To be a Director ...

[a whitmer]

I think the Kurosawa quote should be expanded to read "If you want to be an Indie movie-maker you must first master screenwriting." ... or at least expand the term "director" to include all aspects of making a movie.

Reason for the need to understand and be a screenwriter is so you can create an affordable story. IME (in my estimation) normally a scriptwriter just spins a yarn and the cost of bells and whistles in the story is not their concern. They are seeking Wow! factor and give no thought to expense in shooting. Works for the big Hollywood type shoots with sizeable budget... not a cost a low/no budget shoot can afford.

So an Indie movie-maker needs to know some of the tenets of screenwriting.

The good news is we don't have to become professional screenwriters. That is, we don't have to know how to WRITE a script in proper form because we are not going to submit it for approval to the Nazi-format sticklers. We are our own client and if we understand what we mean and envision how it will play in edit, then we are screenwriters... screenwriters whose main concern is story.

THAT in my opinion is the connection between being both screenwriter and director/movie-maker.

EDIT: In the interest of clarity, I don't mean we have to write our own scripts. Just that we need to know how to take someone's story and mold it into something more affordable or screen-friendly when necessary.

Good thoughts. As mentioned, many screenwriters have a pretty big disconnect about what really happens in production. Or, they have their hearts set on selling their spec script to a big-budget producer. The idea of wrting low and no-budget is beneath them. Not all, just a healthy majority. Few ever get in the habit, or aquire the experience and skillset to write scripts your average Joe and Josephine can film. Something they can crowdsource for funding. Maybe this is why many filmmakers opt to the learn the craft of writing themselves.


This from my book ...

If you write and film your own material, there is tremendous freedom to call whatever you want a screenplay, from tea stains in a cup, to drawings in a cave.



Also as mentioned, one important reason I like RedUser (and Dvxuser) is the direct interaction with those who have their own gear, and make (many of) their own decisions about what to film and how to film it. I had a chat with a stage mom (her son was cast in one of my flicks) on the topic of Indy film, crowdfunding and such, and she told me she had just chatted with an A-list director (her son was also in his film) who said the bigger the budget, and the more people involved in decisions, the more difficult it was to be creative. To follow your gut on set. Money meant limitations.

Obviously the opposite is true. Limited funds will affect what you can do, how long you can spend doing it (reshoots, changes), how you can promote it, and so on. Every coin counts. But do you have more say on the creative side of the film?

I'm sure there are a number of big-budget directors with solid track records that are given lots of room for creativity. ??


Per your edit, also true. This is why I stress that a filmmaker needs to understand screenwritng - maybe not at the level Akira was suggesting - but enough to know HOW to edit scripts and not blow the story to hell, and blow the continuity to wherever. Ya gotta know what can go, and what really needs to stay IF your intention is to present the story more or less as written (theme, premise, character development and POV, etc.). There is almost always something that can go - called the fluff - ya jus' gotta have a good enough handle on story to pull it off.

I have had MANY scripts edited (even the low,low budget ones) and it usually works out. There have been disasters as well. Some so bad, that I asked for my name be removed. Sometimes ya jus' gotta walk away.


I do believe that a filmmaker needs to understand screenwriting at a competent level, but I do not believe that a screenwriter needs to know how to turn a camera on. It is the filmmaker who is assembling all these parts to make a film - a screenplay possibly written by someone they have never met, a camera built by someone they will likely never meet, editing equipment bought on line, a boom the sound person will bring to the set, a borrowed house and borrowed car, some actors who leared their craft in some school the filmmaker will probably never visit, or maybe never even heard of, and the mood swings of mother nature. And up and down the line from costumes to make up, music, visual FX and sound effects, pizza.

All these spare and incongruous parts are assembled under the leadership of a filmmaker - be they the directer, producer, DP, lead actress, or whoever. Making it flawless is no small achievement.

A screenwriter does not need to know how to turn a camera on, or mount it to a tripod, or even speak the lingo. But they damn well better grasp that to turn their scripts into films, they need to write with all of the same spare and incongruous parts in mind.

 

[Aaron michaels]

Who can regulate a script and tell someone if its right or wrong when it's their vision. Some directors shoot with the script in their heads, so i've heard.

