It is a collaborative effort. And then a lot depends on the individuals involved. If you look at a movie like The Sixth Sense, for example, you had magnificent acting, top flight writing, and directing which was at the time a fresh new and exciting thing. Look at something like Forrest Gump. Same thing, amazingly good on all levels. Ghostbusters. All levels, just great stuff. The Matrix. (save the Keanu-bashing, the first badge people earn on their way to Internet Ignoramus is the Keanu-bashing badge.) There are plenty of examples of when things all come together to create cinematic magic. What is interesting is the movies which become successes in spite of being extremely weak in one or more of these areas. Want bad writing? Look no further than Men in Black. Excellent cast, good director, decent production values, but among the worst-written crap ever set to paper. And yet it (and its sequel) became extremely successful films. Then look at the current Wolverine movie. It is most likely going to technically be a 'success' because it is going to turn a profit when all is said and done. However, here you have an example of a pretty good cast, giving wayy above and beyond the call as an effort, saddled with horrifically bad writing and directing, and then as an added bonus, undercut by its own production studio. Still going to make a profit, and that is not a good thing, people. Fox needs to get their hands burned by this kind of thing, not rewarded. Along the same lines, you have the *extremely painful* Fantastic Four movies. Bad on every level - writing, directing, and especially acting. And bombs as a result. The lists on every side are endless really. An interesting corrolary question would be, which one of those selections in the poll above is most likely to SINK a movie if it is bad? Me, I would have to go with casting. Bad casting can immediately place a movie into 'Why did they even bother to make this movie?' status. Stunt casting is the worst. Beyonce in a movie? Yeah she's bootylicious, but whoever thought she could act, um, no. (admittedly, I have not seen Obsessed, maybe she has greatly improved, but I will likely never know, as it is probably never going to be on my 'mus view' list). Mariah Carey? Brittney Spears? Shaq? Michael Jordan? In movies? Justin and Kelly? LOL Who exactly ever thought those were good ideas? Of course they were inevitably badly written and directed as well, but if no one ever watched them because of the complete lack of interest due to the casting, then it would not matter anyway. Hehehe on second thought, you can have great casts and horrible movies. Freejack. Sphere. Any of the last 4 Star Wars films (CURSE YOU GEORGE, YOU NO-TALENT HACK!!!) Oh well, fun stuff to talk about anyway..
Bad directing on its own is pretty rare - a bad director tends to spread his ineptitude to all the other players (actors and the rest of the crew). Probably the best sign of bad directing is a mediocre adaptation of a great book (assuming the book wasn't butchered during the scripting process). I'll give one example that many people may disagree with here - I just watched Sling Blade and the thing that struck me about the film was how out of rhythm it seemed at all times. People would give their lines, pause (as if waiting for a reaction, which of course would never come) and then give another line. In addition, there was a real inconsistency in the portrayal of the characters - Karl in particular. One moment he seems outright r****ded while another moment he just seems like a wise but socially awkward guy with a funny voice. Plus, too many of the shots were mid-distance, which gave the whole film a TV theater quality. All of these things would have been avoided by a more capable director.
But Academy Award-winning director Ron Howard does that a lot. A bad director also has a lot of people who can cover for him if he's not up to the task. If he doesn't know where to put the camera, the DP can helpfully suggest a shot. If he doesn't know how to guide the actors to the performance he wants, the actors can take control of their characters (which happens a lot of times anyway). If the director doesn't know how to stage a scene, the editor can help salvage it. If the director doesn't know how to form the word "action" or "cut", the 1st AD can say it, etc. If the studio is insisting on shooting a version of the script that they've developed into mediocre junk, nobody's going to be there to cover for it. The actors, editor and director (and others) can do their best to elevate the picture, but if it's truly bad, they're never going to get to greatness.
Director. I'll watch anything a great does. Scorscese (sp) Kubrick, Ridley Scott, etc. Conversely, I know that a Bruckheimer or Bay flick is going to be mediocre at best.
Ditto, directors are my top reason for seeing a lot of movies. The main reason I saw Slumdog before it became a big story was because I love Danny Boyle. Actors come in a close 2nd. Writers in the movie biz typcially don't have much say in the final product unless they and the directors are close collaborators.
As a writer in the industry with writer friends who actually get things made, I disagree. While we may not end up with much final say in the sense that we're sitting there calling the shots on set or in the editing room, nearly all of what ends up on screen is what one of us put in the script at one point or another.
Other. Gaffer, best boys and key grips are pivotal to any movie making process I think good writing and a good director can do more for bad actors than good actors can for bad directors and writers. Sean Penn and Dustin Hoffman can only do so much for a movie produced by junior high kids.
As a writer...I'm having to go with writers. My God, it's refreshing to see a poll like this. Ask the same question here in Australia, and you'd get the response "Movies and TV have writers????"
Unfortunately, good scripts get butchered by studios and directors every day. It's rare in Hollywood when a good writer can put out his true story. So you have to look at the writer/directors like Kevin Smith and Tarantino.
I say directors. Powerful enough ones can get stuff done their way, including the performance they want out of the actors. They can get the script done their way by bringing in other writers to fix stuff.
I believe it was Hitchcock who said that having a popular actor saved him 15-20 minutes of character development because the audience was already sympathetic to the character.
Filmmaking is a collaborative art form. As a student of it, I can attest to the fact that everyone involved can make a difference and is important. For instance, if you have an awesome director, director of photography, grip (lighting tech), sound mixer, cast of actors, etc; the editor can still screw up the pace of the movie with quick cuts, or lay down a bad score (music), or add bad sound effects. At the same time, an editor can absolutely save a film, with smart edits, and connecting pieces of bad cuts, etc. Everyone plays an important role. But if I had to choose, I would say a producer. Choosing the right blend of talent can ultimately make a good film. There has to be some chemistry between the screenplay and the guy directing it, and so forth.
In movies, what you know or see is what the director and the cameraperson allows you to understand or see. LOL, that's a good thing! The dialogue in that soap Headlands was the most laughable garbage I'd ever heard.
