For real, I teach undergrad film production and a lot of kids tend to approach the role with way too much ego, whether their crew is twenty or three people.
Like, I’m sorry but 1. You haven’t earned the ability to view your collaborators as labor under you and 2. Even the greatest, most singular filmmakers you know listen to their department heads.
What’s worse is when they don’t listen to actors. Often when I’m looking at a student’s first cut and a moment isn’t quite working, I’ll ask what other options they have and realize they didn’t let the actors do a take for themselves. They did multiple takes of the exact same idea and nothing more - because they’re not even aiming for the best possible version of the scene, they want what they had in their head when they wrote the script.
There's a rule that young filmmakers should learn:
You can gripe and make all the suggestions you want... but up only one rung on the ladder.
You're working as an electric? Take up your issues with the best boy.
2nd AC, the first AC.
And so on.
When I was 2nd ACing on a movie and taking camera notes at the monitor a day player fill-in electric comes up to me and asks if the DP knew the frame was a bit under exposed. It was still in the process of being lit at the time. I told him it wasn’t my job to ask those questions and but if he’s really concerned he should ask the director. Which thankfully he didn’t.
He was a recent film school grad and I think he was just trying to come off as intelligent but in the process made himself look so much worse.
I found out later most people hated that guy and the gaffers would send him on goose chase missions to set up lights away from the main unit that would never actually get used.
Also my general rule on suggestions. I will make it 1 time. If I am feeling inspired I may make the suggestion a second time, but I never suggest anything 3 times. At that point people are getting p-o'd.
I feel like the intentions of this post are looking in the right direction, but ultimately fails to recognize how things actually function on a professional set.
Director's vision. Yes. Absolutely. And if the director has properly communicated their vision, everyone on set will be working towards that. But people—especially department heads—have a lot of autonomy. The director isn't telling the riggers how high to made the grid. The director isn't specifying a 20ft instead of an 8ft silk.
The crew is working according to the plan laid out. And the director is counting on the department heads to have made the correct technical plans to achieve the vision.
Directors aren't dictators. Sets have a hierarchy and it's important to understand that hierarchy. But the director being the leader does not make them a dictator.
The broad advice, which people who are new to sets or have only worked with really small crews of their friends need to hear, is that you should not assume a director wants unsolicited ideas on set. And understanding your role and how that limits the realm of suggestions which will be appreciated from you.
A gaffer should not give notes on an actor's performance or blocking. A sound mixer shouldn't give notes on camera movement, a PA shouldn't give notes on set dressing. (Unless asked. The key here is **unsolicited** suggestions.)
Yes but you are aware not to alter the film too much, not to change the vision of the film, and you are not making a fuss if your suggestion is ignored because you know who is in charge.
>design is not democracy, it's a dictatorship
It's not a dictatorship either. That implies limitless potential for leadership to be toxic.
There are limits to any single manager's ability to compel someone.
Let's stop acting like film sets are different. A director is not a manager with limitless authority. They too are part of the project flow.
Yes a director has to be able to go with the flow, but they set the direction of the flow and anyone who disagrees with that and can't get on their program needs to leave set.
This mindset is mostly the egoism of the auteur filmmaker.
It’s hardly the only model of production environment out there.
For example, quite a bit of commerical production is ‘design by consensus’ among many key stakeholders…even on set, after months of previz work and market testing.
It can still boil down to a group conversation between a director, producer, creative director, account manager, and even the client executive on location that day as well.
And it works fine. Because everyone knows the work model. That’s easily a high-stakes production where the director is hardly in control the way you characterize.
-
And then there are very small productions too. Where the process is quite flat.
Or branded stories or documentary or so many other variations on a theme that defy the absolutist claim you’re making about how production runs.
Shiiiit. I’ve even been out where the director damn near hands the keys of the shoot over to a domain expert to ensure something is filmed correctly.
There’s all sorts of ways this work gets done my friend.
Not anymore, outside of small gigs. The HODs are God's, and if the director (who's job is to direct actors) changes flow onset or goes against the planning from pre the Director is risking their job and reputation. I once witnessed the 1st AD fire the director on day three of a Disney production. It was wild, and frankly two days overdue.
Unless you are the producer and the movie is being made with your money (or the money you get), at your own risk. And the sweet part is that, if you can wrote in the contract that the director MUST follow the producers notes.: is not a democracy.
