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