casting for a short film

Finnegan

Finnegan

Well-known member
I've run into a little snag. I'm directing a short film, which I also wrote the story/screenplay for. lately, we've been casting. there are a number of very strong actresses who've auditioned for the female lead, but to be honest only a few of them look the part as I originally conceived it in my head.

fastforward to today. this girl walked in and my jaw dropped. she's looks exactly like I had envisioned the character as I wrote the story. she's beautiful, but unassuming - and very much has that "girl next door" look to her. here's the problem: her acting isn't strong by any means. she isn't terrible, but she is by no means good.

as a director, what is more important to you: the look of an actress/actor, or their strength as an actress/actor? the way I see it, as a director you can teach a mediocre actress to act but you can't teach a person to change their looks (unless we're in hollywood). just wanted your opinions.
 
Finnegan said:
as a director, what is more important to you: the look of an actress/actor, or their strength as an actress/actor? the way I see it, as a director you can teach a mediocre actress to act but you can't teach a person to change their looks (unless we're in hollywood). just wanted your opinions.
Click to expand...

I'd take 'presence/acting/presentation' over whatever I had in my 'mind's eye' for looks.
 
If you're not an experienced acting coach/teacher with a lot of time on your hands you should probably go with someone who can act. It's not so easy that just anybody can do it or teach it.
 
As long as one of the girls will fit the part for the audience, I'd definitely go with a strong actress. Too often we fool ourselves thinking we can bring out something from an inferior actress that might just not be there.

We chose an actor, thinking he wasn't too bad but he looked perfect. Our director was pretty good but it was almost impossible to get a usable take. On more than one occasion we took takes where we had shot around him.

You film will live and die by the strength of the story and the acting. Don't compromise.
 
We all have ideas going into a process about what characters should look like, but it's important to set those ideas aside when you start casting in the real world. Ask yourself this question: what do you want to be spending your time on, enjoying what an accomplished actress can bring out of the role, or breaking your neck trying to get something out of the woman who looks right but can't really act? A good director can get something out of virtually anybody, but if what you need emotionally is really specific, and the woman's role is pivotal for your film, do you really want to gamble on your ability to get just what you need out of someone who may not have the acting resources to pull it off?
 
I'm with everyone else that says go with the strong actress, rather than the one who matches your vision. When the audience watches the film, they won't really care (or even know) that the actress doesn't match what you originally wanted, but they will notice a poor acting performance.

In one of my shorts, the description of one character in the script was that she was tall, blonde and athletic. I wound up casting someone who was short, dark-haired and slightly overweight. Not through lack of choice, but because she was the best in projecting the personality that the character required.
 
I'd take the best actress, for sure. You have to be really good to make a mediocre actress very strong. I'm a good visual director, but I wouldn't give myself much credit yet for being an actor's director. I think if you're a good actor, I'll make you... still a good actor. If you're ok, I'll make you ok. Basically my directing won't push anyone to be better than they already are, so I rely on superior casting to get superior results. I don't see it as my job to make someone a good actor, I'm sorry, I really don't. I don't see how that's the job of a director -- it's not my job to teach the DP how to light, it's not my job to teach the gaffer how to run cables, or the production designer how to make a set look great. It's certainly not my job to make an actor great either. It's my job to hire the best people for every position on my shoot and work creatively with them to understand my vision, and hopefully let them add to my vision in fun and creative ways, so that the final product is more than what I had envisioned by myself.
 
Ozhair said:
I'm with everyone else that says go with the strong actress, rather than the one who matches your vision. When the audience watches the film, they won't really care (or even know) that the actress doesn't match what you originally wanted, but they will notice a poor acting performance.
Click to expand...

I was watching the special features on the 'Shawshank Redemption'(1994), and the director, Frank Darabont, who adapted the film from a Stephen King novella, said for the most part his conception, based on King's book, was that 'Red' was a white irish guy... then during casting someone 'suggested' Morgan Freeman... the result... (paraphrased from memory...)...


ANDY (Tim Robbins)
So, why do they call you Red?

RED (Morgan Freeman)
Perhaps because I'm Irish.
 
In Michael Shurtleff's excellent book "Audition", he says "most bad casting decisions are based on appearance". I believe him. He goes on to tell a great story about "The Graduate", where the casting description for the male lead called for a tall, blonde, athletic, "all-american" type. They cast an unknown short, dark haired, nebbishy Jewish guy. Why? Because he was the best actor for the role. That guy, of course, was Dustin Hoffman.

And regarding the notion that you can direct a good performance out of the perfect-looking but weak actress, think again. Acting is surprisingly hard. I know - I've been working at it for quite some time now. The chances are overwhelmingly high that you'll get a very weak performance, and that will likely all but ruin your film. For my money, I'd much rather cast an exceptional actress who looks (at least somewhat) "wrong" than a perfect-looker who can't act.

Like Shurtleff says, the latter is the commonest error in casting. And it's *extremely* tempting. But please...don't do it.
 
