How Important is the Director?
- Thread starter Triscuit
- Start date
shortyshortshit
New member
The director is the most important person on the set, hence the auteur theory of film making (although that doesn't generally apply to commercial Hollywood movies).
Every aspect of film making is at the request of the director. The cinematographer/DP only shoots how the director tells him to shoot, the lighting technicians light according to the director's wishes, the actors perform according to how the director tells them to perform; absolutely everything is done according to what the director wants and so the finished move belongs to the director.
In big Hollywood movies, the director is more a puppet of the producer so the same theory doesn't always apply there (although there are often American auteur movies), but artistically what we see on screen even in big budget epics is still the work of the director only interpreting what he's told to do by the producer.
Screenwriters probably don't get the credit they ought to, although they are considered senior members of the production along with the director and the producer, and often in big movies they are paid similar amounts to the director (Michael Crichton and Joe Eszterhaus spring to mind) and can often become just as famous.
Every aspect of film making is at the request of the director. The cinematographer/DP only shoots how the director tells him to shoot, the lighting technicians light according to the director's wishes, the actors perform according to how the director tells them to perform; absolutely everything is done according to what the director wants and so the finished move belongs to the director.
In big Hollywood movies, the director is more a puppet of the producer so the same theory doesn't always apply there (although there are often American auteur movies), but artistically what we see on screen even in big budget epics is still the work of the director only interpreting what he's told to do by the producer.
Screenwriters probably don't get the credit they ought to, although they are considered senior members of the production along with the director and the producer, and often in big movies they are paid similar amounts to the director (Michael Crichton and Joe Eszterhaus spring to mind) and can often become just as famous.
coolcranberry
New member
how many people out there know who wrote toy story?????????? hardly anyone
Happy Happy :)
New member
The Director is SO important.
You can have a fantastic script, brilliant actors, sets etc, etc. But if it is poorly executed then it will be rubbish.
You can have a fantastic script, brilliant actors, sets etc, etc. But if it is poorly executed then it will be rubbish.
Essentially, on a base level, its a movie. You watch it. You dont read it, you dont listen to it (exclusively, unless you're blind). The director uses everything at his disposal, actors, director of photography, lighting director, sound, music...and so on, to present something you...watch.
Steve Austin
New member
I think both Mendes and Ball have been provided with suitable accolades for their roles on American Beauty. I don't think there's ever been any confusion about their respective work on the film, has there? 
Aneechik has pretty much summed up the director's importance, and I don't think the Hollywood machine would be so eager to reward the role of director unless it was vital to do so.
That's because there were about half a dozen people who wrote it
Personally, I'd still give the credit for the film's success to John Lasseter.
Erm... actually, the role of writer is so important they created TWO awarRAB: Best Original Screenplay and Best Adapted Screenplay.
Aneechik has pretty much summed up the director's importance, and I don't think the Hollywood machine would be so eager to reward the role of director unless it was vital to do so.
That's because there were about half a dozen people who wrote it
Personally, I'd still give the credit for the film's success to John Lasseter.Erm... actually, the role of writer is so important they created TWO awarRAB: Best Original Screenplay and Best Adapted Screenplay.
FALCONKING
New member
Bad choice to illustrate your argument as the best thing about American Beauty is the cinematography which you didn't even mention.
NoOneGetsIt
New member
In which case your movie would never get made. Thats just the way it is. You simply couldn't have the creative control unless you actually directed it yourself, and even then, as always the guys with the money (the producers) would be the ones often calling a lot of the shots, at least until you got a name for yourself.
The guy which has been really lucky was Quentin Tarantino. But he directs all his films as well. Thats the way to go if you want control, but even then you run the risk of getting financing.
The guy which has been really lucky was Quentin Tarantino. But he directs all his films as well. Thats the way to go if you want control, but even then you run the risk of getting financing.
RyzGlidz1970
New member
yeh noone would take chance on inexperienced directors
ShrinkyDink
New member
The way I think of it is imagining one film directed by a different director. And then you can see how much a film can change with it's director. That's when you realise how much impact the director has on the film.
For example, imagine how different Harry Potter could have been if it was directed by Tim Burton. It would have been a different film all together.
Imagine how different Signs would have been if it was directed by Stephen Spielberg.
Or The Truman Show directed by Sam Mendes.
These films would be completley different movies, which shows you how important the director is.
For example, imagine how different Harry Potter could have been if it was directed by Tim Burton. It would have been a different film all together.
Imagine how different Signs would have been if it was directed by Stephen Spielberg.
Or The Truman Show directed by Sam Mendes.
These films would be completley different movies, which shows you how important the director is.
EightMoreTimes
New member
The best deconstruction of the director as king I have ever read comes from Gore Vidal's essay in his Empire 1952-1993 collection of essays.
