If you think shooting a film is hard, ..... my respect goes to the good Wedding shooters ... now that's pressure ....and i don't shoot weddings.

Second question: Can the results of collaborating with someone you work well with (either as a director or DP) exceed what you create on your own? Can it make it easier to work and less likely that mistakes will be made?

I would say the answer is yes and some of the most respected and visually evocative directors of all time (Ingmar Bergman, Alfred Hitchcock, etc.) would agree.

Next question: Will having a separate DP make it easier to get funding?

The answer is likely yes. Ive grown up around a lot of people with experience starting, running and funding everything from small businesses to large corporations and Ive also grown up several screenwriters. Funding is a question of what you present vs. the experiences, preconceptions, hopes, desires and instincts held by the people with money. If they are more familiar with failure than success in the scenario you provide, then they will be unlikely to provide support (monetary or otherwise).

A problem often shared by entrepeneurs and young directors alike, is to (unconsciously or consciously) consider everyone involved an extension of themselves, like additional limbs. This makes it very difficult to delegate because there is a sense that everything would fall apart without them and they have to do everything themselves.

When a venture capitalist sees this, they see two things: 1) a venture that will have difficulty expanding because the force behind it can`t delegate and 2) a disaster waiting to happen.

Once you prove your success with a given approach (financially) then it will be easier to get additional funding. But if you want people to give you money, it often helps to look at what they require in order to feel comfortable doing that.

Great advice thepalalias, thanks for your insight.

Another thing not mentioned amongst all the great advice, is that if you do know lighting and camera and can handle the responsibility/pressure of doing the job, then you don't need a DP so much as a good gaffer, camera operator and crew. Each will take care of their share of creating the image that you as DP/Director/Editor need.

If you've got the money then spread the wealth and responsibility around and you'll enjoy getting the dam thing done a whole lot more. If you don't have the coin then make up your perfect checklist and laminate the sucker cause you're going to need it

If you hire a great DP, oscar winning screen writer, the best actors, the best editors, have an amazing composer, and the best AD's and script supervisors money can buy... then I'd like to meet the person that CAN'T direct that movie.

Hollywood get all these elements together all the time and still ends up with lousy movies. The reason? Making movies is hard. Trying to wear a bunch of different hats doesn't make the job easier.

"Hollywood get all these elements together all the time and still ends up with lousy movies. The reason? Making movies is hard. Trying to wear a bunch of different hats doesn't make the job easier."

There are many other factors that go into this...

-studio wants to hit a certain demographic and misses -producer/studio pressure and changes -trying to hit certain release dates and making creative compromises -bad writing or dumb story idea to begin with -general lack of interest from the director/writers -dumb adaptions that studios want to make because of brand recognition -producers and execs are in love with in idea an insist it gets made, even if it's stupid - ect...

Most hollywood films suck because they're PRODUCTS that are assembled, not because they're best ideas...

Hell, warner bros didn't want to make Inception because they thought nobody would watch it. That tells you something right there. I'd put the blame on studios and dumb executive decisions than the actual film-making being "too hard" for the crew and director.

Mainly I think what it boils down to... is that hollywood movies are products for the masses. And the masses is dumb. Therefore, the movie is dumb... by design. Rarely do you get a movie that appeals to the dumb masses, yet also has intellectual quality for those with a deeper appreciation for it. The Matrix and Inception are good examples of this. Matrix had lots of good ol' violence and fighting for the dummies, yet had a good philosophy element that went over most people heads... win win. But that was a passion project that ended up in big studios hands and turned into a blockbuster. Not every project works like that. Only a few.

I think the magic element is care. Even if a director is amazing and has a great crew... there needs to be genuine care for the source material. Otherwise it'll be shit.

@bwhitz While I think part of this may be getting slightly off-topic, I couldn't agree with you more about the importance of people caring about the project. That is part of the reason why Ingmar Bergman was such an effective director (regardless of differing opinions about his personality) because he so clearly communicated his vision on a variety of levels (many non-verbal) that the crew internalized it as their own without thinking about where it came from.

However, keeping your priorities straight is something that is equally important. I can tell you from their experience with my family that Chris and Emma (Inception, The Dark Knight, etc.) always kept their kids a priority, even when they planned the shooting schedule for at least one of the Batman films. They are a great example that you don't have to pretend that the movie is the most important thing in the world to make it a good one. :)

@robmneilson

"I've noticed that when I DP and direct myself either the shooting is impacted negatively, or the acting. Usually it's the acting. On our budget level we just have too small of a crew, and too little time to shoot."

