You're definitely right. But also - what Ethan Hawke says is true, even for a lot of "visual" directors. Welles was probably one of the most visual directors who ever lived. Sure, maybe the average actor-director may start off being more performance oriented, but that's not exclusively true. For example: John Frankenheimer was an actor first, too. Look at his film "Seconds." That's one of the most primarily visual films ever made, nearly as extreme and bold on a visual level as Soy Cuba or any of Kubrick or Lynch's work. Actors have the most seamless transition to directors because they are the object of the camera's gaze, and it is inevitable for them to reclaim that by crossing over to the other side. Todd Field's Tár is the best Kubrick film not made by Kubrick, and he started as an actor FOR Kubrick (and clearly absorbed some wisdom by proxy). All of his films demonstrate extreme craft on a visual and sonic level that is absolutely at the forefront, and not subservient to performance or "pictures of people talking" as Hitchcock called it. It's also not exclusively a male phenomenon. Ida Lupino knew as much about lenses and focal lengths as the best DoP's she worked with. Even Bradley Cooper shows a pretty intense visual growth from his first to second film (for all my qualms about Maestro - it's visual acuity is not one of them) All in all - never count out actors who turn directors. Heath would have been a great director, no doubt. But he's not an isolated incident. This is a repeated pattern throughout film history, and people just tend to forget all the actor-directors who are visual. I had ZERO idea that he was slated for The Queen's Gambit. That's tragic. I love how it turned out, but he'd have brought something new.
Actors are poised to become competent directors, be it on stage or on screen, due to the nature of acting and the underlying understanding of drama and performance. But it certainly does not automatically translate into thinking about narrative rhythm visually and sequentially, which is what cinema is about. The directors with the greatest grasp of cinematic form were not or are not actors - Kubrick, Spielberg, Hitchcock, Tarkovsky, Leone, Bergman, Kurosawa, Ozu, Fellini, Antonioni, Wilder, Eisenstein, Almodovar, Scorsese, The Coens, Haneke, Fincher, De Palma, Coppola, to list the most obvious ones. Even amongst the ones who haven’t necessarily shaped cinematic form but have a distinct cinematic point of view like Malick, Herzog, Cameron, Jackson, Nolan, Zemeckis, Bay, Shyamalan (yes), Dardenne Brothers, Cuáron, Iñárritu, Wright, Loach, Nichols, Leigh, or younger ones like Chazelle, Aster and Eggers, you don’t find actors. The ability to think cinematically is not a direct consequence of knowing how to act - it is, however, much more closely related to understanding and knowing how to write. So Heath might’ve become a competent director. Other than that, no one will ever know.
@@jakeledger2819He operated the camera for a single scene. He didn’t direct anything. Christopher Nolan gave him room to do a great performance. No need to rewrite reality to say he also directed the film. That is fucking mental.
![[LIVE] นาทีนี้ต้องพี่ทนาย | ทนายแก้ว vs ทนายไพศาล | #คุยให้เด็กมันฟัง EP.47 (02/11/67)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HmquaO-PL_M/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Full] 4 ต่อ 4 Celebrity EP.920 | 3 พ.ย. 67 | one31](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KwiW2M_kAg4/mqdefault.jpg)
They didn’t know he was going to get so serious.
Great Video! Didn't know he was such a talent outside of acting
Good content but shitty clickbait (it worked)
You're definitely right. But also - what Ethan Hawke says is true, even for a lot of "visual" directors. Welles was probably one of the most visual directors who ever lived. Sure, maybe the average actor-director may start off being more performance oriented, but that's not exclusively true. For example: John Frankenheimer was an actor first, too. Look at his film "Seconds." That's one of the most primarily visual films ever made, nearly as extreme and bold on a visual level as Soy Cuba or any of Kubrick or Lynch's work. Actors have the most seamless transition to directors because they are the object of the camera's gaze, and it is inevitable for them to reclaim that by crossing over to the other side. Todd Field's Tár is the best Kubrick film not made by Kubrick, and he started as an actor FOR Kubrick (and clearly absorbed some wisdom by proxy). All of his films demonstrate extreme craft on a visual and sonic level that is absolutely at the forefront, and not subservient to performance or "pictures of people talking" as Hitchcock called it. It's also not exclusively a male phenomenon. Ida Lupino knew as much about lenses and focal lengths as the best DoP's she worked with. Even Bradley Cooper shows a pretty intense visual growth from his first to second film (for all my qualms about Maestro - it's visual acuity is not one of them) All in all - never count out actors who turn directors. Heath would have been a great director, no doubt. But he's not an isolated incident. This is a repeated pattern throughout film history, and people just tend to forget all the actor-directors who are visual. I had ZERO idea that he was slated for The Queen's Gambit. That's tragic. I love how it turned out, but he'd have brought something new.
This is such a good read! Appreciate the informative insight.
Actors are poised to become competent directors, be it on stage or on screen, due to the nature of acting and the underlying understanding of drama and performance. But it certainly does not automatically translate into thinking about narrative rhythm visually and sequentially, which is what cinema is about. The directors with the greatest grasp of cinematic form were not or are not actors - Kubrick, Spielberg, Hitchcock, Tarkovsky, Leone, Bergman, Kurosawa, Ozu, Fellini, Antonioni, Wilder, Eisenstein, Almodovar, Scorsese, The Coens, Haneke, Fincher, De Palma, Coppola, to list the most obvious ones. Even amongst the ones who haven’t necessarily shaped cinematic form but have a distinct cinematic point of view like Malick, Herzog, Cameron, Jackson, Nolan, Zemeckis, Bay, Shyamalan (yes), Dardenne Brothers, Cuáron, Iñárritu, Wright, Loach, Nichols, Leigh, or younger ones like Chazelle, Aster and Eggers, you don’t find actors. The ability to think cinematically is not a direct consequence of knowing how to act - it is, however, much more closely related to understanding and knowing how to write. So Heath might’ve become a competent director. Other than that, no one will ever know.
( this bracket took me less than 30 seconds)
I'm proud of you :)
I’ll be honest he was the only great actor we had since learnardo dicaprio
Work with more actors.
Good video but no likes for clickbait title
to be fair, his title is somewhat accurate , heath did direct some scenes of the dark knight
don't hate the player hate the game
@@jakeledger2819He operated the camera for a single scene. He didn’t direct anything. Christopher Nolan gave him room to do a great performance. No need to rewrite reality to say he also directed the film. That is fucking mental.
No one knows, this would be , this just a fictional reality, so yah no know nows