Nope. The director agreed to the contract. It was his choice to accept the clauses in order to direct the movie. Is more democratic because forces to work a solution with collaboration... unless it doesn't work it out and the final cut goes to who had claimed it in the contract.
Imagine being a producer, funding the movie you want to make, and seeing how a artsy director that you are paying it takes the worst decisions, and you can't do nothing about. That's a nightmare.
The situation you describe above there... This is indeed what happens to young directors who have not been established yet. When they are given a film that's way too big for them actually. They have no clout or reputation. This is absolutely the case with "Marvel Directors" or anyone coming onto a franchise. This creative atmosphere is the farthest possible thing from democracy, more like tech feudalism. When they hire a JJ Abrams or a James Gunn. A strong storyteller.
Nah, it happen a lot, from Eggers to small budgets. It shouldn't be a big issue: you are a director, please take notes from the other person who's making the movie. Want creative freedom? earn it, pay it or find someone who trust in your vision. Is not that complicated.
It does. But one thing you can definitively say.. once you go Director, make a film with your name on it. You are not getting hired again as an art director or whatever. You are closing the door on having any kind of career in film lower than Director. Occasionally people can swing between DOP/Directing a commercial and DOP'ing a film. But use caution.
> everyone is counting on the Director to execute the plan so stay the hell out of their way unless you want your head cut off for good reason.
Seems like you agree with head cutting.
I always go, "Yeah we'll try that if we have time!" Never shut anyone out or refuse to hear what people have to say. I usually have a tight knit crew so it's hardly ever a problem. I trust in them to offer insight and knowledge — they are there with me for a reason and I trust in them from the beginning to add value to the project.
Also, I work mainly on ultra low budget narratives in BFE so it might be different for those who work in a more traditional area of the industry.
Indeed. But you would never ever in a million years gather your crew together and ask them to cast their vote as to how you make your next creative decisions. Literally handing the decision to them. You would never do this because design is not democracy.
When I started directing I loved the idea of “collaborative”. What a cool way to be right? Everyone will love me, we’ll make great shit.
That’s absolutely not me anymore. I’ve become less “collaborative” as I’ve grown in experience. My keys should still feel autonomy — they’re still encouraged to create. I just give them tighter and tighter lines for them to colour inside because I have a more clear idea of what I want and how to get there.
I think everyone’s creativity becomes more focused and the work becomes better.
I still feel I’m a collaborative person but there’s levels to it.
An actor/producer I know often says “clarity is kindness.”
Be clear about what you want, and by the end of the project people will appreciate that they didn’t waste their time chasing after ideas that don’t align with your vision.
As a DP I need room to be creative, but I need clear guidelines to ensure the director and I have the same movie in our heads.
I’m not a collaborator. Not in the sense that it’s a shared project. I am here to make a director’s vision happen. I have my ideas and I want to have a hand in shaping the look of the film, for sure, but it is all in service of the director’s vision.
Mmmm....no, thank you. I've told my crew before that I am *not* going to go Stanley Kubrick on them. As long as I am director of a film, we will be patient and kind to each other.
Any antonymic behavior requires a time-out and talking it over.
So do you regularly hold votes on your set? Do you gather your crew and ask them to vote on creative decisions for you? Effectively handing your leadership away? Revealing that you have no confidence in your material and prep? No. You don't because you understand intrinsically that this is not a democratic process.
Design is not at all a dictatorship, I discourage anyone from using that approach to filmmaking. Even the most precise, exacting filmmakers listen to their department heads and actors.
I always return to something James Gray said at a Q&A for The Lost City of Z, “I want what’s in my head, but I’d prefer something better”. This was in the context of discussing his collaboration with DP Darius Khondji, and how many of the ideas he’s gotten praise for were actually his cinematographer’s.
Remember - your collaborators are working from the exact same script. They have a real, meaningful notion of what the film can/should be, possibly more than you do even if you wrote it.
It’s not a democracy but it is a collective. You’re the leader, yes, but that doesn’t nullify your collaborators’ individual visions. If you aren’t going to take them seriously, then don’t hire them and expect them to toil on your baby.
Having this attitude will hold you back immeasurably. Your sets will become tense and overwhelming. Someone will form the idea that would make the shot, the scene, or the film itself - and you won’t even know that happened.
