Acting advice sought

B

brianluce

Carbonite Member
I'm a novice director, just doing commercials and working with amatuer actors usually. I feel that the actors exchange lines of dialog but something seems wrong, it's as if they're not properly reacting to each others lines--it's hard to express this but it's as if one character gives his line and the other character's reaction to it does not seem like a "reaction" at all, it seems like he's just saying a line and not playing off the line he just recieved from the other actor. I don't know if it's the timing or what but there is something unconvincing in the give and take of dialog exchanges between the two characters. I see this over and over again and don't know how to correct it. does anyone know what i'm talking about?

I heard Hillary Swank say in an interview that "Acting is reacting". Is this what she meant? I've actually studied a bit of acting, but purely because I thought'd help my writing (which it did by the way). But in my liimited experience the acting coaches never brought up this topic. I'm starting to think I'm imagining a problem that isn't there.
 
In theater when I have two actors who end up just reciting lines and not really being in "Character" I have then do the scene in improv and not be able to use any of the scripted lines in the scene to get them to have to react to what the other person in the scene is saying and have them learn to play off of each other. Then when they can do that smoothly I have them go back to the scripted dialogue but try and keep the flow of being improvised speech, not anticipated dialogue. Don't know if that helps or not...
 
LighthouseMedia said:
In theater when I have two actors who end up just reciting lines and not really being in "Character" I have then do the scene in improv and not be able to use any of the scripted lines in the scene to get them to have to react to what the other person in the scene is saying and have them learn to play off of each other. Then when they can do that smoothly I have them go back to the scripted dialogue but try and keep the flow of being improvised speech, not anticipated dialogue. Don't know if that helps or not...
Click to expand...

I'll try that, seems like a logical fix. One thing though, the actors seem to be in character but it's their interaction that causes me trouble. it's like they're just waiting for the other character to finish his line so they can do their line. it's very strange to observe. The best description i can think of is they're not reacting to each other. it's like two monologues--no sense of conversing.
 
One thing I tell actors in that situation is to "stop acting"
You can't phrase it like that of course if they are big time, but that's the idea.
So politely, either directly or covertly, but that's what I'm trying to get across to them nonetheless.

It's very astute of you to put your finger on the symptom so accutely without what sounds like tons of acting or directing training. But the solution is not technical -- not timing or anything like that. It's too much "acting" instead of being. It's being honest and there and in the moment - which means listening to what the other actor is doing.

Before Katrina, I taught an on camera acting class in New Orleans. Part of the curriculum was a taped candid interview of the student. The questions were designed to make them turn on a dime without being able to put a "face" on for the camera. "Where were you when you had your worst fight ever with your father?" A serious look comes over their face. "What color is your shirt?" Relief. That's an easy one. "Where were you the first time you copped a feel?" HUH? I can't believe your asking that ... where was I ? ... Hmmm ... (their face turns read) "where are the himalayan mountains?" gosh where are they? (looking up thinking - about one in 30 adults knows off the top of their heads btw)

This is done in the 2nd or 3rd week of class and then the class compares the footage from their interviews with footage from their scene work earlier in the class and find that by in large their interviews are more interesting than the scenes they

Anyway the point is 3 fold
1) the camera loves to see you think
2) you are interesting
3) film is truth at 24fps - when you are honest we know it - the second you aren't, we know that too.

How can you get at this spontaneaty(sp?)?
1) hire better actors (joking but not really)
2) make sure they are playing the scene rather than the line ... meaning they are comeing into the scene to get something or do something (AN OBJECTIVE), not to say a line a certain way. If you can get them to concentrate on that then that may solve the problem. This is the famous actor's "Motivation", as in "What's my motivation?" (But don't call it that -- call it an OBJECTIVE or an ACTION) With inexperienced actors, they may come back with the same preplanned reading. If so ... shoot them(jk) .. If so, direct them towards paying attention to the other actor for clues if they are getting closer to or farther away from their acheiving their OBJECTIVE. An important part of acting is knowing what the character wants.
3) sometimes you have no time for # 2, or really green actors that can't grasp it, or arrogant TV/Model actors that think playing an objective is bullshit and just want a crying scene. So ... I find myself saying the following a lot on set. "that was good, let's do one a little simpler" "Good. Now this time as we start the scene, just concentarate on what it would be like to (blank) ... it doesn't have to sound a certain way or come out a certain way or be a certain way ... just think about (blank) and let whateve happens happen" or the very direct "it sounds like you are singing the line a little bit, make sure it's very natural, and that you are really taking in what he says and does, and then let it come out however it comes out." "You know you are a very interesting actor, and you can trust that ... you're trying a little too hard here and it sticks out because so much of your performance seems so effortless (then go to one of the phrases above)" "you don't have to make this too interesting" "it's ok to be boring here" etc.

