Ridley Scott on Method Acting

Actiing is RE-acting. It can be to something internal or external. That is why great actors like Hanks can pull off something like Castaway. He is reacting to his circumstances. Does he have charisma? Yes. And as a great actor he maximizes his abilities. The movie would have been different with someone like Hoffman, but all other things being equal, it would have been an engaging film.

I just watched A Few Good Men again, and in a film with well deserved praise for its dialogue, the best moments in that film are the looks, the movements and the reactions. That's acting. Delivering the lines is the chrome, the reacting is what's under the hood.
 
Last edited:
rsbush said:
Do you think if they were comfortably waiting for a nice home cooked meal, their waiting would have the same quality as their waiting for impending doom? This question isn't rhetorical , I'm curious as to what you think.

When a director tells an actor to "just say the line", the actor is always trying to do too much with it. The same with the direction "Don't Act". This kind of coaching or direction exists in each and every discipline. It seems like the point of your discussion is to minimize the craft of acting rather than illuminate it.
Click to expand...

I think they were focused on the situation as represented by the script. And in a scene like this, it was the script that did the heavy lifting.
 
brianluce said:
I think they were focused on the situation as represented by the script. And in a scene like this, it was the script that did the heavy lifting.
Click to expand...
i suppose the director, cinematographer, production designer and editor were on cruise control as well?
 
brianluce said:
I think they were focused on the situation as represented by the script. And in a scene like this, it was the script that did the heavy lifting.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that you have no respect for acting whatsoever. I would suggest taking some acting classes to get a grasp of what actors actually do.
 
Wow!
Talk about an active thread.

Can't we all agree that up until now the script is the basis for the making of a scripted film, and that most scripted films need some kind of human presence in them to express the script to its best potential?

Some people prefer to prepare and rehearse, others not. Because there aren't any repeated performances in a film's production (unlike in the theater), the script needn't be as Holy Bible as it is on stage. Not necessarily.

However, until previz becomes as widespread as prose, most people still use the script as the principal means of blueprinting the film.
Of course, text is very imperfect as a blueprint for a performance. So clarification and experimentation is required by all involved.

So we filmmakers have evolved a series of methods that best suits our needs to get our films made as best and as economically as we can.

The production of excellent screen acting isn't as precise a craft as that of stage acting, simply because each movie set tends to be a different experience, whereas a theatrical one tends to be the same. There's plenty of tradition behind the theater, whereas the only tradition in film seems to be one of rebellion and or reinventing the wheel, especially these days - reality TV, industry strikes, the Internet, down with the the old school, that kind of thing.

Moore's Law has it that disruptive innovation will eventually rule the roost - in technology.

Acting isn't a technology.
In the same way a person cannot read about doing a backflip and then perform one, one cannot read about acting or directing and then act or direct.
(One can, however, read about replacing a hard drive, and then proceed to do exactly that.)
There is a difference here.
Technology revolves around things. Actors aren't things.

So, in the same way that one needs to learn, for instance, the signals required to ask a thoroughbred horse to speed up, slow down, turn this way and that, there's a language to communicate effectively with another human being which is not riding that human being. Humans aren't horses, they won't have it.

Humans make choices. The choose to interpret a certain scripted line a certain way, the way they feel is their best way.
This applies to the PA, the producer, the marketing person, the writer, the grip, the DP, everybody involved.

As a director, your job is to wrangle all these different choices, and unify them into one coherent choice, or direction.

You can choose to do it all yourself, which means you don't have to talk to anybody else.
But if you need help, then you're going to have to talk to the people who are helping you.

If you need a lot of help, or you need to move quickly, or you need to save money and shoot less, then you'll need some kind of shorthand with your people so you don't stand around talking about it all the time you're meant to be shooting.

And it's pretty useless saying "my way or the highway" at that point, because then you'll have no shoot. People aren't horses, thoroughbred or otherwise. And actually, even horse won't take it beyond a certain level. Besides, it's much nicer to be asked rather than to be told...

So it's better to collaborate, especially if those people helping you are as good as or better than you are.

