Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Serious question. Despite working in film and TV for 6 years, and despite studying it at university, I still have problems, when watching a film or TV programme, in seeing what makes good (or bad) quality direction. So this thread is for people to discuss what to look for, what makes a great director, how important a director is, etc. etc. You'll be doing me a favour too.

― Markelby (Mark C), Monday, 23 February 2004 10:57 (twenty-two years ago)

What I noticed, the difference between pro and am direction, is..

"Too far away" filming of scenes,
Too much 'pause' time before and after delivery of lines

But I'm not industry, so I 'know' nowt.

― mark grout (mark grout), Monday, 23 February 2004 11:05 (twenty-two years ago)

Surely the latter is partly editing rather than direction?

― caitlin (caitlin), Monday, 23 February 2004 11:13 (twenty-two years ago)

If something looks good, slick, professional, without any obvious mistakes - does that mean that the director is good or just competent? I'm still uncertain at the clues I should be looking for.

― Markelby (Mark C), Monday, 23 February 2004 11:26 (twenty-two years ago)

Argh I just wrote a whole long thing and then lost it. I will try to summarize.

I think what I notice most about the direction of a film is something I can best describe as coherence. Not the greatest word, but I can't think of a better one right now. An extreme example of this is visible in auteur-type films (anything by Hitchcock, etc. and many others of course) where the director's mark seems all over the place somehow, though I don't mean to say auteur=director I think is good.

I will try to give an example of this nebulous thing I mean by coherence. Watching the director's commentary to 'Maborosi,' (Japanese movie by former documentary director Hirokazu Kore-eda) he explained that he made the decision early on in the process to use only long and short (close?) shots for everything, barring a single scene between two of the central characters, where he used the only medium-length shots in the movie. I didn't consciously process this while watching, but in retrospect that decision made the film flow and cohere in a distinct way that I think really affected any viewer's relation to the story. It's these kinds of details that fit into the flim-as-whole that I think good directors have under control.

Another Hitchcock example, (according to David Chase/Peter Bogdanovich conversation re: the Sopranos) being the first director to use only atmospheric music (i.e. no score) in 'Rear Window.' Something that someone watching may not consciously parse, but that affects the whole feel of the thing.

Hope this helps, Mark.

― sgs (sgs), Monday, 23 February 2004 11:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Hmm, it does help, but it's not really a good thing as I *want* to find things I can consciously parse!

― Markelby (Mark C), Monday, 23 February 2004 11:49 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, I think you start to notice them quickly on repeat viewings of a particular film, director, or genre...I didn't mean to say that a director's work is invisible to people watching, just that there are details the director has say over that may or may not rise up to perception while viewing.

― sgs (sgs), Monday, 23 February 2004 11:55 (twenty-two years ago)

Yes, I agree that narrative is the first thing that your subconscious will look for when watching a film. This can be a poiinter too, though, as so much of the narrative can and should come from clues, inferences, views, silences and the like, rather than simply from the script. Unfortunately, the rules change from fiolm to film and there are no hard and fast pointers you should be looking for when evaluating.

― Markelby (Mark C), Monday, 23 February 2004 12:16 (twenty-two years ago)

I think direction, like writing, is only really apparent when it is bad. Otherwise you need to train yourslef to read it. Which means looking past the narrative and asking why certain decisions have been made (length of shot, lighting, camera style). How much of these decisions are cohesive and how much have been depegated to lighting/DP's is also interesting (and in TV a lot more of these decsions will be outside of the scope of the director, maybe going back to show creators).

― Pete (Pete), Monday, 23 February 2004 12:42 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah - I think I did train myself to do this when I had to study films on this kind of critical level, but after working almost exclusively on the writing I've really forgotten how to alter my view.

― Markelby (Mark C), Monday, 23 February 2004 12:56 (twenty-two years ago)

I think actors and directors have almost opposite tasks. The actor is supposed to be concerned w/character's inner drive and desire. Identifying his/her need and acting on it by any means necessary without worrying about the overall effect from the audience's point of view. It's counterproductive (and well-nigh impossible) to ask actors to be thinking about what message the overall "stage picture" is conveying; they should just focus on accomplishing their character's scenic goals. The director's job is to corral these instincts and integrate their bodies with the scenery in a way that communicates what the story is. So if an actor's line is "I'm not going rest until you answer me!" and then turns away and starts fiddling with her shoelace it's either a very bold subtextual undercutting of her lines, or, most likely, a total lapse on the director's part.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 23 February 2004 13:08 (twenty-two years ago)

Identifying his/her need and acting on it by any means necessary without worrying about the overall effect from the audience's point of view.

