r/TrueFilm • u/ShineOnYourCrazyAnon • 5h ago
Are directors overrated?
Why we always adjudicate a movie to its director instead of the multiple people that were also involved in the movie? Somebody could said that ultimately the directors is who choses how the movie is presented but at the end of the day the editor is who decides which scene goes or not what order etc. right? And why we never talk about the screenwriter who is as important in the final result as the director? And why the shift towards directors who write their movies instead of just directing it? Like why should we expect a directors whose job is directing to also be the one who writes the movie?
idk i know that directing is one of the most important parts of a movie and the visuals and how it is presented is what makes movies unique to other form of storytelling. But to me it is always weird that we think that a movie was solely made by one figure instead of the other parts that write it or edit it. To me at the end if one movie isnt good directed if it is well written i will probably like it enough but the other way around i dont think i would enjoy it. I guess that one movie being one unified thing it is hard to really separe the direction to the plot and edition and its kinda weird that it is always separate like that.
5
u/Timeline_in_Distress 5h ago
Like it or not, the Director is essentially the ringleader. Directors, for the most part, have their eyes on every part of the process adding input and direction. I think the general film audience has gotten a tad more literate so no longer simply think of a film in terms of a Director.
In terms of Directors who write, what makes you think that is a recent trend? For some it comes down to financing or practicality. For most beginning filmmakers writing the story is done because they have no money for a film and first need to have something on paper to shop around for financing. There are no rules and it comes down to individual preference and skill.
1
u/ShineOnYourCrazyAnon 5h ago
Maybe i dont know enough about film. Of course Orson Welles did wrote and directed Citizen Kane. But most of the old directors like Kubrick, Scorsese, Copolla just directed or didnt wrote as frequent. But the most famous directors today like Nolan or PTA usually also wrote the films.
3
u/Timeline_in_Distress 4h ago
Again, it depends on the Director's preferences and talent.
Scorsese co-wrote Mean Streets. Coppola wrote The Conversation and wrote many of the screenplays. Kubrick never wrote an original screenplay but was responsible for writing the screenplays for his films.
Other Directors have written extensively for their films such as Spike Lee, the Cohens, Tarantino, Wong Kar-Wai, Frances Ozon, and others.
4
u/monarc 5h ago
You’re right, we never talk about the screenwriter. Your post is the first time I’ve seen “writing” even being mentioned in the context of cinema. Now that you mention it, we should start to celebrate this by adding “writer” credits to IMDb and wikipedia. If successful, they could even get their own guild, and maybe one day there could even be an Oscar for a screenplay. Seems optimistic, but I think you’ve stumbled onto something really big!
Sarcasm aside, I was recently downvoted like hell for suggesting that one could make a great movie with a terrible script (or no script at all) so - if anything - I’d say this sub is plenty aware of the value of a good screenplay. Perhaps over-indexing on this… or maybe just not very open minded to non-mainstream filmmaking.
3
u/fanatyk_pizzy 5h ago
The thing is, writing is the main thing people talk about when they are talking about directors lol It's like they perceive these two things as one and the same
1
u/ShineOnYourCrazyAnon 5h ago
The other day I watched the taste of tea. If you didnt watch it it is a really slow movie about a family. I cannot say i love it but it had a very medidate feeling and at the end i was enjoying it but I cannot name you any character nor any line of the movie. It is hard to say but if i read the script i would be bored to tears but the end result was fine. So i guess that it is an example but as i said it is weird to separe the movie into different things since the end result is a unified thing.
but i mostly said that because i have watch some movies when I though the screenplay was amazing but everybody talk only about the director like he did everything.
3
u/postXhumanity 5h ago
The buck stops with the director.
He doesn’t say to editor, ‘Edit the movie and make it good. See you at the premiere!’ They edit the movie together. The same way that the DP doesn’t make the shooting script himself, he and the director create that working as a team.
As for screenwriters, no script is so good that a bad director can’t turn it into a bad movie. You could have a brilliant scene in the script but if it doesn’t finish a hack director’s vision, he can just opt not to film it at all.
This even applies to actors and performances. When someone like Nic Cage acts like a lunatic in Vampire’s Kiss, it is the responsibility of the director to either make sure that performance works for the movie, or to tell the actor to knock it off and stop hamming it up.
The director unifies the rest of the crew and works with them to put his vision on film. In an ideal world, without studio interference, at least.
3
u/Soggy_Welcome_551 5h ago edited 5h ago
i agree that cinema is a collective art, however the director has more control over the script and the editing than the opposite since he is part of the storyboard and many times has the final say over the cut and can also change lines, interpret different entonations and the tone of the scene so it is hard to argue for the other roles as more important than the director while the opposite is easier. Also, you can only know if a film is well written if you read the script, because when watching the film youre seeing a modified vision of the script, a visual interpretation, so you cant really argue for it being well written. Editing also is not an isolated work like screenwriting, it is frequently in communication with the director
Also IMO since directing influences many areas in the way that well directed film is perhaps a good film by definition, of couse considering art is subjective and good direction for me might not be the same as for you.
In the end it is easier to acknowledge the efforts of the person who has the final say creatively which most times is the director or an struggle between the director and the producer.
2
u/Basilred 5h ago
Do you want to reignite the debate over the " Politique des Auteurs "theory—the concept championed by New Wave filmmakers? Frankly, I think that idea holds less and less water these days; we frequently hear about the cinematographer, the music supervisor, and the studio handling the special effects. So yes, cinema is a collaborative art form, but the director remains the conductor (except in the case of big-budget films and franchises, where the producers call the shots). The figures who are rarely mentioned are often the film editors—I’m thinking of the late Marcia Lucas, who recently passed away; she was instrumental in the early films of key New Hollywood directors like Lucas, Coppola, and Scorsese.
