Producer-centric

In Hollywood's film sets, the producer-centric approach was a long-standing tradition, commonly known as the "producer-centric model" within the industry.

However, France was not Hollywood, and the approach wasn't as trusted there.

In certain crews, it was quite common to see directors doubling as producers. Luc Besson liked doing it that way too.

Lyman, as a director, naturally spoke from the perspective of a director. He could relate to the role and was thus unwilling to meddle in the director's work.

In essence, most of the filming of "Saw" was under James Wan's complete control.

But Hollywood had reasons for initiating this system. For example, directors getting caught up in their own whims during filming and not sticking to the plan. If there were no constraints, it could spell disaster for the crew and the film.

Throughout history, there were numerous examples that served as lessons, showing film companies that if they let directors do as they pleased, no amount of money would be enough to cover the costs.

Frankly, such oversight had its merits, but limiting a director's creative space excessively wasn't advantageous either.

After all, if directors became nothing more than filmmaking machines, could their works still be considered "the seventh art"?

They would lose their soul, turning into products manufactured along an industrial production line, devoid of any inspiration.

Speaking of the producer-centric model, one couldn't avoid mentioning its pioneer, Irving Thalberg. He had once managed Universal and MGM, being the first major figure in Hollywood's history to come from a producer background.

In the year 1917, while Europe was mired in World War I, the Republic of China was only five years old, and the last symbolic figure of the imperial era, Puyi, had just abdicated once again.

Amidst this global turmoil, the United States remained untouched, as if it were still basking in an era of peace and prosperity.

Back then, the focus of the American film industry was still in New York on the East Coast.

At that time, Irving had just secured a job as a secretary at the New York office of Universal Pictures, earning a monthly salary of $15.

Gradually, as the company's reputation grew, he transitioned into a producer role for a film crew working on "Foolish Wives", a project Universal was investing in.

Back then, big directors like Stroheim liked to be a bit unruly during filming. But in those times, it wasn't a big deal; directors deviating from scripts happened often, especially when they had new ideas. Wong Kar-wai could even write scripts on the spot and shoot accordingly. Although in Hollywood, he wouldn't even get the chance.

The consequence of such an approach was exceeding the budget.

Unfortunately, Stroheim wasn't James Cameron, and he didn't learn the skill of stretching things out. With such budget overrun, Irving was fed up. He went straight to Universal's executives and demanded the director's dismissal, stating that this irresponsible director needed to be fired.

Naturally, Universal executives were apprehensive. If they were to suddenly fire the director when the movie was already more than halfway done, the completion of the project would be jeopardized. They thought that perhaps if they endured and invested a bit more, they could pull through. This was the prevailing sentiment among most film companies at that time.

But Irving was obviously capable. He offered to complete the remaining work himself, but he couldn't allow a director of such a disposition to stay.

In the end, Stroheim was fired.

After the incident with "Foolish Wives", Irving was even more valued by Universal. They weren't half-hearted about it; he directly took the lead and established the producer-centric model's position in Hollywood. He defined the core principle of this system: controlling the budget and completing the film.

Such an idea was akin to golden advice for those film companies, the investors. It was a perspective aligned with their interests.

What could they disagree with?

As a result, this kind of crew power distribution was quickly embraced by the film industry, regarded as a certain form of rule.

After all, commercial returns were the foremost consideration for those investors.

Artistic pursuit, creative themes, character depth... all of them took a backseat.

Producers were more focused on the film's genre, the market's response to the cast and crew, the commercial viability of the content, and even emphasized the sensory experiences of sight and sound for the audience. They paid greater attention to the rhythm and fluidity of the story, among various other factors.

All their concerns weren't driven by personal aesthetic preferences, or even for the sake of the film itself. Instead, they were guided by market demands, trends, and the viewing habits of specific demographics. Filmmaking became purposeful.

The merits of this system are hard to quantify, but it certainly clashes unavoidably with the director's vision.

For someone like Lyman, he certainly wouldn't appreciate this system where others dictated the filmmaking process.

But producers were indeed necessary.

After all, a competent producer could save the crew a lot of hassle during filming.

In simple terms: they understood the market better than directors, knew popular trends better than the audience, and understood capital better than investors.

...

Los Angeles, Warner Bros. Studio, Soundstage 3.

James looked at the just-finished scene, and then reviewed it repeatedly on the director's monitor. Only then did he nod in satisfaction.

Naturally, Lyman wasn't too concerned about his directing work. As long as he managed the balance, he could act as wild as he wanted.

And he hadn't let Lyman down that night when he received his advice.

With the filming back on track, the atmosphere on set visibly improved. The progress was smooth, and he was pleased.

"Alright, cut, prepare for the next shot."

Even the voices calling out directions were filled with excitement and confidence.

He casually set the megaphone aside and picked up the shooting plan to continue pondering.

Honestly, James was really dedicated to his work as a director.

A group of people observed this keenly.

His current mood might be akin to how Lyman felt during his first time directing "Buried", always brimming with energy.

If it weren't for Lyman's past experience of several years on film sets, he might have acted as impulsively as James.

For the first time, you can't expect too much.

Besides, the budget for the production was sufficient. If it were indeed the meager $1.2M from his previous life, he believed that under pressure, he wouldn't have generated any new ideas.

When Lyman directed "Buried", he often worried about money, didn't he?

He only thought about how to smoothly complete the project, so naturally, he didn't have the mental capacity to consider character motivations and logical actions.

In retrospect, looking at that work, Lyman could find several areas for improvement.

After all, people need a process of growth.

Lyman believed that as James directed more films and gained experience, he would mature even further.

After all, his talent was evident, and he had his own set of shooting techniques and aesthetic concepts.

At the very least, Lyman was quite skeptical that he could do better if he were to direct "Saw".

The intricate setups of the murder devices and the arrangement of clues were quite admirable.