A filmmaker is endowed with the creative responsibility of understanding what needs to be allowed to be created by using the camera and the film rather than what the camera and the film creates. A safe conclusion: a director has to deal with what happens within the image which considerably enhances the area and scope of his responsibility of being merely a caretaker of the photographed world. The filmmaker and more precisely the director has the big task at his hand to transfer his vision to the photographed element, reassemble the fragmented elements and make them cohere as the representation of a world which works well. At the same time he has to deal with several limitations and the challenges like the stage’s missing wall, making sense and guaranteeing authenticity to the audience about the existence of the cinematic world as if it exist beyond and around the part of the presented form. Is the director obliged to maintain the same emphasis as given in the script or he can break away from this? The question can’t be answered in a way which lies on the extreme ends of the YES-NO polarity. May be somewhere in between which requires the filmmaker uses his own creative senses, his ability to allow and maintain the effect of flexibility in his cinematic vision without diluting it, his experimentative attitude which allows him to collate a new vision with the existing one and off-course which doesn’t poison the spirit of the movie. Though the director would be free to an extent to create a specific attitude to the narrative but it would not be appropriate or ethical for him to subvert the script merely to make a recognizably personal impacts. The scope and intensity of his creative liberty should be directed towards intensifying the effect which is implicit in the shape of the narrative.
The creative liberty:
The director is responsible to govern all the action in the movie but it should be understandable that this contribution should not be obvious....
Please join StudyMode to read the full document