Most people know that a film director works with actors. Every time we see a depiction of a film director in movies or on tv, they're yelling at actors or spitting out their cold Latte on set. Most people know the director is the boss of a film, which is true in terms of the story telling aspects of the film. And it's not uncommon for a producer to have directorial input especially in the case of an inexperienced director.
The director primarily delegates to the department heads and works directly with the actors who are the primary instruments in telling the film story.
The director of photography (or cinematographer, same thing) delegates to their camera operator, First AC, Gaffer, and Key Grip and works directly with the director to realize their vision.
How much control a DP has really depends, because some directors are fairly hands off with visuals and some are not, even operating camera on occasion. Think of the cinematographer as the photographer of the film, which means they oversee the equipment used, the personnel setting up lighting, and very often operating camera (not always).
I've
worked with directors who story boarded every frame, and some who had
zero input on visuals. Most often there's some give and take with
respect to visuals, meaning the DP will have ideas, some motivated by
aesthetics and some motivated by more practical demands, and the
director will have ideas that are motivated by the way they want to
tell the story. The DP ideally would have story telling foremost in mind and would use lighting, lens choice, and camera placement to enhance the director and writer's vision.
If they have a
good working relationship, the DP will concede when the director wants
something specific, and the director will ideally recognize a better approach
when the DP has one. Most often, there's going to be general agreement on most things in terms of the cinematography between an experienced director and DP.
I've worked with a number of inexperienced directors who ended up with decent looking films because they knew enough to not exert too much influence on the cinematography. The smartest thing a first time director can do (besides making at least a half dozen shorts before embarking on a feature length film production) is to hire an experienced DP and an experienced cast and try to learn from them.
An experienced cinematographer knows how to shoot scenes so they can be successfully edited and tell the story at hand. Experienced actors are always willing to suggest better dialog, blocking, and even story tweaks, which may or may not enhance the storytelling.
Sometimes films are directed by 2 person teams, and even small groups of people, but I think in most cases, that's a bad idea.
"One man writes a novel. One man writes a symphony. It is essential that one man make a film."
-Stanley Kubrick
Really, the vision for the film should be retained in the mind of the director. One director. Why? Because there are SO many things that can chip away at the vision for the film that the director needs to have the control required to force that vision above all else. I worked on a feature film once that officially had two directors, but really it was a committee of 7 directors, and needless to say, the film was not a success and featured many 14-16 hour shoot days due to excessive discussions by the committee of directors.
Of course, the cinematographer has to have similar control as a consistent visual approach, and even though ALL department heads need to also maintain a consistent approach, it's the director who has the final say on how scenes are created. It's the director's film and if it fails, it's on them, not any of the various personnel who had input into it's creation.
©2021 Chris Santucci
