Ask anyone to name their favourite directors and many people could reel off at least one or two names, probably including Steven Spielberg, Oliver Stone or even Michael Bay. In the world of movie-making, the director is the key and quite rightly so. The director is responsible for the overall vision of the movie. The director puts together the movie, giving literal direction and taking full responsibility most of the time for the final product.
What is strange is that there is at least another key ingredient to the whole movie-making process which often gets overlooked. Ask anyone who their favourite screenwriter is and they may struggle to even name one, let alone have an actual favourite. This seems strange to me though. The screenwriter is the person who produced the script which inspires the movie. It is the initial, original text of which the whole movie begins and is built upon.
A little experiment. Ask somebody in the street who directed these and you could assume that most would get at least two, maybe three as an average. Some would even get all five.
If I actually gave you the names of the screenwriters who wrote the scripts for these movies, I assume most would get it wrong or at least their correct answers would be guesses. During the course of the review, the hierarchy was also presented to the factual committee as well as a number of non-Committee members for comment and advice.
The first stage of this process was to identify all of the elements of the role of principal director. Despite being mentioned in copyright law, there is surprisingly no legal definition of what a principal director does. The Committee drew upon their experiences and laid out a three stage process of what a principal director would be expected to do on a programme.
The definition covers the pre-production, shooting and post-production stages of directing see above. As the role of series director can vary from programme to programme, a separate definition was created to help indicate when a series director should be deemed to be the principal director. The Committee then identified and analysed the different types of director credit currently being used by production companies and ranked them in relation to the definition of a principal director.
They reviewed over 35 different types of director credit before deciding upon the final two tiered system above. This system identifies tier 1 directors as those director credits that could reasonably be expected to fulfil most or all of the role of principal director. Tier 2 directors, meanwhile, are those that will only have fulfilled part of the role of principal director. The hierarchy came into effect on the 1 July and applies to new works transmitted after this date.
Members will need to ensure that their credits on their works transmitted after this date use the following rules. If a tier 1 director is credited then they shall be deemed to be the principal director. If more than one tier 1 director is credited then they shall all evenly share the credits on our database and any payments due to the work. Nobody ever says, "Hey, let's go see a collective work of art made by a group of talented creative professionals.
But let's talk for a moment about what directors actually do in the filmmaking process. In the most basic sense, the director is a creative manager. They work with department heads in order to create a unified vision throughout all of the various facets of filmmaking. So in that sense, the director is the glue that holds everything together. As such, it stands to reason that they deserve some serious credit for being the driving force behind the film's vision.
There's no doubt in my mind that directors serve an absolutely essential function on a film set. Perhaps even the most essential function although there's a strong case for producers. Here's the catch. Not all directors manage to the same extent. On one hand, many of them try to micro-manage every single department in an effort to maintain their "artistic vision. The issue here is that, without an in-depth knowledge of the director's involvement in the pre-production, production, and post-production processes, it's impossible to determine the extent to which a director's "personal vision" has actually been translated to the final product that makes it to the screen.
That's not to say that some directors aren't artists in the truest sense of the word, and that some films don't inherently portray the artistic vision of their director. There's no doubt in my mind that auteurs exist, but the notion that every person who directs a film is the sole author of that film strikes me as absurd.
Then there's the issue of whether or not the director actually wrote the script that they're directing. There's a much greater case for directors being considered an auteur when they've also written the script. It doesn't hurt when you also produce, act in, and edit your own content like Louis C.
However, can a director who didn't write the script or participate in the editing be considered an auteur at all? Frankly, I don't think so. So where does this leave us? It's obvious that directors play an absolutely crucial role in the filmmaking process. However, the notion that directors are the sole creative force behind any film seems like an outdated one, at least to me. Filmmaking is an amazing collaborative art form, but we continue to treat it as if it were personal art form like painting or sculpting.
In my opinion, we, as a society, need to focus more on the fact that filmmaking is inherently collaborative and eschew the outdated theory of auteurism. I'd love to hear everyone's opinions on this question. Do directors get too much credit in the filmmaking process? Is it important to shift societal focus towards the fact that filmmaking is purely collaborative? Let us know down in the comments! Industry pro's will almost always give credit where it is due, but the average movie-goer needs a face to place the credit.
