STORYTELLING AS A DIRECTOR

I'm not sure at what age I consciously knew the difference between a director and a writer. My early movie heroes included Spielberg, Amy Herkerling, Bob Zemeckis, Penny Marshall, James Cameron, Tarantino, Kevin Smith, and later Ava Duverney, Marielle Heller, and Julio Torres. All of them are what I guess we call 'auters'. Full disclosure, I ABHORE that term. Perhaps because I've made dozens of narrative projects in various roles and I know what it takes to put a film or television show together. The notion of ONE person being responsible for that feels incredibly hollow to me. I understand that not all people feel that way, and I respect that. On my feature debut, however, Iy asked my reps to make sure that the credit provision was NOT 'A Film By' but rather, 'Directed by'. I realize I may feel differently about it at some point, but for the past twenty years in the business, this has been my general feeling. And to some extent, it's challenged me in regards to how I think about directing as a storytelling medium.

As a kid and a young filmmaker later, I always sort of felt like the writer was the director and the director was the writer. Atleast, that ONE of them was the king of the project, the person who bore the original 'vision' as it were, that others ultimately served and later built together.

But in the 1990s as I started to watch more films with different writer/director combos and did more research on my heroes, I found to my surprise, that they too often wore different hats on various projects where they did not reign supreme -- I found myself really asking, what is the role of the director as a storyteller?

At this point, you probably know and at the very least associate the director with the person responsible for the visual language (as supported by the cinematographer), and the person who told the story in the way they selected performances, costumes, colors, etc. All of that is true, but having been on multiple sets as a producer, writer and now a director on a handful of occasions, I have a completely different appreciation for the role of the director that goes beyond just visual language to the heart of the storytelling.

Take a televsion show like SEVERANCE for example. The pilot line about the “endless hallway” in the scene where we witness Mark walking to his office for the first time could have been interpreted a number of ways. The way it’s shot, the sparseness of the hallway, how narrow it feels are all directorial choices — but so is Marks demeanor, so is the LENGTH of the walking sequence which could have been much shorter. Though if it were you wouldn’t get the immediate sense that something is really off around here. The directors, Ben Stiller and Aoife McArdle, do an incredible job of always making you feel just slightly off kilter. And in different hands, the pilot and thus the rest of the show would have felt very different.

The writing is exceptional don’t get me wrong , and the choice to switch from the original pilot (Mister) script to the one where we meet Helly before we meet mark (The Truth About Hell), arguably made the show the success it became, but if you read that script and any other pilot script, you’ll begin to see how the director enhances the story. In severance you see it with the duration of the shots, the sparseness of the sets, the “business” that is given to the actors in the scene (or at least approved and supported by the director), the way the color palate and costume selection all work together adds layers upon layers to the theme, plot, characters and overall story.

I try to imagine that same pilot in the hands of Nolan — quicker shot transitions — or Wes Anderson— more symmetrical composition in tandem with the set design— or Tarantino who might likely do more quick zoom-ins or Iñárritu who might have asked for more handheld work mixed in with longer extended oneshot scenes. Any number of these choices would have not just given us a different environment but with the same exact script, would have produced vastly different shows even with the same crew. Why… because the more professional the crew, the more they are singularly focused on bringing the director's vision to life and thus their suggestions for how to make it come alive will vary based on the director's input about his/her/their vision for the material.

The director really is the quarterback of how the show will ultimately feel to you— so pick that person wisely. They will deepen the story, find layers and foreshadowing you hadn’t even thought up. I once worked with a director who had a character in the film who we later learn had been a cutter. He spoke to the actress and asked her if she might feel comfortable wearing a rubber band or hair tie around her wrist, giving her the business often of snapping it— a remnant of past trauma that hadn’t quite left her yet. It was brilliant and not only enhanced the story but then gave way to unique shots, conversations about costumes, and colors and props. If allowed us to tease things that were to come. And that’s not something that any of us had found yet on the page , but once it was found by the director, gave the writers some ideas to play with that element to further deepen the script.

I still hold that filmmaking is a team sport. And that the director is a part of that team like everyone else, but be mindful that whoever is the director that comes in, they will affect not just the visual style of the movie but the overall way in which the story you wrote is actually being told.