[...] the more I produce, the more I realize that the most important person on a movie, once you’ve started the process, is the director. Because without that concept you’ve got no order. To use an orchestral analogy, the director is the conductor, and a conductor is there to get the best out of each section of the orchestra, ranging from the timpani to the strings to the brass. He must orchestrate all that, put the different instruments together so that the music comes out sounding great. (Ridey Scott in Sammon 1999: 131-132) Construction of the Director’s Role in Academia and the Film Industry
The role of the director and her task have been much debated in both academic and industrial accounts. Dancyger (2006: 3) writes that ‘directing remains a vocation that has used its mystique to its advantage’ and therefore ‘less is understood about the means of directing than about the other key roles in production’. Similarly, Irving (2010: 5) asserts that a director’s duties are particularly challenging to identify because film directing represents ‘an all-encompassing, sometime amorphous, often cryptic, complicated and relatively new vocation’
(ibid.: 5). Furthermore, the director is often subject to cultural differences between countries which makes it harder to describe the role. Lodovichetti (2014) notices for example that
‘American and European productions are different in terms of how they consider the director’s role’ with Europe tending to consider the director more as an auteur, while ‘in the Hollywood mainstream cinema there is the tendency of considering the director as a simple tile of the whole production’.4 Marnes (1972: 36) observes that in ‘examining the work of some directors it is possible to discern a thematical relationship between one film and another’. He adds that
‘Although each film is complete in itself a strongly felt idea can find its expression in a number of successive films of one director’ (ibid.). This trait is often referred to as the director’s style which is strictly connected to the director’s “vision”. Some academic and non-academic texts refer to the director’s vision as the ability to depict a story in a unique and personal way, a talent
4 Italian: ‘Per esempio le produzioni Americane ed Europee sono diverse nella concezione della figura del regista. L’Europa è più registo-centrica con il regista che tira su il progetto e lo gestisce. Nel cinema mainstream hollywoodiano ad alto budget la concezione del regista è totalmente diversa nella maggioranza dei casi: egli infatti viene considerato come un semplice tassello della produzione.’
(Lodovichetti, 2014)
37
which is appealing to the audience and often exploited by distributors in order to sell the product. For instance, Quentin Tarantino’s films frequently portray a grotesque exaggeration of violence which attracts certain kinds of audience. Travis (2002: 5) affirms that the director’s role consists of formulating a film’s vision and communicating that vision to members of the creative team ‘in such a way that each artist will be inspired to make her best contribution to that vision’. Neri (2015) claims that the director has the whole film in mind before shooting and knows exactly what the audience will see projected on screen, hence the director only needs to communicate to the crew the result she has imagined for a clear direction for the production to be established.5 Similarly Tarantino in 2012, recalling a meeting with Terry Gilliam, whom he asked how to get the director’s vision on screen, reports:
As a director, you don’t have to do that. Your job is to hire talented people who can do that. You hire a cinematographer who can get the kind of quality you want; you don’t have to be able to know how to take the lights and move them around to create an effect. You hire a talented costume designer who can give the colors that you need and the flamboyance or not that you want. You hire a production designer who can do that.
Your job is explaining your vision. Your job is articulating to them what you want on the screen. (DrSotosOctopus, 2013)
The vision is often identified in academic scholarship as evidence of the auteurial nature of the film director, the artistic idea behind the film which motivates the artist-director. Terry Gilliam notices:
Directors or producers hire good people who do their stuff and, in a lot of cases, you could make quite a respectable film without a director. So what’s the difference?
Certain directors do have vision, ideas of what they’re trying to achieve. These are the real directors […] and some get called auteurs […]. (Gilliam in Christie 1999: 179-180) Santas (2002: 18) states that ‘Though film calls for the collaboration of various agents’, it ‘can be seen as the product of a single creator’ who is the director. Although Hollywood, where ‘film is firmly established as a collaborative art’ (ibid.: 19), has rejected this theory in the past (see ibid.: 18-19), the ‘idea of the film director as auteur remains widespread among film scholars, students of film, and even in the motion picture production industry itself’ (Monaco 2010: 1).
