To finish, we would like to give you an overview of all the comparisons (click on it to enlarge it) we made between our directors and a small conclusion we can draw of these analysis
In our opinion, what makes a good director is also whats makes a good entrepreneur. Everything is about passion and conviction, risk-taking and know to surround yourself with the good people. All the directors had some things in common and their own characteristics, but they all deeply believed in what they did, they all had a vision of what they were doing and were ready to fight for it even in their personal life (Truffaut divorced because of the time he was spending on his movies, Coppola mortgaged his house to finance Apocalypse Now...).
When we talked about Leadership, Communication,
Decision-Making skills and so forth, almost all the times I thought about
Managers or Directors within a company or corporative. Sometimes we are so
“inside the box” that we don´t realize that we find leaders in all the
environments. For me, that is one of the reasons that make our topic so
interesting. I realized the big importance that the film directors have as
leaders to get a successful movie for the rest of the human being eyes
achieving the expected results for them and in the billboard.
Is not that easy to work directing a team that does
not always agree with everything you said. Actors that have the decision to be
part of your cast or not, crew that could reject your ideas or proposals,
etc. There could be a lot of combinations of different personalities that
could match or not, and learn how to deal with it and get the outcome you
planned is a big challenge that a leader should accomplish.
With the comparison that we did in our project with
the 4 directors (4 different styles), the big learning that I got is that you
don´t need to follow a specific path to be a great leader, there is not a
checklist to fulfill to see if you are good enough or not, you can be as you
want taking care of your skills and opportunity areas improvement and it would
work… being a great manager or director in the environment that you select.
Héctor
In this project I learned that a lot about how
different styles of leaderships can have a common ending. With these directors
we found people that were less social interactive but still were able to lead
and make people want to work for them because of how they did things, even if
that didn’t represented exactly the vocal leader we always imagine when they
tell us to think about a leader.
I did spend more time on Coppola and was able to see
many qualities of a leader and even though he is also not the prototypical
style of leader, he had so many qualities that are needed in that profession to
be defined as a leader that may not be so in other industries like his reckless
personality and doing things even when nobody backed him up that you probably
can’t do in a business, he gambled and he won sometimes but sometimes he lost
big time but yet if he wasn’t like that he may not have achieved what he did.
There are different things among these four directors
but really in the end they were a lot to be difference makers on their own
style. Yet ,in of my learning from looking at these 4 directors is how they
imposed their will and never let anyone decide for them or settle with
something they weren’t happy with, they always went for what they thought was
what they needed, they never stopped believing in themselves so that’s a big
learning for me.
Ernesto
We analyze and contrast four film directors with
different profiles and styles in order to have a more comprehensive view of the
challenges, strengths and conflicts that directors have to face during filming.
With this project I learned that there is not a unique
formula to follow to achieve success, and this thought can be related to any
other profession. I think what is important is the dedication, commitment, and
your attitude in doing what you really like.
Many qualities of being a leader can be acquired over
time, the importance is to know how communicate and transmit motivation to
achieve persuasion of others, often the leader is not the one giving orders,
but the one who gives the example to others.
Félix
I've always been passionate about cinema and so this project was kind of a challenge for me as I really wanted us to do it well and go deeply in our analysis. I already knew the four directors we decides to work on (or at least their movies) but this project really allowed me to know them better (as persons) and to understand their work. I got to understand a lot more about them all and so about their movies. It was kind of challenging, maybe even frightening at the beginning not to know where we were going, in the sense that we didn't know starting to analyze the directors if we could draw any sensible conclusion or find enough traits in common to be able to draw something out. But I finally was kind of proud we could and it helped to understand a lot more about the work of directors and the essential qualities it requires. I don't think we had any "director" properly speaking in our team, but it was really interesting to work on this kind of subject which was a little bit "out of the frame" of scholar topics I was used to work on in groups.