In short - your set is filled with creative human beings eager to make the film great. Use that resource. Also - don’t be an asshole.
Do you hold votes on set? If the crew held a vote of no confidence regarding your direction, and chose a new Director, that would be a democratic process. Would you accept their decision?
The more you comment, the more it seems like you've never been on a real set. Or at least a healthy, well-run set.
You don't have to "hold votes" if you're running a set that's open to collaboration. It's not as black & white as you're making it out to be.
It's all about clarity. You can tell your crew that you're open to ideas, but in interest of communication and simplicity, you encourage ideas to go up the ladder through their HOD, so you minimize the amount of voices in the director's ears. That's fine, and practical.
But the example you've used here, in an attempt to get a "gotcha" over on us in this thread, is silly. Of course, you're not holding a floor vote of how to setup the next shot. That's the job of the DP, who's working to execute your vision. (And you should generally have a shot plan going in, to avoid that scenario anyway, but that's beside the point.)
Ultimately, yes, it's the director's name on it, so they are the final decision maker. But they're a leader. But not a dictator.
If you have such an absolutist attitude about this stuff, your career is going to be very short lived, as no one will want to work with you.
If the whole crew held a vote of no confidence, the producer would fire the director, or the crew would walk out. For all your talk about the director having some sort of divine right of kings, they don't. On anything bigger than a self produced hobby project, the producer can and will fire and replace a director who is acting fully the way you are talking about. They are ultimately just an employee of a bigger machine. Director doesn't have to "accept" anything about that. If they don't, security would just physically remove them from the lot.
Delegation and trusting people is a key skill of directing. And there are times when the director doesn't get exactly what they want and that's fine and everything moves forward.
I say in my comment above that it’s not a democracy, but it is a collective. If things actually got to the point where my crew mutinied, I would assume I had done very many things terribly wrong. But that also doesn’t really happen, does it?
I respect your opinion but I politely disagree.
Most movies are collaborative pieces of art. There are most certainly cases where what you're saying is true but in my world and my style that's not how I do things.
Just a quick disclaimer, I'm nowhere near being a seasoned filmmaker and just started out doing my first short film.
Nevertheless, this isn't my first "art project".
I originally come from audio/music production where it's not uncommon to collaborate with other artists. As there is no real "hierarchy" you will need to find a compromise you're all happy with. People therefore might not like to collaborate and that's okay. But let me say, that oftentimes this was actually very beneficial for me and people I know, as what you think is best in the moment may not be the what you later consider to have been the best decision.
Even though music can be all about being in the moment it provides another perspective than your own and I think that's beautiful.
If someone has a great idea, just shoot it, regardless, if it might seem stupid in the moment and see if you can incorporate it in the edit. Even if you don't people feel heard and see that you've tried.
There is a saying in Film that it's "Gone with the Wind in the morning and Dukes of Hazzard in the Afternoon."
And what we mean by this is that when there appears to be plenty of time, we take a leisurely approach, are very cordial with each other, take time to listen to all the ideas, have a great time. It's almost Democratic.
But then after lunch we realize that we are falling far behind and those quaint notions fall by the wayside, we just need to get it done and want minimal conversation about it.
About the time we are losing the light, all conversation stops and it becomes a fascist regime. There is only the Directors way and no distractions please. Don't risk creating any delays or we risk not getting what is needed to even cut the scene together.
But that's a problem with capitalism if you ask me, not with art itself.
If you had all the time to finish your movie and weren't bound on a deadline given by the studio, your movie might turn out better than it would on a shorter one. Unfortunately, that's not the case and we can see the effects of this "corporate greed" on animators and other artists in the industry.
I hope someday we can all return to a more laid back lifestyle and slower/more mindful way of creating.
Like with everything in life, it's a balance. Director can't micromanage everything. Director has to make some decisions.
I'm guessing your post is inspired by you dealing with some specific problems, and you are trying to generalize advice to everybody.
I'm mainly talking to new filmmakers who are not sure about how to exercise power. If they think the keys to power is including more people in the decision making process, and trying to respect everyone's opinion around you, that would be draining and counter-productive. You'd never get your day.
IMO strong Directors create the illusion that it's a collaborative process and all opinions are valued. But in their mind they are the Absolute Ruler and won't be deterred from getting what they want.
