Director vs producer

[MileCreations]

So I think this post will get semi deep. It's slightly all over the place but I make my point by the end... Kinda

I've always considered myself to be a director when I've made films, and in a sense I always was the one pushing the project and directing the actors so to speak. But that's because I had the camera to make a film and I wanted to make a film, not neseccarily because I was a director. One thing that has occasionally frustrated me in the past is that I might look at an actor and think that was an ok performance but others around me thought it was not brilliant. I can certainly tell when an actor is a great actor, but when they are 'ok' to 'good' it seems I've had trouble distinguishing the difference on occasion. Of course this comes with experience... But it seems it's not a natural born talent

Currently I write, produce, direct, film and edit (as well as all the other little things like marketting) my films. In the past year to two years I have focused more on my camera work specifically more than anything else, particularly a recent one where the story was crap but visually (I think) it was decent. So more and more I've actually focused less on the acting talent of the actors. That wasn't on purpose mind you, it's just I was more preoccupied with another job. I couldn't focus my attention on both (this is something audio guys will love be admitting, in that I can't do audio and direct).

So I still (in the current context of my story) call my self a writer/director/camera guy/editor. Though the editing may be a stretch, I think I'm good at it but its not a passion, though it certainly is adrenaline making at some stages!

But (getting close to my point kinda) in recent weeks I have had two circumstances that have made me think about this a little more, and I think others wanting to make a career out of this should certainly think about this themselves. Peter (aka sonnyboo) I believe it was him that made a comment about people coming into the industry thinking they are writer/directors when they are actually writer/producers. Even though camera is my higher focus area I would now still consider myself a writer/producer. When I read this post I was kinda like "I probably kinda am writer/producer but I want to be writer/director so ill semi ignore that"

Until last weekend. I had a collaboration effort with a good friend who I've worked with at a collaboration level at least 3 other times in the last 3 years. (I work with him with most films but often he's just PA ). With this project (as it's a competition) we took the approach that we were equal, all through preproduction we felt equal, until we were on set. Naturally I was operating the camera but I had a clear vision in my head for the actors as well. But as we worked on it I felt more and more as though he was the director and I was producer in that I still sometimes to a degree had final say in the actors performance but he was doing the majority of the directing while I focused more on camera. This, by the way was not him becoming a dictator or anything, it just seemed to happen, and we totally respected each others ideas and roles. Also he has a slight more acting experience than me in that he helps out a bit with amateur theatre and his dad (Steve the dude you like) is a writer and a semi experienced amateur actor.

So after filming I've pretty much decided that I wouldn't mind having a dedicated director on a project where I am still the cinematographer but in a producer kind of role at the same time. This means that I can make sure the director knows my vision as the producer and then he can carry that out on set. I haven't really heard of any producer/cinematographers but perhaps I could create that role, eh?

So I guess my point is that peters advice about asking yourself if you're a writer/director or a writer/producer is some very good advice and something worth thinking about for young creators (young in this context being young at the craft )who are still finding their specific roles on set.

-Brendan

 

[jax_rox]

The Producer enables te Director to produce his/her vision. They are, I guess essentially, the business that allows the Director's creative to work. They're generally not afforded a creative vision, but are the ones who do all the organizing.

I can expand on the role of the Producer and a Producer's duties if you want, but I'd imagine Wikipedia has a decent article on it.

I will always advocate the Producer being a seperate role. I don't honestly think you can be a Producer/Cinematographer or even a Producer/Director, unless you're talking at a very low budget level.

 

[Sweetie]

There are no set rules, though what you're trying to do isn't typical. Though I think I see where you're coming from. You're having a hard time letting go of control of your projects.

Another thing to understand, that in smaller projects, there really isn't much of a need for a producer. For example, with no budget films, there is no need for a buffer between the investors/studio and the creative personnel. As a general rule, shorts don't make money so the tasks of a producer are rather limited. On smaller productions, I think it'd be safe to assume a Production Manager is more what role you perform in that capacity. While there are creative producers, most of the producers fill organizational, financial and promotional roles on film productions. Those aren't creative roles.

While I disagree with Jax on you not being able to be a Producer/Director. However it does take a particular personality type to do it, which from everything that I've read from you, you don't have it. There are some very successful Producer/Director combinations, but one thing you need to understand, when you're filling the role of Director during production, you will still need a separate person to fulfill the duties of producer (this may be your PM, or another separate Producer you bring in during production). When you're the director during production, you have to have the creative mindset or your end result may suffer. Who knows, you may be a savant and able to handle both roles at the same time.

I do see Producer/Cinematographer combination to be really odd. Same conditions as above I'd presume. I haven't really thought about this combination every before nor have I heard of it before.

 

[jax_rox]

While I disagree with Jax on you not being able to be a Producer/Director. However it does take a particular personality type to do it, which from everything that I've read from you, you don't have it. There are some very successful Producer/Director combinations, but one thing you need to understand, when you're filling the role of Director during production, you will still need a separate person to fulfill the duties of producer (this may be your PM, or another separate Producer you bring in during production). When you're the director during production, you have to have the creative mindset or your end result may suffer. Who knows, you may be a savant and able to handle both roles at the same time.

I think you can be successful as someone who is a Director and a Producer, but performing both duties on the one production is very difficult, and at least on-set I think is usually better as seperate people.

 

[Cracker Funk]

Mile, I think this is a great thread for ultra-low-budget filmmakers to pay attention to, so thanks for creating it, and I hope it gets all deep, like you've hoped it will.

At the zero-budget level, there's a lot of grey area between job-titles, especially since the main contributors hold many titles.

First, I'd like to comment on your experiences of how focusing on camera work drew you away from working with your actors. I've expressed very similar thoughts before, except from the opposite perspective -- I've often intentionally pretty much abandoned any real cinematography, simply so that I can spend more time with my cast.

I've seen too many zero-budget directors spend all their time on cinematography, virtually ignoring their cast. And the problem is that there really is no happy middle-ground. The more you spend time on one, the less you can spend on the other.

And those are just the two areas that are most obvious to zero-budget folk. There is also, of course, this little thing called audio.

The solution is to have people you trust who can do that work you don't have time to do. Uhh, it sounds to me like you've stumbled across an excellent partnership, and you should do anything you can to nurture it!

The way you describe it, you're still at least a little bit director. It's just that he takes the performance side, and you take the visual side. Match made in heaven! I see no reason why you can't make it work. Congrats, and good luck!

 

[Sweetie]

I think you can be successful as someone who is a Director and a Producer, but performing both duties on the one production is very difficult, and at least on-set I think is usually better as seperate people.

Performing either job is very difficult. Performing both in the same production goes beyond difficult. I didn't say it is easy, it's far from it. And I thought I made it clear, it's often best if you're going to direct, while production is happening, it's best to have someone assume the producer duties and take back those reins once post production begins.