I sometimes wonder about the role of the film director

[Spock]

M A V I C wrote:
A film without a director is like:
- A car without a driver
- A ship without a captain
- A web forum without a web host
- A life without a vision
- A plan without a goal

The actors are generally trained to take direction and act. If they just act without direction, it's just a mess.

You forgot

- A fish without a bicycle

[Mike Johnson]

Mike Sellers wrote: Gore Vidal wrote as essay years ago called "Who Make the Movies?" which credited the screenwriter as the true auteur of a movie.

Wow, and he was a screenwriter, too. There's an odd coincidence, eh?

Mike Sellers wrote: 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.

You've never been to a bad Shakespeare play?

[testcase]

Greg, I don't believe that you're 163.

[August West]

A New Hope, Empire, and Jedi were clearly successful despite the efforts of George Lucas.

That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read.

[decay]

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0449984/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irvin_Kersh...rikes_Back

i really like his quote at the end of TESB section, although to post it here might make more sense on the other side.

[N-OS X-tasy!]

...and CUT!

OK, people, that's a wrap!

[RAMd®d]

Without the director, there would have been no story.

Or consistency.


That's only really true if the director is good. There are a lot of movies that had a director, no story, and no real consistency.

A great director gets the most out of actors, probably for several reasons. A great actor can give a great performance with a weak director. That doesn't mean the movie still won't suffer.

And in Eastwood's case, I think he trusts the actors because he knows they trust him. And finding good actors, especially unknowns, is a talent all it's own.

[guitarist]

Greg wrote:

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.

I think you do feel it, more than you think you do, don't you?

The Director's taste, style, and personality is primary characteristic of the film. Even back in old Hollywood. John Ford, Howard Hawks, Alfred HItchcock, were larger-than-life personalities. A "Hitchcock movie" tells the viewer something before they even see the film, they know what they're in for. Hitchcock is a great example. That signature style is what the audience looks for, and expects.

And later, Coppala, or Martin Scorcese, or Spike Lee, or Quentin Tarantino. Guys with strong personality and taste. The Director's personality is all over their films. Movies are a Director's medium. You can't avoid being aware of their imprint, you couldn't avoid it even if you tried!