Acting advice sought

[Mark Harris]

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.

This is the number one reason I work with the same group of actors over and over again. We rehearse, but we've developed such a close working relationship, that they can come into the rehearsals already knowing kind of what we're doing. So for the most part, they can bring performances/ideas/etc. to the rehearsal, and then we can work those from there.

This is quite simple for something like Man-Hole, but I am carrying much of the same "company" of actors into a couple of dramatic shorts I'm doing this year as well, because I want to keep that closeness going.

I will add one more thing about using green actors. I got basically blasted for this in another thread, but whatever. When using new actors, I've always gotten more mileage out of not requiring much acting out of them at all, but rather casting them because they are already close to the characters. For instance, if I have a Hell's Angel in a scene, I may not be able to get a performance out of a very new actor, but I may be able to direct my uncle (a real Hell's Angel and non-actor) into a believable performance. Because he is already a lot of the way there. All he has to do basically is show up and be himself in the imaginary circumstances. Largely he will have just talk and listen to the other actors, and if he can do that naturally, that's mainly the work he has to do.

Just a thought when using greenies or non-actors.

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

...is show up and be himself in the imaginary circumstances. Largely he will have just talk and listen to the other actors, and if he can do that naturally, that's mainly the work he has to do.

Just a thought when using greenies or non-actors.

I don't think you should get blasted for that.

Supposedly "real" movies pick people up off the street all the time. The key word is be natural.

I guess people blasted you for not giving the gig to a real actor or for thinking that a non actor could do it as well.

But half the battle for screen is just being. If he doesn't have a long speech or a big part or a pivatol role, or talk funny in a way that's wrong for the character then sure.

There is something though about non actors that I can often peg but can't quite put my finger on (not that this is the case with your uncle) but I sit there and go ... hmm ... he's not awful ... but I can tell he's not really an actor .... hmmm ... why ...

Beyon genuine believability, I think it often has to do with the way they sound.

Oh -- and your actors do seem to really bring it home for you ... except that one big guy with the yellow hair and the beard ... that guy us pooty tang :evil: :grin: (jk) he he!

 

[Mark Harris]

Yeah, I'm about to fire that guy. He sucks. But Dana, the lead Italian girl is not a trained actor at all. She programs radio at VH1.

I hear what you're saying about non-actors, but what's funny about that is, I can kind of always tell the actors. Which sounds stupid, but what i mean is, so often, there are ways of saying something in acting, that are not the way they would be said in real life. And it's almost like the "acting" way of doing them is this alternate universe divided from the real universe.

I often see movies and say about certain actors: "That guy's so good, he can't be an actor." Then I go home and look him up on IMDB, and he is. This was the case with an actress I went to school with, and the first time I ever saw Gary Oldman. I thought that about Robert Forster in Jackie Brown, and about Gregory Peck in "To Kill a Mockingbird," still one of the most suble performances in Hollywood history.

These are all really good performers, but I do feel like we've gotten to an "actor" way of doing normal human actions. ****, I can't describe it better than that right now.

 

[Fugitive]

You know what. I absolutely understand what you are saying. Its "dramatization" of acting. In most movies you need it to make the movie feel theatrical, and like a movie. In some rare cases, its better for the actors to just act natural.

Imagine, in real life nobody goes: "My name is Maximus Des...and i will take my vengeance whether in this life or the next". If Russel Crowe were to act like a ntural gladiator, the film wouldnt really have all the drama now would it?

Then again, in movies closer to real life, i wish we really could do away with the dramatization. So there are merits and demerits to both.