Obsession with "The Industry"...

fun thread, but i think too much is being dumped on the director, whereas other aspects will determine the outcome of the film, most notably the script, and if we are going under the assumption that the director wrote the script, then by all means refer to them as writer/director or filmmaker. (semantics are fun!)

the thing that bothers me, and the distinction that needs to be made, is in the attitude of the writer/director, of which i think we can make two groups: those who are passionate and attentive, vs those who are on a film 'high' and want to get something 'done'

not that i can back this statement with numbers, but it feels to me we have a larger number of these geterdonners as we'll call them, than real passionate filmmakers.

i can take from experience where i DPed my friends film which he wrote/directed/produced. we were both on our first feature, it was a skeleton crew, and we both relied on each other to get done each others's tasks. i will admit to you that i did NOT read a single word of the script. I will call it a combination of young fool and trust that my director knew what he needed. he made the shot list and for each scene he gave me a description and we went at it. it might surprise you that it went VERY smoothly. the director did a heck of a lot of preproduction and had his family members helping out where they could. our main issue was the first day on set i ask whos operating boom, and he points to zack, zack is about 5 foot 1. i turn to our other producer who is about 6 foot and kindly asked him to operate boom. and i resorted to keep an eye on it and making sure he was on axis and just outside of frame, and it workout out quite well all things considered. we only had 1 afternoon of (sound) issues, other than that the film turned out much how he expected, for the most part it looked and sounded very good. the story was a tad boring but hey, it was his first script and we wanted to dive into making a feature, so we did, but we did not just get it done, we gave it passion and attention. despite the story being a melodrama, the director had studied how to write a script, so the story does hit the important points quite decently, and i give him credit for doing the research before writing the script.

audio is really where i start to separate the boys from the men in film. i run a festival, and watch a good number of other little indie projects, and junk sound is the first nail in the geterdonners coffin. whether because they don't care, or because they think they can just sacrifice that part of the filmmaking process because of lack of budget or time, it doesn't matter. a good film is a good film and a bad film is a bad film, regardless of any excuses.

now, that's just the technical, and like others have said the technical doesn't matter if the acting and script are garbage. lets make another distinction about the geterdonner: the love to use family members and friends as actors. that WOULD be ok... if they were actually actors, but sadly, they most always are not. and there is NOTHING worse than someone who thinks they are an actor. it's just painful

then the scripty, if it sucks, there's no point. i am fortunate to know several talented, awarded, acclaimed, and insructful screenwriters, and from them i've attained a good understanding of how a story should flow and what points need to exist and where. the geterdonner typically doesn't even read a screenwriting book or make a second draft, or heck even get a professional to read their script. IMO if your script hasn't been read and approved by at least 2 professional screenwriters, then there is a 90% likelyhood that it isn't ready and more likely garbage. in screenwriting i call for the reverse legal system: it's **** until proven gold. and proving is done by READING, not SHOOTING.

we all get frustrated by the geterdonner, they are everywhere, and sometimes we end up on set with them. i try to avoid them by just asking more questions before agreeing to be on such a set. a few questions can save a lot of headaches. i did end up on a set where was production managing, and the amateur director had several habits which i had to even out. such as treating her DP ad as camera op. i had to explain to her the difference and tell her to make the decision right there which she wanted. PS they already had a shot list and she basically kept changing all his shots. i told her if she wanted a DP then she could go over the scene with the DP at the beginning of a setup, and then she was not allowed to talk to the DP until we're ready to role, so go rehearse with your actors(the lead btw she replaced the DAY BEFORE). then she would come as me about doing some particular shot or other, i would tell her it's simply not possible. so she would go to the AD, and the AD would tell her it's not possible, and she would just not trust that we knew what the heck we were doing and instead would just ask whichever of us she though would give her the answer she wanted.


ranting takes too long... and it's lunch time.
cheerios
 
"The getterdoners"... : )

I like this phrase, as it points quite tactfully, gently even, to the dark side of...well...the many, many folks who staunchly advocate the 'don't bother with all that time-wasting training-and-knowledge stuff' approach.

And true to your observation, one of the commonest casualties of that (among many) is sound. One of the easiest ways there is to ensure a rank-amateur-flagged result.
 
^
Nice post...

Is there any other way to get through 4 weeks of 16 hour days though?

From the moment I walk on to set, all I can think of is 'lets get this done'.

I'm so dang exhausted when I wake up every day on set that the only way for me to stay focused and creative for all those hours is to be in 'getherdone' mode.

As for script, no matter who wrote it, there still has to be a director's treatment and in the end everything does rest on the Director's shoulders because its his/her name the critics use when they dish out their expert advice on film making.

I hardly ever read a review where Uwe Boll's DP get's the roasting, or his sound guy for that matter...

