What do all great filmmakers have in common?

ABHunter4L

ABHunter4L

Other than the obvious answer that they all have $$$. What work ethics do the great directors possess? What qualities other than (having connections) do all they have that allows them to make the big pictures?

I understand the fact that a good picture does not in fact mean it has to be big. But my question is in regards to the BIG pictures.
 
Last edited:
Sort by date Sort by votes
ABHunter4L said:
I understand the fact that a good picture does not in fact mean it has to be big. But my question is in regards to the BIG pictures.
Click to expand...

Are we including Michael Bay, then?

You need to be driven, passionate and able to communicate your ideas to people. And you need that one lucky break.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
ABHunter4L said:
Other than the obvious answer that they all have $$$. What work ethics do the great directors possess? What qualities other than (having connections) do all they have that allows them to make the big pictures?
Click to expand...

The answer is somewhat simple. The DIRECTOR's are able to maintain a cohesive vision that is their own by communicating and effectively keeping their style over a film with hundreds, and even sometimes thousands of people working on it.

There is the studio, the producers, all the department heads - they all work WITH (not FOR) the director. The director has to answer to the producers and studio. They are his BOSSES, not his BITCHES. If you can maintain your directoral vision answering to that bureaucracy, then I think they are the ones you are referring to. They get to make movies because their style makes the studio money, then they loosen the leash a little on their creative vision.

It's called being a TEAM PLAYER. Orsen Welles had vision. They gave him total freedom on his first film. He lost money. He never had it again.

dogfight said:
For me great filmmakers do what they want.. you know, this is my style.. deal with it.
Click to expand...

I hope by this definition, you are referring to "filmmakers" to refer to the entire team including DP's, director's, producers, actors, writers, editors, sound dept. etc.

Very few directors are their own producers, editors, writers, casting, etc. Even Spielberg does not have total autonomy. They way marketing over simplifies the process to make it palatable to the general public, you would think that a film's director is the sole author of most big Hollywood films. This simply isn't true.

Most of the world's best known "filmmakers" meaning directors are partners with longstanding producers.

Ron Howard has Brian Grazer. Spielberg has Kathleen Kennedy. Quentin Tarantino has Lawrence Bender. Kevin Smith has Scott Mosier. The list goes on and on.

Filmmaking is a collaborative art. See above as to who the director works for and then understand the reality is that on a budget over $30 million, every single decision a director makes has to be approved by the producers and the studio paying for it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
I have wrestled with this question many times. It's also one of my favorite topics for discussion.

First off, who is a "filmmaker"? It's really not there in the credits, is it? Filmmaking by Quentin Tarantino? No such thing. So who is a filmmaker?

I think the term "filmmaker" is used rather loosely by most people. Writers, directors, producers could all be considered filmmakers. After all, they make films. By the same rationale, cinematographers and editors are also filmmakers. By this definition, there could be a million filmmakers in the world right now.

For me, I choose to limit the term to only those select individuals who are able to direct, write, and produce a film efficiently (even if they don't do all three in every single production they work on). They have also been recognized and awarded in several occasions. Their filmographies is longer then their birth certificates. They have withstood the test of time. They understand the phases, procedures, and processes of making films.

Steven Spielberg, James Cameron, and Quentin Tarantino are some of the true filmmakers of our generation. Filmmakers from generations past are Charlie Chaplin, Alfred Hitchcock, and Stanley Kubrick. These names just pop to mind, don't they? It's hard to imagine a single film student who hasn't heard all these names. By this second definition, there are only, perhaps, a hundred filmmakers in cinema history.

What do they have in common?

Well, besides passion for the medium, they have sheer knowledge of all the elements present in a film production. They apply both form and content to create a succinct, intriguing, and relevant message in their films. They are storytellers in every sense of the word. They understand structure, character development, exposition, and foreshadowing. They are able to create unique villains and fearless heroes like no one else can. They are attuned to people's emotions and their surroundings. They comprehend history and use it to straighten their plots. They can write compelling dialogue. They aren't afraid of cutting trivialities from every scene of their films. They have the uncanny ability to foresee what people desire, what stirs them.

