|
|
Post by mortsahlfan on Apr 4, 2019 22:46:32 GMT
To me, it all starts with the writing. My question is more how to distinguish it all, credit or fault. It's good to watch an actor play a few roles, especially different kinds of roles. I guess with a director it's probably a wise idea to read the book or whatever it's adapter from and to see what is chosen, that's the important part. I think the director has to take the credit and blame, because he can always say cut, or tell the editor to do this or that. I also try to be objective with the character, even if I don't like the person or actor, if I'm convinced, I'm convinced, but even that's hard.
Sometimes, it's the face, a smirk, something you're born with, or even the way someone sounds. I think most people notice that about 99% of the leading roles are taken by the beautiful people.
I also look at the director's different movies. For example, Robert Altman. A lot of writers didn't care too much for him, because he let the setting dictate what would be said, and I think it's creative. But I'm sure if it was my screenplay, there would be certain things I'd object to. Even though Nashville and McCabe are some of my favorite films, there's a handful of his films that I don't like at all. Was it content? Was Altman drinking the night before? Also, he likes to use the same actors a lot, almost as a troupe.
Curious to hear your thoughts and maybe read something I never considered before
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Apr 4, 2019 23:20:21 GMT
I just go based on how much the performance connects with me, how convincing it is and how original it is for the actor. I also take difficulty into consideration.
Some people think Robert Patrick is awards worthy as T-1000 and while he is PERFECT as the character, it relies more on his natural screen presence and regular voice than really stretching his acting muscles. It seems like a pretty easy performance to pull off for any good actor.
Directing I judge just by how well everything fits together in the film. I don't overthink it and I don't nitpick.
|
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Apr 5, 2019 0:30:10 GMT
I would say subject matter is where a movie starts as some movies just won't be interesting if their subject matter is not that interesting regardless of everything else. but assuming you got decent subject matter... writing surely can help but I think a director has more overall control of a movies quality than writing does as with a quality director can elevate average-ish material but if you got above average material but a average-ish director you probably ain't got much of a chance of outputting a movie of any real worth. but I guess those in directing with names tend to have some sort of style that makes them stand out or at the very least directors with names tend to just make more good movies than most. or another thing I think where you can tell where a director improves a movie... True Grit (2010) vs the much weaker True Grit (1969). you can just tell the 2010 is better shot/cinematography etc as, at least in my mind, those who like the 1969 movie over the 2010 movie are probably big John Wayne fans to where he makes up for the lack of better directing/cinematography/cast etc. as for acting... some people just have a more commanding presence than others which tends to separate the true stars from everyone else. I know some might try to judge even these types by doing something outside of their norm etc, and that's fine if they want to, but overall screen presence is paramount if you ask me. Well it's not surprising as look at it this way... if Person A and Person B can both act but Person A is noticeably better looking than Person B, Person A is generally going to be more liked by most people. moviemouththat was a pretty good post there. |
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Apr 5, 2019 1:15:17 GMT
To me, it all starts with the writing. Directing and acting have little to do with writing.
Directing is about using film language to create art, and an emotional response in your audience. If you can use direction over actors, cinematography and editing to push the boundaries of film language then you've done something special.
For example, in the horror genre the masterpieces Psycho, The Exorcist, Jaws, Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1st) and Halloween (1st) are movies unlike anything that ever came before them. Each one of those movies practically re-wrote film language in their genre.
In acting, I need to believe that the actor is actually doing the thing their character claims to be doing. I need to believe the actor is really feeling that emotion, that they really sound like that guy, that they look like that guy, that they are that guy even though intellectually I know they're a famous actor.
Having a really well written script can help those things, of course, but they're independent of one another.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Apr 5, 2019 2:11:15 GMT
I kind of feel that if I actually notice the directing, the director has failed at his (or her) main job.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Apr 5, 2019 2:23:38 GMT
To me, it all starts with the writing. Directing and acting have little to do with writing.
Directing is about using film language to create art, and an emotional response in your audience. If you can use direction over actors, cinematography and editing to push the boundaries of film language then you've done something special.
For example, in the horror genre the masterpieces Psycho, The Exorcist, Jaws, Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1st) and Halloween (1st) are movies unlike anything that ever came before them. Each one of those movies practically re-wrote film language in their genre.
