Open Forum Friday: Who Are More Important… Actors or Directors?
Here’s a fun little debate that I have been meaning to post for a while now. Making a movie, even a low budget one, requires the talent and efforts of a whole lot of different people (the credits at the end of all your favourite movies will tell you this much). It’s hard to pin the success or failure of a movie on one or even just a few of the people involved, but there are some positions that tend to get more attention than all the others: specifically, the director and the primary cast. When we talk about movies, we usually care most about who is in it, and who is directing it. What I want to know is, which one is more important to you?
I’m not the kind of person who keenly follows favourite actors from movie to movie, so you can probably guess that I lean towards the director in this debate. If you look at a movie as a work of art (which, admittedly, many people don’t) then you have to acknowledge the director as the one with the ultimate creative vision behind it. A good director is consistent and reliable, and will often get me out to see a movie about a subject I wouldn’t normally care about. However, most people I know are only concerned with the stars of a film, and will often refuse to see something just because a particular actor they dislike is in it. I suppose this makes sense in some ways, since they are the ones you identify with and grow attached to in a story, but ultimately actors should be mere pawns for the director to mold. So pick a side… actors or director? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.
Comments (5)
Depends on the film? Some people are more likely to watch a film because a certain actor is playing the lead, while other people watch because of the director (Speilberg, Scorsese…Columbus)
Posted by roy on February 16th, 2007Actors are sometimes drawn to projects based on who’s directing…
The director is definitely more important when it comes to the production (and acting) as a whole.
I think they share an equal part but also a director is there to control an entire film and bring out the bext in an actor. I think director may tip the scalel, but at the same time this is all objective it depends on a lot of specific things. This is a question that can’t simply be answered.
Posted by jackson main on February 16th, 2007The director is more important when it comes to the final product. But of course film making is a collaborative effort so you really need both.For exsample I personally think that Christopher Nolan hasn’t made a bad film yet. But every actor I admire has at least 2 or 3 bad films under their belt.
Posted by The man on February 17th, 2007As you succinctly pointed out, the director is the most important in determining whether the film is good from an artistic perspective. The actor exerts his importance in determining the entertainment value of a film.
Personally, I tend to follow directors more than actors, because I like to watch films based on the merits of the story and how it’s told.
Tom Cruise and Ziyi Zhang are the only two actors I know who make consistently good films. I guess it helps that they have the clout to choose their directors.
I think the Academy Awards should have a category for Best Film Starring an Actor Who also Directed the Film. Hmm… Unforgiven and Dancing with Wolves come to mind. We need more of these films. Oh, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier. Right. That got a Razzie or whatever it’s called. Never mind.
Posted by Pacifistopheles on February 17th, 2007Hello my friends
Posted by SiveWeede on April 10th, 2008Leave a Reply