Route to Directing

T

tleisher

Member
So my dream job and goal in life is to be a Producer/Director (Heavy on the Director). Like Stephen Soderbergh, Ron Howard, Michael Bay, Judd Apatow, etc.

I would love to learn how to light a scene, how cameras work, etc. But given the choice between having to choose between being a Producer or Cinematography, I'd probably choose Producer. If I couldn't direct, I'd love to Produce. Both because it allows me to develop the stories I want to tell, follow the process along the entire endevour, be really creative and have a say in every part of the filmmaking process, and ultimately reap more of the rewards if a film is successful.

With that being said, what is the best career path to take for me? I understand that the best way to be a director is to make shorts and write. But in the mean time, to make money, whats the best for me?

PA -> 2nd 2nd AD -> 2nd AD -> 1st AD -> UPM -> Producer (and then Produce a film and set me up as Director)

or

Camera PA -> 2nd AC -> 1st AC -> Operator/DP -> Director

There's been a lot of directors that have come from being a Cinematography.. and I've done a little research to find that some DPs on TV shows have directed a few episodes.

The real question is, what do I do for money before becoming a director that will best prepare me for the job once I get there? As they say, Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity, so I want to be as prepared as possible.

I'm a very technical and organized guy, I have worked as a 2nd AD and 1st AD on some shorts and stuff but I really only did that because it was the only job available on those projects and I just wanted to get my foot in the door.. that plus I was coming from a PA background, and I had worked in the AD department for pretty much any industry job I had. But that hasn't stopped me from being a tech geek and drooling over new cameras or being interested in how things are photographed.

From my understanding, the career ladders look like this:
Camera ACs / Camera PAs move on to be Cinematographers.
ADs / Set PAs move on to be Producers (1st AD -> UPM -> Producer)

Is that true, or is there more to it then that? Do ADs often move on to being UPMs and then Producing their own films? I understand that this might seem like a loaded question, but hopefully I can get some good info from you guys.. I know that you get the a different answer out of people based on the audience you ask, so most of you will probably say Cinematography.. but I figured why not ask as this is one of the best forums for film makers on the internet.
 
The best route to Director is Writing. Why? because writing is all about the story, the characters, motivations, etc... this is basis for Directing and can be missed by Cinematographers. More Directors come from Writing & Acting than Cinematography because the former deal with the story directly.

Producing: if you're the type that plans parties, baseball teams, group activities and such then you're a natural producer. If not, then you can learn the basics by simply doing stuff like this. You'll learn to make deals, get cooperation and bring people together. Once you feel like you can do it then it's time to get involved with filmmaking. From there you can step into a Assistant Producer position and prove yourself capable and move up the ladder. Producers run the show, they get the film made. Also, producers often know "Story" really well, their career depends upon it.
 
It will all come down to the "Relationships" you make or what you are really passionate about.

Money... Try and find a suga-momma, If not get a gig and shoot on the side.

Cheers
 
The best way to make money during your journey is to find a completely unrelated job, maybe washing dishes. Bartending is a great one if you can work nights. This is because there is no way you'll make a living wage doing any of those things for a long time. That's just how it works.

Get the idea of a career path out of your head. It doesn't work that way in this industry. Well, it kind of does, but it's not like you get promoted. If you can get on set in any capacity, do so as much as possible and build relationships with those people. This will help you network and will help you learn how things work. Practice with short making whenever possible to also help teach yourself. Knowing what your doing is pretty important.

Eventually, you might get picked by someone to do a higher level job if you keep applying for it, such as being a 2nd AC, and I recommend trying. That's an excellent job in its own right on large sets. But if you want to make films of your own, you aren't going to get hired on one of those large sets most likely. They have plenty of proven directors to work with. If you pen a script and someone falls in love with it that changes things a bit, gives you some more leverage. But still, don't expect miracles. The best way to start being a producer, as you already know, is to produce. This doesn't just mean funding your own work once you get good at it. There are ways to convince investors to invest in your movie that you need to make. If you bring them money back, there's a good chance they'll talk to you next time. If you have something to show for yourself you might be able to get hired elsewhere.

Actually, now that I think about it, I lied about the other job you should get. Skip dishwashing. Bartending maybe because you get to meet a lot of people, but go for sales if you want to produce. Learn to sell and market above all else, then you can sell yourself, your movie, your business plan to investors and start making things. That's my main recomendation... but the most important part to keep in mind is that you are not going to get hired to shoot a blockbuster, and if a studio has a sudden opening their PA pool is not the first place to look unless your constant networking has helped make you known.

There's another important consideration, since you're talking about careers. If you know that pursuing film production will mean being barely able to pay for your studio apartment in ten years, with a few luxeries coming from your other jobs, would you still do it?
 
I think the best way to become a director is to become great at directing.

