Jump to content

What is a great director?


Recommended Posts

I think my original question was more about: "how do you appreciate directing by watching a film?"

 

Honestly I think David Mullen's first reply wrapped things up pretty well. If a film is well-directed, it's well tied-together. You can take an average script and the director can make it something really fantastic.

An example of this is Michael Mann's Collateral.

You end up with a film that has a solid vision. The production design, the cinematography, the locations, the acting, the music, the editing - it all needs to serve the same story from the same perspective. Each department collaborates with the same man, so you end up with, if the director's good, a consistent and well-told visual story.

The acting as well, is one of the MOST important collaborations a director has, maybe the most important. An actor can play a scene the "wrong" way, if a director has a certain mood in mind. If he doesn't "fix" that performance, the acting in the scene doesn't seem to match the mood.

 

It's almost like the director is responsible for the quality - not necessarily production value, because a big-enough budget can take care of that FOR you (ahem-Brett Ratner-ahem). A good director being on a film... It's like the old Nintendo Seal of Quality.

 

A good director is one who also has a really good eye for interesting visuals. Spielberg just seems to love putting his characters in front of a lot of motion. Something's got to be FALLING, either sparks, or clothes, or debris - some IDEA that turns a standard scene into something especially moody or visual.

So it's those things you see in a film - things that weren't likely in the script at ALL - They were just ideas, and they often come from the director. An extra detail that just makes a scene WORK, to bring it to life from the page.

 

Another Spielberg example. One of my favorite parts of War of the Worlds was when Tom Cruise got pissed off and threw the peanut butter sandwich he was making at the window. That shot of him in the reflection, panicked and brooding, with a slab of peanut-buttery bread slowly ooooozing down the window in the soft-focus foreground - that was a Spielberg touch. That's where you see the director at work.

Edited by Thom S
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Premium Member
Honestly I think David Mullen's first reply wrapped things up pretty well. If a film is well-directed, it's well tied-together. You can take an average script and the director can make it something really fantastic.

An example of this is Michael Mann's Collateral.

Too bad the script sucked though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too bad the script sucked though.

 

If you think the script sucked, then it makes the example all that stronger. I mean, wouldn't you say it was a strong film in spite of the script? Good performances, great use of tone, beautiful cinematography - it adds up to an engaging film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
i director who sits straight with a good pair of nikes knows what he's doing, opposed to a director who crosses his legs like a lady.

 

Really, this is important ?

 

I'd *love* to shoot or work on a film where I didn't end up twisted around like a pretzel half the time.

 

Based on experience, I'm not sure my dream is achievable.

 

And what about directors who ARE ladies, are they allowed to cross their legs (and if they don't, can they cross the line to compensate ?)

 

-Sam "Roll camera, Action, Cut, Aleve" Wells

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good director has a point of view and has something to say. ?On the Waterfront? isn?t about the mob trying to control the dock workers it is about self respect and standing up for what you believe. A writer can create that message but it is a good director that sees it and brings it out in story and cast.

 

I think writers and directors need each other - and should always be 2 people!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

From Freddie Young's overly thin memoir "Seventy Light Years":

 

[Richard] Thorpe was a favourite at MGM because he always came in under production schedule. He'd often start with a long shot and keep filming until one of the actors fluffed. Then he'd move in a closer set-up and shoot until the next hold up and so on until he finished with just close ups. He very rarely reshot anything. -

Shades of Roger Corman and William Beaudine!

 

Yet Thorpe was a director at MGM for 33 years. Made big budget movies with A list actors, including their first CinemaScope movie, 'Knights of the Round Table' and their first Super 35 movie, 'Jailhouse Rock'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of those questions that has many "right" answers...

 

I'd through in, a great director is one whom uses his intangible talents.

 

J/K!!! It's all intangible!!! My point is that this is a really subjective question....If you can look at a movie made many generations removed from your own time, and see a personal, intellectual, cerebral, stamp on it, then the director behind it was probably "great". But there is also a set of qualities it takes to make a DIE HARD. Is there a intellectual stamp on it? Certainly not, but who cares, DIE HARD is still better than many, many action movies made today and it came out in 1988. I guess a "great" director is one who has complete control of their own practice/theory/style , therefore they are able to put out a "unquestionable" effort with every release of their project.

