Issues with my DP...
 

I am directing my first feature. What am I responsible and what is the DP responsible for?

Short answer:

You handle the actors. You manage the on-screen talent. You mold their performances to your liking in a manner that best suits the story you're trying to tell. For the most part, the Director is a director of acting.

The DP handles the image. The DP manages camera placement, camera angles, choice of lenses, etc. The DP molds the image in a manner that they know will best suit the story. For the most part, the Director of Photography is a director of the image.

Anybody else care to debate this?

Chris,

I think your qualifiers, "For the most part" are important. Many directors will express their 'vision' of the scene, and the DP's job is to help the director achieve that look. Often, a director won't know what lens to use, and will say "I want to be able to see all of the table, but not the door way...". The DP will know what lens to use. The director is free to say... "We dolly in close, by the time he pulls the gun out of the drawer." The DP might say... "Not enough room to lay the track, and we don't have a steadicam..." but he would never say... "I don't like that, we're not going to do that."

I know YOU know this... but some people might have taken your description as a license for the DP to have complete controll of the image. He has as much control as the Director gives him. Depending on how much the Director knows, he must trust his DP to make the best choice, and to give him suggestions for even BETTER choices.

Just my take on it.

I think it varies wildly. Chris, your answer is a great one, but I don't think it works that way often enough. A lot of directors these days came through the ranks as DPs first, and they direct the picture first. I was watching special features the other day for "Catch Me if You Can" and they were saying that Spielberg chooses the lenses for each shot. They had a lot of fottage of him framing things also. An actor friend of mine had three pages of dialog in an HBO series, and when they shot she said the director never gave her a single word on her performance.

I do believe that the visual look - the camera placement and moves - is a large part of any directors style, and should be. Kubrik, the Coen Brothers, Tarantino (who is an actor), all have strong visual styles that they bring. Films are visual storytelling, afterall.

Now if you look at someone like Elia Kazan, who came up through theater, you are going to get a very different view. That's all about the acting. I think there are fewer of them today, though.

My advice, Ahmed, is to go with your personal vision for what you want to convey with your movie. If you have a strong visual sense of what you want then bring that to the table and find a DP you can work with to implement it. If you have a vision that is mostly about the actors and performances, then find a DP with a strong vision to take the lead on the visual aspect in consultation with you. Go with your strengths, and find people to help you with everything else.

I have had a range. I have directed things where I was essentially the DP as well, and I have worked with DPs I like and trust and said "This is what this scene is about for me, now I'm gonna go work with the actors, figure our how you want to shoot this."

Good luck.

I think lighting is where a director typically leaves a DP to work the magic. Many famous directors from Spielberg to Kar-Wai Wong choose lenses (many of the art house directors swear to themselves to never shoot with long lenses), make suggestions about framing and direct camera movements. For example, David Lynch has a style of dolly move he uses in essentially everything he makes, regardless of the DP, and Martin Scorsese is always touted as a master of using the Steadicam in his movies. So I think good directors should be making suggestions and giving direction in those areas. But I've rarely seen on set or read about a director making major suggestions on lighting. That seems to me to be among the top responsibilities for a DP.

Thanks for expanding and expounding on my admittedly over-simplified answer... please keep it up! I just wanted to get the ball rolling is all. One of my favorite directors, Barry Sonnenfeld, started off as a DP (shooting the first three Coen Brothers films in the process).

I think what you'll hear is that it all depends on where the Director is coming from, and what his relationship is with the DP. Sure, Directors who are coming up from behind the camera, will feel more comfortable calling the shots, literally, to the DP. Those that come 'across the film plane' as actors, will be a little less tech savvy, and a little more dependent on their DP to make judgement calls in camera placement, lenses, moves, and lighting. Its a wise director who knows his own strengths and limitations, and listens to his DP.

The flip side is, a Director with no 'acting' knowledge, often must rely on the innate skills of the Casting Director, and AD or Dialogue Coach, to help interpret his vision to the actors. And actors do like 'direction'.

Funny, was recently watching the re-release of Dr. Strangelove. In one of the DVD features they say that Kubrick kept a pair of gloves handy so he could adjust lights himself. One day Peter Sellers snatched one of these from him and made it a part of the "spastic hand" that became the title character's trademark! :-)

This is a fascinating thread. I've wondered how the director and DP on studio shoots manage to do their jobs without strangling each other. I always smile to myself every time a director mentions switching DPs in the middle of a shoot over "creative differences." Judging by the articles I've read in American Cinematographer, it seems to happen pretty regularly. I've never heard of a DP overthrowing the director though. On the last shoot I did, my partner, who is the director, story boarded the whole thing by herself, and I never even looked at her story boards. During the shoot, I'd just ask her what angle she wanted and how wide. Then I'd move the camera and the lights and frame the shot. I was amazed at how well it all cut together. (I had my doubts actually). Somebody recently commented that it was some of the best editing they've ever seen, and it was all cut in the camera!

