Process

[Ted Spencer]

I've been acting now for several years, having started late. I studied for a year and a half, read many books, watched DVD tutorials etc., and have been actively pursuing acting gigs now since early '06. I've gotten some nice compliments from most of the directors and fellow actors I've worked with, but *I'm* not satisfied enough with my skills...

I think acting in low-budget films could be among the toughest tests of ability (as long as low expectations don't carry the day). There's almost never any rehearsal prior to the shoot, other actors are often weak, directors are inexperienced about acting and do way too much "result-oriented" directing (see Judith Weston's "Directing Actors" for a good explenetion of why that's not good), camera/lighting/sound inexperience leads to very few usable take choices and so on.

The effect for me has been too many finished films where I know I could have done so much better, but either my "good" take(s) got left on the cutting room floor due to some reason beyond my control, or I just didn't quite "get there" sufficiently at all. This has led me to conclude that the only solution will be for me to learn how to make *every single take* be sufficiently great (ha!). Seriously though, if all of my takes are at least really good, then whenever the camera/sound/light/other actor/what-have-you gets it right, I'll be fine.

As I've progressed during this time I've experimented, partly keepoing and partly dropping many approaches to, well basically, getting into and staying in "the moment". This is still pretty much the ball game for me, and not one I win quite often enough to feel satisfied with my ability to do so consistently.

My latest process/approach, which is working pretty well for me so far, is to play the "idea" of the scene, and focus less on the words or specific directions. The script is the script, and I do adhere quite strictly to it (in most cases), but "playing the idea" seems to be the best technique I've come up with so far.

So my question for other actors is, what's your approach/process/technique for "getting yourself there"? If you're an actor who just steps up, "does it" intuitively and it's great, then this question is probably not for you. And I envy you profoundly... : )

[Tom Marshall]

Here's my view on low budget acting...

Low budget acting, for the main part, is a resume builder. That's all that I'm expecting when I do a no budget project. I'm not expecting the director to be Ridley Scott or the other actors to be Oscar winning actors.

I think the important thing when working with other actors who aren't the best (to put it nicely) is to try and get the other actor involved in the scene. If you're able to do that, it gives you something to work off of. And if they're *not* giving you anything, then you need to imagine that they are.

I always think I could have done much much better and am so critical of myself when I don't think I'm "there". But I keep working on it, hoping that I can bring myself to the level.

Regarding directors... directors are really supposed to be the "audience" part of a performance. Ideally, an actor should rely on the feedback of the director to get a feel for whether or not he or she is bringing out a good performance.

I think you're on the right track though. Changing to different ideas for each project that you work on will help build some tools that should help you in any given circumstance.

"Playing the idea" is a great approach. After all, all you can really play *are* ideas.

[Ted Spencer]

Here's my view on low budget acting...

Low budget acting, for the main part, is a resume builder. That's all that I'm expecting when I do a no budget project.

Right, and it does do that quite nicely. I just wish it was a bit more of a "reel builder" : )

[10s]

I love acting, actors and the magic that can happen when things click. But I'm also aware that between improv and a tightly structured scene things can get lost, especially the sense of fresh spontaneity that comes across real and not wooden or contrived.

Here's where it gets interesting. Watching an animated feature (let's say Toy Story) Me, the audience, will accept these characters and go through the normal range of audience emotions, as I'm suppose to feel in any well constructed film. But wait a second, these are animated characters! What's their process? They are constructed step by step, usually by a small team of writers, directors, animators, voice over artists.... and yet they achieve the end result that any actor is after, believability. So what's going on? Is there something to be learned from the animators?

[Tom Marshall]

Right, and it does do that quite nicely. I just wish it was a bit more of a "reel builder" : )

I know exactly what you mean. I wish I could put it on my reel too...


I love acting, actors and the magic that can happen when things click. But I'm also aware that between improv and a tightly structured scene things can get lost, especially the sense of fresh spontaneity that comes across real and not wooden or contrived.

