• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

How competent should a director be in: Lighting,Cinematography, Sound

Ideally, you will be familiar with them all, but if not, how much will it harm you:

I can say I like the cinematography in Michael Mann, Mallick, Kubrick, Fincher, etc.....but could not begin to tell you how they lit the set, what lighting apparatus went into the process, why difference lenses are chosen, etc....

If a writer were to direct/produce a script, how important is it to know the skills (sound, lighting, camera) even if they were not going to be behind the camera.

Take Mallick....he has had different D.P.s and Lighting, but he has had the same visual aesthetic since at least Days of Heaven.....

The same with Woody Allen. He has used different D.P.s yet is able to get a look he wants. Its a consistent look since the mid 80s, and he had used different D.Ps and other crew....

I know people like Soderbergh, Kubrick, and Mann have on occasion operated the own cameras, but others are able to communicate/collaborate and get it done.

Would it be enough to find:

A D.P. who's work you like.

A lighting tech who's work you like.

A sound person who's work you like.

And give them a breakdown of the idea (using examples from other media).
 
Last edited:
It depends.

You not only have to like their work, you need to trust that they'll be capable of:
1) Understanding your vision.
2) Executing your vision.
3) Following your direction.

There is always a danger that when you bring someone on that is more experienced than you that they will decide their way is better, when it is likely that they are correct, that they know better and the film will be better in the end. It may be a little more complicated than if you like their work.
 
The more indie you are, the more you need to know.
Unfortunately I do not have professionals to lean on, I have to serve as quality control and try to learn as much as I can to that end.
 
It depends.

You not only have to like their work, you need to trust that they'll be capable of:
1) Understanding your vision.
2) Executing your vision.
3) Following your direction.

There is always a danger that when you bring someone on that is more experienced than you that they will decide their way is better, when it is likely that they are correct, that they know better and the film will be better in the end. It may be a little more complicated than if you like their work.


That's what I was thinking, along with....would a DP work well with the Lighting Person...etc...

How often would you hire a DP and they would suggest a lighting person? I'm guessing they would work better having worked before.

I'm not hesitant about them suggesting better ways (lighting and sound in particular, I would essentialy want to leave all of it up to them). Unless the DP wanted to do something drastically different (swish pan and zoom in...instead of a cut , for example....) I wouldn't mind. That's why I would want to hire someone, to get their look/input...... I don't mind if they end up infusing the film with their own look.
(this is all in regards a short film, not a feature)

But, its also a general question....how much does a director need to know (technical wise)



Sfoster....what have you found to be the essential aspects? Sound, Lighting, Camera?

I would not want to operate lights, or record sound....rather hire someone for that.



I'm fine with photography but I would rather use someone who has a "look" I like and try and use that. My understanding of the camera is limited to still photography.

My big issue is learning the language to be able to communicate with them. I.E....when looking at Mandy, the different packages people said they operated with (canon, magic, red etc.....).

I won't forget editing....I dont mind editing, but haven't any experience doing film editing except for some early 90s programs...so I would hire someone to do it while I was there.
 
Last edited:
Ton of things are essential.. sound, picture, composition, color, acting, editing.. it takes a lot of disciplines. And on top of it organization
 
Generally speaking, the more you know the better.. so long as that doesn't also translate to trying to do everyone else's job for them.

But, if you understand lighting, and the terminology involved, you can better communicate with the DP, who can in turn better communicate with the gaffers, etc. Unless you trust those people implicitly and have no need to communicate anything specific to them.

But really, a director should at least understand how to do pretty much everything on set, imho. Whether they're really good at it or not is inconsequential, but they should at least understand the various jobs, what's involved, the lingo, the amount of time needed for each department to do their job, etc.

Can you direct without knowing all of that? Sure. As with anything, the make up of your crew, and your and their combined experience will ultimately dictate the results and how smoothly things flow.. oh and how prepared you and they are, that's a biggie.
 
But, its also a general question....how much does a director need to know (technical wise).

"Technical wise", I presume you mean the actual mechanics of operating the technical equipment of each craft? If so, then the answer is; nothing at all! However, that's not the end of the story (!) ....

I'm not hesitant about them suggesting better ways (lighting and sound in particular, I would essentialy want to leave all of it up to them). That's why I would want to hire someone, to get their look/input...... I don't mind if they end up infusing the film with their own look.

