How to direct and not come off as a jerk?

I've had some experience over the past couple of years "directing" a few shorts (nothing longer than 5 minutes), and have noticed that when I hear my voice on camera giving directions to the actors, DP, and other misc. parts of the crew that I feel like I come off as a jerk.

I began directing with a total control mentality, i.e. framing every shot and micromanaging actors, but i don't think that my crew, who had seen me as an equal, enjoyed taking orders by another person. I think that this can be potentially unhealthy for promoting a team dynamic among the crew, as other members may begin to despise the director.

However, now that I have adopted more of stand-offish style--especially when working with DPs--I feel that much of the vision--especially the intended vision within the script--becomes lost.

At the moment I actually think that ONE of the problems with most Hollywood produced films is that the influx of so many visions causes a mitigation of the Director's true vision that must be realized from his script.

In the end I feel that ultimately

#1. The Director must be someone who others respect and take orders from. Or else he holds no command.
#2. The Director must be involved in (and most of the times frame each shot) with the DP. The Director should really be the DP, but the director has so many responsibilities that he cannot physically hold the camera at the same time as directing.
#3. The Director must be the editor. Most of the times I am editing my scenes in the script or during production.

At this level (the student-level) of filmmaking I think that directing is very much a delicate balance between control-freak jerkiness (although I think many directors do come off this way) and maintaining a determination for achieving the authentic vision.

I was wondering what other people on this forum think of my thoughts, and if I could get any advice on directing. I feel like this is a dilemma that many aspiring directors face. Also, when I say Director I mean Producer/Director since this is a low-budget indie project.

--Matt Kim
 
Well, about to get off work, but a quick interjection.

One place I disagree is the director "being" the DP, or "being" the editor. That's not at all necessary. I don't even know how to turn the camera on, and couldn't properly set up a C-stand if you paid me, BUT I know how I want the scene to be lit. I know what I want, the DP is supposed to know how to make that happen. Same for the editor. I couldn't drop footage on a timeline with an instruction manual, but I know if an edit works, if it fits my vision, and if it doesn't, I NICELY explain to the editor why he has to change it.
 
Well, about to get off work, but a quick interjection.

One place I disagree is the director "being" the DP, or "being" the editor. That's not at all necessary. I don't even know how to turn the camera on, and couldn't properly set up a C-stand if you paid me, BUT I know how I want the scene to be lit. I know what I want, the DP is supposed to know how to make that happen. Same for the editor. I couldn't drop footage on a timeline with an instruction manual, but I know if an edit works, if it fits my vision, and if it doesn't, I NICELY explain to the editor why he has to change it.

I've tried this, but then it's weird because you've essentially edited the entire film on paper or in your mind, so you're basically sitting next to the editor telling them exactly what to cut and where to cut.

If I were the editor, I would find that kind of an insulting stab at my creativity. That's why it seems that the Director might as well be the editor. I've known and heard of editors who feel that they attribute some sort of creativity to the video they are editing and take pride in that.
 
I've had some experience over the past couple of years "directing" a few shorts (nothing longer than 5 minutes), and have noticed that when I hear my voice on camera giving directions to the actors, DP, and other misc. parts of the crew that I feel like I come off as a jerk.

Well, without seeing/hearing it for myself in context it's hard to judge.

However, there's a big difference between being a jerk, and being a director who decisively knows what they want. If you don't know what your vision is, you can't expect the crew to know what they should be doing to arrange & bring it to fruition.


I began directing with a total control mentality, i.e. framing every shot and micromanaging actors, but i don't think that my crew, who had seen me as an equal, enjoyed taking orders by another person. I think that this can be potentially unhealthy for promoting a team dynamic among the crew, as other members may begin to despise the director.

Why are your crew seeing you as an "equal"?

I just got off a 3 day shoot, as G&E. It never even crossed my mind that I was someow an "equal" in the project. I was hired to do a (very important) job, but it sure as heck wasn't on the same creative level as the director's vision.

The director & DP figure out the details, the AD & keys have their depts actually do the grunt work. Even if you don't have the luxury of actual depts (such as almost all lo-budget indie material), there's still the division of "the vision" and "those who do the labour to make it happen".


However, now that I have adopted more of stand-offish style--especially when working with DPs--I feel that much of the vision--especially the intended vision within the script--becomes lost.

You need to rethink a few things. It sounds like you are abdicating your director responsibilities, and letting the DP pick up the slack. (Many DP's are quite fine with that, being the defacto director. Makes you irrelevant, though)



At the moment I actually think that ONE of the problems with most Hollywood produced films is that the influx of so many visions causes a mitigation of the Director's true vision that must be realized from his script.

What does this even mean?!
smiley_mystery.gif




#1. The Director must be someone who others respect and take orders from. Or else he holds no command.

You need to understand AD's.


