If actors are bad - is it the Director's fault?

[Mickey Munday]

i've heard this saying discussed a few times in conversations about directors, a few times amongst actors, that if the actors in a short film or feature have lacking performance, it's the director's fault no matter what. even on the indie level.

what are your thoughts to this? do you agree or disagree?

 

[Zak Forsman]

I wouldn't say "no matter what", but I *would* say "more often than not".

 

[Martay]

Funny that "No matter what" comes from actor's conversations

Obviously, yes, the director is ultimately responsible for everything, including the performance.

However, I've seen good and bad actors making things difficult for directors and vice versa.

I think that most novice directors wouldn't know "good" acting if it waltzed into their audition in the first place. I can't tell you how many films I've seen where directors cast the good actors in very minor roles and the leads are manned (or womanned) by rank amateurs who only fit the director's physical view of the character with little regard to talent or experience.

So, in that sense, Yeah, that's all the Director's fault but not in the way that those actors imply. The director simply chose the wrong person for the part...no amount of directing skill was going to elevate the actor's performance.

There are many legitimate arguments from actors as well who don't get ANY direction from the directors. I see that all the time as well. So actors just go "do it" and the editor gets what they get. Sometimes when the actors are good...this is an advantage (I love it when good actors take charge of their performances when a director gives them nothing as it usually is better than when they don't). However, sometimes even good actors "need" direction...otherwise there's a risk of clashing with the other performances, being to over/understated, and on and on.

However, if the directors can't even CAST well, how would you expect them to direct well.

Believe me, I learned the hard way myself. I've had bad performances occur on me which were due to my inexperience/incompetence at the time and good ones that resulted from an actor just being good. (Of course, that's not to say that the actors were good or bad, they may have been incapable of giving good performances but I never gave them a chance at times.)

I've also, had the pleasure of helping get good performances from good actors once I learned a thing or two about it all.

-M

 

[Ralph D]

It depends. Some people just can't act, no matter what the director tries to do. That's why the casting process is crucial.

 

[Mark Harris]

I fall on the side of yes, it is the director's fault. Whether the director does not know how to hold an audition, or gives bad direction on set, or does not figure out how to get around a bad performance(on set or in post), it all comes back to the director, in my book.

But regardless, I think the director had better act as if it's all his/her responsibility, because the director will be hurt by it the most.

 

[Martay]

But regardless, I think the director had better act as if it's all his/her responsibility, because the director will be hurt by it the most.

I agree. They better not just act like it, they better go the extra mile knowing that it's their responsibility.

Even if you cast Robert Deniro, and Meryl Streep...you better make sure they give the best performance for the film that's possible...otherwise you're the person who let them sleepwalk, or go overboard and embarrass themselves.

-M

 

[ZazaCast]

Yes...everything is ultimately the director's fault (IMHO)...right down to the food*!


*I recommend getting the extra toppings on the pizza & spring for the 'name brand' bottled water
...it makes everyone on set feel special.

 

[kimko]

Funny that "No matter what" comes from actor's conversations

Obviously, yes, the director is ultimately responsible for everything, including the performance.

However, I've seen good and bad actors making things difficult for directors and vice versa.

I think that most novice directors wouldn't know "good" acting if it waltzed into their audition in the first place. I can't tell you how many films I've seen where directors cast the good actors in very minor roles and the leads are manned (or womanned) by rank amateurs who only fit the director's physical view of the character with little regard to talent or experience.

So, in that sense, Yeah, that's all the Director's fault but not in the way that those actors imply. The director simply chose the wrong person for the part...no amount of directing skill was going to elevate the actor's performance.

There are many legitimate arguments from actors as well who don't get ANY direction from the directors. I see that all the time as well. So actors just go "do it" and the editor gets what they get. Sometimes when the actors are good...this is an advantage (I love it when good actors take charge of their performances when a director gives them nothing as it usually is better than when they don't). However, sometimes even good actors "need" direction...otherwise there's a risk of clashing with the other performances, being to over/understated, and on and on.

However, if the directors can't even CAST well, how would you expect them to direct well.

Believe me, I learned the hard way myself. I've had bad performances occur on me which were due to my inexperience/incompetence at the time and good ones that resulted from an actor just being good. (Of course, that's not to say that the actors were good or bad, they may have been incapable of giving good performances but I never gave them a chance at times.)

I've also, had the pleasure of helping get good performances from good actors once I learned a thing or two about it all.

-M

TOOSHAY.....:thumbup:

 

[Nexis]

i've heard this saying discussed a few times in conversations about directors, a few times amongst actors, that if the actors in a short film or feature have lacking performance, it's the director's fault no matter what. even on the indie level.

Anyone who considers things in such black and white terms needs a reality check.

 

[kimko]

i just had an audition with some young people doing a webisode and they had me read then they did an improv skit with me....great i loved it! it loosens you up to do what you do well; ACTING!

