PRODUCER and DIRECTOR

New Zealand Listener, Volume 11, Issue 275, 29 September 1944, Page 22

PRODUCER and DIRECTOR

HAT is the difference between the producer and the director of a film? The question keeps cropping up; it did again in a letter from a reader last week; so perhaps I had better try to answer it. The answer is really fairly simple, but a good deal of confusion arises from the fact that the functions of the producer in the cinema are different from those of the producer in the "legitimate" theatre. Indeed, the stage producer is really the equivalent of the film director; both of them direct the actors and are responsible for the final form which the play or the screenplay takes. But let’s examine the film producer first. He is a very important person, because it is he who decides on what pictures his studio will make and how much money will be spent on each pro-duction-taking into account, of course, how much the Big Boys on Wall Street or Wardour Street will allow him to spend. He says whether it is to be a super-colossal production or just simply a colossal one; whether it is to be an ordinary "programme picture" (as they call them), or just a cheap "quickie" churned out in two or three weeks. The film producer, in fact, is rather like the impresario of the theatre, or of the baliet, or of a big orchestra, He looks over the story material that his studio has bought or has secured options over, and decides that a certain plot will be worth filming. Or he may want a story specially written for the screen (perhaps to exploit the talents of a particular star), in which case he gives one or more script-writers the job of writing it. When the first draft is finished, he probably doesn’t like it, so he gets somebody else to do it again, This rewriting process may be repeated several times: by the time it is finished, any resemblance to the original is likely to be purely coincidental. However, having decided on a theme for a film, the producer then selects the director he thinks is most suited to handle that type of story, and from the stars who are available on the studio’s roster he selects those he considers most suitable for that director and for that story. He may not have a completely free hand: he may have to choose a certain star for the heroine’s role, not because she is most fitted for it but because she has some kind of pull with one of the Big Boys on Wall Street, and must, for diplomatic reasons, be given the leading part. Or the star the director may want to use may be holding out for too big a salary, or she may already have made too many .pictures that year and be growing stale with the public, % * * OW for the director (and here, as in the case of the producer, it should be remembered that I am speaking in general terms, and that in practice many of the functions of the two, executives overlap and are interchangeable), I (continued on next page)

(continued from previous page) have said that the film director is the equivalent of the stage producer but it is perhaps clearer to liken him to the conductor of an orchestra. He may not have had much say in bringing the players together, but it is for him to decide the effect that is to be produced. Then he leads or directs the players in such a way as to obtain it. Many directors have distinctly individual styles of treatment; the keen filmgoer can usually recognise them easily-for instance, the work of John Ford, Ernst Lubitsch, Alfred Hitchcock, ° Preston Sturges and Orson Welles. Films directed by these men normally have a style and atmosphere which make them distinctive. Still, it is often very difficult to know what fine touches should specifically be put to the credit of the director and what were the special contributions of the cameraman, the art director or the film-editor. * % ea HEN considering the functions of the director, it is important to remember that a film is madé in fractions, and that these fractions are usually not photographed in the. order in which the audience sees them. They may start shooting a film in the middle or at the end of the story; perhaps because some actor is in the final scenes who has to be released early for some other picture. It is the director's task to ensure that the details of these fractions are consistent, and then to put the jig-saw puzzle together with the aid of the cutter and the editor. * * * IT is, very often, not easy to decide whether to blame the producer or the director for a bad picture, or to whom to give credit if it is a good one. My own view is that in the majority of cases the director is the most important man of all, He will almost certainly be more important than the stars. But from what I have said, it should also be clear that a good deal will depend on the producer’s own standard of taste, or on his willingness to admit that his special genius lies in finance and that questions of artistry and taste are best left to the director, So in most cases the wise producer is the one who starts out by choosing an intelligent and imaginative director and then gives him a free hand, even letting him have a good deal of the original say as to what form the story shall take, as well as what players shall appear in it. Sometimes, of course, the functions of producer and director are combined in the one person; when that happens, the success of the picture almost invariably depends wholly on his efforts,