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

[DecadenceFilms]

As for my own short films, I'm tending to select actors and actresses who are not experienced. Perhaps it may be the blind leading the blind, but at least we are at the same level in the nurseryschool of filmmaking...

I think this is fine in the very tentative stages of your career. At some point you have to bite the bullet and work with professionals, otherwise the standard of your films will always be held back.

I started doing a similar thing to you. I had it in my head that I'd have my team of friends who would all grow together and develop our skills to a professional level.

Unfortunately people don't develop at the same rate and not everyone can get to a professional standard.

Don't be worried about looking like a fool. Just always be honest and up front about everything and make sure you prepare well and give your collaborators the necessary material with which to prepare.

You don't have to be a great all seeing, omniscient auteur to make a movie, you can trust and rely on the talents of those around you. You'll find plenty of professionals of all kinds willing to help you out. They WANT you to succeed, as they'll be opportunity to repay the favour down the line.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

dang...trying to figure out how to say this and not come off wrong...but seriously? you would avoid someone who knew more about acting on film just because you are new?

Since at the moment, my short subject films are all no-budget, the likelihood of interesting an 'experienced' actor in my projects is slim to none. (And perhaps yet another point to piss off the readership, I hate unions... not that I'm against collective bargining when confronted with employers who have massive wealth and the power to control labor... however union rules limit 'experienced' actor's participation in 'no-budget' projects, or projects, where the financial gain has a incredibily hazy prospect... and the presumption is that a SAG actor is more experienced than a non-SAG actor...)

But had I a project that did have the budget, I would be incredibly selective about finding people who were willing to work with someone who was new to directing. Just because someone has a great amount of experience, perhaps even great general estimation of their acting, does not mean that a new director will benefit from that experience and capability.

And in that regard, I may choose a less 'experienced' person, who may be more willing to try to achieve 'my way', than 'well, this is how it is done'.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

I like working with the most experienced and talented people I can find. I prefer not to let anyone on set that has little to no talent. Just doesn't make me or the production better. But being in a constant state of learning, is the best way - in my mind - to succeed over the long haul.

I mean that's why I come to DVXuser - to meet up with people and learn from their experiences and wisdom.

I was not talking about 'no/little' talent, just to be clear... and having a long resume of roles not make 'talented', either... and who knows, could be cause for problems, that the individual 'cuda been ah contenda'...

 

[Mickey Munday]

Since at the moment, my short subject films are all no-budget, the likelihood of interesting an 'experienced' actor in my projects is slim to none.

depends on how cool the concept or script is. my first short i spent less than $100 and the concept attracted a few talented SAG actors in addition to some experienced local actors. they loved the concept, i was up front and told them this was my first time, it was me and one other guy holding the boom mic and a bunch of free locations. their response was mostly that they get so many shi*ty scripts that its refreshing to actually play a role that has character depth - especially in a short. i think you give the "experienced actor" too much credit. a majority of them, if not all of them, are on your side...these people are artists first. if your stuff has potential they'll work with you. just be upfront and honest. everybody respects that....and if they're doing it for free on this level that tells you right there it's a passion of theirs. i love working with people with the same hunger and drive as myself and i love surrounding my self with people who know more than me with more experience....how else can you learn?

 

[Martay]

depends on how cool the concept or script is. my first short i spent less than $100 and the concept attracted a few talented SAG actors in addition to some experienced local actors. they loved the concept, i was up front and told them this was my first time, it was me and one other guy holding the boom mic and a bunch of free locations. their response was mostly that they get so many shi*ty scripts that its refreshing to actually play a role that has character depth - especially in a short. i think you give the "experienced actor" too much credit. a majority of them, if not all of them, are on your side...these people are artists first. if your stuff has potential they'll work with you. just be upfront and honest. everybody respects that....and if they're doing it for free on this level that tells you right there it's a passion of theirs. i love working with people with the same hunger and drive as myself and i love surrounding my self with people who know more than me with more experience....how else can you learn?

Absolutely. Actors are attracted to good material and simply working (even for free if need be).

And to the earlier point that working with a more experienced actor won't necessarily help the NEW Director...well, I don't really think I buy that at all. Plus even if you think you'd learn more with less experienced actors, I'd suggest that your project itself might benefit more from the more experienced actors being on board.

I would definitely like to work with the most experienced and talented cast I can possibly get who are right for the roles in question. It just happens that early on, the actors I could attract were mostly beginners on a similar level as myself. Still, I always tried to find the most serious (in my mind) about their craft to work with even when all they had were Blank resume's for the most part and their "Special Skills" were like a dissertation compared to the actual roles they'd booked.

I don't know if perhaps it's being posited in a way that most are balking at, or what but the fact that one wouldn't want to attract the best talent possible no matter what the level is somewhat puzzling to me.

If it's that you want to give people a chance, that's a different scenario, it's noble but also problematic often especially if there are folks better suited for a project who get passed over. I've seen it happen many times.

-M

 

[Stryfe]

90% of directing is CASTING.

Think about that a little bit then answer your own question.