 

[a whitmer]

There really isn't a right or wrong, and any writer's vision is certainly valid. But will anyone film it?

If you go looking for a low budget short screenplay, maybe 10 minutes, something to do with a robbery / chase, and you want to take advantage of the winters in your area (for example), you may find one or two or three that kinda work with a little edit / rewrite. If, however, you ask a screenwriter for a low budget story with the same parameters, and they come back with something with high-altitude zip line chases somewhere in Antartica, and you feel that there is not a way to replace the location or aparatus without sacrificing the story, then it is a bad script - for you.

And the writer is an ass, anyways.


I have heard of no-script improve filmmaking, but haven't really seen anything outside YouTube. And certainly improv does happen on sets, as changes for whatever reason are made last minute. Weather, taking advantage of some location you didn't know had a tree house, etc.


I did find this, though ...

http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2012/01/qa-drake-doremus


This is not all that innovative in that early scripts were scenarios, usually just a shots list and some other details. It didn't really evolve into the modern script as we know it until maybe the 50s, and even then it wasn't standardized by any means as it is now.

But I like to see successful breaks from the norm.


a

 

[Sabyasachi Patra]

Thanks Alex. I downloaded your book and will go through it. Since I got into filmmaking because of passion, I had to study things on my own. I was earlier the Head Government Relations of Nokia and then Executive Director of Manufacturer's Association for IT before I took the plunge into full time filmmaking. Since then, I took many online courses, read books and watched films. I had taken one script writing course as well. So I will read your book and let you know. I am sure there would be so aspects which one can always learn.

In the past, I had co-written a script for a film which didn't get funding. Have started writing a script for a feature film and also have another in mind. I write all the scripts for my documentaries. So I agree that as a Director one should pay sufficient attention to script writing.

Werner Herzog says while shooting if he finds the words a bit tough or situation implausible, then he quickly changes the script, may be in thirty seconds or so, without hindering the flow of the shoot.

I had read that Akira Kurosawa used to write his own scripts and along with his team in certain situations. I believe as a Director, you do a good job if the script is your own baby. Or if you really buy-in into the script.

I feel too often script writers write one good story and then fail to write other good ones. The reason is that they become famous and then get disconnected from the common masses. One can get ideas if he/she observes people. For that one needs to travel. May be taking a sub-way, bus or walk will help.

 

[Elsie N]

Thanks Alex. I downloaded your book and will go through it. Since I got into filmmaking because of passion, I had to study things on my own. I was earlier the Head Government Relations of Nokia and then Executive Director of Manufacturer's Association for IT before I took the plunge into full time filmmaking. Since then, I took many online courses, read books and watched films. I had taken one script writing course as well. So I will read your book and let you know. I am sure there would be so aspects which one can always learn.

In the past, I had co-written a script for a film which didn't get funding. Have started writing a script for a feature film and also have another in mind. I write all the scripts for my documentaries. So I agree that as a Director one should pay sufficient attention to script writing.

Werner Herzog says while shooting if he finds the words a bit tough or situation implausible, then he quickly changes the script, may be in thirty seconds or so, without hindering the flow of the shoot.

I had read that Akira Kurosawa used to write his own scripts and along with his team in certain situations. I believe as a Director, you do a good job if the script is your own baby. Or if you really buy-in into the script.

I feel too often script writers write one good story and then fail to write other good ones. The reason is that they become famous and then get disconnected from the common masses. One can get ideas if he/she observes people. For that one needs to travel. May be taking a sub-way, bus or walk will help.

Sometimes talent can help a director/scriptwriter kill his darlings. Becoming too attached to ones own words is a pitfall for the Scriptwriter/Director but an actor may misspeak a line sometimes that may sound better than how it was originally written.

For those of us who write and direct, it is imperative that we detach ourselves from the story and treat the script as though written by another who gives you permission to change it as you the Director sees fit.

I was on set (as an extra) when Peter Berg was directing "Friday Night Lights". One scene in particular had Peter feeding Billy Bob Thornton variations of lines as they shot that part of the scene over and over. Peter started out as an actor so you could say this was a case of an actor affecting a change in the script.

Some people are identified by an audience in a certain way and if the writer's words don't fit that identity in a way that is acceptable to the audience then the actor's words may need to change so the syntax fits the perception.