Then you are not being a "Director"!! You appear to be thinking purely in terms of the individual film crafts/arts, rather than in terms of the film itself. A DOP will approach the film and the telling of the story in terms of the cinematography, a composer in terms of the music, an actor in terms of their performance, a sound designer in terms of the audio, etc. Even if all these crafts/arts are well executed, you would most likely end up with a poor or very poor film because instead of these arts/crafts combining and complimenting each other to tell the story, they would likely do the complete opposite; contradict, compete and confuse the storytelling. That is why a film needs a director, someone who is concentrating on the film itself, rather than on one particular craft/aspect of the film. In effect, it's the Director's job to create a vision of how the different crafts will combine/interact to tell the story and then to "direct" those crafts in order to fulfill that vision.

Going back to the first paragraph, as a director you don't need to know anything about how to technically/physically do the crafts but you do (ideally) need to know everything about how to aesthetically employ all the crafts individually and in various combinations (at every point in the film) to most effectively tell the story.

That's what I was thinking, along with....would a DP work well with the Lighting Person...etc...

That would largely depend on the level of the people you are employing. At the low/no budget level, good "chemistry" is important or even crucial. At the professional level it's far less important or not of any importance at all, as an essential aspect of being a professional in the first place is the ability to produce professional quality work whatever the personalities/chemistry of those one is working with.

G
 
Last edited:
I'm fine with photography but I would rather use someone who has a "look" I like and try and use that. My understanding of the camera is limited to still photography.

This is kind of a red flag. Blocking may be difficult for you, which is a huge part of your job.

To be the director, you don't really NEED to do anything. Tell everyone what you want and hire people. The critical areas where you need to hire the best people are in the areas where you are weak. Unfortunately it sounds like this is every area.

In short, you don't need to know the technical, though to need a budget large enough to compensate for your lack of knowledge.
 
I think Stanley Kubrick said in an interview once that, to be a great director, the secret is not about being able to position lights or record the sound perfectly, etc. But the secret is being able to communicate what you want to the cinematographer and the sound guy.

However, I would think that, in order to effectively communicate what you want, you would need some knowledge of what you are talking about. It is important to know the correct terms to use.
 
I think Stanley Kubrick said in an interview once that, to be a great director, the secret is not about being able to position lights or record the sound perfectly, etc. But the secret is being able to communicate what you want to the cinematographer and the sound guy.

Far be it for me to disagree with Kubrik but surely the first secret is having something to communicate in the first place?! Being great at communicating that you don't really know what you want/need or being great at communicating a poor vision is not really going to help much! Maybe Kubrik was just taking for granted his genius for creating a vision in the first place?

G
 
Far be it for me to disagree with Kubrik but surely the first secret is having something to communicate in the first place?! Being great at communicating that you don't really know what you want/need or being great at communicating a poor vision is not really going to help much! Maybe Kubrik was just taking for granted his genius for creating a vision in the first place?

G
True. I think his point was to demonstrate that anyone can direct if they want to, they just need to be able to interact and communicate well.

However, it is definitely important to educate yourself and become knowledgable about what you are communicating in the first place.
 
I think what APE was saying was that having the best communication in the world won't help a director if they don't have a clear, strong and unified vision for the film. OP was saying he wouldn't mind the DoP, Sound Designer, etc taking creative control of their fields - which could suggest that the OP doesn't really have a defined vision behind the film they're directing.
 
I think what APE was saying was that having the best communication in the world won't help a director if they don't have a clear, strong and unified vision for the film.

Yes, that was essentially what I was saying. Having a clear/strong/unified vision can of course still leave room for flexibility (if desired), for listening to and considering aesthetic suggestions from other cast/crew members. Interestingly though, some of the directors mentioned in this thread were/are particularly famous for being extremely dictatorial: Having a vision so clear and strong that aesthetic suggestions from others were/are generally treated as annoying distractions. Kubrik for example was reputedly extremely difficult to work with, he would have a very strong and precise vision of what he wanted and would not be swayed from that vision even if what he wanted was impossible with the technology of the day!

OP was saying he wouldn't mind the DoP, Sound Designer, etc taking creative control of their fields - which could suggest that the OP doesn't really have a defined vision behind the film they're directing.