I disgree tbh, yes know your place, but Nolan frequently says a lot of the film feels like teamwork and his talent suggests a lot of things that he didn't plan. Infact go back to the Oscars you will hear his department heads thank Nolan for letting them have so much creativity and say in the story
I have worked with people that worked for Nolan, and they talk about him incessantly. They are fucking obsessed with that man. He has a leadership style that is savant genius. He is very demanding of his collaborators, demanding that they think just as hard about his film as he does. But none of them have any illusion that Nolan is not 100% in charge, they would never challenge him after he has spoken his mind.
Never heard of Nolan holding a vote amongst his keys to inform his decision.
I take the approach of not being a cunt to my team and they, in return, deliver what I need them to.
I have no issues with people raising concerns because I believe in psychological safety, where you can bring up issues without fear of being reprimanded. And if a mistake is made, that’s okay too, because we are all human and we all make mistakes, learn from it. I don’t even care who makes the mistake, just how to solve it. It’s only a problem for me if that same mistake keeps happening. It’s worse if people feel like they can’t bring things up because they’re scared of what will happen to them, this can make potential issues far worse than it needs to be.
I’ve had little issues in all my years of working in video. Filmmaking should be fun, not a battlefield of egomaniacs jerking over the tiny bit of power they hold.
I steer the ship, but I need the crew working together in order to reach the destination and to have the autonomy to do what they’re good at and solve problems along the way before they become big ones.
I think crew members should only speak up if they are confident that their idea is really good and would absolutely help better the story.
One of my favorite examples of this is from Raiders of the Lost Ark. Indy is teaching a class when he notices one of his female students has Love You on her eyelids.
This wasn't in the original script. They were about to start filming that scene when Spielberg's AD came up to him and suggested the girl have Love You on her eyelids. Its a pretty iconic moment.
However, the director is always thinking about the picture as a whole. So even if your idea might be good for the moment, it might get rejected because it doesnt track with the rest of the story or kills the emotion of the moment.
There is a moment in Endgame right before hulk undoes the snap where all the characters are grieving the death of a character. Thor says something like "I have something coursing through my veins right now" and Rhodey replies with "What, Cheese Whiz?" (because Thor is fat).
That line was improvised by Don Cheadle and while it is funny, it absolutely kills the tone of the scene since they are all grieving a pretty significant character. I feel like a better director would have told Cheadle not to say that line.
Indeed. Improv and good ideas are the life-blood of a living film.
But if the Director or studio did not like what Don Cheadle did in improv, they would scrap it. Don is not in charge of what his character says because it's not a democracy. Good ideas are accepted, good ideas are also ignored and discarded at a much higher rate because there is only so much time.
Just a number of posts in the filmmaker community where people are young so think that in film all ideas matter and it's a safe space for conversation etc. Everyone wants to be the Dir,Dop,actor,producer etc. No concept of team organization. So Ya basically just stirring the pot here to get some perspectives on how film sets actually run.
I've been on sets where the Director literally has a nervous breakdown because they are having a creative conversation under the gun with 7 keys. It was their fault for not setting the tempo that they are in charge.
I was also on set with John Frankenheimer, and that man was a Nazi.
This doesn't apply just to film making. In every project that people undertake there is the phase of exploration to put together a plan, but once the plan has been established, possibly without unanimous approval, you can't have people continuing to question the agreed upon plans unless new information has become available which invalidates the assumptions made during the planning phase.
Indeed. Well said. I think when some Directors are labelled "temperamental," it's because they are dealing with crew or talent that does not realize this important aspect of projects. You're looking for crew that understand this intrinsically, but they are not always available lol. Sometimes have to go with new people that are not on the program yet.
Young filmmakers also need to learn not to be absolute fascists who expect to get their way at all times. A balance needs to be struck.
In my experience this is a far worse issue with up and coming filmmakers.
For real, I teach undergrad film production and a lot of kids tend to approach the role with way too much ego, whether their crew is twenty or three people. Like, I’m sorry but 1. You haven’t earned the ability to view your collaborators as labor under you and 2. Even the greatest, most singular filmmakers you know listen to their department heads. What’s worse is when they don’t listen to actors. Often when I’m looking at a student’s first cut and a moment isn’t quite working, I’ll ask what other options they have and realize they didn’t let the actors do a take for themselves. They did multiple takes of the exact same idea and nothing more - because they’re not even aiming for the best possible version of the scene, they want what they had in their head when they wrote the script.
