A couple of weeks ago I watched the video of Michael Patcher’s Panel at the 2011 PAX. The panel featured a who’s who of video game developers including Ken Levine, and Tod Howard. It also featured the infamously controversial David Jaffe. Of course Jaffe lived up to his reputation. A lot of what Jaffe said on the panel was interesting, but mistaken. He based many of his statements by using analogies to the movie industry. He spent a great deal of time on how people are mistaken in comparing video game directors for film directors.
A great deal of what he said was wrong.
Jaffe implied that video game directors don’t have the power that people think – To Jaffe the video game director is a facilitator, and the film director is more a creative god. He didn’t stop to think, that maybe just like the way people misconceive video game directors vexes him, he might be misconceiving film directors in a similar fashion.
That was more or less the last straw for me on this subject. The inferiority/ napoleon complex the video game industry has to its sibling, the film industry has always been there since the start of the medium. However it seems to me that as games become more sophisticated and popular, backwards comparisons between the two industries are coming up more and more. I've noticed it on the podcast a few times as well.
I should explain my bias on this. I’m an independent/freelance filmmaker, who has been involved numerous non-union, small budget projects. That includes features, shorts, documentaries, music videos, and etc. I’ve directed a few projects myself, but more often I’m the first AD (assistant director). The AD basically is a living stopwatch for the movie, setting schedules to get shots done, and trying to keep the film on time. The AD is vital on set. Also, because they need to keep films on time, they basically are the least popular person on set. (The person in charge of the food is the most popular)
I’ve also worked in other production departments – one can’t be choosy about contract work . I’ve worked in the sound dept., been a producer, scripty. I’ve actually been heavily in the art department recently, making props, and figuring out practical effects. A few weeks ago I had to make a statue of Jesus to bleed in a stigmata effect. Spent a few hours standing in a pool of fake blood. Fun times.
But that’s tangential. The point is -- I’ve seen a movie get made from pretty much every department.
Film directors, with few exceptions, are not (usually) the gods Jaffe paints them as. Just like VG directors, they may have a starting vision of what the film should be, but to actual reach that initial vision is nigh impossible. Why? Because basically everyone on set is an artist with their own vision of the film. Consider this: The people who make films are part of guilds, NOT unions. Why? What’s the distinction? Creativity. They’re not craftsmen, but artisans. They have a craft, but only in the service as an art. This goes from the sound designer, and department, to the gaffer setting up the lights, to the most obvious example the ART department. It’s hard to remember, but everything you see on a screen has been either selected or created by somebody. And the director doesn’t have time to produce all that content.
Anaogy: the director is more like a Sheppard, trying to get all the different artist-sheep to the same place. The Director can try to micro manage each sheep, but that’s highly impractical – it wastes time, and money. Instead they just try to hold the group together . Not only is it more practical, it also means that sometimes, the sheep can find an easier individual path within the group. That is to say, the Artists can come up with something the director hadn’t even considered, that drastically improves the film. This might be a prop, a design, lighting or even a line like “I think we need a bigger boat.”
Jaffe said something at the end of the panel, (paraphrasing again) about directors need to stay obsessive about details, even at the end of their careers. He pointed to how directors work seems to decline as they age. He implied that they had given up passion. I feel sorry for Jaffe if he really believes this.
The decline of the “auteur” director with age is pretty much caused by the opposite of what Jaffe suggests; these directors have become demi-gods in the industry, forces unto themselves. They can finally do what they’ve always wished, and what Jaffe seems to want: they can control everything. Federico Fellini’s later films are generally seen as his lesser—it’s been recorded that those are the films he had the MOST control of. A more contemporary and nerd-familiar example might be George Lucas – It’s obvious when given total control, the man makes crap. The original Star Wars was borne out of collaboration and compromise between the artists in all departments. It’s people working together, creatively, that makes the best films, under the gaze of practical but creative director that makes the best films….or video games.
I hope Jaffe puts a little more thought into this. Video games are an Artistic medium, but also a collaborative one. That means the work will never feel complete. There’s always more to be done. It also means that it requires teams not just as “limbs” to a director, but actively engaged and loving what they’re doing. Lastly I hope we stop having this strange idolization of film as an industry. Despite the admitted differences in the final product in narrative v interactive mediums, there’s a lot in common when it comes to actual production in terms of organization.
Log in to comment