Who's better with turning to directing later?
-
Pearl_Jade — 18 years ago(April 07, 2008 06:35 PM)
Thank you. Is that the same as a cinematographer?
I see that editor wasn't in the OP's list of potential directors. I've read that an editor can make or break a film and is almost as important as the director. Wouldn't a film editor be capable of turning to directing? -
jzappa — 17 years ago(April 08, 2008 10:17 PM)
Yes, director of photography is cinematographer.
And you're right. An editor can turn to directing. I just can't think of any that have made particularly good movies. Usually, editors go to directing tentatively for studio films and then go back to editing. One I just thought of is Hal Ashby, who directed Harold and Maude, Bound For Glory, Coming Home, The Last Detail, etc. He began as an editor, working on films like In the Heat of the Night. -
IlikeCakebigtime — 17 years ago(May 20, 2008 11:41 AM)
I think that the 2 positions that would succeed best at turning to directing are actors and editors. Actors because they'd know how actors like to be directed, and the chances are they could pull strong performances from their actors, and editors because they'd have a strong understanding of how you put a film together.
What youb68're reading right now happens to be my signature, and not part of my post. -
filmscholar35 — 17 years ago(July 19, 2008 07:16 PM)
Martin Scorsese did a lot of those jobs early on.
He was an assistant director, editor, writer and so on.
Also, Oliver Stone was a camera operator early on, and mainly a writer for years, then became a great director later on.
Paul Schrader also started out mainly as a writer. -
ltarex — 17 years ago(November 26, 2008 06:19 AM)
Yes he did. He edited "Citizen Kane" and "The Magnificent Ambersons" for Orson Welles. 40 years later Welles narrated the trailers for Wise's "Star Trek: The Motion Picture". Ironical coincidence.
"A voice from behind me reminds me. Spread out your wings you are an angel." -
phorowit — 17 years ago(December 09, 2008 02:15 AM)
The strengths writers and editors have as potential directors is in an understanding of the storytelling process. Writers have this through the creation of stories and characters. Edito5b4rs have this through cutting rough footage into a cohernt whole. Editors may have an advantage in that they have a greater understanding of how a film is put together. The jobs of both writers and editors involve focusing on the whole of the film as opposed to details which is an important aspect of a director's job.
The job of an actor does not lend itself to such a broad focus. Actors as directors do have their advantages however. One, as a previous poster noted, is a greater understanding as to how to communicate with actors. Another advantage is that it is their job to make these characters they play convincing. As such they develop sense of when a scene is working and when it isn't. At a broader level actors have to focus on their character arc. Where a character begins, ends, and how he gets there. It is only a small stretch to expand this focus to the film itself.
Cinematographers turned directors have an advantage in that they have a greater understanding than writers, actors, and editors do of the day to day grunt work which making a film involves. Having a greater understanding of the technical side might also enable them to better communicate with the sound guys and the effect guys. The main drawback to cinematographers directing is that I don't see where in their jobs they focus on the story as a whole. However I probably am underestimating the visual side of storytelling. Anyway this is an amatuer5b4s take on the topic. -
Rehayn — 17 years ago(January 06, 2009 09:37 PM)
It seems to me like whether you be a writer, actor, cinematographer, etc etc, every single one brings a distinguishable difference in their directing style. Each one equally as interesting should they be a good director!
Regardless of who generally proves to be the best directors later down the line, Cassavetes transition to directing was easily the most significant thing to happen to independent film since the 20's and 30's. His background as an actor definitely shows in his techniques (naturalism, method acting) which is why his films are so interesting to me.
Cassavetes ftw! -
Daffy-Duck-19 — 14 years ago(February 22, 2012 08:00 PM)
Id have to say screenwriters. They already have a grip on storytelling and character. Woody Allen, Ingmar Bergman, Francis Ford Coppola, Federico Fellini, Terrence Malick, and Oliver Stone all started as screenwriters.
Now to my knowledge, Cassavetes had an acting workshop before he became a director, but hadnt actually acted in any films yet. I think maybe he acted in and directeda0d a few plays in New York City.