I'm a strong believer that the "career path" thing will work itself out if you put everything you have into becoming a great director. Work for a while and then make your film. Repeat.

I'll let you know if it works for me in about 20 years.
 
I little while back I did dug around the backgrounds of a lot of different directors and how they got started. Spielberg, Scorsese, Lucas, Aronofsky, Zemeckis, Hitchcock, Nolan, Fincher, Jackson, Cameron, ect... and what I found was that no two are alike.

For example, Cameron was a Physics major, dropped out to do art direction on low budget films and drive a truck, then wrote the Terminator and did it on a very low budget.
Contrast that to say Spielberg that got a TV deal off a short film (Amblin'), or Nolan that filmed a feature on weekends for over a year and then used that film to fund Memento, or James Wan wrote Saw and made a single scene using all of his own money which he showed to investors to get funding.

Now, that said, (almost) every now famous director worked on very low budgets and made an excellent film above what most people ever do on large budgets. Spielberg - Duel, Nolan - Memento, Scorsese - Mean Streets, Raimi - Evil Dead, Richie - Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, Lucas - American Graffiti, ect...
Which is to say, if you're truely talented you can transcend a low budget film into something much more. And All of the above also either wrote the script, or at least did an overhauled on the story to make it suit them better.

Or it seems if you direct part of the "Alien" franchise you're guarenteed to produce hits. (Ridley Scott, James Cameron, David Fincher, Jean-Pierre Jeunet)
 
Last edited:
tleisher said:
So my dream job and goal in life is to be a Producer/Director (Heavy on the Director). Like Stephen Soderbergh, Ron Howard, Michael Bay, Judd Apatow, etc.
...
Click to expand...

Option a script. Figure out a budget. Set up a company for the production.
Get the paperwork together. Offer investors their original investment back plus thirty percent and first position. Anything left after that offer them a fifty/fifty split with you.

Direct the movie. Bingo, you're a director. Oh and you're now a credible producer as well with a feature under your belt. Welcome to Hollywood!
 
craigbowman said:
Option a script. Figure out a budget. Set up a company for the production.
Get the paperwork together. Offer investors their original investment back plus thirty percent and first position. Anything left after that offer them a fifty/fifty split with you.

Direct the movie. Bingo, you're a director. Oh and you're now a credible producer as well with a feature under your belt. Welcome to Hollywood!
Click to expand...

Oh my god, it's so easy.
 
A friend recently said something to me that I find completely true and helpful.

It depends on what you as a Director need work on, if you lack leadership and want to learn more about that coming up as an AD is a great way to learn those skills. If you lack the composition and technical skills, coming up as a DP would be a great way to work on those skills.
 
Gohanto said:
...if you're truely talented you can transcend a low budget film into something much more.
Click to expand...

Contrary to rampantly common misconceptions about success in Hollywood, this is very true. Hollywood, like all of the arts, is far, far more of a meritocracy than is generally understood. Sure they produce stinkers (Gigli) and overlook great work (Slumdog Millionaire was idiotically dropped by Warner Independent before Searchlight picked it up), but people everywhere make mistakes, right?

And All of the above also either wrote the script, or at least did an overhauled on the story to make it suit them better.
Click to expand...

"Writing Is King" in all arts that use language. You can take that to the bank...
 
Hmm

Hmm

Yeah everyone has their own path, but I've never thought it makes any sense or is a good path whatsoever to think that somehow you can work your way up and get promoted to better and better positions. I rarely see that happening. Nobody is going to make you a director because you are a good grip, for instance. Being a good grip gets you more jobs as a grip. I don't hire anyone without experience doing what I'm hiring them to do, and usually a good amount of experience. And I don't even pay THAT well, but I can still find experienced people (a few years anyway doing a number of gigs) to fill each position. I'm most lenient on grips, and most stringent on DPs, because I'm no DP myself and need someone very experienced to pull off the professional look I want. I'm also willing to pay and am demanding about my sound guy -- sound is extremely important and too often underrated or overlooked.

As for the path to becoming a director-producer, I would have to agree writing is a big way in if you can write well. It's obviously something that takes an extreme amount of work. I am probably quite some time from writing a truly great script, but I also come from a background as a professional freelance writer, I've published several books, and I've taken screenwriting classes, so I've gotten a lot of writing out of the way and learned a lot about sort of the work ethic of writing. Sure, my non-fiction book writing skills aren't really used for the most part in writing a screenplay, but the writing confidence and adherence to set standards and rules absolutely is. I know I can finish what I start, I know how to write effectively over long periods of time, whether that's in a day or over many months. I know how to go about learning what I need to know to write in new forms and new ways. Then the classes I took in screen writing, one primarily that was very useful, helped me a lot in developing the basics, plus a lot of classes on storytelling and philosophy, religion, politics, etc. give me a good basis for human dilemmas and issues. When you take all of that and put it together, it becomes more a matter of learning the flow of a screenplay, what works, what doesn't, what sounds bad, what doesn't quite work even though it looks ok on the page, etc. I think it just takes many years of experience to get there. I'm hoping to write my first feature screenplay this summer... I've started it now, and have a good outline that needs more development. But I'm excited.