There are distinctions in the ways the director’s role has been constructed in academic studies
5 Italian: ‘Il regista […] ha in testa il film ed è l’unica persona che ha veramente in sé quello che il pubblico vedrà proiettato. […] Deve comunicare a tutte le persone che collaborano con lui una direzione che porta quel risultato, esattamente come lui lo ha immaginato quando leggeva o scriveva il copione.’
(Neri, 2015)
38
and in industrial accounts. The former is generally dominated by the auteur theory while the second is more focused on the industrial process that results in a product. For instance, being in charge of the filmmaking process is often described in the academic literature as a mandatory condition for the director to exercise her creativity; conversely, in industrial accounts it is identified as a necessity dictated by the industrial process. Scholars such as Perkins (1972: 179 in Buckland 2006: 29) reckon that ‘Directors are needed precisely because film-making involves so many and such varied kinds of creative decisions’ and ‘If a movie is to have even the most elementary form of unity’ it is essential that everyone involved works ‘coherently towards an agreed end’. Perkins also observes that ‘The most obvious method of achieving this result is’ to put the director ‘in charge of the entire operation’ (ibid.). Reisz (1957: 58-60 in Buckland 2006: 29) notices that the director ‘should be normally in charge’: she ‘is responsible for planning the visual continuity during shooting’ and therefore she ‘is in the best position to exercise a unifying control over the whole production’. Dancyger (2006: 3) claims that ‘The director is responsible for translating a script (words) into visuals (shots)’ and for ‘the creative supervision of the film from early in its conception to its completion’ (ibid.: 4). For scholars, directors are generally responsible for all the artistic matters of the filmmaking process (see Ebbers, Wijnberg and Bhansing in Kaufman and Simonton 2014: 162) and this is deemed true in some industrial accounts as well. For instance, Marner (1972: 25) states that ‘One important aspect of the director’s responsibility to the “design” of the film is his decision about its
“style”’, and indeed ‘in a very practical way the director has to make decisions concerning location, lighting, cutting, acting, etc., that will somehow reflect his own sensibilities and therefore be a summation of the director as creative artist’. However, Marner’s statement represents an overgeneralisation when contemporary filmmaking is taken into account; as an example, the director does not have the final cut in most of the film (see Brook 2014) nor does she choose the locations, which are generally defined on a financial basis. The convergence of various practices and professionals in the filmmaking process, plus the industrial logic behind the process, limit the director’s authorship, justifying why industrial accounts tend to overlook the auteur theory. Directors are often kept out of certain processes which have a significant
39
impact on the final result – editing is probably the most evident example of this but it is the case also for shot design or the choice of location. Sayad (2013: 33) affirms that ‘the term ‘author’
presupposes control of production’ hence ‘when collaboration comes into play, authorship becomes something to be earned’ (ibid.: xiii). Sayad suggests that the artistic inputs of other creative talents involved in the process can undermine authorship. Director Terry Gilliam reports:
I may be an auteur according to how the word’s used now, but I’m more collaborative than anyone could ever imagine. If you have all this talent available, whether it’s actors or designers, then you want to use it to go beyond your own finite vision. […] On Jabberwocky [Gilliam T., 1977], I would be on my own in a corner, focused on trying to solve some problem, and the props guy would come over and say, ‘Have you thought about doing this, Terry?’ My first reaction was to tell him to get lost, then I realized he was right and that he’d just told me how to get out of the corner I’d painted myself into.
