Personal View site logo
Can you direct and DP at the same time? ( for a indie feature)
  • 58 Replies sorted by
  • If you think shooting a film is hard, ..... my respect goes to the good Wedding shooters ... now that's pressure ....and i don't shoot weddings.

  • I think that there are several different questions here that are sort of being addressed as one.

    First the simplest question: Is it possible for both jobs to be performed by one person? Yes. That is an easy one because the answer to most "is it possible" questions eventually is proven to be yes. Just think how many people thought it would be impossible to correct individual pitches in a chord from a recording until Celemony introduced their Melodyne DNA processing. Very few things are impossible.

  • Second question: Can the results of collaborating with someone you work well with (either as a director or DP) exceed what you create on your own? Can it make it easier to work and less likely that mistakes will be made?

    I would say the answer is yes and some of the most respected and visually evocative directors of all time (Ingmar Bergman, Alfred Hitchcock, etc.) would agree.

  • Third question: Can someone achieve a better result working on both jobs than delegating one of them?

    I would say that, numerically speaking, this happens less often but can definitely still happen. If you are more talented at constructing something than communicating it someone else, or if you cannot find someone that shares your vision, then it may be easier to realize that vision yourself.

    But as so many said already, the more jobs you take on, the more responsibilities you take on. The majority of people perform better when they can focus than when their attention is excessively divided and every job (from editor to camera operator to sound engineer or director) is filled with nauances and complexities that can continue to improve over the course of a lifetime.

    To believe that one person would be better than every other person at every job on a movie seems unrealistic and impractical. Which means it becomes a variety of questions from time, money, available manpower and other practical constraints to personal vision, personal preference and questions of the people involved.

  • Next question: Will having a separate DP make it easier to get funding?

    The answer is likely yes. Ive grown up around a lot of people with experience starting, running and funding everything from small businesses to large corporations and Ive also grown up several screenwriters. Funding is a question of what you present vs. the experiences, preconceptions, hopes, desires and instincts held by the people with money. If they are more familiar with failure than success in the scenario you provide, then they will be unlikely to provide support (monetary or otherwise).

    A problem often shared by entrepeneurs and young directors alike, is to (unconsciously or consciously) consider everyone involved an extension of themselves, like additional limbs. This makes it very difficult to delegate because there is a sense that everything would fall apart without them and they have to do everything themselves.

    When a venture capitalist sees this, they see two things: 1) a venture that will have difficulty expanding because the force behind it can`t delegate and 2) a disaster waiting to happen.

    Once you prove your success with a given approach (financially) then it will be easier to get additional funding. But if you want people to give you money, it often helps to look at what they require in order to feel comfortable doing that.

  • In short, almost every approach can work and almost every approach can fail. The key is really learning where your strengths are, acknowledging your weaknesses and building the team that can address the areas that you are weaker in (or that you cannot or would prefer not to focus on). There a huge difference between being clear in your vision and being able to manifest it and sometimes that difference is the right people. Sometimes you are "the right people" but don`t expect anyone to believe that until you prove it. :)

  • Great advice thepalalias, thanks for your insight.

  • 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.

  • 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

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • "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.

  • 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 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. :)

  • @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).

  • @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.

  • 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.

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

  • There are many roads to Mecca.

  • "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.

  • @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.

  • 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... :)

  • @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.

  • 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".