Film direction. Looks easy, sounds easy, how can it be art? Or the real question, is it art?
All film directors are constantly looking for an original breathtaking shot. A shot that will make audiences stop and say, "How the hell did they do that?" Take for example the outrageous crane shot in Citizen Kain. How did Orson do that? Or the slow dolly into the mirror in Hate (La Haine). Where did these ideas come from? Were they storyboarded previously to the shoot? More than likely. But there is always the slim chance that it was a mistake, or a last minute fix.
I believe directing is art. It is a long fustrating process where everything you put on paper rarely works on set. It seems that people tend to get caught up in the illusion that directing is sitting in a chair telling actors where to stand and what to do. To an extent this is true. As a director, I myself choose to work more with my camera department than the actors. Actors are actors, they are paid to act, they have trained in acting, so why the hell should I give them motivation? Isn't that they're job?
Ok, annoyed yet? This is hard to read isn't it? If your still here than I imagine that I must be saying something that intrests you. I'll try to stay on the same subject (at least for a paragraph) from here on in.
Look at some of the "great" directors of our time. What have they offered to modern cinema except boxoffice reciepts? Nothing really. I'm sick of these "great", "awe inspiring", films that do jack for me. Where are the real directors? The ones that take chances? How many shots in Jurassic Park made you think? Or Forest Gump (I must admit that the newsreel stuff was cool). What did that move do besides make you want to kill yourself? Nothing. It brought in the big bucks. Is that what defines a great director now? Money? I guess so. Anyone you know running out to see G.I. Jane? I hope not.