Of course all of the above is just the tip of the iceberg.

My highest recommendation for you would be to volunteer to tape and /or light an On Camera Acting class in exchange for observing or participating (that's one of the things I did). You will see someone with lots of training work with actors with little training and you can get to know the standouts and convince them to work with you.

If you have no acting background, I would also suggest and introductory scene study class.

These two classes are very different. One has to do with understanding how to break apart a scene in terms that an actor can use to create a character and get the scene on its feet.

The on camera class has to do with being sponatneous and honest in a contrived situatation and learning what acting looks like on camera and getting comfortable with that, plus a few technical requirements that the on camera actor should know like - do it the same in the Master, Wide, and Medium for continuity, but always change it slightly in closeup so that every closeup is different - don't lay on the ground in the middle of your line if you didn't do so in the other shots and screw up the continuity but play, and be spontabeous in order to keep your reactions fresh and to give the director choices in the editing room.

One advantage of film and TV is that you can also just ask them to do it a different way several times without it seeming like you don't know what you want or aren't sure how to correct them "great ... let's change it up a bit and try something else on the next take" "good ... we'll want lots of variety in editing, so let's try something else different yet again" "fantastic. let's do a few more variations" "great! thanks for being so adventurous"

Hopefully one of thise takes will be honest or the least non-honest, if for no other reason than you are not allowing them to do their rehearsed choice.

Hope that helps,

Jack
 
Last edited:
Jack Daniel Stanley said:
One thing I tell actors in that situation is to "stop acting"
You can't phrase it like that of course if they are big time, but that's the idea.
So politely, either directly or covertly, but that's what I'm trying to get across to them nonetheless.

It's very astute of you to put your finger on the symptom so accutely without what sounds like tons of acting or directing training. But the solution is not technical -- not timing or anything like that. It's too much "acting" instead of being. It's being honest and there and in the moment - which means listening to what the other actor is doing.

Before Katrina, I taught an on camera acting class in New Orleans. Part of the curriculum was a taped candid interview of the student. The questions were designed to make them turn on a dime without being able to put a "face" on for the camera. "Where were you when you had your worst fight ever with your father?" A serious look comes over their face. "What color is your shirt?" Relief. That's an easy one. "Where were you the first time you copped a feel?" HUH? I can't believe your asking that ... where was I ? ... Hmmm ... (their face turns read) "where are the himalayan mountains?" gosh where are they? (looking up thinking - about one in 30 adults knows off the top of their heads btw)

This is done in the 2nd or 3rd week of class and then the class compares the footage from their interviews with footage from their scene work earlier in the class and find that by in large their interviews are more interesting than the scenes they

Anyway the point is 3 fold
1) the camera loves to see you think
2) you are interesting
3) film is truth at 24fps - when you are honest we know it - the second you aren't, we know that too.

How can you get at this spontaneaty(sp?)?
1) hire better actors (joking but not really)
2) make sure they are playing the scene rather than the line ... meaning they are comeing into the scene to get something or do something (AN OBJECTIVE), not to say a line a certain way. If you can get them to concentrate on that then that may solve the problem. This is the famous actor's "Motivation", as in "What's my motivation?" (But don't call it that -- call it an OBJECTIVE or an ACTION) With inexperienced actors, they may come back with the same preplanned reading. If so ... shoot them(jk) .. If so, direct them towards paying attention to the other actor for clues if they are getting closer to or farther away from their acheiving their OBJECTIVE. An important part of acting is knowing what the character wants.
3) sometimes you have no time for # 2, or really green actors that can't grasp it, or arrogant TV/Model actors that think playing an objective is bullshi* and just want a crying scene. So ... I find myself saying the following a lot on set. "that was good, let's do one a little simpler" "Good. Now this time as we start the scene, just concentarate on what it would be like to (blank) ... it doesn't have to sound a certain way or come out a certain way or be a certain way ... just think about (blank) and let whateve happens happen" or the very direct "it sounds like you are singing the line a little bit, make sure it's very natural, and that you are really taking in what he says and does, and then let it come out however it comes out." "You know you are a very interesting actor, and you can trust that ... you're trying a little too hard here and it sticks out because so much of your performance seems so effortless (then go to one of the phrases above)" "you don't have to make this too interesting" "it's ok to be boring here" etc.

