lieson between director and cast/crew ... all the detail paperwork stuff and what ever jobs the director needs done that'll only get in the way of his day.

thanks.
it may sound little crazy to ask the basic Q, but we actually have different working style than america.though the basic is the same.
indi

Unfortunately a lot of directors seem to think that the AD's job is to take the blame whenever the director screws up: this is why I would never be an AD on an unpaid shoot again... it can be a really thankless task when the director is clueless and/or insecure, and particularly when they won't keep to schedule.

Otherwise, yes, in general what they should be doing is organising the running of the set so that the director can concentrate on getting the shots they need rather than ensuring that people get fed on time and that someone is setting up the lights. But the director should be pushing the AD to keep things moving, rather than being pulled along by an AD who's trying to keep things on schedule.

I agree - the AD position is a thankless job which is just a glorified PA job with more responsability. I also agree the blame should go to the director and not an AD. If the AD wonders off teh set and luch arivves or the talent for the next shot is missing, well, maybe the AD needs a kick in the head.

Yes, the AD becomes the 'punchbag' when something goes wrong.But, finally, its director's film, not AD's.
When the Ad is smarter and the director is not so experienced or first-timer, then ego plays around.

A smart AD wouldn't complain and they'd do their best to make the Director look good.