.......technically he's better....
- Thread starter punee
- Start date
Usually when someone says someone is "technically better" than someone else they mean he utilizes the tools of filmmaking better than someone else. He may frame shots in a traditional way, or edit cuts in a traditional way, or use camera angles and lens selection in time-honored ways. They are probably referring to the director's technical skill as opposed to overall artistic vision. Just a guess, but that's usually what gets discussed whenever I hear that term used in an argument.
Ya, pretty much what U said. It can also mean that he knows his lenses and cameras better--can immediately call out the lens he wants and the shot to the DP and/or shooter.
Also, a director that can 'shoot to edit' could be considered 'technically' better than a director that relies a shot list and storyboard.
Also, a director that can 'shoot to edit' could be considered 'technically' better than a director that relies a shot list and storyboard.
Go back and ask them what they mean. I'd like to hear this myself.
As far as technical skills go, framing, editing and lens selection generally has little to do with directors.
As far as technical skills go, framing, editing and lens selection generally has little to do with directors.
Framing has everything to do with a director.
Editing and lens selection is done by editors and cinematographers to serve the directors vision.
I think that phrase only meant something for a short period in filmmaking. And that period is long since past. Now the main technical decision is how "shaky" to make the shot.
My point is; most directors aren't technical at all now. They hire people to be technical for them. And most credit should go to the cinematographer and the editor.
I think that is very much debatable.
Infact, i suggest it's the exact opposite. Trades are so easily accessible via the internet, college courses etc, that the term "Director" is as broad a statement as it was forty years ago. Many more "Directors", especially in the latest area have never been so multi-talented. Whether that's a good thing or not, is another debate.
Never have so many people had the opportunity to learn such a plethora of crafts/skills, that inevitably a surge in the "Jack-of-all-trades" has arised. Not so much that they run entire movie-sets on their own, but certainly beyond such decision making as your first quote.
There's much, much, much more understanding in the terms "Director" as there's ever been.
As to your point about the "Credit" going to whom, and the Director not deserving much. May i ask who informs the crew members of the vision to the very last degree? Who spends months, and months researching and constructing that vision to the extent that it's able to be created? Because you must remember that the entire crew has to start from zero. He/She conveys their vision that must comply to their ideal for the material. That is extremely challenging. Not to mentioned the massive pressure that comes with the title, but to orchestrate a significant number of artists and have them singing from the same hymn sheet, it takes an enormous amount of patience, humanity, and skill.
It's a balancing act, and it deserves just as much credit as any other.
Last edited:
Credit for cinematography alone should go to the cinematographer. Credit for the editing alone should go to the editor. But credit for the film as a whole should like with the director and how well (or how poorly) he created the film out of its various elements, artists and technicians.
No room for the poor writer...
Writer should get credit for the screenplay. But again, the screenplay is just one (albeit huge) element of a completed film.
The job of a Writer predominantly starts and ends before the commence of "Principle Photography", other than the rare occasions they are hired as "Consultants".
A Writer has nothing at all do to with the film-making process once it has begun in many, many instances. The Director will have sourced from he/she what they need, gained the greatest understanding of the material that will them to go ahead with the project, all before the havock of pre-production has begun.
A Writer has nothing at all do to with the film-making process once it has begun in many, many instances. The Director will have sourced from he/she what they need, gained the greatest understanding of the material that will them to go ahead with the project, all before the havock of pre-production has begun.
Last edited:
If the movie isn't the result of the directors' vision, then why is it so easy to tell when a movie has been directed by a particular person? Sure, there are instances in which a particular director always works with the same DP, or perhaps the same editor. But this isn't always the case, so I think it'd be silly to chalk it up to that.
A Scorcese movie is very clearly a Scorecese movie. The movies of the Farrelly Brothers are very recognizeable. Shyamalan, Boll, Tarantino, Cameron, Bay -- it's very easy to see the commonalites that pervade each of these directors' movies, and I could easily continue listing directors with their own distinctive styles. Yet, I'm supposed to believe that most of the credit should go to the DP and editor?
I'm a firm believer in the collaborative process, and the importance of a good DP and editor (in addition to many other very important positions) cannot be understated. But to imply that the director is sort of just along for the ride is silly.
EDIT: Oh, and to answer the OP's question, yeah, I agree with what M1cheal wrote.
A Scorcese movie is very clearly a Scorecese movie. The movies of the Farrelly Brothers are very recognizeable. Shyamalan, Boll, Tarantino, Cameron, Bay -- it's very easy to see the commonalites that pervade each of these directors' movies, and I could easily continue listing directors with their own distinctive styles. Yet, I'm supposed to believe that most of the credit should go to the DP and editor?
I'm a firm believer in the collaborative process, and the importance of a good DP and editor (in addition to many other very important positions) cannot be understated. But to imply that the director is sort of just along for the ride is silly.
EDIT: Oh, and to answer the OP's question, yeah, I agree with what M1cheal wrote.
Last edited:
The DP's job is to perform the correct technical tasks (correct lens, corrrect lighting, correct camera movement) to produce exactly the image I as the director want. Whether he has done that, or we need to adjust and try again is 100% my decision. What those images are is 100% my decision.
"I think that phrase only meant something for a short period in filmmaking. And that period is long since past. Now the main technical decision is how "shaky" to make the shot."
Well yes, if you are a talentless director producing a complete piece of shit.
Well yes, if you are a talentless director producing a complete piece of shit.
That may be true with you, but I'm not sure that it's typical. I think this really depends on the particular director and DP. Me? Currently, I'm my own DP, by default. But I look very forward to being able to hire a DP, and when I do, I want one who is not just technically proficient, but who has something to bring to the mix, artistically. Just as I want to see how my actors interpret the work, before I ask for or guide them in modifications, I also would really like to have a DP who has an eye for creating a beautiful image, and knows how to communicate and share with me what they have in mind.
But yes, in the end, it's still my decision to say yes or no to any idea.
I absolutely want their input, but as you noted, whether I use that input is 100% my decision.
Same is true for actors. I absolutely want them to experiment, and bring their ideas to the table. However, I also reserve the right to say "Sorry, that's not what I want", and they can roll with that, or I can hire another actor.
A movie set isn't a democracy, or a communist day care center. It's a dictatorship, and I am Mussolini.
Last edited: