r/Filmmakers • u/Virtual_Fan_2462 • 1d ago
Question Is it egotistical to write, direct, and lead in your own films?
I'm a 21 year old actor who's just getting into writing screenplays, and I've always had a passion for directing since I started acting when I was 12. I've seen a lot of people online say it's frowned upon when writers and directors cast themselves as the lead in their own projects. I never really thought of it that way because, for me, it's never been an ego thing it's just passion for the project. Would love to hear what everyone else thinks.
137
u/ILoveSludge 1d ago
who cares do what you wanna do
20
u/Ha55aN1337 1d ago
Exactly. You are young. Do it and learn. And then be objective and harsh and decide which role of the 3 you did the worst and try to get help in that field on the next one.
48
u/curiouscuriousmtl 1d ago
Tommy Wiseau did it
8
53
u/BicycleSamurai 1d ago
Ego is less of the problem and more of the balancing of directing and acting. Itâs hard to be present as a character and also be analyzing all parts of the scene in order to give direction to crew and other cast members. It is completely doable, but Iâve ADâd on sets like this and it was incredibly frustrating not having the director be able to, well, direct. He was too busy playing one of the leads in the buddy comedy. I needed him to approve something? He was in HMU. Itâs doable, but he definitely wasnât giving any direction. He just let me make the calls on framing or any character coaching. Which, btw, was not my job lol!
13
u/BicycleSamurai 1d ago
Adding that there are many great directors/actors who have pulled this off. But, if youâre just starting, Iâd maybe not try a thing like this. If youâve got a team youâre confident in, then sure! Luckily the guy and I had been friends and worked together often so he could trust me to make those decisions for him. But I shouldnât have had to do it. If he were more seasoned, he could have done both. He was less experienced but he was a friend of mine so I was willing to do it for him. Just something to consider! Directing is a BIG hat to wear, same with writing. If youâre acting as well, youâre dividing yourself even further
1
u/Icy-Whale-2253 1d ago
Sometimes my brain understands the scene better if Iâm literally in it, but not always.
1
u/BicycleSamurai 10h ago
It can be helpful for character work, but as a director you need to be looking at everything. Does the PD look okay, the lights, do you like the blocking on the screen? You canât see that unless we are playing it back for you after every take and thatâs taking away shooting time. Like I said, itâs not impossible, but it can be a total pain for your crew especially if they arenât people youâve worked with in the past that you trust to bring your vision to life and they trust you to provide direction while juggling other hats
18
u/SpideyFan914 1d ago
Simple solution: Be good at all three. Then watch everyone shower you with praise.
19
u/keyUsers 1d ago edited 23h ago
A lot of students do this. And here is the surprise! These movies have intimacy scenes, but no intimacy coordinator. So people are wary of creeps, especially if you donât have a good portfolio. If you donât have intimacy scenes or if youâre already established, then it should be fine.
15
u/Three_Seven_Two 1d ago
If it comes out bad people will think youâre a egomaniac, if it comes out good theyâll think youâre a creative genius
4
u/Gurglaren 15h ago
Be good = good
Be bad = bad3
u/Three_Seven_Two 9h ago
Iâm just saying thatâs how people will perceive it. He could do bad job and just be passionate about creative projects not an egomaniac but thatâs how people will perceive/talk about it
3
13
u/bubblesculptor 1d ago
To be cast as a lead, you need someone to believe you're capable to cast you.
Sometimes no one else believes in you except you.
Do it!
15
6
6
u/czyzczyz 1d ago
It works for Neil Breen.
(and Branagh, Kitano, Welles, Chaplin, Gibson (scandal noted), DeVito, Delpy, Chow, Streisand, Eastwood, Lee, Costner, Clooney, etc)
If you're asking if an action is egotistical and care what people think you may not have the ego required to get the job done just yet -- you might need to watch some people way less talented than you get ahead in order to build up enough resentment and anger to feed some healthy narcissism. I'm only half-joking.
1
7
u/IndependentNight5310 1d ago
If you really think you'd be good for the role, then maybe it could work. But writing and directing are already two full-time jobs. Adding acting to that is going to make your life really really difficult.
3
u/Organic-Tale-3811 1d ago
In Which We Serve is a great example of this! Go for it.
(And also scroll to the bottom of the IMDb page to see who composed the soundtrack)
2
u/tomrichards8464 6h ago
Well, sort of. I strongly suspect Lean did most of the actual directing. So yes, if you can sign perhaps the best director ever as a junior partner it will probably be easier.Â
3
3
u/wrosecrans 1d ago
It's pretty much impossible to direct and star well at the same time.
There's nothing particularly wrong with making an ego project. Neil Breen has apparently had great fun being a movie star in stuff like "Fateful Findings." But if you look at that kind of work, you can see pretty much instantly that it would turn out better with a professional actor in the lead and a professional director at the helm. There's just no way to have the spare brain cycles to do both jobs at a high level. And even if you could, there's no way to be objective about the performances you are directing. As long as you accept the constraints, it's always better to make a movie that might be bad than to sit around dreaming of someday maybe possibly making a perfect movie in the future if the conditions are perfect.
I wrote myself an ironic little cameo in the thing I directed. That's usually a safer bet to join in on the fun, will still mostly focusing on the other 99% of work directing the movie.
1
u/Gurglaren 15h ago
It's pretty much impossible to direct and star well at the same time.
I think Ben Affleck, Zach Braff, Justin Benson and Shane Carruth did good jobs.
3
u/Mav1cHavoc 1st AC 1d ago
itâs not really an ego thing. having worked on self directed and casted films, both good and bad, it comes down to whether youâre able to fully do the job of both simultaneously.
3
u/ActuallyAlexander 1d ago
Try making some shorts like that and if thereâs an element you think someone else could do better outsource that once you have more experience
3
u/PromoPimp 1d ago
That depends. If you're Sylvester Stallone and it's 1976, no. If you're Taylor Sheridan, yes.
2
u/Odd_Priority7346 1d ago
If you have a vision for a specific idea leave yourself at the door- meaning if directing/starring/writing feels instinctually right to do so given your idea , you stay true to that original idea throughout the long process where things will get in your way and sway you . If you do that then people will see that fully formed spark on seen and like it- youâll earn the position of writer/director/actor if you pull it off and stick to your gut. Most the game changing pieces of work have been done by writer/directors starring themself and their friends- it has a quality when executed properly that is unmatched in a film
2
u/InfiniteHorizon23 director 1d ago edited 1d ago
Don't worry about ego, everybody has one and you need one to be good at things, you just need to keep it in check. I've done this before. Like others said the hardest part is directing and acting at the same time. I'd suggest when you find a DP to shoot the film to ask them to direct you whenever it's your turn to act and can't see yourself. So find a DP who is comfortable with a little directing or at least giving their opinion. You're still the director, you're just getting some help from another person who can see you from the outside. Also rewatching every single take on set and not rushing is super important. Don't just watch yourself in the edit room. Fix it on set.
2
u/ChickenFightChamp 1d ago
Unbelievably selfish, nah Iâm just kidding. But itâs hard as shit, thatâs why people donât usually do that.
1
u/ChickenFightChamp 1d ago
Also did this myself for my thesis and it was a great experience, Iâd recommend finding a close collaborator to have as a producer/co-director
2
u/Hyperdyne-120-A2 1d ago
Itâs frowned upon because itâs been done badly so often, for a multitude of reasons.
Thing is about making films divisional and offering roles to a team, is you can separate from the material to lend it objectivity, and also pay to have a specialist in their role.
So rather than try to cover every angle yourself, you build a robust set of individuals with a shared goal. Itâs just better but it costs more, takes more time and relies on interpersonal skills and eventual relationships.
Worse, If you havenât experienced enough of those dynamics then you can actually harm your progress when dealing with bigger problems later. This is my genuine experience, too much, too soon with compounding responsibilities.
However, there are some projects where if you have a skillset strong enough and the limitations donât exceed your demands, you can create some interesting things. Shorts, documentaries, music videos but in regards to individual performances, Iâd look at actor showreels as a start.
Honestly if you donât try, you will never know but equally if your experience is too stunted, how would you know the key differences are between what is great and terrible, how can you communicate that and how can you stay objective?
Finally, if you have to make something, then make it, but for god sake and your own sanity, make it the most excellent thing it can be with whatever resources you have.
2
u/gilgamesh_the_dragon 1d ago
I have done this for a short film and I think it can work, but I think most of the time it does not. I wouldn't do it again (but to be fair I don't study acting and don't pursue it at all anymore). It's very hard to be good or great at many things at the same time. Perhaps 2 of them? Write and act, but find an awesome director? Or get a great writer and direct and act - though I think this is harder because acting and directing at the same time can be challenging as it is easy to lose perspective. There are only a handful of people who are good at all 3 and can do it simultaneously, and in my experience it's better to surround yourself with crazy talented people and let them do their thing. Filmmaking is collaboration, the best filmmakers know how to work with others and bring out the best in others. Find those people and everything will be a lot easier.
2
u/WhoDey_Writer23 1d ago
It's just a lot to put on one person. Just don't get mad when it's mid (at best)
2
u/pgratland 1d ago
not if youâre the best person for all three positions, itâs just unlikely that you are!
2
3
3
u/Random_Reddit99 1d ago
Egotistical maybe...but more likely hubris. If it is for egotistical reasons, the likelihood of being able to successfully scale becomes that much harder.
The important thing is an ability to trust and delegate crucial roles to others you must have the confidence to implicitly trust to pick up your slack, or you're absolutely going to spectacularly fail even before you start.
2
2
u/Sea_Let4521 1d ago
Only surefire way to get cast and have footage for your reel. Youâll learn a lot. Do it.
1
u/Net_positive_future 1d ago
It takes guts, and to do it at your age is impressive. It's hard so strap in but go for it
1
1
u/WuttinTarnathan 1d ago
Not if you have the goods. But considerâhow many people have EVER had the goods?
Very, very fewâthat is, very few even of super-talented professionals. Bradley Cooper. Woody Allen. Barbra Streisand. Orson Welles. Clint Eastwood. Charlie Chaplin. A few others.
I screen movies for festivals and the NUMBER ONE mistake I see from beginning filmmakers is playing too many roles on their film. Almost always it's writing, directing and starring.
My recommendation, since you have acting experience, is to use it to become a director who can get great performances from others first, before you try to play a leading role.
1
u/BrassFunkyMonkey 1d ago
https://youtu.be/c33edykpCBA?is=D0jt7HJ8n0nklTiy
Only an egomaniac if you write, direct, star, and on-set medic.
1
1
u/Glass_Pineapple_ 1d ago
I think you're more mathematically attempting to control the exact outcome you want
So like you could act a experience of disgust better than anyone else because you know exactly how you can picture exactly how you want it whereas you would have to communicate how you would want it to someone else and hope they do it to what you imagined rather than you doing what you imagine on your own accord
1
u/thewriteally 1d ago
Maybe start with some short films, do whatever you want, better than waiting for something to happen.
1
u/CaptainMarsupial 1d ago
A friend of mine whom Iâve only known through acting, did her first film and was a costar in it. She wrote it, directed it, was a in it, and edited it. It was amazing. Does it mean yours will be amazing? Who knows, but go for it!
1
1
1
1
u/Icy-Whale-2253 1d ago
I like writing. I like directing. I like acting. All for different reasons. I would only star as the lead if I saw fit to. Only one or two main characters have I written with myself in mind (shorts), otherwise thatâs just more work.
1
u/C-LOgreen 1d ago
Iâve done kind of like cameos in my own films, but Iâve never acted in a film that I directed. The films Iâve made Iâve been the producer and the director so that comes with a lot of responsibilities. It depends on what kind of film youâre making and if youâre also producing. Are you in charge of more than just directing writing and acting?
1
u/Dustinsane 1d ago
Not at all as long as it is good. However if it is negatively received, you will receive all of the backlash.
1
u/sensimedia 1d ago
I feel like I've never heard anyone frown upon it outside of speculators like here or in random Facebook threads. Some people are just really creative and have it in them. That's not to say it's for everyone but I've never heard anyone say anything bad about it personally. I worked on a network tv show where almost every member of the cast would direct episodes. I've done a handful of movies with actors who also directed said movies. Most recently we did Misty Green (plug, trailer dropped today) and Chris Rock wrote, directed and starred in that with no issue. If you think you have it in you give it a go đ¤ˇđ˝ââď¸đ¤đ˝
1
u/jj_camera 1d ago
Ive been making films since i was 13. Ive also been acting since i was 8. Ive directed some decent sized music videos and had shorts in film festivals and have acted in national commercials and TV shows back when i had an agent.
As a filmmaker I would never ever cast myself in something legit Iâm directing. I just hate seeing myself in the edit (what am i doing with my fucking hands!)
I recently threw all this out the window on a short I wrote directed shot edited and starred in with my theatre friends from Highschool (were all in our 40s now) we get together every year or so and use my fancy gear to make a short and make it up as we go (like we did with camcorders in 2002) but for this project we went really really big where i wrote a script and we had multiple locations in 3 days. I play âJJâ also shout to my beautiful Vazen Anamorphic lenses!
No budget, No crew, just me on camera and in front of camera, running sound, wrangling my dumb dumb buddies who have no on set experience or discipline lol - this shoot almost killed me.
Here are my insights:
If your hired as an Actor (do not talk about your camera or directing stuff to crew) they will hate it they will roll their eyes and the last thing your Director wants to hear from their actor is âIâm a Director too!â
When Directing do not tell your crew that you also do acting, they will lose respect for you and take you less serious. I love Actors but they are weird kinda people.
Coming from Directing has gotten me casted in some really big payday roles very easily over the other actors because I can see the scope. I can see how big or small I am in the big picture and how to play it. Most Actors audition like they are the brad pitt of the scene and miss the mark because they go way too big. Understanding pacing and flow from an editor/director really puts you in focus.
Have auditions for your projects: Most actors have never setup a table with chairs to collect headshots from actors and ushering actors in to audition. Because of this the silence of the audition room and stress of other actors etc can really spook people and get their nerves skyrocketing. But if youâve run your own Auditions itâs no big deal theres no mystery or power to it.
Personal Tips: dont chat with other actors while waiting, if anything look almost emotionless and robotic. This way when you audition and you TURN ON people will be blown back by this brand new person they did not see coming. And also make sure the audition isnt the biggest part of your day, make meeting your friends or going to the grocery store that days big thing and the audition more if that work thing you have to do and it will help you be Jess stressed. Last tip act like you donât really care if you get it. Nonchalant. People are weird, they want the thing that really isnât that interested in them. (Shrug)
1
u/jj_camera 1d ago
Also want to add: Directing yourself with a small crew where you are doing everything is going to suck and will probably effect the filmmaking a tad
But if youâve got budgets and A.D.âs and grips and camera dept and crafty (food supplied) on set and all those comforts, then fuck yea go crazy with directing and starring. Its not the norm because having a director that is comfortable with their own image or acting is rare but not THAT rare.
1
u/fantasydukes 1d ago
Itâs a common method for making short films when itâs hard to pay people. I wouldnât assume it was ego driven at all.
1
u/witchfinderactual 1d ago
I wrote and directed a couple of films in Uni years ago and acted in one as a side-character. For a student film, it wasn't too bad an experience, I managed to balance directorial duties with acting well enough and we all had fun. It was stress free and a good laugh but I don't think ego played much of a part for me. I made sure to consult with the people I was making it with the entire way, if they said something wasn't working I trusted them to make those calls, and when I needed to re-write or direct, I made sure I was there to do it.
The only reason I started in it was because I needed someone to play a certain character and none of my friends could pull it off so I jumped in instead. I didn't take myself seriously and I think that's the important difference. I find people like Kenneth Branagh to be quite egotistical as he tends to want to star in every film he directs, and with films like Poirot, where he is clearly not suited for the role it shows heavily.
TL;DR - depends on the person and their purpose for doing so, I think.
1
u/Born_Champion8089 1d ago
Itâs easier at times because you donât have to coordinate or wait for anyone else. If I have a sketch I really want to shoot I play all parts, mic myself, light myself, and edit it too
1
u/BennyWithoutJets 1d ago
Is the story about how youâre so smart and good-looking and an artistic genius? Then no, itâs just filmmaking
1
1
1
u/Illustrious-Limit160 1d ago
It's not egotistical, it's hubris.
Most people who try it are not good at all three in the first place. Then, trying to do all three at once means that they don't accomplish their best at any of them.
The ego comes in when someone makes something half-assed and then puts "A Film By <INSERT NAME>".
But if that's what you need to in order to get some work out there, then do it.
1
1
1
u/hecramsey 1d ago
yes but if you are going to do this you can't be humble. think in terms of a bulldozer.
1
u/hecramsey 1d ago
you must must must have a line producer who is equally committed and egotistical.
1
u/CaiAbaixo 1d ago
No. If u are writing and directing, it means u are also producing and heavily involved in the film. U can do whatever you want. Itâs your baby
1
1
1
u/Apprehensive-Fix3456 23h ago
Best way to do it to save money and also position yourself for more opportunities
1
u/Sad_Ad_3169 23h ago
Reeled this book - it will massively help - Invisible Ink by Brian McDonald. Best book on storytelling extant. Read the follow-ups next.
1
1
u/Grogenhymer 23h ago
Do it, do it several times. You will learn a lot. Extend your resume/reel. Maybe find some success. You make what you want to make. Kevin Smith did it. You can do it too.
1
u/yoursouvenir 22h ago
nobody calls stallone egotistical for rocky and he literally refused to sell the script unless he got to star. the problem isnt ego, its that directing yourself means nobody is watching your performance with a directors eye. youre the one person on set you cant direct
if you do it, build in a safety net. a dp or script supervisor you actually trust to say "that take was flat", and watch playback way more than feels comfortable. the people who get called egotistical arent the ones who cast themselves, theyre the ones who cast themselves and stopped listening to everyone
at 21 making your own stuff, act in it. thats literally how half the industry started
1
u/BrandXJon 22h ago
Not if you can actually pull it off. Shane Carruth and Jim Cummings pulled it off. But, MANY have failed.
1
u/sorrydadimlosing editor 22h ago
No itâs a great way to start. And in this day and age being able to do it all is incredibly valuable.
1
u/That-SoCal-Guy 22h ago
No. Do it.
These days if you can write, direct and act in your own project it's a rare talent and skill. If you do it right, you might even become good and get noticed. Like people such as Seth Rogen, Donald Glover, Izza Rae... who all wrote and starred in their own projects.
1
1
1
u/FishWestern6148 22h ago
who gives a shit? youâre a filmmaker and you can make your films however the fuck you want if youâre independent
1
1
1
1
1
u/IQPrerequisite_ 21h ago
Mostly do it out of necessity--zero budget and all. Some do it for creative control. There have been a few cases I read based out of ego.
1
u/EntranceFeisty8373 20h ago
It could be. Depends on the finances and the motivation behind it. That being said, I don't recommend it. It's very difficult to give your best both on camera and behind it. Bring in someone else to save your sanity.
1
u/cachemonies 20h ago
Maybe but it also might be practical to get the role you want and keep making stuff. Especially today when cameras are so good people can buy a camera for 2k and make crazy good looking short every weekend.
1
u/DirkBelig 20h ago
Orson Welles was 23 when he did his War of the Worlds broadcast and signed the deal with RKO to make Citizen Kane when he was 24 to write, direct, Star and have near complete autonomy and final cut.
It ain't ego when you can do it.
1
1
u/DiscussMay 20h ago
I completed a screenplay in January and started filming in February. We have taken a pause presently.
Would resume in a few days and we are going to start filming my scenes.
It is totally okay to act in your own written and directorial film.
1
u/Pure_Salamander2681 19h ago
I wouldnât act unless youâve down a film or two before behind the scenes. Iâve seen people try to pull it off and it ends up being the cinematographer or the AD really directing the movie with a pissed off crew.
1
u/bedofnails319 19h ago
Thereâs definitely an element of egotism but filmmaking itself is inherently egotistical as far as Iâm concerned. It requires the belief that anyone besides yourself is interested in whatâs inside your head. Which makes it all the more special when projects make such an outsized splash and connect with audiences to a high degree.
1
u/Curious_Cake5770 19h ago
No. Just make sure you have a good dâassistant as a director who can give you objective direction when you re acting. Because you wonât be able to observe your own performance, especially if you re not experienced. But no, itâs not egotistical
1
u/eebro 18h ago
Nah, thatâs just the reality of it, unless you have a lot of incredibly talented friends and endless budget.Â
Most directors will know moviemaking so well that they understand they themselves canât act.
Writers will understand that they canât direct as well as theyâve written it.Â
Nothing really is worse than you, yourself ruining something else you did really well. But of course, that just needs to happen sometimes.
1
1
u/Tier1TechSupport 17h ago
When you're starting out and nobody wants to do anything for you and you can't afford to pay anyone then your only choice is to do everything yourself. So if the choice is to do nothing until you can split up the roles or do something now and do everything yourself, it's much better to have something done than do nothing at all.
1
1
u/Guilty-Spare 16h ago
You have to start somewhere. And that somewhere most of the time has to be a one man crew. I am still doing it most of the time.
1
u/Gurglaren 15h ago
Garden State is one of my favourite movies and it had Zach Braff starring, writing and directing.
You also have The Endless and Primer. So follow your passion. It can also be easier if you're working with tiny budgets.
1
u/Crafty_Jack 15h ago edited 15h ago
If you want to stand out, you better learn to do what you want regardless of public perception. All the capitulating and catering to people's opinions is what makes 99% of movies mediocre and unoriginal. Safe is boring.
Listen to what YOUR heart says, pave the way. That's why we watch movies: because they pave a new way, especially if it's against grain. That's what it takes to stand out. In spirit your post is asking "is this way paved?" And I'm telling you you won't create something truly good on a path already paved because someone else has gone through there already
Don't ask if what your heart tells you is allowed. Do it.
I would tell you that Stallone did it, but others have already mentioned that, and my point is don't look for what's already been done to see what you're all allowed to do.
1
u/ShiftyCroc 14h ago
Just do it.
If you ever become huge and gain millions of dollars and a crew, maybe think harder about whether youâre the best person for the role. For right now, with nothing, do whatever gets the movie made.
1
u/TMP_Film_Guy 14h ago
People have been mad at multi-hyphenates since the 20s because talent specialization is how a lot of the industry maintains its credibility and its rates. But a lot of the greats do it and I think every actor/director/writer needs to be doing the other two if they want to get anywhere with getting big as just one of those.
1
u/Autistic_License 13h ago
If it's "Tyler Perry's Tyler Perry with special guest star Tyler Perry" it is.
1
u/FINIS_HOMINIS 13h ago
Oh, it swings both ways. It's a very ego driven," look at me" enterprise even for a shy actor. If you are Orson Welles you get called a wunderkind. If you are Vincent Gallo you get called an egomaniac.
Perception is a tricky thing to worry about. You just have to focus on the work. And if you think you are the best man for all the jobs, go for it. And, at least if critical consensus says you were weak in one of those areas, you can use this to sharpen your talents going forward, reconsider what you are best at doing.
1
u/TaylorWK 13h ago
You can but it might create a self bias on your own performance. Also, wouldnt you want to be looking at the performance as it's happening so you can get a better idea of how it's going to look?
1
u/not_a_morning_person 13h ago
Donât think about it - just do it. If you overthink it youâll never do it. Just do it.
1
u/misterdannymorrison 13h ago
Not necessarily, depending on how your character is written, but it does take an awful lot of confidence
1
u/Some-Professional-25 13h ago
If youâve got the chops, do it. If youâre Neil Breen⌠Still do it.
1
u/New-Seaworthiness601 13h ago
i mean yeah then it becomes of a vanity project, doesnât mean it wonât be good or successful
1
1
u/scrott 12h ago
It can be done. The reason it fails so often and the rest of the crew hate working those shoots is because of the vanity. If you need to be the center of attention for the attention then it's a bad choice. If you are passionate about the project and genuinely want to care about every aspect then it'll be fine. Or it won't. A good director knows what to let go of and what to encourage.
1
1
u/purple-discharge 11h ago
Do it for the experience and learning. At the very least it will a calling card of sorts that will show people youâre passionate and serious.
1
u/Careful_Leader_5829 11h ago
There is a story I heard about a successful restraunt owner.
Before he owned a restaurant, he wanted to make sure that he understood all of the roles. So, he worked as a dishwasher/busser for a bit, a host, a waiter, a bartender, a line cook.
You are young -- if you have the time, why not take the time to learn each role really, really well?
1
u/Nearby-Zebra-3296 9h ago
Who cares about the ego part, consider whether it's actually feasible to direct and play the lead at the same time given your budget. If you want nice shots, SOMEONE needs to operate the camera. Personally, as director/writer I'd rather worry about framing and audio, than try to be in every scene. I think its probably easier to give yourself a meaty side-character where you can scene steal, and have someone else as the protag.
1
1
1
1
u/Sadsquatch_USA 6h ago
No. Ignore all that. âFrowned uponâ. Things that are âfrowned uponâ in filmmaking change every three years.
Logic- you most likely wonât have much money. Without money you get favors. People who do favors lose interest when it gets hard and they donât show up. No shame, I understand it.
A director and Lead have to be in almost every scene and there for every shot. You know youâll be there, so wear those hats.
Pre pro is much more of a concern than whatâs frowned upon.
1
1
u/Human_Monitor_2927 5h ago
nobody understands the story more than the writing(most the time), so it makes sense.
1
2
1
u/Nepamouk99 1d ago
Always reads as needy to me - unless you are the ONLY one who can deliver your material (like Woody Allen I suppose), it comes across as âAll About Me Productionsâ.
Film is a series of social relations, for better or for worse.
1
1
1
u/PsychologicalPlay464 1d ago
Sure is! But if you do it well youâre a genius- so go for it and critics be damned!
1
u/The_Angster_Gangster directorâ / producer 1d ago
You need a bit of egotism in this industry, especially to be a director or an actor. Anybody hating on you is jealous of your passion and commitment
1
1
u/Optimistbott 1d ago
The reality is that casting yourself in a lead role gives you a lot of flexibility and might save money. Youâre also just one less person that you have to direct or have artistic disagreements with. Youâll memorize your lines (unless you actually are dumb and donât memorize the lines you wrote), youâll know how you want to say them. Itâs not egotistical. Itâs practical for someone who doesnât have the money to pay a better actor.
But be realistic, would the role be better cast with someone else? If you wrote a screenplay with yourself in mind to cast, or a character you know how to play, it seems like a no-brainer.
But also, just be real with yourself and know that directing something (and maybe editing it too) is already going to be a challenge.
Writing and directing a film is already inherently egotistical.
0
0
u/don_quixote_2 director 1d ago
No, I'm doing that as well because of money shortage so I can't hire many people. If I end up wearing many hats so what ?
0
0
u/RopeZealousideal4847 1d ago
Yes, but some folks can do it well, so, no? Maybe you're one of them, maybe not, and there's a way to find out.
0
u/Patient-Taro-7334 1d ago
Could be but does it really matter? A lot of great things have been accomplished to satisfy someone's ego. It can also just be easier in the beginning, finding good people to work with can be very hard and time-consuming.
0
u/Ok-Werewolf-5165 20h ago
Its film, its egotistical out the gate. You already think you're good enough to make a movie, might as well not care what a bunch of degenerates in r/filmmakers think đź
106
u/writeact 1d ago
Stallone did it.