 

As to the qualities....? Hmmmm. There must be many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 3 months later...
The orchestration of all the arts around a common theme, the coordination of the acting & actors' movement with the camera and editing in support of the narrative, the use of images, sound and editing to drive the narrative, not just to look "pretty" and sound "nice".

 

And the ability to make everyone else look good, so much that you ask what the director did!

 

I think this is somewhat true on all facets of filmmaking. I am most impressed with writers, directors, actors, etc.. who are invisible. And when I say that, I mean when I'm watching a performance, I'm not marveling at how this actor was able to channel a character, rather I'm watching a character in a story. Sure, sometimes I enjoy frilly stuff that makes me go "WOW, LOOK AT THAT CAMERA MOVE!" But it's like visual effects. If I'm amazed at the visual effect, then something is missing because I forgot that thingy called the story.

 

So, I think a director is working at his/her best when they have crafted a film so well that it ceases to be A FILM BY... and is just a story playing out in front of me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...
I guess another way to ask this is how do you appreciate directing by watching a film? I think I have an idea of how to look at cinematography, acting, or writing. I have trouble noticing what the director has done to the film. How do you measure a director? By the success of the film? This is not a knock on directors, they have a very difficult job and a lot of responsiblity.

 

 

In my opinion what makes a director great is his ability to understand the story he is directing. Then be able to judge his ideas and think wether if they are interesting and truthful to the film. You can see movies as something ordinary, or you can see it as an art composition where everthing was exactly made and formed in that way for a special purpose.

 

 

 

Hope this helps you.

 

:) Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 1 year later...

Agreeing with Greg, Alfred Hitchcock is a worthy person to study from. He knew how to do it cheap. Watch Rope, and you'll see how to make a movie for only $5,000! Watch Rear Window, and you'll learn how to make a movie using mostly one location! Watch Lifeboat, which is a mini-mini-budgeted "Titanic" with more drama! Now you'll know why Hitchcock was great, because he was a genius. In fact, I think that's how you measure a director. You measure him by his intelligence. Think about Orson Welles, Stanley Kubrick, and other great directors.

 

Try looking into what made those directors brilliant, and I think you'll get your answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

In Sidney Lumet's book, he discusses how people attempt to judge certain aspects of filmmaking and how often times it can be really inaccurate to simply give any single person blame or praise.

 

For example, he talks about editing. You can't look at a film and call an editor good or bad just from that one film. What if there are a lot of jumps in continuity? Does that mean that person is a bad editor? Maybe it was just shot poorly and the editor was doing all he/she could to make it work.

 

I believe the same thing applies to directors. You can't simply look at one good film and believe that the film was "well-directed". A newbie could have gotten lucky... a producer who knew how to restrain the director's crazy impulses...an actor who gave himself direction...an editor who made a poorly covered scene work...etc... Inversely, a terrible movie might have an amazing director with really bad luck.

 

I think it's helpful to look at a director's entire line of work. Or at least two or three films...If there is a consistent element of quality to it, it's fair to say that that person is a good director. (Hitch, for example)

 

If you're looking for a short answer, I think the quote from above works well: "Being a good director is all about having good taste"

Edited by Adam Orton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
In Sidney Lumet's book, he discusses how people attempt to judge certain aspects of filmmaking and how often times it can be really inaccurate to simply give any single person blame or praise.

 

For example, he talks about editing. You can't look at a film and call an editor good or bad just from that one film. What if there are a lot of jumps in continuity? Does that mean that person is a bad editor? Maybe it was just shot poorly and the editor was doing all he/she could to make it work.

 

I believe the same thing applies to directors. You can't simply look at one good film and believe that the film was "well-directed". A newbie could have gotten lucky... a producer who knew how to restrain the director's crazy impulses...an actor who gave himself direction...an editor who made a poorly covered scene work...etc... Inversely, a terrible movie might have an amazing director with really bad luck.

 

I think it's helpful to look at a director's entire line of work. Or at least two or three films...If there is a consistent element of quality to it, it's fair to say that that person is a good director. (Hitch, for example)

 

If you're looking for a short answer, I think the quote from above works well: "Being a good director is all about having good taste"

 

I like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Film Gears

CINELEASE

BOKEH RENTALS

CineLab

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...