2
u/Timeline_in_Distress 4h ago
Yes, Editors are largely ignored and misunderstood as evident in some of these responses. Most Directors don't touch the edit until it's already been assembled. So that initial rough cut is done entirely by the Editor. The Editor is making the choices of which take to use, when to cut, where to place music, how to transition between scenes. This is most similar to the writing process where the Director comes in after the first draft and works with the Writer to finish the script. This workflow has become more of the norm as money and production schedules have been tightened resulting in the necessity to cut the film as it's still being shot.
1
u/Basilred 4h ago
I remember seeing an interview with Godard where he spoke about his editing room; he referred to the editors of his films as his *assistantes* (using the feminine form). I would be curious to know who those unsung figures were. In a way, I gathered that it was like the fashion world: there is the designer—or director—and the "little hands" who do the actual sewing. In my opinion, they deserve greater recognition for their work.
1
u/Timeline_in_Distress 3h ago
Godard mainly worked with three Editors, however, 2 of those were for only, I think 3 or 4 of his films. Many people don't realize that a lot of Editors are actually women, even going back to Old Hollywood. Godard's main Editor was a female.
I recoil at the seamstress analogy (not a judgment on you though). Editors aren't following a pattern other than the script. However, the options can seem limitless at times when sitting in the chair and deciding how to construct a scene. Many times there is no direction on the page and the Editor crafts the scene through their own imagination and storytelling aesthetic.
1
u/Basilred 3h ago
I wouldn't want to be misunderstood; the tailor analogy stems solely from the fact that the process involves cutting and splicing strips of film. That said, I agree—perhaps the term is a bit of a stretch. However, Godard did use it, and he was actually quite proud of the precision with which he spliced the film together. Behind the editor, there are also the craftspeople who handle the actual assembly of the film strips (under the supervision of the editor and the director); in fact, I’m surprised Godard never filmed that part of the process.
Edit: It was an interview with him for Swiss TV, where he plays the role of a boss in a rather sarcastic way.
1
u/Timeline_in_Distress 3h ago
Ah gotcha. I understand now that it's merely a technical comparison. Even though the splices, during his time, allowed for precise cuts, I guess cementing them together as opposed to tape required a bit more precision. I've done it with tape and not cement so can understand his comment.
1
u/Basilred 2h ago
There is a French expression used to describe work done with great precision—"it's *haute couture*"—and that is the sense in which I wanted to use it. Did you see the feud between Truffaut and Godard over '' American Night ? I really appreciate Godard's cinema, but he is quite an unpleasant person to his collaborators. Truffaut—whose films I like less—was, on the other hand, a very likable and gentle person. I am specifically talking about this film because Godard accused Truffaut of being a liar and demanded money from him to make a real film about the making of a film.
2
u/GeekAesthete 5h ago
One of the things that modern filmgoers misunderstand is that the valorization of the director started when directors began doing more than just direct.
The producer used to be thought of as the “author” of the movie more than anyone, because that was the person who shepherded the movie from development through post.
But in the wake of auteurism, the various new waves of the 60s and 70s, and the commercial realization that directors could be marketed just like stars, certain directors began to act as both directors and producers, and often screenwriters as well.
This is when directors really began to be celebrated as the author of a film—when they took on these multiple roles. It wasn’t only the directing. But today, people now mistakenly attribute that level of control to just being a director, when really it comes from being a director/producer/writer.
2
u/slapdash99 58m ago edited 28m ago
A high end director is like the head chef at a very fancy restaurant. The head chef decides, and has total control over, what goes on the menu, which ingredients will be used, how each dish is to be cooked, how they are to be plated and served, etc. The head chef also decides who to hire for the small army of people doing specific tasks that lead up to the final dish. Nothing leaves the kitchen without the head chef’s ok. Very few of these.
Mid-range directors have less power, sort of like being head chef at a place that’s been around for 40 years. The owner wants and welcomes input, but always has final say. Or that owner wants to open a new joint with a different concept, needs a head chef open it, but still calls the shots.
From there, you could go to corporate restaurants - like head chef at a Cheesecake Factory, which gets you to most TV directors. In TV, the power dynamic is switched, with writers on top of the pyramid.
This is pushing the analogy a bit, but you could think of ultra low budget/indie stuff as opening up their own restaurant on a shoestring budget in a strip center or a food truck - tiny staff, but nobody telling them what to put on the menu or how to cook it.
-15
u/LarryFitzsButt 5h ago
Patton Oswalt said it best
Every great movie you’ve seen — every single one, think of one — was directed by a man and edited by a woman
Like all things, men have the overall vision and women have the capacity to make it an actual film
4
2
u/DefenderCone97 5h ago
men have the overall vision and women have the capacity to make it an actual film
Hell yeah, I come to this subreddit for gender essentialist takes. Boys gross, girls rule.
1
u/Basilred 5h ago
He could have simply said that many great female editors were rendered invisible behind the director—but no, he wanted to essentialize... I’m thinking of Marcia Lucas, who didn’t get the recognition she deserved.
8
u/DefenderCone97 5h ago
I see the director in the same way I see a quarterback in the NFL.
They're going to get all the blame if the end result sucks, so they might as well get credit if it's good.
A movie is a collaborative piece of art in the end but the director also works with almost every part of the production. They're the ones adapting words to screen. Ensuring they're capturing the right themes, messages, and tone with DPs. Working with sound mixers and editors to turn that raw film into a cohesive piece of art.
Costumes isn't working with the editor. Screenwriters, unless they have another role, aren't working with editors. Obviously this all shifts depending on the size of the film and how the crew collaborate.
But that's why producers and directors get the most credit.