(Gilliam in Christie 1999: 69-70)
At this point it is significant to take into account the film franchise phenomenon which is emblematic of the Modern Entertainment Marketplace – the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), Star Trek, Star Wars are only some of the most known film franchises which have been subject to numerous sequels and prequels. For film franchises, there is generally a bible to follow which details the plot, the setting and the characters in such a thorough manner that the director’s vision is compromised or denied. A production bible is in place to guarantee that the film franchise is in line with the media franchise (comics, videogames, films, books etc.) making the worlds and the characters depicted consistent with all mediums. Esser, Smith and Bernal-Merino (2016: Glossary) define a bible as ‘a compilation of instructions and information, including technical requirements, lessons learned, shooting schedules, crew lists, a budget sample, and anything else that could be of value to the production team’. Furthermore
‘the bible includes information about the original pitch, audience ratings, and sometimes market research findings, and marketing tips’ (ibid.: Glossary). The bible gives directors precise information about how to develop the film; where a bible is in place, the director’s task consists more of assuring that the film is in the direction established by the production, which challenges the academic auteurial approach to film directing. For this reason, Bently and Biron (in Bowrey and Handler 2014: 29) have introduced new forms of auteurism influenced by the entertainment
40
franchise, which move beyond the ‘director-as-auteur’ model and focus instead on executive production: the ‘commercial-auteur’, the ‘franchise-auteur’ and the ‘brand-auteur’ (ibid.: 16). It is not a case that for a film franchise, the single films of the franchise are generally directed by different directors (especially for contemporary digital effects films); the continuity between the various films is supervised by an executive producer, who is usually the same for all the films of the same franchise. For instance, the Harry Potter series (2001-2011) consists of eight films produced by David Hayman and directed by four different film directors: Chris Columbus (Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone and Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets), Alfonso Cuarón (Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban), Mike Newell (Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire) and David Yates (Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1 and 2). Pirates of the Caribbean is a Disney media franchise encompassing videogames, park attractions and a series of films (2003-2017). The films are all produced by Jerry Bruckheimer and directed by four different film directors: Gore Verbinski (The Curse of the Black Pearl, Dead Man's Chest and At World's End), Rob Marshall (On Stranger Tides), Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg (Dead Men Tell No Tales). For the Marvel Cinematic Universe franchise, sixteen feature films have been made from 2008 to 2017. All the films have been produced by the president of Marvel Studios, Kevin Feige and directed by thirteen different film directors. It emerges that film franchises require working directors who are able to achieve a specific product commissioned by the motion picture studio; this is particularly true for digital effects films.
At an industrial level, Katz (1991: 97) claims that ‘In general, the director is responsible for the visual decisions that determine staging and camera setup’; he (ibid.: 104) affirms that
‘Continuity design includes the composition of individual shots, the staging of action, the choice of lenses and the order of the shots in the finished film’ and that ‘these decisions are the responsibility of the director’. In the same way, Frost (2009: 4) argues that ‘the director is ultimately responsible for the storytelling aspects of the film, through the actor’s performances to the selection of the shots and composition’. The director’s approach to her task can vary from case to case. Marner (1972: 36) observes that there are directors ‘who, like Hitchcock, make a
41
very thorough and detailed preparation so that each frame and camera angle is worked out beforehand’ and those who ‘rely for their effect on improvisation while on set’. Clair (in Talbot 1975: 229) claims that, even if the director ‘in principle directs the realization of the film as a whole’, the task ‘varies according to his personality, according to the film, and according to the method employed’. Edgar (2010: 12) adds that ‘The role of the director varies according to the genre of film, the type of script and the requirements of the funder or studio’ and this is why ‘A short film director is different from a feature director and a director for hire will work differently from a writer/director’ (ibid.: 12). On this subject, Monaco (2010: 13), who conducted a study on auteurism in the Neo-noir genre, observes that ‘in any actual production, how the director functions, pursues his vision, and enlists others in doing so varies’. For instance, ‘variations in personal visual cultures’ modifies ‘the message taken by the viewer’
(Clifton 1983: 182) so the director has to adjust her approach depending on the audience who will experience the film. Clifton specifically refers to the way in which the film’s concept is communicated, a directorial responsibility which casts a light on the relationship director-audience. Perkins states:
In the cinema style reflects a way of seeing; it embodies the filmmaker’s relationship to objects and actions. But, as a way of showing, it also involves his relationship with the spectator. The film’s point of view is contained within each of these relationships.
Attitudes toward the audience contribute as much to a movie’s effect, and therefore its significance, as attitudes towards its more immediate subject-matter. (Perkins 1972: 134 in Bernardoni 1991: 219)
Nelson (2000: 7), summarising the thought of Pudovkin (1933), affirms that the director aims at guiding the audience towards the idea of a film and at producing prearranged feeling. To obtain this she looks after every stage of the filmmaking process and makes decisions empathising with the viewer. From an academic perspective, Dancyger (2006: 15) claims that ‘It is critical for the viewer that the film be experienced whole’ meaning that ‘the text interpretation, the performances of the actors, and the shot selection act together to build the viewer’s experience’.