Another version is the so-called, British system, where the DP is known as the "Lighting Cameraman" and the camera operator works with the director to set-up the shots, and then the Lighting Cameraman works his magic. But even this isn't written in stone.

There is a documentary out now on legendary cameraman, Haskell Wexler, who was known to be one of the most difficult DPs for directors to work with, as well as one of the most talented. And yes, even he was replaced in the middle of production for being difficult, and interfering with the director's relationship with the cast.

Moral of all of this is that if you are directing, you better be happy with your DP or it will have a negative effect on your work.

Wayne Orr, SOC

"Look out, Haskell! It's real!"

But of course he was directing that one. I'll have to check out that doc.

For an example of a lead actor nearly overthrowing a director (well, influencing the final cut anyway), check out the Alan Smithee scandal of American History X. There's an elaborative thread about it around here someplace from a couple of years ago.

For me, I like to work this way:

1. On short short films, esp. ones that Jon Fordham is shooting, I give him some ideas for lighting (warm, cold, bright, dark, contrasty, etc.) and angles, but he, for the most part, comes up with stuff that I approve. It's easy on a 2-3 page script, because we have time. If he's not shooting, and it's me, I just write down notes (I've only shot two short films and most of a feature). I prefer to NOT shoot, unless it's something I really can't explain, short of storyboards. When I shoot a film I'm directing, I end up neglecting the actors.

2. On my next film, 9:04 AM, I'm going to have extensive meetings with Jon F. about the look, lighting, angles, hand held vs. tripod, etc., then I'm going to draw up some key storyboards and some shot lists, and be loose with them. For the important scenes, that's where the storyboards or shot lists will go.

That's my style. Once upon a time, I was a dictator director and made my old DP Jeremiah Hall (now a co-producer with me) follow the hundreds of storyboards I drew up. And the actors were given line readings, which pissed them off to no end. I had forgotten it's a collaborative effort!

heath

The way I understood it, the Director is the artist, the DP is the tool... not meant in a derogatory way. The Director has the scene in his head, and relays his vision to the DP. It is up to the DP to make sure that the angle, dof, etc, are going to capture the scene to the Director's vision. While some Directors have skills behind the camera, they also have every other thing to deal with. They have actors to direct, which will bring HIS scene to life. Therefore, they hire a DOP to deal with the camera aspect, leaving him time to deal with the rest.

What happened is that I am directing my first feature film and although I worked hard with my actors, I also have a direct vision on what I want for the framing. However two incidents happened which upset me. The first was that I momentarily left the set and the DP proceeded to do a take without me there. Then the next day, while I was going to speak with my actors, he physically restrained me from walking to them and had me speak to them from where the camera was placed so that I could give them more directions on how to act.

This upset me a little because I felt overwhelmed from telling him exactly how I wanted the framing and the shots. I didn't want to step on his toes because he has more experience than me. I instead kept my thoughts to myself and allowed him to do all the shots and everything. I've been depressed because the film isn't turning into the film I wanted to make. Thanks a lot for your suggestions guys. It means a lot.

Should I approach him about this? How should I approach him about this?

I would have a word with him. Take a look at his take, and see how it measures up to your expectations. If he has more experience, he may have got what you wanted. However, YOU are the Director. YOU call the shots. If he has a thought on getting the shot, listen to him, but it is you that has the last word. He does not control the actors or the direction of the film.

That's not very cool, and something a DP should NEVER do, unless you trust him or her. Something like that would be grounds for termination on my set, but not necessarly your set.

A DP can make the film look good, based on your direction, but be careful they're not trying to get awesome shots for the reel. It's YOUR vision, ultimately.

heath

Finding someone you can work with can be really hard. There has to a synergy there or it can be a miserable experience. My partner and I have a lot of trust and respect for each other. On one occasion, she was ill and allowed me to direct and shoot a scene while she stayed home so we could stay on schedule. That's trust. It sure weirded out the actors, who probably thought they were watching a coup. I can't imagine a DP who would just take it upon himself to roll the camera without you even knowing. If you have options, I don't think it would be too extreme of a reaction to replace him with no further discussion. If you don't have that option, you at least need to have a firm talk with this joker. He clearly thinks it's his movie. Have this conversation one on one, or its going to explode on the set in front of cast and crew. You definitely don't want that. Don't let him make you think you're over reacting either. You're not. Keep the discussion firm, but productive, and remember -- never say anything when you are angry. That's just a good rule in general. Choose the time, place and terms of this discussion, stay on point, and do it soon. Also, before having the discussion, make sure you know in advance whether you are prepared to fire him or not if need be.

