Direction Vs. Script.

Bipolar Joe

How much of a movie is down to direction, versus how much is down the script? Using Zero Theorem as an example, a lot of people have said that it seems like just another Gilliam film. It definitely has the look of one, and is very much like Brazil, but it was written by this guy. So, is it a film Gilliam used his style to film, with a script that had elements like his other films? If so, is that why he wanted to direct it? Apparently, he wanted to make 12 Monkeys because it had some similarities with Brazil. When it comes down to any movie written and directed by different people, if the movie is good or bad, who is mostly to blame?

Not necessarily singling out Zero Theorem, just that it's a recent movie that came to mind. This is something I think about a fair bit. You can't polish a turd (Apart from you can, but we'll leave it to Mythbusters), but can a director completely save a God awful script and turn it into a cinematic masterpiece without rewrites?

johnny_ultimate

Like the thread on editing, sometimes script and direction can become so tightly interwoven it's difficult to separate one from the other. Many great films are simply complete packages where everything operates harmoniously. But I definitely think a good script can be wasted with poor direction, and a bad script can be saved by strong direction - actually there's many permutations possible! When editing and production are taken into account, the script could have changed dramatically from what was written down by the screenwriter - while I have no doubt Zero Theorem was quite Gilliamesque to begin with, obviously Gilliam would have added both consciously and subconsciously his own slant on the material, as any director would.

The strongest case I've seen recently is Stoker. The script from Prison Break actor Wentworth Miller is in many ways fairly standard stuff - interesting in parts but also familiar and cliched at times. But in Park Chan-wook's hands it becomes something far more than it would have been in the hands of a lesser director - bringing out the best parts of the script through sheer boldness of delivery and even allowing us to forgive some of its shortcoming. I could definitely separate direction and script when watching, and the former definitely outclassed the latter.

Mickeroo

Natural Born Killers is a good example here too I think, if Tarantino had made the film himself it would have been completely different imo. Most likely full of humour, extreme violence and snappy dialogue, instead we got a very strange film completely down to Oliver Stone's direction.

charlie_says

I hate crap scripts much more so than poor direction. For instance I loathed Gravity because of the script whilst the direction was pretty damn awesome sauce.

If the dialog is interesting enough I would be much more forgiving of shoddy direction, although the annoying use of the reverse angle shot is getting a bit to prevalent for my tastes these days, as it's a bit lazy in my book. If the dialog is worth it's definitely less noticeable.

I think that poor scripting is much more common than poor directing in general. A lot of direction if it doesn't impressive is of fairly journeyman quality, whilst the scripting can be way all over the place quality wise.

Telecaster58

The argument about auteur directors raises a lot of passions. Personally, I subscribe to it and the example I give people is the film The Big Sleep. The original was made with a proper director, Howard Hawks, a great star in the main role, Humphrey Bogart and a cracking script that crackled and the film was wonderful.
Fast forward 30 years and we have the same source material, a Raymond Chandler book, a top drawer couple of actors, the late great Robert Mitchum and James Stewart, and a director in the person of Michael Winner. Result, bloody awful film.
Close thread.

e_e

I'd rather a bad script than a bad director any day of the week. I think the best filmmakers can transcend their material anyway. Like how amazing would 2001: A Space Odyssey be on paper?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

I was kind of thinking about this the other day when I tried, and failed, to watch a second Noah Baumbach directed film.

Both Greenberg and Margot At The Wedding were awful, in my opinion, horrible character going nowhere and talking a lot about nothing. When I looked him up to see what else he'd done I was surprised to see he'd written Fantastic Mr Fox (with Anderson), which I loved. Which led me to the conclusion that he's a terrible director, and also made me wonder was it Wes Anderson's direction rather than Baumbach's script that made me love Fantastic Mr. Fox?

Banjaxed82

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I was kind of thinking about this the other day when I tried, and failed, to watch a second Noah Baumbach directed film.

