Can you direct and DP at the same time? ( for a indie feature)

azza_act

Hi guys, we have just made a trailer for a feature film idea,

Now, I was the director, DP, editor and writer for the trailer, I shot it using two GH2s and I had a sound recordists plus a grip. I know shooting a trailer opposed to shooting a full feature film is massively different. But I believe that the crew we have (possibly with more crew ie 1st AD/ AC) we could make this movie. But I have "industry" people telling me that if I want some funding or a "famous" name attached to the film, I can't do everything; I have to choose. I was told to that the director can't do DP because he/she has to focus on the story. Is this true? I guess if you look at successful directors in Hollywood, they don't DP on thier own movies. I know we're not on that level, but I keep going back to the guy who made monsters and how he made his first feature....

Can I have my cake and eat it too?

Cheers

bwhitz

@thepalalias "As far as directing and the influence on acting, look at the performances the stars of the Star Wars prequels gave in those films vs their other work. There are very important differences that cannot fully be attributed to the writing, cinematography or editing."

I'd actually blame it all on writing. The RedLetterMedia dissection of the prequels was spot on. The story and writing was just so atrocious, (i.e. no protagonist) that you can't even begin to make an honest evaluation of the performances. There was just nothing to "act" with. The dialog was so bad, that there was just no way it would ever be delivered correctly.

And yea, the cinematography was pretty bad to the point of emotional apathy. Two hours of medium 2-shots didn't lend it self to any emotional involvement on the visual end.

A good example of where cinematography and editing actually create the performances would be Drive.

thepalalias

@bwhitz As far as directing and the influence on acting, look at the performances the stars of the Star Wars prequels gave in those films vs their other work. There are very important differences that cannot fully be attributed to the writing, cinematography or editing.

thepalalias

@bwhitz In terms of finding their next project after a flop, the producer sometimes has an easier time. For instance, Jun Aida is infamously linked to the Raul Julia Street Figther live action film. Yet a few years later, he was brought in to produce the highest budget computer animated film to that date, with an estimated budget more than twice that of the first Lord of the Rings entry in the recent trilogy. That film did so poorly at the box office that it the parent company posted lossses for the first time in a decade, several key figures stepped down or accepted demotions and two massive companies had to merge. It changed the creative futures of many of the people involved, but I would not be surprised if Jun Aida once again headed a high budget project as producer.

bwhitz

"Should a director have humility? Should they acknowledge the importance of the creative contributions others made? Yes. Is there anything wrong with their billing being parallel to their risk on the project? I do not think so, personally."

Well, IMO, real humility would be putting your name 3rd or 4th on the billing as director. I think that, unless the film is self financed, that the producer is really taking most of the risk in the project. And without ideas... where would anything else be? So that's why I would chose writing/producing at least before directing. Editing/cinematography/directing is more debatable depending on the genre. For something like commercials or music videos I definitely think editing/cinematography is more important than directing, or at least has a bigger impact, so they should be billed first. On long-take dialog driven films, then yea, directing should probably be billed over cinematopgrahy/editing. The system should be flexible though, no one should get full authorship credit unless they truly have had 100% artistic control.

thepalalias

@bwhitz I see what you mean, but in regards to music, I think back to the partnership of Charlie Chaplin (themes) and Alfred Newmann (arrangement), or to Clint Eastwood and his honorary induction into the Society of Composers and Lyricists. These were men that were very involved in that part of the creative process long before it was as "easy" as it has become, but that were also very dependant on someone else musically. They succeeded greatly.

And then I think of Alejandro Amenabar (sp?) and his original film that was later re-made as Vanilla Sky, which he directed and composed the music for (in addition to other jobs). He had one of the same stars (Penelope Cruz) but comparatively few Americans have heard of his film compared to the Hollywood re-make.

Or I think of Carpenter, and how often he did his own music, but how Memoirs of An Invisible Man was not only the first time he relied on someone else, but how the composer he relied on (Shirley Walker)became the first woman with sole composer credit on a Hollywood film, and later worked on the first Batman movie with Danny Elfman and was the main musical force behind the animated series. Her death was overlooked by the Academy Awards.

