The Hawke talks about why actors make good directors.

I like Hawke, but I disagree with him.

Most actors-turned-directors absolutely suck, only a few are decent, and only one great.
 
I think his point about not many cinematographers becoming great directors isnt really like for like though, partly for the very reason he mentions. Directors and cinematographers come much more from the same group of people than actors do so they will be more likely to make a choice they want early on and stick with it plus many of those who choose directing will also be great cinematographers themselves(Kubrick, Ridley Scott, etc), even if they work though other cinematographers for specifics plus you have many cinematographers who develop a long career working with the same director.

The actors turned directors he mentions as well I'm not sure I would consider them great examples of directors focused on the acting, often they directed their own films and were really not focused on the performance of other actors. WIth Chaplin and Keaton for example you think of the set peices, with Orson Wells you think of the visuals, etc. I think early on in Hollywood especially an actor becoming director was as much about ambition as anything, taking direct control to stop studios having them work with hacks.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top