I participate in an oftentimes interesting online dialogue at:
In a recent thread a writer wrote in response to a query about the best way for someone to learn to be a filmmaker:
“…she’d be better off as a producer and writer — writing is one of her strengths — than as a director and editor, because she is definitely NOT a tech-oriente person, and learning all of the mechanical facets of direction, cinematography, and editing programs would bore and frustrate her, when she is passionate about the story she wants to tell, more so than “becoming a filmmaker”. She’d do well as a producer because she has an aptitude for organization and communication.”
The question/statement raises some interesting points, in my opinion.
I added to the thread by writing:
“It is my opinion, based upon a lot of experience with monsters over the years, that the worst producers (also true for any other leadership role within a production team) are those who consider themselves to be “bored and frustrated and definitely not-tech oriented.” Unanimously, their fears and dismissal of a huge aspect of this work is unhealthy in some way. This gap, between the theoretical and the technical (not mechanical) aspects of the work, is indicative of a narrowly conceived specialism that derives from scientism. In other words, narrow specialization by a beginner-student filmmaker is not a good idea. Even writer “|specialists” are better filmmakers and better off generally when they have hands-on, in the trenches appreciation for the technical work, in addition to all the other work—an inseparable combination of technical, creative, business (values), and legal (agreements). Maybe art is a result of all of this, maybe not, but hopefully it all adds up to some value. Please encourage your friend to confront her fears of the technical while she is in pursuit of the creative or other aspect(s).”
I think this is an important question and welcome comments.