At last we
have a comparison between the non americans, two directors in completely
different times doing the same thing 50 years apart. Truffaut and Cuarón
Youth:
Truffaut had
a very difficult childhood, he never met his father, he was an undesired child,
born outside marriage, and spent time in jail twice, although Cuarón didn’t
experience such a bad experience, something true, is that he never got his family’s
support, sometimes it can make the difference to have success or not. So, both
knew how to move forward, and do what they wanted to do and enjoyed it.
Relationship
with actors and crew:
Cuarón is not
very close with his actors, but he is with his crew and collaborators, he has
managed to make a great working team with them, and all of them have been very
loyal with each other. Truffaut, in the other hand, is also very close and
loyal to his actors and technician staff, he helped to launched the career of a
lot of French actors, and become friends with several of them, also he has been
emotionally engaged with some actresses.
It's turn for 2 of the classic directors that change the way movies are made today. Stanley Kubrick and Francois Truffaut.
Stanley Kubrick and Francois Truffaut
Even though
Kubrick and Truffaut have very different nationality and belong to different
waves of the cinema industry, we can find similarities between them and
contrast with their interests and styles.
Childhood:
Kubrick and
Truffaut lived a different way of childhood. Kubrick´s father was always taking
care of him, supporting his wants and dreams. In the other hand, Truffaut lived
a different and very sad childhood, he was abandoned and this event influenced
and marked his style; his first movie was named “400 knocks“ (translated to
English) based on what he lived as a kid.
Filming
style:
Kubrick
worked in a vast range of styles, from dark comedy to horror to crime to drama.
His films were a reflection of his obsessive. Truffaut didn't do films in as many "categories" as Kubrick but also tackled different subjects and types of cinemas. They both had a really genuine approach of the visual work, they wanted their movie to seem as real as possible and sometimes in "extreme conditions". Truffaut and his peers of the new wave wanted their movie to look as caught moments of life (camera on shoulder, simple editing, sequence shots), Kubrick almost wanted his movies to be shot at the time it was supposed to occur (for Barry Lindon, they only used natural light and candles and I think you can guess how difficult it can be to shoot night scenes with this kind of lightening)
Next are 2 greats of the last 30 years in Hollywood, 2 Oscar wining directors for cinema changing movies like the Godfather and Gravity: Francis and Alfonso.
Francis Ford
Coppola and Alfonso Cuarón
While Cuarón
and Coppola don’t share a style of filmmaking both have been very important for
their countries film industry. Below is a comparison between the
characteristics that are most representative of the two:
As leaders:
Cuarón is
very well regarded as the kind of director you want to work with in making a
film. Cuarón is a director that takes care of his crew and is close to them
which makes people want to work for him as he is open and a good listener.
Coppola, while not a cold person, was not very intimate with his crew. He did
work with people multiple times but there is not one person that was close to
him on all his movies like Cuarón and Lubezki. Once on set, Cuarón is described
as the kind of director that pushes everyone to do their best, he is rigorous
but a team player, people want to be around him because he makes them better.
It’s not documented that Coppola made this kind of impact on many people.
Personality:
Coppola and Cuarón
have a similar personality. Coppola was always a risk taker, "against the system" kind of personality although just like Cuarón on his early days at college and
as he began his career. Cuarón had a late rise mainly given the fact that he
went against people and systems at the beginning. Coppola had more confidence
in his self and even though he failed sometimes he doesn’t regret them. Both
share the interest of writing their own screenplay rather than filming someone
else’s.
Persuasion:
One of the
main characteristics that one can identify on these 2 directors is
persuasiveness. Coppola did it multiple times as people didn’t want to do
things his way. Cuarón has the same reputation among the people that work for
him. People say that Cuarón always finds a way to guide the movie the way he
wants and really convinces you about his idea.
Despite
belonging to different waves of the cinema industry, we can find similarities
between what Francis Ford Coppola and Francois Truffaut.
Relationship
with actors
Just as
Marlon Brando was key to Coppola’s success, so was Jean Pierre Leaud for
Truffaut. When talking about these 2 directors, both actors come to mind but
they were not the only ones that were close to these directors. People that
work with them always have expressed that they were always directors that cared
about the actors and always gave them confidence on their work. Wwe can see
this as a clear leadership characteristic for both.
Filming style
Francois
Truffaut was a pioneer of his time on the worldwide film industry. Coppola may
have just limited his impact to the US but both are references for young film
makers. Both were really diverse in their cinema and the topics they broached: from the mafia to the Vietnam war for Coppola, and more recently to more "personal" stories as in Tetro and from his personal life to science fiction movie (Fahrenheit 451) to a movie only focused on death (The Green Room) for Truffaut. They both had a "vision" for their movies and knew how to communicate them to their teams and actors.
New versus classic. A comparison between Cuaron and Kubrick. Are they any similar? Find out!!!
Alfonso Cuarón and Stanley Kubrick
Even though
Kubrick and Cuarón have different nationality, interests and styles in
filmmaking, they share some similarities; we want to share with you a little
comparative styles of filmmaking.
Youth:
Both Cuarón
and Kubrick, enjoyed using cameras in their teen years, they spent a lot of
time taking photographs, making films and going to cinema. Although Kubrick
performance in school was very bad, his father always supported him, and tried
to cheer him up, while in the case of Cuarón this was not quite the same, his
family never supported his interests in cinema, and he was forced to study
Philosophy in College, but on his own he started to study filmmaking in the
afternoons.
Personality –
Risk takers:
Cuarón is a person
that doesn't care what other people said about the possibility of making his
films, he is an entrepreneur and a risk taker, and he received a lot of
comments about the cons of filming ‘Gravity’, even that he took the risk and
made the film. Cuarón is known to be very rigorous and sometimes a pain, but
people recognize his work because reflects quality. Something similar happens
with Kubrick, he was risk taker with a strong character and determination; no
one can doubt the man had a rich talent of realizing cinema as a grand; something
necessary in the film industry.
Relationship with coworkers:
Cuarón uses
to consult coworkers (other famous filmmakers) to know about their opinions,
critics and suggestions. In the other hand, Kubrick used to be called a
mythical character focused on his own ideas as an impenetrable fortress.
As leaders:
Cuarón
represents a strong profile as a leader, he knows how to make effective teams
and knows how to be persuasive, and his great work has helped him to reach
that. Even though Kubrick is known for being distant, his reputation of being
perfectionist and making great movies has helped him to manage the interaction
with the crew and cast. So, being rigorous and perfectionist while doing a
great work, without doubt is a quality a leader requires.
Styles of filmmaking:
Kubrick and
Cuarón have a commonality on the filmmaking style. Both known as rigorous, “a
pain”, precise, impossible, persistent, controller, focused and very creative
for making something great.
Readers, First in line are the 2 american directors of our group. Hope you all enjoy what we have to say.
Stanley Kubrick and Francis Ford Coppola
Coppola and Kubrick shared the same nationality and both were references for their respective decades as they were clearly the ones that rose above their peers during their time.
Fearless and Risk takers:
Kubrick, as Coppola, was fearless and showed this by doing things no one ever did before. Coppola was fearless too. He decided to make films even when he wouldn’t know if the studio would approve it. He wanted to try things that had never been never done before. None of them was afraid to take risks, they mentioned a similar statement that shows that you can´t do the best thing you imagine if you don´t take that risk. Both of them thought that a small budget stimulates you to have bigger ideas. This kind of characteristics seems the key for the success of both directors and it can be seen as a leadership characteristic as it was evident for their crew the kind of director they were and made them buy into the projects.
Temper:
Coppola was a type of grandfather figure for actors and his crew. He was warm, inviting presence on the set, someone who you could always approach to talk. As some people say he tries to be everything for everyone. Kubrick, on the other hand was more of a cold, closed director who was all about work, details and perfection.
