What Matters Most in the Process?

[Will]

As this group concerns itself with the art and craft of filmmaking, I'd like some thoughts on the following:

Yes, film is a collaborative art form, but who among the collaborators makes the most significant contribution?

I realize that some components can't exist without others, but I'm just curious about this.

[mercurio3]

Actors make the most contribution. Movies are mostly remembered by the actors and the characters these play. Directors become famous if the movie is great and they get enough exposure. Actors are always remember even if the movie they were in sucked. Good actors defy the director's vision and go with their instinct and hope (a little) the director will like the idea or modification of the character. Anyone can direct, but not everyone can act. Without actor, there is no Director. Without Director, cameramen, lighting, sound, music and CGI, there is still actor.

[B-Independent.com]

Anyone can direct? As a filmmaker, I don't think it possible for me to disagree with a statement more. A director's job contains numerous tasks, the least of which is imposing a viewpoint on the material. It's his job to guide and make choices regarding every aspect of production, from conception to release. while i'll agree that actors are often the faces of movies, their role is nothing more than helping the director realize his vision during production. some actors are allowed a more open approach to teh films, like Robert Downer or Ed Norton, but that's only to help them execute their characters in a fashion the director can use.

You can still make a movie wihtout an actor, which is exactly where CGI is headed. A good director can tailor any role to any actor, but not any actor can play any role. Without a director you just have someone reciting lines...

[Firewater]

The director makes the most contribution. A good director can get the most out of mediocre actors. A mediocre director can't get the most out of good actors.

[mercurio3]

A director alone can't sell a movie. his contribution is limited to the realization of the script. the actor has to carry the movie throughout the process. By being directed.
By bringing the character to life (and hopefully not failing) by promoting the film and if he's any big star by getting the studios to back up the film. if the studios feel the leads aren't any big shots, they hesitate to make the movie no matter how great the director is.
Director alone can't execute a film without an actor.
Again, actors can carry on acting without a stage, director, lighting or make up.

[B-Independent.com]

I'm not sure where you get your information from, but try telling Hitchcock, Spielberg, Lucas, Bay, Jarmusch, Tarantino, Kevin Smith, or any number of directors they can't sell a movie. trust me, directors are present at every press junket.

what an actor does is put asses in seats, hopefully. when an audience can identify with an actor, they become the face of the movie and help sell it domestically and abroad, but a good movie guided with quality direction will have a long shelflife. You can look at the track record of any top box office draw in the last ten years to see that without a good director, their films will flop: Harrison Ford (who just had his first non-flop in a decade), Eddie Murphy (who is responsible for a number of the costliest flops in history), and Tom Cruise (who audiences are now starting to reject) come immediately to mind. All three are great actors capable of crafting excellent characters, but without a good movie to showcase their work, they're just folks without a job.

As for a director not being able to execute a film without an actor, go tell that to Pixar, Disney, or Studio Ghibli. All a director needs is a subject.

[mercurio3]

As for a director not being able to execute a film without an actor, go tell that to Pixar, Disney, or Studio Ghibli. All a director needs is a subject.
Yes, like a painter..all he needs is a paint brush right?
Pixar, Disney... they need characters..which take the place of actors.

Tom Cruise's movies are flops because he's in it. No matter who directs the film.
don't tell me Charlie's Angel's was a success because the story is great and the direction was flawless! or Something About Mary. How bout the Star Wars ... great direction i'm assuming.

[droidmaker]

Writers. They're the architects. The story tellers. Directors do execute and pull it all together - so I don't think it can be done without them, but they're really only working from a plan developed by the real storyteller. I'd say those two are the dyad. The tech leads -- the cinematographer and editor -- definitely are the lead foremen in the construction of the sculpture, and add a great deal of the look, texture, pacing -- but a director and screenwriter establish what that should be in the first place, and both the photography and editing could be pretty well executed by a range of folks... as could the acting. I'd put the actors in the same class as the photography and editing. They're the models. The figures that are painted and dressed by the writer. Lots of actors could play great roles and, while all would make it their own for sure - there's nothing there without the plan.

Nope -- from my vantage both in and out of the industry, and as a deep movie fan -- I'd give it to the writer first, and director second - and both matter most.

[Can'tactcan'tsingcandancealittle]

Yep.

Without the text, script, there is nothing to build on. The director has to keep myriad ingredients from spoiling, and it is an increasing wonder there are any successful films. I am am not speaking only in financial terms here, when you read the back stories on how much interference there usually is, quality film making seems nigh unto miraculous.

I would like to add that the editing process is often over looked and undervalued by the general public and more importantly the industry too. As this is the last step in an almost always long term and arduous process if the director's successful vision isn't carried through, or the knowledgeable editor isn't allowed to collaborate, again the film can collapse.

I've noticed that we in Region 1 are marketed the more idiotic versions of films, while Region 2 seems to have more sophisticated edits. Region 1 appears to get the "director's cut" less often. I wondered if you found this to be true, or had any thoughts or knowledge on this marketing strategy. I find it irritating to say the least.

[kirk summers]

There's no doubt that the writer(s) is really the foundation of story telling. W/o a well written script, the movie is DOA. Watch any of the dribble on Lifetime, they are very good examples of poor writing.

The editor is so over-looked. Poorly edited films confuse or bore. They are just as important as the editor of a novel.

Everyone is important in film making. But, the behind the camera contributors should get more love than they do.