Opinions are like...

Loud Orange Cat

Loud Orange Cat

Pro Member
indiePRO
Everyone has one. You know, an opinion...

An ongoing argument I've had with my friends for years now has escalated to a boiling point and I wanted to get some opinions from Indietalk subscribers. I'm asking because I value your input.

The argument is this: Is Peter Jackson (of Lord of the Rings fame) a good director?

I say no. Here's why: The LOTR films looked spectacular, but I believe that's because they spent a ton of money gettong one of the best DPs around and the cinematography is magnificent. Personally, I don't think the directing on the LOTR films were that good. Then again, I just don't care for his directing style. I guess that's just personal preference.

My friends believe that the director is 100% responsible for the way films look. I disagree. I believe that a harmonious synergy must exist between the director, DP and so on to achieve perfection and it must be a 'team effort' to bring said perfection to the screen.

Your opinions?
 
Last edited:
A good director knows his own weaknesses and the strengths of his team he and the producers have assembled. At the end, he could have said "no" to any camera setup on the picture and is the one to call "print" for the shots he likes...this includes approving everything the art, costume and makeup departments do, everything the camera/lighting department do in addition to everything the actors do. He is the captain of the ship, it sinks or floats with him and at the end of the day, he's responsible for the output...all of it. On sheer glorious imagery alone, I think he's a good director. I think parts of the story were done poorly in terms of shield surfing and other corny bits in such a weighty piece, but the rest of it is well done.
 
Are your friends in filmmaking? just wondering

Good scenery doesn't draw out good performances. Great cinematography doesn't corral people into the right emotions for the scene.

I agree that the DP and Director have to work closely together, or else wouldn't they have the wrong angles for the scene they were trying to block?

Somebody has to "steer the ship" as it were. So maybe your friends have a point about the director having 100% control over the look because for the most part, they have to finalize everything, but that doesn't mean the DP works with the actors does it? The DP doesn't evoke the emotion of the film to draw you in. Without that what you have is a good piece for National Geographic.

As for Peter Jackson in particular, I think we'll have to see what else he can do. I saw the Frightners and thought it was only okay. I saw Heavenly Creatures and found it pretty good and creepy. Maybe he needs a good drama to put out there....

I have some ideas for a narrative or two, I see myself telling my DP what to get or doing it myself....but then, I'm a documentary filmmaker, I don't dabble in narrative very much...

-- spinner :cool:
 
Last edited:
Personal feelings aside on who I like/dislike as a director, I still feel that a director is not the only person responsible for the entire show.

Take a look at these examples:

  • 1962: Lawrence of Arabia; David Lean, Director; Freddie Young, DP.
  • 1968: 2001 A Space Odyssey; Stanley Kubrick, Director; Geoffrey Unsworth, DP.
  • 1969: Easy Rider; Dennis Hopper, Director; László Kovács, DP.
  • 1972: The Godfather; Francis Ford Coppola, Director; Gordon Willis, DP.
  • 1979: Apocalypse Now; Francis Ford Coppola, Director; Vittorio Storaro, DP.
  • Taxi Driver; Raging Bull: Martin Scorsese, Director; Michael Chapman, DP.
Yes, the director is responsible for the design, but would this films be so visually engrossing without the DPs? Then why would these positions exist if they we're required?

Just my $0.02. :)
 
I don't think there is any way to come up with a definitive answer to a question like that. Is "fill in the blank" a good director? Are there any directors whose directing style you don't care for that you would still feel is a good director? Or is it entirely your personal feelings that make that decision?

"good" is so different to everyone. I think that a director who finished the film as close to they way he (or she) envisioned it under whatever pressure there was is a good director. Even if I don't personally like the finished product.

I think Lynch is a great director because I like his work. Is he really a great director? Many people don't like his work. Doesn't make him a bad director because some people don't like his movies.

Regarding Jackson. I hated, hated, HATED, Kong, but I loved Bad Taste, Brain Dead and Heavenly Creatures. I'm uncommitted on the LOTR films. I'm not willing to say he isn't a good director because I don't personally like a few of his movies.