So what is my point in that seeimingly tangentially connected web of anecdotes? Sometimes choosing to cede control, to choose who to trust and when to trust, to find someone to expand your vision, is as important a creative choice as the ones you make on your own. The director not only has to (often) make more of these choices than anyone else on the project but they are also often held more responsible for the success of the film as a whole.

A composer that has worked on a string "bad movies" that nonetheless had good music will have a somewhat easier time finding their next project than a director that has worked on the same films.

Should a director have humility? Should they acknowledge the importance of the creative contributions others made? Yes. Is there anything wrong with their billing being parallel to their risk on the project? I do not think so, personally.

bwhitz

"You make a lot of good points, but I think you're really oversimplifying and overgeneralizing here"

Yea, I probably am a bit. I'm just trying to get my main points across quick. There is obviously more to discuss, but it would take lots of time to cover every angle.

I guess I really just like the DIY Robert Rodriguez style of film-making. I feel like when you do all the big roles yourself, you can really call it YOUR film. If I was doing a project and someone else DP'd and edited for me, I just wouldn't feel like it was mine. Because again, I see film all as one inclusive piece.

In the past, editing and cinematopgrahy were just such huge jobs (physically) that one person literally couldn't do it all. Technology has kind of changed this. And even now, I think it's only been in the last few years that the ability for one to really direct/DP (on large scale projects) efficiently has been possible. So, I'm not knocking any existing directors that are use to dividing up the jobs. That's just how they learned... so why change? I just feel that dedicated editors and DP's arose from more of physical demands, than creative ones. But in the "philosophy" of film-making, directors should be able to do any job better than the crew. They may not be as efficient at it... but the director should still be artistically challenging to ANY crew member. Film has been called the ultimate art form, so the director should be an ultimate artist, not just someone with an idea. I mean, if I had a great idea or "vision" for a song, and I hired a composer, lyricist, and band... should I get credit for the song? Same with painting. If I have a great "vision" for a painting, but can't paint, then I really didn't... it was just had an idea. You can't just have a painting "idea", then hire an artist to paint it for you, and call yourself the creator. It just kind of feels wrong that film is really the only art form where one person gets credited with authorship, even if they aren't capable of the individual disciplines themselves. Directing is really want I want to end up doing, but even I have a problem with the amount of credit they get...

Maybe the credit system should just be changed? Maybe something like Writer/Producer/Editor/Cinematographer/Director? Then the "A Film By" title would still exist, and come before everything... but you would have to do at least 3 jobs yourself. I dunno... how would you guys rank the credit system of films if you got to re-write it?

PS... these are some really great words...

DouglasHorn

@bwhitz - You make a lot of good points, but I think you're really oversimplifying and overgeneralizing here. I've taken several film projects from script to screen and I can tell you that an engaged director is important at every step of the way. Great editing can make poor performances tolerable and augment great ones, but no amount of editing can fix a problem of a wrong performance or interpretation that's out of line with the rest of the film that can occur on the set. A director has to step in. Now, this could happen in rehearsal* but most films these days don't get adequate (or any) rehearsal due to the cost of cast time. So you work it out after blocking while the crew is lighting the set. And if you're the director and DP, too, then it's tough to oversee the lighting AND fine tune the performances with the actors. Rehearsals could help, but unless you're rehearsing in the actual space where you'll be shooting (a real rarity) then it's never quite the same. Yes, casting is important, but the old say about saying that it's 90% of directing is just not accurate in my experience. It's just one of those quotes that sound good. The director has to remain engaged.

[* If you're going to direct and DP an indie film and have access to your cast ahead of time, rehearsals can really help--especially if you can get into the real locations. But it's tough to actually pull this off!]

brianluce

False dichotomy. I've never met a director that doesn't have a good sense of all the jobs required to produce content. The term for people who don't have an idea/knowledge of the various skills required is "Intern".

thepalalias

@bwhitz Thanks, I feel like I understand a lot better. :) Your writing does read a little intense, but I think that's a normal side-effect of being really enthusiastic. Thanks for taking the time to help me understand your ideas more fully.