 

[Michele Seidman]

I think that most novice directors wouldn't know "good" acting if it waltzed into their audition in the first place. I can't tell you how many films I've seen where directors cast the good actors in very minor roles and the leads are manned (or womanned) by rank amateurs who only fit the director's physical view of the character with little regard to talent or experience. -M

martay....

if i could i would SOOOO give you a kiss right now!

michele

 

[Zak Forsman]

that's the first piece of audition advice I always give... do not cast according to the image of the character you have in your head. cast according to skill and ability and attraction and then shape the role to suit them.

 

[Mickey Munday]

Anyone who considers things in such black and white terms needs a reality check.

i agree 100%. and that's how i felt when some of the actors i was working with were talking about. it was during a scene, between takes, and one of the actors jokingly says "Well, no matter what I do, it's the directors fault......." it's almost as if this person had been told this in acting class or something, like this was a hard and fastened rule.

Funny that "No matter what" comes from actor's conversations

Believe me, I learned the hard way myself. I've had bad performances occur on me which were due to my inexperience/incompetence at the time and good ones that resulted from an actor just being good. (Of course, that's not to say that the actors were good or bad, they may have been incapable of giving good performances but I never gave them a chance at times.)

-M

have you ever had a situation where the actor was great during the casting process, but then during production they weren't as good? almost like they gave the casting performance their all and then just kinda went with it or had a hard time "walking and talking" if that makes sense?

that's the first piece of audition advice I always give... do not cast according to the image of the character you have in your head. cast according to skill and ability and attraction and then shape the role to suit them.

yea that is the best way to go, sometimes it even turns out better that way. it's easier to change it on paper then it is to change an actor (in this case who may not be that experienced)

 

[jpastuch]

It's always the director's RESPONSIBILITY. As a director, you must go down with your ship. Likewise, everyone always praises the director if a film is good, so why shouldn't the opposite happen?

It's all about making choices. I've casted bad actors before who have ruined scenes and even movies. And I take full responsibility for that. It's my fault for casting them. It's my fault if I cannot keep them under control. Are they being a menace to you? Whip them into shape. Use psychology. Have better actors overpower them to put them in your place. Like everything else in a film, you must learn to master it and master them, or they will master you.

To blame someone else that YOU put in there and say "you ruined my movie!" is a cop out. Learn to blame yourself. Take the knowledge away, and move on. Get better.

 

[Nathyn]

What about when you have a lead, that is upstaged by an actor in a supporting role simply because the supporting character was more interesting. I've had that happen. Both actors were good but everyone like one person because not only was the actor good but the role allowed them to really let go.

-Nate

 

[FilmBoy77]

eh, i'm not totally convinced the general public credits the director the same way they credit the actors when they see a great movie especially if the director isn't a popular name and doesn't have a credit of successful films. when i was a kid i didn't think of tony scott when i watched Top Gun...all i knew was Tom Cruise and that was what stood out most in addition to the movie itself. however, when a movie sucks everybody gets blamed...the actors seem to keep getting work while you may or may not see that director again, lol.

i'm all for taking responsibility for an actor's performance, but i agree with the comment earlier that everything isn't so black and white especially on an indie level where the actors and directors are still gaining their experience.

 

[FilmBoy77]

What about when you have a lead, that is upstaged by an actor in a supporting role simply because the supporting character was more interesting. I've had that happen. Both actors were good but everyone like one person because not only was the actor good but the role allowed them to really let go.

-Nate

that happened to me on my first short film. both actors started out the same time with the same amount of experience, but the supporting cat was just more of a natural and fit the part perfectly.

 

[armisiano]

that's the first piece of audition advice I always give... do not cast according to the image of the character you have in your head. cast according to skill and ability and attraction and then shape the role to suit them.

Agreed completely. I think we've all seen things where we think, "Wow, THEY were cast based on looks." I was working a shoot on Saturday like that. It was just a trailer I think to get funding for a feature (I was hired on as a camera operator for the day), and some of the acting was HORRENDOUS! And I knew right away that the producers cast based on email headshot submissions!

Cast a good actor, and if you have to choose between a few good actors, choose the one who seems to takes direction really well. Then, hopefully, there's no one to blame.

 

[Martay]

have you ever had a situation where the actor was great during the casting process, but then during production they weren't as good? almost like they gave the casting performance their all and then just kinda went with it or had a hard time "walking and talking" if that makes sense?

Yes. This has happened. Sometimes it seems like they relaxed and didn't engage once they booked the part. The energy didn't match the way they went into the audition and it felt like "auto-pilot" at times during the actual production.

-M

 

[Martay]

martay....

if i could i would SOOOO give you a kiss right now!

michele

*blush* Ah shucks. Thank you.

-M