My favourite understanding of what a director does comes from the French word for director: réalisateur. The director is the one that "realizes" things, or makes things "real." If you watch a film and the camera or music or writing sucks, that may or may not have been the director's fault, but if that film doesn't seem "real" and you can't sink in to the "reality" of the film (even if it's an absurd comedy), that's a failure of the director.

Obviously good writing, camera and music are all tools that can help you get immersed in the "reality" of a film, but if a director fails to make use of the tools at hand, there's a problem. Bad acting (i.e. acting that seems fake or unreal) is probably the thing that takes us out of a film the quickest. This is why it's often considered the director's first concern. After that is taken care of, different directors have different strengths. Some are strong storytellers or visual stylists and some are just good at getting films made on time and on budget. These are all important skills, but at the end of the day, if the "reality" of the film isn't palpable, I think the director has failed.

Making things real also applies to the director's job on set. The director has to be able to make the direction of the project real and palpable to everyone on set. From the producers to the technicians, they all have to buy in to the director's process. If it seems fake or wrong or unreal in anyway, it's pretty much guaranteed that the final film will reflect this. I have often noticed that 'how a film is made' is almost always reflected in how it looks and feels in the end. If the process is real and emotionally invigorating, chances are the final product will be as well. I don't know why this is true, but it is. I remember being on my first big film set and everyone kinda seemed bored and disinterested and in their own zones. Surprise, surprise, the final film was pretty boring and detached and impersonal. Point being: the spirit in which a film is made matters, and as a director, I like to take responsibility for that spirit.

Another note: When we were making The Point, I asked everyone to contribute to the directing. My question to my teen collaborators after every take or scene was: "Was that real?" It's really the only question that really matters (as long as there are no camera or sound issues that could spoil things). When everyone was satisfied that it was as real as it could be, I was usually confident that the scene would work well in the final cut. My point is: you don't have to be an experienced director to know what "real" is. Everyone knows. But you need to be really committed to what "real" is in a hard-core way to become a good director.

CAUTION: Most young filmmakers/directors never get going (i.e. never end up making a career of it) because their early films aren't "real" enough. I use this in the most general way, but it's also very specific - insofar as it's so obvious when it's lacking. Either they've allowed bad acting into the final product, or the editing is too slow and the timing of the film seems forced. Or the framing is so obvious that everything seems 'set up.' My advice: Do not let anything that stinks of unreality into your final product. If you really need that scene that was poorly acted, reshoot it or find some ultra-creative way around it if you can't reshoot it. Do not leave it in the film! If your film ends up being four minutes rather than the planned 25 minutes long, that's fine. Trust me, you're better off. An unconventional creative solution to these problems will always win you more admiration that the compromise of a bad sequence that takes people out of your film.

I recently saw a film where they had entire scenes that were just dialogue over a black screen. They were clearly working around bad scenes that they couldn't reshoot, so they just rerecorded the dialogue. Anyways, it worked and at least it was interesting, if a bit strange. Much better than stinking up the film with a bad scene.

If you want to be a director, make it real, and have zero tolerance for anything that isn't.

Directing

 

(Written by Karen Shopsowitz)

When we talk about directing, we talk about vision.

The director's vision encompasses all aspects of the film. That includes the way the film is shot (how the camera moves, whether it's on a tripod or handheld, how the shots are framed and composed, how lighting is used, etc.); how the actors relate to each other and the camera (and which actors play which parts); how the actors dress (the colour and style of their clothes, their makeup and hair); and everything that happens once the film is finished, such as the edit, the music used, the sound effects and other aspects. And this is by no means an exhaustive list of the various elements that make up one film.

That's not to take away from the part that all other members of the team play on set and in post-production. For example, a director will spend many hours talking things over with her director of photography, discussing and collaborating on the look of the film. The director will speak to her set designer and wardrobe person about the colours she wants in the film, the style of the clothing needed to define character, the look of the actual environment (where the film is shot), etc.

In fiction, the director is working from a script that she may not have written, using the words and scenes created by someone else, but putting his own spin, or vision, onto the material. During post-production, the editor is responsible for putting together the film, but - and here's that word again - the editor does so while respecting the visions of the director. Same thing for the music. Directors rely on composers to score the film, but ultimately, it's up to the director to decide if the music works or doesn't, and where music is needed, if at all.

What's important is for the director to value the talents and input that the crew offer; for example, appreciating a director of photography who offers his or her expertise to bring something new or different to what the director had originally imagined; listening to an editor who puts a new spin on a scene based on the way it's cut (or structured); respecting the actors' choices and trusting their instincts as well as the director's own.

 

A QUICK EXERCISE TO GET STARTED:

The goal of this exercise is to give you a sense of the choices and decisions available to the director and how each of those choices will influence the way the scene is conceived, acted, filmed, and ultimately, delivered on screen.

You'll need four people. Think of a really short scene -- something simple, like two people eating dinner. Or one person going to the store to buy a can of soda. (The actual scene doesn't really matter, so those two examples are offered as starting points.)

Determine who will act out the scene, who will be the cameraperson, and who will be the director.

Take a couple of minutes to decide the actual scene, as a group. Maybe there's some kind of tension - the two people eating dinner are in the midst of an argument. The person at the store forgot her money, but really needs to buy the drink.

