OldBoy

i always wondered if Directors get enough credit for their work. most times it is the actors or the story that they act in that is talked about. but i don't think many realize that there is usually a puppet master that pulls the strings and gets what comes out on screen.

sure we have the famous directors that everyone knows: Clint, Steven, George, Kevin (Smith), Spike, others that you know a film by the director and not always by the actors in them.

but, there are countless others that i am sure the normal movie going public has no idea who directed what.

i was thinking about this with "Adventureland" and Greg Mottola, and "Pineapple Express" and David Gordon Green.

i mean how many regular theater goers know that Mottola directed "Superbad" and if advertisements and i think they did for "Adventureland" tied the two. i would almost bet that most thought Judd Apatow directed Sb and PE because it falls into his "type" of movie. though he is a producer on both Sb and PE only has 2 big directed ones to his credit.

and then who would ever tie DGG to PE when his arsenal consists of somber and incredible movies like "Snow Angels" and "Undertow", with SA being on of the best movies i saw last year. i mean Kate and Sam didn't do what they did without DGG, but half the movie going public probably don't even know his name.

if Danny Boyle hadn't won the Best Director would anyone even know who directed "Slumdog Millionaire" or that he re-invented the zombie genre with "28 Days Later", hell i didn't even know he directed Leonardo's somewhat reviled, but i liked "The Beach" until i researched him.

so i am wondering as a whole if you think directors, then and now, get as much credit as they deserve, maybe too much, etc. i just don't think every great movie could be had with great actors alone.

of course, that gets into all other areas, like writing, etc, but let's just stick to the directing efforts on this one.

islandclaws

I think it depends on the director. Once someone is a big name, they tend to get all the credit. Smaller guys, like David Gordon Green for example, don't get as much as they should because they're not "household" yet. This is a very "grey area" topic since some directors want to be seen, so they get their name and image out there as much as possible, trying to become a brand. Others, like Christopher Nolan, direct amazing films yet many people couldn't pick them out of a lineup.

RyoHazuki

Obviously directors won't be as well known to the general public as the actors who appear in the film. Directors get plenty of credit from film fans. I think the ones who tend to not get enough credit though are the writers.

Goat3001

I think they get the right amount of credit that they deserve. Sometimes even too much. Most directors don't get final cut so it really is the producer that puts it all together. I agree that I don't think the writers get the credit they deserve since they're the ones that are wrote what ellicits the emotions.

RichC2

From the general public? No.

Most people I spoke with thought Quentin Tarantino directed Hostel and Hero.

That said, I follow directors more than I follow actors.

PopcornTreeCt

Seriously?

How about do the cinematographers get enough credit? Do the casting people get enough credit? Do the gaffers get enough credit? DO THE WRITERS GET ENOUGH CREDIT?

The answer is no.

bunnydojo

I tend to agree. The only writer who comes to mind as "owning" the films he scribes is David Mamet. And then Kevin Smith mentioned above I'd say is known because of his writing. Similarly, the Coen Brothers, with a combination of writing and directing.

It's more about a noticeable style than just talent. Someone like David Fincher does this pretty well (though he's branched out from the original style), maybe Steven Soderbergh in his non-experimental movies, John Woo, etc. Plus, of course, some of the classics like Hitchcock.

Danny Boyle, impressive filmography aside, doesn't really have a "brand." There's no particular tie from Trainspotting to Millions to 28 Days Later to Sunshine, etc. Even without his public hoopla, Guy "British Gangster Movie" Ritchie would be much easier to place.

Within the film-loving community, directors tend to be given a decent amount of praise, though. Compared to people like editors or cinematographers, they're downright deified. It's hard to figure out who to praise. There must be at least a dozen positions where someone doing a poor job can tear down a film and someone doing their job well can really lift it up.

Arthur Dent

qft

Cardsfan111

When I watch a movie in the theater, I stay until the last credit is shown. I'd say 98% of folks are heading out of the theater as soon as the credits started rolling. I'll usually glance at the names and realize that so few pay any attention to any of them.

