Tv blame the writers, Movies blame the director?
- Thread starter Sketcher
- Start date
From post #7 of the thread.
Vertigo, possibly the most characteristically Hitchcockian Hitchcock, was if I remember correctly, deliberately intended by the writers as an essentially Hitchcockian movie. Hitchcock at his finest when the writers mean to do Hitchcock? Is it their responsibility or his?
A fair point. I should have left in my original point about Steven Spielberg, who also explores similar themes in his work (e.g. absent fathers, obviously an influence from Spielberg's own life, in films such as E.T., Hook, and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade).
Including other examples, you seem to dismiss Tim Burton as having any unifying set of themes to his work. Though he's most recongnized for the gothic imagery you note, it seems clear the many of his films explore the lives of social misfits (e.g. Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood, Bruce Wayne/Batman, Jack the Skeleton*).
I'd also consider Spike Lee and Clint Eastwood in this discussion.
*Allright, he only produced The Nightmare Before Christmas, but it bears his name before the title and he exerted a strong influence over the production.
The film was based on a French novel (the authors denied it was intended from the outset to become a film by Hitchcock). The director hired several screenwriters to adapt the book into Vertigo, only to throw out their completed work when it didn't suit the film that he wanted to make.
Spielberg is an excellent example of how calling a producer-director just the director can confuse the issue, I think. Spielberg took up producing to increase his creative input.
And the extent to which the Indiana Jones movies are George Lucas movies too is severely underrated precisely because of this fixation on the director.
Similarly, saying Burton "only" produced Nightmare Before Christmas severely underestimates his role. Only a peculiar notion the director is the main creator could leave anyone in any doubt as to his primary responsibility for Nightmare. As an animated feature, art design is peculiarly critical to the movie. As to Burton and his outsiders, Jack Skellington is like king of Halloweentown, not an outsider. Bruce Wayne isn't much of an exploration of the outsider, not like Edward Scissorhands or Ed Wood. On the other hand, the Burton Penguin (a creature unrelated to the comics after all,) is. But what about Mars Attacks!, Planet of the Apes and his greatest hit of all, Alice in Wonderland? Burton is a genuine example of a director with an individual style and a set of themes, but he's very hit or miss. I suggest it's because Burton's directorial contribution is still secondary to the script.
The directors who, like Burton, have genuine accomplishments in the creative aspects of film making are better directors who do tend to develop an artistic persona to the degree permitted by their limited role as director. I've said this from the beginning. Part of the seeming interminability of this discussion is that the director is the creator theorists want to focus on a relative handful of big name movie directors, indiscriminately mixing in writer/directors and producer/directors and ignoring whether the directors aren't in their second careers after another career. Whereas I think of them as exceptional, not the rule. It's partly an empirical question but most discussants don't get down to specifics.
Clint Eastwood movies are very well done because as an actor Eastwood knows how to get excellent performances and showcase them in a coherent movie. Letters from Iwo Jima, Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby, Bird, frankly no, I don't see unified artistic vision, I see competence. And, still being frankly, I don't think all his movies are very good. Gran Torino may be perceived as an epitome of an Eastwood flick, but it's because Eastwood is acting a role developed from his whole acting persona.
Spike Lee, good call. But, is he really an A-list director who can get all those powers in his contracts, or does he still have to fight? Also, does he write? Can he even make movies on a regular basis?
Two of the hottest directors, at least to judge from their popularity on this bbs, are Guillermo del Toro and Alfonso Cuaron. Both are writers and producers. Both were talked up about directing The Hobbit. It is extraordinarily unlikely that the creative vision of The Hobbit would differ from The Lord of the Rings (and wait, didn't Jackson write for that too?) even if either man directed it. The producer determines how the script is going to be brought to screen (first of all, by deciding the budget.) That's why Empire Strikes Back was still a Star Wars movie. I think it was Leigh Brackett who improved the dialogue, not Irwin Kershner's creative vision.
And the extent to which the Indiana Jones movies are George Lucas movies too is severely underrated precisely because of this fixation on the director.
Similarly, saying Burton "only" produced Nightmare Before Christmas severely underestimates his role. Only a peculiar notion the director is the main creator could leave anyone in any doubt as to his primary responsibility for Nightmare. As an animated feature, art design is peculiarly critical to the movie. As to Burton and his outsiders, Jack Skellington is like king of Halloweentown, not an outsider. Bruce Wayne isn't much of an exploration of the outsider, not like Edward Scissorhands or Ed Wood. On the other hand, the Burton Penguin (a creature unrelated to the comics after all,) is. But what about Mars Attacks!, Planet of the Apes and his greatest hit of all, Alice in Wonderland? Burton is a genuine example of a director with an individual style and a set of themes, but he's very hit or miss. I suggest it's because Burton's directorial contribution is still secondary to the script.
The directors who, like Burton, have genuine accomplishments in the creative aspects of film making are better directors who do tend to develop an artistic persona to the degree permitted by their limited role as director. I've said this from the beginning. Part of the seeming interminability of this discussion is that the director is the creator theorists want to focus on a relative handful of big name movie directors, indiscriminately mixing in writer/directors and producer/directors and ignoring whether the directors aren't in their second careers after another career. Whereas I think of them as exceptional, not the rule. It's partly an empirical question but most discussants don't get down to specifics.