Persistence and Passion:
Both directors were persistent with their ideals and passionate with their goals and objectives. If they imagine something, they do whatever possible to accomplish it. Both of them got the protagonists of their movies that they want; we can see the example of Coppola with Marlon Brandon.
As leaders:
Kubrick was always on point about his scripts and was communicative enough to let his actors know what he needed out of them and he reached the pinnacle of movie making so in a sense, he was able to manage a crew and make something perfect. Coppola was more of a candid, personal director who was not as closed as Kubrick but still described by some as sometimes distant. Coppola had contact with every member of his crew and was more frequently involved on scenes, more like the current image of the film director. Both of them gave to their crew the confidence and freedom to be the owners of the character and act as they considered better becoming the character itself, feeling it. We can see two different styles of leaders that accomplished a lot and really made their print on an era.
Styles of filmmaking:
Kubrick has been controlled and precise with every detailed considered for while Coppola was opened to suggestions and sometimes didn’t have a clear idea on how the movie would unfold, he was more about improvising while Kubrick was more of a perfectionist.
We believe that each of our fim directors was different on several ways from each other yet they shared characteristics that lead them to stardom and success as film directors (not just fame or money). In order to find out if those characteristics were shared or different between each other we wanted to take a deeper look.
We will post a series comparing our directors among each other in several categories like film style, relationship with team members and actors, personalities and most importantly leadership styles as it is the main focus of our work.
Hello readers, Last but not least is the great french director Francois Truffaut. You can read about his life and they way he impacted movies forever:
Elements of Biography
It is very important, to understand the
character, his work and even more his beginnings, to know that he was an
undesired child, born outside marriage in the 30’s and that he has never known his
real father.
Truffaut had a difficult childhood (never
feeling loved by his parents) and took refuge in cinema where he used to go a
lot in the Pigalle neighborhood in Paris. That’s where he developed his first
critic sense. Truffaut had difficult time an went to jail twice: the first
time, they had tried to screen a movie with a friend, had made paid the
spectators and finally got a problem; his father said he didn’t know him after
he had been arrested by the police and the second time because he had deserted
army after having entered it on a whim. Both times, a very important man in his
life helped him to get out: André Bazin – a cinema critic, he’s also the one
who got him hired to one of the most famous movie magazine “Les Cahiers du
Cinéma”, thanks to which Truffaut made his first contacts in the cinema
industry. It it said about Truffaut that he was suspicious about directors having other hobbies than cinema (like directors who liked playing tennis or have other activities), that's because he couldn't understand how you could share you life between cinema and other things. As one observer said: "Truffaut ate, slept and lived cinema" He had a very productive career as he made 33 movies in a 33 year career as a director and 4 or 5 of his movies are considered by most of his peers as master pieces.
His life in movies
From movie to another, Truffaut recreated,
maybe to better understand it, his own life. For him, movies reflect life but
also replace it. He has lived through cinema still pursuing the ideal of the
construction of a “movie-novel”. His biography can be red as a whole, but
novelized and edited as a novel. This is first the familial story of Truffaut,
which guided its work as much as his rebellious and marginal temperament guided
him to direct his first movie.
As said before Truffaut always felt an affective lack coming from his family, shooting films was his life, his films team was his family and the cinema his roots
The young François Truffaut found used to
first find refuge in books and movies, the adult one found, to balance its
hardships and disappointments, a safe place in his perpetual project, to keep
going on with his movie-novel.
Truffaut had a theory that a director says
most of what he has to say in his first three movies, it was the same for him –
some considered. Not to say that he didn’t make good movies afterwards but just
that the theme evoked where more linked to each others when his films were “a
reaction to the previous one”.
