Alphabet Movie challenge: day 4
Dream Director pairing
Answer: Frank Darabont
Frank Darabont is known for visually stunning movies like The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile and The Majestic, as well as the first episode of the wildly popular The Walking Dead… which is the only episode I’ve seen because I’m a sissy 😳
It would be enjoyable to see Richard involved in another project that has both emotional and visual elements to distract us from the fact that it’s him up there on that giant screen 😉
(non-Armitage answer: Joe Wright and Christian Bale)
Nowhere in Particular RA 
Shawshank not my favorite, but it’s a big favorite with a lot of people. I just would like to see him work with a good director like PJ. In a meaningful role. He needs a bigger Hollywood rep, I think. Once directors know how wonderful he is, I’m sure he’d have it made!
LikeLike
the relationship Richard seemed to have w/PJ was ideal, for the director to encourage input & be willing to hear diff’t ideas. the fact that this doesn’t happen more often baffles me 😕
LikeLike
I think that the film belongs to the director. It’s his/her vision, not the actors. They were hired to perform a role. To do what they’re told. PJ is different. His method is to be collaborative with the actors in order to get the best performance from them. And all of them gave their life’s blood to him practically.
LikeLike
directing a film is a group effort and any director who thinks/behaves otherwise better hope his actors don’t have more pull than him with the studios or he could be packing his bags sooner than he anticipated 😉 I’m not saying the director should give up his vision to appease the actors, but a good director gives those opinions/suggestions weight and makes an informed decision that’s best for the overall film 😎
LikeLike
LOL! OK if you say so. I’ve read a lot of different accounts, but since I have no direct experience of the process, I can’t argue. Clint Eastwood, you know maps out every shot before he starts shooting. Not a lot of room for actors input there!
LikeLike
it’s rare that a director gets replaced because of creative differences; it’s usually the actors, screenwriters, etc. but technically it *can* happen 🙂 but input before filming has even begun (like how Richard helped create the character) is very rare, I think 😕
LikeLike
I agree with you that it’s a good idea to work with the actors, and that it’s rare that a director has as much confidence as PJ to let the actor develop the character like RA and Thorin. 😀
LikeLike
No, you must agree with me on everything! and while we’re at it, Shawshank is an excellent movie and I order you to not only like it but LOVE it! now get busy on that, pronto! ( 😛 )
LikeLike
😀 Absolutely! After all, it’s YOUR blog! 😀 😀
LikeLike
blah! it would be boring if everyone thought like me 🙄 so just keep on being you 😀
LikeLike
I have to disagree with the comment about Clint Eastwood and actors not having a lot of input in his films. Case in point would be Mystic River. One of the things that Clint does is get everyone up on their game, and they often rehearse on their own, so they are all ready to go when the cameras roll. That’s why that film just flowed and flowed and flowed, because the actors rehearsed, even on their own to be ready for Eastwood, but it was their performance as much as his direction that made that film as powerful as it was. Mystic River may have been a Clint Eastwood film, but it was also Sean Penn’s, Kevin Bacon’s, Tim Robbins’, Marcia Gay Harden’s and Laura Linney’s. Eastwood may map out every shot because that’s what directors do, but it’s up to the actors to rise up to the challenge of not just showing up, but doing the best they can.
“Clint Eastwood often casts his actors off of tape. He watches actors performances in other movies and television shows to get a feeling of what they can do. Then when the actors arrive on set, he allows them to show him what they want to do in a scene. Eastwood may give them an adjustment, but, for the most part, he trusts his actors. He knows what they are capable of from their past performances and thus trusts his actors to do their preparation and homework.”
– http://www.zimbio.com/Clint+Eastwood/articles/62/Clint+Eastwood+Directing+Techniques+Directing
A film is a collaboration – from the director himself to the lowly PA who has to fetch the coffee. To say a feature film belongs to the director may apply to some, very very few people, but without the actors to direct, all the director is going to get is some nice scenery (if he also happens to be good with locations), a good script (if he happened to write it) and nothing else. Maybe someone to get his coffee, but that’s about it.
LikeLike
I didn’t mean to say that Clint Eastwood didn’t prepare the actors for the film, just that he is different from PJ in that he knows exactly what he wants in each scene while PJ seems more free flowing and allows the actors to have a lot of input about what he shoots.
LikeLike
thank you for that very informative reply 😎 it was interesting to read about Clint’s style, since I do enjoy him as an actor 😀 I wonder if directors who also act have better relations with the actors they are directing, since they know how it feels? or is it mostly like Richard said about Andy Serkis, that he pushes you harder b/c he’s “been there, done that” and if he can do it, so can you 😕
LikeLike
IMO , recipe for movie succsess (or not 😉 ) is : great script+ great actors + any efficient director.
LikeLike
a movie would just be a stage play without the director’s creative vision, but at the same time they also need to be a grand task master specializing in public relations 😕 it all goes hand in hand, in my opinion: if you have a great director and a great script but your actors are sub-par & can’t follow direction…or if you have great actors and a good director but your dialogue sounds like it came straight from a comic book…all the pieces of the machine need to do their part in order for it to work 😎
LikeLike