Here's where it gets interesting. Watching an animated feature (let's say Toy Story) Me, the audience, will accept these characters and go through the normal range of audience emotions, as I'm suppose to feel in any well constructed film. But wait a second, these are animated characters! What's their process? They are constructed step by step, usually by a small team of writers, directors, animators, voice over artists.... and yet they achieve the end result that any actor is after, believability. So what's going on? Is there something to be learned from the animators?

I think the thing about the animated stories is that people accept the fact that they're animated. They're still *voiced* by actors and that's what's coming across as the story. If someone was to perform the same movements as the characters from Toy Story, they'd look pretty silly doing so...

[DogDay]

Ted can you define your terms a bit more specifically, what is it exactly you mean by acting the idea...Which idea? Your interpretation of what? Your idea or your characters idea? Please, I am really curious to what this conclusion of yours actually is.

[GageFX]

Right, and it does do that quite nicely. I just wish it was a bit more of a "reel builder" : )

And that's why you need to pick your projects well. When I was casting for my feature, I got tons of "reels" with student films on them and the actors would have been better off with Aunt Betty holding the handicam while the actor just reads lines with a friend. And I think that is another important point - recognize when a piece of work is a piece for your reel and when it is just a resume builder. Be an objective reel editor.

[AJ Brooks]

There's almost never any rehearsal prior to the shoot, other actors are often weak, directors are inexperienced about acting and do way too much "result-oriented" directing (see Judith Weston's "Directing Actors" for a good explenetion of why that's not good), ...

Yeah, it's unfortunate the way many inexperienced directors communicate with actors, but also as a director--it just comes naturally to ask for a result.

However, as an actor, it is important to realize that sometimes you will get result direction. It is our job to interpret the result (such as be angry) into a playable objective/action.

I've heard that even Stanislavki gave line readings to his actors, knowing very well that they wouldn't just repeat him, but would find the appropriate way to interpret that type of direction.

One of my acting instructors would often say, "I'm making you director-proof."

[Ted Spencer]

Yeah, it's unfortunate the way many inexperienced directors communicate with actors, but also as a director--it just comes naturally to ask for a result.

However, as an actor, it is important to realize that sometimes you will get result direction. It is our job to interpret the result (such as be angry) into a playable objective/action.

I've heard that even Stanislavki gave line readings to his actors, knowing very well that they wouldn't just repeat him, but would find the appropriate way to interpret that type of direction.

One of my acting instructors would often say, "I'm making you director-proof."

Sometimes you do have to resort to the direct approach. Good directors will when the more appropriate, indirect way fails enough times (time equaling money, after all). But what I was referring to is the type of director who *only* knows how to give result-oriented direction. In some cases it can be so specific as to almost literally prevent a good performance. Like when the director asks for certain exact physical details of expression and/or tone. Times like that I wish I had a "disappear me" button, but I'm not sure who I'd rather use it on - him or me... : )

[GageFX]

In preproduction, I give actors a fairly in depth character history and motivation for their actions. It's only when they are having trouble conveying that that I step in and tweak it. As for this:


Like when the director asks for certain exact physical details of expression and/or tone.

Keep in mind that while it may FEEL like you are playing something a certain way, it doesnt always come across they way you think it is. Think about when you do an impression of a famous actor and your friends look at you like you are crazy. In your head it sounds perfect, but to others it isnt even close. Or when you try to mimic a facial expression of someone else, but then look in the mirror and it isnt even close. It FELT right, but didnt LOOK right.

Also, take an "O" face. It can look pleasurable or painful. If the scene needs painful and you are playing it as pleasure - even if you THINK you are playing it painful, then it may need to be tweaked.

We respect your art and craft, but in the end, we need what WE need to make the film work. Remember that you are an important piece in a larger puzzle and you must FIT. You cant assume your own shape. I see actors as the talented artists they are in a position to BECOME that specific piece. I'm not looking for someone looking for a stage to do their own thing.

[Ted Spencer]

Ted can you define your terms a bit more specifically, what is it exactly you mean by acting the idea...Which idea? Your interpretation of what? Your idea or your characters idea? Please, I am really curious to what this conclusion of yours actually is.

I meant coming from the larger 'idea' of the scene, basically, rather than focusing on any specific details regarding dialog or action. As an example, take a look at this excerpt from "Kill Bill" (which will make more sense if you've already seen the film).