In acting, I need to believe that the actor is actually doing the thing their character claims to be doing. I need to believe the actor is really feeling that emotion, that they really sound like that guy, that they look like that guy, that they are that guy even though intellectually I know they're a famous actor.
Having a really well written script can help those things, of course, but they're independent of one another.
I agree with mortsahlfan that it starts with the writing.
But part of that has to do with what exactly is in the writing. Is it just a very thin outline that communicates a general idea of a story? Or is it a detailed, scene-by-scene screenplay that prescibes in detail how a scene will look along with what actors will do and say. (eg, "Camera zooms in to a close up of Mary's face. Tears begin to stream down her face. Fade to black.")
Of course, the rest of the team have their essential roles to contribute, as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Apr 5, 2019 14:43:08 GMT
Directing and acting have little to do with writing.
Directing is about using film language to create art, and an emotional response in your audience. If you can use direction over actors, cinematography and editing to push the boundaries of film language then you've done something special.
For example, in the horror genre the masterpieces Psycho, The Exorcist, Jaws, Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1st) and Halloween (1st) are movies unlike anything that ever came before them. Each one of those movies practically re-wrote film language in their genre.
In acting, I need to believe that the actor is actually doing the thing their character claims to be doing. I need to believe the actor is really feeling that emotion, that they really sound like that guy, that they look like that guy, that they are that guy even though intellectually I know they're a famous actor.
Having a really well written script can help those things, of course, but they're independent of one another.
I agree with mortsahlfan that it starts with the writing.
But part of that has to do with what exactly is in the writing. Is it just a very thin outline that communicates a general idea of a story? Or is it a detailed, scene-by-scene screenplay that prescibes in detail how a scene will look along with what actors will do and say. (eg, "Camera zooms in to a close up of Mary's face. Tears begin to stream down her face. Fade to black.")
Of course, the rest of the team have their essential roles to contribute, as well.
You're describing two different things:
The first is a synopsis.
The second is a shooting script.
Either way, they have little to do with directing or acting.
The synopsis/outline is for the producers and studio heads, so they have an idea what they're looking at. The shooting script (along with cinematics and storyboards) is for the director, cinematographer and production department heads so they know what they're actually shooting.
The most important thing a director can have is a clear vision of what he wants to communicate and the ability to use all the other departments to do so.
If the writing were so important they'd be the ones making big money in Hollywood, and we all know they're not. As a matter of fact its pretty clear that Hollywood kinda considers them low man on the totem pole. Some of our favorite directors can even be quoted as saying "I don't even let them on the set", and at awards show's they're always made fun of. I honestly believe that most producers and directors use the script as nothing more than an outline. Three separate directors could shoot the same script and you'd get three totally different movies.
Now that's a shame because clearly a well written script can be the thing that makes a movie great. But in movie making, its really all about the directing. If he/she fails in communicating an inspired vision... the movie fails, great script or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Apr 5, 2019 14:57:57 GMT
I kind of feel that if I actually notice the directing, the director has failed at his (or her) main job. I understand what you're saying, but its not completely accurate. Every director has his/her own style. As a matter of fact the greater the style the better the movie often is.
For example: You would never confuse a movie directed by Quentin Tarantino, from Michael Mann, from Stephen Spielberg, from Brian DePalma, from Terence Malik, from the Coen Brothers. All have distinct styles that you "notice". As a matter of fact that's what we like about their movies.
The "main" job of a director isn't to hide his/her style, is to make the movie seem as if it couldn't have been told any other way but their own.
Do you think if Terence Malik or the Coen Brothers had directed Raiders of the Lost Ark that it would have been the same movie? I guarantee you it wouldn't. They'd have different directing styles that you'd "notice".
|
|
|
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Apr 5, 2019 21:50:08 GMT
I kind of feel that if I actually notice the directing, the director has failed at his (or her) main job. I understand what you're saying, but its not completely accurate. Every director has his/her own style. As a matter of fact the greater the style the better the movie often is.