I'm somewhere between the two camps. I believe that every job the director learns enriches their craft, informs their decisions and helps them to communicate more clearly with the other people they work with. I just feel that it is often easier for them to focus if they are only responsible for one or two jobs at a time.

That said, I'm frequently asked by the artists I work with to handle recording, producing, mixing, editing, creative consulting, graphics questions, website questions, shooting their music video, editing the music video, etc. It's not because I do all those jobs better than everyone else available, it's just that they know I understand their vision and don't want to have to try to communicate it to a lot of people. I respect that and work with it when it is their preference. I also have a team I call on when it's not. :)

I enjoy teaching people about the transferable skill sets from one to another (in fact an entire branch of my consulting work focus in part on that). Sometimes I also see people that are amazing at a particular discipline without much understanding of the others, too, and I think that's also cool.

So like I said - somewhere between the two camps. I really liked the way you described them.

bwhitz

Oh yea, sorry. These are simply just my thoughts right now. It's probably just the way I'm writing it that seems like it's the only conclusion. Other people are obviously entitled to their ideas as well. I should have clarified it sooner, as I've noticed on other forums my writing comes off a bit intense.

But yea, it seems like there are two camps people are in... exclusive and inclusive.

-Exclusive's seem to believe that dividing up jobs allows more focus for each area of production. Believing that the more jobs are divided, the better the product will be. The director, in the exclusive model, plays the role of organizing the departments and guiding the other artists that are more specialized in each area.

-Inclusive's seem to believe that dividing the work leads to lower quality, as the initial "vision" is lost among the delegating process. The director, in the inclusive model, is a someone who understands all areas. Directing, cinematography, and editing all become one job in this method. The more jobs the director learns, the better the product will be.

I'm obviously in the inclusive camp. I think once you truly learn a job, you don't have to think about it. When I go to shoot my small little shorts... I don't even think about cinematography, it's just a reflex. Same with editing. I've always been taught that good editing begins on set.

I remember in my intro to film class, once of the first real scenes I shot, I was praised for not crossing the 180 degree line in a scene that had allot going on. I didn't even know what "the line" was, it just made sense when I was shooting. Some angles felt right, and others felt wrong. I dunno. I'm not trying to embellish myself or anything now... just sharing my experiences to see if others have had any similar ones.

But yea, nothing is right or wrong. You can find successful examples for any method you can think of... :)

thepalalias

@bwhitz I respect how strongly you feel about this and I want to understand it better because I feel like I am missing a part of the thought process.

What is it about your personal experience that has led you to the conclusion that there is only one path to success in directing? And would your preference be that directors who are more specific in their skills make more of an effort to expand their skills into other disciplines? Or would you prefer that such directors make fewer films and that more were made by directors who are naturally inclined to favor a more multi-disciplinary approach?

I feel like I haven`t fully understood the foundation of your passion yet and would really like to so that I can learn from it. My own experience is that in most disciplines there are many succesful approaches but I still feel like I could learn more from your rationale for a particular viewpoint than from being complacent in my own.

And to avoid any misunderstanding, none of this is intended to be either sarcastic or patronizing, I am just striving for clarity.

bwhitz

"I've noticed that when I DP and direct myself either the shooting is impacted negatively, or the acting. Usually it's the acting."

I think the directors impact on the overall performances is highly embellished. I'm in the camp that believe directing in 90% casting. As a director, you should know ahead of time what the character sounds like in your head and how they're deliver lines. So picking actors that can deliver what you want before hand is half the battle. Now I haven't directed any major films (duh), but from my experience in shorts and such, getting the actor to understand the character is mostly done in pre-production and read-through's. During shooting, the director should be focusing mostly on the right angles and movements to emphasize those performances. ...and then just making sure the actors don't mess up. So yea, with digital cinematography... directing and shooting go hand in hand. I don't see how anyone think this is complicated. With film, yes. But digtal? Nope.