Doing that could also make the actor more comfortable with saying the words which might possibly show up as an almost indiscernible good feng shui vibe to the movie.

 

[Aaron michaels]

If you have vision and write a script it going to change anyway once you start to shoot because you will get deeper into the story and make changes for the better. If i get a script from a writer its going to change a little because I may see something different or better unless you pay me to just shoot it...then its on them. The flip side...if i'm not interested in your script its a waste of time because im not into it using my craft to get the best of everything. The way something is shot can kill or knock your story out of the park.

 

[Mike Nagel]

''If your goal is to become a film director, you must master screenwriting.” - Akira Kurosawa

That quote is BS... maybe this was lost in translation.

Without getting into the whole Kurosawa thing - and I like his work - but in regards to the quote:

1.) Hitchcock never or barely wrote a single (original) script. one of the best directors ever. but he knew how to execute a script, one that he has approved. Especially the marriage of complex post with creative intent. Hitchcock also has more "classics" in different genres than Kurosawa, and Kurosawa doesn't have 8-9... maybe in ur opinion.

2.) to be a director per se - depending on the involvement of other parties in the production - is to execute a script to perfection and being able to manipulate talent. and that means: getting out of them what is needed. Script execution on set goes beyond "what's on the page". Keeping the micro and macro view of the story in mind at the same time - at all times.

Giving the quote is actually real and giving Kurosawa the benefit of a doubt, one could now argue he meant that. But in the vast studio world, many many times a director will not choose the script. A studio will. And the director will still do his/her very best job possible.

So a director does not need to know about or master screenwriting. (although clearly beneficial)

U need to differentiate here drastically from what u dream it to be and what is reality: only very few directors write their own scripts. And even then, it is revised/adjusted by studios and/or financing parties - sometimes drastically.

A director executes a creative vision that started by the screenwriter and is then (usually heavily) contaminated by the investors and/or producers to increase ROI. Creative meets business and business usually wins.

And just to be clear: somebody who can correct/critique scripts does not (necessarily) know anything about filmmaking/directing or anything else. It's like the accountant who does ur taxes knows anything about running a billion dollar business. If he would, he'd not be doing ur taxes !


This industry has many different facets... one is to stay away from people who prey on beginners who have a dream.

 

[a whitmer]

Here is the paragraph the quote is from ...

"In order to write scripts, you must first study the great novels and dramas of the world. You must consider why they are great. Where does the emotion come from that you feel as you read them? What degree of passion did the author have to have, what level of meticulousness did he have to command, in order to portray the characters and events as he did? You must read thoroughly, to the point where you can grasp all these things. You must also see the great films. You must read the great screenplays and study the film theories of the great directors. If your goal is to become a film director, you must master screenwriting."

Of course, this is what worked for him. That does not mean it will work for all directors. You can read a few other tidbits here ...

http://akirakurosawa.info/akira-kurosawa-quotes/kurosawa-quotes-screenplay/



I agree it may not be practical for directors to master screenwriting. Screenwriters never really master it. But I do believe a director should understand the dynamics of screenplays enough to manipulate them as the production develops and unfolds. To seize oportunites, and to avoid pitfalls inherent in the script.

Different systems will dictate how much control the director has over the material, and how to interpret and film it - and maybe even overesee the editing. The big studio system - which I think you are referring to - will be quite different than a few guys and gals getting together to make a short film, or even a feature film within their own tightknit, like-visioned group. Both are valid, and both rely on a screenplay to achieve their goal.


Maybe Hitchcock didn't write his sripts, but he sure had his hand in the creative process in script development, before filimg it. I have worked for-hire with many directors over the years, and some stay out of the writing process, making changes and edits after the writing is done. Others are very much involved in the process, and on the phone or IM or email every day or two to go over new pages. Word for word, line by line. Cross out this, develop that.

Others check in once a week or two, offer some ideas, then wait for the next pages - more like a consultant relashionship.

To my understanding, A.H. was very much involved in the process.



This ...

And just to be clear: somebody who can correct/critique scripts does not (necessarily) know anything about filmmaking/directing or anything else.

Anyone in particular that is directed to?