Teamwork certainly makes the dream work but the buck has to stop somewhere and when it comes to sales, it's the Director who gets the knock.

Crap actors just blame their fail on 'bad direction'.
Same with other technical departments. Crap movie? "Damn director was an idiot".
 
Crap actors just blame their fail on 'bad direction'.
Same with other technical departments. Crap movie? "Damn director was an idiot".

It comes back to 'em when audiences see it though. Actors (and shooters, and most everyone else) tend to get all the blame for 'their' bad work...even if it was actually a particularly insidiously clueless director's fault...

Or not... : )
 
But the art in cinema in general is ALL about the execution. Anyone can say they "have a vision" and then with enough money, hire the best cinematographer, editor, and composer and create a pretty good film.

For example, if you have a "vision" for a painting, but hire a painter and just "direct" him (basically just tell him what you like as he's painting it) would you get credit for the painting in the end?

yes. prominent artists have worked that way for centuries, and still do today. while there are certainly many who will sit in a small studio by themselves, works of larger scale (or higher output) may never have been physically touched by the artist who's name is on it.
 
Sheesh, do you think Frank Lloyd Wright hammered every nail and sawed every log in every house that bears his name?
 
Last edited:
" If you've got a photographic eye, then you could easily learn the technical aspects of cinematography within 4-6 months, vs 10 years in yesterday's world without the internet. "

No, you can't, not even close.

You also can't magically acquire the ears of a trained sound man that can hear the HVAC unit kick on half a block away.
You can't acquire the talented and skilled eye of an art director that can transform the same barely furnished room into CIA headquarters or a room in an Indian Brothel.
You can't acquire the skills of a trained makeup artist that can make the same woman look like trailer trash or the queen of England.
etc...
etc...
etc...

You aren't "taking credit for their work". They are listed in the credits. You are providing the "vision", the "direction". The cinematographer doesn't pick the shots, YOU pick the shots. He "just" executes them.

amen to that. i think this accounts for a great deal of the reaction against the trend of using cheap equipment and dismissing certain standards or practices. there is certainly a lot of "bloat" in many conventional working processes, but when you know how to do a job properly it's extremely frustrating to have someone without insight or experience ask you to reinvent the wheel.
 
the thing that bothers me, and the distinction that needs to be made, is in the attitude of the writer/director, of which i think we can make two groups: those who are passionate and attentive, vs those who are on a film 'high' and want to get something 'done'

There are directors and director-impersonators. The latter care most about where their directors chair - with their name in big letters printed on it - stands.

The job is to make a story move, make it real, make it sing, make it ring, bring it to live, give it the appropriate highs and lows so it becomes a trip through a dramatic landscape. This is directing: Try to get "The Flock" to move into the direction you want, circling them like a border collie, sometimes barking, never biting, always watching.

And as a really good border collie, you should know a lot about sheep. But you don't need to be one... ;-)
 
There are directors and director-impersonators. The latter care most about where their directors chair - with their name in big letters printed on it - stands.

The job is to make a story move, make it real, make it sing, make it ring, bring it to live, give it the appropriate highs and lows so it becomes a trip through a dramatic landscape. This is directing: Try to get "The Flock" to move into the direction you want, circling them like a border collie, sometimes barking, never biting, always watching.

And as a really good border collie, you should know a lot about sheep. But you don't need to be one... ;-)

I think the awesomeness of this post has exceeded my awesomeness receptacle daily limit receptacle thingie.
Awesome.
 
I wanted to say something that started with 'awesome' and ended in 'gasm' but was overwhelmed by the awesome awesomeness of his post.
 
I think the director impersonator is gets more work than real directors so I think most of us should model ourselves after them.

I think that without bad work, we wouldn't truly appreciate good work if all films were awesome.

Kudos to bad film makers!

If you want to get far in the industry. Fake it to you make it!
 
Kudos to bad film makers!

If you want to get far in the industry. Fake it to you make it!

Not really. Like other things also talent is spread according to "Gaussian normal distribution".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution

Applies as follows also to the "in-the-industry-surviving": Few really good ones, few really bad ones but more who are neither really bad in the job but also not that good.

And there is absolutely nothing anybody can do about that. Apart from trying as hard as one can to achieve as much excellence as possible. Every morning Sisyphus awakes, grabs his stone and shouts "rolling".... ;-)

Btw.: Happy Holiday to all.
 
You need a spectacular, creative Cinematographer to come up with a vision through the lens you would never have thought of, scene by scene, perspective by perspective.