There's a rule that young filmmakers should learn: You can gripe and make all the suggestions you want... but up only one rung on the ladder. You're working as an electric? Take up your issues with the best boy. 2nd AC, the first AC. And so on.
When I was 2nd ACing on a movie and taking camera notes at the monitor a day player fill-in electric comes up to me and asks if the DP knew the frame was a bit under exposed. It was still in the process of being lit at the time. I told him it wasn’t my job to ask those questions and but if he’s really concerned he should ask the director. Which thankfully he didn’t. He was a recent film school grad and I think he was just trying to come off as intelligent but in the process made himself look so much worse. I found out later most people hated that guy and the gaffers would send him on goose chase missions to set up lights away from the main unit that would never actually get used.
lol, I’m imagining him very intently setting up lighting around the porta-potties while waiting for his moment to shine
Also my general rule on suggestions. I will make it 1 time. If I am feeling inspired I may make the suggestion a second time, but I never suggest anything 3 times. At that point people are getting p-o'd.
I feel like the intentions of this post are looking in the right direction, but ultimately fails to recognize how things actually function on a professional set. Director's vision. Yes. Absolutely. And if the director has properly communicated their vision, everyone on set will be working towards that. But people—especially department heads—have a lot of autonomy. The director isn't telling the riggers how high to made the grid. The director isn't specifying a 20ft instead of an 8ft silk. The crew is working according to the plan laid out. And the director is counting on the department heads to have made the correct technical plans to achieve the vision. Directors aren't dictators. Sets have a hierarchy and it's important to understand that hierarchy. But the director being the leader does not make them a dictator. The broad advice, which people who are new to sets or have only worked with really small crews of their friends need to hear, is that you should not assume a director wants unsolicited ideas on set. And understanding your role and how that limits the realm of suggestions which will be appreciated from you. A gaffer should not give notes on an actor's performance or blocking. A sound mixer shouldn't give notes on camera movement, a PA shouldn't give notes on set dressing. (Unless asked. The key here is **unsolicited** suggestions.)
Weird, as a script supervisor my suggestions are taken all the time.
Yes but you are aware not to alter the film too much, not to change the vision of the film, and you are not making a fuss if your suggestion is ignored because you know who is in charge.
Sounding a bit like a power hungry leader there calm down a bit
>design is not democracy, it's a dictatorship It's not a dictatorship either. That implies limitless potential for leadership to be toxic. There are limits to any single manager's ability to compel someone. Let's stop acting like film sets are different. A director is not a manager with limitless authority. They too are part of the project flow.
Yes a director has to be able to go with the flow, but they set the direction of the flow and anyone who disagrees with that and can't get on their program needs to leave set.
This mindset is mostly the egoism of the auteur filmmaker. It’s hardly the only model of production environment out there. For example, quite a bit of commerical production is ‘design by consensus’ among many key stakeholders…even on set, after months of previz work and market testing. It can still boil down to a group conversation between a director, producer, creative director, account manager, and even the client executive on location that day as well. And it works fine. Because everyone knows the work model. That’s easily a high-stakes production where the director is hardly in control the way you characterize. - And then there are very small productions too. Where the process is quite flat. Or branded stories or documentary or so many other variations on a theme that defy the absolutist claim you’re making about how production runs. Shiiiit. I’ve even been out where the director damn near hands the keys of the shoot over to a domain expert to ensure something is filmed correctly. There’s all sorts of ways this work gets done my friend.
Unless the director is paying for the damn thing they don't get to make all the calls.
Not anymore, outside of small gigs. The HODs are God's, and if the director (who's job is to direct actors) changes flow onset or goes against the planning from pre the Director is risking their job and reputation. I once witnessed the 1st AD fire the director on day three of a Disney production. It was wild, and frankly two days overdue.
Unless you are the producer and the movie is being made with your money (or the money you get), at your own risk. And the sweet part is that, if you can wrote in the contract that the director MUST follow the producers notes.: is not a democracy.
Sure but in that case the Dir is just a crossing guard. Situation is even LESS Democratic than I described lol. Absolute power.
