Not so sure line readings are a bad thing anymore

Just look at the performance by Jackie Earle Haley in Little Children. Here was a man who was out of work for 14 years, even delivering pizzas at one point. The book on him was that he was talented, he just needed the right director. Along comes Todd Field and now look at him? Instead of auditioning, he'll now get to pick and choose what he does next.

The right director came along and Jackie gave the performance of a life time.
 
Barry_Green said:
You missed the point though. The point was that it was the same director that ruined all those actors.

.
Click to expand...

No I get the point but my point is that script is a far greater determinant than director. A bad script with poor characterization is responsible for the weak performances. I think it's particularly true at the level we're talking about. A low budget indie with rookie actors might be a different story.
 
I am not 100% against "line readings"

but honestly its very simple to know when and when not to do it.

When a actor is obvisouly do a good job with there part and is having no
trouble becoming the character , but then they say line in a way that
makes you unhappy. THATS WHEN YOU CAN

When dealing with a actor that is having trouble becoming the character
and needs all the help they can get. THATS WHEN YOU STAY AWAY FROM IT

a good actor still takes that line and can make it there own

a NOT so good actor focuses on saying EXACTLY like you said it and thus losing
focus on the role.
 
Barry_Green said:
I love me some early George Lucas, but come on, he took three exceptionally promising actors and had them turn in arguably the worst performances of their careers. That's not coincidence.

Great actors are not great in everything, a lousy director can absolutely ruin a great actor's potential, and a great director can pull an oscar-winning performance out of a great actor, and probably pull the best performance possible from a mediocre actor.
Click to expand...
Oh man, I was trying SO hard not to bring up Lucas, because it's just so easy to bash on him as a director these days.

You make a valid point, but as has also been pointed out, not only was it the matter of dealing with a poor director, but it was also pretty poor material, and it was nearly impossible for the actors to live in their characters when they had nothing around them but a sea of blue, and sometimes even performed alone and were composited together later!

I mean, look at the stuff that Sam Jackson is brilliant in. Can you imagine him playing Mace Windu that way with the lines he was given? Sam Jackson is often brilliant in large part because the writers know they're writing for Sam Jackson and they give him the kind of material he can rock out.

I do agree with your point, but I think Lucas is a special case of literally giving these actors absolutely nothing to work with. No character context, no location context or presence, nothing for them to lock into their performance; and what little acting they were able to bring to it, I get the sense that Lucas bled it out of them by forcing them to hit precise marks and behaviors to coincide with the CG that he saw in his head, but which they didn't clearly see and could not realistically react to.

Notice that the one guy who came out of this unscathed is Ian McDiarmid, who is arguably the best of the actors in there. He didn't have any more help than the other actors but he's such a pro that he was actually able to find something to connect to and make the character work (it can't have hurt that he's had this character as a part of him for 30 years now, either). He somehow manages not to get any stains on him even from the cackling Wicked Witch of the West portrayal of the Emperor, and I think that's because by God, at least he made a choice and went for it.

So again, I can't say you're wrong, but I do think that the circumstances Lucas put those actors into are circumstances where, unless you're a 40-year-plus Shakespearean veteran, it IS important to have a very involved director (or better yet, someone who will actually build you a set once in a while), and are unique to working on those projects.

Also, I don't disagree that a great director can create great performances, but I'm just making the point that great actors can often do it alone if their director isn't giving them any kind of meaningful input.
 
Last edited:
You can't just judge the director by what awards the actors do and do not win.

Its just people. People decide what movie they like the best. People decide what
actor they like best.

big movies like Star wars and Lord of rings typically are not too apprecatied in award ceremonies.

but there is definitely some truth to what your saying
 
rsbush said:
bosindy,
Good information. I added that because I feel there is a common misinterpretation about an inner based technique.

"providing ONLY that what [the actor] does is justified from within and in accordance with the eternal laws of nature which are binding on all" - Stanislavski, the Actor's Studio pg. 166

"the twisted interpretations put on my so called 'system' which, in the way it is presently being taught, can put young actors on quite the wrong path." - Stanislavski, the Actor's Studio pg. 166

These quotes are from Stanislavski on the proliferation of his ideas and the many ways they were interpreted. My experience has been that young actors studying the 'method' are often very quick to label any external approach as simply the "wrong" way. The ability to take a so called 'external' direction and use it to inform your inner life is a good quality to possess but it usually comes with working experience. "Say it like this" could be the best or the worst direction you give, depending on who you say it to.
Click to expand...

