in particular.

What you do need to know is simply two things: 1) Communication 2) Hiring the best people for all the roles that need to be filled.

#2 above is the easy part.

#1, not so much. You have to be able to communicate to wildly different types of people for different reasons. Telling an actor what you want from a scene is much different that telling a cinematographer what you need. In the end the communication that matters most is the message being sent to the audience. That's the really hard part.

You don't need to know crap on the technical end to be a good director (if you have good people around you) - you just need to understand how to communicate to everyone clearly, concisely and well.

If you learn more about cameras and lights you can engage on a deeper level with a DP. If you learn more about microphones and how different types of space affect sound, you can engage on a deeper level with a sound person. The more deeply you can engage the more your vision will be replicated into the final piece. However, I feel strongly that if you have the right working relationships and the right way to communicate you can empower your crew (and cast of course) to get what you want.

If I recall correctly, Orson Welles didn't know a damn thing about cameras before Citizen Kane. He watched Ford's "Stage Coach" like 50 times (which had multiple axis errors, btw!) to prep.

BUT, he knew how to communicate to Gregg Toland (DP) and visually what they worked out was amazing. I'm sure Welles was pretty well versed by the time they wrapped up that film, but I doubt he had anywhere near the technical proficiency that many in this thread are saying is necessary to be successful.

Don't get me wrong, tech proficiency can NEVER EVER hurt you, but are they necessary to direct? No. Only being a clear communicator is necessary.

 

[Rolf Silber]

If I recall correctly, Orson Welles didn't know a damn thing about cameras before Citizen Kane. He watched Ford's "Stage Coach" like 50 times (which had multiple axis errors, btw!) to prep.

Yes - but Orson Welles already was a seasoned actor, a writer, he had directed for the radio, he had directed for the stage and was already - well before his film-work even started - called a moderniser of the American theater. Among the plays he directed was "Julius Cesar", "Macbeth", "Dr. Faustus". He had worked with Aron Copland on Operas and he had founded and managed the Mercury Theater and then he had his radio-show..... I'd say that's as pretty much near a polymath as possible and much of what he did before he even started with film is indeed also a film directors job. So he did not come out of nothing and... he was - it seems - kind of a genius. Which makes it hard to take him as an example.

Techniques a director should know about must not be primarily that of a camera but maybe it's acting-, editing-, art-directos or production-techniques - any of this sure helps a lot. And in certain circumstances it can be crucial, especially if you shoot on a tight budget & schedule and/or shoot - like I do - in another country under different conditions. You are indeed absolutely right about the communicator part. But in the end also this will not help you a bit if you are not really a story-teller to begin with. Being a perfect communicator is mute if you have nothing to communicate.... ;-)

The directors that made me want to become someone working in film - Melville, Polanski, Kubrick, Fellini, Truffaut, Wajda, Bertolucci - all knew a lot about certain technical sides of the business. I think that somebody stumbles into the business without much knowledge and survives in it is possible - but only if he is an extremely intelligent and adaptable person and/or the team & cast this person works with is really top-notch.

 

[Cliff Wildman]

I generally agree with you Tipota. I was coming at the question of how technically knowledgeable do you have to be. And the answer is not very if you can communicate your vision well and you understand storytelling. I'm not discounting technical knowledge or proficiency, but it is not absolutely necessary.

If there's one area you need to be proficient in is visual storytelling and communicating that to your cast and crew. If you watch enough movies and you know how to explain your wants/needs to everyone you can get away without knowing where the power button on the camera is.

 

[greymog]

Yes. Let's not go into an artist vs. craftsmen-discussion.

Read that article about polymath's and have to agree and disagree with it at the same time concerning directing film.

I'd say while it is highly recommendable that as an director you should be able to make a living in at least one or two or even three fields of film-making (without needing to be an actual "master" but a good craftsman in those) the "polymathism" of your ability alone won't make you a director, but the qualities that come from this set of abilities combined with a certain and very distinctively "filmic" knowledge of - and urge for - story-telling.

This combined with certain social skills that let you survive all the discussions you need to have before a film can actually start, prevent you from getting fired and the skills that - hopefully - make you kind of a leader of a pack of artists and technicians once the thing gets "greenlighted" by what ever powers to be. One could argue though that all of this is just another capacity of "polymathism". One could also say it's a certain (overruling the others, master-) ability for itself - the ability to deal with a broad set of quixotic technical, artistic and human complexities at the same time. And to give them a distinctive form.

The polymaths as I understand the term did not really have in the end a universal "theory of everything", one certain goal, but were masters in different fields. Directors bring all of this abilities into one form: The Movie.

But, for sure, without certain knowledge of technical things and conditions under which all of this works you will get lost quickly.

The article is a good read, I see your point. There's an underlying 'they can do a lot, but can't really settle or lose it type thing' to the polymaths. I understand that one thing a director needs to have is the ability to put the toys down. Indeed, I missed that sentiment, and agree with it totally. You need to ground yourself, and know when to stop.

There is nothing (I hope in my post) that negates or lessens the importance of having said specialists around. The ability to put the toys down is the key to backing off and letting them to their job.