as a DP i'm there to serve the Director .. put the directors vision up on the screen ... then on small budgets there is the DP helping the producer/AD get the days/project work done on time .. so at times towards end of day director , DP , producer/AD must decide how much time is left and what shots can be done in that time or come back another day . the relationship on who does what just depends on the Director .. some just direct actors and let the DP take care of the image ..others like a hand in everything .. usually there are pre production meetings/rehersals and the shot list, mood/lighting is worked out by discussions between Director and DP .. then reality sets in on day of shoot and if you only have 4 hrs at a location that affects the shot list ..
= working TOGETHER ...

bottom line IMO it's the Directors call on where camera is placed, angle framing etc DP's are there to suggest , give different options .. the only thing i do not allow is the director to decide EXPOSURE of the negative, other then if they want deep or shallow DoF, hi/low shutter speed for effect .. i have to deliver a high quality negative to the producer.

A thought.
 

You are definitely not the only director that has had difficulties with their DP's. I understand your plight. You're probably thinking that if you say nothing and keep your opinions to yourself, then the shots will go smoothly and everyone will be happy...but you!

It's tough directing your first feature when everyone else around you has had much more filmmaking experience than you do. There is an incredible amount of pressure that is put on a director, especially if it's an independent feature that has a lot of other people's money invested into the film.

Working on an independent feature film, no matter how well a director and a DP gets along, will never be a smooth, easy operation. It never is. You will have your good days and your bad days, and what you hope for in the end is that you finish the production, on time, on budget, and that you got most of the shots that you originally wanted.

It's never too late to change the way the production is going. Pull your DP aside. Tell him/her your concerns, always be open minded and respectful, but never let anyone on YOUR SET intimidate or embarass you in front of your cast and crew. Once you let the set get away from you, then you'll see that everyone on the set will no longer listen to you.

Trust me. I have seen it happen many times.

Believe in yourself and your vision.

Don,

Thanks for chiming in... I was just about to post that we have heard a lot from directors on this topic, but not from DPs... I would would like to hear from more of you if you are reading...

I have been lucky and haven't had any real conflicts with my DPs. I enjoy the collaboration.

A DP's POV!
 

When a DP decides to work on an independent feature with a first time director, he/she will try to get a feel for what the director wants to accomplish. The interview process between the DP and the director becomes an important one because a seasoned DP does not want to go into a long project if the director doesn't know what he/she is doing.

I have seen first time directors/producers get funding for a project, book all the people and equipment, secure locations, etc., and within the first three days of production, the movie is called off because the director had become overwhelmed with the entire filmmaking process. This can be due to lack of preparation, arguments between departments, or that the director had not taken the initiative and maintain leadership when difficult situations arose.

As a DP, you want to see a strong director take charge of the film. When a director is not present on the set, always wandereing away, on the phone, or basically goofing around, then you'll see other people on the set start taking charge. It's very disheartening to see a first time director lose control of the set because he/she is doing everything else but directing.

For DP's:

- Be optimistic, supportive, and patient. A rookie director will look to you in many situations that will require your experience and expertise. Be open minded when you and the director have differences. Remember that negative vibes between the director and the DP will be picked up by everyone else on the set.

For first time directors:

- Be respectful to EVERYONE on and off the set. Come to the set prepared. Do not expect that things that were not worked out in pre-production will magically work itself out on the set (very bad idea). Always be present on the set. Do not try to be involved in EVERY aspect of production. Hire an experienced 1st AD (this person will make your life so much easier on the set). Pick your battles and trust those around you. Be a leader. Remeber, everyone on the set is trying their hardest to make your vision a reality.


For both DPs and first time directors:

Be professional.

I've read this thread with interest, as it is a subject near and dear to my heart. The story about the DP who wouldn't let the director walk over to the actors and also did a take without the director present is a bit baffling--hard to imagine someone with experience on a set thinking that is acceptable behavior; he should have quit the film before going to those ends. I would be interested in hearing his side of the story.

I wish it were the case that as projects get bigger, directors have more confidence or understanding of the visual side of the craft, but sadly this is not always the case (Spielberg is obviously a notable exception, as are many others). I have worked with directors who knew exactly where they wanted the camera and what focal length, but honestly it's been quite a while. Much more often these days I see directors with a vague idea of what they want, have trouble communicating what they want, or perhaps can only articulate what they don't want...mostly they need the DP to find the shot, block the whole scene and sometimes do most of their job for them, right down to communicating with the actors. It seems to be a growing epidemic, and I know more than a few DP's(I'll be bold and include myself) who really deserve co-directing credit for their contributions, which come not so much from a desire to take over the show as a need to do so, to fill the void left by directors who choose not to do their homework, put in 110% or even consider these things part of their job. But guess who takes credit for all once the movie is done?