A very special relationship with his
actors (but not only)
For his first movie: “The 400 blows”,
Truffaut discovered who was about to become one of his favorite actors: Jeand
Pierre Léaud, and he had him working with almost as unknown actors. His bet
actually paid as both the public and the critics concurred with his vision and
to this unlikely casting. From then, François Truffaut, amazing actors’
discoverer and director will make of his castings his “trademark”. He will
launch the career of a lot of French actors such as Nathalie Bay, Fanny Ardant
or Bernadette Laffont. Really loyal to his actors, Truffaut will constitute a
sort of troupe we’ll see movie after
movie: Léaud, Denner, Jeanne Moreaun Claude Jade or Maurice Garrel give to
Truffaut’s movie the “New Wave tone” that generations of film makers will adopt.
Truffaut and his “Cahiers du Cinéma” ‘s friends know how impose a phrasing and
gestures devoid of too much emphasis, always on the edge of clumsiness but
revealing all the charm of an accent or the grace of young actors. The
influence of Lee Strasberg’s Actors Studio on Truffaut and his actors was
obvious as much as the influence of actors as Marlon Brando, Montgomery Cliff
or Paul Newman.
Finally, Truffaut’s relationships with his
actress is strongly correlated to his sentimental life, he has been emotionally
engaged and felt in love with a lot of them including Jeanne Moreau, Catherine
Deneuve, Nathalie Baye or Fanny Ardant.
Truffaut: one of the founders of the new
wave
Truffaut and some of his contemporaries
(most of them were also critics) definitely revolutionized the post-war film industry.
Besides the “Star system” and the “giants” of the movie industry which used to
put a strain on budgets, the leading roles were held by almost unknown and the
director as an “author” took a predominant role he didn’t enjoy before. A new
way of producing, shooting, making and editing movies appear, in reaction to
traditions and corporatism. The invention of the Nagra, the 16mm video camera
(light and quiet), the predominance of outside shootings impose a new esthetic
closer to the real. This break between “studio cinema” and “outdoor cinema” is
perfectly illustrated in Truffaut’s Day For Night (La nuit américaine): Truffaut
creates a mise en abyme showing us a team making a movie (him acting as a
director) with the famous “Nuit Américaine” which corresponds to the shooting
of a night scene in daylight.
Still, Truffaut didn’t deny some influence
and used to say he had three “masters”: Rossellini for the 400 Blows, for the
rhythm and the vitality of the Italian cinema; Hitchcock for The Soft Skin, an
author which used to focus on situations rather than on actors and finally Jean
Renoir for Jules et Jim, in which, at the opposite, Truffaut gives the priority
to actors who, as Renoir, he deeply loved.
"To establish a good working relationship [with
an actor] I think all the actor has to know is that you respect his talent
enough to want him in your film."
His life and early days
Date of
Birth: 26 July 1928, New York City, USA
Date of
Death: 7 March 1999, England UK
Stanley
Kubrick was born in New York, and was considered intelligent despite poor
grades at school. Hoping that a change of scenery would produce better academic
performance, Kubrick's father Jack (a physician) sent him in 1940 to Pasadena,
California. Hoping to find something to interest his son, Jack introduced
Stanley to chess, with the desired result. Chess would become an important
device for Kubrick in later years, often as a tool for dealing with
recalcitrant actors, but also as an artistic motif in his films.
Jack
Kubrick's decision to give his son a camera for his thirteenth birthday would
be an even wider move: Kubrick became an avid photographer, and would often
make trips around New York taking photographs which he would develop in a
friend's darkroom. After selling an unsolicited photograph to Look Magazine,
Kubrick began to associate with their staff photographers, and at the age of
seventeen was offered a job as an apprentice photographer. In the next few
years, Kubrick had regular assignments and would become a voracious movie-goer.
Discovering Kubrickism
Stanley
Kubrick mixed his leadership style and his approach to the challenge of
balancing the need for artistic control with the need to involve others in the
creative process. The directorial approach discussed is defined as
‘Kubrickism’, from his sensibilities as a writer to his demand for perfection
as a director.