The Bride has returned to kill one of her failed would-be assassins, who has just sent her little daughter upstairs so she doesn't witness anything scary:

------------

VERNITA
..so I suppose it's a little late for
an apology, huh?

THE BRIDE
You suppose correctly.

VERNITA
Even if I was sincere?

THE BRIDE
Oh. I'm quite positive you're
sorry, now.

Vernita says to the Bride across the table furiously but with
low volume;

VERNITA
Look bitch, I need to know if
you're gonna start anymore shit
around my baby girl!

THE BRIDE
You can relax for now. I'm not
going to murder you in front of
your daughter.

VERNITA
That's being more rational than
Bill led me to believe you were
capable of.

THE BRIDE
Well that's a demonstration of
Bill's complete ignorance when it
comes to the subject of me, and
what I'm thinking, and what I might
do. It's mercy, compassion, and
forgiveness I lack, not
rationality.

-------------------

The scene's context is multi-layered:

Bride calmly discusses the history with Vernita, who she kills shortly thereafter, partly in front of the child. There's the whole Bill/revenge backstory too. Both actors start out quite paradoxically calm and polite.

To play the scene "idea" as I suggested, the actress playing The Bride would put herself in the headspace of her bitter history with Bill and Vernita, and the calm demeanor suggested by the text - and then bring the dialog up intuitively from that place, without thinking about either it or any physical actions (aside from certain required blocking elements and of course the choreographed fight sequence to follow). But otherwise, that's *all*.

What the actor 'playing the idea' is thus freed from is any thoughts about 'how': how do I read this particular line, should I emphasize this word or that, what posture should I take, when do I shift to another paosture, when do I shift from calm to angry, etc. etc. etc... By simply focusing on the idea through-line, you allow those choices their own intuitive free rein. They start to simply happen automatically...just like they do in life.

Not that this is some greatly original concept of mine, but it came to me out of frustration with what I saw as too many non-spontaneous looking performances of mine in finished films. I knew I could do better.

So I went through yet another long process of analyzing acting versus reallity, something I've given a great deal of thought to in my ongoing efforts, and came up with a nugget that seemed to click for me. In real life conversation situations, we rarely think about the words we choose. We just say 'em as we think 'em. So...what *are* we thinking about then, as we speak so freely and intuitively? My answer to myself was, "it's the idea, stupid". The words flow when the ideas do, and not at any other time. Words are just the vehicle - the idea is the cargo.

So I tried it, and found it very effective:

Forget the words (except as to the saying of the correct ones), forget your body (except as required for basic blocking), but remember...the idea. What is your character's reason for having this conversation (or action)? That's all...

It's quite similar to what is taught in many acting classes. Phrases like "what do you want", "play the action" ('to intimidate', 'to seduce', etc.), or the somewhat larger 'play the objective', all of which I've used with some success. But I kept finding those approaches a little to specific, and would fall too easily back into unacceptably 'planned' acting while thinking about them. The 'play the idea' thing has worked better for me because it's an even broader approach than the above, and its inherent non-specificity allows better for quick-shifting moment-to-moment flexibility. The 'idea' only lasts as long as it lasts, then it shifts. And then again...or back...

In a real-life 'scene' the action/objective/whatever will shift in the blink of an eye from one thing to another. In my acting, by thinking of the 'idea(s)' instead of actions or objectives, things started to flow more naturally for me. Wonderful surprises in my performances started to happen too, and when they worked, which they usually did because I was honestly in the moment, they were very effective.

Other folks get to the same place by other means, but this one seems to have worked pretty well (so far) for me.

I've been long-winded enough by now I guess...I hope that helped explain what I was talking about.

[DogDay]

Very cool way of looking at it and now I get what you meant though at first the phrasing was confusing...To play an idea of can be construed as taking a step out of the action and almost like directing oneself, but after your ellaborations I see what you are getting at and it sounds interesting.

I think finding the theme what it is really all about, an issue, a point of view and or concern and then focusing on the partners intention gives an array of automatic responces that over ride the concious thought process and thus access a spontanious subconcious responce-reaction-reflex to that.