Directors

To people who know about movies (like Socrates, I do not know about movies), the most important thing to know about a movie is who directed it. Why? After lengthy queries, I think I know what the director does. He is like the manager of the project that is *the movie*, making the decisions about where the cameras should go, and what color the hero's necktie should be, and who should act in what role. A badly directed movie would be bad indeed.

But is the director the most important element? People watch movies -- at least, I watch a movie -- to see an interesting story told in a compelling or moving way. It's *possible* to save a bad story with good acting and directing (The Godfather, Pt. II, comes to mind), but it's certainly rare. Godfather II aside, can anybody think of a good movie with a boring screenplay?

Of course, the director has lots of influence on the screenplay. He may shuffle around words, or cut out scenes, or alter stage directions, or whatever. But nobody could claim that he has more impact on the movie than the screenwriter, the real hero of moviemaking. The director arguably has less influence even than the actors. Since the actors are the focus of nearly every scene, the quality of the acting has a lot more influence on the quality of their movie than the peripheral stuff that the director is concerned with. (Yes, the director can tell the actors how to act, but it's still the actors who are responsible for their own performance.)

You might reply that directors, like managers, become notable because of their ability to discern good ideas from bad. What makes a director great is that he can pick out the good screenplays (and the good parts of them), the good actors, the good costumes, and the good scores. That would certainly explain why good directors make good movies, but it's an inadequate proof.

If what you're arguing is that good directors choose good musical scores -- that's fine, but credit the composer. He did more work than the director. Likewise, the person actually responsible for good work deserves more credit than the man who picks it out. Or perhaps you're arguing that good directors tend to direct good movies, for the reasons mentioned above, and are a handy guide to which movies are likely to be entertaining.

But if that's the case, why are we worshipping directors? Film critics should be a more reliable guide to which movies are good and which movies are bad. That's their job, you know. Directors can only control the quality of a movie from the inside, and imperfectly. So, new assignment for you, film people. Please identify your favorite film critic. Fun fact: I don't reliably like the movies of any director, and I seldom agree with any film critic. Does this mean I'm autistic? Developing...