The filmmaking debacle.

One of the most debated debacle in the film world is, who is the most important - the writer, director or actor? Everyone will agree that they are all very important. But belying that they all secretly scorn each other for making a lesser contribution to their chosen art form.

It is safe to say that the director is the boss on set, the writer made the story, and the actor sells the cinema tickets/DVDs. However, just because I see Ryan Gosling on a movie cover it doesn't mean I'll buy it, David Fincher did Fight Club & Seven (love to bits) but also Zodiac & Benjamin Button (hate with a passion), and a bad writer will produce lines like the one in Fast and Furious 5. Rachel is more of a film snob than I am, and spent much of her time in that theatre giggling like a fool. 

Obviously the ideal would be for someone to be the complete trifecta. This practice is quite prevalent in Hong Kong, like Michael Hui and his marvellous contributions to comedy, and the Jackie Chan action-comedy powerhouse. Singapore's Jack Neo also frequently writes, directs and acts in his own films. Singaporean-English can be a very painful and ear-mangling thing, but Jack Neo's skills have churned it into something entertaining and personable and funny.

Off the top of my head, the first writer-director-actor person I can think of in Hollywood is Jason Segel. I LOVE Jason Segel! He is so cute and dorky and lovely and made the hilarious Forgetting Sarah Marshall. Unfortunately he did not direct, but did compose parts of it, so gets maybe half a point there. Francis Ford Coppola and Alfred Hitchcock were great writer-directors, but not actors. As far as Western filmmakers go, the one who takes the cake is..Charlie Chaplin. It seems that the perfect trifecta is most easily achieved by someone producing comedy.

Imagine a film set with a fantastic director, but a really bad script and actors. The lines would be unintentionally awkward and contrived, the actors would have no charm or chemistry, and even if the director was great the film would come out crappy, but possibly have good production value (read: CGI). Which would make people think the director was bad and that anyone could do it anyway.

Imagine some really great actors but a really bad director and script. The actors might emote really well and be good looking and smart and cool and awesome, but with bad lines they might look stupid, and with a bad director they might get huffy all the time – especially if they really are good actors and know it. People might still like the film for the actors, but not find it particularly outstanding.

Imagine a really great writer but a really bad director and actors. The film would really suck, but it's possible people would be able to look beyond that and acknowledge it as a great story, with great lines. If good enough it may stand a chance at being remade, if not the writer may be able to adapt it into a book, where it can be a standalone piece of work, instead of a mediocre film or a useless manuscript.

And with that, I just want to say that if I had to pick in order of excellent, good and okay, I would pick an excellent writer, good directors and okay actors.