I sometimes wonder about the role of the film director

[M A V I C]

N-OS X-tasy! wrote:
[quote=M A V I C]
[quote=ztirffritz]
Star Wars is a perfect example of what a director can do, or rather shouldn't do. Natalie Portman is usually a very good actor. Not great, but capable. She and every other actor in the Star Wars movies managed to produce the most consistent pile of crap they were capable of. They were the most 2-D performances possible.

Without the director, there would have been no story.
Or consistency.
And that's the key. An actor can keep track of what they're doing, but there needs to be someone else who's keeping track of everyone and the story. That way the actors can focus on acting, knowing that someone else is making sure what they're doing fits.

A director is a like a build site forman. A carpenter can show up and build most anything, but a forman can give him direction as far as where, how big...

[Greg]

M A V I C wrote:
The actors are generally trained to take direction and act. If they just act without direction, it's just a mess.

Oh, I understand this academically, but I don't feel it. I know how a waiter can affect a meal, or how a driver can affect a road trip, but show biz and acting is so far from me that I don't have a good intuitive grasp of how the director can make a difference.

But then, honest-to-gosh, I recall Mr. Christensen in those two different roles, and I totally get it.

[cbelt3]

Star Wars is an example of escapist genre. Read some of the stories about the making of the first film, and the actors commentary about the work that they did.

Comparing Star Wars to a 'good' film is like comparing a classic of Literacy to a pulp comic book. Each has their audience and their advantages and disadvantages.

[N-OS X-tasy!]

M A V I C wrote:
[quote=N-OS X-tasy!]
[quote=M A V I C]
[quote=ztirffritz]
Star Wars is a perfect example of what a director can do, or rather shouldn't do. Natalie Portman is usually a very good actor. Not great, but capable. She and every other actor in the Star Wars movies managed to produce the most consistent pile of crap they were capable of. They were the most 2-D performances possible.

Without the director, there would have been no story.
Or consistency.
And that's the key. An actor can keep track of what they're doing, but there needs to be someone else who's keeping track of everyone and the story. That way the actors can focus on acting, knowing that someone else is making sure what they're doing fits.

A director is a like a build site forman. A carpenter can show up and build most anything, but a forman can give him direction as far as where, how big...
Maybe my humor was too subtle - see bolded item above for clarification.

[M A V I C]

cbelt3 wrote:
Star Wars is an example of escapist genre. Read some of the stories about the making of the first film, and the actors commentary about the work that they did.

Comparing Star Wars to a 'good' film is like comparing a classic of Literacy to a pulp comic book. Each has their audience and their advantages and disadvantages.

I concur.

[Seacrest]

Not every scene in a film requires actors.
Not every director has much of an impact on her films either.

The role of the director in something like "Taxi Driver" is quite evident.
In "From Justin to Kelly," not so much.

[Greg]

Hey, as long as this is spinning off...

The older I get (and I'm 163 right now), the more I appreciate Empire, over all others.

Classic dialogue, this ain't: "But I'm going into Toshi station to pick up some power converters! Waaaahhh!!"

[N-OS X-tasy!]

Greg wrote:
The older I get (and I'm 163 right now), the more I appreciate Empire, over all others

TESB is generally considered to be the best of the six films.

[Mike Johnson]

I directed a play a couple years ago. It was grueling, but rewarding.

There are many approaches a director can take. Clint Eastwood is legendary for doing one or two takes before moving on -- he trusts his actors and lets them do their thing. George Lucas says he was paying homage to the wooden stilted acting in the old serials. James Cameron is a legendary perfectionist. Stanley Kubrick decided the best way to catch Wendy's breakdown in "The Shining" was to force Shelly Duvall to have a real one on the set.

The text itself is always open to interpretation -- is Lee peeved? Furious? Drunk? Is Austin scared of Lee? Humoring him? Egging him on? If you leave it up to the actors to decide what their intentions are, they may veer off course from each other. The director decides where the crucial beats are, and makes sure the two characters are in clear opposition.

Film and teevee acting is different from the stage, because the actor also has to consider how the shot is framed. The director has to make all that clear before shooting begins. What's more, the constant stop & start, as well as shooting out of order, means somebody has to make sure there's a continuity of intentions that would be natural in a staged play.

But even then, the film director can do a fantastic job, and then have his work butchered in the editing bay. It's not even a question of cutting things out, but about rhythm. There's a documentary about Star Wars which touches on Lucas having to fire the editor. The doc includes clips of the cantina scene as edited by the first editor, and then how Richard Chew edited it. It made a world of difference.

[Mike Sellers]

Gore Vidal wrote as essay years ago called "Who Make the Movies?" which credited the screenwriter as the true auteur of a movie. I can't find a like to the entire essay but I did find this.

I think there's are good arguments for either being the real driving force behind a great movie but I tend to side more with Vidal. Without a good story, you rarely have a good movie. Not to take anything away from Ron Howard but Ed Wood could have directed "Apollo 13" and it still would have been a great movie.