Up to a point maybe, yes, but when a new film comes out, it's almost always praised by critics as the debut of a "promising new director."
True, but that's because they're largely buying into the auteur theory that the director is the most influential creative voice in a largely collaborative process. If you asked those critics whether they thought the director was solely responsible for the quality of the film, they'd likely say no. And if asked for a specific instance on screen in the film that they thought the director was solely responsible for, they'd likely be at a loss.
Originally Posted by hanshotfirst1138
Granted, but everyone who actually does things has to pass through them. And even then, that's debatable-a guy like Guillermo del Toro designs every last bit of his movies and hangs around the design team...
If he has a design team, then obviously Guillermo del Toro isn't designing "every last bit" himself. And the concept that everything has to pass through a director isn't even being debated: for most current films that's true. If you want to argue that a director is ultimately responsible for nearly the entire production, ignoring the possibility of being overruled by the producers or studio, then that's true. But they're never solely responsible for any single aspect of the production in their role as director.
Originally Posted by hanshotfirst1138
Why would attributing such commonalites to the director be wrong? They are usually the causal link.
I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong, although it could be if you haven't effectively eliminated any other potential source for the commonalities (i.e. same producer, same screenwriter, etc.). As you yourself wrote, they are likely "usually" the causal link, which means they're not always. However, the fact that one has to compare between films in order to infer a director's influence just illustrates that there's nothing in a single film, taken on it's own, that's the sole domain and responsibility of the director.
Originally Posted by hanshotfirst1138
Originally Posted by Jay G.
Watching one particular film from one director, with no knowledge of their other work, nothing on the screen screams "this is the sole result of the director.
I don't entirely know if you can even make this case though-look at films where the editing was taken away from the director and you see how different the film is when the director wasn't involved in the editing process.
You actually just made the case for me, since my point was you can't just look at a work on it's own and infer the director's influence, and you only try to make a point by directly contradicting that and referencing knowledge of behind-the-scenes info for a film. One could also argue that in order to know how a director would've edited a film "taken away from them," you'd have to compare to other works by that director.
Originally Posted by hanshotfirst1138
Editors assemble pieces, often brilliantly, but they aren't themselves the ones involved from the beginning the way directors are and know which direction to take the film.
Back during the studio model, editors actually used to edit films without any input from the director, whose work on a film was finished once shooting ended. One could even argue that this could be a better way to edit a film, since the editor has no bias to the footage based on how difficult it was to get, etc. Spielberg has commented on how influential editor Verna Fields was on Jaws, with her mercilessly cutting footage of the shark that didn't work, while Spielberg kept arguing for more footage, sometimes a frame or two, remembering how hard each shot was to get. But she usually won such arguments, Spielberg claiming for the better of the film. Other directors have made similar comments on how having a "fresh eye" on the film, one not attached to the principle photography, is a valuable asset.
Originally Posted by hanshotfirst1138
One of the few? I'm not entirely sure about this-there are plenty of producers who are know for specific styles of films and hire the editors accordingly. Compare to this to a movie with a phalanx of producers because the director independently funded the film and had to secure resources from many places. You won't like see Avi Lerner produce a film which doesn't have an explosion or a fight in it.
I think you're shooting your own argument in the foot here. If you're stating that there's many producers that exert a noticeable influence on their films, then trying to infer the director's influence becomes that much murkier, and claiming that the director is solely responsible for anything in the final film impossible.
Originally Posted by hanshotfirst1138
Sometimes, yes. But sometime directors who've had these experiences raise a royal noise, in fact I'd argue more often than not.
This is impossible to determine. The number of directors who stay quiet about differences of opinions between producer and director is impossible to know, because they stay quiet. In any case, the point is that relying on behind-the-scenes info can be troublesome because we never know if we have all the pertinent info for pinning responsibility, or even if the info we have is accurate.
Originally Posted by hanshotfirst1138
Perhaps, but as the unifying element, you can usually say that it's a director with the strongest influence on bringing the pieces together.
Undeniably. But the OP's question wasn't whether a director has unfluence, but whether there's a film that one could say the responsibility "really [falls] on the shoulders of the director, alone?" That's the question I was answering, and the point I was making.
Originally Posted by hanshotfirst1138
If I went to drive and incredibly expensive car but had no idea how to drive it, how to handle it, etc. then other drivers with lesser equipment could probably be me pretty handily. If I drive a Ferrari but face off against a driver with years more experience than I have, it's more than likely that you'll see a much great reflection of his talent behind the wheel than of my superior equipment. On a drifting course where I have an expensive car and am banging into walls, a driver with a lesser car an actual understanding of how the sport work is far more likely to beat me.
This is just a horrible analogy for a director. As the driver of the car, you're clearly the one solely responsible for the driving. However, if we shift the analogy to maybe a race track with a racing team, the closest analogy for a director would be the crew chief, who overseas everything to make sure the race goes smoothly.
02-03-14 | 01:58 PM