Of course all of the above is just the tip of the iceberg.

My highest recommendation for you would be to volunteer to tape and /or light an On Camera Acting class in exchange for observing or participating (that's one of the things I did). You will see someone with lots of training work with actors with little training and you can get to know the standouts and convince them to work with you.

If you have no acting background, I would also suggest and introductory scene study class.

These two classes are very different. One has to do with understanding how to break apart a scene in terms that an actor can use to create a character and get the scene on its feet.

The on camera class has to do with being sponatneous and honest in a contrived situatation and learning what acting looks like on camera and getting comfortable with that, plus a few technical requirements that the on camera actor should know like - do it the same in the Master, Wide, and Medium for continuity, but always change it slightly in closeup so that every closeup is different - don't lay on the ground in the middle of your line if you didn't do so in the other shots and screw up the continuity but play, and be spontabeous in order to keep your reactions fresh and to give the director choices in the editing room.

One advantage of film and TV is that you can also just ask them to do it a different way several times without it seeming like you don't know what you want or aren't sure how to correct them "great ... let's change it up a bit and try something else on the next take" "good ... we'll want lots of variety in editing, so let's try something else different yet again" "fantastic. let's do a few more variations" "great! thanks for being so adventurous"

Hopefully one of thise takes will be honest or the least non-honest, if for no other reason than you are not allowing them to do their rehearsed choice.

Hope that helps,

Jack
Click to expand...


Freaking awesome dude. Who do I make the check out to?

This post is Stickyworthy. (I like that word..."Stickyworthy")
 
thanks lol, no check

Unless you are in the New York area (where we relocated) and want to hire me to acting coach on a project :thumbsup:

-- I forgot to say that an On Camera acting class that doesn't tape and watch the work is something else. You need performances that are believable as close as you only see your lover (extreme closeup) not in the back row of a theatre or even six feet away in an intimate black box.

Ocassionally you will find some class that says its a TV or Film class and its just a scene study and they are very different beasts.

Or worse, its trying to be an on camera acting class without a camera.

Proabably won't affect you as you want to volunteer for class that uses a camera but its a crappy single chip (you'll convince the instructor because you have the DV camera that won the cinematography award at Sundance last year and because then he won't have to think about setting up his cam and connecting it to the TV etc.)

But if you talk to someone and they say "gee -- we should tape the class, never thought of that" then don't waste your time there.
 
Last edited:
To add to what was said earlier: Overlap.

I was making a audio-play for a school-project once and everytime i heard the track, it sounded false even though the dailogue was realistic. It was after a while I realized that due to the editing, the characters seemed to politely wait for each other to finish before saying something. This almost never happens in real life. Our brain does not need each and every word in a sentence to interpret it. Infact, studies show we even "hear" less than 50% of what is said. The rest of it is a logical reconstruction! Its natural then that we dont have to wait for the sentence to finish. Eiether the other person starts talking slightly before the first finishes, or immediately after so there is no gap. There is mostly an overlap in dailogue in real-life. Replicating that in movies makes a marked difference.
 
Fugitive said:
To add to what was said earlier: Overlap.

I was making a audio-play for a school-project once and everytime i heard the track, it sounded false even though the dailogue was realistic. It was after a while I realized that due to the editing, the characters seemed to politely wait for each other to finish before saying something. This almost never happens in real life. Our brain does not need each and every word in a sentence to interpret it. Infact, studies show we even "hear" less than 50% of what is said. The rest of it is a logical reconstruction! Its natural then that we dont have to wait for the sentence to finish. Eiether the other person starts talking slightly before the first finishes, or immediately after so there is no gap. There is mostly an overlap in dailogue in real-life. Replicating that in movies makes a marked difference.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting point--I guess our brain kinda samples things then! but I think it's what Jack was referring to as a "Technical" problem--one of timing.
 
