 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.37.240.251
In Reply to: Just another poll… posted by millen on July 5, 2006 at 10:16:51:
That is the number one reason - much like the painter.
Follow Ups:
or became an alcoholic, much like some of the artists. Seriously, I plainly forgot.
Heck, even Bergman, who we normally associate with classical films, is still kicking!If there is yet another film with his name, that's a no-brainer. Ditto for folks like Almodovar, Denis, and many others.
as he’s one of my favorite directors along with Bergman, Scorsese and Frank Capra just to named a few. To me these directors are what I called realist as opposed to Capolla or Spielberg that borders on surrealist part of the film. Correct me if I’m wrong.
One can certainly discuss the individual approaches of different directors, but the point here is there seem to be quite a few very interesting ones still around. And to me the film is still mostly about its director.I always hated, and still do, with passion, the fact that in the US the Best Film award goes to producer - if I remember right, in Europe it is still the director who receivs it. Less "Money talks" there, I presume.
From what I understand, the bar for being a producer is significantly lower than for being the director. I guess because the director must actually do something "creative" on a film, whereas a producer is either arranging the bankrolling of a film, or handling the meetings with the studio. I suspect that the awards are handed to the producers (there always seem to be too many to count) in order to keep them motivated to find money for films, which directors would probably rather not do.
I suspect there is that sense of ownership... he who pays the money owns the thing, and in some sense that is fair, but we are not dealing with used cars, and when discussing creative "product" we still associate it with the creator, hence we do not remember the names of producers, but we always mention the director's name next to the title.So it is sort of like "Rembrandt, Portrait of an Old Man, Mr. and Mrs. Johnson collection".
The statement that the Producers often receive the best picture awards rather than the director, even though the director has far more to do with the quality of a film than the Producer. I have heard many stories of "producers" that gave large sums of cash to a film only so that they can attain a "producers" credit on the film. They have not contributed to the artistic vision of the film, but get to walk the stage.I suspect the only reason that they get to claim a Best Picture Award is (1) because there is separate Best Director award, and (2) allowing them to walk the stage, bask in the lights, coaxes more money in future projects.
And I agree that your analogy is spot on.
how much of an impact does a director really have? It's when the pictures are smaller that you really see the director's work.Look at the Academy Awards - cinematography,editing,screenplay, etc these are entities(though working on a common project)that function seperately.
How much director is in all that?
There are directors (even indy ones) who exert quite a bit of influence over their big budget, commercial movies, even FX domianted projects: Del Toro, Cuaron, Soderberg, Singer, Scorsese etc. These folks imprint their personal style even on their "for hire" films.I think you see this especially where you have a cinematically articulate director with a strong visual style. Even with various departments working on a movie, even with the collaborative narure of filmmaking, strong directors *do* exert a lot of influence over the "look" and feel of the finished film, and as such they directly control how the story is told. These directors have told the DP what they want - angles, lighting etc - they've discussed with the art director in pre-production about what they're going for, same with the costume designer on what they want costuming to convey, they sit in cutting rooms working with the editors. Most directors have input into the script - what about the directors who write or co-write their scripts? Shoot their films? Even do their own special FX? (Rodriguez, Cameron, Lucas)
Some directors have virtually edited their films "in the camera" - they literally see the films in their heads while shooting. Others love to have many options in the cutting room and drive their editors crazy with variations.
OTOH, a hack for hire on a Bruckheimer produced flick - naw, that guy doesn't have as much artistic control.
Inevitably, however, compromises are made like in any business endeavor. I don't see AS MUCH artistic control with the bigger productions; you do see SOME of the director's style but this lessens as more people come on board.There are exceptions as your examples show. I think the rule is otherwise.
nt
...if you look in the right places.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
