When there's a very well-received movie, who are the most remembered people
responsible for the movie? It's by far mostly recognized by its lead actors.
For example everybody remembers the Rocky and Rambo movies because of
Sylvester Stallone, the Terminator movies because of Arnold Schwarzenegger,
and so on.

  In fewer cases a movie is popular and remembered for its director.
Alfred Hitchcock would be the quintessential example, but more recent
examples include George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, Stanley Kubrick,
Ridley Scott, Peter Jackson, and so on.

  In even fewer cases a movie is remembered by its producer, but mostly
if said producer is also a known director (or sometimes a known actor).
(That's the reason why so many movies are advertised with "from the
producers of <such and such other movie>" rather than "from <person>".)

  However, what is the single most important aspect of a movie? The actors?
Very important, but not the *most* important. The director? Likewise.
No, the most important aspect is the script. Without a good script you
don't have a movie. You can gather the best actors and directors in the
world, but if you don't have a script you don't have anything.

  What makes the movie great? Often good acting and directing are essential
for its greatness, but it's the script that makes it great. Without a story
you can't have a great movie. Somebody has to come up with the story and
write it down so that a movie can be made from it.

  Yet who remembers movies for their writers? Almost nobody. I certainly
don't. Often movies are adaptations of books, and the authors of those
books are sometimes well known. Even then someone else usually wrote the
movie script from the book. This might be understandable: It was the book
writer who came up with the story, not the script writer. However, with
original scripts this becomes more puzzling. Why do we not remember them?

  On the other hand, this is also good for the script writers: If the movie
flops completely, it's the actors, directors and producers who will get the
flack, seldom the script writer. The writer enjoys an almost complete
anonymity and nobody will remember him for the flop. He can go and write
other scripts for other movies.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

I am probably not a typical moviegoer, but I will often see a movie because of
who wrote it. Michael Crichton, David Koepp, Aaron Sorkin, Chris McQuarrie...
although to be honest, you're right, I don't know as many writers' names as
actors or directors. The director is usually my starting point. I mostly don't
care who any of the actors are. If anything, if I haven't heard of them, I'm
more likely to enjoy the film.

In general I agree, but I think a good director with a clear vision is, at the
very least, as equally important as a good script. You might get a good movie
(for any given definition of 'good' in this context) with one or the other, but
I'd say the greats all have both. Also important, and also often forgotten, is
the editing. This can often (especially these days) be grouped together with
direction, since most directors seem to direct this process too, in many cases
actually doing it themselves.

I'd say that writing, directing, acting and editing, when all concerned
share the same vision for the work, and are all enthusiastic about the material,
is the only way to do it properly. If any of these parties are just turning up
for the paycheck then the end result will suffer for it. (No coincidence that
many of the best-regarded films are written and directed, and often edited, by
the same person/people).

In fact, I think that of these four jobs, the acting is possibly the least
important. It needs to be adequate, and good acting will of course elevate a
film, but I find that once the acting is above a certain quality threshold, it
makes little difference to my enjoyment of it.

Of course, your mileage may vary, and I'm sure there are plenty of examples that
would make me change my mind about any of the above :)

Post a reply to this message

On 10/13/2011 0:17, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> In fact, I think that of these four jobs, the acting is possibly the least
> important. It needs to be adequate, and good acting will of course elevate a
> film, but I find that once the acting is above a certain quality threshold, it
> makes little difference to my enjoyment of it.

I think it depends to a large extent on the type of film, at least for me. A 
"chick flick" sort of film with bad acting is much worse than a blow-crap-up 
film with bad acting. :)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 10/13/2011 0:17, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> > In fact, I think that of these four jobs, the acting is possibly the least
> > important. It needs to be adequate, and good acting will of course elevate a
> > film, but I find that once the acting is above a certain quality threshold, it
> > makes little difference to my enjoyment of it.
>
> I think it depends to a large extent on the type of film, at least for me. A
> "chick flick" sort of film with bad acting is much worse than a blow-crap-up
> film with bad acting. :)

Agreed. The tone of the movie alters my 'adequacy threshold' too.

I also find movies with particularly bold examples of editing/acting/whatever
when all other aspects are weak to be quite memorable. For example, 'Crank',
which is not winning any prizes for story, dialogue, acting etc, is an
entertaining, enjoyable movie almost entirely due to the hectic editing style.

Post a reply to this message

On 10/13/2011 23:54, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Agreed. The tone of the movie alters my 'adequacy threshold' too.

I'm trying to remember the name of a movie. The wife winds up sleeping with 
the french guy she met, cheating on her husband. On the subway ride home, 
you just see a five-minute long shot thru the door of the next car as she's 
sitting on the subway, regretting what she has done. Without a word, you can 
see every thought going thru her head. It's really phenominal acting.

Maybe it's more that every once in a while, the acting is *is* good that is 
slaps you in the face and really makes the movie.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message