Mark Stirton has directed several short films and three feature length films. He's not a first time director. I find the mystique of the first time director very odd. How keen would you be to be in a car with a first time driver? Or go under the knife of a first time surgeon? Sound tempting? So why is the first time director so often seen as a badge of honour, particularly in the UK? Why do the BFI and Sky TV have a type of funding for first time directors only? Why does BBC Three have a funding programme for first time directors? In short, what’s the big deal with first time directors? Read Mark's fascinating article here: http://ow.ly/WoLX8
Filmmaking / Directing : The First Time Film Director Paradox by Elliot Grove
Other topics in Filmmaking / Directing:
Check out Trending Discussions
Register / Log In
The big deal with first time directors is the potential. They might be great. Networks fund the searches to allow first time directors a chance to be seen on an even playing field with others. To stand up and create something unique and brilliant... or not. People who have directed only a couple of things should actually be considered in pretty much the same category but the "first time" thing happens only once. It is well worthwhile trying to find the skills needed. We are all experiencing oceans of crap being foisted upon screens from the "democratization" of the industry. One picture worth watching is never equaled by hours of nausea inducing boredom watching "features" where the minds drifts off to that blessed universe where the tripod had been invented. As an aside, interesting that the article thinks it is OK for a first time director to shoot and edit because the gear is so much more usable without any knowledge. Wouldn't that merely compound the problems without offering any chance of a solution. There is a reason nobody is offering anything to first time "DPs and Editors". As the old industry joke goes; Q-What is the only entry level job on a set? A- DIrector