I agree with it, and as I have stated, writers should at least be familiar with the filmmaking process. They should understand that a script is more than just a story.


This ...

and Kurosawa doesn't have 8-9... maybe in ur opinion

Actually it was Coppola's opinion.


This ...

This industry has many different facets... one is to stay away from people who prey on beginners who have a dream.

Not sure what you are referring to. If you mean all these folks who promise 'insider connections' that can move your career forward for just a few bucks ...' then I agree. Hopeful actors are bombarded with it.

alex

 

[Sabyasachi Patra]

Hitchcock also has more "classics" in different genres than Kurosawa, and Kurosawa doesn't have 8-9... maybe in ur opinion.

Don't know about Hitchcock but Akira Kurosawa has made tons of classics which continue to inspire many. Let us know which one of these ten (written in no particular order) you don't believe is not a classic.
Seven Samurai
Rashomon
Ikiru
Yojimbo
Red Beard
Throne of Blood
Ran
Drunken Angel
High and Low
Kagemusha

 

[Elsie N]

That quote is BS... maybe this was lost in translation.

Without getting into the whole Kurosawa thing - and I like his work - but in regards to the quote:

1.) Hitchcock never or barely wrote a single (original) script. one of the best directors ever. but he knew how to execute a script, one that he has approved. Especially the marriage of complex post with creative intent. Hitchcock also has more "classics" in different genres than Kurosawa, and Kurosawa doesn't have 8-9... maybe in ur opinion.

2.) to be a director per se - depending on the involvement of other parties in the production - is to execute a script to perfection and being able to manipulate talent. and that means: getting out of them what is needed. Script execution on set goes beyond "what's on the page". Keeping the micro and macro view of the story in mind at the same time - at all times.

Giving the quote is actually real and giving Kurosawa the benefit of a doubt, one could now argue he meant that. But in the vast studio world, many many times a director will not choose the script. A studio will. And the director will still do his/her very best job possible.

So a director does not need to know about or master screenwriting. (although clearly beneficial)

U need to differentiate here drastically from what u dream it to be and what is reality: only very few directors write their own scripts. And even then, it is revised/adjusted by studios and/or financing parties - sometimes drastically.

A director executes a creative vision that started by the screenwriter and is then (usually heavily) contaminated by the investors and/or producers to increase ROI. Creative meets business and business usually wins.

And just to be clear: somebody who can correct/critique scripts does not (necessarily) know anything about filmmaking/directing or anything else. It's like the accountant who does ur taxes knows anything about running a billion dollar business. If he would, he'd not be doing ur taxes !


This industry has many different facets... one is to stay away from people who prey on beginners who have a dream.

Like, I pretty much agree with what u r sayng, but u r pretty much describing the position of director. I think what Alex and others including myself r more focused on r the directors as movie-makers... like, in total control of many if not all the processes... Indies if u will Becasue that's what many Indies have to do to make content.

 

[a whitmer]

Did a little digging on the Writer-Director.


'Consider the numbers. The seven highest-grossing films of all time were writer- director films: Avatar, Titanic, The Avengers, The Dark Knight, Star Wars I, Star Wars IV, and The Dark Knight Rises. If you look at the Best Picture Oscar nominees for 2011 and 2012, a full half of them were written and directed by one person. What does this tell us? That when a single visionary owns a project from conception to production to release, the result is a special kind of creative magic. That ability to imagine a movie and bring it to life is perhaps the most prized of all creative skills.'

http://www.tor.com/2013/10/16/story-worlds-top-ten-writer-directors/


On the flip side, the great directors who did not write ...

'It always fascinates me to learn that a director with dozens of films under their belt never actually wrote (or co-wrote) a produced screenplay. But such is the case for the 10 brilliant filmmakers below, who, with minor exceptions, have never been credited for penning a feature-length script.'

http://www.andsoitbeginsfilms.com/2014/06/top-10-directors-who-never-wrote-film.html



It seems that there is no one approach that works best for everyone. You find what works for you and run with it - keeping your eyes open for opportunities to try new things, and venture into unknown territory. Who knows, maybe someday I'll crawl out of my writer's hovel, and try directing. Maybe. I'll need to overcome my disdain for humanity in general first, however.




Other reading ...