Just unfortunate human nature. Think of it this way, when a film sucks or does crappy, you never here about the grip boy, sound mixer, writer, or even the DP being criticized. It is what it is, of course there are alot of people that make movies what they are, the script, sound, DP, actors etc are all key components that unite a great film.
However just like a Quaterback in the NFL, when a team takes a hard loss, its usually the Quaterback or head coach who is blamed. John August the guy that wrote Big Fish, The Nines, Corpse Bride and many episodes of Charlie's Angel will totally disagree with you about the director always getting the blame. He once stated in an article on his blog that directors tend to get most of the credit when a film is great but it is common to hear critics blaming "sloppy writing", "weak story" or "poorly written characters" when a film fails expectations.
I absolutely agree. Auteur theory has been outdated for some time and people outside of the industry often have no one idea of the collaborative forces behind film. Your point about directors being the consumer-facing 'name' for a film eg Tarantino's' Django Unchained is a valid one but I think films only have this sort of brand recognition for major, commercial films.
Directors need to tackle this problem from the inside out and start by recognising their crews in public situations.
Press interviews, awards shows etc. A worthy creative force is one which allows other creative forces around them to influence their work. Without that, you're simply a one-dimensional projection.
The problem is that when we're talking about Hollywood were talking about movies made for the least common denominator. The answer to this is simple. Some get to much credit, some not enough. It depends entirely on the director. Not every director is the same. Some directors have more input than others, and more responsibilities. A guy like Tarantino is more responsible for what the audience sees because he write, directs, produces and he picks his own music, settings, etc.
Whereas a director hired by a studio to direct a someone else's script that someone else is producing may not have all of creative control. So each film and director is different situations. I think it falls on the ultimate responsibility aspect of the whole bit. Like how a CEO is the first the person blamed or lauded on a company's success or failure. I don't think any of us who direct for a living would think of ourselves as the primary reason for a film's success, but I do think it's my job to notice if anything that's being captured by the camera whether I'm directly responsible for it or not is not up to par.
This is a dicey question and I think too subjective and specific to the individuals and specific situation to say definitively, but I would argue that being ultimately responsible for a film's failings should conversely say that it makes sense that a director be first in line for a film's success. Oh and on your point about whether a director can be considered an auteur without writing the script, I absolutely think they can.
Again, this depends on the specific situation - but a very strong point of view can easily be as important as the words on the page in terms of crafting a creative vision.
I think we can make a stronger point that a director who does not produce his or her film in any capacity is less responsible for it's ultimate success. They are the driving force behind making a film that works. Or a film that doesn't work. He is the taste behind all the decisions. Or atleast he should be. There are directors who can't come up with anything themselves but they aren't very good ones.
The director should get all the credit for hiring and using the right talent in a good movie. If you are talking about Transformers, the director is pretty unnecessary and should not get any credit. Ant-Man went from being a very interesting movie to unwatchable when studio did not let Edgar Wright do whatever he wants. A proven director is the best indicator of a good movie. BUT, lets not forget the director's job. Its not only the "glue" that holds every department together, nor only the final voice on the set.
The directors job, even when he didn't write the script, is to take that story on the paper and give it a ton, an image, a texture.
And that is made through visualizing the shots and creating them. So the film end up being the directors view of that story.
He chose the camera angles, the timing, etc. You can give the same script to 10 different directors and you will have ten different films. Point being is: just by saying if the director didn't write the script he does not deserve credit enough is a quite shallow argument. I really think that depends on the script. Comics and graphic novels are basically the highest quality storyboard you could ask for, often with years of canon behind in terms of story.
In those kind of scenarios, a Director making it "his" is a load of shit, even when they completely butcher a story I'm looking at most Marvel movies unfortunately , no matter what tone they give it, it's not theirs, not by along shot.
I realize the article is talking about key people on a crew more, but still. For spec scripts, I can't help but view the Director mainly as a really good organizer; if it'snot some studio library padding, that's another story. Michael Bay makes other people's movies- organizer; Wes Anderson makes his movies- Director. But then, you've got Christopher Nolan's Batman movies. No one had ever done what he did with Batman.