Establishing a relationship with the audience means identifying a perspective on the story, a process in which the director takes the place of the spectator and conducts an analysis on herself. Wilkinson (2005: 98), in his professional manual The Working Director: How to Arrive,
42
Thrive & Survive in the Director’s Chair, claims that ‘The director is the proxy audience’ and
‘the audience’s lawyer’, referring to the fact that she is the one who can detect beforehand whether the film’s concept reaches the spectator or not. Mollo (2015) states that ‘the director is the person who holds the vision’ and ‘conducts the story towards a precise direction by which the audience gets involved’.6 Audience involvement is achieved through an intensification of the viewer’s emotions. Belli and Rooney (2011: 6), both working directors for television, argue that ‘Everything you do as a director is intended to duplicate for the audience what you first felt when you read the script’. It emerges that there is a common point between how academia and industry have constructed the director’s role and it is in the significance that the audience has in the directing practice. The relationship director-audience for commercial films is at the very core of the director’s role and this is mentioned by a considerable amount of academic and industrial accounts.
Industrial Directing Models
Monaco (2010: 13) states that the director has at the top of her list, among many other responsibilities, the coordination of ‘the work of others in the major creative positions’ and in the same way Beaver (2007: 73) observes that an important function of the director is ‘the coordination of the various technicians who must support the film’s concept’. In order to fully tell the story, directors have to manage all the creative figures involved so that the narrative flows in a clear and organised way. The establishment of communication with the film’s collaborators is broadly considered a key responsibility for directors. David Lynch (in Rodley 2005: 46) argues that directing is ‘to get people on the same track and just keep going and going so that everything that comes through is fitting into’ the world of the story. Analysing the relationship between the director and her collaborators makes it possible to compare film directors with other professional figures outside the industry, a procedure which helps to illuminate the director’s role in the film industry. Irving (2010: 5) observes that film directors
6 Italian: ‘Il regista è la persona che in un certo senso ha la visione della storia. Conduce la storia in una direzione ben precisa attraverso la quale il pubblico entra nel film.’ (Mollo, 2015)
43
have been frequently likened to ‘a musical conductor, military general, circus ringmaster, auteur and ship’s captain’ and each of these ‘embraces separate attributes important to film directing’.
Irving, looking at the director’s role from both an academic and a professional perspective, hints at the existence of different directing models for directors. These models have certain traits in common and one of these is leadership. Belli and Rooney (2011: xv) affirm that ‘a director is first and foremost a leader—a Moses’ who ‘leads a motley group toward the promised land of a successful project: one that creatively expresses the ideas of the script in the fullest way possible’. In some film productions, pre-arranged models are given to directors by the producers for organisational purposes; this underlines a fracture between how academia and the film industry have constructed the director’s role because admits that for some films, directors need to follow an imposed pattern. Marner (1972: 2) states that ‘Some directors always, and other directors sometimes, are confined to the role of director as captain of the ship or conductor of the orchestra’ and ‘the vast majority of Hollywood directors for many years were so confined’.
He (ibid.: 2) explains that ‘At the scripting stage, the producers controlled writers and, in the post-production stages, it was again the producer who controlled the editor, leaving the director as a specialised technician who worked mainly on the actual shooting of the film.’ Tarkovsky (2003: 125) describes that, particularly in highly commercialised productions, ‘the director is beset by the danger of becoming a mere witness, observing the scriptwriter writing, the designer making sets, the actor playing and the editor cutting’. This is in line with the previous analysis
He (ibid.: 2) explains that ‘At the scripting stage, the producers controlled writers and, in the post-production stages, it was again the producer who controlled the editor, leaving the director as a specialised technician who worked mainly on the actual shooting of the film.’ Tarkovsky (2003: 125) describes that, particularly in highly commercialised productions, ‘the director is beset by the danger of becoming a mere witness, observing the scriptwriter writing, the designer making sets, the actor playing and the editor cutting’. This is in line with the previous analysis