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

[Martay]

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.

Other actors are an excellent resource when you're not getting results that you expect or want. I have relied on other actors to push certain actors in order to gain a stronger performance. I think it also helps the actor in question without making them feel like they're completely letting you down. If the other actor forces them to step up, then there's a certain amount of "fun" for the actor who wasn't necessarily delivering the goods just based on the main direction. When they "mix it up" with an actor in the scene itself, it sometimes takes away any of their external thoughts about hitting marks just so, etc. that can often get in the way of good performances.

Of course, this presumes that the other actors are able to do so. Which comes back to casting decisions, etc.

-M

 

[JonathanLB]

I don't really think so, but at the same time as a director I'm willing to take responsibility for basically anything that goes wrong in the sense that I hire everyone, as a producer-director anyway, and if I didn't hire the right people on the crew and the cast, then I obviously made an error in my planning that affected the shoot. Because I don't fancy myself a "good" director yet, I mean I don't know if I'm good yet, I am relatively inexperienced (though believe I have all of the elements that make a director good, they just haven't been put together yet or proven on any significant production), I consider the casting process essential and believe I can basically win the war before it's fought. That's my theory of filmmaking so far, and it has worked for me. Whenever I've spent great time and effort putting a fantastic crew together for a music video, for instance, and really put a lot of thought into what I wanted to do, I've come away with a great project. So to me, it's all in the planning. The actual execution is going to have its share of pitfalls but ultimately if it's well planned almost all of the time you should end up with something very good. If the script wasn't that good, that's a problem way before the shoot happens. If the actors aren't good, or are wrong for the part, that's a problem you could have fixed, etc. The key to making good work is hiring good people, I don't really think it's rocket science. Yes, there is a further element that the key to making good work is to hire good people and be able to manage them well and get the best out of them, that's great directing, but that comes with experience to some degree, and with inexperience you can fake it with just the right understanding of psychology, human motivation, interpersonal communications, etc.

So I'd blame the director if the acting isn't good, in most cases, because I have no other option to assume that this is what the director wanted, I mean he cast these people, he must have told them to perform this way, or he was ok with them doing so. It's the director's fault most of the time. If I want credit as the director for my project, as an auteur, I'm happy and willing to accept blame when things go wrong and own up to it, I'd rather do that than blame people I hire, because for me to point fingers at them seems wrong. They were probably doing the best they could with their skills, I'm the moron who hired them to do something that was above their ability, haha.

Oh and the comment "even on indie productions," no ESPECIALLY on indie productions! The director is way more powerful on an indie project, you never have that much control on a major feature or TV show unless you're Steven Spielberg or George Lucas. If you are the director of some studio-backed feature, you probably get thrown with good actors, sure, but they may just be good looking, well known people who sell tickets, like a Jessica Alba, not necessarily legitimately good actors. It's not really your fault if they aren't that great, they sell tickets and you're there to make things go as smoothly as possible. Like I don't blame the Prison Break directors that the DP of that show is in my opinion a moron -- constant out of focus shots where I can only see the main character, can't see the other guy's reactions, bad, overly dark shots that look like crap, etc. The DP has more power on a TV show, since the DP is the same every episode usually or at least they alternate between maybe two DPs, and the directors change. But on shorts and indie projects I blame the director for more, and give the director credit for more too.

 

[Kleptonite]

This is sort of ridiculous. It doesn't matter what happens if the result is a bad movie...it affects both the actor and the director; everybody is on the line.

Everybody should be allies in making a film, and I personally believe that the responsibility falls both on the actor and the director.

 

[JamieF]

Even if you cast Robert Deniro, and Meryl Streep

When I see Meryl Streep in the line up of talent, I cry, ask god why shes there, and leave the movie in its case. Idk what it is about her, but she makes me want to kill a baby.

 

[FilmBoy77]

that sounds more like demonic possession

 

[vic777]

I think that most novice directors wouldn't know "good" acting if it waltzed into their audition in the first place.
-M

I just got passed on a part by a young director, it was to play a bum. I went in character ... bad hair ... teeth ... smelled like piss ... acted drunk ... didn't get the part. It was because they thought I was a bum!

 

[JamieF]

that sounds more like demonic possession

Idk I just hate her. I think that its both parts actor and director as stated before.

The only thing is, the director will take the blame. I can live with that. but, just so we feel better, its both the actor and the directors fault in many cases. And you can secretly know that, even if everyone else yells at you for hours for their horrible performance in some shitty Hallmark Channel weekly special.

 

[Zak Forsman]

not sure I see how it would be the actor's fault when the director is guiding them to that "failed" performance. generally, actors are working toward the director's approval. unless you've got an actor who refuses the director's guidance, then maybe anyone putting blame on the actor smply doesn't understand how to talk to them? i can see that, i know i remember when actors were a huge mystery to me. and they still are in many respects.