I agree with you and you make a very good point. Stanislavski didn't like what Strausberg was teaching. And many people were, and still are, delving into a lot of horrific memories trying to get performances and it was unhealthy. That's when he met Adler and clarified what you mention; Internal imagination with an external component to inform the character. I studied Meisner and there is very much an external part of it as well.
 
Lord of the Rings

FOTR:
Won:
Best Cinematography
Best Visual Effects
Best Makeup
Best Original Score
Nominated:
Best Supporting Actor: Ian McKellen
Best Art Direction Set Decoration
Best Costume Design
Best Director
Best Editing
Best Original Song
Best Picture
Best Sound
Best Screenplay Based on Book

TTT:
Won:
Best Sound Editing
Best Visual Effects
Nominated:
Best Art Direction Set Decoration
Best Editing
Best Picture
Best Sound

ROTK:
Won:
Best Achievement in Sound Mixing
Best Art Decoration Set Decoration
Best Costume Design
Best Director
Best Editing
Best Makeup
Best Original Score
Best Original Song
Best Picture
Best Visual Effects
Best Adapted Screenplay

Star Wars

Phantom Menace:
Won:
Best Effects Sound Editing
Best Effects Visual Effects
Best Sound

Attack of the Clones:
Nominated:
Best Visual Effects

Revenge of the Sith
Nominated:
Best Achievement in Makeup

NathanPresley said:
big movies like Star wars and Lord of rings typically are not too apprecatied in award ceremonies.
Click to expand...

...what?
 
Every award won, there, is in recognition of technically-intensive disciplines for which the director deserves zero credit, except for having been smart enough to hire professionals who (given large budgetary and technical resources) made outstanding contributions to the films. No wins that we can credit to actors, or directors at all, there - save for Jackson's Best-Director award for ROTK, which I think was really an award for his work on the full trilogy, witheld until all three films were in.

For some reason, I remember this young actor on a show from years back...Adventures in Dinosaur City (don't ask). There was this scene where he's in a mad-scientist-type laboratory, and he has to pick up and move this four-foot-high square column made of plywood and finished 'as metal.' After asking six different people on the crew 'what is this column made of?' and being told every time plywood, he asks, 'can we wrap some chains or weights or something around the base of it, so I can really get into how heavy it is?' and all we could think to say, was 'wait a minute...youre an actor, right? What about acting like it's heavy? Can't be that hard; the teamsters do it all the time...'

Probably a story that will be more appreciated by Art Department/VFX people, than actors...
 
Last edited:
the reason something is accepted as a rule is because it's generally true. not always true. geeennneeerrraaallllllyyy true.
 
Barry_Green said:
I don't necessarily agree with a lot in this thread, but I'll disagree with that point specifically. Look at Samuel L. Jackson -- when Tarantino has him, he turns in an Oscar-worthy performance. When Lucas has him, he turns in a terrible, wooden, awful performance. Same actor, different director.

Look at Natalie Portman. I read somewhere that Luc Besson said "this little girl has more acting ability in her little finger than most hollywood actresses" (or something like that). She was nominated for an Oscar and a BAFTA, and won a Golden Globe and the NBR award for best actress for "Closer." Also nominated for a Golden Globe for "Anywhere But Here." When George Lucas got a hold of her, she earned two Razzies, one for worst actress and one for worst on-screen couple.

Look at Hayden Christensen. In "Life as a House," he was nominated for a Golden Globe for "best actor", won the National Board of Review "breakthrough performance by an actor" award, was nominated by the Screen Actors Guild for "best actor". He won "best actor" at the Las Palmas film festival. George Lucas got ahold of him, and instead of "best actor", he wins two Razzies for "worst actor" and is nominated for a Razzie for "worst on-screen couple."

I love me some early George Lucas, but come on, he took three exceptionally promising actors and had them turn in arguably the worst performances of their careers. That's not coincidence.

Great actors are not great in everything, a lousy director can absolutely ruin a great actor's potential, and a great director can pull an oscar-winning performance out of a great actor, and probably pull the best performance possible from a mediocre actor.
Click to expand...

Wow Barry, this is one of the best posts on director/actors I've ever read, and I completely agree. :beer:
 
DorkmanScott said:
Oh man, I was trying SO hard not to bring up Lucas, because it's just so easy to bash on him as a director these days.

Y.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of this. People love to dump on Lucas. His movies are not just movies they're cultural events. And he can play small ball with the best of them, anyone remember "American Graffiti"?

