Check it out, pretty "Interesting" stuff...
Edited by Landon D. Parks, 12 March 2006 - 02:49 AM.
Jump to content
Young Film Director
23 replies to this topic
Posted 12 March 2006 - 03:24 AM
Absolutely amazing! I played Claudius In A children's production of Hamlet at that age and thought that was ambitous, but to think this kid accomplished that even with the help of his parents, and in India no less wow, that is mindboggeling.
Edited by Capt.Video, 12 March 2006 - 03:34 AM.
Posted 12 March 2006 - 06:46 AM
I wonder if he has to go to class during the shoot as well as it is the case for child actors in first world countries...
Posted 12 March 2006 - 03:16 PM
I too found it amazing... For a teenager to direct a film is amazing, but for a 9 year old, it baffles me.
This kid must be smart, I'll give him that. If, at 9, he can stand up to people many times his age, take control and artisticly create a film, he's advanced beyonf my years, and I'm almost 10 years older than he is.
Posted 12 March 2006 - 06:20 PM
Making a film is one thing. Speilberg did that at his age but this kid has STARS in his film. H'e directing MOVIE STARS. He had investors willing to finace it and turned them down. Wow.
Posted 12 March 2006 - 07:51 PM
This kid can't be making all the shots...He is obviously a talent, but come on! There has to be something going on behind the scenes. Call me jealous, paint me blue but I smell a little B.S. I find it hard for a 9 year old to fully grasp complex dramatic emotions and then explain it in a way that encompasses all things going on in the overall arc of the story...!!?!
"He is such a genius that I had to work in his film," Jackie says. "He is constantly thinking about his next shot, constantly innovating to make it better. He is only nine years old, but he is sure about what he wants from his actors."
....and maybe more publicity for your own career? Put a kid or a monkey behind the camera and people will talk creating that magic word called "HYPE"...
Please tell me I'm not the only one here who laughs when I look at that pic of him peering into the viewfinder..
I think it is cute, admirable, lofty, encouraging,...alot of things. But I have to see a finished product and even then I'm not convinced until I see unedited behind-the-scenes footage of this kid runnin' the show.
If I'm being too harsh please tell me. I already know I'm jealous. This is just too much for me to swollow in one sitting...
Edited by BARCA, 12 March 2006 - 07:53 PM.
Posted 12 March 2006 - 09:56 PM
If we have child prodigys who can compose symphonies and decipher complex math equations, who's to say we can't have one who knows how to direct at a young age? Sure they're hyping it up - the final product may be a lump of dung. But that doesn't mean he's not running the show.
Edited by sean126, 12 March 2006 - 09:57 PM.
Posted 12 March 2006 - 10:07 PM
I too find it a tadd hard to stomach the kid running the entire show... He may be telling the actors what to do, But I highly doubt hes cuting the paychecks and writing the contracts as well...
although still, for this kid to even be DIRECTING a film with movie stars, is one thing... Thats enough to impress me.
This kid is not the only one I hear about directing films at his young age... In Iran (I think) theres Hana Makhmalbaf and her sister Samira, Hana became one of the youngest people to ever preview a film at a major film festival (forget which one It was)...
It seems these young directors atre more common in 3rd world countries more than developed one, like US and UK.
MORE ABOUT HANA AND SAMIRA MAKHMALBAF... CLICK HERE
Edited by Landon D. Parks, 12 March 2006 - 10:15 PM.
Posted 12 March 2006 - 10:33 PM
"Kishan's mother Shreeshaila choose to take this as a question on her son's education. "He is of the top three in his class even though he misses so much school. He studies and does homework on the set. We have always wanted him to be treated normally," she said."
Posted 12 March 2006 - 11:12 PM
Yes, this is very true. I can only agree. However what you describe are singular achievements. The alchemy of a true prodigious brain on its' own.
The social complexities involved with filmmaking, from script to screen, can't even be equated to composing or deciphering. A 9 year old or 5 year old figuring a math problem are "natural" phenomenon not "nurture" phenomenon. Thats why we call them "geniuses". Social skills are bred by nurture as is the skill by which one can or cannot be successful in a wide peer environment.
Can a child tell a story with pictures? Most certainly. Can a child write a coherent script? Most certainly. And all at an astonishingly pro level. But that is not the question. The question is how much smoke are these people blowing up our asses.
Actually, I don't even care anymore. Will I see this movie? Most probably not. Good luck little dude.
Posted 13 March 2006 - 12:15 AM
I've yet to meet a director who signs paychecks and writes contracts, no matter how old or young they are, since contracts and paychecks have nothing to do with directing.
Posted 13 March 2006 - 01:53 AM
I have no doubt the stars, producer, cinematographer and everyone else on set are giving him a lot of advice but in the end, he decides what it will be and his name will be listed as director and that is something, and after reading the lastest article he certainly talks like a Writer/director. If this film come here I would love to see it. I'd like to see just what a film prodiogy is capible of.
Edited by Capt.Video, 13 March 2006 - 02:01 AM.
Posted 13 March 2006 - 09:10 AM
Whats your point? Am I to ascertain from your comment that all 9 year olds are terrifingly shy, and that this kid doesn't have the cojones to tell the cinematographer where he wants the camera and to ask the actors to do the next take slower? Is this kid going to have to wait at least until he's 18 to fully master "craft services etiquette"? I've directed before, I know what it takes to be a director. Some have more knowledge of cinema than others, but in the end I think the director is the one position on the set where you don't have to learn the trade in order to be competent at it. A lot of directing is instinct and motivated from the gut.
Again, I'll say its a big publicity stunt as much as doing a feature with cellphones - but that doesn't mean this kid needs his hand held the whole way through.
