Filmmaking / Directing : What is “good” Directing ? by Ethan Frome

Well, those are very broad questions and the answers differ based on the director... and the audience, really. As well, the actual material being directed has a lot to do with what the director can or should do. For instance, in a series, it's often the Producer who is the guardian of story and character, since a director may only take part in certain episodes. In "unscripted" the director basically directs traffic, acting more like an assistant director because the Story Producer is the all-powerful one who communicates directly with cast and decides what story to tell (there are exceptions). As far original film is concerned, where the director is actually the guardian of the artistic expression of the piece, good directing requires the director to have a very clear vision of what he or she intends to communicate. And a thorough understanding of the process of each and every artist who is contributing to the piece is required. If the director doesn't understand the challenges of, for instance, the makeup artist - and there are many - he or she will have unrealistic ideas and expectations of makeup. This will show up on screen in the makeup department, but it will certainly filter across the set because those who do know the challenges will know the director doesn't understand... with inevitable loss of confidence that he or she understands other departments.

This is especially crucial when it comes to the actors. Frankly, an audience watches a show only because of the talent. Yeah, they might like the lighting or the special effects or have the sophistication and ear to appreciate the sound mix - but no one in film history every watched a film for those elements. Not even in the "silent" film days. An audience watches and connects to the talent. Realizing that, the director will cast very carefully the talent who they think can best interpret the role, and they will trust the talent to create that character. That is the actor's job. It is not the director's job. Actors are not puppets. So to refer to your question, I, and most great directors I know of, are very conservative in how they direct an actor. I personally go over blocking with them, remind them what the scene is about and let them at it. I do not tread on their territory. However, I must step in to keep them on track when they stray from truth or are inconsistent with their character. Or when they need something to help their performance. I am there for them, I have their back and I won't let them fail - that's part of my job as a director. It's also part of my personal commitment to both the actor and the script. (And the producers and investors, for that matter). The two most common errors I see in new or second rate directors (and industry standing doesn't necessarily relate to directing skill) is 1. treating the actor as a puppet and feeding them lines the way they want to hear them. and 2. Checking out and permitting actors to get low-energy, low charisma, lazy, etc. This shows up on screen in lackluster performance

As far as coverage - again it depends on the show. I worked on the Netflix series "Hollywood" and the Amazon series "Them Covenant" Both these series are created for corporate producers. The directors will take literally dozens of takes from every conceivable angle - shooting 4 and 5 camera setups. Truly, little direction as to performance is given. But they shoot at up to a 50:1 ratio or sometimes more. Why? because it's the (corporate) producers who want to be assured that they have enough coverage and obviously neither Netflix or Amazon have any actual film making history or skills in-house. So the massive work flow gets created and goes to the editing team to slog through. Is it obvious to you that is a political issue on set?

On the other hand, productions like Roger Corman would create would do 3:1 ratio or close to it. Get the performance, get the point to the scene, move on. Get coverage if you are going to use it. If not, why are you shooting it?? Time is money and money spend on set has to be recovered in sales.Now this requires the director to pre-visualize what he or she wants to see in the end. Frankly, "finding the story" in post is a big-budget game, and it can be a game. After all, you have a script, right? Decide what you want to do. Get alternate takes if you think you need it or of you cannot know what will be better, but stop wasting time and money. It's your job as a director to make those artistic calls and if you can't do that, stop directing. And remember the people who do "find the story in post" are not well liked by investors - Akira Kurosawa, just about my favorite director - could not get arrested for years because he would shoot literally millions of feet of film for literally moments on screen. Investors are not happy about that. Personally, while I agree that you need to get anything you might actually use, there is a line where it becomes screwing around, and that line is not too far from master-cover-cover, 3:1 ratio.

To add to that, my own style is to get the actor's best performance and hopefully in one take. In editing, I tend not to cut into a performance. Because as I said, an audience connects with the actor. Every cut you make interrupts their performance and interferes with that connection. I will tell you true that I got twice to work with the amazing James Woods and having him perform on set, I am convinced that every editor on his films screwed up his performances by unnecessary cutting, even though they remain great. So if I cut into an actor's performance it's usually because there is an issue like sound or camera problem which requires a cutaway and return to another take. Or maybe the script is just really boring and the producer's won't let me cut lines. Though that isn't a surprise and is usually handled on set.

Shadow Dragu-Mihai, Esq., Ipg I love your answers. From my own experiences and people I’ve talked to in TV I see exactly what you’re saying and strongly agree as well as you’re acting and coverage points. With Directing, after further evaluation - while I agree and understand what you’ve said - I’ve concluded that I was looking for Tone and mood which correlate directly with the vision but expounds on it. Tone being the atmosphere created by the Director and the execution of their vision and mood being how that atmosphere can and will be received. The thoughts and emotions it elicits. Whether the atmosphere created the desired mood will be based upon, like you said, the director’s understanding of the process, clarity of vision, and their ability to articulate it.

