Many years ago, in a Cultural Anthropology course, the instructor asked the class, “Who is the primary artist, in the creation of a film?” . . . the one person who’s primarily responsible for the film, as a work of art?
About 2/3 of the class said it was the director. I thought it was the screen writer. There were various other answers. After we all explained ourselves, the instructor said it was:
the editor.
What do you think?
The director. (usually)
While…
the editor
does influence the final film, he is generally doing what the director tells him. If the person doing this job has a certain style that the director doesn’t like, the director will hrie someone new.
Likewise, the director of photography will compose the shots, using instruction from the director. The actors will act, using instruction from the director. The sound designer will create the movie’s sound signature, and the composer will make music, all with input from the director. And so on.
The director has the final say, and that is the answer. If the producer is so heavy handed that the director can be overruled on any little thing, then it’s the producer. If an actor is doing a vanity project and is constantly insisting on his way, then arguably it’s the actor.
The Producer. Often it’s his vision and he puts together all the other artists.
I kind of agree with you on screenwriter.
A movie can be aesthetically gorgeous and stunningly acted, but if it’s a stupid, poorly-written story then I’m going to come out feeling like it was a bad movie.
I feel silly spoilerboxing this whole thing, but here we go:
[spoiler]I agree with the OP’s instructor. The editor is the primary artist in the creation of a film, primarily because the editor creates the finished product out of the many parts provided to him by the director, writer, actors, and producer. It’s like putting together a mosaic; many people are responsible for creating the individual pieces, but the person who puts those pieces together is the artist of the completed work.
The producer? Come on. The producer is the guy with connections who does the hiring and procures financial backing. A good producer hires talented people and then steps back from the production. He doesn’t make art.[/spoiler]
In general, the director. He’s in charge. He tells the editor what he wants, and accepts or rejects the results. He decides what changes, if any, are to be made to the screenplay (and often is involved in rewrites – even if he isn’t credited), decides whether or not the actors’ line readings are good, and had final approval of the elements of the finished product.
He can be overruled by the producer, of course, but a smart producer lets the director do his things (and top directors are involved in producing, too).
Ultimately, it’s the director who says yes or no to what the others on the set are doing. He or she is in the position to determine the final product, or reject what others do.
There are exceptions where the director basically shot the script and didn’t direct the film. (And even then, standing back and letting others control the film is an artistic decision.) But, in general, the director is the person primarily responsible for the art of the film.
Do not discount the production designer. It is the designer who creates the sets when on stage, and who oftentimes chooses the locations where the project shoots.
That’s not always the fault of the screenwriter, though. A lot of professional screenwriters seem to be a bit touchy about this, because audiences and film critics often blame the screenwriter for a stupid movie when the stupidity was the result of decisions that were made by others. Screenwriters are not usually very high up on the totem pole, and are rarely in a position to keep producers, directors, and editors from making changes. Even an actor may be able to say “I don’t like this scene” or “I don’t think my character would say that” and get their way.
See Terry Rossio & Ted Elliott’s WordPlay columns “Crap-Plus-One” and “The One Hundred Million Dollar Mistake” for horror stories of good scripts gone bad.
The director - I’m a big fan of Auteur theory. This is not of course an absolute - sometimes a producer (often an ex-director) can be the real artist while the director is a hired jobsman, but in general, it’s the director’s movie.
There are obviously as many exceptions as there are, uh, non-exceptions, but if the director is of the auteur variety–if he or she is really in charge of the overall vision of the film–then the editor works for him.
While, again, there are certainly cases where the editor’s vision is stronger than the director’s, I don’t think you can call that the standard situation.
(Notable exceptions might be: A Christmas Story. How did the director of Porky’s and Baby Geniuses II come up with such a classic? I suspect someone with a stronger vision had a hand in it. Ditto *The Exorcist *and The French Connection: almost all of Friedkin’s other movies suck.
This is my vote too. The producer is responsible for the big picture so to speak. The subtle decisions made here affect the entire product.
Nobody, or perhaps everybody associated with the film.
Trying to identify the primary artist of movies is making a category mistake. Films don’t have single creators. Film is a collaborative art, and it doesn’t make any sense to ask for the author of one.
Yes. And we all know how well committees do creating art (or anything else, for that matter).
Someone has to be the one who directs what to do and who decides which suggestions to take and which to ignore. And, in general, the director is that guide. Without the director, you have one long committee meeting.
RealityChuck writes:
> And we all know how well committees do creating art (or anything else, for that
> matter).
In the case of movies, they do very well.
“Committees don’t create great things” is a cliche, and it’s mostly useless. Some things are done very well by committee.
John McTiernan + Die Hard = Awesome
John McTiernan + Anything Else = Why, God? Whyyyyy?
Outside of Casablanca, I can’t think of any film examples.
Not as much today as in Hollywood’s golden years, with obvious exceptions. But they *are *the exceptions.
I can understand why some people would say “the director”, but hear me out: let’s suppose someone takes a bunch of photographs, and arranges them into a photo-montage. Who is the artist of the montage? The original photographer? That doesn’t seem right; sure, he contributed in a large way to the work, but he didn’t create the final arrangement.
And yes, I know I’m simplifying and the director does a lot more than mere photography, but the way I see it, a movie, as a finished product, is an arrangement of parts, and the editor is the person who does that arranging. Therefore, the editor is the primary person responsible for the final work.
The Editor does the cutting, the finessing. But the Director does the arranging, and is also fundamentally responsible for every single other thing, both on- and off-screen, that occurs in the making of the film.