Posted 13 March 2006 - 06:38 PM
I agree with Sean Azze on this one... IMHO, the ability to direct is not something you learn, it?s something you are born with. Younger kids won?t show that skill, even if they have it, until they reach a more mature age and come to understand it. Most 9 year olds don?t even know how movies are made; to them it's just a form of "entertainment".
I think this is why so many people who lack directing talent take all kinds of film school classes and study all kinds of books and movies and then thinks he Steven Spielberg, then turn around and fail to deliver a good film no matter how hard they try.
Directing a is a craft, it's like painting, I have heard of some master painters that are not even teenagers yet, and then there's adults who can't so much as draw stick figures.
There is no "age limit" on being an artist, and that's what directors are, artists. Some crew members in films are not some much artist, as helping hands or people in a "Profession", such as being a grip or camera assistant.
Anyone with a little training can be a camera assistant and a damn good one, not so with the more "artistic" jobs on a film set, such as Director, Cinematographer, and other members like the Production Designer and conceptual artist's.
In the end, it's just like longing to be a painter... You can "want" to be the next master all you want, but "want" will not get you there. Just because you "want" to draw a picture does not mean you can. I myself have tried painting several times, and I can't put two and two together, more less make a masterpiece.
Now I'm not saying that directing is purely an "Artistic" medium, as knowledge in other things will help you along the way. Life experience is one of these things, although by no means the major thing.
A director should have 4 things:
1) The artistic ability to see the finished film in your head while reading the script or book that will be adapted.
2) The ability to be able to ?Be the boss? (most of the time! Although on big projects, don?t forget there are people over you who CAN boss you around)
3) be a good ?People person?, be able to get along with pretty much anyone under most circumstances, even when someone keeps ?messing it up? (AKA: Don?t yell at someone for there inability to understand what your trying to tell them, just work with them).
4) Know how films are made? I don?t mean be a master at the system, and know how all the SFX works, and how film negative works, I mean being able to understand how a production works to better streamline the process. Know what the role of the director is on your project, be sure you understand the story you?re working with among other things, be sure everyone around you understand what there role is, and be able to stand up to someone who is trying to take over the directors chair that should not be.
If the above is observed, you will be on your way to being a film director. That don?t mean that as long as the above 4 things are meet, that you?ll be a master in your craft, it simply means you will know the basic principles of filmmaking and have the starting blocks of working your way to being a ?Master?. Don?t expect to be Mozart on the first production, and it will take time for you to master your craft and fully understand how everything works.
As a side note: I?m not a professional filmmaker, nor do I claim to be. I am simply offering up what I think it takes for someone to be a ?good? director.
Landons view on film school: While film school might help you better understand how a production works, and how the technology in film works, it will not likely improve your artistic abilities as a director. You either have it or you don?t, bottom line.
Edited by Landon D. Parks, 13 March 2006 - 06:41 PM.
Posted 13 March 2006 - 06:50 PM
I would also like to add that it won't hurt to attend film school, film workshops or anything else for that matter, but you should know the "Film language" as much as posible, IMDB has a great database of terms and there meanings. It also won't hurt to study camera moves so that you know how to do them and the best way to get the coverage you want.
The best way to study camera moves in IMO is to watch the DVD set "Hollywood camera moves?", or at least I think thats what it's called.
Edited by Landon D. Parks, 13 March 2006 - 06:51 PM.
Posted 13 March 2006 - 08:52 PM
The most important quality a director can have other that the ability to create a vision for a project it to be able to comunicate that vision. Until mind-reading becomes commonplace, a director has to be able to make people understand what he wants. As far as yelling at people, Great directors yell at people all the time. I saw Kurbick yell at Shelley Duvall on the set of the Shining in a documentary and I saw Hal Ashby rip the crew apart because I didn't have Klenex on set when I had a cold one day while we were filming. I felt bad for them because I didn't complain about it, I was just using paper towels instead, but he felt it was something that should have been taken care of and he let them know it in no uncertain terms.
A diector has to be able to do whatever it takes to get a preformace from an actor. There's a story about how a famous director told Jackie Coogan his dog had been run over by a car to get him to cry onscreen. I believe the film was The Champ. It was cruel, yes, but he got the moment he needed. Some actors need guidence on every line like Bogdonivich did with Cybill Shepard on the Last Picture Show. (he told me he had to give her line readings before each take because she had never acted before) or need to be left alone like Brando in the scene with the horse from the Missouri Breaks which was completely improvised. A great director motivates rather than dictates anthough Sam Peckenpaw was an ego manical monster and still did some great films. The other thing a director has to to be able to make desitions even if he's not sure what to do next. A director muist have control and the quickest way to loss control and get over budgret is to not be decisive. I'ts a luxury a director like a military commander can't afford.
Posted 13 March 2006 - 09:27 PM
I'm not really in disagreement over your statement. Not at all. I hope the little bugger does great. Some people or born with the propensity for great things given their environment. I would not say people are "born" for anything, however. I beleive great leaders are made not born. Situations help mold. I don't think you "ascertained" what I expected from my comments and would hate to think anyone is under the impression that I believe it is impossible for people to do certain things. I actually think it's funny we are being so serious over this. The bottom line is most people in this thread agree, IMHO. We just have differing philosophies that tend irk. At least I tend to irk people. Sorry. -Jonnie
Posted 13 March 2006 - 09:29 PM
yelling at people for any reason is not the answer, i don't care how many famouse directors do it.
if the director has a cold, he should be smart enough to bring his own tissues...
Edited by Landon D. Parks, 13 March 2006 - 09:30 PM.