Vision

[jghenderson]

So you're suggesting that the best way to direct is just to dupe others (who are more talented than you) into working on your production and then taking credit at the end? This is, in my eyes, nothing more than exploitation of other artists. It's stealing. The DP and editor should never be "adding" anything to the project... they should be executers of these crafts that lighten the work load when the production gets into larger scales.

Anyways, even if you find a crew that doesn't mind working for you... the idea of a "editor" with vision doesn't even make sense to me. When I go into projects I already see in my head what the edit is going to look like, that's how I know what to shoot, and what performances to get. I don't see how there can be separate "visions" for each department... there is only one movie in the end, one vision. If someone is not seeing the finished product in their head from the start (vision), then they probably shouldn't be directing. I don't even know how it would be possible. How would you know what anything is supposed to look or sound like?

Well the ideal thing is to have very frank and open discussions with your big crew members to get everyone on the same page. Obviously you would never work with a DP or an Editor without extensive discussions on style.

In general, I do agree a film should be the vision of one man. I think the Auteur theory is vital to film as an art form. However, as someone who has worked for an Oscar nominated editor on a big movie, I can assure you that a great editor is not there simply to be a monkey and cut the film exactly as the director wants. Obviously the Director gets final say (in a perfect world), but a good director will take their editor's creative input very seriously.

Also, a piece of advice. Be careful going around saying DP's or Editor's should never "add" anything to the work. If you want to work seriously in the industry, it's very crucial to at least appear to be a supporter of collaboration.

 

[Rolf Silber]

In an ideal world the director is more the strategist and to a lesser extend a tactician. The other departments and artists add their creative input to the strategic concept. The director decides what of this input he finds to be in accordance to his strategic vision. If he or she is wise, he or she knows that the other departements need to have their space to move.

If a director tries to micro-manage everything he is either a second coming of Mozart or Kubrick (then this is probably good) or an ill-advised maniac or a fool (then this is probably not so good).

Problem: The Mozart-part applies to 0,5 to 1% of directors, most of the really good other directors understand that sitting like a constipated badger on a creative concept and demanding that it has to be exactly this way and no other, will more often lead to the creation of a maybe well crafted and designed but in the end empty shell of a film.

Directing has in my experience a lot more to do with having the ability, the guts and the desire to work on an ever changing play- and battle-field, coordinating and bringing in line the different, multi-coloured spirits of creativity and nudge and push them into the frame work of your concept without strangling them to death. This may give you a movie that really is alive.

Having a film in your head is one thing. Then reality sets in. And this is the real fun part, imho.