The Filmmaking Department that Guarantees a Good Movie

Watch the video:

If you’ve found my content useful support me and watch my film A Count Of Ten today.

CLICK FOR STREAMING OPTIONS

What about other departments?

Most filmmakers I’ve met always start with the camera. You can’t blame them, because you see advertisements and camera reviews all the time, everywhere. It’s easy to get lost in the insane idea that somehow the camera is the most important thing.

It’s not.

Then there’s audio. Surely sound is important, except in the silent movie era there were no audio dialogues. I remember watching The Passion of Joan of Arc on the big screen, and I was mesmerized by the sheer acting prowess of the lead, Maria Falconetti. Most of the time all you see is her face, her anguish, her terror, her tears – and you can’t look away.

It was the first time I was made aware you can fill a screen with a close up of an acting giant and that’s all you needed. It’s like news readers. If all you wanted was to hear the news you could listen on the radio, but they have people read it because it makes a huge difference to how we perceive the news. Studios would love to cut budgets and not have to pay celebrity news readers, but they can’t do away with them.

What about lighting? This site has spent endless hours on cinematography and film lighting. But I would be leading you astray if I claim that cinematography is any more important than, say, the rabid energy of Miki Manojlovic or Lazar Ristovski in Underground. In this crazy movie the acting grabs you by the balls, even if you don’t have any, and you never question anything in the film because obviously they seem to be having a blast, and you’re welcome to join them or walk away.

To take a recent example, let’s talk about the actors in Parasite, especially Song Kang-Ho’s work. You don’t for one instant question the reality they are in. You could replace the house, change the lighting and cinematography, shoot it with a completely different camera and lens, and you’d still end up with a good film.

But try doing the reverse.

The best cameras and lenses in the world but bad actors that bore you to death, or irritate the hell out of you because they’re just going through the motions with an open mouth and android hands. Too often we are subjected to this because good actors are rare. Great actors have always been one step away from extinction.

What other departments can we consider?

Ask any filmmaker about which is the most important filmmaking department, and the brain-washed response they give you is – the script. For some strange reason the script or screenplay – whatever you want to call it – is given the importance of a sacred text. Maybe it’s from Shakespeare, and theater in general, where the writer’s word is sacrosanct.

The reason this is so in theater is because the directors can change. Venues can change. The actors can change. The only thing that stays constant is the script. But in a film, once you put it on screen, it’s done. Everyone gets only one shot.

I’ve read countless interviews of directors who praise the script’s importance – it is important, no one denies that – but it is just a guide. Once you are on set the script goes out the window. It’s just you and the actors.

A rigid script cannot save a film like Persona from bad actors. How long do you think you can tolerate a hammy actor delivering inspired dialogue in monotone? You need giants to carry giant words. Even dumb words seem good when giants speak. But the reverse isn’t true. An idiot reading the words of Shakespeare will make the bard look illiterate. If it weren’t for Bibi Andersson’s courageous display of insecurity Persona would have fallen flat like a bad soufflé.

Then we have the director. Are directors more important than actors? I know very few directors who think otherwise, and from a director’s perspective they’re right. They are responsible for the film, they direct the actors, and every filmmaking department follows their lead. It stands to reason directors are extremely important. Yet they can’t guarantee an audience will want to watch their film, and even if it’s going to turn out to be a good film.

What can “guarantee” a box office draw?

I say ‘draw’, not success. Success is when the movie works with the audience. But ‘draw’ is the initial interest from fans of the star.

There are only three things that can sort of guarantee box office draw. One is a brand, like the Marvel Cinematic Universe, the second is a genre, like porn, and the third is a star. Scroll through endless rows of an OTT platform’s catalogue, and most people will pick the stars.

This has always been true. People look for stars in movie trailers, on movie posters, on billboards, because that is the definition of a star. A famous person is famous. A rich person could be famous. But a star can draw an audience.

Can Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos guarantee a movie about them will do well? Maybe Elon Musk can, because he’s been setting himself up to be a  star over the last few years – yet he’s still not as big as Tom Cruise or Will Smith.

The actors – good actors

No matter what film directors think, it’s the audience that decides the fate of a film. It’s the audience that decides who’s the most important. It has always been, and it will always be.

And the simple way to test that is to watch films based on Shakespeare’s plays. Macbeth is a great example. Few would argue about Macbeth’s incredible language. You can watch Orson Welles’ version, Akira Kurosawa’s version, Roman Polanski’s version, and many other versions. There have been movies made with Shakespeare’s exact words, like Macbeth by Geoffrey Wright, and Romeo + Juliet by Baz Luhrmann, and I’ll leave it to you to decide whether the words really are as powerful as the people that say them.

Contrast that to mundane cheesy dialogue spoken by great actors. The first time I was made aware of this was Samuel L. Jackson’s monologue in Pulp Fiction. It works, because it’s Samuel L. Jackson. Or watch Robert Duvall’s Lieutenant Kilgore in Apocalypse Now. The simplest and most striking example of this is James Bond’s famous introduction.

Who says it makes all the difference.

A star cannot guarantee box office success. Nothing can. But a star gives a film the greatest chance of recovering its money. Even if the intention of the filmmaker is to not recover money, but to make art, then the star gives the film the greatest chance of being seen by the most people.

Great actors

If the objective is to make a good movie, great actors are your best bet. Great actors can make bad direction look okay. A movie can be watchable if a great actor puts in the work. Sometimes great actors just walk through their roles, and it happens when stardom goes to their head. But when they put in the effort, they are electrifying.

You can’t turn away from the screen even if you wanted to. A great actor can stand in front of a bland wall and still hold your attention.

I’ve seen young filmmakers spend days creating cool titles for their short films. It’s easy enough nowadays, because there are so many templates available for free online. But they don’t put the same level of effort to secure the best actors.

Your titles can be amateurish, your actors can’t. Your locations can be boring, your actors can’t.

Your lighting can be terrible, your actors can’t. Your direction can be untruthful, your actors can’t, and your script can be non-existent, but your actors can’t.

And that’s why acting is the one filmmaking department that guarantees a good movie. Even if you’re making an art film. Even if you’re make a Marvel movie, and even if you’re making porn.

Hope you liked this analysis. Let me know your thoughts in the comments below.