And as for how to make money in the meantime, I would probably also recommend some outside-the-industry career to get more money together for financing your own projects, starting with shorts, then moving to a feature film later. I personally am doing corporate video work and have a company setup (just hired a sales agent) to make money doing work for companies' marketing efforts, possibly commercials, etc. So I'm trying to go all-out in the video market and hopefully the more "boring" stuff (I still enjoy it) will help me fund my other ventures.
 
10s said:
The best route to Director is Writing. Why? because writing is all about the story, the characters, motivations, etc... this is basis for Directing and can be missed by Cinematographers. More Directors come from Writing & Acting than Cinematography because the former deal with the story directly.
Click to expand...

JonathanLB said:
Yeah everyone has their own path, but I've never thought it makes any sense or is a good path whatsoever to think that somehow you can work your way up and get promoted to better and better positions. I rarely see that happening. Nobody is going to make you a director because you are a good grip, for instance. Being a good grip gets you more jobs as a grip.
Click to expand...


i agree with both of these statements 100%. i mean, it can't hurt to be an AD on some projects and can only help if say you were AD on some well known released film....but it's still a hit or miss at the end of the day. everybody's got their own route, but it seems like you'll be wasting more time on somebody else's set doing their project than your own.

i'd hire someone as a director that has a better understanding of story structure, character develppment, actors/acting and working with people before i'd hire a person who is solely focused or comes from a technical/DP background.

you can have all the pretty angles and lighting you want but if the story sucks then it's all for nothing.
 
Mickey Munday said:
i agree with both of these statements 100%. i mean, it can't hurt to be an AD on some projects and can only help if say you were AD on some well known released film....but it's still a hit or miss at the end of the day. everybody's got their own route, but it seems like you'll be wasting more time on somebody else's set doing their project than your own.

i'd hire someone as a director that has a better understanding of story structure, character develppment, actors/acting and working with people before i'd hire a person who is solely focused or comes from a technical/DP background.

you can have all the pretty angles and lighting you want but if the story sucks then it's all for nothing.
Click to expand...

That's such a good point... it's always cliche to say "story, story, story," but it's still true. I was thinking about this, how I really want to put some serious money into an extremely technically proficient, stylish short film, because I just did a comedy that was more about purely the writing and acting than anything (though we have gotten a Best Cinematography nomination already, haha). I feel like I want to do something with more style and visual flair, like I've done with music videos. Then, of course, I was sitting there thinking about it, realizing who cares if it looks amazing if the plot sucks? When it comes down to it, it still has to be very, very well written with a clever, interesting, original plot and very good, strong, professional acting before any of those other bells and whistles even matter at all. Otherwise, I have an expensive turd that looks nice but basically sucks.
 
If you really want to become good at directing (or anything else) you have to burn all bridges and really devote ypur life to filmmaking - with the possibility of failure
 
Per-Aage Braun said:
If you really want to become good at directing (or anything else) you have to burn all bridges and really devote ypur life to filmmaking - with the possibility of failure
Click to expand...


This is correct...except I don't know what you mean by "burning bridges". You actually shouldn't do that- you should find people you love to work with and vice versa, and throw yourself into it with them.

To me, directing a film you have complete creative control over is one of the most serious jobs on the planet. It's like being President. You have such an important position and have the privelage of being able to give something important to the world in art- someting no one has ever seen or thought before because it's your ideas, your methods, your feelings.

That's why, for me, a good story or good characters isn't enough. You have to SAY something through your writing and directing techniques. Say something like a poet says something- and really mean it. Believe in it. You have to have the courage to tell your case and crew what you want and put yourself up there, naked on the screen. That's why silly gangster movies with guns and explosions is fine when you make fun little movies in high school. But if you're serious about film directing, you eventually have to take it much more seriously...filmmaking as a specific, unique art form with unique possibilities.

Bottom line is, for directing, you're on your own. You have to start from scratch with what you have and build the foundation. You have to let nothing stop you.
 
and boy do you have to have thick skin (acting, directing or whatever) because it's all good when your friends tell you what you want to hear, but when you're work is done and it's out there then you find out what the general public (your real target audience) thinks and feels about all your hard work and visions. people don't hold back their thoughts when they're talking amongst themselves or the film you directed is the topic of some thread on a dozen other forums. In order to succeed, your desire for success should be greater than your fear of failure.
 
