Thirith on 17/4/2009 at 13:17
Quote Posted by Rogue Keeper
In fact, many of responsibilities for performance on the crew fall on shoulders of the production executives. But production executives and screenwriters and DoPs aren't obvious and attractive targets for many reviewers, who regretfully often don't understand what is whose responsibility on the set. If you are ambitious to make an in-depth analytical review of a film, you can't just say "Director botched this and director botched that" because it implies lack of knowledge about film making process.
God, I'm getting tired of you. Depending on the production, everything you say is completely upside down and the director focuses on the actors and the production executives focus on the crew and the technical side of things. Just because Ridley Scott and Stanley Kubrick may or may not have done what you say doesn't mean that this is the only or the best way of doing it.
Why do you think that it's generally the director who decides how many takes are done of a scene? And those different takes are usually not there because the lighting is changed or the camera angle - in most cases the multiple takes are about the acting.
In general, the producers' job is to look after the logistics of a production and to make sure that the money is used efficiently. This may require more or less micro-management. The director's job is to direct, which means that he's the central creative brain of a production. In practice, this may not always be the case and the emphases of the different functions may be different, but just because you imply that others are ignorant on the elements of film making doesn't mean that what you describe is true in any general way.
Rogue Keeper on 17/4/2009 at 14:05
Quote Posted by Thirith
God, I'm getting tired of you.
That's my ambition, dear!
Quote Posted by Thirith
Depending on the production, everything you say is completely upside down and the director focuses on the actors and the production executives focus on the crew and the technical side of things. Just because Ridley Scott and Stanley Kubrick may or may not have done what you say doesn't mean that this is the only or the best way of doing it.
Just because dry playbook theory told you something doesn't mean that the reality always reflects that, right. You try shooting movies after you've done about 1000 commercials and you will understand. I've heard it rather unusual in Hollywood for the Dir to fully operate the camera, because of some union policies... Sad, really. A serious obstacle for artistic freedom.
Quote Posted by Thirith
Why do you think that it's generally the director who decides how many takes are done of a scene? And those different takes are usually not there because the lighting is changed or the camera angle - in most cases the multiple takes are about the acting.
Multiple takes are made from all those reasons.
Quote Posted by Thirith
In general, the producers' job is to look after the logistics of a production and to make sure that the money is used efficiently. This may require more or less micro-management. The director's job is to direct, which means that he's the central creative brain of a production. In practice, this may not always be the case and the emphases of the different functions may be different, but just because you imply that others are ignorant on the elements of film making doesn't mean that what you describe is true in any general way.
Yes it's basically like this and it supports what I said.
Jason Moyer on 17/4/2009 at 17:00
Kind of a random question here, but did Kubrick write any of his own films? I know he contributed to 2001 (primarily by filming something and Clarke going "whoa, cool, I'll add that") and made some changes to the Shining/FMJ/Clockwork Orange, but I have no idea if he really played a part in the scripts/stories for anything.
Rogue Keeper on 17/4/2009 at 17:03
2001 is based on Clarke's short story "The Sentinel" from 1951 or so. So it's basically his original invention. He expanded it into novel after the success of the film.
Jason Moyer on 17/4/2009 at 17:12
The novel was written concurrently with the film being shot, which is why there are some huge differences between the two - like the destination of Discovery One's expedition, for instance. Clarke also wrote the original screenplay, which Kubrick deviated from slightly.
Rogue Keeper on 17/4/2009 at 17:16
Actually that's correct, yes. But the film was a mutual collaboration of those two, even though philosophical mysticism of Kubrick prevailed over descriptive rationalism of Clarke, naturally Kubrick prevailed in his own medium.
Fafhrd on 17/4/2009 at 21:02
Quote Posted by Rogue Keeper
I’ve heard it rather unusual in Hollywood for the Dir to fully operate the camera,
It's unusual in ANY film production, Hollywood or otherwise, for the director to fully operate the camera. That's the DP's job.
If production executives are on set handling the actors, then something has gone very very very wrong. Or you're shooting a film for Fox.
And Scott's not a behind the camera guy, he's a production design guy, because that's where he started.
Shakey-Lo on 18/4/2009 at 04:51
Quote Posted by Fafhrd
It's unusual in ANY film production, Hollywood or otherwise, for the director to fully operate the camera. That's the DP's job.
I think you'll find it's the Camera Operator's job - and even he doesn't "fully" operate the camera. He's helped by a focus puller, a film-loader guy (the actual title escapes me at the moment), and so on.
Jason Moyer, all of Kubrick's films were based to some degree on existing material, but Kubrick co-wrote all the screenplays, usually by bringing someone in to write according to his ideas. For
2001 it just so happened that this person was Arthur C Clarke himself.
Also, "The Sentinel" is the basis for the moon sequence and that's about it. There is another Arthur C Clarke story, "Encounter in the Dawn", which is also a foundation for
2001 and a better short story in my opinion.
Rogue Keeper on 20/4/2009 at 07:25
Quote Posted by Fafhrd
If production executives are on set handling the actors, then something has gone very very very wrong. Or you're shooting a film for Fox.
Or a production executive is director's buddy. It is not unusual for people from production to be ready to do things above their duties. Smart ones think ahead and such eventualities are being taken care of by specific clauses in their contracts. Afterall, the film is their baby. No big production is without it's share of problems and skilled producers expect them ahead. A production is going "VERY VERY VERY WRONG", when the lead actor dies in middle of the film from food poisoning and the director shoots himself.
Quote Posted by Fafhrd
It's unusual in ANY film production, Hollywood or otherwise, for the director to fully operate the camera. That's the DP's job. And Scott's not a behind the camera guy, he's a production design guy, because that's where he started.
And if I (as a fairly established director) come to you (as a producer) and say "I want to operate the camera. The setups will be faster, I save time by elimination of long discussions and you save one big salary."
What do you say? Throw me out or something? Think.
It's far easier to do when the crew is small, as in case of indie films and commercials (and it really happens). But big productions are being influenced by number of union regulations and studio policies and unwritten but silently agreed upon "customs".
Scott became interested in filmmaking in the university where he made his first film and later he was a very successful commercial director in the UK (about 1000 commercials as I mentioned earlier).
“I was an operator right though The Duelist, Alien and Legend,” he told us. However, when he came to the US to shoot Blade Runner, union rules forbade him from being his own cameraman. “It was like being a painter and they remove your hands,” he explained. “It all happens through the viewfinder for me. You're essentially working as a photographer and I think more directors should try it, because the integration and communion with the actors is much closer. Actors like that, they like to feel that you're not cut off, but actually you're connected to them through the lens. I think it's very important.”
(
http://darthmojo.wordpress.com/2008/06/18/scott-on-blade-runner/)