 

[Zak Forsman]

I just got passed on a part by a young director, it was to play a bum. I went in character ... bad hair ... teeth ... smelled like piss ... acted drunk ... didn't get the part. It was because they thought I was a bum!

you went to an audition smelling like piss?

 

[Andy Olson]

Although I do agree that a director is the one responsible for making the movie work and getting the best performances, it is a little much to say it is only the director's fault. Filmmaking is a collaborative effort. If an actor gives a poor performance then they share a part in the blame unless maybe the director forced them to do so with very poor directions. If good acting was solely the responsibility of the director then they would give Best Actor/Actress awards to the director.

Laters,
Andy

 

[Zak Forsman]

Although I do agree that a director is the one responsible for making the movie work and getting the best performances, it is a little much to say it is only the director's fault. Filmmaking is a collaborative effort. If an actor gives a poor performance then they share a part in the blame unless maybe the director forced them to do so with very poor directions. If good acting was solely the responsibility of the director then they would give Best Actor/Actress awards to the director.

Laters,
Andy

actually, they would give it to the editor.

 

[CallaghanFilms]

It's the director's fault in so much as he should have caught (seen) the off (bad) performance right away and remedied it by biting the bullet & recasting.

 

[PaPa]

It is completely the directors fault.


The director is responsible to Cast, he is the one that says Cut, or "Let's take another one". If what you get on the final screen is "bad acting" then the sole person to blame is the director, becuase its your camera angle, with your continuity, your frame and your decision in the end. The actor has very little control over his performance on camera.

 

[PaPa]

Although I do agree that a director is the one responsible for making the movie work and getting the best performances, it is a little much to say it is only the director's fault. Filmmaking is a collaborative effort. If an actor gives a poor performance then they share a part in the blame unless maybe the director forced them to do so with very poor directions. If good acting was solely the responsibility of the director then they would give Best Actor/Actress awards to the director.

Laters,
Andy

If that is the case then he was miscast, which again goes down to the director and producer. If he was good at his audition and sucks on set, then you didn't audition correctly.

 

[FilmBoy77]

a director mostly has complete control on an indie film (i'd hope). i'd argue that's the case 100% of the time on a studio film, large budget where a-list producers are involved or a situation where the director was hired after the studio/producer attached the lead(s) and they are forced to work with each other. the director has to be that much better to make those situations work.

still the director AND actors are both blamed if the movie sucks regardless of what went on behind the scenes.

 

[JonathanLB]

a director mostly has complete control on an indie film (i'd hope). i'd argue that's the case 100% of the time on a studio film, large budget where a-list producers are involved or a situation where the director was hired after the studio/producer attached the lead(s) and they are forced to work with each other. the director has to be that much better to make those situations work.

still the director AND actors are both blamed if the movie sucks regardless of what went on behind the scenes.

Yeah, well put, that's true I think.

As a director I'm willing to accept responsibility for most things that go wrong, however, and I prefer not to discuss things that go wrong too much in public. I mean, I just think it lacks the qualities of a leader to blame the people he works with for errors. If you want to point fingers rather than take responsibility, don't be a leader. I'd rather accept blame for someone else's shortcomings, for not being able to get the best out of them and help them succeed, rather than placing blame on them as if somehow it's not my problem or not my fault.

 

[FilmBoy77]

yep that's true. start pointing fingers and you are ducking and running. i just dont think every situation is automatically black and white like bad movie = bad director. lots of stuff can happen beyond a directors control if he doesn't have the juice or experience to play his/her cards right in any given situation.

 

[JonathanLB]

That's true, I mean lots of things can contribute to a less-than-stellar movie especially with studio pictures. It just happens sometimes, the pieces don't all come together right.

 

[Martay]

yep that's true. start pointing fingers and you are ducking and running. i just dont think every situation is automatically black and white like bad movie = bad director. lots of stuff can happen beyond a directors control if he doesn't have the juice or experience to play his/her cards right in any given situation.

Well. Again, ultimately the director needs to try and "make up" for anything that happens detrimental to a film.

I'd say that you can general say that Bad Movie = Bad Directing (or Bad Writing) most of the time...doesn't mean that a director of such a movie can't be a good director...It just means they weren't a good one on that project.

-M

 

[FilmBoy77]

yea, i agree, if it's a situation where the director has more than enough control. however that's not always the case. again, i'm not making any excuses for directors that have movies out there that are bad, the director will take the fall regardless, whether it's 100% his/her fault depends on that particular situation/politics/issues/lack of whatever and i'm talking about studio pictures with larger budgets and larger crews and way more people involved than say a $5k indie project where the director is funding it themselves and calling all the shots from casting to how the trailer is cut.