Are there any notable directors in Hollywood who aren't also screenwriters?

https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-notable-directors-in-Hollywood-who-arent-also-screenwriters

10 Actors Who Write and Direct Their Own Films

http://www.backstage.com/news/10-actors-who-write-and-direct-their-own-films/

12 Great & Not-So-Great Debuts From Screenwriters-Turned-Directors

http://www.indiewire.com/2013/06/12...ts-from-screenwriters-turned-directors-97233/

 

[Ben Scott]

What have oscar nominations got to do with how good or 'magical' something is?

Of that list of Directors without a writing credit, that just means they didn't demand a writing credit. Hitchcock was very hands on. As is Ridley Scott and Fincher. But they value collaboration and clearly don't need a credit to massage their ego considering their respective statuses.

 

[a whitmer]

The article does mention they didn't opt for the credit. They have their own reasons.

You're right, a nod in the awards is not a guarantee the film is great, at least in a test-of-time perspective. It may have been considered the best film of that particular year, but not really great with all things considered. I am sure some (all) of us can think of a film/s that were not even nominated that should have been. Or films that were nominated that should have won. 'Far From Heaven' (released 2002/Award season 2003) comes to mind, for me. Opinion, obviously. I personally am not a fan of James Cameron's work. I appreciate the work and talent and vision that went into his films, I just can't sit through them.


On the flip side of creits, there are also those who consider them pure gold. Some, with their morals on the fense, will scoop them up, fully earned or not. Credit harvesting I call it. Don't believe everything listed on IMDB - not their fault in my opinion. The sheer amount of information would be impossible to validate.

 

[Mike Nagel]

Here is the paragraph the quote is from ...

"In order to write scripts, you must first study the great novels and dramas of the world. You must consider why they are great. Where does the emotion come from that you feel as you read them? What degree of passion did the author have to have, what level of meticulousness did he have to command, in order to portray the characters and events as he did? You must read thoroughly, to the point where you can grasp all these things. You must also see the great films. You must read the great screenplays and study the film theories of the great directors. If your goal is to become a film director, you must master screenwriting."

that right here is script breakdown and script analysis. You can and will need to learn that as a director, but that has nothing to do with screenwriting. You can learn to drive a Formula 1 car without knowing how to build one. Both tasks requires full on experts.

Screenwriting has zero to do with directing and vice versa - it can IF the director is the screenwriter and he writes the scrips with certain people and/or locations in mind.

The script is the blueprint. You can choose any architect to build that structure.

I agree it may not be practical for directors to master screenwriting. Screenwriters never really master it. But I do believe a director should understand the dynamics of screenplays enough to manipulate them as the production develops and unfolds. To seize oportunites, and to avoid pitfalls inherent in the script.

I never said that or implied that. IMO, mastering screenwriting can only be beneficial, including for the catering guy ;-) It is not required though to become a great director, as the "must" in your quote implies.

The big studio system - which I think you are referring to - will be quite different than a few guys and gals getting together to make a short film, or even a feature film within their own tightknit, like-visioned group. Both are valid, and both rely on a screenplay to achieve their goal.

No, it is exactly the same. The studio system is just more amplified. If on a short film or indie, the director is not the screenwriter u again have the exact same situation. One does NOT require the other.

Maybe Hitchcock didn't write his sripts, but he sure had his hand in the creative process in script development, before filimg it. I have worked for-hire with many directors over the years, and some stay out of the writing process, making changes and edits after the writing is done. Others are very much involved in the process, and on the phone or IM or email every day or two to go over new pages. Word for word, line by line. Cross out this, develop that.

of course he was involved later. like every smart director is. but he barely - or never was for his big films - the original creator of the idea and the story. He bought scripts from other people and/or adapted well known works of art.

There is a huge difference. There is one that makes fire and then there's one who blows into an existing fire to expand it a bit.

2 more examples:

(1) U can have a mediocre script, executed by a master director and/or by a great production team (--> up the production quality to the maxxxxxx) and u will have a good movie. This is the majority of decent movies u see.

With a good/great director, he squeezes decent performances out of not-so-good actors and or hides/avoids their flaws. Like a magician. It's working with the (coocoo) people at hand for a given project. And obviously execute the content with the correct pacing, the heartbeat of the story. Pacing is a creative decision for given content.

