Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Isn't the Director's Job to just Direct?

This question coming from the writer, editor, dp, UPM, ect....

It would be nice, but on many productions (especially micros) the director has to be responsible for so much more. While it’s a must for a director to concentrate solely on directing between action and cut, it can be down right detrimental to a production for the director to ignore or fight other responsibilities. On Monsters in the Woods, I very much wanted to just direct and in the beginning I made very unrealistic efforts to be left out of other production issues. Then I got pissed when out of shear necessity I was drug into them. (Although, I still say I had no business handling travel arrangements for the 30+ cast and crew when there were 3 producers on the project, but I do see the need for me to do the script breakdown and days in days out. I mean, after all, who knows the script like I do?

Also, for over 60% of the show, we had no AD. At 1st, I didn’t step up on the set and that really hurt us on a few days. I’ve said it before, but here it goes again. “In the absence of an AD, it is the director’s job to run the set.” This was a hard lesson learned. And it’s funny that it was an issue on this movie, cuz in the past I’ve always pretty much been my own AD (with the exception of Edges of Darkness). But having gone through this, I feel much better prepared for the next production.

Hopefully has projects and budgets grow, multi-production roles will diminish. I guess we’ll see. But until that day I’ll do what I’ve always done…
Jump in and make the best


Post a Comment