How do you guys "Judge" directing?
- Thread starter Semiazas
- Start date
Since the goal of directing is to sculpt concepts into realized images/sounds... for me, good direction is if the finished product is cohesive and engaging to the audience, like a finished puzzle... bad direction leaves the puzzle strewn on the table with some semblance of a cohesive picture, but pieces are out of place, missing, or from the wrong puzzle.
Even the acting, editing and sound design has to be weighed against the fact that the director needs to sign off on them, arrange them in the scene and choose which elements/takes end up in the final cut.
Even the acting, editing and sound design has to be weighed against the fact that the director needs to sign off on them, arrange them in the scene and choose which elements/takes end up in the final cut.
I agree with the above two posts. Think of actors and crew like your kids; if you don't demand from them, things might turn out sub-par. It's taken me a while to figure this out, but a good director will step up and won't blame an actor of crew member for his movie's shortcomings. The bottom line is that he will get what he settles for, hence a good director will demand a good performance, a good shot, great lighting, effects, etc. He will get the most out of his budget and make the movie look like more than it is.
Good direction isn't just being efficient, but also "innovative" or "stylish." Does the movie contain a sequence that tries something new or homages a classic - Example: The steadicam behind the mask P.O.V. at the beginning of HALLOWEEN or the stairway shootout homage (Odessa Steps babycarriage from THE BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN) in Brian DePalma's THE UNTOUCHABLES.
Stan Winston said, "our stuff always looks better in James Cameron films." While Cameron didn't do the makeup effects, he knew how to compose shots, play with lighting, etc. to make them look better. That's the director having an impact on the quality.
This is the meat of what I believe. If you haven't directed a bunch and seen projects through to the end, you won't know what you need for footage while on set. Ask for another take, have the makeup folks fix hair and makeup between every take, let the sound guy hold up their hand at the end of a take and let you know that there's an audio issue (DEMAND IT - FOSTER THE BEHAVIOR, thank them honestly for letting you know, you'll look better for it and so will they). If the actors have ideas, let them explore it, schedule for this process. TV Food Commercials can take 2 weeks of 12 hour production days to film a 30 second spot - they are perfect when they're done.
If you haven't tested the process you'll be using (whatever process in whatever department that may be), make sure you do before you hit the set. Know the lenses and what they do/look like. Know your lighting (ask for more/less blue/orange on the key/fill/rim/background) so you can get the image in the monitor to look right -- use a monitor so you know what you're capturing. The Director, DP and Script Sup. need to be able to look at the same image and discuss what they're shooting in a "right now, non-conceptual" sort of way.
Take the time to demand more, you'll vastly improve your product. Your audience will thank you! So will your cast/crew as you'll be making them look better in the process.
For the most part I would agree with "good movie, good director."
It is very, very hard for actors or any of the other artists to "save" the movie from a bad director.
If you walk out of a movie saying, "man, the actors were awesome, and the lights were fantastic....but why did this movie suck?"....Probably bad directing.
I also agree that a good director CAN save a bad movie. If you leave a movie saying "that script sucked, those people can't act, who designed that sound......but man that was fun to watch..." probably good director.
To answer the original question, watch a lot of movies by the same person, see what they all have in common. That would be the director's voice coming through. Once you learn to spot that, you can translate it into how to spot good directors.
It is very, very hard for actors or any of the other artists to "save" the movie from a bad director.
If you walk out of a movie saying, "man, the actors were awesome, and the lights were fantastic....but why did this movie suck?"....Probably bad directing.
I also agree that a good director CAN save a bad movie. If you leave a movie saying "that script sucked, those people can't act, who designed that sound......but man that was fun to watch..." probably good director.
To answer the original question, watch a lot of movies by the same person, see what they all have in common. That would be the director's voice coming through. Once you learn to spot that, you can translate it into how to spot good directors.
I've made films that are bad. The acting leaves much to be desired; because I, as the director, failed to communicate to my actors effectively/ give them a comfortable set to work on/ ask for another rewrite to make the script better from my writers (who also gave me just what I asked for).
In every instance, I had the power as the director to ask for something else - and failed to do so, my fault... period!
In every instance, I had the power as the director to ask for something else - and failed to do so, my fault... period!
Yes.
The buck stops here. Any flaw in the film is utimately my fault because I let it happen.
The directors job is to bring a screen play to life, and in my experience as a director I have had to balance out the roles of and actor, and director. The director is the one who more so carries the movie. Not the producer. <My opinion guys