How would YOU order these aspects of filmmaking from most important to least?

Darren Levine

Darren Levine

Veteran
Just out of curiosity, i'd like to see what the general populous thinks, some of you know from my rantings what my opinion is. so please post your personal order, ignoring other posters orders for influence, the purpose of this test is to nudge you to put things into perspective, so have at it :)

I've omitted certain things that may pertain to only to certain genres, such as special effects, but if there is something you feel is missing, be sure to mention it.

The categories(not in my personal order):

Camera/acquisition equipment
Rigging/Jib/Dolly
Soundtrack
Audio/Spoken Dialog/Foley
Acting/Performance
Set Design
Wardrobe
Lighting Design
Story/Script
Pre-Production/Storyboarding/planning
Post-Production/editing/grading
A comfy director's chair with your name on it
 
Hard to put things in "order" in a collaborative process (where several aspects have very much equal weight - and I think you're mixing apples and oranges a bit), but here goes, top to bottom:

Story/Script
**Direction (Overall vision, preparation, communication, leadership, problem solving, direction to actors, blocking, direction to DP, direction to 1st AD, direction to PD, direction to Editor, direction to SD, direction to VFX)
Acting/Performance
**Cinematography (Lighting Design + image technical + framing + moves)
Post-Production/editing/grading/**mix/**VFX
Pre-Production/Storyboarding/planning
Audio/Spoken Dialog/Foley
Set Design + Wardrobe + make-up + props
Soundtrack
Camera/acquisition equipment
Rigging/Jib/Dolly (doesn't really fit with other categories, or part of "Camera Equipment" IMHO)

**Things kind of missing from your list

Somewhere in there (maybe right after story) is also "Adequate funding".

I would put most importance / effort / thought / worry from top to bottom - and least worry (and first sacrifice / compromise / workaround) bottom-to-top.
 
Last edited:
I think Steve pretty much nailed it, but he's obviously a young guy, because he doesn't yet appreciate the importance of the comfy director's chair. After 30 years of climbing ladders and hauling cameras around, and now fighting a bit of arthritis, it may indeed be the most important accessory on the set.

- Greg (tongue in cheek)
 
Lovin' it, keep em comin' :)

steve i left directing out for the assumption that the person posting here would be the director and they would be in charge of what's going on in their project no matter what, and since they cannot be changed out for another director, therefore not a variable, didn't make sense to have them as a variable. now if anyone can actually understand what i just said, i'll be very suprised!
 
Story/script rules together with directing and acting. You can prove it through the negative:

I know I get killed for that in a camera-orientated forum but I have never ever read a review of a film in which it was stated, that lousy cinematography, lousy art direction, wardrobe or the wrong directors chair killed a movie. And my theory is: If you can not kill it you don't really own it.

If the story, the tale, works, the movie works. People like to see excellent cinematography, yes. And surely cinematography falls into a special place, hard to describe, as it is more than just registering the story and what the actors do in it, but it's much more interpretative. So I will give it that special place - but it's much lesser decisive for a movie to work than a lot of people may want to believe (okay, now you're going to kill me... enjoy). The same applies to editing, btw, which is underrated imho.

Audiences may love fancy costume design, set design, whatever. But they go to see a movie that moves them in one or the other way. Against a terrible script no one can really win. Excellent directing and acting may help but will never make a great movie ou of it. A very good script may, on the other hand, somehow survive bad directing and it may survive bad acting to a certain extend. This three things have to be in balance with the script having usually the slightly upper hand in my experience. So: This trinity rules. They can really destroy a film or make it great.

Is this discussion in the right forum category though.....?
 
Last edited:
tipota said:
Story/script rules together with directing and acting. You can prove it through the negative:

I know I get killed for that in a camera-orientated forum but I have never ever read a review of a film in which it was stated, that lousy cinematography, lousy art direction, wardrobe or the wrong directors chair killed a movie. And my theory is: If you can not kill it you don't really own it.
Click to expand...

I second that, there is nothing like story and acting. All the rest is just nice to have, but without a good story you go nowhere.

Frank
 
Since we're in the direction i'd hoped we'd be in, i'll chime in with my favorite example which i use when people tell me they need 4K: 28 days later, crank 2, star wars episode 2, supersize me, crank, blair witch, and dozens of other movies, that were shot on 720, 1080, and even Standard Def, you've seen in the theaters, and not once have you ever seen anyone stand up in theater and say this camera looks like crap, i want my money back! But on the other side of it, i think everyone has personally stood up in a theater and said, this story bites the big one, i want my money back.
 
I would say audio above cinematography just because not the best lighting etc is probably easier to forgive then really bad audio. But I agree that story comes first, then actors, then all else is about equal.
 
All aspects of filmmaking should support the story. Good performances are key to success. I think everyone on this forum knows those facts. But I think cinematography trumps the other aspects of filmmaking in terms of importance because film is a visual medium. Audiences go to the movies to see a picture, to see images. Otherwise, it's no different than the theater. The theater is full of great production design, great costumes, great actors, great directors, and great story telling. But what really separates the cinema from other art forms is the picture, the camera, and the editing. No other art form can manipulate those elements (and insofar as editing many artforms don't even have that element) to tell stories so effectively. That's why the movies are special. It's the audience's experience with the screen, with the image, and with the picture.
 
Story is top of the list by a long way. Other things rank in importance according to how badly they can mess up telling the story you want to tell.

For that reason I'd rank sound above cinematography. You CAN tell the story with very basic images- if you're pointing the camera so you can see the action, you can get away with a lot of bad stuff (and even call it a film making style). Bad sound, on the other hand, is very hard to forgive. No-one will let you call it style if you've got traffic noise on half of a dialogue scene but not on the reverses 'cause you shot them six hours later after rush-hour. It is just a mistake, and a bad one at that. You will HAVE to fix it. I guess if you didn't watch your light changing you might have to reshoot pictures in that case too as you'd be hopping from day to night repeatedly in the scene. So both are important. A movie without pictures is a radio play, so you need SOME pictures.

But I think it IS more important to get good sound to be able to tell the story competently and professionally. Even in the silent film era they used to hire a guy to play piano in the movie theatres to convey atmosphere and emotion.

Cheers, Hywel
 
Last edited:
I think the reason sound gets ranked so high is partially because it's an indicator of the filmmaker's proficiency -- if they can get the sound right, chances are they've gotten the rest right. that being said, I agree that missteps in lighting and composition are more forgivable than missteps in sound. I have many favorite films with bad cinematography. I don't have any favorite films with bad sound.
 
You can't have a movie without an image. You can have a movie without sound and dialog. But almost all great movies excelled in all aspects.
 
Well, the only thing I can add is that I think that, from the actual filmmaking side of it, we are all overlooking the vast importance of a nice comfortable pair of shoes! :beer:
 
Finnegan said:
You'd put sound and art direction over cinematography? Last I checked, the cinema is a visual medium - how could the picture be the least important?
Click to expand...

Art direction is definitly over cinematography. 70% of cinematography is art direction. Audio is important, but audio isn't a part of cinematography.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top