You are right Brian that's another technical approach.

In theatre there's nothing wrong with working with the actor either from the outisde in or the inside out.

THere's nothing wrong with it per se in film, but generally in film its all about getting the wheels turning in their head, so that we can see REAL psychology -- i.e. actual thinking on the screen.

Jon Jory has a book called "Tips fo Actors" (a theatre book) and in it he outlines several things such as "pick a word in the text and stammer there as if you were saying the word for the first time"

there are lots of actor tricks one can do to make things "seem" natural.

But as you pointed out these are extrenal, technical tricks to be used EXTREMELY carefully on film because we are not going for "seeming natural".

There's a great outtake from "The Sphere" (not the greatest movie) with Dustin Hoffman and Leive Schrieber where Dustin suggests that they both try to talk lower and quieter than the other as the scene builds in intensity.

There are actors that work in film from the outside in putting on a character and get away with it. Usually that is something they practive to the point they can forget about - but - once they get in the scene all bets are off save the accent they have carefully mannered or the way of using their cane or whatever -- they've owned the extrenal business sooo much that they can forget about it and just respond to the scene.

So you can apply extrenal devices, but again be careful.
1) it was Dustin Hoffman and Leive Schreiber
2) they didn't rehearse it -- Dustin thought of it, and then they shot it.
Which is another important point. In theartre lots of rehearsal is your friend. Usually not so in film. THere are great films that were rehearsed as plays in 3 week sessions before shooting. But I wonder how much they tried to nail down the performances before the shoot ... certainly not as much as a play. Sometimes you have to rehearse because you have inexperienced actors. A newish producer was surprised that I didn't want to rehearse before we shot. She had just worked on a low budget amamtuer thing where the actors took so many takes to just get their lines right and she was worried about that being the case. That's their job. But ideally on set you mark through the thing, they've thought about it and have made some choices, but then the first time you do it for real the cameras are rolling. YOu may get spontaneous magic and you may get crap, but if they have any business acting at all by the second or third take they will have found their stride. It also important that they know not to stop until they hear cut, so that that wonderful spontaneous take isn't ruined by one of them going "I thought she was supposed to come over here when I did that?" Just keep going and use it.

But at the heart of your question is a fundamental dishonesty or lack of truth in the performance.


As for overlapping ... notice Figutve said it sounded false due to an editing problem not a performance problem. I saw a film once where this was disasterous, there was space between every. This is one of the reasons we don't cut on sound and audio at the same time. - right - best to have the audio for the next line overlap THE PREVIOUS SHOT (not necessarily the other actors line) before cutting to the actor who is speaking becaus this motivates the cut and makes the scene seem less metered ... his line .... her line ... his line ... her line ...

but again this has very little to do wth their performances - but the editing.

On stage excessive overlapping is one thing and directors sometimes use it when it can be reheased so that the lines are still heard or its more inportant that something seem very life like rather than intelliigible - and here's the thing theatre does not have to seem like real life - it has it's own kind of honesty which has to do with filling a stylized performance with truth, but what will play on the stage as real or honest may not play on camera. For one thing we can see all of the lights, sometimes the make up and well ... there's a stage. The suspension of disbelief is so high and theatre is an active experience for an audience member whereas film is a passive one. In other words we except what's being projected as much more real than the stage.

Also -- it's my understanding that overlapping another actor in film is considered bad form. If there is a reason that you must play the scene this way then ofcourse go ahead.

BUt look at Albert Brooke's outtakes on the Movei where his son or daughter is marrying Michael Douglass's son or daugher (Forget which) and Michael Douglas is a secret agent. I think maybe it's called "Meet the In Laws" but I'm not sure (an ok movie actually) but watch what happens when an actor playing a secret service agent overlaps Brookes who's looping dialogue in the back seat of the car.

Brookes stops the scene and curtly responds "Don't overlap me."

