Anything Goes : Since when did everyone become a film director, producer, editor,...? by Pedro Chaves

Btw not trying to be a dick. Just really curious about the way people think.

It's passion. They're all driven by the same passion. Like I'm an actress, a poet, and a singer. In order to make it in the business you need to be like a multipurpose tool. Because there are so many people who want this. So we dive into our passions and we make it happen.

I would never tell anyone to do it, but I look at it like this, yes I have done all of those things because I'm used to working on multiple things. I mean I always was since age 3 a singer, dancer, and actor and I competed with the best of the best. My former dance rivals have been on Broadway, So You Think You Can Dance, and some of my fellow music alum are pretty famous musicians, so I think it is a narrow mind that can only do one thing. I mean what do you do with all of your time???? Some people (most I know from the Midwest) work 40+ hours a week (so about 50 when you count travel time and getting ready) then they have a wife and children so that eats up alot of time...then finally with the last nugget of time they pursue their passion, hobby, or something they like to do. If you don't have kids and work full-time doing what you love and don't smoke pot or layabout then you have ALOT of time everyday to work on things. Plus, the more you work on something, like editing for example, the faster you get, so then you have even more time. I don't know I feel like I made this all about time-but seriously it isn't brain surgery-it isn't hard and anybody really can do it and with practice they will get better. I also think if you are on set or stage for so many years you would have to be a pretty dense actor to not pick up on what the producers and directors are doing and learning how to do it too.

I view it based on levels and practicality. Many big film makers do it all. Tarantino writes, directs, produces, and even acts a little in some of his movies. If you like at a screen writers number of movies made, it's often far lower than those made by a single director, even one's that write their own material. When you have the whole package, it not only saves money but let's people know exactly what they are getting. And then big actors go and start directing and producing. And producers start directing. And it tends to work out, because by the time that happens, you've had a ton of hands on experience seeing those other jobs, even if from a different angle. On the lower level, there are lots of people making indie films, talented and dedicated people, but it is such a crowded market with scarce resources that to save on costs, a lot of people multi-task. If you can produce, direct, write, and even act in your own film, you just saved yourself paying for all those things. And while perhaps worse than a movie with more people working on it, it's infinitely better than the film that never got made at all due to costs. I think films can improve with well managed, collaborative effort. A dedicated and specialized team will make a better film than any one of them alone in most cases. I recommend to most writers trying to break in to try and get a team motivated by their script and produce a low budget short film. That can mean directing, shooting, producing, and editing themselves if they can't find anyone willing to contribute. As a writer, you can sling scripts at people all day long and never get considered because you're an unknown quantity. Once you have something made, even something bad, people will take you a lot more seriously, as rather than sitting back and hoping to be elevated through the efforts of others to suddenly choose you, you made it happen and it's a real, tangible thing. That all being said, I absolutely recommend that people do what they're good at. If someone else can work the camera for me, great, do special effects, good, act, thank the stars, but at the end of the day, if it comes down to a choice of being stone walled because I don't have a certain position filled or doing it myself, I'll do it myself, because I'd rather create than quit.

A businessman in Brazil actually resented the fact that Kristin and I felt that we could do film and music... But that's what we do! AND we wrote a book! What a concept! And I'm writing my memoirs..and...and...and! So screw these tunnel-vision morons! One's either creative or not! Those that are not, will NEVER understand the gift/blessing the creative person possesses! Don't even bother trying to explain it! THEY DON'T GET IT!

I totally agree with Rich! It isn't a chore or something and even a one man show has to be a collaboration-I mean I guess I have always wanted to do my own green screen show where I literally did it all by myself and played all the parts but that is very rare and pretty much unheard of. Think the Maria Bamford show, she didn't actually do it by herself but someone could have for sure.

It's not disrespectful. It's realistic. If you own a DSLR and a good lens, you can study enough to become a competent filmmaker. This is something that started with the neorealists and new wave filmmakers, who shook off the stuffiness of the old system and proved anyone could make a film. It's become exponentially easier now for the average person to pick up a camera and make a film. I'm not saying it's completely a blessing, since a lot of questionable cinema is being turned out. But there's no doubt the direction of a large part of indie cinema is moving back to the "auteur."

Okay so I looked at your imdb are you being sarcastic? You have credits in all areas too maybe just wanting us to look at it???

For me it started with having a computer and cheap digital camera and free programmes for editing and access to the internet to make by stuff easily accessible. I believe in 'learn by doing.' I love making no/lo budget films. Your analogy to surgeons is useless: If their work is poor it is a disaster. If someone makes a bad film the only victims are those stupid enough to invest in it. Gamblers have only themselves to blame.

I think anybody can be a filmmaker, but not anybody can be a good filmmaker. This is what I struggle with all the time :/

@Stacia: no I don't need you guys to look at my credits. That wasn't my aim. Also keep in mind that imdb is not always right. Yes. I had to produce, edit, man even other stuff. Never said I was good at it. I studied as a film director, and directing is what I'm going for. I believe in specialization. I believe in having a cinematographer and the ASC would back me up on it, I believe in having a sound guy, a producer and a whole film crew. Because I did the different roles and as nice it is to do a lot of different things, you will never be a specialist in all those areas. Just overall. A good DOP has to be able to only focus on the image. A good sound guy the same. And so on. And yes, Tarantino did try several jobs. But I'm sorry, he didn't "produce" Jango, there were other producers that actually did the producing. He wrote and directed it. Apart from that he had a DOP, an art director and so on. Again, I have nothing against people that want try different things. And a dancer can be an actor that was not the point of the discussion. The point is being a cameraman is not the same as a producer being a director being an editor being a boom operator. So in the end you can see my question as the following on: Generalist or Specialist? What is the future? And by the way, some of you should read what Lynnette says. Which I believe a few writers are thinking on this site.