Also, to support your point, one of the most empty movies I've seen is "Polar Express". It tried so hard to have a soul but in the end was vacuous. Not what one would expect with the likes of Tom Hanks playing about 58 different roles. I think it's because of what you said, the blue screen stuff.
 
Mark Harris said:
What I've found is that I can use line readings more with experienced actors, because those actors know NOT to parrot what I did, but to use it as an example when I couldn't get my meaning across any other way. But they know how to make it their own.

But I would be very careful about making some kind of rule out of this.
Click to expand...
Good point.

I would add that, as an actor, one of the worst things is when an inexperienced director is trying to follow the "no line readings" rule but really wants to give a line reading. It makes me feel like shouting, "Just f***king say what you mean!"

In my opinion, you want to take advantage of the creativity of your actors. That means giving them room to play with their lines. But if there's some reason a particular line has to be said in a particular way, just say so.
 
"Nobody knows anything" -William Goldman (The smartest thing ever said about Hollywood)

That being said, I'll chuck in my 2 pence.

It's all about being effective. That means different methods work well for different actors. I tend to shy away from line readings because (in my experience), actors tend to focus in on what you have done, possibly focusing on a nuance that was far removed from what you were trying to get across. It also takes away a lot of choices for the actor (which is at the core of the craft), and finally, it removes the possibility of the actor coming up with something better than you have in mind. I find that most of the time a director gives line readings it is because they are impatient, are poor directors, or the actor and director do not agree on the characterization. There are exceptions, but I have rarely seen them.

Alot of good things have been brought up in this thread. One I did not see (but may have missed) is the helpful use of rehearsals. If you give an actor good material and the opportunity to find the right delivery at the core of the scene, line readings are usually unnecessary. Some actors cold read well, but get locked in; others take time to warm up, but deliver amazing stuff after a while; a lot are not as good as they think they are, and most don't listen (to you or the other actors) enough. One of your primary jobs as a director is to know your talent well enough to get them where they need to be. That's where experience, empathy and craft come in.

One of the most salient comments was to cast well. I agree. But as indie filmmakers we have a small palette to choose from. DO the best you can with what you have. Then get better.
 
Great thread....

I am one of those new directors who is afraid to give a line reading or result direction.... its hard because all you hear is don't don't don't..... its easy to come up with what you want off the top of you head, but to put that into playable terms is something that isn't as easy..... its like having to come up with an analogy every time you want it done slightly differently

I agree with getting to know the actors by rehearsing and getting a working language that you both understand.

Thanks
 
I hope a bunch of you have watched the amazing documentaryt that came with the Star Wars OT DVD set...

I think Harrison Ford says it best about George and his approach to directing... he is 'impatient' with the process of acting... and I think that shows.. by rushed performances on screen.. that are very stale... (aside from some lousy dialogue... not all the dialogue in the new trilogy is bad though imo.. just anything to do with the love story.. yikes..)

Look at THX 1138... Who the hell directed that? the performances were pretty damn good in that film.

I think Lucas is a victim of his own success.. and the a victim of ridiculous fan expectations.. but enough about him.


I think a it takes twos to tango... if there is weak link in the chain.. it is going to be felt or seen.

As for the original post... I don't think Line readings are bad perse.. but they aren't what I would call the best way to get a performance out of an actor.

NathanPresley said it best IMO.
 
I didn't get a chance to read all the responses, sorry if I'm repeating something already posted, but I thought I'd chime in.

There seems to be some confusion here with the term. A 'line reading' is defined as an oral interpretation by an ACTOR of one or more lines from a script, a related term is 'script reading'. I think you are reffering to a director reading a line for the actor to mimick, in which case (for me) is absolutely uneccesary and should never be done.

Our job as a director is to find the essence and motivation of the line through articulate interpretation. If you've done your job, the actor has enough expressive ideas (from you) to then turn your concept into reality. If you can not express your idea into articulate form then you need to question the line itself, and/or your skill as a director.

If you find yourself delivering a line the way you want it mimicked you will immediately lose respect from the actor (and crew). You are NOT the actor, we each have a job. Let the actor do his. It's an embarrassing situation when directors do this (I've seen it) and it's clear right away that the director is not skilled in his craft. He has taken the easy way out and through frustration says, 'just do it like this'.... and the film suffers.

As for 'line reading', via the correct definition (above) I personally stand by them and spend the initial part of production in rehearsal going over said line readings until we all feel confident to tackle the shoot.

Hope I didnt step on any toes, this is just my humble opinion. Good luck!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top