For example: You would never confuse a movie directed by Quentin Tarantino, from Michael Mann, from Stephen Spielberg, from Brian DePalma, from Terence Malik, from the Coen Brothers. All have distinct styles that you "notice". As a matter of fact that's what we like about their movies.
The "main" job of a director isn't to hide his/her style, is to make the movie seem as if it couldn't have been told any other way but their own.
Do you think if Terence Malik or the Coen Brothers had directed Raiders of the Lost Ark that it would have been the same movie? I guarantee you it wouldn't. They'd have different directing styles that you'd "notice".
I don't disagree that directors have characteristics styles. But when I notice the style while I am watching the film, the director has failed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Apr 5, 2019 22:09:00 GMT
I agree with mortsahlfan that it starts with the writing. But part of that has to do with what exactly is in the writing. Is it just a very thin outline that communicates a general idea of a story? Or is it a detailed, scene-by-scene screenplay that prescibes in detail how a scene will look along with what actors will do and say. (eg, "Camera zooms in to a close up of Mary's face. Tears begin to stream down her face. Fade to black.") Of course, the rest of the team have their essential roles to contribute, as well.
You're describing two different things:
The first is a synopsis.
The second is a shooting script.
Either way, they have little to do with directing or acting.
The synopsis/outline is for the producers and studio heads, so they have an idea what they're looking at. The shooting script (along with cinematics and storyboards) is for the director, cinematographer and production department heads so they know what they're actually shooting.
The most important thing a director can have is a clear vision of what he wants to communicate and the ability to use all the other departments to do so.
If the writing were so important they'd be the ones making big money in Hollywood, and we all know they're not. As a matter of fact its pretty clear that Hollywood kinda considers them low man on the totem pole. Some of our favorite directors can even be quoted as saying "I don't even let them on the set", and at awards show's they're always made fun of. I honestly believe that most producers and directors use the script as nothing more than an outline. Three separate directors could shoot the same script and you'd get three totally different movies.
Now that's a shame because clearly a well written script can be the thing that makes a movie great. But in movie making, its really all about the directing. If he/she fails in communicating an inspired vision... the movie fails, great script or not.
We're talking about how we judge the quality of an artist's work. Not how they are judged within the industry. Who was a better writer, Stan Lee or William Shakespeare? I'm aware of the difference between a synopsis and a shooting script. The point was that the writing includes everything from the long-dead person who came up with the original idea (as in Ovid with Pyramus and Thisbe) to what ends up in the final shooting script. Directors often have a role in the writing, although they may not be credited as writers. But some writers contribute much more to how a story looks and feels on film than others--the difference between films made by auteurs like Tarantino, Greenaway, or Haneke, who often write their works with a mind to how they will look on screen, and films that started out as novels by writers who were writing for writing's sake (like Joseph Conrad with The Heart of Darkness or Alice Walker with The Color Purple or Vladimir Nabokov with Lolita) rather than to create a work intended for film.
|
|
|
|
Post by mortsahlfan on Apr 6, 2019 12:14:48 GMT
You're describing two different things:
The first is a synopsis.
The second is a shooting script.
Either way, they have little to do with directing or acting.
The synopsis/outline is for the producers and studio heads, so they have an idea what they're looking at. The shooting script (along with cinematics and storyboards) is for the director, cinematographer and production department heads so they know what they're actually shooting.
The most important thing a director can have is a clear vision of what he wants to communicate and the ability to use all the other departments to do so.
If the writing were so important they'd be the ones making big money in Hollywood, and we all know they're not. As a matter of fact its pretty clear that Hollywood kinda considers them low man on the totem pole. Some of our favorite directors can even be quoted as saying "I don't even let them on the set", and at awards show's they're always made fun of. I honestly believe that most producers and directors use the script as nothing more than an outline. Three separate directors could shoot the same script and you'd get three totally different movies.
Now that's a shame because clearly a well written script can be the thing that makes a movie great. But in movie making, its really all about the directing. If he/she fails in communicating an inspired vision... the movie fails, great script or not.