I can play Beethoven's fifth at 80bpm or 120bpm. It's the exact same work of art. It will be perceived differently.

(2) u can have the best script in the world, if ur actors are shit, or the production quality is a disaster and/or the execution of said script is sub par u will most likely not have a good movie.

 

[a whitmer]

Sorry, but I have no idea how to do multiple quotes.


This ...

that right here is script breakdown and script analysis. You can and will need to learn that as a director, but that has nothing to do with screenwriting. You can learn to drive a Formula 1 car without knowing how to build one. ​Both tasks requires full on experts.


And this ...

The script is the blueprint. You can choose any architect to build that structure.

Yes, you can choose any architect, and you can choose any driver, but in all likelihood you will choose those who best fit the job. You match the architect to the design, one who has some experience in that particular type of structure. You match your driver to the type of car being driven, and tho the pit team. And, you match the director to the script, you match the actors to the roles, and you match the cinematographer to the production design.

And sorry, but that is not just analysis and breakdown. Those tasks happen AFTER the screenplay has been written.

A good baker doesn't just follow a recipe. They make adjustments and tweaks to make it their own. That's why there are a thousand takes on muffins.


This ...

Screenwriting has zero to do with directing and vice versa - it can IF the director is the screenwriter and he writes the scripts with certain people and/or locations in mind.

I'm sorry, but that is just so far off base. They are very much interconnected. There are certain processes that happen in the writing where the writer IS directing the film. Much as groupthink argues against that, it is integral and essential to a successful and filmable screenplay. I would also think the Director is writing and re-writing the script in their heads before, during and after shooting. No? This ias as horse and carriage as you can get.


This …

I never said that or implied that. IMO, mastering screenwriting can only be beneficial, including for the catering guy ;-) It is not required though to become a great director, as the "must" in your quote implies.

I believe I mentioned the caterer in my book! You must have read it? I do agree, and stated, that mastering it may be overkill, but there must be a solid foundation that gives the director the knowledge to move a screenplay from words to moving images. Your formula 1 driver may not kow how to build the car from the ground up, but you can be certain he or she knows that engine, and every sound it makes, its response, its movements. He or she will know the limits of the tires and the turning radius. Backwards and forwards.

Your architect will understand the materials layed out in the design. How much brick, and what is the load limit on that brick. Is there too much of a span over a passageway? If so, how to narrow it without sacrificing design. The architect usually works with an interior designer who will add the finishing materials such as paint colors, faucets, hardware, etc.

A good builder will know if the house or whatever can be built as drawn, or if it will need changes. A good architect will have left room for the builder to make changes, because he or she knows that the builder understands BLUEPRINTS!


This …

No, it is exactly the same. The studio system is just more amplified. If on a short film or indie, the director is not the screenwriter u again have the exact same situation. One does NOT require the other.

It is not the same. The dynamics are different, and the number of heads in the process can and will affect the overall outcome. Been there.


This …

of course he was involved later. like every smart director is. but he barely - or never was for his big films - the original creator of the idea and the story. He bought scripts from other people and/or adapted well known works of art.

I think his process was different on The Birds. He hired a novelist and worked directly with him, partly as an adjustment to his disappointments with previous projects.


This …

(1) U can have a mediocre script, executed by a master director and/or by a great production team (--> up the production quality to the maxxxxxx) and u will have a good movie. This is the majority of decent movies u see.

A master director likey has a solid understanding of screenplays. How to salvage what is there, and make the best of it. They are not master directors just because they woke up one day and called themselves such. They earned by understanding all the parts and pieces they have to work with on any given project, and have experience in both excellent and less than excellent material. Maybe even shit material.


Anyways, it’s all moot.

In my opinion, a Director should have a very good understanding of screenplays and the writing process. I stand by that with emphatic conviction.


alex

 

[Mike Nagel]

Alex, u seem to have a very hard time differentiating between the various tasks...

Yes, you can choose any architect, and you can choose any driver, but in all likelihood you will choose those who best fit the job. You match the architect to the design, one who has some experience in that particular type of structure. You match your driver to the type of car being driven, and tho the pit team.