See... this just where I'm really adamant about my philosophy. If the cinematographer is coming up with better shots than you... I just don't think you should be in the director chair because then it's almost admitting that you have a weak/no vision. I feel the director should be someone who has already watched the movie edited and scored in their head. I haven't done anything major, but on the projects I've done, I've always seen the shots and heard the music cues as I was writing/reading the script or outline. That's why I still don't understand story boards... well, I do, but I just don't know why someone with a "vision" would need them. ...well besides for delegating to people efficiently, or for second unit pick-up shots or something. When I read/write something... I see the shots, music, angles, bla bla bla, composed already... then it's just a matter of going and getting them. Then I "align them" in Final Cut or something. (I say "align" because the movie has already been edited upon reading/writing the script) Then I'll just go into Reason and find the chords or strings that I heard while watching "the vision" in my brain.

This is how I thought all movies were made. I always thought that the director was someone who LITERALLY had a vision... and (if the technology existed) you could hook up a tube to their brain and suck out an complete film... edited, scored, colored, and ready for distribution. After living in LA for a year, I've just become frustrated because I'm seeing that, more often than not, this isn't the case. I've DP'ed for a few directors who say things like "well I want it to look really cinematic!!!" or "...I want it to look really professional!!!" ... like it's some great idea they just came up with and nobody has ever thought to make something "cinematic" before. No s**t you want it to look cinematic and professional dumb-ass (slams head). I could tell that these people had absolutely no "vision" and only got to the directors chair by sucking at everything else and probably just tricking producers into thinking they are creative by playing into the "technical and creative people are mutually exclusive" mentality... like, "look how little I know about cameras! I must be a GREAT director!" or "I don't use computers! I'm REALLY creative!!!". I'm thinking this is partially the reason movies must cost so much to make these days. For every director that doesn't know a lick of C4d or Maya... you now need a "effects supervisor" to fill in the gap between the director that pretends like he has a artistic vision (and uses lack of technical knowledge as a crutch for not doing it) and the people that actually do. I think allot of producers are wising up though. I've personally talked to a big-wig from a certain big budget film that rhymes with "smiron sman" that said the effect supervisor basically directed the entire movie and all the "director" on that film did, was show up at the ILM effects screening and say weather he "like it or not". I'm guessing this is why studios are starting to hire people like Andrew Stanton and Gareth Edwards for big films now. They need people who KNOW visuals and not just those directors who spew nonsense like "computers and VFX are evil" "I deal with EMOTIONS, not computers".

Hell, maybe it's just the credit system that I have a problem with. If "director" was just changed to something like "story director" and then "story director, director of photography, and sound director" were all shown simultaneously on the screen at once... then I think it would reflect the current model of production much more fairly. I even want to direct myself, and I would never feel comfortable having my name come before everyone else's unless I truly did all the creative jobs myself and only relied on others for physical tasks and manual labor. I mean most people here are rightfully calling film a "collaborative medium"... so does only ONE person get the credit in the public's eye?

Rant over. Anyways, thanks to everyone who has posted in this thread. I feel there are allot of good counterpoints to my posts. I'm not trying to sound arrogant or anything, I'm just passionate about what I've been thinking/observing over the last few months. That's all. And again... I totally respect and understand all the positions and methodologies of how films are currently produced, so I hope nobody is actually getting personally offended by anything. This thread is really just supposed to be about the future and philosophy of directing/film making. Not about the current practices...

This wise man sums it up better that I can right now...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9WOnRAvdK2s
 
Last edited:
GH2user, did you even conciser that maybe those "quack" directors were telling you that they want it more cinematic or professional because they didn't have the heart to tell you that your work sucks? What if what was going through their head was: man, those shots look like s**t, they are flatly lit with crappy composition and nonexistent camera dynamism, man what a bummer that we hired this guy, next time i really have to insist on proper budget for the DP because i'm fed up with this crappy lever of non-professional DSLR shooter work, good thing this is a short non-budgeter that no one will see... so let me be nice to this guy and say something that maybe, and just maybe will spark his creative juices... "Hey, can we make those shots more professional and cinematic?"

You have six pages of pros working their day job in the business tactfully giving your their advice and you insult their professionalism with this juvenile rant. Directors are to have vision and not to necessary know the differences between PAR and fresnel light. I know some very skilled directors who direct for living with dozens if not hundreds of productions under their belt and yet still each time they touch the camera it almost falls over from the tripod - and that's OK because their job is not to know about the cameras.
 
"That's why I still don't understand story boards... well, I do, but I just don't know why someone with a "vision" would need them. .."

Ummmmm...
First, because you shoot out of order, so you aren't seeing the film created in the same order you have it in your had. Because we are human beings and we forget stuff. Why do pilots use a written checklist to do the inspection on a plane they have inspected 500 times before... because getting distracted for a minute and forgetting something has huge consequences. Finally and most importantly it's a way for everyone to see what I am seeing when I visualize the scene in a way that communicates better than words can.
 
Back
Top