Did you hire him? Does he answer to you or do you both answer to someone else above both of you?

If you hired him, or if he has to answer to you even if you did not hire him, then the way to approach it is "I appreciate your concern and your experience and I'm taking your input under advisement, but this is the way I want to do it."

Since the film is not turning out to be what you wanted it to be, how much worse - or better - could things have been if you stood up to him from the beginning? Maybe he'd have left and you would have found a better candidate. No matter what, it sounds like it can't be much worse. You get the credit or take the blame for how the film turns out, you know.

Keep your chin up!

BP

I have not had experience on features as a director, but I have written/directed/filmed/edited a lot of shorts. I can understand how things can get overwhelming. I can tell you how valuable an AD can be! My brother is usually my AD. The nice thing is we can be 101% direct with each other on how a scene should be and what I DON'T want to see. I play the role of the DP because no films we have done have warranted an actual DP yet.

I would have to say though, that if I am directing, what I say goes -period. Because who do people blame when the movie turns out bad -me! This doesn't mean, as said above, that I don't know my weaknesses. I do. I use every piece of talent made available to me though and am always willing to listen to suggestions. But in the end, it is the directors show...

Charles,

I was wondering if you were going to jump in. Thanks for doing so, always valuable to get your perspective.

I'm a bit surprised at how widespread you indicate that problem to be. What do you attribute this to? Any theories?

I'm not really sure, Richard, but perhaps it is a long progression of migration from music videos and commercials, from agency positions, from powerful actors setting up deals for their pals, etc. Writer/directors are hot now, which means that someone who might have spend little or no time on set but have written a good (or saleable) script are handed a directing deal. This one can be really catastrophic--this could be an individual that doesn't necessarily have a handle on the tools of film grammar, communicating with their crew or even their actors. My (actress) girlfriend saw an interview with Frank Miller after "Sin City" came out and was annoyed with the way he talked about Mickey Rourke doing it "all wrong" on the first day.

I guess to get the hot script, hire the writer to direct. Kinda like, if you love a house so much, offer more than what they want. Doesn't always work out on either end.

heath

When I'm directing, I have a strong idea about everything from acting to lighting/shots/lenses/movement. Everything. But be extremely open to suggestion. If what they suggest is better, then do it. Drop your ego. If you don't think it's better, don't do it. But also consider that the DP might have technical reasons as to why he suggests you should or should not do something. Also consider the speed you need to shoot at (setup time). Many disagree with me, but I see director more like the auteur, kind of like James Cameron, who kind of sees actors as moving props. Just lose the ego and listen to actors and dp and even gophers if they say something smart. Get what you want, but don't be a jerk, and also remember filmmaking is a collaboration.

I know someone who just shoots his own stuff, because he's not happy with what others will do. Of course, his first film was completely out of focus...

heath

Charles,

I think you're probably right in your assesment. And it goes back to 'where' the director comes up from I guess.

I worked (stunts) on a VERY big, small film. Shot in 35 (TWO panavision cameras) mini-epic. It was a trailer/short for a crusade flick. The director came up through the ranks as an 'art director'. Worked on some MAJOR sci fi flicks. Anyway... he had awesome storyboards, and you could see he was dedicated to capturing a very specific vision.

Nothing wrong with that.

Except it was driving the AD and DP's crazy. I mean, this guy would spend inordinate ammounts of time, dressing the set... while the actors, horses and crew would twiddle away. After a couple of days, the AD and DP's sort of went about, organizing the crew and setting up the shots... pretty much running the show... until it was time to shout 'action'. IN this case, it was all handled very well. BECAUSE the director, had these incredible story boards, everyone knew what the shot was supposed to look like. And they worked quietly and efficiently and respectfully, getting his vision on the film. He was actually more comfortable with that, and eventually, the workflow sorted itself out, and everyone was comfortable with it. It was only a seven day shoot, but it wound up looking great. Basically, the DP's and AD were pro's... stepped up and took over where the Director was weak... and kept it all moving forward on time and on budget.

In this case, because of the professionalism of everyone involved, it worked. But had their been major egos anywhere in that chain, I think it would have cratered.

I always tell directors not to shoot their own films, because they will slack off on the actors (I did that once) or star in it, because they'll lose an amazing amount of control.

heath

Certainly agreed on the first instance, I've had to do that a number of times on Instant Films and I always feel that my time that should be spent working with the actors is sacrificed. Can't speak to the second instance from my own experience, but obviously there have been a lot of exceptions to that one, from Woody Allen to Zach Braff...