Actors: Practise the scene a couple of times; figure out who stands where, who says what, and so on. Work together with the director and cameraperson to get a sense of what's going to happen and where.

Cameraperson and director: Decide how you're going to film it. What kind of shots do you need? Is your camera moving or are you staying still, catching the action as it happens in front of you? How many times do the actors need to do the scene, so you get what you need (a master shot? close-ups?).

Film the scene, and trade roles. Director and cameraperson become the actors. Actors become the director and cameraperson.

Watch the two versions together. How are the scenes similar? How are the scenes different? What choices did you make in terms of the types of shots used?

 

Directing Fiction

Directors have their own styles, but some basics probably ring true for most of us. As a director, you've approved (or selected) the actors that have been cast, so you know they're right for the role. Your job is to help them find their own voice, their own way of bringing the character to life. What you don't want to do is direct by showing, i.e. asking them to imitate how you would play the part if it was yours. You want to be conscious of what the actor can offer to the role, based on their unique talents and interpretation.

Directors balance working with actors and with the crew - considering the technical/artistic aspects of the film (the actual shot, for instance), as well as the performance of the actors who are in front of the camera. Both the director of photography and the actors are looking for you to lead them - and ultimately decide if the scene needs a second or subsequent take.

 

Directing Documentary

Most often, the documentary director is also the person who does the interviews with subjects. Our role in that situation is to work with the cameraperson on the look of the interview. This includes the background, the framing, the type of shots (close-up? medium shot? wide shot?) and questions like whether the cameraperson should re-frame between answers or zoom in and out depending on the content of the interview. (Often, we'll zoom in when an answer is emotional, for example.) We also discuss the content of the interview, asking the questions in order to discover what we need.

The director and director of photography also work together to determine what other footage will be needed, such as scenics, b-roll (visuals to help illustrate what's been talked about in the interviews or what the film is about).

In vérité-style documentaries or segments, I'll often stay close to the cameraperson - or, if we've carefully talked through what we're looking for, and the style in which we're shooting, I may not stand very close physically, so that the cameraperson can move more freely to get the shots he or she wants.

I'll move closer to the cameraperson when I ask questions, so that the person appears to be talking to the camera, or close to the camera (but again, these are decisions you, as the director, make based on how you want the film to look). I'm also always conscious of what's happening in the background and what might happen next, so I can gently give the cameraperson an idea of where things are going. It's kind of like dancing - and when you work together with a cameraperson, you develop an unspoken language that allows you to anticipate together your next moves.

A quick word about interviews: a lot of times, when you're doing an interview, your question won't be heard. So, how do you ask questions so that the answers make sense, on their own? I try to use open-ended questions, instead of those that provoke a yes or no response.

For example, let's say we're doing an interview with someone who just returned from climbing Mt. Everest.

Interviewer: How was the climb?
Climber: Good.
Interviewer: How long did it take you?
Climber: About three weeks. Yeah. Three weeks.
Interviewer: Was it cold?
Climber: Yep. Really cold.

Not so good. To use the above interview, you'd have to include the interviewer's voice, or title cards, so that the answers make sense.

But, imagine if the interview had used open-ended questions:

Interviewer: So, you're just back from Everest. Tell me about it.
Climber: The trip was incredible. We were up there for about three weeks. Couldn't believe how cold it was.
[Interviewer looks with encouragement at the climber, not talking but nodding her head to signal to the climber to keep talking.]
Climber: You know, it had long been my dream to climb Everest. And then, the opportunity finally arose.
Interviewer: What do you mean?
Climber: Well, I saw an ad in a climbing magazine, asking for people 15-25 to take part in the expedition...

Try the following as a quick exercise, and see what kinds of answers you get. Take turns interviewing each other, on camera. Position yourselves so that the subject is opposite you, the interviewer, and that the cameraperson is by your side. See how the way you phrase a question will determine the way the question is answered. Practise as the cameraperson, listening to the interview as well as watching and deciding when to vary the shots.

 

Working with the Director of Photography

Whether you are making a fiction film or a documentary, a music video or a commercial, as you've seen, there's much for the director and director of photography to discuss.

Here are some more subjects you will have to cover.

What kind of lighting is needed? Do we want to see the natural environment of our subject, or are we more interested in changing it (i.e. adding a backdrop, a slash of colour or other dramatic effects)?

What kind of lenses or filters are being used? Do we want a wide angle lens? Do we want the background to be soft and the subjects in the foreground to be sharp?

These are all things to consider, and that's why, well before the camera starts to roll, the director and director of photography will have talked out all aspects of the shoot. If working in film, they'll talk about film stock as well (the speed of the film or stock will have a bearing on the look of the finished film, in terms of colour, grain, etc.).

The Point seems like a documentary - the style of shooting, acting, the locations, the pace, the editing, the music, all give it that feel. There's a sense that these are real people going through very real situations. We know that it's based on collaboration between the director, the writer and the people featured in the film.

But what are the conscious, specific decisions made by the director to create this type of film and to make sure that it respects what ultimately is his own vision for the film? Thinking about that can help you make the kinds of choices you will need for your own film.