Question for Charles or anyone else "in the biz" at DVinfo.net

John Locke · November 1st, 2002, 09:32 PM

I was watching Stallone's 2000 release "Get Carter" recently and really admired the way it was filmed. Fast-paced editing, and unique camera movement are what caught my eye the most (especially the scene where the camera spins upside down to emphasize Stallone's character's world being turned upside down...and the extra rough cuts throughout the film).

So, as I watched it, I got to wondering...who's mostly responsible for what I'm seeing? Should most of the credit go to the director, Stephen Kay, or to the cinematographer, Mauro Fiore, or to the editor, Jerry Greenberg? Or in your experience is it usually a magical mixture of all three?

Jay Gladwell · November 4th, 2002, 06:45 AM

John, I've never shot a "major motion picture," but based on my limited experience, I would say that all three--director, cinematographer, and editor--had input into the final product. As to what percentage would go to each is known only by those three.

John Locke · November 4th, 2002, 08:09 AM

Nope...not butting in at all!

It just got me wondering...after seeing "Get Carter" I went to IMDB.com and looked up the credits and found Kay, Fiore, and Greenberg...then I looked at what other works each of them had done. A lot of them I didn't know, but of the films I'd seen, none of them had the same look as "Get Carter."

I know directors like Rodriguez are "hands on" every step of the way. But I wonder about directors that put each shot in the hands of a cinematographer, then they both put everything in the hands of an editor, and then all three put it in the hands of a composer...every one of whom could potentially change the film drastically. It seems amazingly "iffy."

So...I guess my real question was...do most directors hover over the shoulders of everyone every step of the way? Or do the cinematographer and editor wear equal crowns in a lot of cases? What has been observed by those first hand or through other observations?

Zac Stein · November 4th, 2002, 09:15 AM

Best way to describe a director is the guardian of the story.
It is his job for the vision he has of how the movie should be to be realised.

He would be activly involved in anything that directly relates to the dramatic need and look of the final product. So yes he would be involed in all major things.

Of course the director is not there to pick the food for the crew or anything like that... but the DOP, EDITOR, WRITER(s) and COMPOSER all are in direct communication from the second the director comes onboard.

kermie

November 1st, 2002, 09:32 PM	#1
John Locke Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Austin, TX USA Posts: 2,882	Question for Charles or anyone else "in the biz" I was watching Stallone's 2000 release "Get Carter" recently and really admired the way it was filmed. Fast-paced editing, and unique camera movement are what caught my eye the most (especially the scene where the camera spins upside down to emphasize Stallone's character's world being turned upside down...and the extra rough cuts throughout the film). So, as I watched it, I got to wondering...who's mostly responsible for what I'm seeing? Should most of the credit go to the director, Stephen Kay, or to the cinematographer, Mauro Fiore, or to the editor, Jerry Greenberg? Or in your experience is it usually a magical mixture of all three? __________________ John Locke SursumFilms.com

November 4th, 2002, 06:45 AM	#2
Jay Gladwell Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,244	Am I butting in? John, I've never shot a "major motion picture," but based on my limited experience, I would say that all three--director, cinematographer, and editor--had input into the final product. As to what percentage would go to each is known only by those three.

November 4th, 2002, 08:09 AM	#3
John Locke Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Austin, TX USA Posts: 2,882	Nope...not butting in at all! It just got me wondering...after seeing "Get Carter" I went to IMDB.com and looked up the credits and found Kay, Fiore, and Greenberg...then I looked at what other works each of them had done. A lot of them I didn't know, but of the films I'd seen, none of them had the same look as "Get Carter." I know directors like Rodriguez are "hands on" every step of the way. But I wonder about directors that put each shot in the hands of a cinematographer, then they both put everything in the hands of an editor, and then all three put it in the hands of a composer...every one of whom could potentially change the film drastically. It seems amazingly "iffy." So...I guess my real question was...do most directors hover over the shoulders of everyone every step of the way? Or do the cinematographer and editor wear equal crowns in a lot of cases? What has been observed by those first hand or through other observations? __________________ John Locke SursumFilms.com

November 4th, 2002, 09:15 AM	#4
Zac Stein Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 730	Best way to describe a director is the guardian of the story. It is his job for the vision he has of how the movie should be to be realised. He would be activly involved in anything that directly relates to the dramatic need and look of the final product. So yes he would be involed in all major things. Of course the director is not there to pick the food for the crew or anything like that... but the DOP, EDITOR, WRITER(s) and COMPOSER all are in direct communication from the second the director comes onboard. kermie