Comment by llambda | Hacker News Reader

Comment by llambda | Hacker News Reader

First off it seems like there is a strange, specious simile the OP is trying to draw between a director doing some camerawork (note: Kubrick in that particular interview cited is only speaking of /handheld/ camerawork specifically because it's difficult to communicate the framing and such) themselves and an individual being able to do everything (within the scope of some discipline) themselves. Let's clear something up right now: directors who do some or all of their own camerawork are NOT tantamount to directors making a film by themselves. There is so much more that goes into making a film besides the raw camerawork. Even your average Joe will know this by proxy as big events like the Academy Awards highlight the complexity of big Hollywood productions and the many roles that individuals have mastered. Directors, e.g. Lars von Trier, will sometimes oscillate between doing all camerawork themselves and none of it. (In Trier's case he even experimented with allowing a computer program to compose shots in a completely automated way!) However none of this backs up the apparent assumption that this is equivalent to making the film wholly yourself.

That said I think this is a pretty weak and misleading analogy! We can give the OP a break here and say, "Sure I know what you're getting at." However, if you really want to get a strong point across, use a better analogy.

Finally, let me dwell on one passage in the posting that I find troubling:

> Lately it has started to feel like our society respects “vision” more than the actual craft of execution.

What is going through the OP's mind here? Execution is definitely the only thing that has ever mattered.

That's not really specious if you understand the rest of Kubrick's reputation and work history. Kubrick was well known for pretty much running the editing room (a big deal, since editors are usually given at least a degree of independence on the first cut) and also wrote the screenplays for most of his films. A single person taking the role of director/editor/screenwriter is pretty much unheard of in the industry.

Fassbinder, Gaspar Noe (sometimes), Mario Bava, Kurosawa, Coen brothers, Tsukamoto, etc.

Kubrick had a DP but like many directors sometimes operated it (or one of the cameras) himself.

> A single person taking the role of director/editor/screenwriter is pretty much unheard of in the industry.

Wrong.

Let's take a very recent example (and note well, this is not at all uncommon outside of Hollywood, for instance Teshigahara's famous collaborations with author Kobo Abe) Paul Thomas Anderson, directed, wrote, and produced/edited (both the 65mm and digital transfer, in tandem) The Master. It is not at all uncommon for a director to at least collaborate with a screenwriter if not write the screenplay themselves. And most directors would like (although this is sometimes prohibited by the studios, e.g. in the case of Orson Welles) to have creative power if not direct control over the production and editing process.

However, even at this level of involvement we are a far cry from the claim that a single person is responsible for the film as a creative work.

For instance, you're missing a critical piece of the equation: acting. You could easily make the argument the job of an actor is as important as any role a director might have and ultimately it is the centerpiece of so much film as well as the final artist presentation. Even the most controlling directors have limited ability to hold de facto control over this aspect of the film.

Considering all the multitude of complexities of the process, the myth of this superhuman director here is a lot less interesting than the actual process of filmmaking, if you ask me.

And Jackie Chan did all this plus acting, choreography, and stuntwork. He famously had an editing setup in his hotel room and would edit the footage himself after each day's shooting.

The best directors also cast and manipulate their actors into the performances they want. Some Kubrick examples: George C. Scott's manic performance in Dr. Strangelove was pulled from the actor when Kubrick repeatedly asked for a deliberately over-the-top performance in one take, promising that he would have Scott dial it down in further takes to get the performance he wanted. In reality, Kubrick just used the over-the-top take. Another technique of manipulating George C. Scott was to bet the outcome of any disagreement on a game of chess, which Kubrick invariably won and which Scott was nonetheless too competitive to turn down. Shelley Duvall's neurotic performance in The Shining was partially the result of Kubrick unsettling her by telling her none of the cast liked working with her, least of all Jack Nicholson. This was a lie, but it worked.

"The best"? Some directors use those kinds of methods to manipulate their actor's psychology. I don't understand why you think that's a mark of a better director though, and not just one technique among many. Some consider Kiarostami for instance one of "the best" and he gives only the minimal information needed to his actors for the scene and lets them do their thing. He does cast for the performance he wants though - not sure what director doesn't?

> He does cast for the performance he wants though - not sure what director doesn't?

A director will do what they can, but there's a reason Orson Welles directed Charlton Heston playing a Mexican.

Yeah, true - producers can pervert a film any way they like.

Paul Thomas Anderson, directed, wrote, and produced/edited

The author's point is that such arrangements are quite unusual. There are several top-line directors like that - PT Anderson; Christopher Nolan; Quentin Tarantino; Josh Wheedon; Darren Aronofsky; Clint Eastwood; Robert Rodriguez. But they're top-line directors because they're exceptionally talented, and can afford to make fewer films and exercise obsessive control over them, and the investment almost always pays off. I'd say there are 20-25 people working Hollywood who are that deeply involved in the creation of their films. They are a small proportion of the total number of working and would-be directors.

A single person taking the role of director/editor/screenwriter is pretty much unheard of in the industry.

Rare, but not unheard of. Soderbergh likes to do all of those things, though he uses pseudonyms for his "editor" self.

Kevin Smith is such a big fan of doing his own editing that he compares hiring an editor to delegating having sex with your wife to someone else, but that's Kevin Smith, for you.

Right, because nobody has heard of James Cameron.

I don't know how specious the analogy is as regards coding, but it's a spot-on observation as regards film. Most film directors are severely lacking in technical skill, and if they went ot film school they did enough manual work to fulfil the requirements and then pursued assistant director jobs. In other words, they went down a management path. The most common secondary skills for directors are screenwriting or producing, but it's a rare enough thing to see on commercial films because few directors are sufficiently skilled to do both things well. Now management and having a vision are important, because you need someone to be the decision-maker. However, if the person isn't skilled in technical matters or willing to put trust in people in who are, you get a director who constantly fights with and/or bullies the rest of the crew, and people like that are a fucking nightmare to work with.

Here on HN there are lots and lots of people with the DIY ethic, who make it their business to understand the development of the product and help out as they can. But realistically, there's also a lot of people in the software business, with a small idea, a middling amount of money, and a ton of attitude, and they are not very fun to work for, plus they tend to pay themselves grandiose amounts compared to the rest of staff.

The lesson that I take from it is that there's always more than one way to make great art. Some directors hold the camera, some don't. Some directors edit, some don't. Some directors write their own screenplays, some don't.

It's really easy to look at a limited sample size (say, your own career) and assume that the things that you've seen are pervasive. "Best Practices" are only best in a particular context.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com