One finger out has three folded back. Are you stuck in too few boxes that you deny the pleasure of the ability to do it all? Maybe if I had the money I might pay others to do the work I enjoy doing. But, they would have to be damn good!

Oh I don't deny the "pleasures" of doing different things and on some projects I still do, but I know my limitations and am realistic about. A you can get a good crew for free btw, its called "producing".

And guys chill out. Think of this as a debate between generalist vs specialist.

Well, my day job is animation. I specialise in Character Animation, but have worked as a Generalist (modeller, lighter, rendering etc.). My view is that if you're starting out, or aren't 'established', so to speak, it never hurts to generalise and learn the different aspects of production. That way, they get to learn how the whole process works, and if they then want to specialise as a director, that knowledge may be beneficial, as they at least know what goes into each area. I've worked with people in animation who have no idea on how the whole process works– they literally think it's a case of pressing buttons and it's done. So I think that generalising can be a good way to learn the ins and outs and a good way to discover what you'd prefer to specialise in. But that's just my opinion.

Hey James, Speaking of 'multi-tasking, do they have an animation program for novices...just starting out! Do you have to draw at all, is is everything programized digitally...where the programming 'artist' says, 'hmm, I need a rhino and a wolf in this next scene....and click, there's a dozen different rhinos and 50 wolves to choose from......is animation mainly adhering to a script and planning your images, or is it still like 8000 flits of every movement a character makes?

As if i don't have enough diversity in my life! Multi-instrumentalist, songwriter, arranger/orchestrator, vocalist, vocal-instructor, producer, actor, screenwriter, etc ad nauseum!

Generalists and specialists have differing views on what constitutes minimum acceptable quality. While "good enough" works for generalists it is unacceptable for specialists. Specialists usually know far more than one area and normally have extensive hands on experience in many production areas having worked up to their current position. I've done pretty much every job associated with making live action productions, but I am a DP because that is what I do and have done for a long time. It is very specialized, with a huge range of requirements not the least of which is a lot of experience in other areas to be able to help everyone do their best work. Most of the Directors and Producers I work with have quite a broad knowledge base but know enough to hire the right people and then not interfere. "Good enough", is not a hiring criteria.

When you're dealing with an ultra low budget situation like I am, debating specialist vs generalist is a luxury. I don't have the money to bring on DPs, editors, sound men, etc. Either I do it or the film won't get made. Now, if I had the money to hire specialists, I believe in doing so. But is it necessary to make a good movie and have it distributed? No.

I don't think it is black and white I think alot of specialists are worse than generalists at their only thing and they get jealous or upset if the artists who is multi-talented gets the job-

People feel the need to lend their two cents and offer their opinions thinking they are helping even if they have no idea what they are talking about. It's the same with the Zimmerman trial. Everyone was a lawyer/law expert/legal analyst and now it's the same with the war on Syria. Everyone is a political analyst/international relations expert and so forth. I think instead of letting it get to you, just brush it off.

Andrew and Evan totally agree with you guys.

Crystal, would you like to re-state that?

Rich, I think she means : Not many people "are" good at it.

Isn't this really just a preference/resources thing. I use what's available to me and do whatever I need to get the picture made. I am however smart enough to know my strengths and weaknesses. So, if I can afford a DP I hire one. If I can't, I don't. Writing a story and waiting on a perfect storm of money and support or someone else to say, "Oh that's great, I'll tell that story for you!" just isn't that appealing to some people, so they just DIY it. The indie filmmaker mind is definitely more of a DIY process in my opinion. If you're looking to work in Hollywood or on Network TV then "specialist" is the way to go. If it were not for all the union issues, I'm pretty sure a ton of directors and dp's in those worlds would love to have the camera in their hands too. Anyways... It's a creative PROCESS, and everyone's is different. But sure, being a "specialist" is fanfreakintastic when you can afford it.

I agree darren

Ken you are so right!

I started by playing a brass instrument, and 15 years into that, the necessity arose where I needed to write some music (which I had received training, sort of, in school, several years prior) for me to record in some Dutch studios..the first arrangements were good...I kept them simple, and built from there...a bit more complex harmonically, and with the Mancini book "Sounds And Scores", I was able to greatly enhance my soundscape by introducing new instruments into my scores....arranging ultimately gave birth to songwriting and composing in 1968...I decided that I liked to write songs and I got progressively better at it! The film thing began out of a necessity, once again, to write a film score! I ran in to John Williams at Paramount one day...a little chit chat and he casually mentioned that he had 10 films on his drawing board...I had none! That was the same day I started working on my first screenplay! We have a dozen! If you're curious, its on my Stage32 page... I felt that my chances of 'nabbing' an assignment with 'competitors' like Williams and the Newman's was somewhere between slim and none..... Along this new path, we made a documentary film of and with the great Cuban-American ex-patriot genius trumpeter Arturo Sandoval! Eventually, I will produce, direct and act(I was in the original "Inlaws", and the follow-up to "Napolelon Dynamite" by the same people) (and probably sing too) in one of our plays... Its just the way my life has been going....

Agreed! I get scripts frequently that aren't even formatted properly. Waste of time...

I think people are getting better at everything because the ease of which there is to do so. Making a film is no longer a foreign thing like it was in the past which is evident by how young people are when they start creating. While yes, I agree, that it is ideal to work with people who are amazing at their aspect of film making, having and understand of all of it helps the whole process... and with the quality of cameras, attachable mics, and simple lighting set ups it would be hard for someone to do the whole thing on their own, but far from impossible. @Rick Borgia: yes, because a great story isn't great if its not 'properly formatted'.

it's called talent and being inspired... Don't be hating..lol ..If you can't do or see something, don't worry about who can and why.