In making a movie whats more important the director or the actors?!
Question: I realy dont know
Answers: I realy dont know
the french film critics of the 50's and 60's invented the Auteur theory,which proposes that the director is the"author" of a film,blending the photography,acting,screenplay to create a work of cinematic art.here's what i think:there are definitely directors who control their films,(Hitchcock and Altman immediately come to mind)more modern examples would be Scorsese and Cronenberg.BUT...a PRODUCER can (and has in the past) exert just as much control if he can get keep it.in old Hollywood David O Selznick is a good example, in modern times Jerry Bruckheimer.also an "A" list actor, such as Tom Cruise or Jim Carey,can get themselves a producer credit and wrest some creative control over a film. Marlon Brando in his prime would be a good example of this.when you're talking about the majority of movies released these days,the biggest influence would be what is called a package deal,with a producer,actor and director who are all signed to the same agency.in a troika like this,the PRODUCER is likely to have the most influence,more than the actor or director.whats funny is,that's kind of what is what like in the old days,the producer ran the show,because he acquired the MONEY to make the darn thing in the 1st place.Good question.
'
pa
Neither, because if it were not for writers, they would basically be out of a job.
both are important. the director must have a clear idea of what he wants to do and how. the actors must be able to portray the character so it is believeable
i'd say the camara itself..because with out it , you'd see nothing.
The actors by far....you may have a movie and you have a director but if he is so bossy and the actors can't stand working with him then you don't have a movie.
The flip is the actors are so damanding and the director can't stand it but directors are replacable but for the most part people invision an actor for a roll and its hard to replace that actor with another actor if they leave or can't do it. It's all about the actors and there personality and what they bring to the movie
I'd say both. The actors fulfill the vision that the director has about how the movie should go. You have to have a director that is good to his/her actors and crew or the actors and crew would quit on him/her and there wouldn't be a movie.
That's like asking "Which is more important? The heart or the brain?" You can't answer that because you need both. Same with a movie. W\o writers there is no movie, w\o actors, set designers, special fx crew, etc. there is nothing to look at, w\o the director everything falls apart. Then there's producers and stagehands and tons of other people that you have to throw into the mix. Everyone does an equal part. No one's job is the most important.
I'd say the director, especially if he has the say on the final cut. A director can make a bad performance a whole lot better in the way the film is edited. The director of 'The Crow' was even able to finish the film after the accidental death of Brandon Lee by recutting the film and using special effects to add him into scenes that hadn't been filmed.