However, I cannot in any way agree that a director doesn't have to know anything technical. It is absolutely necessary to have that general knowledge. And any extra knowledge won't hurt. My point is that if someone is debating this question, they only way to find out is to try. To wisely try, without inflicting damage or cost. You try before you get into something that involves other people, so when you get somewhere where money is spent, your decisions are deliberate.

I don't like hearing that one 'can't', at the same time I don't like hearing that one 'can' without prior knowledge.

Tech is not only for the cameras. I'm not abbreviating technology (even a pen is technology, an actor's technique) I'm abbreviating technique, and it doesn't stop at buttons. Orson welles' example just showed that there is more to it that shooting. He knew story, he knew acting, and according to the post about orson welles, he knew about the technical aspects of those things. And they play a huge role.

I'm not saying tech proficiency, I'm saying a knowledge of the tech. Just a knowledge. Enough to justify your decisions.

There one ability also that is so important, and it's the ability to detach from all the inner workings, we don't make films for filmmakers, we make them for audience members. It's invisibility. Many people ahve said this, if the job is good enough, one shouldn't notice. So the director has to know when the time comes to say, 'I just don't care, as long as what is seen on the screen is what'll make em feel like a, b, c.' A director has to realize that the most important thing to induce is a reaction. And sometimes, that just takes for him to say STOP, and just GO. Tech knowledge separates between this being a deliberate and justified series of decisions over just a feeling.

The best of course, know how to balance between both.

I always say, the best and most boring answer to any debate is 'a little bit of both'.

 

[greymog]

I think we're really asking if a director needs to be DP. The answer is no. There's more to the tech of filmmaking than being a DP. At least that's what it's feeling like underneath all this

 

[MeAgain]

With digital cameras the way they are today, there is really no excuse to not attempt it yourself at some point. Before I shot a serious film with my DVX, I shot so much footage that I didn't use. About 5 or 6 hours worth of me trying different techniques. Just taping different things. Birds flying, rain falling, trees swaying. Doing pans, trying tracking shots with family members. And this was after having the camera for almost a year and knowing the basics of it.

I have one tape somewhere of me obsessively zooming in very slowly on a window over and over. Seriously. An hour's worth of one shot over and over. Actually, more than that because I remember I changed tapes. I never even used the shot. I know very little about the professional side of cinematography. But just doing that movement over and over subconsciously taught me so much about the camera and framing.

Directors need to be a little obsessive in this way, I think. If your technical problems bother you and you do nothing to learn how to make it better, one way or the other, you should stop directing and do something else.

 

[Rolf Silber]

There is nothing (I hope in my post) that negates or lessens the importance of having said specialists around. The ability to put the toys down is the key to backing off and letting them to their job.

That was not how I have read your post. No problem here. An yes: It's the balance of knowing a lot about different fields of film-making and knowing how not to over-control & micro-manage everything because on has read that Kubrick did that. Kubrick was another "white elephant" of film-making. And the very few white elephants do as they please anyway.

However, I cannot in any way agree that a director doesn't have to know anything technical. It is absolutely necessary to have that general knowledge.

Agreed. But then there is indeed the problem that this is a very camera-orientated forum and the role of the camera is at times a bit "over-exposed"... ;-) I use the word "technical" in a broader sense. There may be directors who will leave a lot to their DoP's and concentrate much more on acting, general setting up of a scene, art-directing, music, editing...... every director works differently and/or comes from another background (and: I can talk only about experiences in my country).

The core-question is: What is the basic, intrinsic, real, original technique of directing movies then? And the moment we start asking that we get into a lot of trouble because this is to a certain extend a "soft issue". In the sense that it becomes more fuzzy the nearer you get to that problem. Not to the least because it has a lot of variables. And with a multitude of variables us humans are not exactly good, imho.

And if the leading lady had a not so booming night with the boom-man and she sits sobbing in her trailer, this will quickly add another million of variables to the ones the director already has to deal with.... ;-)

There one ability also that is so important, and it's the ability to detach from all the inner workings, we don't make films for filmmakers, we make them for audience members. It's invisibility. Many people ahve said this, if the job is good enough, one shouldn't notice.

Younger directors usually are very much in love with the machinery & mechanics of film. As much as I respect & salute that as much it should make them sceptical to not lose the "story telling" part. At times I see films that are aesthetically and technically absolutely brilliant but have no real "heart".... and often do not work with the audience for that lack... if that happens then in a way it is also a question of the directors technical work: That he has not gotten that right while shooting or even earlier when preparing the script.

And, yes, there is a saying over here: If the audience leaves the screening room and discusses the camera-work, the music or the set-design in eight out of ten cases this film will not stay very long in that theater...

 

[jghenderson]

The primary responsibility of the director is to the actors. For that reasons, I think it's very important for a director to surround themselves with a crew they can trust. Yes it's important to have a well-rounded knowledge of the technical aspects of cinema so you can talk to your crew on a professional level and explain what you want in terms they will understand, but it's a bad sign if the director spends more time with his crew than he does with the actors.

 

[Rolf Silber]

...but it's a bad sign if the director spends more time with his crew than he does with the actors.

Would not have dared to come to this point already..... ;-)