Is a cinematographer or a writer more likely to also be director of a film?
I’m part of a group making a film for Media Studies in NCEA Level 3 at school, the roles assessed are cinematographer, editor, writer, audio engineering, yet not director. Out of either cinematographer and writer, who do you reckon would be suited to be described as the director of the film?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
6 Answers
The writer tends to know how the story is intended to be told. They have a vision of what is wanted on screen. The cinematographer is the technician that can best help the directors vision be filmed.
I can think of several writers who moved on to become successful directors. I can’t think of many cinematographers.
I think cinematographers make excellent directors, and there are many who made the switch, including:
Nicholas Roeg
Mikael Salomon
William A. Fraker
Freddie Francis
Andrzej Bartkowiak
Jan de Bont
John Sturges
John Glen
Peter Hunt
George Stevens
Byron Haskiner
Don Siegel (formerly editor/montage creator)
Hal Ashby (editor)
Barry Sonnenfeld
Ernest Dickerson
Ronald Neame
Robert Wise, David Lean, Hal Ashby, all former editors
And a cinematographer I worked with on a TV commercial, Haskell Wexler
The one who actually did the directing.
Bit of trivia. Christian Nyby, previously a film editor, was credited with directing The Thing from Another World. But the actual director of this 1951 landmark sci-fi movie was the famous Howard Hawks (for whom Nyby had done editing in the 40s). Anyone familiar with Hawks’ impressive catalog of work will recognize his style, which features well developed characters and witty, rapid-fire, overlapping dialog. “Thing” looks dated today, and its special affects, impressive for their time, pale next to modern CGI. Nonetheless, this continues to be my favorite sci-fi film. Not one of its many sequels holds a candle—in my opinion.
Answer this question 
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.
Composing members:
0