Kubrick was
known and described as perfectionist, incredibly detailed, controller,
obsessive, confidential, imperturbable, focused and very creative. Some would
say “difficult and remote”; others would say “brilliant, bold, and daring but
an absolute control freak”.
Perfectionism
earned a reputation for hard man and megalomaniac. He was considered a mythical
character, seen as a paranoid genius with a very pessimistic view of human
nature.
Despite his
prickly, impersonal, even shy, demanding and difficult reputation, no one can
doubt the man had a rich talent for realizing cinema as a grand, sensory
spectacle that wasn´t afraid to take risks and was universally respected.
What makes film directed by Stanley Kubrick a Stanley Kubrick's movie?
Kubrick was completely fearless as filmmaker:
It takes guts and determination to make it in the film industry. Kubrick
possessed these traits and calculated every intricate move like a game of chess
(of which he was a master). If he did possess fears he refused to show them.
His visual style is recognized the world over —
inspiring generations of filmmakers to take risks in composition and staging,
pushing the boundaries of the art form.
Working in a vast range of styles from dark
comedy to horror to crime to drama, Kubrick was an enigma, living and creating
in almost total seclusion, far away from the watchful eye of the media. His
films were a reflection of his obsessive nature, perfectionist masterpieces
that remain among the most thoughtful and visionary motion pictures ever made.
Kubrick uses several cinematic techniques in
his films, including his one-point perspective shots that lean on symmetry and
vanishing graphic vectors to give them their aesthetic edge.
On a
technical level, we see his hallmarks, like his use of extreme camera angles
and close-ups, long tracking shots, and wide-angle lenses. But the way Kubrick
manages to make these techniques work on an emotional level, however, is what
makes him a master filmmaker.
Francis Ford Coppola was born April 7, 1939, in Detroit, Michigan. Francis Ford Coppola emerged as one of the 20th century’s leading directors in the 1960s. Coppola developed an interest in film early on and studied theater at Hofstra University in New York. He first found directorial success with Finian’s Rainbow in 1968. He gained international critical attention for his screenwriting talents, with 1970’s Patton. Two years later, he released The Godfather (1972). In 1997, he stepped away from directing for a time. In 2007, he returned to hands-on filmmaking with Youth Without Youth.
Awards:
Academy Award for Best Picture – The Godfather, The Godfather II
Academy Award for Best Writing (Adapted Screenplay) – The Godfather, The Godfather II
Academy Award for Best Director – The Godfather II
The Francis Coppola Style
Francis has always been the kind of director that prefers to write his own screenplays and then convert those into movies. He has done that with several of his films however, his biggest success, the Godfather, was a story he adapted from Mario Puzo.
Francis likes to say that he always describes the theme of a movie in two words. He thought of the Godfather as succession. According to Francis, the reason it’s important to have this is because most of the time what a director really does is taking decisions. You often don't know the answer. Knowing what the theme is always helps you.
Francis as a leader
Francis Ford Coppola is an intense person who doesn’t lack self confidence. He is known because some of his most famous decisions about scenes and casting have been ones that studio bosses initially disapproved of. At the end he tenaciously worked for it and got it.
He says that big part of his success is due to taking the risk and believing on what your heart says. He has said several times that he started a movie without even knowing if the studio would finance it.
Another case of his leadership was when he faced multiple roadblocks on the casting for the main role of the godfather. Francis managed to tape a small performance from Marlon Brando as an Italian and showed it to the head of Paramount pictures who didn’t support the idea and ended up backing it.
His relationship with actors
Francis Ford Coppola always was on top of every detail and always bought into the story as evidence on behind the scenes of Apocalypses Now or the Godfather.
Several actors refer to him as someone who would always trust and give confidence to his actors. He didn’t want to pull out performances out of them and that’s something he clearly believed in. Clear evidence of this is his following quote: “What you do is you come to know your actors very well. And then you go through a process in which you make the actor, of course, feel comfortable, feel relaxed, and most of all, feel not frightened, because their work as an artist is something they do just with their own self. They don’t have a violin or cello between them and the audience, so it’s a frightening type of work, I think, for actors.” “So it’s at that point the director isn’t pulling the character out of the actor but has sort of helped preside over this amazing transformation.”