I'd say he definitely deserves an auteur title for the trilogy. I think that the Director's job should be split up, also a producer's role. You can never really be sure what each person did for the film. I also think that the Director of Photography should get more creative control. So he's what I propose. There will be 5 directors. Um, no. Vittorio Storaro, undoubtedly one of the best cinematographers, would strongly disagree with you. There is only one Director on set.
Just like there is only one captain of a ship. If a ship sinks, they don't say "Who was the first mate? I'm sure he didn't do the best job he could. When a film fails they blame the director, not the producers, cast or crew. A "good" director will and should always, give credit where credit is due.
Or maybe they should. Sometimes the director's job is split up, in the case of multiple assistant directors. However, the whole point of having a director is to have one person who is creatively in charge of and ultimately responsible for where the film is going.
If you split that job up, you risk having a very confused cast and crew who don't know who to get an okay from, and that's a recipe for disaster. For those interested in deepening their approach to this question, many academic cultural theories often view the author as just as much of a construct as the work itself. According to these viewpoints, it is not about weather the person credited as the director wrote the script, directed, placed the lights or not. Even when someone locks himself into a room alone and writes a poem, that person never the "sole creative force" behind the poem as meaning takes place in context.
And the cult that is generated around this phenomena in the marketing process is damaging to the process as a whole when young people approach the art with an aim to become like their idols. This is absolutely ridiculous. If anything Acquisition and Distribution Producers take care of marketing for a film.
Saying that a director is not really part of the filmmaking process isn't just simply inaccurate, but very ignorant. Those directors who write and direct are an essential part of the film and completely deserve the credit they receive. A director must have knowledge in every aspect of filmmaking, his job is knowing everyone else's job and communicating his vision within the context of a crew-member's language.
There is only one director for a project, his ability to simply do the job is evidence enough that only a select few people can direct because of the immense requirements demanded and for those who excel at the career: Kubrick, Tarantino, McQueen, Boyle, Jackson, etc.
These people's very talents, skills, and personalities saturate every aspect of their films. Of course, the incredible talents of their crews is the variable of how close the film comes to their vision. Hi Emmanuil. Did you check out the references that I made in my comments? If you did, you might understand better what I meant when I said "the director" within quotation marks, and that it had nothing to do with lessening someone's job. I think it was pretty evident from my comment that I was talking about a very specific angle.
I'm not expecting everyone here to be interested in this angle and I'm fine with people disagreeing, but perhaps we could get more out of exchanging ideas here without calling each other's ideas ridiculous or ignorant? I personally couldn't do it without a great crew and value every person on my sets. From DP to PA everybody has a job to do and no one person is more important than another. Its right directors are more visible during the creation of a film. Film companies put out a lot of press to presale the audience with millions on the line.
During this period mostly actors but now directors are going to sit down with Conan and other late night hosts as a part of the promotion, which sheds light on directors like never before.
In a way, they have become celebrities more than creatives giving them clout like a big name actor would bring to a film.
The camera is always in there face not just during promotion but the filmmaking process. Behind the scenes, extra content as a part of buying the blue ray DVD was a huge selling aspect of the film. The camera follows the director around the set through wardrobe changes and set design portions of the preproduction.
The writer, on the other hand, gets zero press. Hes now seen a former employee of the project. I notice some writers going out on interviews especially the newer generation such as Max Landis. Most of the time writers will just be given a credit and an invite to the screening for pictures. So where are writers mostly? Respect comes with an exclusivity title. The harder something is, the more respect people have for those that do it.
Or in this case, perception is the reality. Therefore not much attention is given to those who do. When faced with an audience people say. Not for a second thinking of the sometimes years and late night hours working on a free script that might not even become anything. This is not really there fault. During school, most people were forced to write short stories and paper after paper. This distorts peoples view of creative dramatic storytelling.
Which results in people thinking they can do it too. Leading is a real challenge in its own right, and people do have a case for its difficulty compared to screenwriting.
The producers, crew, actors, future audience members and even the screenwriter. How many good well-written scripts become bad movies?
0コメント