Both Greenberg and Margot At The Wedding were awful, in my opinion, horrible character going nowhere and talking a lot about nothing. When I looked him up to see what else he'd done I was surprised to see he'd written Fantastic Mr Fox (with Anderson), which I loved. Which led me to the conclusion that he's a terrible director, and also made me wonder was it Wes Anderson's direction rather than Baumbach's script that made me love Fantastic Mr. Fox?

I thought Squid and the Whale was great. Script was really good albeit generic but effective "indie" direction.

Banjaxed82

e_e wrote: »

I'd rather a bad script than a bad director any day of the week. I think the best filmmakers can transcend their material anyway. Like how amazing would 2001: A Space Odyssey be on paper?

What great scripts has anyone read that were subsequently mangled on screen? I'm talking shooting scripts (not early drafts) that were killed due to bad direction?

Adamantium

Here's an example McG was the guy directed Terminator Salvation. He directed the hell out of that movie despite the dodgy, constantly changing script.

They brought on the two hacks from T3, who he should have known were bad enough to begin, along with what must have been some (very assuredly light) Johnathon Nolan dialogue doctoring.

The chase sequence at the beginning is great and well cherographed and clear kinetic as are numerous scenes, that convey the vastness of the landscape (aircraft battles, bombing raids, canyon fights). The Mad Max/Fallout 3 mixed with Terminator dayscape isn't what I wanted intially, but he went for the realistic option and I really dug it in the end.

Its one of those movies that's almost great and and there's an amazing film about the future war, in there screaming to get out.

Dirty Dingus McGee

For a second I though this thread was going to be a comparison between 2 really crap bands

e_e

Banjaxed82 wrote: »

What great scripts has anyone read that were subsequently mangled on screen? I'm talking shooting scripts (not early drafts) that were killed due to bad direction?

They weren't exactly mangled on screen but I'd count Philomena and Saving Mr Banks as very good scripts that were dragged down by utterly banal direction.

Miguel_Sanchez

charlie_says wrote: »

If the dialog is interesting enough I would be much more forgiving of shoddy direction, although the annoying use of the reverse angle shot is getting a bit to prevalent for my tastes these days, as it's a bit lazy in my book.

Do you mean you find the reverse angle shot in dialogue scenes annoying or you find boring editing of the same annoying?

Zubeneschamali

e_e wrote: »

Like how amazing would 2001: A Space Odyssey be on paper?

Pretty amazing: Arthur Clarke's 3rd or 4th best novel.

The movie is still better than anything else Clarke or Kubrick did or even even sneezed near. Synchronicity.

e_e

Was talking entirely about the filming script, but ok.

Zubeneschamali

e_e wrote: »

Was talking entirely about the filming script, but ok.

Kubrick and Clarke wrote the script and novel at the same time, although some changes to the filming script were too late for the novel.

The journey was suppose to go to Iapetus, a strange moon of Saturn, but Doug Trumbull couldn't do Saturn's rings, and they moved the film to Jupiter.

Just as well, since Iapetus is peculiar, but not nearly as peculiar as in Clarke's novel/script. Not that anyone would have known in 1968, but we know now.

charlie_says

Miguel_Sanchez wrote: »

Do you mean you find the reverse angle shot in dialogue scenes annoying or you find boring editing of the same annoying?

-

Bit of both. The director would have some input on the editing in most films wouldn't they?

It's actually not really that annoying but since I mentioned I now notice it more and more, like a itch. Maybe I'm just OCD :pac:

norrie rugger

At first I misread the title as One Direction Vs. The Script!!

AnonoBoy

norrie rugger wrote: »

At first I misread the title as One Direction Vs. The Script!!

No matter who wins.... we lose!

Miguel_Sanchez

charlie_says wrote: »

-

Bit of both. The director would have some input on the editing in most films wouldn't they?

It's actually not really that annoying but since I mentioned I now notice it more and more, like a itch. Maybe I'm just OCD :pac:

The director would have a huge amount of input into the editing.

I think reverse angles are necessary really for your standard set up but when it cuts back and forth to each person as they're speaking it gets very boring alright. It can be much more interesting to sit on a character's reaction to what's been said to them sometimes.