Directors - Who's in Control?

[PhantomScreenwriter]

I think there's a misconception by some people that directors are the ones who are always solely to blame for a film's lack of success because they are the ones who directed the film, regardless of whether or not the director had full creative control over the project.

Who is actually in control of a film, is it necessarily the director and if so how much control can they exert on a production, and who can ultimately override any decisions made by a director?

 

[jax_rox]

The Producer

 

[Will Vincent]

Technically the producer is in control, they can pull the rug out from under the director if money dries up or whatever..

But really it's like baseball. The whole team contributes to wins and losses, but the pitcher is credited for pitching a winning or losing game. Or the quarterback in football, same deal.

The director is supposed to be the one with the vision of the film, so if it fails it kind of does make sense for them to get the blame. It failed because the acting was crap -- should have directed better. It failed because the VFX team didn't finish all of their shots, should have planned better, etc.

 

[PhantomScreenwriter]

The Producer indeed, that's what I thought!

I can see what you're saying Will. The thing is though in regards to acting, when it comes to editing and choosing the best take of an actor's performance if the producer says they prefer the take where an actor was doing or saying something one way but the director doesn't like that take, and the producer overrides the director then can the director still be blamed for not directing the actors in a better way?

 

[Will Vincent]

If the producer is taking over in the edit bay, the film is probably already in a lot of trouble.

Producers are part lawyer, part used car salesman, and 100% business. They're interested in the bottom line.

 

[PhantomScreenwriter]

I see what you mean with the producer having to take over in the edit bay. So do you think it's better to be a producer or a director or perhaps maybe having a bit of a sense of both and their needs/requirements, in whichever of the two you choose to be?

 

[MiniJamesW]

In general I would say it's a mix of director/producer, but with the producer being the ultimate boss if necessary.

But it of course depends on the context we're talking about. There are differences between productions of different countries, different studio systems, different time periods, and different independent productions.

If you want to control everything artistically though, I would suggest being director/producer, that would pretty much make you boss within any context (unless the studio head gets involved!).

Oh yes, and I think certain stars may have a lot of influence as well. On those Astaire & Rogers pictures, Fred Astaire was the real boss behind everything even though he collaborated. I think that some stars even today must be demanding to work with!

 

[AudioPostExpert]

So do you think it's better to be a producer or a director or perhaps maybe having a bit of a sense of both and their needs/requirements, in whichever of the two you choose to be?

A good producer obviously needs to have a good understanding of the director's role and vice versa. There are times though when neither of these two are the ultimate decision maker; the studio or investor (the "money") might require changes and films which are going to be released in multiple territories often have slightly or significantly different edits. Blockbusters may have as many as 70 different versions! Sometimes a distributor may require changes, although really it is the job of the producer to know the distributor requirements before hand. If it's total control you're talking about, you really need to be the Producer, Director, the sole investor and the distributor! Unless you've got a great deal of experience, a great deal of money and chronic insomnia, trying to do all these roles is going to severely compromise the final product!

Ultimately, it is the director who is usually blamed as it is the director's job to make a good film within the confines of the producer, investor and distribution requirements, even though blaming the director may not always be "fair". Of course if we're talking about high budget or non-indie films then as far as the shareholders are concerned, it will be the management of the studio/distributor/investment fund who are to blame!

G

 

[directorik]

Who is actually in control of a film, is it necessarily the director and if so how much control can they exert on a production, and who can ultimately override any decisions made by a director?

On studio films the answer is; it depends on the contract. In some
cases the studio head has final say and the producer and director are
contracted to follow their directives. Sometimes the producer has the
control. And in a few cases the director has the final say – we have
all heard stories of directors with final cut losing control and then suing.
Some producers are very creative and will sit in the editing room and
make excellent suggestions. Not all producers are fools with a checkbook.
Some actually love movies and actors and the creative process. And some
are even good at their job.

So you are right; there is a misconception by some people that directors
are the ones who are always solely to blame for a film's lack of success.

The thing is though in regards to acting, when it comes to editing and choosing the best take of an actor's performance if the producer says they prefer the take where an actor was doing or saying something one way but the director doesn't like that take, and the producer overrides the director then can the director still be blamed for not directing the actors in a better way?

But you're asking about assigning blame. I don't believe it's that simple.
If there is a dispute in the editing room over a specific take of an actors
performance all three people involved are to blame (or praise). But that
doesn't stop some people from thinking that directors are the ones who
are always solely to blame for a film's lack of success. It's more complicated
than that.

When it comes to the success of a film even marketing can take some
of the blame for success or lack thereof. In almost no movie is there one
person who should take the blame (or praise) for a films success.

 

[AnonWriter]

The one holding the checkbook.

 

[Sweetie]

Who's at fault for a bad movie? It depends on what's wrong with the movie and what the decisions were in the lead up to that/those issues.

The blame usually falls on the director and (sometimes to a lesser extent and sometimes on even more) on the producer. If you're solely talking success, sometimes the blame (and it has happened, though not often) falls upon the marketing people/distributor.

Low production value is usually where people say errors are. Production value is often a function of budget.

 

[Morris]

While everyone is correct regarding the actual production, I have seen some good movies go nowhere. This was prior to the internet, but some got good reviews but did little box office revenue.

 

[PhantomScreenwriter]

Thanks for all the information everyone. I guess ultimately not all films go through the same issues during production and not all are deemed as a success or failure solely aimed at the director, and of course subjectivity is a massive factor as well - I love Big Trouble in Little China while others may hate it, I hate The Omen (2006 remake) while others may love it, and for differing reasons.

I think it's a good discussion to have though because one of the reasons I came to IndieTalk was to learn about the reality of film production aside from what is gleaned by watching behind the scenes documentaries, which obviously don't show you the day to day workings of a film set nor do they show you the full range of experiences everyone on a production goes through when there's no camera there filming them for promotional and marketing purposes.

 

[sonnyboo]

I have an old saying, "The Producer is the Director's Boss, not his Bitch"

 

[pictureplanet]

No one is in control. There is only Zule.

 

[harmonica44]

I am directing a project right now being produced by someone else, but I feel like I have not much control. The script isn't the best, and I am not allowed to make certain changes, and we need more audio and video equipment for the production quality that the producer wants, but will not be able to give, or just will not give.

So as director, I feel like I do not have the most control and if the production suffers from low budget and a poor script, I feel like it will not be my fault mainly. Not that I am complaining, I am glad to be given a job. Just giving an example as to how much control a director may have in a scenario.