Director vs DP responsibilities

[Shawn Nelson]

I've shot for four years on my own, and other indies. But my experience on pro sets is rather limited (only three). So on a pro set (let's say for an arbitrary line, movies of budget $1 mil or higher), I'm curious as to the line between the Director's and the DP's job. I get the obvious, but it's where the lines meet that has me. I also know that this varies based on the power of the individuals, but I'm curious as to the general rules.

1) Who creates the storyboards? I've heard that it's the director's job to oversee them made and that it's the DPs. This would apply to the shotlist as well.

1-a) If storyboards are created ahead of time by the director, is the DP supposed to follow them or is this simply a guideline of suggested shots?

2) Who decides when to shoot the master and when the closeups, etc.? Again, I've seen both.

3) Who decides the lighting? This seems like an obvious slam dunk for the DP. But I've seen the director give the mood, then the DP just turns to the Gaffer who then designs it out for the grips. In these situations it appeared the DP was a go-between for the director and gaffer.

[David Mullen ASC]

The director is in charge. He collaborates with the DP but it's not a relationship of equals -- the DP is there to serve the director's vision. Hopefully, though, the director hired that DP because of the DP's particular skill and aesthetic sensibilities and wants the DP's input on the visual approach, same as the director solicits creative ideas from other key players (production designer, editor, etc.)

There is no official "line" because no two directors are exactly the same. But somehow the work has to get done no matter what. Nature abhors a vacuum, so if a director is weak, disorganized, doesn't know what they want, etc. then other people will start to take over more of the director's job, whether it is the AD, DP, script supervisor, producer, actors, etc.

But even with good directors, they all have different priorities, different skills. Some are great with actors and breaking down text, but couldn't block a scene or plan the coverage to save their lives. Some are great at that but don't know how to talk to actors. Some are very visual, and some are not so interested in that aspect. And some are honest about their strengths and weaknesses, or can communicate their priorities, while some are confused, delusional, and have the worst combination of arrogance and ignorance. Some are real film history connoissuers while others hardly watch movies or have very ordinary tastes.

All of this is to say that after working with some 40 directors or so in my career, I can't really say that any two were alike in their approach, even on something as by-the-numbers as a TV series. (They'd probably say the same thing about the DP's they worked with, that they were all different.)

Storyboards and/or shotlists are really the domain of the director, although they often choose to collaborate on them. I've drawn the storyboards myself on several features (since I can draw) -- you can see some samples in this article on "Northfork":
http://www.cinematography.com/articles/northfork/
But the storyboards I drew were based on notes and conversations with the directors, some broken down shot-by-shot, some more open-ended conversations where I filled in the blanks. But still, everything has to be approved by the director.

As for following the storyboards, it just depends. On commercials, it can be more or less mandatory that the director and DP follow the agency's boards, but on a feature, storyboards and shotlists are just guides for coverage, not written in stone (unless these are efx storyboards.) On the movies where I've drawn the boards, we tend to follow them more closely because I've drawn shots that can be filmed by a camera. Storyboard artists sometimes draw things that aren't quite filmable since they cheated so many things.

You are organized so that you can be free to improvise on the shooting day, because by shotlisting or whatnot, you have a good grasp on what you hope to accomplish with the scene visually. But having done that homework, you are now more free to alter or depart from your plans on the shooting day. It's important to always be open to new ideas on the set, especially when dealing with performances.

The director tells the DP and AD what order he'd like to shoot the coverage, but most of the time, the order is really based on what's most efficient and the director will ask the AD and DP for their opinion on that (how much time to light, who gets out of the make-up chair first, etc.) Generally I always like to work from wide to tight because it makes more sense for lighting to light the space first and the widest possible angle. This determines the look of the room and the scene so you know what to match to when going in tighter. But occasionally there are good reasons to shoot a close-up first or some unrepeatable action.

As far as lighting goes, again, the director has the final word on the visual approach of the movie, which includes lighting, but obviously most directors hire DP's for their lighting skills and expect the DP to step up to the plate and deliver something. But it's also a collaboration, depending on the interest of the director in lighting. In terms of the Gaffer, some DP's leave a lot up to Gaffers but I'm not one of them -- I like lighting too much. But again, I have to collaborate with the Gaffer to make sure we come up with a workable efficient plan.

