Is directing an acquired skill or a gift you're born with?

But Kevin Smith is a writer/director. Could it be that he's a naturally talented director, but not a talented writer?
 
What about: Setting acquired skills against born with talent is like setting - in music - rhythm against harmony? Different things but not actually contradicting - but, in an ideal world, working together? And some directors may have more rhythm and less harmony than others - and the other way round?
 
How many times have you heard someone say they cannot direct.

Me? Zero.

How many times have you thought you could have directed something better than a working director?
 
tipota said:
What about: Setting acquired skills against born with talent is like setting - in music - rhythm against harmony? Different things but not actually contradicting - but, in an ideal world, working together? And some directors may have more rhythm and less harmony than others - and the other way round?
Click to expand...

That's a good point, but they find their unity in melody which should reference harmony in rhythm.

See, melody is what is important because it unifies the two into song.

Melody is the key to any piece and expressing that melody is most important. Plus, most instruments with the exception of keyboarded instruments and some stringed instruments aren't able to play all at the same time. If a director can't create a piece that doesn't have a strong melody by instinct, he has to learn his theory and that is a full time job.

Some directors are adept at creating the theme, some just play what they are given.
 
pharpsied said:
Some directors are adept at creating the theme, some just play what they are given.
Click to expand...

Yep. And for both approaches something can be said. Have met people who just could "play" it as it came and could create something by the snap of a finger - but some have not survived in the business because they thought they just have "it" and did not develop their craft. And others - who by nature lacked the "fairy dust" - had to work their way up determined like badgers. Interesting animals, directors. Nerve wrecking bunch too.... ;-)
 
My only real "point" to make here is in relation to someone mentioning Powell/Pressburger way back when this thread was sort of on topic (the type of thread that should get derailed) - Pressburger didn't direct. He was really the writer. Both produced. It's a lovely shared credit, though, and while I like Powell's films outside The Archers banner, they're not in the same league as those most magical of films.

Other thoughts, in "inspirational mode": Cassavetes often called himself one of the "worst" directors. The type of people that frequent these boards, of a certain pixel peeping variety, would probably agree. Too bad for them.

I imagine unless you're in an existential crisis mode, if you're contemplating this question you're no director. Ask forgiveness, not permission.

I like how Gary Huff jumps on these, he went at one about some craft vs content bologna in the same baiting fashion, one sentence question riffs getting folks into a tizzy, because some people can ONLY think about anything as either/or. Strange. (My pet "issue" I can't resist is the use of zooms. Yeah, I said it, I LOVE zooms!)

Also, is everyone just accepting that Kurasowa is the greatest or something? Good thing no one told, oh, every great director that came around post Seven Samurai not to bother, never be as good as old Akira. In conversation I refer to this as the masterpiece problem. People see them as end points instead of parts of a continuum (high water marks, sure, but not an arrival point. That's deadly. Except of course Mizoguchi. Don't even bother trying to top that dude).

And finally, think how many directors could have given up after their first film. Tough job, directing, and they're not all going to be home runs, especially not on your first swing. The raw talent may well be there, hiding in the details, but a real problem with movies is you just don't get many cracks at it before you're written off. Being able to roll with the punches may be the "talent" that ultimately separates the wheat from the chaff. Way back when, John Ford made 35 movies before "The Iron Horse".
 
JeffHarriger said:
My only real "point" to make here is in relation to someone mentioning Powell/Pressburger way back when this thread was sort of on topic (the type of thread that should get derailed) - Pressburger didn't direct. He was really the writer. Both produced. It's a lovely shared credit, though, and while I like Powell's films outside The Archers banner, they're not in the same league as those most magical of films.
Click to expand...

I didn't know that, so thank you for bringing this to my attention as it proves my point. The only good directing duo's are siblings.
 
i think that the two need to come hand in hand to be amazing but is everyone equal in all settings? no i think that some people have a tendency to excel in certain areas

mentally logical intelligence could be one---friends, professors working extremely hard at physics but not on the level of feynman or einstein
and the age thing, there is an article awhile my old teacher mentioned that men (could be women also) are in their prime intellectually and sexually at the mid 20s and it drapes off then so i theres that point
 