Brookes is also a a filmmaker and he knows that if someone elses dialogue is overlapping yours then the take may be unusable. Especially since most movies shoot with one camera, so its not like they can cut on the overlap and have continuity.

A friend of mine was in a movie with a big name actor who's overlapping wound up completely changing the script because of the way the director had to cut around it.

It can be done, especially if you are shooting Altman style all in one take for the whole scene and everyone is improving or if you take precausions in micing.

I just had a small part actually in a movie where I had to interupt a rather big star and do improv. It was pretty nerve racking, but I did overlap him. But it was for only one of my lines, and he requested that we play the scene that way. No way I would have done it on my own otherwise especially with a name actor.
 
Jack Daniel Stanley said:
You are right Brian that's another technical approach.

In theatre there's nothing wrong with working with the actor either from the outisde in or the inside out.

THere's nothing wrong with it per se in film, but generally in film its all about getting the wheels turning in their head, so that we can see REAL psychology -- i.e. actual thinking on the screen.

Jon Jory has a book called "Tips fo Actors" (a theatre book) and in it he outlines several things such as "pick a word in the text and stammer there as if you were saying the word for the first time"

there are lots of actor tricks one can do to make things "seem" natural.

But as you pointed out these are extrenal, technical tricks to be used EXTREMELY carefully on film because we are not going for "seeming natural".

There's a great outtake from "The Sphere" (not the greatest movie) with Dustin Hoffman and Leive Schrieber where Dustin suggests that they both try to talk lower and quieter than the other as the scene builds in intensity.

There are actors that work in film from the outside in putting on a character and get away with it. Usually that is something they practive to the point they can forget about - but - once they get in the scene all bets are off save the accent they have carefully mannered or the way of using their cane or whatever -- they've owned the extrenal business sooo much that they can forget about it and just respond to the scene.

So you can apply extrenal devices, but again be careful.
1) it was Dustin Hoffman and Leive Schreiber
2) they didn't rehearse it -- Dustin thought of it, and then they shot it.
Which is another important point. In theartre lots of rehearsal is your friend. Usually not so in film. THere are great films that were rehearsed as plays in 3 week sessions before shooting. But I wonder how much they tried to nail down the performances before the shoot ... certainly not as much as a play. Sometimes you have to rehearse because you have inexperienced actors. A newish producer was surprised that I didn't want to rehearse before we shot. She had just worked on a low budget amamtuer thing where the actors took so many takes to just get their lines right and she was worried about that being the case. That's their job. But ideally on set you mark through the thing, they've thought about it and have made some choices, but then the first time you do it for real the cameras are rolling. YOu may get spontaneous magic and you may get crap, but if they have any business acting at all by the second or third take they will have found their stride. It also important that they know not to stop until they hear cut, so that that wonderful spontaneous take isn't ruined by one of them going "I thought she was supposed to come over here when I did that?" Just keep going and use it.

But at the heart of your question is a fundamental dishonesty or lack of truth in the performance.


As for overlapping ... notice Figutve said it sounded false due to an editing problem not a performance problem. I saw a film once where this was disasterous, there was space between every. This is one of the reasons we don't cut on sound and audio at the same time. - right - best to have the audio for the next line overlap THE PREVIOUS SHOT (not necessarily the other actors line) before cutting to the actor who is speaking becaus this motivates the cut and makes the scene seem less metered ... his line .... her line ... his line ... her line ...

but again this has very little to do wth their performances - but the editing.

On stage excessive overlapping is one thing and directors sometimes use it when it can be reheased so that the lines are still heard or its more inportant that something seem very life like rather than intelliigible - and here's the thing theatre does not have to seem like real life - it has it's own kind of honesty which has to do with filling a stylized performance with truth, but what will play on the stage as real or honest may not play on camera. For one thing we can see all of the lights, sometimes the make up and well ... there's a stage. The suspension of disbelief is so high and theatre is an active experience for an audience member whereas film is a passive one. In other words we except what's being projected as much more real than the stage.

Also -- it's my understanding that overlapping another actor in film is considered bad form. If there is a reason that you must play the scene this way then ofcourse go ahead.

