What makes a "Great" Director from the Cinematographers perspective?

[Stuart Brereton]

. How are they getting these jobs?

 

 

 

Good question.

A very good question. We've all encountered Directors who are so obsessed with technology that they forget their actors. Well, I seem to have been unfortunate enough to have worked with the opposite breed - those who think that their only job is to direct performance and that all the technical details will be magically dealt with by the DP. Here's a few real (but paraphrased) conversations.

 

Me: So, how do you want to cover it?

Dir: Well, He's going to walk out of that door and come to the table.

Me: Yes, I know, I saw the rehearsal. How do you want to cover it?

Dir: Well, when he comes through the door, we should get a shot of that.

Me: Ok, what kind of shot?

Dir: I don't know, what do you think?

 

 

Dir: Can you do a pan?

Me: Sure. From what to what?

Dir: Umm, Left to right.

 

Me: Where do you want to master this from?

Dir: We should be here and... wider

Me: Wider than what?

Dir: The last shot

Me: This is the first setup

Dir: No, the last shot on the scene we just finished

[George Ebersole]

Okay, I'm confused. Every commercial and industrial I've ever worked there's also a little kibitzing that goes on between the the director and his DP. Step that up to a feature, and I always thought the the two went through the script designing shots.

 

Now I'm hearing that's not always the case? Or maybe that's a special case practice?

[Justin Hayward]

 

 

A very good question. We've all encountered Directors who are so obsessed with technology that they forget their actors. Well, I seem to have been unfortunate enough to have worked with the opposite breed - those who think that their only job is to direct performance and that all the technical details will be magically dealt with by the DP. Here's a few real (but paraphrased) conversations.

 

Me: So, how do you want to cover it?

Dir: Well, He's going to walk out of that door and come to the table.

Me: Yes, I know, I saw the rehearsal. How do you want to cover it?

Dir: Well, when he comes through the door, we should get a shot of that.

Me: Ok, what kind of shot?

Dir: I don't know, what do you think?

 

 

Dir: Can you do a pan?

Me: Sure. From what to what?

Dir: Umm, Left to right.

 

Me: Where do you want to master this from?

Dir: We should be here and... wider

Me: Wider than what?

Dir: The last shot

Me: This is the first setup

Dir: No, the last shot on the scene we just finished

How do you, personally, put up with that? I mean, it sounds like you have to sometimes deal with serious incompetence.

 

Thanks Stuart.

[Stuart Brereton]

Okay, I'm confused. Every commercial and industrial I've ever worked there's also a little kibitzing that goes on between the the director and his DP. Step that up to a feature, and I always thought the the two went through the script designing shots.

 

Now I'm hearing that's not always the case? Or maybe that's a special case practice?

It all depends on how much prep you get. Often there's only enough time to discuss major setups, or shots which require special equipment. That's not a problem for me. 90% of the time I don't need to know in advance what the coverage will be. It only becomes a problem when the director doesn't know either....

[Stuart Brereton]

How do you, personally, put up with that? I mean, it sounds like you have to sometimes deal with serious incompetence.

 

Thanks Stuart.

It's a problem specific to a certain end of the industry, which is sadly getting larger by the day.

 

I put up with it via this mantra: Pan. Tilt. Invoice.

[Justin Hayward]

 

 

I put up with it via this mantra: Pan. Tilt. Invoice.

 

Hysterical. Good advice.

[Adam Frisch FSF]

Adam's post was right on the money but I want to add a little bit of my experience. I have directed 4 shirt films but I was the camera operator on three of them. When I was t operating the camera I found it easier to focus in the acting when I watched on a small monitor. I wasn't distracted by all the lights and random stuff out of frame, I was just focused on the actors doing their job.

 

But I wasn't in another room. The monitor was parked about 2 feet behind the camera so I could easily talk to the actors if needed. It as also nice to be able to sit down for a few minutes at a time.

 

I will continue to use this set up wherever possible in the future.

BTW, that's what Ridley Scott always used to say when he operated. He found that actors responded really well to that, because he was close to them. I don't think he operates as much as he used to anymore.

[Brett Bailey]

What do you guys think a great director does? What makes one? One who is able to get the most out of their team and motivate their crew and team to create something at the top of their game? What would you describe a great one does?

 

 

 

I'll keep my answer succinct. The best directors have four basic qualities: 1) Vision (Stemming from passion). 2) Tact. 3) Decisiveness, but he/she is also open-minded. And, 4) Leadership. That's just my two cents.

Edited November 22, 2013 by Brett Bailey

[Tom Chabbat]

I feel sometimes that the best directors are the least technical ones. They just have something interesting to express and have a good idea of how to translate it in this specific medium. The cinematographer's job is to translate it technically. The least the director worries about technic, the more he can focus on the story. I don't want to spit on my own job, but I feel sometimes than some of the best movies have a very simple and minimalist cinematography. And most of the time people are less sensitive to the look of the film than what's going on. In France we had in the past years some very well received movies with bad cinematography. I have in mind "L'Esquive" by Kechiche, which was shot with a crappy video camera and almost no lighting. But people still loved it, because the characters and story were true. If you see a lot of recent "auteur" french movies, you'll see that they're almost like in a documentary style. I guess simple filming technics permits to focus more on the characters and their emotions.

