Essentially, it is the director who is the creative head of a film. The final authority on all decisions lies with the director. That is how it should be. And then other team members can give their creative inputs.
I am completely a director's actor. If the director gives me the liberty and freedom, then I give my inputs. Otherwise, I just follow instructions.
With Lady Gaga I really stretched myself as a creative director, and because I was with this artist from before she got signed I was able to really take control of the opportunity and execute as a creative director.
The director is the boss on the set. We don't take away anyone's creative freedom. There are many production houses which get into creative calls. I just give suggestions.
There is a director for a reason, because a director knows what's best for the movie. You just give your director as much as you can to work with, and hopefully, the decisions they make are going to be great.
Regardless of any feedback. I love being a solo artist and having creative control. But it can be very nourishing and informative and flex very different creative muscles to work for someone else. You are essentially employed by the director. I love the challenge of that.
I judge my film choices based on the director, and then I see how much the story has affected me when I read it or when I hear it in the narration. Then comes how important my role is in it, but primarily director, script, and then role.
The thing is, as a film director, you're essentially alone: You have to tell a story primarily through pictures, and only you know the film you see in your head.
A successful film begins by choosing a director whose creative vision will define the choices made by everyone involved in the film.
The director is the ultimate creative arbiter of what's going to happen. And as a director myself, you really appreciate collaborating with people who are trying to help you find what you need and what you want.
You can be playing a line some way and the director wants you to change that, or you can disagree. But I always think that the creative conversation between director and actor is what leads to good work.
Filmmaking is a creative process so there is a lot of collaboration that happens on set between an actor and director, but at the end of the day, we're there to actualize the director's vision and things happen organically.
Independent film making is very collaborative. You feel like it's you, the director and other actors and you really feel like you have the final say. When you do the bigger films, the studio has to give the final thumbs up and they're usually not big on risk taking because they're trying to make money.
See, I am not a writer. 'Nach Baliye' has its own creative team and a brilliant one at that. But I will give my own inputs if I feel I can improve something.
I pride myself in collaborating and being a creative director, and creative direction isn't putting my opinion first. It's supporting an artist so they get the most out of the project.
Film’s thought of as a director’s medium because the director creates the end product that appears on the screen. It’s that stupid auteur theory again, that the director is the author of the film. But what does the director shoot-the telephone book? Writers became much more important when sound came in, but they’ve had to put up a valiant fight to get the credit they deserve.
The profession of film director can and should be such a high and precious one; that no man aspiring to it can disregard any knowledge that will make him a better film director or human being.