!

Rub. If this guy can't do both, what's he on screen for?

Case in point, the situation where Tom and Nicole had to be 'taught' how to make love from a 'presentation' point of view, i.e. what looks good to a camera 'over there' had to be taught (I'm assuming they were'nt actually both rubbish in bed together).

― mark grout (mark grout), Monday, 23 February 2004 13:13 (twenty-two years ago)

Hmm, not an assumption I would make.

― Pete (Pete), Monday, 23 February 2004 13:16 (twenty-two years ago)

I suppose if your character was very self-conscious you might want to always be thinking about how you looked to some imaginary audience, but this kind of constant self-reflexion is almost always an obstacle to accomplishing your action. Imagine if golfers swung in order to look good for the fans, rather than actually hit the green.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 23 February 2004 13:18 (twenty-two years ago)

Imagine? That's what most golfers do. Tracer, I totally see where you're coming from, but actors, like directors, have to be pragmatic about the difference between their art in a pure form and what will look good on camera. Perhaps actors are used to being directed and coddled, whereas directors by and large have to take charge themselves, but I think a good actor will always bear in mind the directors job and I honestly don't see why this would necessarily get in the way of how the film's shot.

― Markelby (Mark C), Monday, 23 February 2004 13:28 (twenty-two years ago)

Let's say the director wants something stagey, perhaps to illustrate the artifice of the situation. Your actor on the other hand is 100% committed to what he feels is a naturalistic representation of the role. Uh-oh, butting nose time.

― Pete (Pete), Monday, 23 February 2004 13:30 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, that does happen, Ptee.

― Markelby (Mark C), Monday, 23 February 2004 13:31 (twenty-two years ago)

That has to be worked out in rehearsals, Ptee. And if the actor's that intransigent he's fired, see ya. An actor needs to follow the director's orders. Actor can sometimes gently disagree if he/she can back it up, but the authority and responsibility for how all the pieces - sound, lighting, editing, acting etc - fit together is entrusted to the director and the actor has to respect it even if it feels very wrong. But to ANTICIPATE the director's orders is counterproductive and will piss the director off and slow everything down. Best stick to your own business and get it right.

Film actors are not used to actually being directed AT ALL though because half the fucking Hollywood directors these days took a path that goes straight from quick n dirty film school --> TV ads --> music videos --> movies. These types (i.e. Michael Bay et al) have zero idea of how to speak actors' language, so they just tell the actors to "do what they do" or "make it more intense" or whatever. Luckily they are highly-schooled in technical aspects of film-making so the lack of inventive blocking or character interaction w/the set can be made up for with expressionist scenery and on-a-dime camera movement (and of course, brutal editing) in order to convey the meaning of the scene. The humans get lost in the shuffle but the director's job - of telling a story with pictures (and sound, but usually to a lesser degree) - is somewhat carried out.

Of course Mark if you're talking about technical things like "cheating" towards the camera and such you'll have no argument from me. These are techniques that become second-nature very quickly and thus pose no mental distraction from actually DOING what the hell it is your character's supposed to be doing.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 23 February 2004 13:43 (twenty-two years ago)

Of course the problem kicks in when the actor is more important that the director (ie most Hollywood product). In the end though the whole affair is a collaborative process, and auteur theories really don't wash with me all that much. Certainly in the kind of films you are tawkin'bout Tracer, the editor is probably more important that the actors involved.

But then consider the massive difference between stage and screen acting (and even screen and TV acting) and there are lots of practicale differences between the two (how or what you are acting at for example).

― Pete (Pete), Monday, 23 February 2004 13:48 (twenty-two years ago)

Mark imagine the moment just before the opening lines from a favorite film scene of yours, but imagine that it hasn't been filmed yet and is only on paper.

1) How far apart are the actors from each other?

2) Are they facing each other or not?

3) What activity are they engaged in (washing up, shuffling cards, picking at fingernails, brooding)?

4) What kind of room are they in, and how is it lit? Daytime or nighttime?

5) What kinds of sounds can we hear?

6) Where is the camera placed? Will it move?

The answers to all these questions should come directly from the script itself, and from what you and the actors have discovered during rehearsals.

The only things in which the actors should have any input are 1, 2, and 3, but even then they'd better listen when you talk!

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 23 February 2004 13:57 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.

Film and TV direction

!