Since you can't dictate, you have to work with the choices already made. You can't help that fact. People make their own choices every minute of every day. Good artists make choices with training and experience added. Even before you give them a script, they'll already have made choices. Can't help it. Human nature.

The Method calls dealing with/modifying those choices "adjustments". That's a for-instance "buzz" word. Adjustment. A trained actor can talk about choices and adjustments all day long. This is what they do, and if you're to be a professional director, this is what you do too. And if you can do this too, then you're speaking the same language and can now "go to work " - that is, get on with the business of shaping/crafting ("preparing") the parts and performances of the piece.

The Method is merely one way to codify artistic collaboration in performance.

It isn't perfect, because it's imported from another arena, that of the theater. But it's close enough for a lot of people to use it as the one that gets a job done quickly.

Like learning a foreign language before you visit a country makes things easier than just arriving there and speaking English, loudly, until someone understands.

Happy New Year and may all your productions be true.
 
Last edited:
Zak Forsman said:
i suppose the director, cinematographer, production designer and editor were on cruise control as well?
Click to expand...

I'm sure the editor was at least.

Odd that so many of you can't get your heads around the benign, simple idea that some scenes take bigger chops than others to perform--or, specifically, that some scenes because of how they're constructed require LESS from actors than other scenes.
 
Brian
Agreed.
However, it's a point of view thing here.
From the point of view of the film maker, everything's important. Even if a shot is a B roll establishing of a cityscape with nobody in it.
From the maker's perspective, some of the scenes are acting intensive, some not. Some actors require more work and preparation, others not. Some stories, others not.

From the actor's perspective, they remain inside their bodies. Every scene they're in is important to them, because they're in it.
Even if they're doing "nothing", they have to do that well.

See, it's not about the individual performance moment. It's about the stitching, by remote control (and editor) of an entire cohesive performance from bits and pieces of shots. Three pieces of performance cut together perfectly, building a great moment. Then the forth is not in line with the first three and junks the moment.

Well, maybe that forth shot happened months after the first three, which were shot at the same time, and with two cameras. Maybe a lot of things, but the fact of the matter is that the performance as a whole is less than it could have been if someone were looking out for that performance.

And that's the actor's job as much as anybody else's.

So to the actor, every moment is important. Every alarm is a code 10 full on red alert, in other words. They look to the director to provide guidance, balance, support. The director looks to them to give the words life, soul, meaning.

Simple moments aren't always easy to perform. Saying and doing "nothing" actually is rather hard, as people realize when they try to do it themselves.

And there's no accounting for taste. There are people who take great pleasure in making a film that's old school, "just the way they used to make 'em".
Others not.
So what seems to one person to be boring dross seems to another to be sheer brilliance.
And I think that's a reason for us to celebrate, not argue.
If you think of our medium like any other medium, say, a drawing on a sheet of paper, then arguing about content is sort of like saying that this paper has to have that drawing on it, and only that drawing is right for this paper. And this drawing is good, and that one is bad.
Of course there's a long standing tradition for that too. It's called art criticism.
Let's leave that particular endeavor aside and get on with what it is that we're meant to be doing, and leave that part to the critics.

Whenever I finish a film and put it out, I only expect half of my audience to get the story at all, and out of that, maybe a tenth to actually like it. So maybe one in twenty?

Seems to me that our job is to put out films that we oursleves love, at least a little.

And get them under control so they come out more or less as we intended them to, so that in the end they're actually showing a little of the wonder and beauty that captured us in the first place, and made us want to make the film.

Then the rest is up to the audience.

Who will always differ, and squabble, believe me.

Otherwise, as professionals, we're not making movies, we're making money.
 
Last edited:
brianluce said:
Odd that so many of you can't get your heads around the benign, simple idea that some scenes take bigger chops than others to perform--or, specifically, that some scenes because of how they're constructed require LESS from actors than other scenes.
Click to expand...

No. *Everyone* gets that. Just as we all *get* that some apples taste different than others.
 
Some years ago I watched an interview with Jodie Foster [on Larry King I believe] and she said something interesting about Robert De Niro's approach to acting.