#2. The Director must be involved in (and most of the times frame each shot) with the DP. The Director should really be the DP, but the director has so many responsibilities that he cannot physically hold the camera at the same time as directing.

You don't know how to delegate.


#3. The Director must be the editor. Most of the times I am editing my scenes in the script or during production.

You are high.
smiley_bong.gif


Also, another indication that you don't have trust in your people, and are unwilling to delegate properly.
 
Also, another indication that you don't have trust in your people, and are unwilling to delegate properly.

This is probably true. I need to work on learning how to trust my crew, and delegate the responsibilities correctly.

Just to clarify what I mean by this text:
At the moment I actually think that ONE of the problems with most Hollywood produced films is that the influx of so many visions causes a mitigation of the Director's true vision that must be realized from his script.

After I watch a film such as Iron Man 2, I see the credits and see so many different kinds of directors. There are many different kinds of art directors from different companies that apply their own vision to the way the 3D visual effects will play out. I feel like this is an example where another person's vision has now become part of the movie. This would directly relate to the way Iron Man flies and the way his suit looks. It just seems that the entire filmmaking process is so large in Hollywood, that it is easy for the Director's vision to get lost.
 
Last edited:
Are you spending enough time with your principles (DP, lead actors, etc.) in preproduction communicating your vision? That way when you are on the set they already know what you expect.

I know that it's much harder when a lot of your cast and crew aren't being paid, but you have to realize that it is your project, your vision and your word is law; you are giving them the directions. However, that does not preclude being open to creative suggestions as long as they are put forth in a respectful manner.
 
In a Hollywood film, the Director still tells the other departmental directors what to do (or redo if they get it wrong)... you won't need to worry about this headache yet.

If you're working with your friends, you're doing your film a disservice, there's a relationship history that doesn't allow you to be in charge of them... they treat you as equals. If that's what you're stuck with (stuck is a strong word, but you know what I mean), then you have a more difficult directing job. You'll need to manage the "I'm in charge, captain of the ship" thing with the "I still want to hang out later" thing. If this hinders your directing, replace the crew with crew that can take direction. I'm frequently being told on my sets that I'm not demanding enough as I try to ride that line... My friends on my set tell me to suck it up and be a jerk -- to an extent; ask for another take, give a line reading if necessary, balance that with asking for input as well -- it comes with the job.

If your vision is so strong that everyone else's opinion is wrong on a project, I would envision that you're one of those "I'm an Artist" filmmakers who will never fully understand the collaborative part of filmmaking. I prefer to think of myself as a craftsman... If I made furniture, I wouldn't necessarily be the one to cut the lumber I used as stock, nor would I be the one who has to be a salesman as well. My furniture would be much better if I did nothing but make furniture, constantly striving to improve my product.

You say you have 5 people, I say start looking around for more people... you're starting right where I did 7 years ago... I now have a crew of 25-30 on all my projects and the results are much better with more people to concentrate on specific jobs. Specialization is a good thing for this craft as we are always trying to keep the audience/viewer from looking away. If you can keep them from doing that without help from anyone else, you will have been making a living at this already as you'd no one else to make the next brilliant film that no audience can turn away from... reality is that you're most likely in the same boat as many of us trying to figure out the craft. I've seen so many self proclaimed "brilliant" films that I couldn't sit through due to glaring technical issues or annoying stories that the writer/producer/director/DP/Camera Operator/Editor/Lead Actor/ Whatever thought was absolutely brilliant.

The director is responsible for the direction of the project, keeping everyone on track toward the destination that is their "Vision." Communicate well with your crew and other department heads and they'll have no problem helping you achieve your "Vision" - expect that they should know what you want and be annoyed and offended if they fail to read your mind and you'll see precisely what you fear from them... The burden of responsibility goes to the director and as I tell everyone who watches a short I've directed -- If there's something wrong with the film, it's the directors fault for letting it go, whether another take or 10 could have solved it, replacing a cast/crew member, editing a different way and throwing out the initial script/vision to fit something better that should have been, demanding better food for his cast/crew... remember this is all my fault here, not the cast/crews. (specific failings I've personally had in the past that have led to a less than stellar product at the end).

Learn to communicate, assume that the cast/crew is there to serve your vision and make sure that you are then responsible for making them look good in the end product and you'll be just fine.
 
@Alcove Audio: I did not, and I will try this in my next project. I have thought about trying things like gathering my crew (which is small) before a day of shooting and giving a sort of motivational talk/outline of the day so that they know what to expect from their roles and mine. I should probably work on something like getting food and such as lame substitutes for non-paid work haha.

@Knightly: I think my question got lost in the original post, but what you are telling me about now is exactly what I am feeling. Yes, I am working with my friends--who most of the times are not the closest of friends but film-enthusiast acquaintances--and so I am trying to juggle the "I'm in charge, captain of the ship" thing with the "I still want to hang out later" thing all the time--haha.