"Also, is everyone just accepting that Kurasowa is the greatest or something? Good thing no one told, oh, every great director that came around post Seven Samurai not to bother, never be as good as old Akira. In conversation I refer to this as the masterpiece problem. People see them as end points instead of parts of a continuum (high water marks, sure, but not an arrival point. "

Not an "end point" but extremely influential. a paradigm shift. Where nothing after is the same. Same for Hitchcock, Same for John Ford, etc... They set the standard of what CAN be done.
 
jghenderson said:
Here's an example. You're directing a scene, and the performance is just not what you want it to be. A director who might be very skilled will have an idea of what to do. They've read a lot of books and understand why for instance giving result direction is usually bad. They try some of the tricks they've picked up over the years, etc. But in the end the performance is still not working. In instances like this, what is needed is a deep and true understanding of people. There will be directors who in an instance like this will be able to dig deep and get to the root of the problem. But a lot of people won't. Now you could argue that understanding people is also a skill that can be learned, but I don't think so. I'm not talking about understanding in a psychological sense, I mean more in an empathetic sense.
Click to expand...

I'm still fledgling, but this post to me summarizes the critical duties of a director. You must be able to do this successfully, and what successfully means to me is the completion of a scene to satisfaction of the audience. It doesn't necessarily only deal with what you can do on set, either. Decisions in post are just as seated in the same problem solving "skills".

Again, I'm still new but at this point in time this is where I sit. Maybe it'll change later on.
 
Getting a bang out of problem solving definitely seems like a key thing, for sure. And as ever, allowing different courses for different horses, or whatever the hell that saying is. A lot of people have this idea Kubrick didn't understand, like, or feel much empathy for people. I think this is nonsense, but his directing approach to actors was just to keep doing it and wait til it was right, whatever that was. Not much direction he could give at a certain point. He had the true luxury of time, he could wait. He could re-do scenes weeks later if the exposure wasn't right, anything. It's the ultimate working model. The rest of us, vainly fighting against time all the time, not having been granted genius status just yet, need some tricks!

I hear ya Gonzo. I don't find "influence" the hateful word some people do, but there's a lot of professed film "lovers" with a dead history view of art that is creepy. Nostalgic types. You know what I mean.
 
iamWZA said:
Interested to hear what you think.
Will
Click to expand...
Everything you are is a result of your heredity and environment. Directing a movie is not rocket science. A person with average natural abilities can become a great Director given the proper environment/training/experience.
 
vic777 said:
Everything you are is a result of your heredity and environment. Directing a movie is not rocket science. A person with average natural abilities can become a great Director given the proper environment/training/experience.
Click to expand...

This week I saw two asian horror films that showed such a remarkably tasteful sense of pacing, humanism, and CONTROL (what to show, what not to, when to cut, when not to), despite both being very intensely horrific and "extreme" if you will. It was a reminder that there is such a thing as advanced, high level, masterful directing.

so yeah anyone can learn to be a hack but we all aint gonna be geniuses (at least not without a bunch of hard work). I wanna make horror movies. Can I pull off something as manically energetic and fiendishly clever as Evil Dead? As human and touching and exciting as The Host?

Hmm... Ill try....
 
I love the IQ analogy bit quite a lot (too much filler b/t here and there to search it out for quotage).

But it really is okay to say talent is innate.
This particular analogy shows that
IQ = PC(proof)
 
I think you need both talent and skill to excel. You can have an innate disposition for the craft, or you may have a keenly developed instinct brought by experience and education.

Either will likely be advantageous in the career path...But the two together with a driving work ethic is the recipe for excellence, in my opinion.



My personal take on directing is the ability to direct people to make your movie. Therefore, I think you need a balance of talent and skill in people. Introverts, such as I, need to develop skills with people in order to succeed, but having talents for quick-wittedness and analysis help in becoming a "people's" director. The argument about talent for the creative is outside this point because this is my view of what a director is. You need to be a craftsman, but a leader first, in my opinion.
 
Look at it this way: All of what has been stated in this discussion can only be - in the better case experience based - speculation. If we'd be able to answer the OP's question, we'd be for sure on the short list for a Nobel price for neuro-science. What we can do though is to juggle our experiences and interpretations. In the end any position we take will probably be a telling truth more about ourselves and our way we see life than the truth of the matter. But that's okay, me thinks.
 
Last edited:
directing is like being a pilot! you need more hours logged! but how do you get more flight time? Arggh! It's easier to flip burgers!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top