It was like:

Actually he doesn't act, he literally becomes the character...

So maybe the ultimate acting is actually being the character. In order to do this, one must probably forget about himself completely and create an entire virtual world.

But how is this done in practice - maybe only the true geniuses know...

I think this applies to the director too, and all the other departments.

A movie isn't just a movie, it's a recreation of life - discovering the essence and "cutting the dull parts out". I'm talking about serious drama here, and not about the popcorn flicks.

A movie should be like a virtual world or another-possible-reality and all the crew must plug in to that reality - this is mainly the director's job and mission: to plug everyone into that virtual-reality, to be the Architect, conductor and hypnotist, enchanting everyone in to the movie.

So the director shouldn't be merely "directing", he should believe in this alternative world that he's creating or the actor shouldn't be merely "acting", he should become the character...

But... nothing's easy.

My 2c.
 
karapetkov said:
Some years ago I watched an interview with Jodie Foster [on Larry King I believe] and she said something interesting about Robert De Niro's approach to acting.

It was like:

Actually he doesn't act, he literally becomes the character...

So maybe the ultimate acting is actually being the character. In order to do this, one must probably forget about himself completely and create an entire virtual world.

But how is this done in practice - maybe only the true geniuses know...
Click to expand...

It's not really all that foreign a concept, if I may say so. It's akin to "pretending" and "make believe", which partly explains how even young children with little or no training can be astonishingly good actors sometimes. Children are generally more able to slip into a make-believe world. It's a lot harder to learn for most adults.

Mel Gibson is famously quoted as saying that "acting is like lying", which is basically the same idea.

So yes...DeNiro, like many other gifted actors, presumably does so by temporarily convincing himself that the "pretended circumstances" (to quote Jack Nicholson on the subject) are real.

This is a core part of my own efforts as an actor, while quickly acknowledging that I am far less skilled at it than any of the aforementiond others. So I literally say to myself on set: "this is real" before a take. I also give myself little "pretending" challenges, like imagining that no one else in the room knows it's *not* real, and it's my job to keep that secret - to act it so "real" that no one who wasn't in on "the secret" would know you're saying memorized lines from a script you (presumably) didn't write. Whatever it takes, and whatever you call it; "being" the character, "lying", "living in the moment"...if you can really, truly get yourself there completely, it will almost always work very, very well.

But again...for most adults, this is *extremely* challenging. It takes very little to snap you out of that state, and a great deal of discipline, practice and imaginative horsepower to stay in it. That's where real talent and great training come in. Almost none of our greatest actors have gotten there without without a lot of both. And it's why 99% of adults who have no acting training or experience will be awful in a scripted scene, and even ones who have will usually be pretty bad because they can't completely "get there" in their imaginations. Shirley MacLaine once said acting's about forgetting who you are. Which is not as easy as it sounds...

I think this applies to the director too, and all the other departments.
Click to expand...

Yes, but *especially* the director. (S)He's the gatekeeper of the "pretended reality" du jour, and can singlehandedly do more to make or break it than anyone else. A great director can almost "hypnotize" everyone into belief in the scene. A poor director will do the opposite most often by largely ignoring the imaginary world while over-focusing on technical and empirical matters (move *exactly* to *this* spot, say it faster, "I want more energy!" etc.). Judith Weston spends a great deal of time in her excellent book "Directing Actors" discussing this kind of wrong-headed "result oriented" direction.

A great scene done well happens like a collective trance. Great actors can get so into the moment that it takes a fair bit of time to "come back" from it. When this happens, you're onto something...

A movie isn't just a movie, it's a recreation of life - discovering the essence and "cutting the dull parts out". I'm talking about serious drama here, and not about the popcorn flicks.

A movie should be like a virtual world or another-possible-reality and all the crew must plug in to that reality - this is mainly the director's job and mission: to plug everyone into that virtual-reality, to be the Architect, conductor and hypnotist, enchanting everyone in to the movie.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

So the director shouldn't be merely "directing", he should believe in this alternative world that he's creating or the actor shouldn't be merely "acting", he should become the character...
Click to expand...