Hello guys, The mexican film director Alfonso Cuaron is first on our tour. Get to know him!
Life and movies
Alfonso Cuarón (November 28, 1961), is a Mexican film director, screenwriter, producer and editor.
In his teen years, films were his hobby. He used to tell his mother he was going to a friend's home, when in fact he was heading to the cinema theater. His family didn't didn't like his cinema related activites, so he studied
Philosophy at the (UNAM) and in the afternoon he studied filmmaking
at a Faculty of Cinema, within the same University. During that time he met
many people who would later become collaborators and friends, one of them was Emmanuel Lubezki.
Cuarón has been nominated in several Awards,
including six Academy Awards; Best Original Screenplay for ‘Y Tu Mamá
También’, Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Film Editing for
‘Children of Men’, and Best Picture for ‘Gravity’, winning Best Director and
Best Film Editing for Gravity. For the same film, he also won the Golden Globe Award for Best Director and the BAFTA Awards for best British Film
and Best Direction.
Alfonso Cuarón’s Style
Alfonso mentioned several times, that he loved making movies as if he was telling a story; in a way he aims to show the movie as a
documentary, with a roller coaster of emotions. In order to do that, he shoots long cuts without any interruption.
Producers as David Heyman (Harry Potter, Gravity)
have mentioned that these techniques were very difficult to make, because a lot
of technical work was required to make this long scenes look natural.
Alfonso Cuarón has made a perfect partnership with
Emmanuel Lubezki, a Photography Director who has been his friend and collaborator
for years. Both enjoy this style. When Alfonso is working on the script of a movie, he always consults Lubezki, to know about his opinions and the
possibilities of making the movie look as real as possible.
Relationship with coworkers
Alfonso is more concerned about his cinematographic
crew, rather than the cast of his movies. Cuarón likes to work with people he
knows; one of his closest collaborators is Emmanuel Lubezki, they were already friends before film school and have worked together on almost every of his films.
He is also concerned in choosing wisely the people acting in his movies, but is not limited to a restricted number of actors.
He is open to receive recommendations from his collaborators and film
directors’ friends.
Cuarón is also friend with his fellow Mexican
directors Guillermo del Toro and Alejandro González Iñárritu. He mentioned that he consulted them a lot to know their opinions, and that he
accepted any harsh criticism from them because he knows that they’re not trying
to hurt him, they’re trying to actually help him.
Alfonso Cuarón as a leader
Alfonso’s great work is helping him to work with
different people, even if they don’t agree with him in every decision, he has a
great influence power over others, David Heyman, a movie producer, has worked
with Cuarón in two of his most successful movies, and he describes Cuarón as a
pain: "he is impossible, he is rigorous, but everything is not random is for
making something great, I want to be around that, Alfonso makes me better."
Cuarón knows how to make effective teams; by choosing his collaborators according to their skills. He communicates the tasks
and responsibilities of each member of the team, and also he gives them some
freedom in choosing who they want to work with. He often says that he enjoys
working with people he knows and understands.
We are beginning our series of introduction for our 4 film directors. We are going to show you the most interesting facts about these directors, their most relevant accomplishments, interesting quotes, information about their personality, their road to success and their influences on movies, actors and film industry in general.
Hello everyone and welcome to our blog, We are very excited to be a part of the blogging community. In the next few days we will be uploading information about 4 different film directors: Stanley Kubrick, Alfonso Cuarón, Francis Ford Coppola and Francois Truffaut We will be looking at all aspects of their careers as directors but mainly focusing on their leadership qualities and their different styles to lead productions into succesfull movies. We want to understand how each one of them put their own stamp on their movies and how the compare between each other. Thank you for reading our blog and please keep visiting frequently, you won't be disappointed.
