The director is the one with the “Vision”. (NB: “The director’s Vision” is something you hear about a lot.) He reads the script and visualizes how he wants it to look. He knows how the actors are supposed to act. He knows what angles he wants. He works closely with the director of photography (DP) to get the shots he wants. The director is the one who coordinates the artistic and technical aspects of the film and is the one who gives the film its “feel”. The DP supervises lighting, lenses, filters, camera set-ups, camera crew and the processing of the film.
What is “good” directing? It’s not that easy to define. One of my favourite directors is Jim Jarmusch. He likes to have long takes, and his films have a rather leisurely pacing. I love his stuff, but others think it’s boring. David Lynch likes to portray outrageously quirky characters as normal, and he likes certain camera angles. Other directors may play outrageous characters as zany, “over the top”, sick, or any other way you can imagine, and he may choose different angles that give the viewer a different perspective. Which is better? It depends on what you like. For example Lynch has used a straight transvestite FBI agent, but otherwise the character acted normally. Another director might have had the character “camp it up”. The character “works” in Lynch’s film, but would come off as something completely different in a “screwball comedy”.
When I see a film I’ll see things and say, “I would have shot that scene differently.” My “Vision” is different from the director’s. Does that make him a bad director since I think the shot could have been made better the way I’d shoot it? Not necessarily. If it works in the film, it works. If I think I can do it better, then I can scrape together my limited resources and time and try my own film. All things being equal, would my film be better? Who can say? But the other director is the one who has the career.
Ed Wood is often pointed to as the worst director ever. Certainly he made innumerable technical mistakes in his films. When something went wrong he often wouldn’t try to do it better, but try to justify it. I think Ed Wood would qualify as a “bad” director; but his films are a lot of fun to watch!
So how do you know if the direction is good, or if you just aren’t seeing what the director is getting at? It’s pretty subjective stuff. But consider the contrast between a “film” and “home movies”. It’s pretty easy to tell which was directed and which wasn’t. That’s an extreme contrast, but I think you get the idea.
Films are meant to tell a story, and stories are meant to manipulate your emotions. Did the comedy make you laugh? Did the suspense make you nervous? Did the drama make you cry? Did the horror frighten you? Did the documentary add to your knowledge? Did the action picture make you chear the good guys and revel in the baddies’ demise? If it did, then the direction was at least adequate. If it didn’t and you find yourself saying, “Why did the director do that?” or “I would have preferred the actor do act this way.” or “I would have done that differently.” then either the direction was poor or you missed what the director was aiming at. If you “didn’t get it”, is it because the direction was poor? Is it the director’s responsibility to make sure everyone “gets it”? Or is it that the director was aiming for an audience of which you were not part?
As I said, it’s very subjective.
But there’s another measure: Did the film make money? You’ll note that the industry is called “show business”. If a director is capable of making movies that people pay their nine bucks to see, and he does it consistently, then as far as the studios are concerned he’s a “good” director. Whether he is in fact “good” is debatable. For example, Titanic made a ton of money; but I don’t think it was a very “good” film. Others disagree. So we’re back to subjectivity.
So for the industry, a “good” director is one who makes money for the studios. For the viewer, a “good” director makes a good film in the opinion of the viewer.