What if Winona being first-time film director OR as a role?

[Deleted]

What if...

Winona was to courageously DIRECT her first film, and/or perhaps, be in a film where her role IS the director? If interested, which would you suppose, be better, and your thoughts on how they be imagined?

[Charles]

Years ago, around the time of "Girl, Interrupted," Winona said that she would NEVER want to direct. Of course, one can always change one's mine, but I haven't noticed her leaning toward directing. In her role as a producer of GI, she spoke candidly about enjoying some aspect of being the nominal executive producer, but that she wouldn't want the primary production responsibilities. I think, but could be wrong, that her passion remains with acting . . . but as we grow, we change. No telling what the future holds for her.

[Deleted]

THANKS, Charles, I did NOT know that. It's just that I thought it would be another interesting change for her and to know how that could develop (not that she must, however).

And I'm very sure there IS actually a BIG difference in anyone DIRECTING a quality film, as opposed to just PRODUCING or EXECUTIVE PRODUCING that same film. I usually don't dive deep into many articles to know everything about Winona (unlike some more knowledgable fans, I have a very distracted real life, no offense to you personally, though).

 Be good, and again, thanks. 

[Grackleman]

I would like to see Winona as a film director, of course the other aspects were who would be the director of photography and the cast, lol... I am no Hollywood expert but two things are pretty clear to me: there is no certain talent necessary for being a producer, actually only the money you invest FOR the movie, right? But Winona is a VERY intelligent person so I think the "adventure" of directing a movie wouldn't be a problem for her, except for the big STRESS, maybe. Of course it also depends on the kind of movie, but I think she would probably show her best talents in directing a DRAMA.

[Deleted]

Thanks for commenting, Grackleman. I understood you. Perhaps, Winona could direct Kirsten Dunst, this time around (Welcome, short film) ... in a 'Melancholia' -like film, titled 'The Remnant'.

I woud have to agree with imayne about the characters not being that interesting in Melancholia. I think, for me, it was all about the visual anticipation factor (usually it's story). But not all that bad.  

[bigdaddy]

In classic Hollywood, the producer was the go-to guy. Executive producers signed the checks. The producers had the idea, got the writer (really important) found the camera crew (almost as important) the editor (MABYE as important) and went from there. The director was usually assigned by the studio...and if they did something the producer didn't like, say go for a close up when they asked for a medium shot, they would be suspended for a week. 
So you would have the front office with the money and the pull, producers underneath..
The French came up with this great auteur theory where they thought that the director was the prime mover for the whole deal, and would assign over arching styles and themes they thought they saw to the work. SOMETIMES the theory worked with guys like HITCHCOCK who were around for all aspects of the production. But even big guns like Hitchcock and Kurosawa have said;'"You have to have a good script first."
In TRUTH I think movies are a more collaborative art form then just about anything...it's gotten so complicated now you're amazed anything is made at ALL let alone something GOOD. 

Okay, that being said, I could see Ryder doing either...any or everything.  There are a BUNCH of movies about movies being made...some of them classics...
8  1/2  by Fellini and DAY FOR NIGHT by Truffault are two of the best. You see how much the whole process can take out of you. 8 1/2 was remade as 9 a few years back, with Daniel Day Lewis...right before Lincoln.
It didn't work...
BURDEN OF DREAMS and HEART OF DARKNESS  are docs on real movies that were so big and scary you would not believe it. Like dinosaurs, big big movies this risky are probably gone for good.  The first one is about Herzog's filming FITZCARRALDO (worth seeing on it's own..) the second is the behind the scenes look at the APOCALYPSE NOW shoot. But even if she DID direct, would Ryder allow THIS much access to something she was doing? Both directors as the subjects in these docs verged on megalomania. 

By co-incidence, two others have her old flame Johnny Depp in them. LOST IN LA MANCHA was supposed to star Depp as Don Quixote with Terry Gilliam at the helm. Nothing went right and they were 15 mil in the hole before they even knew what happened. The other is ED WOOD with Depp in one of his best acting jobs as the cult director. Winona, as far as I am concerned, should have played his wife..but THAT does not make her direct the movie or have her star as the director...

But I could see her ACTING as a director, and I think she has the vision to BE a director...but might just not want to put up with the slow CRAP that goes along with it...Welles has TWO movies on the subject...F FOR FAKE and FILMING OTHELLO. F FOR FAKE might in fact, be the best place to start in all of these...Welles is BOTH the actor AND the director AND the subject (sort of). But both point out the idea that all of this is a young person's job...you have to get the skills you are going to need to help you when you get older and sometimes need a horseshoe in your glove. And, also, how long do you want to put up with the whole thing?
So, that being said, I don't know HOW to vote...