Coral

I notice the same thing, but I have to admit that I don't sit through the credits. I find either the credits are rolling too fast or are too hard to read (or both) that I don't get much information out of them. Whenever I'm done watching a movie (theatre or at home) I always visit IMDB to check out the full credits (as full as they have anyways), trivia, goofs,filming locations, and other pieces of information on the film.

tylergfoster

I think the internet and DVD has made people more savvy to the filmmaking process. People have started to take the time to find out who wrote and directed a film so they can see more movies by the same people. As PopcornTreeCt says, it's the totally technical crew that still doesn't really get any recognition from the mainstream public.

Case in point, five to ten years ago, I bet mainstream audiences didn't even know who Quentin Tarantino was, much less to apply his name to the wrong movies.

inri222

calhoun07

When I talk about movies with my co-workers I always mention the work of directors I like. Somebody stopped me and said I always talk about directors but when they think of movies they like they think of the actor.

I tend to not follow writers as much because, like with decent actors, if the work of the writer is given to a poor director it's going to be a poor movie.

Which is why I can't fathom just following movies for actors/actresses. Sometimes even good actors and actresses get stuck with lousy directors and lousy movies.

Torchur317

Yeah I agree the general public doesn't know anything about the directors. They usually never get the credit they deserve but film geeks like me know their past work & usually watch films because they directed it. Like someone else said, it's worse for writers, SFX artists, & many other behind the scene people. That's how it is, most people care about the actors not the people who are basically the glue of the projects.

LickTheABCs

I follow SFX artists then Directors. I don't even think about the actors when watching a movie.

Numanoid

Erm, Tarantino has only released ONE movie in the last five years, and most of his biggest films were all released over twelve years ago.

Numanoid

In film school, we categorize directors into three types. Technicians, stylists, and auteurs. Most directors are technicians. They get the job done, but don't leave a personal mark on their work. In that regard, they really don't deserve all that much praise. Often in those cases, the work of the actors or writers far exceed the contributions of the director.

The auteurs, on the other hand, are the ones that everyone knows. Woody Allen, Kubrick, Hitchcock, David Lynch, The Coen Brothers, etc. Typically, auteurs also tend to be their own writers and editors.

tylergfoster

Doesn't mean regular people knew who he was. I think Kill Bill was the one that made him a reasonably household name, since the widespread popularity of his old movies had started to become mainstream, and then he had a new one out. It also wasn't until after KB that his name got plastered on every martial arts movie that The Weinstein Co had sitting around.

Numanoid

You may not remember a little movie known as Pulp Fiction.

Hokeyboy

Us film nerds/dorks/geeks/plabuyos know our directors, cinematographers, writers, composers, maybe even producers, whatever. The average person couldn't care less.

And why would they?

Although I never understood sitting through credits. You're watching hundreds if not thousands of names going by, to what end? You won't remember anyone. Paying money to go out and WATCH the movie (or buy the Blu-Ray/DVD, or rent it) is the ultimate sign of respect for the work done.

Numanoid

I never understood people that will sit calmy for hours, then suddenly need to rush out rather than spend just another few minutes watching the credits.

And I DO remember names from movie to movie. Many times I will go, "Oh wow, he/she also worked on ____".

And then, of course, there are the end-credit kicker scenes and mid-credit extras that many movies have that 99.9% of the audience never sees. I like getting my money's worth. And, yes, I also watch the credits to the end on DVDs, at least for the first viewing.

tylergfoster

Again, I don't think Pulp Fiction promoted the everyday person to know or care who Quentin Tarantino was, except during the huge awards blitz of 1994. If he was a household name the way he is today, his follow up Jackie Brown wouldn't be his most underrated movie. Today, 4 out of 5 people who go to the multiplex at the mall know who Quentin Tarantino is, insomuch that they know he made Kill Bill.

I understand that anyone who follows film even kinda closely would be intimately aware of who Quentin was after Pulp Fiction, if they weren't after Reservoir Dogs. But the question was about Joe Schmo who doesn't follow film knowing who he is, not a DVDTalk board denizen or the like.

Hokeyboy

Because you spent that "sitting calmly" time watching a story and being entertained, rather than just reading a list of names. Huge difference.

If I go out for a great meal at a five-star restaurant, I might want to know the chefs name, but other than that I could give a rat's poop as to who the guy parking cars is, the dishwasher, even the saucier. YMMV, of course.