significance of co-directing credit?

S

SeanP

Member
specifically with music videos, i'm wondering what the significance of a co-director credit is when there is a also a credited director. what exactly is the relationship between the director and co-director-- who is boss, and how much influence is a co-director generally allowed? if you co-direct on a video can it be used in your 'director's reel'? i'm sure a lot of these answers are pretty elastic, but im pretty new to all this and it doesnt seem very clear.

i ask because i've been collaborating with some musicians working on building up my directing and cinematography reel, which currently is non-existent. i'm a photographer and own a 5d and some other gear so i've agreed to some projects that i won't be getting paid much for, if anything, but will hopefully be a mutually beneficial agreement where i get to direct, shoot, and edit some videos for my reel and they get a nice looking video for close to nothing.

my concern is that someone right out of school wants to jump on board with me as a co-director, but i don't think they will be bringing anything to the table as far as gear or any resources other then creative ones. of course, on something with a budget this could be extremely valuable, however this is a no-budget music video where its mostly performance-based (and generally visual) and the only thing i hope to show for it is a credit.

i hope my concern doesn't sound petty, but if i'm devoting thousands in gear and several days of my time i don't want my credit being diluted unless it's in my best interest. any feedback appreciated, thanks
 
Co-director can be a vague title - could be anything from an assistant, to someone who gave advice, to someone who just directed a couple of shots, or even a second unit director. In all cases though, the director is in charge.

So earning a co-director credit is better than nothing, but be prepared to explain and back up exactly what you actually did.
 
There are only TWO co-directors or ONE director....otherwise there are some shenanigans afoot.
 
thanks for the responses, they both make sense but are obviously contradictory-- can some others chime in with their take on this?

yrpfilms, i wish i had some examples but i know i've seen several instances where there is a director credit and a single co-director credit. for instance, slumdog millionaire: if you're on the movie page on imdb both are listed under director, however on loveleen tandan's page (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0849164/) she is listed as co-director in parenthesis, while danny boyle is listed as director, no prefix. this isn't the most straightforward example but all i can think of at the moment. what do you think?
 
Loveleen was Casting Director (India) and is also credited as Director (India). If you check out the Slumdog credits, she also shares casting Director credit with another person.

Essentially, she will have been there on the India sections of the shoot and acted as fixer/co-ordinator. Slumdog is Danny Boyle's movie. The reality is there'll be politics involved here and she'll have been integral to some parts of the production.

Didn't Danny Boyle win the Best Director Oscar for Slumdog?

If you're looking for co-directors, what about the Coen brothers (Ethan & Joel)? They really do co-direct.

Reality is - if you're looking to expand your own Director's reel, you need to Direct it yourself - it has to be your vision. If you're DP'ing - your job is to realise the creative vision of the Director and get as much of what he wants on screen. If you're Directing & DP'ing (which is rare on large scale pro shoots), it's all your call... but dividing your time between the talent and normal directing duties (the buck for all choices on set & off falls on your shoulders) and the DP role (looking after camera dept, lighting & grips etc) is a lot to take on.

Co-directing without much experience (your skills are in stills & the Film School (?) guy is fresh out of education sounds like a recipe for disaster (IMO) - you'll both have contradictory views on set and shoot/edit could be hellish if you have a disagreement that carries on.

Who owns the footage? You'll both have copies - what if he makes a new/different cut that the band likes more? Or, what if you make a cut and show it to the band because you don't like the direction your 'joint' edit is taking?

It's a minefield. Low/No budget direction will be stressful enough... it's great for experience - but you need it to be the right experience for you both and the band.

Just to throw an idea out there - why not make two versions or do two promos at once. Keep them simple and you DP one & direct the other & then switch over roles (so you'd DP his)? Might be a win for you - a win for him & a win for the band as they'll get a second promo.

Hope that helps & throws some ideas your way.
 
I think a TRUE collaboration between two Co-Directors is a really special and uncommon thing. Like seeing a unicorn.
 
you're concerns are all a little off I think... I personally have issues with people who are getting into video just because they are a photographer and their camera shoots video, so why not start making them? I mean that's besides the fact really but think of what your feeling would be if bands that paid you to shoot pics for them started giving the jobs to directors who started taking pics cause they're DSLR takes good pictures as well... anyway that's a whole other conversation.

If someone wants to come on as co-director and is bringing nothing but creative input then they're on the right track, because usually thats what directors bring to the table. The one man band is a development of inexpensive equipment and now anyone who drops $500 on a camera considers themselves a director, and a cinematographer, and an editor, etc... Now there are people who does this brilliantly, and I'm not knocking all who do, I have to do it myself on some gigs, but its the people who are flooding the market with mediocrity that irk me. Anyway again off on my disgruntled tangent!

The bottom line is if you want to be judged on the work standing alone, good or bad, taking the credit, then say no to the guy. If you don't mind sharing the credit, good or bad, say yes. If you don't know what a director does and it's just a credit to you at this point, and I highly recommend this to all photographers venturing into video, volunteer yourself as a DOP for some directors. If you're a good photographer chances are you're a good DOP. Get on set, with a couple different directors, see how they create, see their decisions, figure out if you'd make the same or do it differently, see how they interact with talent. Then start creating some content yourself as a director.

If you just plan on shooting pretty footage for a directors reel you're barking up the wrong tree... A directors reel should showcase a directors ideas, creativity, command of mood, pace, style, and the performances he's able to coax from the talent. Pretty picture reels are for DOPs.

Not trying to sound harsh, and not trying to dissuade you from directing, but as a director you should know what you want, that's the number one thing. And if you're not sure before filming has even begun then you're headed for an uphill battle.

BUT If you do know what you want, why do you need a co-director? Answer: You don't!