I try not to get into discussions like this because I'm too wishy-washy about it. And there is no way to come to any understanding when it comes to personal taste. I can't figure how anyone could find Jim Carey funny. We could argue and discuss for years and I'd still never understand why anyone laughs at him.
 
directorik said:
I think Lynch is a great director because I like his work. Is he really a great director? Many people don't like his work. Doesn't make him a bad director because some people don't like his movies.
Click to expand...
I agree. He's an even bigger visionary.

But aside from who I may think is a good or bad director, I'm a firm believer that if there was only one person behind the camera for a production of any significant size, nothing would get done. A crew exists for a very distinct reason: Because no one person can do it all.

I also happen to think that Renny Harlin is a halfway decent director, but he keeps getting stuck taking shit jobs so when the film flops, he looks bad. Case in point: The Adventures of Ford Fairlane. Have you ever analyzed how they blocked the shots on this film? I loved it!
 
I think it really depends on the film, and the studio(s) backing said film. Ultimately, the director is the person responsible for the end product, the overall look, feel, mood, etc of a picture. But, that said, on a big budget studio production, the studio will likely have a loud voice in the final say on decisions -- being the ones with the financial risk involved.

In general, overall, a film cannot be made by one person, so one person can not be 100% responsible for the whole film. But it depends on what point of view you want to look at it from.

I guess when it comes down to it, truth in any topic is based on point of view. Perception is reality. ;)
 
So throwing out personal tastes, how do you define a good director?
Can a director be good if you don't like the movies?
 
I'm no expert on directing styles, but I know what I like. :)

There's a few movies that I liked but I thought the directing was horrendous (lets call them guilty pleasures), but let's set those aside for now to directly answer your question on what defines a good director.

-----

IMHO, a good director will not purposefully muddle the screen by adding a ton of extreme closeups and associated quick cuts to fill screen time because they either didn't have time/budget/crew to block the shot properly. I want to see what's going on! Unless it's a whodunnit mystery, you shouldn't allow your audience to guess what's currently happening on-screen no matter what.

While there's a touch of personal opinion in that last paragraph, if you're going to show your audience something in a visual form, why not actually show it to your audience?

Case in point: Action films. Carefully choreographed fighting sequences in martial arts films is one favorite of mine. I love seeing the graceful moves of the performers, but some... er, bad directors shoot the impact of a weapon upon his opponent, then a closeup of their actor's eyes to see their pain level. That's fine, but unless I get a medium or wide shot of the action to see at what angle and method used to inflict the move, it's difficult to appreciate the intricate training the actors would have us believe they used to choose such a move and understand the character's methodologies. If I can't fully feel that character's emotions and make that connection to them, how am I supposed to enjoy the film in general?

Good directing of many different facets of the production is paramount.

I can go into pages of whining about what I don't like about how what director blocked this shot or that shot. We all can. But don't you think halfway decent artists using a visual media should be able to go the extra mile to show us what's going on?
 
Sounds to me as if you didn't like the movies, not the director. If the adaptation is what you didn't like, then the fault should be called upon the writer (if the logic that the DP is responsible for the look of the film follows to every aspect of the film). Then the Director is really responsible for nothing but calling action and cut. The editor would then be responsible for shot choices in the final edit. So you don't like John Gilbert who cut the film?

Having shot and am in the process of editing a feature, anyone who finishes a movie is a good filmmaker. The director and the producers are the the ones who work the entire project from beginning to end...fortitude to bring a huge project like this in gains my respect. Peter Jackson is a good director, whether I like his movies or not.
 
LOTR, IMO, cannot be attributed to any one person. A production on that scale required collaboration on multiple levels with multiple teams working concurrently. And the imagery cannot, IMO, be directly attributed to the DP, either, because much of what made the film spectacular was all of the Computer Generated Imagery (CGI) that happened in post production. Peter would not have been able to accomplish squat without a phenomenal team backing him up. Yes, I would say he's a good director because to keep that many people in sync with a common vision and to deliver on time and on budget was his job, and I thought he did well. Some of the material in the extended editions fell flat as did some of the performances, but everyone has an off day. Some of that material should've been left on the cutting room floor or dropped into deleted scenes sections.