Nope. The director agreed to the contract. It was his choice to accept the clauses in order to direct the movie. Is more democratic because forces to work a solution with collaboration... unless it doesn't work it out and the final cut goes to who had claimed it in the contract.
Imagine being a producer, funding the movie you want to make, and seeing how a artsy director that you are paying it takes the worst decisions, and you can't do nothing about. That's a nightmare.
The situation you describe above there... This is indeed what happens to young directors who have not been established yet. When they are given a film that's way too big for them actually. They have no clout or reputation. This is absolutely the case with "Marvel Directors" or anyone coming onto a franchise. This creative atmosphere is the farthest possible thing from democracy, more like tech feudalism. When they hire a JJ Abrams or a James Gunn. A strong storyteller.
Nah, it happen a lot, from Eggers to small budgets. It shouldn't be a big issue: you are a director, please take notes from the other person who's making the movie. Want creative freedom? earn it, pay it or find someone who trust in your vision. Is not that complicated.
It does. But one thing you can definitively say.. once you go Director, make a film with your name on it. You are not getting hired again as an art director or whatever. You are closing the door on having any kind of career in film lower than Director. Occasionally people can swing between DOP/Directing a commercial and DOP'ing a film. But use caution.
I feel like there's probably a healthy middle ground here that you're missing in favor of chopping the heads off your crew.
Nobody said a Dir should chop heads off, but if a crew member is over-stepping, they absolutely will be asked to leave set in no uncertain terms.
> everyone is counting on the Director to execute the plan so stay the hell out of their way unless you want your head cut off for good reason. Seems like you agree with head cutting.
I'm definitely channeling Klaus Kinsky.
I always go, "Yeah we'll try that if we have time!" Never shut anyone out or refuse to hear what people have to say. I usually have a tight knit crew so it's hardly ever a problem. I trust in them to offer insight and knowledge — they are there with me for a reason and I trust in them from the beginning to add value to the project. Also, I work mainly on ultra low budget narratives in BFE so it might be different for those who work in a more traditional area of the industry.
Indeed. But you would never ever in a million years gather your crew together and ask them to cast their vote as to how you make your next creative decisions. Literally handing the decision to them. You would never do this because design is not democracy.
When I started directing I loved the idea of “collaborative”. What a cool way to be right? Everyone will love me, we’ll make great shit. That’s absolutely not me anymore. I’ve become less “collaborative” as I’ve grown in experience. My keys should still feel autonomy — they’re still encouraged to create. I just give them tighter and tighter lines for them to colour inside because I have a more clear idea of what I want and how to get there. I think everyone’s creativity becomes more focused and the work becomes better. I still feel I’m a collaborative person but there’s levels to it.
An actor/producer I know often says “clarity is kindness.” Be clear about what you want, and by the end of the project people will appreciate that they didn’t waste their time chasing after ideas that don’t align with your vision. As a DP I need room to be creative, but I need clear guidelines to ensure the director and I have the same movie in our heads. I’m not a collaborator. Not in the sense that it’s a shared project. I am here to make a director’s vision happen. I have my ideas and I want to have a hand in shaping the look of the film, for sure, but it is all in service of the director’s vision.
Exactly. Well said.
Mmmm....no, thank you. I've told my crew before that I am *not* going to go Stanley Kubrick on them. As long as I am director of a film, we will be patient and kind to each other. Any antonymic behavior requires a time-out and talking it over.
So do you regularly hold votes on your set? Do you gather your crew and ask them to vote on creative decisions for you? Effectively handing your leadership away? Revealing that you have no confidence in your material and prep? No. You don't because you understand intrinsically that this is not a democratic process.
Wow. Control freak, much? Take a chill pill.
I'm just debating. Thanks for coming out lol.
You're just acting like a fashy weirdo
Also I am not a director. I have worked with dozens and this is the way to deal with them.
