Directors

[AshRyan]

Here's a topic from esthetics. I was thinking about the role of directors (here I'm speaking specifically of film directors, but this also applies to stage directors), and wasn't sure whether they could properly regarded as artists.

It seems that the director of a film doesn't contribute anything to a film artistically. A director does not create the story or the script, the visual elements, or the music of a film. These tasks are done by the scriptwriter, the cinematographer, the costume designer, the director of photography, the actors, the composer, and many others. A director may perform same of these tasks himself, but if he does so it is not as a director--rather, he has simply taken on one of those other roles in addition to his role as director.

The role of a director seems almost more like that of a manager (in business terms) than of an artist. He pulls all these various elements together, but beyond that does not contribute anything artistically himself. Granted, that managerial role is incredibly valuable (indispensable, in fact, and one of the most important jobs in filmmaking). He integrates all of the various elements into a single work of art.

But, is that integration enough to count him as an artist in his own right? Or should he be regarded more as a manager, so to speak, than as an artist?

At this point, I'm inclined to still regard the director as an artist in his own right, since the integration he performs does result in the creation of a new work of art (even though he himself doesn't necessarily contribute any of the individual artistic elements which make up the whole). But it's certainly an interesting question.

Any thoughts?

[Rinku]

A director (of a film, etc.) can be looked at as a performing artist. He enables the art by organizing its elements, editing, and so forth.

The director often also does add some artist content -- many directors do write some or most of the screenplay, for example.

But even if he didn't add any artistic content at all, he would still be a performance artist in the same sense that a dancer, actor, and so on, are. Namely because: the director makes the final decision in what is and isn't presented in the artwork. He is the final editor, and he makes those editing decisions on an artistic basis, i.e., through his knowledge of aesthetics.

(Oh, and this is my first post here, hello. I found this forum through DanielShrugged/Ishalltriumph's livejournal)

[AshRyan]

The director often also does add some artist content -- many directors do write some or most of the screenplay, for example.

I already addressed this. When a director does some of the writing or whatever, that is not done in his role as a director. So I don't think that's relevant here.

But even if he didn't add any artistic content at all, he would still be a performance artist in the same sense that a dancer, actor, and so on, are. Namely because: the director makes the final decision in what is and isn't presented in the artwork. He is the final editor, and he makes those editing decisions on an artistic basis, i.e., through his knowledge of aesthetics.

I think I somewhat agree with this. However, I think that his making decisions regarded what is presented would make his role more analogous to that of the choreographer, rather than the dancer. So while I agree that it is definitely an artistic role, I'm not sure that I would call it a "performance" art. Certainly not in the same sense that the actors are.

Perhaps another good analogy would be to the music. The musicians who play it are performance artists, the composer is the creative artist, and the director would be something like the conductor. The conductor not only puts together various elements (the members of the orchestra) in order to create the piece of art that is performed, he also plays a role in the interpretation of the creative artist's work. I guess in that respect he is similar to the performance artists, but I'm still not sure that I would call him (or the choreographer or the director) a performance artist in the same way that a musician (or a dancer or an actor) is. Perhaps this is a third, transitional type of artist?

(Oh, and this is my first post here, hello. I found this forum through DanielShrugged/Ishalltriumph's livejournal)

Welcome to the board. You should post a little bit about yourself at the "Introductions" forum.

[Rinku]

Yes, after posting that I did think about it a bit more and thought that performance was the wrong word, since they don't actually use their body to perform in the sense of a singer, music instrument player, dancer, actor, etc.

I agree that they would be in the same category as the conductor and choreographer, but that together the 'performance artist' category and the 'director artist' category together have more in common with eachother than the 'primary artist' category. both 'performance artists' and 'director artists' take some blueprint made by a 'primary artist' and then actualize it in its final form. so perhaps 'secondary artist' would be a good name for that category.

(Re introductions: will do.)

[AshRyan]

both 'performance artists' and 'director artists' take some blueprint made by a 'primary artist' and then actualize it in its final form. so perhaps 'secondary artist' would be a good name for that category.

I think that classification makes sense. I definitely agree with the "directing artists" being more similar to the "performance artists", so the fundamental distinction should be made between "primary" and "secondary" as you suggested. That definitely clears up my thinking on this issue.

Thanks for the help!

[John]

I just started reading the Romantic Manifesto and I just read something that I want to post.

...a stage director translates a primary work, a play, into physical action--a choreographer has to translate a primary work, a composition of sounds, into another medium, into a composition of movements, and create a structured, integrated work: a dance.