BUt look at Albert Brooke's outtakes on the Movei where his son or daughter is marrying Michael Douglass's son or daugher (Forget which) and Michael Douglas is a secret agent. I think maybe it's called "Meet the In Laws" but I'm not sure (an ok movie actually) but watch what happens when an actor playing a secret service agent overlaps Brookes who's looping dialogue in the back seat of the car.

Brookes stops the scene and curtly responds "Don't overlap me."

Brookes is also a a filmmaker and he knows that if someone elses dialogue is overlapping yours then the take may be unusable. Especially since most movies shoot with one camera, so its not like they can cut on the overlap and have continuity.

A friend of mine was in a movie with a big name actor who's overlapping wound up completely changing the script because of the way the director had to cut around it.

It can be done, especially if you are shooting Altman style all in one take for the whole scene and everyone is improving or if you take precausions in micing.

I just had a small part actually in a movie where I had to interupt a rather big star and do improv. It was pretty nerve racking, but I did overlap him. But it was for only one of my lines, and he requested that we play the scene that way. No way I would have done it on my own otherwise especially with a name actor.
Click to expand...

Very interesting Jack. I like what you said about the stylized reality of the stage. It made me think of a cool swordplay movie out of HK called “The Bride With White Hair” with Bridget Lim (who makes Lucy Lieu look like a bridge troll). They created a look for the film that emulates the stage—it’s deliberate of course and it works and is one reason that movie is head and shoulders above most of the other stuff in that genre.
 
Dang Jack! How much time do you have on your hands? Great, thoughtful, clear information!
 
I don't sleep.

I shot the New York HD Bootcamp for Jarred and Barry last Saturday and I hadn't slept since 3 pm on Thursday after having gone to bed at noon.

I was a little out of it to say the least.

I also pay no attention to homonyms or spelling.

I'm also trying to get my herofest entry done so I'm at my keyboard and it's easy to procrastinate :)
 
Jack, excellent posts. I'm filming next month with a few totally green actors. I'm really concerned about communicating with/directing them in a manner that doesn't come across as bossy or threatening. Your advice was awesome. I know you said that you don't like rehearsing, but I was thinking of doing a short "meeting" each night before the next days shoot to make sure we were all on the same page. Do you think this will sterilize the performances? I think if we did a few dry runs, it would at least put them in the right headspace for the upcoming scene.

Sorry if it seems like I'm threadjacking you Brian. I just want to milk the Jack Daniel Stanley directing lesson.
:)
 
Richie White said:
Jack, excellent posts. I'm filming next month with a few totally green actors. I'm really concerned about communicating with/directing them in a manner that doesn't come across as bossy or threatening. Your advice was awesome. I know you said that you don't like rehearsing, but I was thinking of doing a short "meeting" each night before the next days shoot to make sure we were all on the same page. Do you think this will sterilize the performances? I think if we did a few dry runs, it would at least put them in the right headspace for the upcoming scene.

Sorry if it seems like I'm threadjacking you Brian. I just want to milk the Jack Daniel Stanley directing lesson.
:)
Click to expand...

Most of the actors i direct have little or no experience. You have to always give them positive reinforcement and make them think they're doing great even if they suck. "That was really good! let's try it a little different this time...try this..."

Also good to only have essential people on the set. Buncha people standing around can make them nervous.
 
Richie White said:
Jack, excellent posts. I'm filming next month with a few totally green actors. I'm really concerned about communicating with/directing them in a manner that doesn't come across as bossy or threatening. Your advice was awesome. I know you said that you don't like rehearsing, but I was thinking of doing a short "meeting" each night before the next days shoot to make sure we were all on the same page. Do you think this will sterilize the performances? I think if we did a few dry runs, it would at least put them in the right headspace for the upcoming scene.

Sorry if it seems like I'm threadjacking you Brian. I just want to milk the Jack Daniel Stanley directing lesson.
:)
Click to expand...
People rehearse for film all the time.
If you need to do some staging I would just have them mark it.

One trick from theatre that you can apply to film is to do table work.

Table work can be a necessary part of a dense heady piece of shakespeare for example. Basically you spend time around the table reading and discussing the script. Usually actors are encouraged to "read for meaning" rather than to perform or act. So basically to know what the hell they are saying. Often this is done while maintining a connection with their scene partner -- making eye contact and delivering the lines to them, but not always initially, as the week of table work progresses, the actors will begin to perform more and more and connect more and more and some will even get to their feat and walk around.

