Who directs a documentary?

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

Originally Posted by Buddy Greenfield

Good point. I can see in Indie crews how that would be fuzzy.

Maybe I mean, under the generic heading of “Filmmaker”, do you think technology is allowing for a broader range of tasks to be undertaken by a single person to the extent that it might be slightly evolving notions of what should be encompassed under the title of other roles, such as Director or Editor?

-Thanks-

In the indie low budget (read non-union) world, yes. In hollywood the classic:

"Hey grip, can you change that light bulb in the practical over there"

"Sounds like an electrivcal problem to me, well it is a practical, want me to have somebody get the art director?"

Still applies I think.

[Cracker Funk]

Sounds to me like you were working with a shitty director, that's all. He's still the director, but a shitty one, because he lacks direction. A documentary should have a focus, and that focus needs to be in place in pre-production. If you're still trying to figure out what that focus is in post, you've horribly screwed up. So, as editor, you salvaged a shitty production, but you're still editor.

[meow1984]

I hate to say it, but you're the editor, which you should be proud to be. My editor is great, and I appreciate him dearly.
It seems as though you have worked with directors that either do not have a clear vision or are flexible enough to allow the better idea to come through. Be happy to be an editor, because if you insist on getting director credit simply because your director was open minded, you will find yourself at a loss for future employment as an editor. The job of the director is not necessarily to do every little thing on a film but to make sure that it gets done properly. It has been done on the films on which you've worked so they have done their job.
That having been said, perhaps you should consider becoming a director so you do not have this problem in the future.