100% agree with this statement.I too suffer the budget bug and do have to wear both hats sometimes. However in my experience this decision is often out of NECESSITY not choice....

Plus If you(OP) are talking about a feature too, keep in mind the scope of the project. I only DP/Direct on shorts if I ever do have to go that route. A feature is such a bigger scope and if you lose sight of on or more aspects of the vision because your focus is divided you project will suffer in the end.

Of course you can, dont believe everything film school tells you. Btw: beautiful Image Quality!

"I've noticed that when I DP and direct myself either the shooting is impacted negatively, or the acting. Usually it's the acting."

I think the directors impact on the overall performances is highly embellished. I'm in the camp that believe directing in 90% casting. As a director, you should know ahead of time what the character sounds like in your head and how they're deliver lines. So picking actors that can deliver what you want before hand is half the battle. Now I haven't directed any major films (duh), but from my experience in shorts and such, getting the actor to understand the character is mostly done in pre-production and read-through's. During shooting, the director should be focusing mostly on the right angles and movements to emphasize those performances. ...and then just making sure the actors don't mess up. So yea, with digital cinematography... directing and shooting go hand in hand. I don't see how anyone think this is complicated. With film, yes. But digtal? Nope.

The directors that insist they have to focus "on story" and "drama" are over-flattering themselves. On the sets I've been on, they're usually the worst. Constantly saying "I need more emotion" or "do one more"... because they're really not seeing the performances they need in their heads. They didn't know what they wanted to begin with and they don't know now. This is faux-directing. These guys really believe that there is a correlation to how many times they say "do it again" and performance quality. I believe directors should set up the context and environment for the scene, then after that, it's up to the actors. If the acting turns out poorly, it's most likely just because you're using bad actors... not the directing. Constantly saying "I need more emotion" is not directing. This is pretending.

Wach a film like this... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0428441/

So much of "the performances" are created in editing it's not even funny. If you're not a great editor, I have no idea how you could ever think you'd be a good director. Perhaps this is the reason "Hollywood get all these elements together all the time and still ends up with lousy movies." Most directors, producers, and execs have probably been indoctrinated by elitist hollywood dogma that a directors only skill is to work with actors and story. So they aren't looking for directors that have mastered all the crafts. In fact, they're probably looking for directors that are bad editors and bad cinematographers, because again, the dogma tells them that the worse they are at other jobs... the better directors they must be. But really, if a director isn't also a good editor and cinematographer, how are they going to understand how they all work together?

Like I said before, there are no "performances". There is no "camera work". There is only that final 2.35:1 rectangle and the audio that accompanies it. The performances the actors gave on set is irrelevant. Only the performances through the lenses you used and the cuts you've made are the ones that count. And if you can't see the edits being made or hear the score while the actors are delivering lines, then you're probably in the wrong position.

Oh yea, sorry. These are simply just my thoughts right now. It's probably just the way I'm writing it that seems like it's the only conclusion. Other people are obviously entitled to their ideas as well. I should have clarified it sooner, as I've noticed on other forums my writing comes off a bit intense.

But yea, it seems like there are two camps people are in... exclusive and inclusive.

-Exclusive's seem to believe that dividing up jobs allows more focus for each area of production. Believing that the more jobs are divided, the better the product will be. The director, in the exclusive model, plays the role of organizing the departments and guiding the other artists that are more specialized in each area.

-Inclusive's seem to believe that dividing the work leads to lower quality, as the initial "vision" is lost among the delegating process. The director, in the inclusive model, is a someone who understands all areas. Directing, cinematography, and editing all become one job in this method. The more jobs the director learns, the better the product will be.

I'm obviously in the inclusive camp. I think once you truly learn a job, you don't have to think about it. When I go to shoot my small little shorts... I don't even think about cinematography, it's just a reflex. Same with editing. I've always been taught that good editing begins on set.

I remember in my intro to film class, once of the first real scenes I shot, I was praised for not crossing the 180 degree line in a scene that had allot going on. I didn't even know what "the line" was, it just made sense when I was shooting. Some angles felt right, and others felt wrong. I dunno. I'm not trying to embellish myself or anything now... just sharing my experiences to see if others have had any similar ones.

But yea, nothing is right or wrong. You can find successful examples for any method you can think of... :)

False dichotomy. I've never met a director that doesn't have a good sense of all the jobs required to produce content. The term for people who don't have an idea/knowledge of the various skills required is "Intern".