Absolutely, u always choose the best option in every endeavor. What does that have to do with that the director needs to be a master in screenwriting ?

And sorry, but that is not just analysis and breakdown. Those tasks happen AFTER the screenplay has been written.

Exactly, like in 99% of the productions. A script is written by somebody - sometimes the script then lays in a desk drawer for 30 years - and then it will be made by very different people. Which will then break the piece apart, by their own interpretation of the script. This is why there is so much creative fights are being had on set between director and producers etc etc

There are certain processes that happen in the writing where the writer IS directing the film. Much as groupthink argues against that, it is integral and essential to a successful and filmable screenplay. I would also think the Director is writing and re-writing the script in their heads before, during and after shooting. No? They are as horse and carriage as you can get.

U seem to be implying that a lot of scripts are written by the directors, which is a marginally small amount.

Producers/directors interpret the script and execute the script by their own vision of the content. Have u seen SOLARIS from Tarkovsky (1972) and then the Hollywood remake with Clooney from 2002 ?

Two scripts based on the same book. Very different interpretations of the book, resulting in different adaptations. And then on top of that, different directors.

End result is different films telling the same story.


Another example:

ALIEN (1979) is IMO a perfect movie. Ridley Scott had nothing to do with the script. Matter of fact, Scott is a perfect example of a director who has the worst script QA/QC ever. But, if u put him on a production with a great script he will make an all time-classic: Alien, Blade Runner, Gladiator.

The script of Alien is phenomenal. They are still arguing today who contributed, as the producers claim they made some substantial changes to the original draft by Dan O'Bannon.

Scott the director had zero to do with that. Matter of fact, he only hired seasoned actors (who almost needed zero direction) except Sigourney who was the new kid on the block, so he could only focus on "painting his picture", which is what he is a master at. Actors on set said they received almost no direction. So he literally executed the script and barely directed.

He ended up with a perfect movie.

The script tells the story, establishes the universe and the main characters as well as their relationship and the story arcs. Producers and directors all interpret scripts differently and have a different vision. again: the script is already written and they like it, otherwise they would not buy it.

What comes afterwards is execution as per the vision of the director - and that can VERY much differ from what the writer intended - and then "creative" adjustments... we all know where that is going.

there's many variables that go into filmmaking, but ultimately if u can't get ur actors to deliver lines properly, u got very, very little. That is directing. Writing the lines is screenwriting.

Fincher vs. Sorkin etc etc etc

 

[Mike Nagel]

Alex, u seem to have a very hard time differentiating between the various tasks...

Yes, you can choose any architect, and you can choose any driver, but in all likelihood you will choose those who best fit the job. You match the architect to the design, one who has some experience in that particular type of structure. You match your driver to the type of car being driven, and tho the pit team.

Absolutely, u always choose the best option in every endeavor. What does that have to do with that the director needs to be a master in screenwriting ?

And sorry, but that is not just analysis and breakdown. Those tasks happen AFTER the screenplay has been written.

Exactly, like in 99% of the productions. A script is written by somebody - sometimes the script then lays in a desk drawer for 30 years - and then it will be made by very different people. Which will then break the piece apart, by their own interpretation of the script. This is why there is so much creative fights are being had on set between director and producers etc etc

There are certain processes that happen in the writing where the writer IS directing the film. Much as groupthink argues against that, it is integral and essential to a successful and filmable screenplay. I would also think the Director is writing and re-writing the script in their heads before, during and after shooting. No? They are as horse and carriage as you can get.

U seem to be implying that a lot of scripts are written by the directors, which is a marginally small amount.

Producers/directors interpret the script and execute the script by their own vision of the content. Have u seen SOLARIS from Tarkovsky (1972) and then the Hollywood remake with Clooney from 2002 ?

Two scripts based on the same book. Very different interpretations of the book, resulting in different adaptations. And then on top of that, different directors.

End result is different films telling the same story.


Another example:

ALIEN (1979) is IMO a perfect movie. Ridley Scott had nothing to do with the script. Matter of fact, Scott is a perfect example of a director who has the worst script QA/QC ever. But, if u put him on a production with a great script he will make an all time-classic: Alien, Blade Runner, Gladiator.