I wouldn't put a choreographer in the same group as a director because the choreographer has to create a whole new work of art although it is dependent on the music. A stage director only translates another person’s idea into a concrete. A choreographer doesn't only translate the idea but creates a new concrete expression of it.

If a director adds to the idea then it would be out of his role as a director as you said.

This is the way I would classify them. The primary artist is the person who created the play. Performing artists are secondary but they depend on the director to coordinate them. This means that he is the bridge between them. Because he directs the performer’s actions he him self must understand what it means to be a performing artists in order to tell them how to perform. At times he may even have to perform for the performers so they understand what he wants. In other words he has to be a performance artist. The dependence makes him the primary performing artist. The people who depend on him to act are secondary to him.

This is the way I think of it.

[RadCap]

"Art is a selective recreation of reality based upon an artist's metaphysical value judgments."

A director is the individual who ultimately makes all the metaphysical value judgments in a film (either directly or via approval of ideas/actions of others). It is HIS vision one sees on a movie screen, not the DP, not the actor, not even the writer (though they have definitely contributed to the realization of that vision).

[John]

After studying the role of a director more I now agree with you. The director can agree with the writer’s ideas or he can change it. The written script for a movie is a complete work of art in itself. The director takes the ideas from the script and judges if they should be in the movie and if they can be better (unless there are legal issues).

My problem was that I thought the director got his values from the writer without making any judgments. This is wrong. He does make judgments and if he doesn’t like something he changes it. The same can be said of a director in music.

PS: Sorry I didn’t reply sooner. I’ll try to keep up on conversations I get myself into on this board.

[m0zart]

After studying the role of a director more I now agree with you. The director can agree with the writer’s ideas or he can change it. The written script for a movie is a complete work of art in itself. The director takes the ideas from the script and judges if they should be in the movie and if they can be better (unless there are legal issues).

My problem was that I thought the director got his values from the writer without making any judgments. This is wrong. He does make judgments and if he doesn’t like something he changes it. The same can be said of a director in music.

I think all you have to do is judge the end-result in certain movies to see the identity of the director as artist. If you take directors like Tim Burton, Peter Jackson, and Stanley Kubrick, it becomes obvious.

Tim Burton has a very consistent theme that seems to run through all of his movies, regardless of the nature of the original script. If I had to describe it in any real terms, I would describe it as dark/melancholy magical realism. You don't get this impression at all from the scripts they are formed from -- its the direction that makes it possible.

If anyone has ever read the Lord of the Rings trilogy, its OBVIOUS that this particular set of films is Peter Jackson's own unique vision of the story. They aren't as whimsical or time-exansive as the novel (and they don't view like a Bible story, even though the novels read sometimes like the Bible). And as for the adventure itself, its much more like a post-modern fantasy adventure than the pure fantasy adventure portrayed in the novel.

I think Stanley Kubrick is the most obvious of these. The novels and scripts he basis his movies on are practically NOTHING like the books/scripts he starts from. He turns Steven King's horror about telepathy gone wrong into an existential nightmare. Regardless of how Objectivists feel about existentialism, it was *his* vision, and not the writer's. This actually runs through Kubrick films -- they always represent his unique view of the world and rise way beyond the story itself. The story and its setting are only a shell for him to do his own artistic endeavor within the film itself. I hate to minimize another artist's work, but The Shining and 2001 are so fundamentally different as films by Kubrick than they were respectively as a novel and a screenplay, that their predescessor works are little more than paint and a canvas in those films.

I really don't think its possible to say that a director's job is only technical. Actually, I think the mark of a good director is one that uses his technical skill to his full advantage, but has the artistic vision in mind all along. Talented painters don't always paint photographs, after all... and perfect skill isn't the only mark of a brilliant painter.

[ell]

it was *his* vision, and not the writer's.

Yeah film in particular is widely regarded as a directors medium. Directors have final approval over everything artistic (though lurid tales of wrestling studio heads to the death for that privilege are legendary). They have direct influence over the angles of shots and lighting which creates the emphasis of a scene, editing, set design, blocking, sound and writing. Of course some are fortunate enough to pen their own scripts, like Scorsese. Characteristically television is considered a writers medium and stage an actors medium. In fact I've read that a lot of writers flee to television because their work is so bastardized on wide screen. I also heard this from a friend who's a writer/producer . He told me it was commonly known "real" writers, work in television, obviusly there are constraints but they're different.. I'm not saying there are no exceptions but that seems to be the rule.

[Proverb]

I think the issue is very clear when one considers the role of the conductor of an orchestra. Sure, the music is sitting in front of each 100+ persons; consider what would the music be without a director however.

Director=Catalyst in my book.