Well it depends how much you believe in the "auteur" theory, and again, what format you are in. To what extent, on any given project, does a director has full and complete control over tone and mood? And there is the question of the role of the artist. Because the director is really just the first among equals on set, when it comes to the art. The talent have their own take on character and delivery and the best talent will sometimes dig their heels when they know in their heart the director is wrong. And as I said above it's their job to create character; if the director wants puppets he or she should just do animation on their home computer and voice all the performances themselves. It's the same with all department heads, in my opinion. Production Designer, Makeup, Hair, Special Effects, and of course DP. They are all artists. As artists they all have their own vision. So it is the director's job to arbitrate those many visions, refine them, and keep them moving on one direction. The director actually cannot substitute his or her vision for one of these departments unlesd she is deeply skilled in that function - which she probably is not. not to mention the real world issues of budget and schedule and build-outs and retakes and company moves... etc., which all impact on the way tone and mood are created. The director must be very quick, adept, demanding, single-minded, diplomatic, manipulative and pragmatic all at once. so far as effect is concerned, I don't think it's any business of any artist, including directors, to expect how any audience will react to their expression. An artist's obligation is to express themselves, and they have no right to tell anyone how to view their expression. Because art says different things to different people, that's it's nature. Intending to create a particular thought in an audience is, by definition, intending to create propaganda or advertising, but it is not an artistic intention.

I suppose it really all depends on who is Directing. The Auteurs, vs. the "for-hire" directors, vs. those in between. I see you're point and agree but you're description seems more about the intellectual than it is the emotional. I agree that you shouldn't tell anyone how to interpret the art too. At the same time I believe Directors should be aware of the many ways the art can be perceived and received.

Especially emotionally. Because that's what art is, in it's rawest form - the expression of emotions. And we make films to elicit emotion. Bridging our emotional expression to influence or inspire the emotions of the audience is where the skill of the director comes into play. To me, If the art does what you wanted it to do, you have succeeded. But if you're intent into the art was not received or understood by the audience, and that is what you aimed for, are you a skilled artist? As Directors, I don't think we aim for particular thoughts from the audience. I think it's particular feelings, which engulfs an endless combination of thoughts, is the goal.

Sounds like someone ought to spend a few years attending a worthy film school.

Ethan Frome

Well yes, we don't disagree but I do think we have slightly different perspectives on the expression. A director is articulating symbol, imagery, sound, cultural experience to make a statement. But the question of "success" of that statement is, outside of pure commercial consideration, not something that in my opinion should be relevant to the director. Especially if he or she is actually approaching an "auteur." Because my artistic statement is mine and if anyone doesn't like it or doesn't get it, it's by definition not for them. Nor do I have the right to make anyone understand my stance. Compare with a technical work - explaining how submarines operate. I need to be very clear and the purpose is to educate on a technical matter. So if my audience doesn't agree with my message that a certain kind of propulsion system has certain objective dangers in it's design, I have failed in delivering my message. Compare to an artistic statement. Near the end of 'A Time To Kill" Matthew McConaughey addresses the jury. To remind you, Samuel Jackson's character is on trial for killing a man who raped his daughter, before an all white jury. After summarizing the brutal attack on the daughter, he utters the most important phrase in the whole movie ,"now pretend she's a little white girl." (Or words to that effect, I forget the exact phrase). For me, that destroyed the value if a movie which to that point I loved. Because you know the director and writer(s) and producers all sweated buckets of blood over that line, and it SHOULD have been "now pretend she's YOUR daughter. For me, the phrase chosen gutted the film of any pretense that the creative team believed in equality. Or perhaps they just thought that a white audience could never relate to a little black girl, and pandered to that idea. It's also possible that in their own suppressed racism they wanted to say a little black girl is just as valuable and lovable but they couldn't force themselves to go the whole way. What is clear though is that it is an artistic statement and I am pretty sure the director would not intend me to think what I do about it, which is nice try but now I am sure he's a racist. But the director has no control and no right to expect how I as an audience member am going to interpret his statement. Because it's an artistic statement and by definition that makes it ambiguous and open to interpretation. That interpretation depends on my experience as a human being, not on the director's experience. I guess I am saying film is a participatory sport. It is not a lecture, it is an experience and directors must keep that in mind.

None of which is to say that as a director we don't try to convey our point of view. We do and we should, and we want to be understood. If it's important enough to make a film about it, it should be important enough to make clear. I just think that we work within ambiguity for the most part. And in art, the viewer is as important as the statement. Just like when a great actor reads something new and exciting into the chatacter which the director never thought of. It's exciting and I find an audience has the final say on what a movie means. What it was "supposed to mean" in the mind of the director is not relevant to that. And in a way, the director is too close to the forest to see the trees. He or she is part of the engine of film creation and, as in A Time To Kill above, will inevitably make statements that are unintended, un-thought of, but still true.

Shadow Dragu-Mihai, Esq., Ipg I don't disagree. I would say to me, success of the film is linked to my intent or what I wanted to get out of it. If I wanted the audience (vast majority of the viewers) to get it and they don't, I failed. If I made it only for those "in the know" or "who it's for", that's another thing. The success there would be in delivering the film to those people. I'm with you there. I think experience will have to show me about the audience's perception of my film. I'm very into the psychology behind things and the things that drives us to do what we do. Through life experience, things I've read, and patterns I've noticed, I believe I have an understanding of all, or at least most of the ways, a film I make could be received. But I don't know and won't truly know until it releases to a mass audience. Can't wait for that day. Thanks for another great dialogue.

Great question, love the responses! And honestly, I love listening to director commentary to learn more about those choices Michael Goedecke was talking about. I also think understanding the psychology of camera language has to be part of the study and practice as a director, not just working with actors.

Following your vision.