Director/Producer

I have been seeing this lately, well that is a lie. It has been happening for some time.

But the considering the movie I just reviewed, it comes to light even more for me.

For instance, Pierre Morel, The director of Taken and Banlieue 13. He is the director of the movie. Luc Besson is the producer. But some searching on the internet, reveals that most people refer to Banlieue 13 as Luc Besson's film. And Taken was advertised as being a Besson film. I even thought it was a Besson film until I went to see the movie.

Now I am a huge fan of Nikita, Léon and The Fifth Element. However it is beginning to irk me that Besson is credited for films that he does not direct.

So have at it. What do you think is more relevant to the movie industry nowadays...the director or the producer?

Relevant to the movie industry? It would have to be the producer otherwise the money to make the film wouldn't exist.

Relevant to the intrinsic quality of the film itself? That would be the director. It's their artistic skills, or lack thereof, that leave their indelible stamp on a film.

But the producer has a lot of say in the director's work, while the director does not in vice versa. I would say producer, if only because I want to be one someday. And in memory of Danny Tripp and Matt Albie.

Originally Posted by Unorthodoxt

I have been seeing this lately, well that is a lie. It has been happening for some time.

What exactly is a lie? Luc Besson has his fingers in a lot of pies and is actually involved in making these movies, one way or another. A little research reveals that he not only produced both movies you mentioned, he also wrote Taken and was a writer on Banlieue 13. He actually created the production company that makes a lot of these movies possible.
That aside, purely for advertisement reasons it makes sense highlighting Besson's involvement and there's nothing unfair or misleading about it. A director is not the sole creator of a movie, often times the producer will choose a director for his project.
So I really don't see what the problem is here.
What's worse is advertisement where they use some famous director like e.g. Tarantino and connect him to the movie because he liked it or whatever. Kinda like "Tarantino presents" and his name looks more prominent than the actual director's.

It is the death of the director as the artistic force behind the movie.

And it is unfair when you read about these movies being Luc Besson movies. But not Pierre Morel movies. Why not just do away with the director and we can have the movies created for the sole reason to make lots of money for the Producer and his Production company.

When did it become more about the producer?

Originally Posted by Unorthodoxt

When did it become more about the producer?

When nobody knows the director and you're trying to make money.

You know, it really isn't a cut and dry yes or no question.

It really comes down to the power and input the producer has on set as opposed to the director. The auteur theory was never real, just a way of signaling out one person for whom to pin the entire outcome of the movie on. Some directors may take the time to go into every minute detail of art design, costume, editing, lighting, lens and stock choices, acting, etc etc, and others may be happier just to sit back and allow the different departments to do their jobs as they see fit.

And this may also be true for the Producer. They may be the ones who made all the choices and the only choices the director made were what the actors were doing and where the camera was placed and how it moves.

Every film is different. Heck, sometimes, the DP has more power on the set in so far as what we see in the end product, but we would never get a film marketed with the DP's name in the headline.

The industry is and has always been about the money. Lucas has produced far more than he has directed and still gets tagged as bringing you the movie, same for Coppola, Spielberg, and others. If that's the name that's gonna get tickets sold and butt's in the seats, then go for it. If the movies a success and the director begins getting around, then his name will go up. But honestly, what about all those films marketed as a Tom Cruise movie or a Shcwarzenegger movie? Why would they get top billing, they just read lines and do as their told?

So, who is more important? Who ever had more power in the over all creation of the project which can differ from project to project.

Originally Posted by Ramashan

But honestly, what about all those films marketed as a Tom Cruise movie or a Shcwarzenegger movie? Why would they get top billing, they just read lines and do as their told?

Something I didn't think of. You are right. A lot of times it is a marketing campaign to get more people to watch the movie. Especially with big name actors.

And Rapax, I am not just speaking about the marketing. I am talking about people talking about the movie. You mentioned Tarantino. When Ying xiong, or Hero came to the States, everyone kept asking me if I had seen that new Tarantino movie, Hero. The marketing creates the ignorance, but the internet and people enforce it.

Countless websites and blogs and such give credit to people who either were the producer or just had a hand in importing the movie. So yes, perhaps the producer was very important in the film making, but shouldn't the director get credit as well for the movie?

I mean if the movie bombed, I am sure we would all be blaming Pierre Morel for making such a bad movie. If only Luc Besson had directed the movie himself!!

I feel the present day culture of movies is favoring the producer over the director.

Originally Posted by Unorthodoxt

S
And Rapax, I am not just speaking about the marketing. I am talking about people talking about the movie. You mentioned Tarantino. When Ying xiong, or Hero came to the States, everyone kept asking me if I had seen that new Tarantino movie, Hero. The marketing creates the ignorance, but the internet and people enforce it.

Well yes, that's the result of the marketing. They want people to think it's associated with someone they know, someone they have a history of positive experiences with.
It's too bad when people are too ignorant about who actually made what movie, but why complain? Those directors with a name for themselves still plaster that name on their movies with great effect.
It differs greatly from movie to movie anyway. Some movies also have the lead actor as the biggest controller, see Tom Cruise in M:I 2 who supposedly forced his own ideas on John Woo and turned the movie into a commercial for himself.
I wouldn't feel bad for Morel, I mean, he directed 2 movies so far and if you look at his work sheet, the man did cinematography and worked in the camera and electrical department in a number of Besson productions. So that pretty much makes him a technician, one Besson used to direct his movies. He rose through the ranks so to say. You see that often actually, director's starting out as various technicians and then getting a chance to direct. That really doesn't make them instant Kubricks or Spielbergs with their own vision that they want to turn into film. They pretty much just get a producer saying "I'd like you to direct this movie for me" and that's that.

In the golden era of Hollywood, it was usually the producor, not the the directors, that were the driving force behind the film. That's right I said directors. It was common in those days to have multiple directors on one film. There might be one director for a chase sequence, another for dialogue and another for a fight.