I didn't like Kong as much, either, but does that mean he's a bad director? Unless you worked alongside him, none of us are qualified to answer that question. A team is only as strong as its weakest link, and I don't believe Peter is a weak link by any stretch of the imagination.
 
It's easy to say what you don't like. It's difficult to say what
makes a good director. Which is why a discussion like this is
tough. You don't like "FILL-IN-THE-BLANK" and I do. So you can
go on and on about what you don't like about him and I have a
hard time telling you what I like.

Reverse it and YOU will have a hard time defending a good director
you like if I don't like him.

Something I find interesting in your comments, Cat. You know that a
director isn't 100% responsible for the way a film looks and most
of your examples of what you don't like (a ton of extreme close
ups - not enough medium or wide shots) can often be the editors
decision - or fault.

So "Is Peter Jackson a good director?" You don't like his style so
he isn't good. Your friends do, so he's good. You don't need to
be an expert to know what you like. You're friends don't need to
be experts to know what they like.

But I'm not sure there is an answer. There doesn't seem to be an
answer that isn't only opinion.

Anyone else care to tackle the questions:

Throwing out personal tastes, how do you define a good director?
Can a director be good if you don't like the movies?
 
Loud Orange Cat said:
The LOTR films looked spectacular, but I believe that's because they spent a ton of money gettong one of the best DPs around and the cinematography is magnificent.
Click to expand...

The look of that film owes much more to the production designer than the DP. So by your argument, the film had a mediocre DP but a great production designer.

Overall I disagree with that chain of reasoning. You can appreciate great cinematography, great acting, great production design, while still giving the director his due. After all, if you give all of the credit to the various depts for a job well done, then what exactly is left to credit the director with?

The director is the creative head and does and should get credit for the overall results. So if you like LOTR, then give credit to Jackson. If not, then give him the blame. You are certainly entitled to that opinion. But that's different from misplaced credit or blame in regards to who has final say over a certain job.
 
directorik said:
Something I find interesting in your comments, Cat. You know that a
director isn't 100% responsible for the way a film looks and most
of your examples of what you don't like (a ton of extreme close
ups - not enough medium or wide shots) can often be the editors
decision - or fault.
Click to expand...
True, but doesn't a director 'direct' the scene to achieve a specific visual style of the film? Many directors work with the editor (unfortunately, some do not). The director has a vision and working with the editor to achieve that vision is ultimately the director's responsibility.

directorik said:
You don't like his style so
he isn't good. Your friends do, so he's good. You don't need to
be an expert to know what you like. You're friends don't need to
be experts to know what they like.
Click to expand...
I didn't care for the way he directed LOTR, however I did enjoy the film series immensely. Anyone can associate with one director's styles (Personally, I'd like to direct using the stylings of Kubrick).

directorik said:
Can a director be good if you don't like the movies?
Click to expand...
Absolutely! Case in point: The Matrix 2 & 3. :D
 
I think it's entirely based on opinion..

For example, if you look at the classic examples: Goddard, Trufaut, Eisenstein, etc... what makes them any better than say.. Ed Wood?

I don't know if anyone can honestly answer this sans-opinion.

I personally have never been a fan of Woody Allen, or Kubrick (other than Cuckoo's Nest, The Shining, and Full Metal Jacket) for that matter.. does that mean they are not good directors? Probably not. After all, there are lots of industry people who love to work with them (or loved to in Kubrick's case).

Example: I don't consider Michael Bay to be a very good director, because I don't see him using any method to create tension in a scene other than a tight uber-shaky camera angle. On the other hand, I liked The Island, I liked Transformers... He continues to be handed these huge-budget pictures, so if he's not good, why is he working? There's no answer that doesn't include opinion.

Because our opinions shape our perception, and perception is reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top