There Aren’t Two Types of Directors – Dispelling the Myth of the Actor’s Director vs. the Technical Director

A big thing in Hollywood these days, something I’d say is way out of control, is the division of directors into two types: the “Actor’s Director” and the “Technical Director.” What is an Actor’s Director? Essentially, it’s an on-set acting coach who focuses on guiding actors through their performances. On the other hand, the Technical Director is more concerned with the technical aspects of filmmaking, such as shot lists and advancing the story through visual and sound collaborations with the DP, sound department, etc. A version of this division has always existed because some directors are naturally stronger in one area than the other. However, there was once a more unified perspective that there really is only one type of director, and that the area you are weaker in—whether it be directing actors or handling the technical aspects—is simply an area you should be continuously improving upon. This dichotomy has become increasingly prevalent, but where did it come from, and why is it so widespread?

It all started with the IP craze in Hollywood. After around 2010, producers began their decade-long cycle of loving IPs—intellectual property—more than original content. This happens in cycles of about 5-10 years, and we’re overdue for this one to end. Producers seem to think reruns work better than original content, or that finding books with a built-in fanbase is the only path to success. They’re right in some ways and wrong in others. For any producer reading this, look at all the original movies from the 1980s that are still beloved today. They were 90% original. Start researching why and how that was done, for God’s sake. Yes, I’m looking at you, Disney.

Back to this director issue. Part of the IP craze involves famous actors. For the sake of this article, “actor” refers to any man, woman, non-binary, or non-identifying person. So let’s say you can’t get a particular famous actor for your movie because they are either too expensive or there isn’t a suitable character for them. Well, if you can give them a directing credit, that will help, according to producers—though there’s actually no data behind this—get the movie funded and draw in an audience. I challenge this notion. People see it as a perk, but they watch a movie because of the story first and foremost. That’s a debate for another time, however. But if you have data to show me, send it over because I challenge you that it’s non-existent.

So a lot of producers started employing famous actors as directors, especially for television, because, to be frank, DPs (Directors of Photography) often take on more of the ‘director’ role on some television sets than the actual directors. Don’t get me wrong, there are amazing episodic directors, I'm looking at you Michael Nankin, I can't wait to work with you again, but oftentimes the DPs are there for more episodes and know the style the Showrunner wants. So the director relies more on the DP on a television set than on a movie set, for these and other reasons. This means that a lot of episodic directing on television sets can lean more towards working with actors from an acting coaching perspective—hopefully from a story perspective as well, but often not. I can’t name names, but I know of a Script Supervisor working on a huge show here in Toronto where the so-called ‘Director’ would come on set without a shot list, without script notes on what to change or enhance for the story, etc. They’d just show up every day and say, “I feel like today we should try this…” and then proceed to give some sort of wishy-washy idea of what to do. Little did they know, after a painful first episode, the Showrunner realized they needed to change things and quietly told the 1st AD and DP to have a meeting for each episode without the director, create shot lists themselves, figure out all the visuals, and just make the director think it was her idea. And this isn’t an isolated story. Now is this the right way to do things? No, but there were a lot of politics involved that I can't get into without revealing the show, so let's just say their backs were to a wall. In fact, these days, if I hear “Actor’s Director,” I know that either an incredible 1st AD and DP will call the real shots, or the set will be out of control, resulting in a quality that will lean more towards a short film or student film in look and design than anything else. Don't even get me started on the countless incredible books out there on directing that no one these days has read. I point you to David Mamet's "On Directing," Judith Weston's "Directing Actors," and the infamous "Film Directing: Shot by Shot," by Steve D. Katz. If you haven't read all three of this, and I'm being serious, you're not a director yet. There, I said it. Read them and tell me you didn't learn a ton!

How did this trend reach movie sets? Well, since television operates like this, it wasn’t a big leap for producers to think they could do the same in movies and just make sure the rest of the crew absorbs what should be the director’s duties into their own. And if the director has a ‘name’ that people recognize, boom! That helps get investors—that part I believe—and producers think it’ll draw in audiences. On a mass scale, I don’t think this is true, but show me the data to prove me wrong.

Now, the flip side to the Actor’s Director is the Technical Director, and I’m not a fan of them either. Some actors like to be left alone, so they lean more towards a Technical Director because they tend to be afraid of talking to actors. But there was a time, not too long ago, where whichever world you started in—Actor’s Director or Technical Director—you knew you had weaknesses in the other area and you grew your skillset to compensate. No one’s perfect, and no one will achieve perfection in any one area, BUT here’s a list of people I consider real directors, aka Actor and Technical Director combined: Kathryn Bigelow, Martin Scorsese, Ron Howard, Jodie Foster…the list is long. Special shout-out to Kathryn Bigelow, who I think is the number one and most underrated action director of our time. All of them work on storyboarding, regardless of how good they are at drawing, shot listing, shot planning, rehearsing with actors—the works. THESE ARE DIRECTORS. To me, everyone else is weakening their position to a point where, yes, they may get a few films under their belt, but if they want to become a great director and have a career, they need to be a real director and develop their skills so they are both an Actor’s Director and Technical Director.

Conclusion: Most Actor’s Directors start out as actors on set, watching the director make decisions, seemingly on the fly. But that’s deceiving. Just as an actor spends hours, days, months preparing for a role, the director does the same. By the time they are on set, all that preparation allows them to call things on-the-fly because they have done this scene 80 times beforehand—they’ve storyboarded it, and/or they’ve shotlisted it, they’ve discussed the characters with the actors, make-up, hair, wardrobe, sound, the writer, etc. So I hope one day we’ll stop with this “there are two types of directors” B.S., because honestly, it’s just a marketing ploy from producers, studios, or both. And it’s starting to breed a generation in the independent film world of people who call themselves directors but do no prep and don’t challenge themselves to learn how to break down a script and advance storytelling. I remember one famous director—I won’t name names—who said that they let the actors change the lines to whatever they want. I almost lost it. The actor sees the story through the lens of their character. The director sees the character as one instrument in the orchestra that is the story. So if the trumpets start changing notes, and percussion changes the rhythm, good luck playing Vivaldi. Can actors give suggestions, of course! They should and the director should hear them, but the way it was put by this one particular director at least implied that what the actors say doesn't matter to the story and nothing could be further from the truth.