Good luck man, let us know what you decide to do!
 
Last edited:
hey sean,

much is of this is off topic as you point out but i'll address some of the things you said. i can understand your issues with photographers shooting video simply because they have a camera that shoots decent video, similar to issues i have with people buying dslr's, putting up a flickr account and claiming to be "photographers'. that being said, i never indicated the former was my underlying reason for getting into video. while i went to school for photography and not film, my interest in film/motion picture is a big part of my life and several of my friends did go to school for film and work in the industry (some to more of an extent then others), so it's not coming out of thin air.

you asked "what your feeling would be if bands that paid you to shoot pics for them started giving the jobs to directors who started taking pics cause they're DSLR takes good pictures as well" I say, let them try! I don't feel the value I can bring to my clients has much to do with the camera i shoot with and i would hope they don't either. if a particular director could compete on the things that a professional photographer is actually getting payed for like creative vision, style, consistency, and reliability, among a bunch of other things, then so be it. and i'm not too worried about this because i'm quite sure you make more a director then a photographer in just about every market.

you mention "The one man band is a development of inexpensive equipment and now anyone who drops $500 on a camera considers themselves a director, and a cinematographer, and an editor, etc...". This is true, but when you're talking about something this low budget isn't the traditional definition of a 'director' kind of thrown out the window? considering these videos will have little to no budget they are basically just going to be visually-driven. hopefully good locations, good performance, maybe some very simple story, but otherwise just nice looking shots. i agree on you dp recommendation, and my interest in film/video is much more related to being a DP, but in the kind of shoot i'll be doing, what is left to actually 'direct'? i guess i just feel like these will be so simple there's not going to be enough creative work to go around. maybe i'm wrong.

anyways, you make some good point and i appreciate the response. definitely not too harsh, but i did want to clarify where i'm coming from more. it's not that i want to be a 'director' necessarily, i'm more concerned that what i do gives me the best chance at getting some paid work doing more videos in the low to mid market going forward. nothing has been decided on yet but the project should get underway within the next month
 
SeanP said:
madmonkfish, thanks for the advice very helpful
Click to expand...

No problem - sounds like you're moving forwards now (from your last post) so I'm sure everyone's thoughts/feedback (etc) have given you something to chew on. Hope the shoot goes well... break a leg (as our Thespian friends say!).
 
SeanP said:
hey sean,

much is of this is off topic as you point out but i'll address some of the things you said. i can understand your issues with photographers shooting video simply because they have a camera that shoots decent video, similar to issues i have with people buying dslr's, putting up a flickr account and claiming to be "photographers'. that being said, i never indicated the former was my underlying reason for getting into video. while i went to school for photography and not film, my interest in film/motion picture is a big part of my life and several of my friends did go to school for film and work in the industry (some to more of an extent then others), so it's not coming out of thin air.

you asked "what your feeling would be if bands that paid you to shoot pics for them started giving the jobs to directors who started taking pics cause they're DSLR takes good pictures as well" I say, let them try! I don't feel the value I can bring to my clients has much to do with the camera i shoot with and i would hope they don't either. if a particular director could compete on the things that a professional photographer is actually getting payed for like creative vision, style, consistency, and reliability, among a bunch of other things, then so be it. and i'm not too worried about this because i'm quite sure you make more a director then a photographer in just about every market.

you mention "The one man band is a development of inexpensive equipment and now anyone who drops $500 on a camera considers themselves a director, and a cinematographer, and an editor, etc...". This is true, but when you're talking about something this low budget isn't the traditional definition of a 'director' kind of thrown out the window? considering these videos will have little to no budget they are basically just going to be visually-driven. hopefully good locations, good performance, maybe some very simple story, but otherwise just nice looking shots. i agree on you dp recommendation, and my interest in film/video is much more related to being a DP, but in the kind of shoot i'll be doing, what is left to actually 'direct'? i guess i just feel like these will be so simple there's not going to be enough creative work to go around. maybe i'm wrong.

anyways, you make some good point and i appreciate the response. definitely not too harsh, but i did want to clarify where i'm coming from more. it's not that i want to be a 'director' necessarily, i'm more concerned that what i do gives me the best chance at getting some paid work doing more videos in the low to mid market going forward. nothing has been decided on yet but the project should get underway within the next month
Click to expand...

Sorry I went on such a tangent in my response, and the issues I raised were in no means aimed at you or meant to discourage. It's all part of a larger systemic dumbing down of the art industry to allow consumers to "be a graphic designer/photographer/director" etc... my problem lies with those who don't/can't differentiate the quality between pro and hobbyist, but again I'm off topic.

As far as your project goes... even in the simplest projects direction is key. Knowing what you want to accomplish and how to get there is the directors job, and if you're a good director the place you're going is somewhere people haven't been time and time again, or at least you're taking a new route to get there. You're confusing your role as DP with director I think. When you say "basically just going to be visually-driven. hopefully good locations, good performance, maybe some very simple story, but otherwise just nice looking shots" that's you directing yourself as DP, so if there's nothing left to direct it's because you have already done it, and thusly don't need a codirector.

As far as paid work, as a director doing two music videos in a month is a ton of work, doing 3 or 4 as a DP is fairly manageable... mo projects mo money!
 
If you don't think the other guy brings anything to the table then why are you even considering allowing him on your projects?

As others have said, if you want to build a reel of your work, then you need to do it. That doesn't mean you have to DP and direct everything on your reel, but you need to be clear (to yourself and on your reel) what your role is on each project.

There are dictionaries for what a director's role technically is and such things are good to know, but the truth is that when it comes down to zero budget productions, you kind of have to define your own role. You're giving your time to someone else, make sure you get out of it what you want as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top