 

[Michele Seidman]

Since at the moment, my short subject films are all no-budget, the likelihood of interesting an 'experienced' actor in my projects is slim to none. (And perhaps yet another point to piss off the readership, I hate unions... not that I'm against collective bargining when confronted with employers who have massive wealth and the power to control labor... however union rules limit 'experienced' actor's participation in 'no-budget' projects, or projects, where the financial gain has a incredibily hazy prospect... and the presumption is that a SAG actor is more experienced than a non-SAG actor...)

ok..as kindly as I can, this is where your lack of knowledge is working against you. Ever heard of the term 'financial core'? Actors can be in a union under that status and STILL do student, indie, AND a 'freebie' if they want too.

the student film i mentioned earlier WAS for free. i did it because i really believed in the young man who wrote and directed it. turned out i was right because he has gone on to paying gigs in the larger scale of the business.

and I was not presuming that a union actor is better or worse than a non-union because I happen to be in a Right to Work state where even a SAG project CAN'T limit itself to ONLY auditioning union actors. it IS against the law in ANY non-union state.

i know actors who make 6 figures in the south east who have never joined the union and who HAVE done a few freebies to help some young talent get a leg up.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

ok..as kindly as I can, this is where your lack of knowledge is working against you. Ever heard of the term 'financial core'? Actors can be in a union under that status and STILL do student, indie, AND a 'freebie' if they want too.

the student film i mentioned earlier WAS for free. i did it because i really believed in the young man who wrote and directed it. turned out i was right because he has gone on to paying gigs in the larger scale of the business.

Since I'm not a lawyer, I don't have a clear determination, but my reading of the several 'low/no' budget agreements on the SAG site, suggest no union actor can 'work' for 'free'.

Further, for example, the 'short film' SAG Indie agrement gives a list of venues where a resulting film may be shown, such as 'pay' theaters, to qualify for say an Academy award, etc. The list is very limited, and the agrement specificially exlcudes 'internet' as a distribution channel, and still maintain the 'low/no' budget agreement, unless the actor is paid $100 per day of work on the film. A SAG actor will receive $100 per day, once the film is shown outside of the agreement listed venues. Further, if the film does in fact enter the commercial distribution channels, wages based on the SAG MBA may be due. And as a note, once wages are paid the filmmaker must fill out all the usual tax forms for employees...

I've not looked into this in a long while, so, if there are others who are more knowledgeable, perhaps they can comment.

The Low/No budget SAG Indie agreement also requires the filmmaker submit a budget to SAG, listing compensation, of not only the actors, but others on the project. My read of the agreement, is that it doesn't matter if the project is $10 or $49,999.00, the max allowed for the agreement to be in force.

California is not a 'right to work' state... I believe in order for an actor has to make a 'financial core' declaration with SAG to do otherwise. I also beiieve that such a declaration is irrevocable. But again, I've not looked into this in lawyer like detail.

 

[Michele Seidman]

Since I'm not a lawyer, I don't have a clear determination, but my reading of the several 'low/no' budget agreements on the SAG site, suggest no union actor can 'work' for 'free'.

Take a break from their site and go look up Federal Law...and I quote, but not word for word:

"NO union OR guild may override any states Right to Work Status."

It IS against Federal Law. I appreciate what unions have done through the years to protect talent but 90% of actors in the Union can't pay their rent off the Union wages they make and that IS a fact.

 

[Michele Seidman]

The Low/No budget SAG Indie agreement also requires the filmmaker submit a budget to SAG, listing compensation, of not only the actors, but others on the project. My read of the agreement, is that it doesn't matter if the project is $10 or $49,999.00, the max allowed for the agreement to be in force.

California is not a 'right to work' state... I believe in order for an actor has to make a 'financial core' declaration with SAG to do otherwise. I also beiieve that such a declaration is irrevocable. But again, I've not looked into this in lawyer like detail.

PS...in Union states an actor can 'buy out' for a few weeks to do non-union and there IS also a SAG agreement for deferred pay and no pay, but check with the directors and producers here on DVX because they know a ton more about that than I do by far. I have seen multiple posts on it but did not absorb enough to pass it on and be sure I am accurate on the details.

 

[DavidBeier]

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.

This.

The bottom line is that, even if something isn't your fault; you might as well take responsability for it as the director. You're in charge and, if you want people to continue to trust you with their money and time, you better at least re-assure them that you've learned from your mistakes.

For that matter, I think it feels a lot better when you can attribute something to your screw up. I mean, if problems like this are not your fault and out of your control then you might as well give up directing since you'll always have to depend on other people and they can always sink you. However, if you decide that, "Ok, I could have helped him more or cast someone more experienced," then at least you can hope you won't let the same issues happen again.

There are tons of screw-ups that have happened on my films but any time I've let myself say, "it wasn't my fault" hasn't brought me anything. So, if the camera operator was panning too fast then I should have been paying closer attention to the monitor. If the crew was ticked off because of bad meals then I should have made sure we had something of better quality. And if the actor wasn't giving what I needed him or her to then I should have either pulled it out of them or cast someone else.

Saying, "it's not my fault" will ruin a film. I'm currently going nuts trying to finish the climax of a movie because, while we were filming, one of my leads lost all focus due to a personal issue. I shot around him for most of the scene and then went back but, because we were going over 12 hours, I quit before he got where he needed to be. It's not my fault he was messing up for much of the day (and it's wasn't his either) but it's my fault that I didn't either tell the crew we were going into over-time (and just pay for it) or immediately decide to do pick-ups as soon as possible. Now I CAN'T reshoot in the same location and I have no one to blame but myself.