I feel that my vision does tend to be strong, especially when it comes to the visual aesthetics of things such as close-ups vs. long-shots. But contrary to what it may seem, I like to hear inputs from people, because a lot of times I think their vision helps me better understand my own vision. Or it just might be a flat out better interpretation of the script than what I was originally imagining.

Also, to the last thing you stated about the director always being at fault. I was told by one of my professors that "there are no bad actors--only bad directors." Of course he is a French New Wave "artist" and I know his thoughts wouldn't bode well here =).

I try to be open-minded--but at the moment I try to put a lot of emphasis on the theory behind technicality. So I also advocate making technically well produced films because I think it helps better communicate the fabled "vision."
 
If your vision is so strong that everyone else's opinion is wrong on a project, I would envision that you're one of those "I'm an Artist" filmmakers who will never fully understand the collaborative part of filmmaking. I prefer to think of myself as a craftsman... If I made furniture, I wouldn't necessarily be the one to cut the lumber I used as stock, nor would I be the one who has to be a salesman as well. My furniture would be much better if I did nothing but make furniture, constantly striving to improve my product.

I don't know any "i'm an artist" filmmakers, but the job of the director is to make sure that the crew/actors/etc. help turning his/her vision into a film, so if they start giving their opinions on the film that imho usually means that the director wasn't able to tell what he wants.
In fact the only person I would take (creative) advice from is the DP, provided that s/he is experienced enough.

I believe that the director should write the script anyway. I've never heard of a writer who was satisfied with how the film turned out; and how could he? The screenwriter's vision and the director's vision are very very rarely the same; and if I wrote a script I wouldn't want anyone to fool around with my material either.

Also, in my experience the crew and actors are normally happy when they can work with a director who knows what s/he wants and tells them what he wants from them; I, naturally, listen to all objections, but then tell them politely why I chose to do it this way and not another.
 
I am somewhat fortunate that I am in the position that I pay my crew (allbeit slave wages), I am also the executive producer. This makes it easy to assume my role as "the customer" of their talents. I hire a guy to light my scenes and operate the camera just like I'd hire a decorator to do my living room. I hired them for their talent and creativity, and don't want to micromanage them. However, on the front end I am going to try to communicate to them what I want ("I'd like a warm country lodge feel in this room"), and anywhere along the process it's perfectly ok for me to say "Hmmmm.. I like where you're headed, but I really hate that lamp".
 
I don't know any "i'm an artist" filmmakers, but the job of the director is to make sure that the crew/actors/etc. help turning his/her vision into a film, so if they start giving their opinions on the film that imho usually means that the director wasn't able to tell what he wants.
In fact the only person I would take (creative) advice from is the DP, provided that s/he is experienced enough.

I believe that the director should write the script anyway. I've never heard of a writer who was satisfied with how the film turned out; and how could he? The screenwriter's vision and the director's vision are very very rarely the same; and if I wrote a script I wouldn't want anyone to fool around with my material either.

Also, in my experience the crew and actors are normally happy when they can work with a director who knows what s/he wants and tells them what he wants from them; I, naturally, listen to all objections, but then tell them politely why I chose to do it this way and not another.

I am actually REALLY looking forward to directing another person's script. I have only directed my own screenplays, and really want the experience of translating another person's work.
 
Is it just me, or is "vision" by far the most overused word when discussing film direction? I don't recall ever hearing an established, respectable director use that word when discussing himself. While I completely understand what's meant by it, the connotation always smacks of pretense and inexperience.

Job one of a director is to Tell The Story. Who cares what his "vision" is? When the rubber meets the road, he just needs to tell the damned story. The other people on the set are there to help him do that. Most of the time they're not automatons, they're creative individuals in their own right. Any intelligent director will take advantage of that and collaborate with them to tell the story in the best way possible. Having a "vision" is fine, but focus on it too much and it becomes "tunnel vision".

How about having a "plan" instead?
 
For me the script is the plan--it's the blueprint and it is meant to be realized.

For me, the script is the story -- not so much a blueprint as a sketch of the final product. The "plan" is how to communicate it to the audience.

I'm fine with a different word than "plan", but the word "vision" in this context gives me a rash. :)
 
Last edited:
For me, the script is the story -- not so much a blueprint as a sketch of the final product. The "plan" is how to communicate it to the audience.

When I write the script though, I write about the sounds, the framing of the shots (if i know the location already), and editing that goes into the script. I then use these ideas and try to flush them out in a storyboard format. These ideas are never final (since I'm no Hitchcock) but just blueprints. In this way I am thinking about the communication as I am writing the story. This might be because of my influences that make me view film as the medium, and the importance of utilizing this medium to communicate ideas. I think a better understanding of the medium results in a better communication of the story.

Of course story-writing is an art of its own, and the heart of indie filmmaking.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top