I would put it in even stronger terms. If a director is not taking creative control, they may (or may not) be fulfilling other roles; Line Producer and/or 1AD for example, but they are not fulfilling the role of Director. In other words, the film they're "directing" is effectively Director-less!

G
 
So far I have worked for a director who did not know anything about the technical side of filmmaking. She did not know what she wanted when it cames to shots, storyboarding, cinematography, sound design, etc. I was recording production sound, and doing the video editing. I would offer suggestions like for example, ask her if she wanted bird sounds during a particular scene, where their may be birds around. She said something like 'sure, that sounds good'.

But she never really offered her own thoughts on anything. She would just agree with my suggestions, cause that's the only thing that she had. Same with the DP. She didn't know what lighting and color look she wanted, or what camera movements, etc. So she went with his suggestions, and just left it at that, but did add any creativity of her own. Like for example, he would ask her what colors she would want a certain light in the scene to be, and would suggest a color. She would go with it immediately and have very little idea what she wants for herself and her own vision.

She was a really good director in the sense that she treats a cast and crew very well, and her heart is in the right place. She also knows what she wants when it comes to the actors, character, and script. She's got the acting and drama side of it down, just not the technical video and audio artistic side. She also did most of the editing herself, to get it done in time before festival deadlines, but she didn't really have the best creative version for picture and sound editing/mixing either.

I also worked for a similar director last year. But was resulted from both directors were two very plain jane looking and sounding movies, and it hurt the quality of movies, at least in my opinion.

So perhaps it is best to know what you want when it comes to technical art aspect of it, so your movie looks and sounds more sure of itself.
 
Last edited:
She doesn't need to understand the technical side of filmmaking to have a vision. Simple questions like "what colours do you want in the scene" are not technical and, for any director with a clear vision, shouldn't be difficult to answer! "Do you want bird sounds?" again shouldn't be hard.

The issue was that she didn't have a strong vision (which is her job), and so the project turned out "very plain jane." The directors you mentioned may be better suited to being acting coaches, or similar, because what they were doing wasn't directing.
 
But she never really offered her own thoughts on anything. She would just agree with my suggestions, cause that's the only thing that she had. Same with the DP. She didn't know what lighting and color look she wanted, or what camera movements, etc. So she went with his suggestions, and just left it at that, but did add any creativity of her own. Like for example, he would ask her what colors she would want a certain light in the scene to be, and would suggest a color. She would go with it immediately and have very little idea what she wants for herself and her own vision.

I feel like that's a different issue altogether than what the original post brought up. That director had no vision OR any knowledge of how to achieve a vision.

I think it is possible to have a strong vision for your lighting, have a specific look that you want in mind, but have no idea how to get that look. So, rather than choosing and positioning lights to achieve your vision, your job becomes communicating your vision to somebody who does know how to achieve that look.
 
I'm not sure the OP said s/he does't have a vision. It sounded more like s/he wants to be a hands-off director.

I recall Kevin Smith saying something like, yeah, he could have went on to be a director of studio films, basically sitting back, letting different departments do their own thing. That's (roughly) how he put it. If his description is accurate, then perhaps it is possible.

But like it was said earlier, how would that work for an indie filmmaker?

Also, why even direct, then? Okay, maybe to rake in the money if you're a gun for hire on a big studio film, which is apparently how Kevin Smith saw one career path he could have taken.

But don't most people want to direct because they wish to shape a film in a fundamental way?

If I'm not mistaken, that was Smith's point; he didn't want the former.

But maybe you do. And maybe it is possible.

After all, don't they say that a film director is essentially a manager? There's probably room for different managerial styles --some more hands-on, some more hands-off.
 
I was thinking more along the lines of someone who had a "vision" but was not sure of the technical way to implement it....for example:

this is purely for arguments sake--I'm not actually asking how this would be done.

Let's suppose you want a scene where two people are talking, standing in front of a picture window, looking out at a road. You want the two actors to be lit a certain way, the room lit a certain way. Shadows here, the actors lit in a particular way, the light from outside to be dim but the outside clear, etc....

Should a director know what type of lighting to use, the correct position of the lights, etc....or is it enough to articulate this to the crew person?

Taking the same scene, but using sound. The actors dialogue should be audible, but ambient sound should be there as well. A radio, or outdoors traffic, rain, etc..... What if the director doesn't know what sort of equipment is necessary for capturing the sound.
 
Back
Top