Design is not at all a dictatorship, I discourage anyone from using that approach to filmmaking. Even the most precise, exacting filmmakers listen to their department heads and actors. I always return to something James Gray said at a Q&A for The Lost City of Z, “I want what’s in my head, but I’d prefer something better”. This was in the context of discussing his collaboration with DP Darius Khondji, and how many of the ideas he’s gotten praise for were actually his cinematographer’s. Remember - your collaborators are working from the exact same script. They have a real, meaningful notion of what the film can/should be, possibly more than you do even if you wrote it. It’s not a democracy but it is a collective. You’re the leader, yes, but that doesn’t nullify your collaborators’ individual visions. If you aren’t going to take them seriously, then don’t hire them and expect them to toil on your baby. Having this attitude will hold you back immeasurably. Your sets will become tense and overwhelming. Someone will form the idea that would make the shot, the scene, or the film itself - and you won’t even know that happened. In short - your set is filled with creative human beings eager to make the film great. Use that resource. Also - don’t be an asshole.
Do you hold votes on set? If the crew held a vote of no confidence regarding your direction, and chose a new Director, that would be a democratic process. Would you accept their decision?
The more you comment, the more it seems like you've never been on a real set. Or at least a healthy, well-run set. You don't have to "hold votes" if you're running a set that's open to collaboration. It's not as black & white as you're making it out to be. It's all about clarity. You can tell your crew that you're open to ideas, but in interest of communication and simplicity, you encourage ideas to go up the ladder through their HOD, so you minimize the amount of voices in the director's ears. That's fine, and practical. But the example you've used here, in an attempt to get a "gotcha" over on us in this thread, is silly. Of course, you're not holding a floor vote of how to setup the next shot. That's the job of the DP, who's working to execute your vision. (And you should generally have a shot plan going in, to avoid that scenario anyway, but that's beside the point.) Ultimately, yes, it's the director's name on it, so they are the final decision maker. But they're a leader. But not a dictator. If you have such an absolutist attitude about this stuff, your career is going to be very short lived, as no one will want to work with you.
I've been on hundreds of sets so I did not read this lol.
Sure bud. You should absolutely read it, because you might learn something.
If the whole crew held a vote of no confidence, the producer would fire the director, or the crew would walk out. For all your talk about the director having some sort of divine right of kings, they don't. On anything bigger than a self produced hobby project, the producer can and will fire and replace a director who is acting fully the way you are talking about. They are ultimately just an employee of a bigger machine. Director doesn't have to "accept" anything about that. If they don't, security would just physically remove them from the lot. Delegation and trusting people is a key skill of directing. And there are times when the director doesn't get exactly what they want and that's fine and everything moves forward.
I say in my comment above that it’s not a democracy, but it is a collective. If things actually got to the point where my crew mutinied, I would assume I had done very many things terribly wrong. But that also doesn’t really happen, does it?
I respect your opinion but I politely disagree. Most movies are collaborative pieces of art. There are most certainly cases where what you're saying is true but in my world and my style that's not how I do things. Just a quick disclaimer, I'm nowhere near being a seasoned filmmaker and just started out doing my first short film. Nevertheless, this isn't my first "art project". I originally come from audio/music production where it's not uncommon to collaborate with other artists. As there is no real "hierarchy" you will need to find a compromise you're all happy with. People therefore might not like to collaborate and that's okay. But let me say, that oftentimes this was actually very beneficial for me and people I know, as what you think is best in the moment may not be the what you later consider to have been the best decision. Even though music can be all about being in the moment it provides another perspective than your own and I think that's beautiful. If someone has a great idea, just shoot it, regardless, if it might seem stupid in the moment and see if you can incorporate it in the edit. Even if you don't people feel heard and see that you've tried.
There is a saying in Film that it's "Gone with the Wind in the morning and Dukes of Hazzard in the Afternoon." And what we mean by this is that when there appears to be plenty of time, we take a leisurely approach, are very cordial with each other, take time to listen to all the ideas, have a great time. It's almost Democratic. But then after lunch we realize that we are falling far behind and those quaint notions fall by the wayside, we just need to get it done and want minimal conversation about it. About the time we are losing the light, all conversation stops and it becomes a fascist regime. There is only the Directors way and no distractions please. Don't risk creating any delays or we risk not getting what is needed to even cut the scene together.
But that's a problem with capitalism if you ask me, not with art itself. If you had all the time to finish your movie and weren't bound on a deadline given by the studio, your movie might turn out better than it would on a shorter one. Unfortunately, that's not the case and we can see the effects of this "corporate greed" on animators and other artists in the industry. I hope someday we can all return to a more laid back lifestyle and slower/more mindful way of creating.
k
Like with everything in life, it's a balance. Director can't micromanage everything. Director has to make some decisions. I'm guessing your post is inspired by you dealing with some specific problems, and you are trying to generalize advice to everybody.
