What Matters Most in the Process?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by mercurio3 on July 19, 2008 at 5:39pm

Actors make the most contribution. Movies are mostly remembered by the actors and the characters these play. Directors become famous if the movie is great and they get enough exposure. Actors are always remember even if the movie they were in sucked. Good actors defy the director's vision and go with their instinct and hope (a little) the director will like the idea or modification of the character. Anyone can direct, but not everyone can act. Without actor, there is no Director. Without Director, cameramen, lighting, sound, music and CGI, there is still actor.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by B-Independent.com on August 10, 2008 at 5:42am

Anyone can direct? As a filmmaker, I don't think it possible for me to disagree with a statement more. A director's job contains numerous tasks, the least of which is imposing a viewpoint on the material. It's his job to guide and make choices regarding every aspect of production, from conception to release. while i'll agree that actors are often the faces of movies, their role is nothing more than helping the director realize his vision during production. some actors are allowed a more open approach to teh films, like Robert Downer or Ed Norton, but that's only to help them execute their characters in a fashion the director can use.

You can still make a movie wihtout an actor, which is exactly where CGI is headed. A good director can tailor any role to any actor, but not any actor can play any role. Without a director you just have someone reciting lines...

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Firewater on July 19, 2008 at 6:25pm

The director makes the most contribution. A good director can get the most out of mediocre actors. A mediocre director can't get the most out of good actors.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by mercurio3 on July 20, 2008 at 3:21pm

A director alone can't sell a movie. his contribution is limited to the realization of the script. the actor has to carry the movie throughout the process. By being directed.
By bringing the character to life (and hopefully not failing) by promoting the film and if he's any big star by getting the studios to back up the film. if the studios feel the leads aren't any big shots, they hesitate to make the movie no matter how great the director is.
Director alone can't execute a film without an actor.
Again, actors can carry on acting without a stage, director, lighting or make up.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by B-Independent.com on August 10, 2008 at 5:50am

I'm not sure where you get your information from, but try telling Hitchcock, Spielberg, Lucas, Bay, Jarmusch, Tarantino, Kevin Smith, or any number of directors they can't sell a movie. trust me, directors are present at every press junket.

what an actor does is put asses in seats, hopefully. when an audience can identify with an actor, they become the face of the movie and help sell it domestically and abroad, but a good movie guided with quality direction will have a long shelflife. You can look at the track record of any top box office draw in the last ten years to see that without a good director, their films will flop: Harrison Ford (who just had his first non-flop in a decade), Eddie Murphy (who is responsible for a number of the costliest flops in history), and Tom Cruise (who audiences are now starting to reject) come immediately to mind. All three are great actors capable of crafting excellent characters, but without a good movie to showcase their work, they're just folks without a job.

As for a director not being able to execute a film without an actor, go tell that to Pixar, Disney, or Studio Ghibli. All a director needs is a subject.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by mercurio3 on August 16, 2008 at 7:20pm

As for a director not being able to execute a film without an actor, go tell that to Pixar, Disney, or Studio Ghibli. All a director needs is a subject.
Yes, like a painter..all he needs is a paint brush right?
Pixar, Disney... they need characters..which take the place of actors.

Tom Cruise's movies are flops because he's in it. No matter who directs the film.
don't tell me Charlie's Angel's was a success because the story is great and the direction was flawless! or Something About Mary. How bout the Star Wars ... great direction i'm assuming.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by droidmaker on October 1, 2008 at 12:02am

Writers. They're the architects. The story tellers. Directors do execute and pull it all together - so I don't think it can be done without them, but they're really only working from a plan developed by the real storyteller. I'd say those two are the dyad. The tech leads -- the cinematographer and editor -- definitely are the lead foremen in the construction of the sculpture, and add a great deal of the look, texture, pacing -- but a director and screenwriter establish what that should be in the first place, and both the photography and editing could be pretty well executed by a range of folks... as could the acting. I'd put the actors in the same class as the photography and editing. They're the models. The figures that are painted and dressed by the writer. Lots of actors could play great roles and, while all would make it their own for sure - there's nothing there without the plan.

Nope -- from my vantage both in and out of the industry, and as a deep movie fan -- I'd give it to the writer first, and director second - and both matter most.

▶ Reply to This