I also want to get into directing. My background comes from editing, but I've recently gotten into writing and despite how difficult it was writing the first draft of my screenplay, I enjoyed it immensely.

I was also thinking of producing, but I'm not great with business decisions. My eventual goal is to be a writer/director/editor like Kevin Smith, but I know I won't be able to get a directing gig till after the 2nd or 3rd movie I write.
 
Sad Max said:
I'm curious as to what you are basing this upon.
Click to expand...

(Re: my comment that all the arts are fundamentally more like meritocracies than is generally believed)

Finally getting back to this question after a few weeks in DVXUser-blocked purgatory (their hosting change inadvertently "whitelisted" me...or something). Anyway...

My view on this is based on my lifelong career in the arts - first as a graphic artist, then as a music recording engineer, mainly for pop albums and movie scores, and more recently as an actor, screenwriter, director, etc. To date, I've spent over three decades doing the music part professionally. So, from my viewpoint:

The "success process" if you will, is the pretty much the same in the music business as the movie business. So is the "failure process", which is approximately 100 times more frequent. Over the years I've seen a few dozen huge successes develop from obscurity, and the statistically corresponding several thousand aspirants whose names you won't recognize, and almost certainly never will.

Some of the obscurity-to-success stories I've been along for at least some part of the ride on:

Music:
Lady Gaga
John Mellencamp
Meat Loaf
Hall & Oates
Marc Cohn
Chris Botti (million selling jazz CD)
Shawn Colvin (three Grammies)

Movies:
Baghdad Cafe (Oscar nominated)
Metropolitan (Oscar nominated)
Barcelona
American Splendor (Oscar nominated)
Sound And Fury (Oscar nominated Doc)

...and a few others I'm forgetting right now.

My perspective on all the above, before they became successful, was that they were clear standouts artistically. *Crystal clear*. It's also my clear recollection that this was well recognized and understood by the professionals around them, both in their own creative teams, and on the part of the industry types who signed and bankrolled them. As for the other 99%, well, many are very gifted, no doubt. It's far from a perfect science, for sure. And, some of people on the above lists failed to sustain success over the longer run. But again and again what I've seen is overwhelmingly a case of the right people being offered the industry backing for success, and the wrong ones not.

It's endlessly fascinating to me though, to note that the 1% who stood out (to me, and obviously, others who mattered) almost never know they're "the ones" beforehand. And the other 99% are almost every bit as likely to think themselves deserving of success (or not) as the ones who ultimately succeed are, and I think this points to the heart of the perception problem:

Almost all the aspiring artists I've worked with, regardless of the massive differences in their abilities as perceived by knowledgeable industry insiders (like me, if I may be excused for saying so), *believe with all their heart that they are worthy of great success*. So, in effect, 99% of aspiring artists are unable to accurately gauge their own (lack of) ability, or "chances" if you will. Furthermore, where the other side of the perception coin is concerned (the insecure, "what if I never make it" side), the ones who actually do have "the right stuff" are generally just as unsure of it as the ones who don't. So, to put it mildly, accurate self-perception is very elusive where all that's concerned.

Yet, very disproportionately, the right calls are made by the money guys. That's their job. They get fired or go broke if they get it wrong often enough, so they have to be pretty darn good at it to even get in the game. So, mostly, they are.

Are big mistakes made? Of course. Lots of them. Are deserving artists unfairly denied their shot? Absolutely. But, to sum my point up, the 1% who do deserve their shot get it *far* more often than the 99% who don't. I'd say that would be about 75% of the time, which still leaves about a 25% error rate, but hey - pre-evaluating art is a *really* tough game.

That, by my definition, is a meritocracy. Not a perfect one of course, but you know, art ain't weight lifting...
 
Last edited:
Ted Spencer said:
Almost all the aspiring artists I've worked with, regardless of the massive differences in their abilities as perceived by knowledgeable industry insiders (like me, if I may be excused for saying so), *believe with all their heart that they are worthy of great success*. So, in effect, 99% of aspiring artists are unable to accurately gauge their own (lack of) ability, or "chances" if you will.
Click to expand...


On that happy note I offer this (I don't think I've seen this clip mentioned on this site... but who knows...)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUyKpfbB9M8


For those who don't want to sully themselves in youtube... and I'm still wondering if this is some sort of spoof... but if it is 'real', the salient points for this discussion are; the young woman is a hairdresser whose friends, to her report, all think she has 'talent'... well, for those who don't want to kick their ears out of calibration... Only Joe Cocker could get away with singing that badly... after her performance, and scathing review... she seems to be totally astonished that the panel did not 'see' her talent... (I think the woman who purportely plays the kazoo with... well... her 'female' equipment, would be more 'talented', or at least entertaining... but I digress...)

One does have to wonder what kind of friends this person has, who think, if she is correct, she's 'good'...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top