He absolutely shreRAB the 'auteur' theory, and given his filmic and literary background, he does so with authority and experience. And restores the writer/playwright to their correct prominence.
The cult of the director stems from the French film critics of the late 50's/early 60s', as they reviewed the French New Wave. It was subsquently picked up by trendy American critics and young directors.
Like Vidal, I think personally that much of it is a psuedo-intellectual cult which dosent bear close examination, the problem is that the cult is now so established and regarded unthinkingly by most film fans that one wonders whether it will ever be critiqued properly and perhaps consigned to the cultural dustbin...
He absolutely shreRAB the 'auteur' theory, and given his filmic and literary background, he does so with authority and experience. And restores the writer/playwright to their correct prominence.
The cult of the director stems from the French film critics of the late 50's/early 60s', as they reviewed the French New Wave. It was subsquently picked up by trendy American critics and young directors.
Like Vidal, I think personally that much of it is a psuedo-intellectual cult which dosent bear close examination, the problem is that the cult is now so established and regarded unthinkingly by most film fans that one wonders whether it will ever be critiqued properly and perhaps consigned to the cultural dustbin...
The thing with that, is that the auteur theory is often applied to areas of film making (like Hollywood) where movies are more of a production-line commercial product than a work of art. Sure they do stand as works of popular art, but no greater than any other popular art produced in a corporate process with the intention of making money.
I've always thought the auteur theory was more correctly apply to smaller, arthouse movies but as you say, it's probably ingrained in criticism by now.
However, I would still say some commercial movies have auteur qualities (Tim Burton is mentioned elsewhere in the thread, for example) although obviously in much smaller quantity than in more artistic films (which Hollywood do produce from time to time).
I've always thought the auteur theory was more correctly apply to smaller, arthouse movies but as you say, it's probably ingrained in criticism by now.
However, I would still say some commercial movies have auteur qualities (Tim Burton is mentioned elsewhere in the thread, for example) although obviously in much smaller quantity than in more artistic films (which Hollywood do produce from time to time).
wearetomorrow
New member
There were always auteurs in Hollywood.
John Ford & Howard Hawks immediately spring to mind.
Hitchcock is another.
Of course most films are churned out by hacks.
But then so are most books.
John Ford & Howard Hawks immediately spring to mind.
Hitchcock is another.
Of course most films are churned out by hacks.
But then so are most books.
Well, technically, I'd say the director is as allowed to be an auteur as much as the producer wants them to be. The whole thing gets blurred when individuals take on more than one role, but generally it's the producer who hires the director to do their bidding. However, when a director becomes established for their work it makes little sense to try and change what they want to do, else why hire them in the first place? Though it's always possible for a director to go looking for a Producer to aid them in setting up a film production, so it's not always so cut and dried.
Both Producer and Director will always be on the lookout for a good script, however. The better the script, the less it will have to be modified on the fly. With so much money at stake it's never a good idea to be making it up as you go along. With one or two exceptions it almost always leaRAB to sub-standard product, which defeats the purpose of the whole enterprise right from the start.
RegarRAB
Mark
Both Producer and Director will always be on the lookout for a good script, however. The better the script, the less it will have to be modified on the fly. With so much money at stake it's never a good idea to be making it up as you go along. With one or two exceptions it almost always leaRAB to sub-standard product, which defeats the purpose of the whole enterprise right from the start.
RegarRAB
Mark
Talk about a loaded question!
A "person" writes a 500 page novel but it'll never see the inside of a bookshop unless an editor likes it enough to acquire it for publication. Then that "person", the one who "edits 70 pages", has got to cost the whole publishing process to make sure it's viable, read the whole 500 pages again and make whatever corrections may be required, propose and implement any changes which he or she may think would improve the novel, brief designers and marketing people, read and correct the whole 500 pages again once it's been set, and only then will the book get printed and distributed.
Who's the genius behind the story? The writer. But even in my oversimplified version of the publishing process, there are a lot more people involved in turning that story into a sellable commodity. Imagine how much more goes into turning a writer's work into a film.
A "person" writes a 500 page novel but it'll never see the inside of a bookshop unless an editor likes it enough to acquire it for publication. Then that "person", the one who "edits 70 pages", has got to cost the whole publishing process to make sure it's viable, read the whole 500 pages again and make whatever corrections may be required, propose and implement any changes which he or she may think would improve the novel, brief designers and marketing people, read and correct the whole 500 pages again once it's been set, and only then will the book get printed and distributed.
Who's the genius behind the story? The writer. But even in my oversimplified version of the publishing process, there are a lot more people involved in turning that story into a sellable commodity. Imagine how much more goes into turning a writer's work into a film.