I always describe how I'm going to light the scene in general terms beforehand to the director to make sure I'm not off-base -- I don't want the director walking back to the set and going "what the heck is this?" because I don't have time to do much relighting. Sometimes a director will surprise you because they have more power to change or ignore some aspect on the script page that as a DP, I tend to follow. So if the script says "she comes into the kitchen and turns on the light" I start thinking in those terms, but a director might say "oh, I hate it when the room lights are on -- can't the kitchen be lit by moonlight and she never turns on the light?" Now sometimes I may also question a script note on scene action if I have an interesting lighting idea I want to toss at the director.

But it's not unusual for a director to question some bit of lighting -- it's within their right to do so. As long as it all can be worked out efficiently on the set. Sometimes a director will design a complicated moving shot which forces your lights in certain hidden locations that are not always optimal -- I've had a director question some angle of light and I've said "well, to get you this camera move you want, that's the only place to put the light where the camera isn't going to shadow it or see it during the move" -- and maybe when the director sees the lighting problem, he modifies the shot, or maybe not. Partly it can come down to time -- he may design a moving shot that may add 45 minutes to the lighting time, which he doesn't really have the time for. So something has to give.

I was working on a soundstage once with a house interior set and the scene said something like "He comes into the kitchen and says hi to his wife, who is washing dishes in the sink" but the director wanted to Steadicam with the actor coming through the front door, through the living room, into the kitchen, and then circle 180 degree around so that we also saw the family room and backyard -- all on a soundstage where every bit of daylight had to be faked, there was no natural light.

Well, it came done to having to light the front and back exteriors plus four large rooms of the house just to show the guy coming home and saying "hi" to his wife -- an hour of lighting. At this point, the producer had to step in and talk the director out of the shot (this is partly because we had a 16-hour shoot the day before) because we were falling behind trying to pull off one complicated moving shot after another, sometimes for fairly unimportant scenes. So we simplified the shot and it was lit in fifteen minutes instead of one hour. I mean, it was a cool shot before but what we finally came up with wasn't bad either, it just didn't see so many rooms in one move.

Now hopefully when a director has a very ambitious shot in mind, it was worked out in preproduction so if there was any chance of some advance lighting and rigging work that could be done, that could be arranged. But it's hard to do that advance work if every shot on the shooting day is going to be that complicated.

[Bruce Allen]

Wow, awesome summary. This is why I read Reduser.net. Thank you David!

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Shawn Nelson]

Wow, thank you David! I really appreciate such a thorough and helpful reply. I asked for a $10 and you gave me a $100. RedUser needs to sticky this in a new Cinematography section. I'll definitely be saving this one.

[Joel Kaye]

Gotta agree - very helpful answer David. Thanks for taking the time out to post it.

[David Mullen ASC]

Obviously I'm describing the director/DP relationship on a more conventional narrative production.

If you're worried, Shawn, as young director about doing the right thing, I'd say not to worry so much, just hire supportive people and direct the movie the way you want to direct it.

The Number One thing most crews complain about is when the director doesn't know what they want, because indecision is a time-killer. Especially when the director keeps changing his mind.

[Jason Francois]

Good God David, that was amazing.

On most forums a person always feels the need to share their knowledge or impart a bit of knowledge that they've learned, but why bother because you've covered so much.

Very thoughtful and precise response. Shawn, you struck gold with your question.

thank you so much,

Jason

[David Mullen ASC]

It's a very big topic -- one could write a book on it. I'm not sure a couple of posts will really scratch the surface. You might look at some directors you admire and see how they collaborate with their DP's for some guidelines.

[Brook Willard]

Great post, David. I'll be sure that it finds its place if a new section is opened on these forums.

[Chris Nuzzaco]

Yeah, directors can be all over the place in terms of how they work with the DP. Some I have worked with are totally locked into the angles they want, no budging. One of those guys was very open on the lighting style however....

Another director I recently worked with was great, he said "I totally trust the other creative people to do what they do better than me." Yep, I was the creator of the whole films lighting and color correction (he chose most angles but totally grabbed all my onset suggestions), but I ALWAYS pick the mind of the director. I just feel its only right, and, it yields better results. Plus I feel a need to create a very chummy relationship with a director, after all, everything I do can affect how the story is perceived buy the audience, and on big projects, you almost live with these people....

I actually did! My last TV pilot was shot in Maryland, instead of driving up everyday, I just stayed at the directors house with his wife. Were great friends now :)