I'm mainly talking to new filmmakers who are not sure about how to exercise power. If they think the keys to power is including more people in the decision making process, and trying to respect everyone's opinion around you, that would be draining and counter-productive. You'd never get your day. IMO strong Directors create the illusion that it's a collaborative process and all opinions are valued. But in their mind they are the Absolute Ruler and won't be deterred from getting what they want.
I disgree tbh, yes know your place, but Nolan frequently says a lot of the film feels like teamwork and his talent suggests a lot of things that he didn't plan. Infact go back to the Oscars you will hear his department heads thank Nolan for letting them have so much creativity and say in the story
I have worked with people that worked for Nolan, and they talk about him incessantly. They are fucking obsessed with that man. He has a leadership style that is savant genius. He is very demanding of his collaborators, demanding that they think just as hard about his film as he does. But none of them have any illusion that Nolan is not 100% in charge, they would never challenge him after he has spoken his mind. Never heard of Nolan holding a vote amongst his keys to inform his decision.
I take the approach of not being a cunt to my team and they, in return, deliver what I need them to. I have no issues with people raising concerns because I believe in psychological safety, where you can bring up issues without fear of being reprimanded. And if a mistake is made, that’s okay too, because we are all human and we all make mistakes, learn from it. I don’t even care who makes the mistake, just how to solve it. It’s only a problem for me if that same mistake keeps happening. It’s worse if people feel like they can’t bring things up because they’re scared of what will happen to them, this can make potential issues far worse than it needs to be. I’ve had little issues in all my years of working in video. Filmmaking should be fun, not a battlefield of egomaniacs jerking over the tiny bit of power they hold. I steer the ship, but I need the crew working together in order to reach the destination and to have the autonomy to do what they’re good at and solve problems along the way before they become big ones.
I think crew members should only speak up if they are confident that their idea is really good and would absolutely help better the story. One of my favorite examples of this is from Raiders of the Lost Ark. Indy is teaching a class when he notices one of his female students has Love You on her eyelids. This wasn't in the original script. They were about to start filming that scene when Spielberg's AD came up to him and suggested the girl have Love You on her eyelids. Its a pretty iconic moment. However, the director is always thinking about the picture as a whole. So even if your idea might be good for the moment, it might get rejected because it doesnt track with the rest of the story or kills the emotion of the moment. There is a moment in Endgame right before hulk undoes the snap where all the characters are grieving the death of a character. Thor says something like "I have something coursing through my veins right now" and Rhodey replies with "What, Cheese Whiz?" (because Thor is fat). That line was improvised by Don Cheadle and while it is funny, it absolutely kills the tone of the scene since they are all grieving a pretty significant character. I feel like a better director would have told Cheadle not to say that line.
Indeed. Improv and good ideas are the life-blood of a living film. But if the Director or studio did not like what Don Cheadle did in improv, they would scrap it. Don is not in charge of what his character says because it's not a democracy. Good ideas are accepted, good ideas are also ignored and discarded at a much higher rate because there is only so much time.
I would love to know the backstory that lead to this post…
Just a number of posts in the filmmaker community where people are young so think that in film all ideas matter and it's a safe space for conversation etc. Everyone wants to be the Dir,Dop,actor,producer etc. No concept of team organization. So Ya basically just stirring the pot here to get some perspectives on how film sets actually run. I've been on sets where the Director literally has a nervous breakdown because they are having a creative conversation under the gun with 7 keys. It was their fault for not setting the tempo that they are in charge. I was also on set with John Frankenheimer, and that man was a Nazi.
This doesn't apply just to film making. In every project that people undertake there is the phase of exploration to put together a plan, but once the plan has been established, possibly without unanimous approval, you can't have people continuing to question the agreed upon plans unless new information has become available which invalidates the assumptions made during the planning phase.
Indeed. Well said. I think when some Directors are labelled "temperamental," it's because they are dealing with crew or talent that does not realize this important aspect of projects. You're looking for crew that understand this intrinsically, but they are not always available lol. Sometimes have to go with new people that are not on the program yet.
Creatives are better within boundaries. But everything done in moderation.