By contrast, when I see some "mainstream" american movies, there's travelling in almost every shot, even when it's just someone sitting in front of his computer. And I have a little thought for all the technicians behind this, the DP, the focus puller, the dolly operator and all who worked a lot for something people won't notice and doesn't even have any meaning regarding the narrative.

[M Joel W]

 

Great advice, David. I'm stealing that and keeping it for future use.

 

 

The "turning point" thing is good advice. Most scenes that don't place a strong cut at the turning point still indicate it one way or the other.

 

Regarding your earlier comment that blocking is lacking, how do you suggest directors learn to block? Which directors do you watch as reference? Spielberg and Zemeckis I often hear cited, but what sets their blocking, or the blocking of those directors whose work you most appreciate, apart? What ads are particularly well blocked?

[Adam Frisch FSF]

Ads are rarely well blocked or staged at all, unfortunately. There's no time there, you cut your way around it.

 

Master blockers/stagers: Spielberg (probably the best - Munich is a masterclass), Sergio Leone (genius at this), Kubrick, Zemeckis, John McTiernan (Die Hard and Predator are very well blocked) and many of the older hands like Hitchcock etc. Polanski for sure - one of the best. Mike Nichols The Graduate. Fincher in his later years (Zodiac is excellently blocked). French noir director Jean-Pierre Melville also very good at this.

 

Basically, when there's a will and desire on the directors part to create shots in camera that doesn't necessarily use a cut to tell the story (this is scary as it gives no options and that's why it's not done as much). When the staging accomplishes what the cut was there to do. As well as map out the action. That's what I call good blocking, although in my understanding of it it's the same as shot design.

[M Joel W]

That might be a great answer.

 

What about Zodiac was well-blocked, though? I think the movie is an underrated masterpiece, but Fincher and Hitchcock feel more camera-oriented to me.

 

How do you think the best directors learn to block? Obviously it's a matter of practice, but where does one start? I've heard the DVD series is quite good. Something I am curious about.

[Nicholas Bedford]

Do you think it's highly desirable for a director to not only know blocking and related concepts, but also have some basic experience with photography? Even if it's just to get the director seeing visually as well as with the performances? I'm curious on your thoughts about this.

 

I know that as someone who would love to end up being a cinematographer, I also have a feeling for directing actors. I've shot, directed and edited a few very small budget music videos and I was almost every major component of the process, with help from others. I see a take and know what I want the actor to improve or adjust in the next as well as the emotion I want from them.

 

I know I would love to direct, but I'm too ingrained in photography not to go the cinematographer route if I decided to do something about this new passion.

 

I think my own feeling for directing comes from not only being a portrait photographer but also watching a LOT of movies and dissecting the performances, the cinematography and other elements.

[joshua gallegos]

I think a great director has the whole film in his head, he knows how every little bit will relate to the whole mosaic of images. One of my favorite directors who was proficient on every level was William Wyler who directed many great films. He was known for using deep focus in his shots, and they were very effective. From what I understand, from the things I've read about his career is that he was very close to his actors, he worked with Bette Davis on 3 films, and he always fought to get his way, he even got into a heated argument with Bette on the set of 'The Little Foxes' over the character of Regina and how it should have been played, they never worked together again after that film. So, therefore I think a great director has to do very little directing if he casts the part right, but most importantly a great director cares about every little bit of the film that will help tell the story, everything from the costumes to the sets, he oversees every detailed aspect of the production and carries them over his shoulder until the bitter end. There was another instance in Roman Holiday where Audrey Hepburn couldn't cry, so he screamed and ridiculed her until the tears came out, and hugged her in the end, so there's also that insanity to do what it takes to get it done. I think a good cinematographer will be there to help his director and not complain about him being oblivious to certain moments, a good example would be Gordon Willis and Woody Allen who did most to all the blocking in his movies, and he was very gracious about it because he loved his job. Elia Kazan once said "if you haven't got the script right, you shouldn't start', and I think that's where it all begins, even Scorsese takes years to develop the scripts because they are not "right", so above all a director has great sense of what makes a good film and what doesn't.

[Nicholas Bedford]

Could a lot of it be summed up with this statement?

 

A great director knows what he wants.

 

;)

[Carl Looper]

From the point of view of a cinematographer a good director (for you) would be one who understands the actors better than you do. No question about it. As a cinematographer do you really want to be managing the actors as well? But a great director (for you) will be one who not only understands the actors but understands cinematography, and understands it better than you do, yet despite that nevertheless lets you design and create the cinematography.

 

While an even greater director might also be one who does do the cinematography, they are irrelevant as they would have no need of you.

 

C

Edited December 5, 2013 by Carl Looper

[Nicholas Bedford]

Without having ever worked with a director, or directed with a cinematographer yet, I'd like to think that my kind of director knows enough about it to direct me, but trusts what I do and doesn't try to take over my responsibilities.

 

An overlap of knowledge is probably a great thing for a working relationship right, for both parties?