What does a director even do in a movie? I guess they kind of guide everyone in the movie making process or something...

What does a director even do in a movie? I guess they kind of guide everyone in the movie making process or something, but what do people mean when they say a movie has good direction? When a movie has good writing, we praise the screenwriters. When a movie looks good, we praise the cinematographers. But what exactly are we praising when we say a movie has good direction?

...

The more I think about it, the more I'm confused. There are so many people who work on a movie and do things that make it great. When a movie has awesome special effects, we praise the SFX team. When a movie has awesome sets, we praise the production designer. And I really don't need to say anything about actors and acting.

What is a director doing that turns them into heroes of cinema? It seems like they just look around and go, "yep, you're doing a good job guys."

So basically, a movie can begin from one of two places. Usually, a script is brought before a studio or a producer/groups of producers, and they will buy it to turn it into a movie. Since producers are putting up the majority of the money, it is "their movie", which is why producer's are the people that win "best picture" at the oscars. Directors are the people they hire to run the day to day operations of the production. Directors are usually allowed some degree of creative license and artistic freedom, as long as they follow the general guidelines laid out by the studio, which is totally within their right to do so, since again it is "their movie". When you hear things like "studio interference", that usually means that a director decided he was an 'artist' and wasn't complying with the studio's wishes.

There are some 'auteurs' who are able to direct their own scripts/scripts that personally interest them, and are allowed total autonomy/final cut because they have either proven themselves with a stellar track record (Fincher/Cameron) or are producing the films themselves through their own production company (Tarantino/Nolan).

(1/2)

The problem with a lot of young/contemporary filmmakers is that they have grown up during the auteur age, watching films made by those directors, and expecting that's how it always has been/always should be. They think that just because Scorcese can make any movie he wants, everyone director inherently has that 'right'. That's why people like Josh Trank, someone who made one above average movie before Fantastic Four, thinks that studio interference with his 'vision' is bullshit, even though they put up the money and hired him to direct the movie they wanted. Even someone like Ayer, who has a stellar track record, didn't have final cut on Suicide Squad because that movie was supposed to be a commercial product, not an artistic one.

While it is true that hollywood needs to become comfortable taking risks again in order to break free from the stagnation, the meme that every director deserves final cut and complete autonomy on a big budget picture that they didn't put up any money on before they properly prove themselves needs to fucking die

(2/2)

When cinematographers and productions designers do their job, do you think they have free reign to do as they please?

The DP can choose whatever visual style he wants? The production designer has costumes and sets designed to his personal whim?

Do you think a music supervisor chooses whatever song he wants to put in the scene?

Thats nice, though I still don't see the answer to OP question, What do people praise when they said the movie have a good direction?

It could be referring to aspects acting performances, camerawork, composition, staging etc.

see
Like I said, they run day to day operations, and make sure everyone else is doing their jobs in accordance with the studios wishes.

again, it's a bit different with 'auteur' directors. They are usually attempting to realize their own artistic vision. Directors in either case are praised when they do an excellent job at their goal, whether it be to a. create a really good and successful hollywood product or b. succeed in bringing their vision to life on the big screen to create an entertaining/powerful/important movie.

It's a little confusing, but not exactly rocket science once you actually start thinking about it, and looking at the kinds of directors that get a lot of praise.

Tarantino, for example, might make movies that aren't exactly for everyone, but there's no denying that he has a near 100% success rate at accomplishing what he sets out to do with each project. Therefore, he is a really great director, even if you think his writing isn't too great, or his movies aren't really for you.

The director is in most cases the biggest guy on set, responsible for how the film turns out in general
You may as well ask "What does a CEO even do in a company?"
It's not surprising that the film wins a Best Picture Oscar usually also ends up winning its director an Oscar

>What do people praise when they said the movie have a good direction?
Most people are idiots who confuse cinematography or acting with good direction
It's a hard thing to classify good direction without acknowledging the discrete elements of the film
Basically when people said the directing was good it means that the film was well made
How many times have you heard people say that they loved the direction but hated the film?

>How many times have you heard people say that they loved the direction but hated the film?

Well a lot of people, myself included, say a movie's well made but I have trouble getting into it. There are movies like Sicario or The MAster where everything looks good and is well acted, but it's not really entertaining and I have trouble thinking what the point of it was.

>I only like movies that entertain me

Everytime I complain about a movie not being entertaining, I get shit like that, but when I ask why else you would watch a movie I never get a good answer. Well other than "I get to act like a snob on the internet" but that's only implied.

>why else you would watch a movie
To be intellectually stimulated
Reading a book on philosophy or science doesn't necessarily entertain you but verily it gets your neurons firing

>tfw I'd love to be an actor (but have no imagination), writer (but have no writing skills or imagination), director (no intelligence or imagination), or editor (well I suppose I could do that fairly well if I took the time to master it)

tl;dr want to work on films but don't know what I would be best at

directors don't do anything. if their movies are consistently good or consistently have a certain style it's because they consistently work with the same set of people that do the actual work.

If that were true the new Ghostbusters should've looked like a Wes Anderson movie

Thanks for this user. I only half-understood the system and it's nice to hear it spelled out.

It just sucks that I have to be surprised when there are genuine answers to questions on Sup Forums.

get in on the ground floor, take a look around, try gaining some responsibilities in other departments, test things out, see what you like

i usually try not to have content-less posts (like this one is) but your post is so fuckign stupid i just had to

hello, aspiring director.

But you're not reading a book. It's a movie. What intellectual stimulation are you supposed to get from a movie?

>What intellectual stimulation are you supposed to get from a movie?

...