All Directors Should Be Animators First

Steven Spielberg speaking at AFI in 1978.

(via @alba, @justTinGuyer, @aumantm)

Comments

[George Loch]

I feel the same way actually. In animation, nothing is taken for granted. All the details have to be addressed because you can tell when they are not.

-gl

[chris]

the other thing is that animation is so much work that you'd better think before you do something that you're not sure about... otherwise that little short film wont be finished in the next 10 years ;)

[d.c. joseph]

that video reminded me of this one. i love it. check it out, stu.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=walter%20murch&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wv#

[Eugenia]

Hehe, good thing I can actually (somewhat) sketch (self-taught since age of 4). I guess I might have it easy in this job. ;-D

[storiestold]

What does Steve Spielberg know? Dude is a hack.

[maltinghead]

He's no Michael Bay.

[Blake]

Haha, how serendipitous! I was reading just today your 'Composition' and 'Moving the Camera' sections in the DV Rebel's Guide, which contains the concept of animation being an additive process and filmmaking being a subtractive one. Good stuff. Good material. Cool to see Spielberg back then.

[William]

I understand what Spielberg is saying and how attractive the statement is, particularly for us DIY-ers, but I think there's a danger of treating actors like nothing more than a pixel source. There's a reification process that plagues modern cinema. Even Megan Fox said she didn't get to act too much in TRotF. She was reduced to a pixel source for further refinement and manipulation.

[WinWinWin]

@william
I see where you're going, but I don't think your point should rest on the shoulders of how Megan Fox's performance is manipulated and/or interpreted.
It's Megan Fox, she's supposed to be pixel candy, at least for now.
Maybe later in her career, if she blossoms it'll be a a legitimate argument to make, but for now...no.

On the subject, I think animators have a great sense of what they want artistically, but how they communicate their ideas among others in person may not come as natural. Therefore, to add to what Spielberg said, I think that along with animation skills, social/communication skills are also very very important. Not everybody you work with communicates on the same level, nor are they equally receptive of other's ideas. Directors need to understand that when engaging in any collaborative effort in order to avoid conflicts that could potentially damage the progress of a project.

[William]

@WinWinWin
"she's supposed to be pixel candy"
This is what saddens me about modern cinema.

[Mike Werckle]

Stu, I have to agree and disagree with you on this one.

As a fellow director trained as an animator I do think learning animation is a great way to learn film. I switched to the animation department at CalArts to learn film after hearing Tim Burton give a talk there. It was around the time he did Batman and he explained how being trained in animation helped prepare him to be a live action director. His reasoning was that as an animator you have to do everything: not only the directing, but the acting, the editing, the cinematography, the lighting, the sets, costumes and props, sound etc. I was sold and I jumped ship to animation the next semester.

But should all directors be trained as animators?

There are plenty of great directors who have never been trained in animation, including Spielberg himself. Spielberg's point that directors should know exactly what they want before hand is well taken, but in my opinion it's only one way of working. There are other tools in the toolbox.

For example, not knowing what you want can be a powerful tool as well. It turns the work in to a process of discovery and leaves room for improvisation and happy accidents. Although you probably wouldn't want to work this way when flipping cars, it can be appropriate in scenes that are driven by character or behavior. An overly controlling director risks stifling the richness and subtlety of an actor's performance if they are not careful.

Also, an overly decisive director can come across to his or her crew as dictatorial-- and this can stifle any creative contribution they might make, which could lead to the loss of a feeling of investment in a project. Not usually as much of a problem for a well compensated Hollywood pro, but something for indy directors to keep in mind-- you don't want to waste the valuable resources around you because every idea has to be your own.

So know exactly what you want, I say. But also know that it's okay to not know what you want, as long as it is a conscious choice.

[Brian]

@Mike Werckle

Great to hear your perspective, Mike. Thanks for sharing.

[radraven]

I couldn't agree more with your comment Mike, namely with the reference on how to make your (under/nopaid) crew feel that they are a vital and special part of the process, but would also like to reiterate...

What you really need to know is your story and characters inside out!
If you can think like any of them at any given moment, your happy accidents might not be so accidental after all?!

With the story and every character living and breathing in his mind, a well rounded filmmaker, will feel in his gut, how to best exploit the unaccounted/unexpected factor to better tell the story, which should be the ultimate goal after all.

T ; )~

[jason]

While shooting Eyes Wide Shut, Nikole Kidman got blocked in one scene and they were not getting anywhere.
She asked Kubrick: What do you want?
He replied:
I want the magic.

[christopher]

"For example, not knowing what you want can be a powerful tool as well. It turns the work in to a process of discovery and leaves room for improvisation and happy accidents."

gotta say i disagree. i don't think spielberg is saying you have to have everything locked down first - he's saying you have to know what you want. im sure animators have happy accidents when they're drawing frames or running through flipbooks. like he said, once you know what you want - you can then go about getting it.

that doesn't exclude contributions from crew members. what frustrates me most as a contributor is not when im not listened to - it's when im not listened to because the idiot in charge has no idea what they're doing or what they want. if they know what they want, then they know if my contribution is useful or not. that's what's required from the director. somebody has to make the decisions as to what goes into a film and what doesn't. and that's the director's job - which requires knowing what the film is supposed to be.

i don't believe knowing that = inflexibility. if anything it allows for flexibility. you can recognize if what is being offered, the new possible direction, is better than what you started with.