The directors that insist they have to focus "on story" and "drama" are over-flattering themselves. On the sets I've been on, they're usually the worst. Constantly saying "I need more emotion" or "do one more"... because they're really not seeing the performances they need in their heads. They didn't know what they wanted to begin with and they don't know now. This is faux-directing. These guys really believe that there is a correlation to how many times they say "do it again" and performance quality. I believe directors should set up the context and environment for the scene, then after that, it's up to the actors. If the acting turns out poorly, it's most likely just because you're using bad actors... not the directing. Constantly saying "I need more emotion" is not directing. This is pretending.

Wach a film like this... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0428441/

So much of "the performances" are created in editing it's not even funny. If you're not a great editor, I have no idea how you could ever think you'd be a good director. Perhaps this is the reason "Hollywood get all these elements together all the time and still ends up with lousy movies." Most directors, producers, and execs have probably been indoctrinated by elitist hollywood dogma that a directors only skill is to work with actors and story. So they aren't looking for directors that have mastered all the crafts. In fact, they're probably looking for directors that are bad editors and bad cinematographers, because again, the dogma tells them that the worse they are at other jobs... the better directors they must be. But really, if a director isn't also a good editor and cinematographer, how are they going to understand how they all work together?

Like I said before, there are no "performances". There is no "camera work". There is only that final 2.35:1 rectangle and the audio that accompanies it. The performances the actors gave on set is irrelevant. Only the performances through the lenses you used and the cuts you've made are the ones that count. And if you can't see the edits being made or hear the score while the actors are delivering lines, then you're probably in the wrong position.

DouglasHorn

There are many roads to Mecca.

fatpig

Of course you can, dont believe everything film school tells you. Btw: beautiful Image Quality!

Brian202020

The less jobs one person has, the less likely something will missed, overlooked, or forgotten, especially the critical jobs like directing or shooting. Also the more jobs someone has the less efficent they are at those jobs. Sometimes you can't help it because of budget and what not, but if you can help it, it's always better less jobs per person.

No_SuRReNDeR

@robmneilson

"I've noticed that when I DP and direct myself either the shooting is impacted negatively, or the acting. Usually it's the acting. On our budget level we just have too small of a crew, and too little time to shoot."

100% agree with this statement.I too suffer the budget bug and do have to wear both hats sometimes. However in my experience this decision is often out of NECESSITY not choice....

Plus If you(OP) are talking about a feature too, keep in mind the scope of the project. I only DP/Direct on shorts if I ever do have to go that route. A feature is such a bigger scope and if you lose sight of on or more aspects of the vision because your focus is divided you project will suffer in the end.

thepalalias

@bwhitz However, I don't think the only reason why so many movies are artistically unsatisfying is because they have to succeed as products to get funding to be made. I think that part of the reason is because the people making those decisions in some cases lack taste or discernment. I am in no way singling out a specific person or studio, just saying that there are movies that were gravely misjudged and got made anyway.

However, to single out one TV show (from a producer that did a lot of other work I really respect a great deal) I would have to mention Crusade (the spin-off from Babylon 5). If you look at the creative decisions that were made for that show vs. the creative decisions that were made for the original series, by the same person, there were just a lot of mistakes. It lasted one season vs. five for Babylon 5. That in no way makes me less enthusiastic about the creator's future projects, but it does point out that getting it right is hard.

Also, the Star Trek series "Enterprise" was made by some of the same people that had worked on far more critically acclaimed series on the franchise (like Star Trek: The Next Generation) and it wasn't just an attempt to cash in. It was what the creators really felt motivated to make, to do something different. And you know what? It resonated with a lot fewer people than the previous efforts had and it had the shortest run of any live-action Star Trek series since the original ended. Not a lack of care or of funding, just poor choices (though some of actors still gave really enjoyable performances when they were given enough material).

thepalalias

@bwhitz While I think part of this may be getting slightly off-topic, I couldn't agree with you more about the importance of people caring about the project. That is part of the reason why Ingmar Bergman was such an effective director (regardless of differing opinions about his personality) because he so clearly communicated his vision on a variety of levels (many non-verbal) that the crew internalized it as their own without thinking about where it came from.

However, keeping your priorities straight is something that is equally important. I can tell you from their experience with my family that Chris and Emma (Inception, The Dark Knight, etc.) always kept their kids a priority, even when they planned the shooting schedule for at least one of the Batman films. They are a great example that you don't have to pretend that the movie is the most important thing in the world to make it a good one. :)

robmneilson

I'm going to chime in although many of these same points have been made already.