The script of Alien is phenomenal. They are still arguing today who contributed, as the producers claim they made some substantial changes to the original draft by Dan O'Bannon.

Scott the director had zero to do with that. Matter of fact, he only hired seasoned actors (who almost needed zero direction) except Sigourney who was the new kid on the block, so he could only focus on "painting his picture", which is what he is a master at. Actors on set said they received almost no direction. So he literally executed the script and barely directed.

He ended up with a perfect movie.

The script tells the story, establishes the universe and the main characters as well as their relationship and the story arcs. Producers and directors all interpret scripts differently and have a different vision. again: the script is already written and they like it, otherwise they would not buy it.

What comes afterwards is execution as per the vision of the director - and that can VERY much differ from what the writer intended - and then "creative" adjustments... we all know where that is going.

there's many variables that go into filmmaking, but ultimately if u can't get ur actors to deliver lines properly, u got very, very little. That is directing. Writing the lines is screenwriting.

Fincher vs. Sorkin etc etc etc


IMO, being able to break down scripts (the technical side) and then storylines (the organic side) is essential, and is needed by every director. Matter of fact, as an actor u need to do the exact same thing.

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

Mike, you seem to be having a completely different debate here. You also seem to see Screenwriting and Directing as purely technical tasks when in reality they are the same thing and that's storytelling.
You've listed countless directors all of whom I guarantee you will know how to write a screenplay. Hitchcock didn't just show up on a set and shoot whatever was in front of him; he would select a writer and collaborate with him until the script was written the way he wanted it.
The Formula 1 analogy was especially baffling to me since no one person makes a Formula 1 car it's a team effort where you have people who specialise in carbon fibre production to people who specialise in engine development and people who know aero dynamics. The Driver still needs to be able to communicate what he needs out of the car.
If you really think Screenwriting is just "Writing the lines" then you don't really know anything about screenwriting.

 

[Mike Nagel]

Mike, you seem to be having a completely different debate here. You also seem to see Screenwriting and Directing as purely technical tasks when in reality they are the same thing and that's storytelling.
You've listed countless directors all of whom I guarantee you will know how to write a screenplay. Hitchcock didn't just show up on a set and shoot whatever was in front of him; he would select a writer and collaborate with him until the script was written the way he wanted it.
The Formula 1 analogy was especially baffling to me since no one person makes a Formula 1 car it's a team effort where you have people who specialise in carbon fibre production to people who specialise in engine development and people who know aero dynamics. The Driver still needs to be able to communicate what he needs out of the car.
If you really think Screenwriting is just "Writing the lines" then you don't really know anything about screenwriting.

well, I mentioned the technical vs. organic side of it, so not sure why u seem to be under the impression of me just pointing out to the technical aspect of it... (?)

if the last sentence with F1 did not communicate well with u, then take any of the other analogies. A script is usually also revised by a few other peeps, the fact remains that none of the engineers drive the car and the driver does not engineer anything. Clearly, they communicate heavily.

ur last sentence is just weird... u seem to be implying that I was implying screenwriting is just "writing the lines"... I was referring to that a screenwriter writes the very lines that a director directs on a given talent. Obviously there's much more going on in a screenplay then just dialogue.

But - having said that - dialogue is by far one of the most important aspects of a script, and if u think it's "just lines" and any of these directors can write these "just lines" then u are massively naive... people like Sorkin are very, very rare. Whether u like his dialogue driven pieces or not is a different discussion.

Overall, naturally I agree with you that the lines of tasks and positions are blurred/bleed over pretty much everywhere in production. And as I stated, I think the more any single individual on set knows about the entire production process the better. Especially the director. You should try to be a master of everything.

But as countless examples have shown, u don't need to be a "master in screenwriting" to be a great director. Script breakdown and script analysis are separate tickets that any director needs to learn.

 

[Matt W.]

There are financial considerations when breaking in. Writer/directors are stronger "brands" than directors alone and all the writers here know well that every studio expects them to finish a script on spec these days and not to sell a pitch or option (unless for virtually nothing)... studios want a proven quantity.

What's even more proven than a script in hand is a feature in hand. Writer/directors have a leg up in branding and in production, but not for reasons of artistry but of commerce.

To say that everything begins with the script is too obvious to be an interesting statement.