Clint Eastwood movies are very well done because as an actor Eastwood knows how to get excellent performances and showcase them in a coherent movie. Letters from Iwo Jima, Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby, Bird, frankly no, I don't see unified artistic vision, I see competence. And, still being frankly, I don't think all his movies are very good. Gran Torino may be perceived as an epitome of an Eastwood flick, but it's because Eastwood is acting a role developed from his whole acting persona.
Spike Lee, good call. But, is he really an A-list director who can get all those powers in his contracts, or does he still have to fight? Also, does he write? Can he even make movies on a regular basis?
Two of the hottest directors, at least to judge from their popularity on this bbs, are Guillermo del Toro and Alfonso Cuaron. Both are writers and producers. Both were talked up about directing The Hobbit. It is extraordinarily unlikely that the creative vision of The Hobbit would differ from The Lord of the Rings (and wait, didn't Jackson write for that too?) even if either man directed it. The producer determines how the script is going to be brought to screen (first of all, by deciding the budget.) That's why Empire Strikes Back was still a Star Wars movie. I think it was Leigh Brackett who improved the dialogue, not Irwin Kershner's creative vision.
I don't think anyone here has said that the director is always the main creator. It depends on who's involved in each film and how much power they wield over the creative process. As I said before, some films are producer-driven, but films involving major directors are usually director-driven (even on films where they aren't producers or writers - Tim Burton, for example, neither produced nor wrote Alice in Wonderland).
A director at Burton's level is going to have a significant impact on the script, though. He's going to work with the writer until he gets the script he wants. The writer's skill and creativity are of course crucial elements, but the writer doesn't have the creative freedom to write whatever he or she wishes.
As for consistency in theme and style, some artists - directors, screenwriters, novelists, etc - have a unified vision that carries through all their work, while others explore different areas. The latter approach doesn't negate their artistry and creativity, nor rob them of authorial credit. For example, think of how diverse William Goldman's work has been.
Stepping back from the discussion of major directors whose stature gives them creative control and looking at more run of the mill directors, they're a key element in a film's quality, or lack thereof, in that how well a director works with his cast and crew has a huge impact on how well a script is brought to life. And, indeed, a director's skill in working within the financial limits set by producers and studio execs is an important ingredient in filmmaking, one that can affect the quality of the film. In this scenario the journeyman or neophyte director in a work for hire situation isn't the main creator, but more one of the leading co-creators. A B-level director will generally be left to perform the function of overseeing every production element in trying to achieve a unified vision, but with the important caveat that he can be overruled by the producer in a way that an A-level director usually can't be. The extent to which a B-level director has creative freedom will depend on the producer he's working for.
A point of clarification: I've been addressing the state of the film industry as it is now and as it's been since the breakdown of the studio system. The studio system was much more producer-driven. The director's role was really to, hopefully, provide skillfully staged shots and to draw good performances from his cast. The various elements of filmmaking were more compartmentalized as functions of the film factory. After the studio system broke down directors steadily gained in creative control and took on the kind of "thousands of decisions per day" role they usually perform today in seeing that the various elements of production come together with stylistic and tonal unity.
As for Clint Eastwood, the themes he's most often drawn to are those of a lonely man trying to make connections and give his life meaning through the love of a woman and/or a surrogate family and, later in his career, the enduring effects of violence.
Last edited:
Robin Hood rocked. You should go see it. Especially if you are going to call it "ordinary" and "uninspiring" even though you havent seen it, and definitely if you are going to use those as criticisms for this film against a hypothetical one that didnt get made....
Well, they're the criticisms made by the author of the article I linked to, so take it up with him. I'm just paraphrasing.
As an interesting aside, I was leafing through the published version of the American Beauty script yesterday, and in Alan Ball's afterword he gives enormous credit to Sam Mendes for improving the film by both asking him for specific rewrites during production and completely re-structuring the film (deleting quite a bit of material) during the editing process. He also notes that, by choice, the published version of the screenplay reflects the final version of the film rather than Ball's original screenplay.
Which is not, really, to underestimate Ball's influence. Not only did he conceive and write the script, but he was on set for all but two days of production earning the title of co-producer.
Spike Lee is still working, but his power has certainly waned. Lately, most of his work has been on television. In the past five years, he's only directed two feature films, one of which was Inside Man, a film which he didn't have a role in developing. He was trying to develop a sequel to Inside Man, but plans fell apart.
As a writer, he authored or co-authored most of the films he directed in the 1990s, but he's only credited as a writer on two completed films since 2000. And, yes, he's been his own producer for most of his career.
Which is not, really, to underestimate Ball's influence. Not only did he conceive and write the script, but he was on set for all but two days of production earning the title of co-producer.
stj said:
Spike Lee is still working, but his power has certainly waned. Lately, most of his work has been on television. In the past five years, he's only directed two feature films, one of which was Inside Man, a film which he didn't have a role in developing. He was trying to develop a sequel to Inside Man, but plans fell apart.
As a writer, he authored or co-authored most of the films he directed in the 1990s, but he's only credited as a writer on two completed films since 2000. And, yes, he's been his own producer for most of his career.
Skipping over the well ventilated issues of creative credit, to get to the shocking question: How bad was the original script structure if we got the improved version? Chris Cooper's meltdown and Kevin Spacey's martyrdom came out of nowhere. It is mindboggling to hear the movie was more disjointed before Sam Mendes got his hands on it!
Similar threads