Now their is often good reason in a play to do this - it may be dense material and also you don't have an editor to bring together a cohesive vision in the editing room -- you have to put it on stage live and so you use the table work to get everyone on the same page.

But the "trick" part of this, or side benifit, is that after subjecting these hammy showboating actor personalities to week or two of table work they are dying to get on their feet and do some REAL acting. A lot of early rehearsal jitters are overcome and they hit the stage making big choices from the get go because their brain is overflowing with ideas.

Soooooo in your case with really green actors I would recommend table work where you discuss the scene and have them run lines, which is different that playing the scene. You can also have them play it but advise them to "save a litte for the camera" "just get comfortable and explore the part".

Do whatever you have to do so that they Prepaired when they get to set, but not over rehearsed. Pro actors would be thouroughly prepaired -- meaning they would know their lines and thier part backwardsa and forwards, or they are so comfortable in front of the camera that they can sort of know what's going on and blow you away. Again, unlike theatre ... someone (the editor and director) can make something cohesize out of their bits of spontaneaty and honesty.

So run lines
talk about what the characters want
Have them do excerises.

If you are really worried then go ahead and stage it with the "save some for the camera" thing. Which can be doubly beneficial 1- they aren't selfconcious while they are reheasrsing with you because they aren't expected to perfrom or act (make then feel like its their time to do whatever they need to really nail it / meet whatevr objectives you set for them) and 2 - when they get to set they will feel much nmore confident.

The no rehearsal applies to people that you know won't be so nervous they can't act and can deliver natural performances. Film scenes are usually so short and since they don't have to nail it on every take you can get what you need.

But again that applies to people who have a pretty good sense of acting.

hope that helps
 
Awesome, Jack and Brian. Thanks for the great advice. I'll definitely reference this thread before my actors arrive.

I'm starting to get the preproduction butterflies. I usually go through this weird pattern of nervousness, self questioning, and doubt during the weeks leading up to production. When the day finally arrives, somehow it seems to fade away. Maybe it's the chaos of production. I don't know. It's kind of like Little League when you get all nervous before the game starts, but once you're in it, you don't have time to be nervous, you just perform. Ya gotta love it.

-Steve
 
Jack Daniel Stanley said:
Table work can be a necessary part of a dense heady piece of shakespeare for example. Basically you spend time around the table reading and discussing the script.
Click to expand...

Yes! I stumbled across this accidentally, It was late and I was too freakin' lazy to drag everyone out onto the set to rehearse so I said let's just read through this in the office. It really seemed to make a difference. And by the way, I know as an accidental director (I'm a writer who got tossed into directing cuz no one else was around) this is just as useful to me as it is to the actors. I'm sure Jack also finds it helpful despite his obvious skill and knowledge. You may have a bunch of ideas in your head about how to interpret the script but coughing out the actual instructions to talent helps organize and focus your own ideas like nothing else can. You'll also find out some of your ideas suck and can try something else. Much better to do this at a table than when cameras are rolling, a zillion things are on your mind and your PM is whispering in your ear that the sound girl is shagging one of the grips in the back office and what to do about it...
 
CMessineo said:
Jack,

Simply phenomenal acting/directing advice. No wonder your films always rock.

Chris
Click to expand...

That means a lot coming from you man :)

I don't feel I've been so succesful in that in my flicks yet though. Odd Squad had some forced moments and while Shed rings fairly true, that was almost like doing a documentary ... set up the scenario and let the actor go through it ... although I did do some classic silent movie directing in that one ... you know .. "Go to the mantle ... look at your mother's picture ... you really miss her ... Ok not that much ... well more than that ... ok good ... not put the picture down and leave ... not that slow TOO FAST ... good good ... CUT"

OK not really like that for the emotional moments when the Dad is looking at his familes photos but i did do it a little that for things like entereing the Shed and looking at his arm and stuff.

In ODD Squad I made the classic newbie director mistake and focused too much on the tech and took some of the acting for granted.

I'm much happier with the performances in my herofest entry.
(I really like Bob in Shed, he's perfect - so I guess I mean acting moments in movies that have dialogue and more than one location :) )
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top