What do you think would count as "micro-managing" from a director?

[Carl Looper]

Ha ha.

 

In my books Steve Jobs wouldn't be a great endorsement for micro-management. But then I'm more of a technician than a design fetishist.

 

Of course one can't ignore the mass market appeal he was able to engender or otherwise tap.

 

But I'd say that in the same way one can't ignore the mass appeal a notable dictatorship was able to orchestrate circa the 1930s.

 

C

Edited December 11, 2013 by Carl Looper

[Jason Outenreath]

Ozu shot all of his films using the exact same lens: 50mm, and told the DP exactly where to put the camera. His films turned out pretty good. It all depends on the relationship, level of trust, and how each sees the role of the cinematographer. Most cinematographers are not given a free reign to craft the look like Vittorio Storaro in Apocalypse Now. Some are. Not absolutes in this industry.

[Carl Looper]

Ozu shot all of his films using the exact same lens: 50mm, and told the DP exactly where to put the camera. His films turned out pretty good. It all depends on the relationship, level of trust, and how each sees the role of the cinematographer. Most cinematographers are not given a free reign to craft the look like Vittorio Storaro in Apocalypse Now. Some are. Not absolutes in this industry.

 

And Kubrick was very particular about camera and lenses as well. Those directors from a DP background do tend to be quite particular. They are effectively both director and DP.

 

Once Ozu's DP did suggest using a different lens. And they then did the shot with another lens

 

Ozu attentively watched the result after which he turned to his DP and said "Hmmm. Not as good as a 50mm eh?".

 

In other words there is a negotiation going on here. Ozu could have said "No we use the 50mm". Now either this story demonstrates that Ozu was quite open to alternatives (the way I like to read it) or one can read this as cynical manipulation.

 

Basically cinematography is a fundamental attribute of how a film works. Directors such as Ozu and Kubrick (to mention only a few) understand that. But the nature of film is such that it's also much more than that. It becomes difficult to single handedly control every aspect but that's not the reason why one should delegate. Either one does micro-manage all aspects or just as legitimately, one distributes the load across a number of directors and by 'directors' that means those with actual creative nous, rather than robots - the reason being that robots will just sit around doing nothing if you don't animate them.

 

It will be robots that require a micro-manager rather than a micro-manager who requires robots.

 

C

[Carl Looper]

Or to put it another way: those who think they do require robots are either misguided or fundamentally insane.

 

C

Edited December 11, 2013 by Carl Looper

[Jason Outenreath]

 

Ozu attentively watched the result after which he turned to his DP and said "Hmmm. Not as good as a 50mm eh?".

 

Ah, I see you've also seen the movie Tokyo Ga Carl. Haha. Not many have. Little known documentary by Wim Wenders.

[Carl Looper]

 

Ah, I see you've also seen the movie Tokyo Ga Carl. Haha. Not many have. Little known documentary by Wim Wenders.

 

Indeed.

 

Ozu was very particular about camera angles because a lot of the meaning of the work is embedded in the juxtaposition of where you think you are located relative to an apparent reality. The structure of Ozu's world was neither in the reality being photographed, or in any particular camera angles on such, but in the carefully arranged (or re-arranged) relationships between the two.

 

C

[John Silver]

This is a great discussion coming from a director's point-of-view. I am wrapping up pre-production on my first short. I have the privilege of working with a seasoned DP (Nat-Geo, PBS, BBC) who is willing to work with an untested director - a huge risk for him. I have found that we are working out a lot of potential snags at the storyboard stage. When he suggests a lens for a certain shot I have in my head, I go look for examples online of scene shot with that lens. Often I will find his choice better than I imagined. But sometimes I discover I haven't been clear in my vision for the scene and I'll sketch it out again. My initial impression of a DP is that of an artist doing commission work for a picky collector. If the artist sees the collector's house - the wall space, the lighting - up front, chances are he's going to paint a better picture for that space. But, again, for me this is still theory-craft.

[Luke Lenoir]

It may benefit you to watch b-roll production footage on films, and particularly directors you admire (youtube). You may be surprised how needlessly fastidious some directors can seem, even with frequent collaborators. Jean-Pierre Jeunet is a very picky director, and his films are visually stunning. The same could be said of Kubrick, who designed his own precision/custom made cardboard boxes just to store his scribbles.

 

 

To answer your question, I would say the best example of micro-managing I can think of is Alfred Hitchcock putting his hands on Tippi Hedren's face and physically shaping her

expression to his liking, then telling her to 'hold it' for a long exterior shot from the yard of the house to the upstairs bedroom window where she was standing looking out. (I believe that was "Marnie" 1964).

[Peter James Scott]

I think at the end of the day it is up to the Director. The Cinematographer is there to assist the directors vision, not make it up for him / her. That doesn't mean the Cinematographer can't have any creative input; in fact I would encourage it. But ultimately it is up to the Director to have the final word.

 

As for defining micro managing, that is tricky because it depends on the relationship between the Director and the Cinematographer. Micro managing is unavoidable but it can be reduced.

 

I have worked with people, not just in a film context, who don't need much directing at all. The vision is shared, we finish the end of each others sentences, and share the same though process. On the odd occasion disagreements will be voiced, but overall its compliant. The final product looks great. These are the people you want to cling onto and keep working with.

 

Then there are other people who are on a different level. Talented or not, you need to constantly point them in the right direction, work to get them to see what look you are going for, and in the end the results are not really what you want. Needless to say I don't usually work with these people again if it can be helped.

 

This is why you often see Directors collaborating with the same Cinematographer over and over. I guess it makes the industry more competitive. But it's not just limited to film; I've found this in many creative industries.