We're talking about how we judge the quality of an artist's work. Not how they are judged within the industry. Who was a better writer, Stan Lee or William Shakespeare? I'm aware of the difference between a synopsis and a shooting script. The point was that the writing includes everything from the long-dead person who came up with the original idea (as in Ovid with Pyramus and Thisbe) to what ends up in the final shooting script. Directors often have a role in the writing, although they may not be credited as writers. But some writers contribute much more to how a story looks and feels on film than others--the difference between films made by auteurs like Tarantino, Greenaway, or Haneke, who often write their works with a mind to how they will look on screen, and films that started out as novels by writers who were writing for writing's sake (like Joseph Conrad with The Heart of Darkness or Alice Walker with The Color Purple or Vladimir Nabokov with Lolita) rather than to create a work intended for film. Its interesting about writers... People still talk about Shakespeare, T.S.Elliot, Hemingway, Oscar Wilde (and hundreds of others), but no one mention the greats of the last 20 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Apr 6, 2019 15:21:23 GMT
I understand what you're saying, but its not completely accurate. Every director has his/her own style. As a matter of fact the greater the style the better the movie often is.
For example: You would never confuse a movie directed by Quentin Tarantino, from Michael Mann, from Stephen Spielberg, from Brian DePalma, from Terence Malik, from the Coen Brothers. All have distinct styles that you "notice". As a matter of fact that's what we like about their movies.
The "main" job of a director isn't to hide his/her style, is to make the movie seem as if it couldn't have been told any other way but their own.
Do you think if Terence Malik or the Coen Brothers had directed Raiders of the Lost Ark that it would have been the same movie? I guarantee you it wouldn't. They'd have different directing styles that you'd "notice".
I don't disagree that directors have characteristics styles. But when I notice the style while I am watching the film, the director has failed. In your opinion. Personally I like noticing the style. In fact I watch Tarantino and Mann and Malik specifically to notice their styles.
|
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Apr 6, 2019 15:29:55 GMT
You're describing two different things:
The first is a synopsis.
The second is a shooting script.
Either way, they have little to do with directing or acting.
The synopsis/outline is for the producers and studio heads, so they have an idea what they're looking at. The shooting script (along with cinematics and storyboards) is for the director, cinematographer and production department heads so they know what they're actually shooting.
The most important thing a director can have is a clear vision of what he wants to communicate and the ability to use all the other departments to do so.
If the writing were so important they'd be the ones making big money in Hollywood, and we all know they're not. As a matter of fact its pretty clear that Hollywood kinda considers them low man on the totem pole. Some of our favorite directors can even be quoted as saying "I don't even let them on the set", and at awards show's they're always made fun of. I honestly believe that most producers and directors use the script as nothing more than an outline. Three separate directors could shoot the same script and you'd get three totally different movies.
Now that's a shame because clearly a well written script can be the thing that makes a movie great. But in movie making, its really all about the directing. If he/she fails in communicating an inspired vision... the movie fails, great script or not.
We're talking about how we judge the quality of an artist's work. Not how they are judged within the industry. Who was a better writer, Stan Lee or William Shakespeare? I'm aware of the difference between a synopsis and a shooting script. The point was that the writing includes everything from the long-dead person who came up with the original idea (as in Ovid with Pyramus and Thisbe) to what ends up in the final shooting script. Directors often have a role in the writing, although they may not be credited as writers. But some writers contribute much more to how a story looks and feels on film than others--the difference between films made by auteurs like Tarantino, Greenaway, or Haneke, who often write their works with a mind to how they will look on screen, and films that started out as novels by writers who were writing for writing's sake (like Joseph Conrad with The Heart of Darkness or Alice Walker with The Color Purple or Vladimir Nabokov with Lolita) rather than to create a work intended for film. Actually we're discussing the OP's question and assertion "How Do You Judge Directing/Acting? To me, it all starts with the writing" and the OP's hope that he might "read something I never considered before".
And my response to that is that directing and/or acting have next to nothing to do with writing. Great directing is about the directors vision and visual style, and acting is about the research and preparation the actor does. A script is the bare bones you hang all that on.