This is what filmmakers have in common... besides money and connections, of course.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
just sayin'

GabrielM said:
Steven Spielberg, James Cameron, and Quentin Tarantino are some of the true filmmakers of our generation. Filmmakers from generations past are Charlie Chaplin, Alfred Hitchcock, and Stanley Kubrick.

They can write compelling dialogue.
Click to expand...


Spielberg has only written 2 screenplays he has directed - Close Encounters (which was actually written by Paul Schrader who had his name removed via the WGA) and A.I. (based on a 100 page treatment by Stanley Kubrick who received no on screen credit for his writing or story by). His only other writing credits are "story by" where someone else wrote the actual screenplay.

Hitchcock wrote very few of the screenplays for the majority of his films, and none of his most famous ones. Kubrick never wrote a screenplay that wasn't based on an existing work.

My point is not to nitpick, but to reiterate my point that for each of the names of great "filmmakers", they did not create in a vacuum alone, nor are they singularly responsible for their incredible works of art.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
sonnyboo said:
Spielberg has only written 2 screenplays he has directed - Close Encounters (which was
My point is not to nitpick, but to reiterate my point that for each of the names of great "filmmakers", they did not create in a vacuum alone, nor are they singularly responsible for their incredible works of art.
Click to expand...

I would agree, except when a movie bombs at the box office how often does the DOP, or the production designer get the blame by the studio or the media? The director, WILL, on the other hand get the blame.

R,
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The one thing great film makers have in common is.....great films!!!! TAHDAH!!! and I typed this whole thing with only my two pointy fingers.........Who gives a . They got it done. That's what makes the film great. The craft and they got it done.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
sonnyboo said:
Spielberg has only written 2 screenplays he has directed - Close Encounters (which was actually written by Paul Schrader who had his name removed via the WGA) and A.I. (based on a 100 page treatment by Stanley Kubrick who received no on screen credit for his writing or story by). His only other writing credits are "story by" where someone else wrote the actual screenplay.

Hitchcock wrote very few of the screenplays for the majority of his films, and none of his most famous ones. Kubrick never wrote a screenplay that wasn't based on an existing work.

My point is not to nitpick, but to reiterate my point that for each of the names of great "filmmakers", they did not create in a vacuum alone, nor are they singularly responsible for their incredible works of art.
Click to expand...

I was certain someone would catch me on those. Yes, I knew some of the people I mentioned haven't written many scripts, but they have written some. Nonetheless, they have good eyes for finding the best stories and best writers. They are able to foresee how a script will translate to the big screen. Adapting from novels or plays is also an art in itself. I give them all credit. It is one thing to write on paper; it is a completely different thing to "write" on the screen. All of them are storytellers of the medium.

I think we all understand that filmmaking functions on collaboration and that behind every great filmmaker there is a great assistant/friend/co-producer. But all these filmmakers have some other characteristics in common. I believe ABHunter4L is interested in these other traits. We would be remiss to just answer her question with "Go out there and befriend the right people."

Instead, I would like to emphasize the point that a "great filmmaker" understands the entire process of making films. If they didn't have writers, they would write it themselves. If they didn't have editors, they would edit it themselves. If they didn't have camera operators, they would shoot it themselves. If they didn't have actors, they would do animation. I think this is crucial for ABHunter4L's understanding that if she wants to be a filmmaker, she will have to master three-act structure, depth-of-field, Final Cut Pro, or CTB. She will have to immerse herself in the filmmaking universe and start learning every little aspect of every area.

As I mentioned in my first post, there is no such credit as "Filmmaking by..." The term "filmmaker" is subjective. I choose to regard someone as filmmaker only if they master the process as whole, and not just this or that.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top