May 28, 2015 at 10:05PM, Edited May 28, 10:07PM


"the directing was bad!" how can the view tell such a thing?

i guess it could be both ways, say you got an award for best director. How the hell does anyone know what or how you did directing. if actors suck, they suck, if audio sucks it sucks, video and lights and so on and so on.


Seriously though, what shows through?


A director has pretty much final say on everything and is responsible for bringing together Good sound, Good acting, Good cinematography etc etc to further the story.
A well directed film is a cohesive piece with all the elements working together. A not so well directed piece might have not only bad acting, but cinematography that doesnt make sense for the story, music that doesnt fit the mood etc.

May 29, 2015 at 6:22AM

Tobias N
Director of Photography

All makes sense. Thx

May 29, 2015 at 10:18PM

Aaron Miller
Boom-Poll Operator

For me, directing is about the decisions and choices you make. Something I notice a lot in amateur/student shorts is the lack of decision, or choices being made for arbitrary reasons. Technically, the filmmaking is fine. But it's clear the director has given no thought as to whose scene it is, what the scene is about, where the tension is. The camera is placed wherever looks nice, the lens choice is just whatever they had around, the actors are positioned wherever they feel like standing. But there's no purpose - no *direction* - and so more often than not the scene just feels flat. Then the next scene, and the next one...

If you look at the Mumblecore films, most had lousy cameras, so-so acting and notoriously crappy sound. Many were dreadful. Yet you watch some and think - okay, this person knows what they're doing - they're making choices, they're taking command of this story and actively telling it, not just waving a camera around and hoping for the best. And they're the films that linger in the mind in spite of their sub-par production value.

May 30, 2015 at 9:58AM

Jon Mills

Jon makes a good point about scenes. For me the starting point for a director is scenes does the director know how to construct a scene. Think about a scene think why are we moving in for a close-up, what is the point of this scene? What stages are the characters at in this scene? why does boogie nights open with a long steadycam shot? it all comes back to story and how good a storyteller the director is. A bad director will just technically shoot a scene, and he would shoot that scene a generic way no matter what the context. Examples of great directing would be No Country for Old Men watch the first hour of that film and look at how the directors reveal information to the audience it is handled in such an exciting and sophisticated way every scene is packed with tension and there is not only brilliantly constructed scenes, those scenes all work as a cohesive unit contributing to brilliant storytelling. Terrible directing can have generic scenes, a lack of coverage in a scene, blocking of actors that is not only boring but too rigid and not natural, saggy bits in between scenes, too much exposition (a screenwriters a big to play in this too), a lot of films can feel like low budget TV where there is no beautiful master shots every scene is done with long lenses and tripod and scenes a shot in an ABC manner in a generic way like a lot of soap operas, cliches, more cliches, directors watching a film like Goodfellas and take that style and use it for their gangster film I see so many times directors paying homage to Scorsese and in the process losing a sense of their own voice which leads to more cliches. A director has important collaborators DOP, continuity, editor, but there is only so much they can do.

May 31, 2015 at 4:09AM, Edited May 31, 4:09AM

Gino Lynch

Your Comment