i understand they direct the movie/show, but shouldnt the writers get the bulk of the credit? Anytime i hear about a big movie doing well or flopping the director is usually the topic.
In: Other
The writers write the story, like in a book adaptation you dont need a writer at all.
The director decides what scenes to shoot to show that story.
Writers often write the story years in advance.
The writers write the scenes, dialogues, and plot. Basically, they come up with what events happen.
The director puts together the camera, actors, and everything else, and directs how those scenes are created (in a visual/audible medium!). One of the big points in this is that often a movie is not a success or failure on the back of what happens, it’s execution and presentation. Awful shots, awful performances that were left in, and unpleasant pacing can be perfectly true to the written script, and still make for an awful movie. Take that same script and hand it off to someone who makes sure you get good shots, good performances (direction to actors and an eye for which attempts come out well), and good pacing/flow in scenes, and that same script will make a significantly better movie. They are indeed a middle man, banking largely on other talents, but in a large way they’re the ones theoretically stitching it together (along with the post production crew and editors, but they *need* good material to work with).
This has been a long-time issue for screenwriters.
The short version is that for many years, producers were seen as the closest thing to an “author” of a film, since they are the ones who literally put the entire production together, including hiring the director and screenwriter, and the producer has final say on all things (barring exceptions for contractual obligations).
Then, in the late-‘50s, a group of French critics and independent filmmakers who were disappointed with the bland commercial French film industry at the time put forward what has come to be known as the “auteur theory”. They felt the problem with cinema was its inherently collaborative nature and wanted to make it more like “traditional” art with a singular artist. So they proposed an alternative cinema organized around a singular authorial voice, in which the director (who has creative control on set) does *more* than just direct—they write and producer as well, and sometimes even edit or shoot the film—in order to have a singular “author” of the film.
Note this was essentially a manifesto for a new type of cinema, and not surprisingly, it came from independent filmmakers working outside the commercial industry on budgets small enough to allow them that kind of control. But they also wrote about American filmmakers who they saw as having a much stronger authorial voice than the average director—filmmakers like Hitchcock, Welles, John Ford, or Billy Wilder—as a model for what they were talking about.
But when those ideas were translated to English, written about by American critics, and picked up by young directors in film school, it got mangled into the more simplistic idea that “the director is the author.” Of course, this was very appealing to young directors.
And this idea got reinforced by two things:
(1) the Directors’ Guild’s requirement of a possessory credit: that credit in every film that says “a Quentin Tarantino film”, “a Christopher Nolan film”, or “a Spike Lee joint”—a credit literally saying that it’s the director’s film.
(2) the fact that the most famous and in-demand directors usually *also* produce their films, and sometimes write or co-write them as well (when you see directors accepting a Best Picture Oscar, it’s not because they directed it; it’s because they also produced it).
Screenwriters have long argued against the possessory credit, and for good reason. But the fact is that while they write the script, the director and producer are at liberty to change it as they see fit, which means that while the screenwriter is largely responsible for the story, they aren’t the final say on it.
You and some friends gather around a campfire to tell ghost stories.
Your bud is up next. He begins with a story you’re already familiar with — but have nonetheless been spooked by multiple times in the past.
This time though, he totally flubs the delivery — the pacing is awkward; the atmosphere cluttered with too much talking and not enough silence; his voice unintentionally telegraphs the jump-scares — yet word-for-word, he recited the exact same lines and story beats you’ve heard before.
Are we to blame the writer for your friend’s poor performance of their text?
On the flipside, your other friend follows up and saves the night by taking a decidedly mid/simple story and weaves it into a bone-chilling experience.
In an enormously collaborative medium such as film — the director often shoulders the crucial responsibility of holding the unifying vision of the project (based off their interpretation of the screenplay) …a vision that the entire film team aims to shoot for in their execution. And much like a ghost story, a director’s skills as a **storyteller** can radically pivot the final experience from good to bad or visa-versa — and so is more often heavily framed as responsible for the final product’s successes and failures.
One of the director’s jobs is to decide just how much the film will stick to the script. Few directors will see the script as sacrosanct and will develop their own ideas and interpretations in association with actors. Scenes that the writer may consider pivotal may be cut. Others that emerge from improvisation or an unexpected ad lib may be added. In the case of some director’s such as Mike Leigh, the entire film may be developed from improvisation.
Of course writers are important. That’s why most of the major awards include a category for best screenplay. But when all’s said and done, the film is very much the work of the director just as a painting is the work of the artist.
There is no single answer. Any one of the key production staff (director, writer, producer etc) could be the main creative force behind a project just as they can be an “employee” hired to do a specific job. Each project is different and there is no rule that says anyone is limited to any one job. Some movies are the product of a single person telling everyone else what to do and some are a collaborative effort.
However since pay is also determined to a large degree by each person’s contribution, you might often see the same people getting credit for multiple roles, such as the same person taking director, writer and producer credit on the same project, along with others.
Knowing what you can and can’t do yourself is key to a good production. The best example of this are the Star Wars movies, the original and prequel trilogy. Star Wars is George Lucas’ baby, but the original trilogy had a lot of creative input and control by many other talented people. In the prequel trilogies nearly all creative control rested on Lucas. He’s not bad at his job but it’s not his strength to make all executive decisions, write all the dialogue and direct.
The director is the creative head of a movie. While the story is important, so too is bringing it to life on the screen and the director is the one who envisions the sets and scenes, coaches the actors and actresses on how to portray the character and act the scenes, picks the camera shot angles and lens settings, the music to accompnay, etc.
Latest Answers