That's what happens when it's done right, IMHO.

But... nothing's easy.
Click to expand...

It sure isn't for me!
 
Last edited:
Civil?

Hah!

We're talking the ultimate balls-to-the-wall, gloves off, visceral activity here:

ACTING - it's like taking off all your clothes, then all your skin, then all your flesh, then all your guts, then bones...

then baring what's left to closeup inspection and criticism by people who you don't know and probably either don't care or don't give a rat's behind.

For what?

Hard to be civil in a situation like this :)

LOL!

No, seriously. Acting, probably more than any other activity, is vested in the human soul and spirit. It uses raw emotion and every human sense as its building blocks. (and some non-sense too, come to think of it...)

So full, honest and meaningful discussion about this is bound to touch a nerve or two, and stir up some pretty deep emotion. It's meant to, right?

And actors are meant to take things personally - their person is their instrument, after all.

So courage, people. We're on fruitful ground here.

This is turning out to be an incredible thread!
 
Being in the moment, the way DeNiro is in some of those films you may be thinking about is all the product of technique...When people throw around the typical phrases like "Don't Act", they actually mean that they see you acting or performing for them...A trained actor is indeed what is required in those situations because a properly trained actor makes it look natural and in the moment. To clear up the whole technique/DeNiro thing, I would like to explain that techique is used to get you to that place of creating that other world for you, to justify your lines or moments and to create your character based on all the research you have done about the character's circumstances...socially, politically, religiously, emotionally...the object of all of this is to get you to that state where you can throw it all away and be the character and think like the character, to live in the moment, and be alive in the moment...that's great technique...You don't think about it on set or stage because then you wouldn't be in the moment...it's a tool to get you to that point and then also to use retrospectively as a tool to go back over what you have done and analyze where you need to fine tune...kind of like a road map. There are no lulls in this kind of performance...when you have no lines, you still are thinking as and being the character and that's what makes those performances so full in the quiet moments...because there's life in them and under them and behind them...no look is empty or void of life...if we are talking about real acting and real actors a la DeNiro...

Stan Harrington
www.xristosproductions.com
www.igfdb.com
 
I'm definitely getting "Directing Actors", but what about the other book of hers' "Director's Intuition". Is it worth it?

I've also marked a nice package of books by Lee Strasberg, Stella Adler and Sanford Meisner, cause AFAIK, they are in the must-know list. I'm also getting "Rebel Without A Crew" :grin: and a couple of other books.

Let's hope they can ship the books safely from Amazon to my country.

BTW, is amazon the best place to buy books?

P.S. Sorry for off-topic-king the thread a little.
 
Ted Spencer said:
So yes...DeNiro, like many other gifted actors, presumably does so by temporarily convincing himself that the "pretended circumstances" (to quote Jack Nicholson on the subject) are real.






!
Click to expand...

Yep, and I think this is one reason greenscreen performances ("Polar Express") seem less authentic. Harder to "Convince" yourself when there's a big green cyc instead of a set. Those motion buttons all over your body probably don't help either.
 
Let me just add too that, for many writers and directors, hiring an actor of this calibre can be a blessing but it can also be stressful. Because their preparation is so complete and precise, working with them might feel like driving a Rolls Royce...but any writing or directing weaknesses or deficiencies you have will be exposed...My speech teacher (I am an Aussie) Gail Ross (Gary Ross's mom) told me once that Brando's prep and research (in the early days) was so complete, specific and precise that he even knew the other character's roles better than the other actors did...Actors that take their craft seriously are very precise and will pour over a script the way the guys on CSI go over a crime scene and search for every clue, hint, inference that might make their character more pointed and complete...it makes directors better and writers better when there is a collaborative effort of professionals...

Stan Harrington
 
stan harrington said:
Actors that take their craft seriously are very precise and will pour over a script the way the guys on CSI go over a crime scene
Stan Harrington
Click to expand...

In an interview Christopher Walken mentioned that when he "Studies a script" he often reads the lines aloud. Always thought it noteworthy that he didn't say when he "reads" a script, or "Looks at" a script, but that he STUDIES a script.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top