I've noticed that when I DP and direct myself either the shooting is impacted negatively, or the acting. Usually it's the acting. On our budget level we just have too small of a crew, and too little time to shoot.

People site Soderberg and Doug Liman's success as doing both, but remember they had MUCH bigger crews that you will likely have. Even on their low-budget work.

You CAN do both, but you will need a good gaffer and grips, and it probably wouldn't hurt to have an operator and AC so you can watch the performance on a monitor instead of worrying about hitting your focus mark.

bwhitz

"Hollywood get all these elements together all the time and still ends up with lousy movies. The reason? Making movies is hard. Trying to wear a bunch of different hats doesn't make the job easier."

There are many other factors that go into this...

-studio wants to hit a certain demographic and misses -producer/studio pressure and changes -trying to hit certain release dates and making creative compromises -bad writing or dumb story idea to begin with -general lack of interest from the director/writers -dumb adaptions that studios want to make because of brand recognition -producers and execs are in love with in idea an insist it gets made, even if it's stupid - ect...

Most hollywood films suck because they're PRODUCTS that are assembled, not because they're best ideas...

Hell, warner bros didn't want to make Inception because they thought nobody would watch it. That tells you something right there. I'd put the blame on studios and dumb executive decisions than the actual film-making being "too hard" for the crew and director.

Mainly I think what it boils down to... is that hollywood movies are products for the masses. And the masses is dumb. Therefore, the movie is dumb... by design. Rarely do you get a movie that appeals to the dumb masses, yet also has intellectual quality for those with a deeper appreciation for it. The Matrix and Inception are good examples of this. Matrix had lots of good ol' violence and fighting for the dummies, yet had a good philosophy element that went over most people heads... win win. But that was a passion project that ended up in big studios hands and turned into a blockbuster. Not every project works like that. Only a few.

I think the magic element is care. Even if a director is amazing and has a great crew... there needs to be genuine care for the source material. Otherwise it'll be shit.

bostonmike

Azza act, go in itunes and download for free the Q&A with Jeff Goldsmith interview with Ed Burns...you won't be sorry. He goes on to discuss the mindset of the "industry people" a bit and gets down to basics about how he and a small crew filmed "Newlyweds". Everyone on the set multi-tasked to pull it off. This podcast is what you need to listen to for the best advice. I found it to be very inspiring to say the least.

brianluce

If you hire a great DP, oscar winning screen writer, the best actors, the best editors, have an amazing composer, and the best AD's and script supervisors money can buy... then I'd like to meet the person that CAN'T direct that movie.

Hollywood get all these elements together all the time and still ends up with lousy movies. The reason? Making movies is hard. Trying to wear a bunch of different hats doesn't make the job easier.

rsquires

@brianluce I said "if you have the talent". I am not fooling myself.

davhar

Another thing not mentioned amongst all the great advice, is that if you do know lighting and camera and can handle the responsibility/pressure of doing the job, then you don't need a DP so much as a good gaffer, camera operator and crew. Each will take care of their share of creating the image that you as DP/Director/Editor need.

If you've got the money then spread the wealth and responsibility around and you'll enjoy getting the dam thing done a whole lot more. If you don't have the coin then make up your perfect checklist and laminate the sucker cause you're going to need it

Athiril

Be as organised as possible, vast majority of your time should be spent in pre-production, production time should be shorter. And have your AD have everyone else as organised as possible, in a ideal situation, you should be able to spend most of your time in the DP role, with needing only little input from the director role. Though for something involving this amont of work that becomes increasingly difficult to do.

I hope you're not trying to also be the cinematographer/camera operator while also being director / DP you'll need to give up on one, it's just too much. Especially in a multicam shoot or a feature. What you're paying attention to and the goal of your role as a director, DP, and camera operator/cinematographer are all going to be somewhat different. The more energy, time and effort you split among multiple roles that should be occurring at the same time during production, then I think you're reducing the potential for these roles to be performed even better.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

Tags in Topic

Top Posters