Directors Get Way to Much Credit

[-Lithium-]

I cant stand when a movie comes out and the director didnt right it but its still called "A *Directors Name* film". I mean seriously that is way too much credit, alot more then the most important person, the one who wrote the script. I mean I understand the directors add little touches and crap but still, not cool...

[SHAKEMASTER TV9 is Don Knotts]

It's more than little touches. Directors take a part in the shooting script which is largely what you see on screen.

[REDUNBECK~!]

Ask Francis Ford Coppola about what it was like to direct Apocalypse Now. He earned having his name on that movie.

Granted, most directors don't sacrifice their very sanity to their films as Coppola has, but they still work pretty hard. They have to conceptualize how the film will look, and then figure out how to bring their ideas to life. They have to instruct the actors on what kind of performance they have to give to make the dialogue and action believable. They consult very closely with the cinematographer on the filming techniques, lighting, type of film stock(s) to use, etc.

Even Hollywood "it" kids like Michael Bay put a lot of effort into creating their films. And trust me, I normally wouldn't defend Michael Bay, but that's just the truth. No matter how bad his films often are, he busts his ass to make them, like many other directors.

If you want to see some examples of hard-working directors, I recommend the following documentaries:

Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse
Burden of Dreams
The Making of Fanny and Alexander
A Constant Forge: The Life and Art of John Cassavetes
Ingmar Bergman Makes a Movie

[T.J. "the Crippler" Stevens]

A writer can write a script, but just because it looks good on paper, doesn't mean it looks good as a finished film. A writer can write 20 pages of dialogue and have their vision of how it should look and sound. Most of the time it's completely different from the vision of the director's. That dialogue doesn't automatically show up on screen. The actors need to act it, and the director needs to tell that actor how he wants it done. Not to mention telling the cameraman what he wants in frame, the soundman where to mic the sound, and the light guys how he wants it lit. Even if the actors, sound guys, cinematographers, and light guys have there own ideas, they still need to be approved by the director. The writer deals with one variable. The Director deals with hundreds. They get proper credit.

[amsiraK]

Allow me to add this: a director can TOTALLY make or break a movie.

Witness the film entity that is "Psycho".

Filmed by Alfred Hitchcock, it becomes a masterpiece of suspense and horror and a benchmark for movies that follow.

Filmed by Gus Van Sant, it drags on, doesn't interest viewers and makes people go out and rent the original just to scrub Anne Heche and Vince Vaughn out of their memories.

And it was the SAME SCRIPT.

[SHAKEMASTER TV9 is Don Knotts]

Hell, he filmed the whole remake with every shot recreated. Too bad, Van Stant is actually a good director. Bad vision.

[DSR]

tversetti9 said:

Hell, he filmed the whole remake with every shot recreated. Too bad, Van Stant is actually a good director. Bad vision.

I think people were ready to crap on the remake before it even came out, though. I mean, think of the phrase "remake of Psycho." It gets people angry no matter who's name is attached to direct.

Anyway, for another good example of what directors do, watch the Tod Browning "Dracula" and George Melford's Spanish version. Both shot at the same time, on the same sets (Browning shot at day, Melford shot at night), but with different actors and in a different language.

Browning's has Bela Lugosi being awesome, but Melford's got a bunch of better camera angles and lighting and such. Eh, see for yourself.