When People Judge Direction, What are they Really Judging?

Tools    





I think in the general public most mistake a director for a cinematographer, obviously the director has a heavy influence over the cinematographer, but I've always thought a good director has a bigger influence on actors. An example is that Mark Wahlbergs quality of performance completely depends on the director he's working with. When working under Shyamalan or Bay he's a horrific actor. But under Paul Thomas Anderson he gives a great performance. So when you say a movie is well directed what are you thinking of?
__________________
You don't have to be the bad guy. You are the most talented, most interesting, and most extraordinary person in the universe. And you are capable of amazing things. Because you are the Special. And so am I. And so is everyone. -Emmet, The Lego Movie.



2022 Mofo Fantasy Football Champ
Generally for me, it's how well they tell the story. And I think it is using a combination of camerawork and actors to your highest capabilities.



A combination of things. Scene placement and how they utilise the screenplay, and storytelling, are the main things but yeah, actors can definitely show the holes in a director's skill.


Another example I've noticed recently is Sienna Guillory (plus the rest of the cast, but let's look at Sienna on this example) in Resident Evil sequels.
She was ok in Apocalypse and hit her role with, well, profession, when she was under the direction of Alexander Witt. Witt was also second unit on Skyfall and Casino Royale and knows his way around visuals as he started out as a camera operator and also worked as a sound operator.
But when Paul WS Anderson took over directing the Res Evil movies again, Sienna (plus the rest, but especially Sienna) became extremely wooden.
The same was with Russell Mulcahy who directed Res Evil Extinction. Pretty good movie, good acting involved, decent screenplay/scene placement and camera work... but as I said, when Anderson came back as director for parts 4 onward, everything went crap again.



Ideally ... How the scenes are staged and shot is determined by the director. The pacing of the movie. Dictating how the film is edited. Okaying every decision and/or putting someone in charge to okay decisions. Determining how sound is used, overseeing the soundtrack. The director is the boss. The actors are just one part of a movie.
__________________
I may go back to hating you. It was more fun.



I judge a director when I see something really stupid in a film.

Like shooting guys down a narrow hallway (underworld) and not hitting anything.
Or having an automatic gun that never runs out of bullets (true detective 2)
Or someone hiding from bullets behind a couch and not getting shut (taken)

these are all things that make me lose respect for a director.



Master of My Domain
This.

A director is, to use an analogy, a coach of a giant sports team, the members are full of artistic people, and the gameplay is made by giving back and forth opinions and creating something from nothing. This can easily create chaos. It's the director's job to make things clear, as Tarantino once said, "tell peeps what story you want to tell, that's what a good director does, explain well.". If the above task is done superbly well, the film full of style and substance equally combined, bravo, a brilliant film, but if that's not the case, the result Is mediocre at best



If a director controls the important creative decisions on a film, depends if we're talking about modern films or much older films. In the days of studio control (1930s to late 1950s) often the director had limited impact on the overall film, as the studio controlled the script, the editing and casting. Now a days most big name directors get to call the shots over their movies. But it wasn't always the case.



Of course, "everything" isn't always the answer, take mainstream films where the director is mainly a name attached to a project created solely for monetary purposes. But I think if you're looking at films as an art then it should almost always be. I think this discussion leads into auteur theory, which you ought to read about if you haven't, as it's very interesting. As the painter uses his brush to paint a picture, the director uses the camera to create his film. Obviously there are other elements that are involved in the production of the film, but ultimately the director decides these and has to put all the different elements together the way he envisions them, creating a final product that is a reflection of them and their personal style. When you watch a Hitchcock, Hawks or Ford movie, you know you are watching a film by them, even if they collaborated with different writers or cinematographers at certain times. Two directors could take the same script and make something entirely different. Even if you look at something more popular and modern like Fincher's The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, despite its unoriginal elements, I still think it's unmistakably a product of Fincher's directorial vision, and makes sense within his body of work.



It depends on the film and director. Transformers is most definitely a mainstream franchise, but Michael Bay isn't a name with executives and focus groups doing the heavy lifting, it feels like a Michael Bay movie. A Marvel movie will feel like a Marvel movie no matter who the director is. I never understood why a film being art and a film being a product had to be mutually exclusive. Why can't it be both? Not all art is created equal, that doesn't invalidate the lesser ones. Transformers is poorly made art that also functions effectively as a product, and Michael Bay is the artist of them.



Master of My Domain
It depends on the film and director. Transformers is most definitely a mainstream franchise, but Michael Bay isn't a name with executives and focus groups doing the heavy lifting, it feels like a Michael Bay movie. A Marvel movie will feel like a Marvel movie no matter who the director is.
Quite the opposite IMO. While Bay's film do have some sort of style, such as a lot of frantic activity going on in one frame and rotating camera, most of the time from the pre-production to the final output, a lot of elements are decided by certain groups of producers and writers who specialize in creating dim-witted mainstream popcorn flicks, such as the recurring Jerry Bruckheimer and his cronies.

On the other hand, for the case of Marvel, I'll just point out that the 2008 Hulk and Guardians of the Galaxy are two totally different films.
I never understood why a film being art and a film being a product had to be mutually exclusive. Why can't it be both? Not all art is created equal, that doesn't invalidate the lesser ones. Transformers is poorly made art that also functions effectively as a product, and Michael Bay is the artist of them.
Because, crap isn't art.



A "marvel movie feeling like a marvel movie" is kind of the point, in this case, largely the vision and purpose of the film is not down to the director, which is decided by the producer, of course they can introduce their own vision at points, but it's more limited. So the director can't be held as responsible here. That's not to say there aren't exceptions. Working off something Gatsby said, Ang Lee's Hulk is much different to a lot of superhero films, and is more his film than a studio production, from what I remember. Edgar Wright's Ant-Man would have also been interesting, but now I no longer have any desire to see it, unfortunately.



for me movie's pacing, and plot , stupid shooting scenes also.



Because, crap isn't art.
There are prize winners who'd disagree with you. Obviously I disagree with you, but you already knew that.
__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.



i'm SUPER GOOD at Jewel karaoke
I judge a director when I see something really stupid in a film.

Like shooting guys down a narrow hallway (underworld) and not hitting anything.
Or having an automatic gun that never runs out of bullets (true detective 2)
Or someone hiding from bullets behind a couch and not getting shut (taken)

these are all things that make me lose respect for a director.
so basically directors that don't know how guns work
__________________
letterboxd



Everything, as some previous people mentioned. I think a big part of that is being able to get the best performance out of their actors.
__________________
[ J ] - [ S ] - [ F ]



I agree with a previous poster who said a great director is a skilled storyteller...it all begins with the word and the word is eventually brought to fruition by a great director. Everyone involved in a film's production is essentially serving the story and the greatest directors are the ones who tell the greatest cinematic stories...Spielberg, Scorsese, and Tarantino know how to tell great stories on film and utilize the tools they have (actors and cinematographers included) to the greatest good...the story.



To be honest, I judge direction as 'the last word'. A good director needs to know when to step in as well as when to back off, and that is not just with regard to the 'talent' on screen, but for all of those jobs he is answerable for. I don't know many Directors that can edit as well as any half decent editors, for example, but it is the Directors' vision (or the investors, once removed) for the project that is important. Imagine, for example, that Kubrick allowed 2001 to be edited like The Shining? He may not have been directly responsible for the ability of the dolly grips etc, but he is still answerable for them and subsequently has final say over what gets released. In short, A director is he/she that has the most to lose; reputation.



Popcorn steve - it's a myth that the director has "final cut" especially for a studio film (e.g. anything hollywood)
That is why there is such thing as a directors cut.