To be clear I am not denigrating the efforts of the script writer. Clearly they are talented and important parts of the process. They just don't make direction or acting great. They're independent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Xcalatë on Apr 6, 2019 15:40:49 GMT
I honeslty don't pay too much attention to directing, writing/story is more important to me and then acting, that being said if a movie is very poorly directed or edited it ruins it 9 out of 10 times
|
|
|
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Apr 6, 2019 19:56:00 GMT
I don't disagree that directors have characteristics styles. But when I notice the style while I am watching the film, the director has failed. In your opinion. Personally I like noticing the style. In fact I watch Tarantino and Mann and Malik specifically to notice their styles. Of course it's my opinion. The thread topic is how do you judge?
|
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Apr 6, 2019 20:06:53 GMT
In your opinion. Personally I like noticing the style. In fact I watch Tarantino and Mann and Malik specifically to notice their styles. Of course it's my opinion. The thread topic is how do you judge? Not the judging. The notion that the director has failed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Apr 6, 2019 21:29:46 GMT
directing and/or acting have next to nothing to do with writing. Great directing is about the directors vision and visual style, and acting is about the research and preparation the actor does. A script is the bare bones you hang all that on. To be clear I am not denigrating the efforts of the script writer. Clearly they are talented and important parts of the process. They just don't make direction or acting great. They're independent. You still don't seem to be hearing what I am saying. A scene could be written with, "a person walks into a room." Or it could be written describing in detail what the room looks like, what the person looks like. Who else is in the room. Is the room an operating theatre? Is it a prison cell? Is it a room of the British Parliament? Is this person a 5-year-old girl or a blind 80-year-old with disabling arthritis? Another example: "They fight." A writer who says only that leaves it all to the director (and actors) to decide everything. So in response to the question of "how to distinguish it all, credit or fault," it depends on how much was already prescribed by the writer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Apr 6, 2019 21:39:11 GMT
Think of it like a musical piece.
The writer is where it all starts. The composer may have indicated not only which instruments will play which notes and when, but how quickly and with what kind of spirit. The individual musicians carry out those instructions but according to the conductor's/band leader's (director's) interpretation of what the composer has called for. Particular conductors have their own styles and abilities that knowledgable listeners can discern, same with the musicians (a high school orchestra vs the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra; a Vladimir Horowitz rendition of a piano piece is completely different from the same piece performed by Arthur Rubinstein, or Martha Argerich).
Or think of a recipe. The recipe may be just a general outline, or it may be very precise and exacting--specifying which brands of ingredients and equipment to use, how much each ingredient should weigh down to the gram, how long each step should last in seconds. "Salt to taste" vs "425 grams of Morton's iodized salt."
So getting back to my original statement, how much of the audience's film experience to attribute to each individual film team member's input depends on how detailed the writer was. If the writer was very detailed and precise, it leaves less to the other team members, assuming they are keeping faithful to the writing.
(And same with directing vs acting. If it's one of those directors who lets actors ad lib lines freely and tells them to just do what they think works best, then more of what the audience gets is from the actors compared with a production where the director says exactly how everything should be done and doesn't let the actors decide for themselves. Either way, the director is ultimately responsible because the director had the authority to make the calls, whether s/he chose to do so or not.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Apr 6, 2019 21:44:37 GMT
mortsahlfanAnother point to consider is the casting, which you kind of alluded to. Who do you cast as God? Or the Oracle in The Matrix? Or as Dracula? Do you cast John Candy as Dracula? Or Eddie Murphy as Dracula? Do you cast Alanis Morissette as God? How about Woody Allen as Indiana Jones? In the director's hands, the actor can be like a musical instrument. The instrument can play a wide range of notes, but with a very defined and limited voice and tone that no matter what the actor does, he or she cannot completely change his or her voice.
|
|
|
|
Post by mortsahlfan on Apr 6, 2019 23:39:57 GMT
mortsahlfan Another point to consider is the casting, which you kind of alluded to. Who do you cast as God? Or the Oracle in The Matrix? Or as Dracula? Do you cast John Candy as Dracula? Or Eddie Murphy as Dracula? Do you cast Alanis Morissette as God? How about Woody Allen as Indiana Jones? In the director's hands, the actor can be like a musical instrument. The instrument can play a wide range of notes, but with a very defined and limited voice and tone that no matter what the actor does, he or she cannot completely change his or her voice. I'm guessing great directors would make good casting... Studio companies and producers always have influence on this, including any other money men.
|
|
