A few weeks ago we posted a story about Terry Gilliam being upset with Harvey and Bob Weinstein over a couple (just 2 if I’m not mistaken) decisions they made over Gilliam in The Brothers Grimm (replacing one of the actresses and the cinematographer).
I made my position pretty clear in that post. The director works for the Producers. The Producers (the people putting up the money) hire the director to bring a vision to a film… and also to make sure that vision stays in line with the Producers vision. If the Producers feel the director is getting too far away from their vision… OR… if they feel the director is making poor BUSINESS decisions that effects the Producers money… then I believe the producers have the right (and responsibility) to step in (on very rare occasions) and veto the director.
The two (Producer and Director) must work together as a team. Terry Gilliam (who I like very much) in my opinion acted a bit like a baby crying that he wasn’t getting EVERYTHING his own way (2 decisions vetoed in a film with 5000 decisions to be made).
But now, it looks like Gilliam is acting more like the professional he really is. The good folks over at M&C give us this:
He says, “I had to let the air clear. Somehow, the film Bob Weinstein had in his head wasn’t the film we made. All films are like this. You reach a point at the end when everyone is going crazy and starts talking about this ‘one’ thing that, if we can get it, will make everything right.
“It’s bulls**t. But, after making Tideland, I came back for a few changes. Ironically, we ended up cutting out the most expensive scene in the movie. I didn’t want to do it – but we did, and I have to admit it is better for it.”
Producers almost ALWAYS step in at some rare points to give the director some direction. This is a good thing, and makes for better movies. However, a producer who gets too involved can just be a disruptive influence on a film. It’s a fine line and a delicate balance… but one that makes better movies in my opinion.
John,
You are right that producers make business decissions and directors make artistic ones. And I would agree that the firing of an actress and a cinematographer are more business than art. But if you’ve ever been a director on a film-set you would know that producers are almost always the most meddlesome in any film-making relationship. A film is the child of one man – Director. If my producers can’t handle that, they shouldn’t have goddamned hired me.
Juicy
“Producers almost ALWAYS step in at some rare points to give the director some direction. This is a good thing, and makes for better movies.
“And I agree with you… sometimes the decisions being past down from the producers are financial ones. But that’s their right… because it’s their money, not the directors. If it was your money… you’d have something to say about it too. It’s REALLY easy to have big grand visions when it’s not your check book that’ll be paying the bills for it.”
This is big load of bollocks…. if they wan’t to make the movie then fucking direct it your self…
what a load of utter bollocks…..
John, always remember: sometimes a producer will try to:
Take away Superman’s cape.
Won’t let him fly.
Get rid of his red/blue/yellow suit.
Make him fight a polar bear.
Make him fight a giant spider.
Hey there Jay,
You statement of “Nearly every famous movie has some story about the producer coming up with some ridiculous idea and the battle that ensues between creative and the money.” Is not really true. There are stories, but they fall in the vast minority. They’re just the stories you remember because they have some drama with them.
Read Peter Jacksons’ account of how New Line was instrumental in helping him with Lord of the Rings… and how they even pulled rank on him a couple of times that ultimatly lead to a better film in his opinion.
The thing is… we don’t hear the stories of all the times (vast majority) the studios decisions were followed… because there’s no drama there. We only ever hear the stories about the very rare times that the directors and studios fight and the studio gives in.
And I agree with you… sometimes the decisions being past down from the producers are financial ones. But that’s their right… because it’s their money, not the directors. If it was your money… you’d have something to say about it too. It’s REALLY easy to have big grand visions when it’s not your check book that’ll be paying the bills for it.
I’ve said this before. Directors are the experts when it comes to the ART of filmmaking. Producers are the experts when it comes tothe BUSINESS of filmmaking. The two MUST work together to make a successful project.
Why do so many people have this idea that there’s this big battle between directors and Producers? And that Directors=Good and always right while Producers=Bad and always wrong? That’s just plain not the case. For example, read Gilliam’s comments in this post above.
Cheers!
“Producers almost ALWAYS step in at some rare points to give the director some direction. This is a good thing, and makes for better movies.”
Complete and total hogwash. Nearly every famous movie has some story about the producer coming up with some ridiculous idea and the battle that ensues between creative and the money.
Hell, William Goldman’s “Adventures in the Screen Trade” is one long bitch session about this very subject.