While I tend to agree on the acting vs looks, for me there's an exception. I believe in trying to find the same type of person as my character so there's minimal acting involved; meaning, I don't have to direct them as much. They can be simple and just say their lines uninflected as Mamet advocates. It's also tough for them to overplay or under play it, why? because they are it.

I would simply ask myself, "is this the character, is she the real thing?" For me authenticity is most important, especially emotional responses.

Of course, this is a very rare thing to find unless you're lucky or you have a big budget, which means, you're lucky.
 
Last edited:
I repeat: acting is hard. Just look at all the "acting" performances by celebrities from other fields in films. People like David Letterman, James Taylor, Brett Favre, Madonna, Davis Bowie, Levon Helm...the list goes on and on. All of them certainly, "looked the part", and one would have to imagine that they had the best acting coaches money could buy, yet their performances were thoroughly substandard. Now take a complete non-actor, give them amateur coaching at best (if any), and what do you think you'll have?

There *are* good, unknown, hungry actors out there who would jump at the opportunity to star in a low budget film. Hire the one of *them* that's closest to the right look. Then you'll have a fighting chance at a decent film, which could get you the opportunity to make another. Build some success, and then, eventually, you'll be able to afford a fine actor who also looks just right.

Unless you've learned by then that that *still* (re: Graduate/Dustin Hoffman) isn't as important as ability... : )

Ok...off the soapbox now...
 
Ted, have you ever read David Mamet's book, On FIlm Directing. IHMO, it's one of the very best little books written on making films. Of the many things discussed within, Mamet covers acting and what an actor should do/ not do. Since you have some years of acting behind you I would be interested in your take on Mamet's views.

The problem I sense with many of the not-too-good actors is that they are "acting" rather than being and reacting.

One other thing, of all the people involved in film I respect actors the most. I have witnessed some of the most amazing passion and commitment ever. Sometimes it makes the behind the camera folks look like wimps. On the whole actors have my greatest respect, especially the not-so-good ones; that must be really tough.
 
10s said:
One other thing, of all the people involved in film I respect actors the most. I have witnessed some of the most amazing passion and commitment ever. Sometimes it makes the behind the camera folks look like wimps. On the whole actors have my greatest respect, especially the not-so-good ones; that must be really tough.
Click to expand...

Well, I did a short film last fall, and the problem there was 1) getting the crew, members of a film class I took, to be involved... even for the sake of their own grade... 2) finding someone who was willing fill the roles. I did find someone, but we only had one meeting before the shooting day, and further one of the 'actresses'... the Daughter, wasn't available at all until the day of the shoot...

Furthermore, given the crew problems, I decided to just shoot everything I could in one day... because getting a quarum for a second shoot seemed impossible...

I was going to do a short film a quarter this year, but I'm behind schedule at this point...

The point here, I guess is to learn to work with what you have available... and if there are to candidates... take the one 'you can work with'...

I think I could have worked with the actress in the main role if we had more time, and gotten a better short film...
 
10s said:
Ted, have you ever read David Mamet's book, On FIlm Directing. IHMO, it's one of the very best little books written on making films. Of the many things discussed within, Mamet covers acting and what an actor should do/ not do. Since you have some years of acting behind you I would be interested in your take on Mamet's views.
Click to expand...

I played a scene from Mamet's "American Buffalo" in an acting class. It was frustrating, challenging and lots of fun. I've seen many of Mamet's films and they're often quite good, but I usually find myself thinking the acting is very "mannered" rather than naturalistic.

He exclusively hires top Hollywood acting talent for his films.

A joke:

A beggar walks up to a man on the street and asks him for a dollar. The man says " 'Neither a lender nor a borrower be'...William Shakespeare".

The beggar takes a beat then says: : " 'F*ck you'...David Mamet".

Mamet's a tough cookie, bro.

'Nuff said...
 
Last edited:
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
Well, I did a short film last fall, and the problem there was 1) getting the crew, members of a film class I took, to be involved... even for the sake of their own grade... 2) finding someone who was willing fill the roles. I did find someone, but we only had one meeting before the shooting day, and further one of the 'actresses'... the Daughter, wasn't available at all until the day of the shoot...

Furthermore, given the crew problems, I decided to just shoot everything I could in one day... because getting a quarum for a second shoot seemed impossible...

I was going to do a short film a quarter this year, but I'm behind schedule at this point...

The point here, I guess is to learn to work with what you have available... and if there are to candidates... take the one 'you can work with'...

I think I could have worked with the actress in the main role if we had more time, and gotten a better short film...
Click to expand...

I had this problem in film school, too. For whatever reason when we started casting for a short film, which wasn't a thesis project by any means and wasn't a big project, but meant a lot to us, we had 12 audition spots in a day and sacrificed a lot of our time, and we had only 3 people show up. That was pathetic. I couldn't believe how bad that turnout was. I don't know if it was because people figure, eh, just a student project, or what, but now being out in business for myself I have the connections to lots of talented actors and actresses who I can either ask to be in a project, or ask if they have other friends who might be interested, and I have such a large overall network including friends of friends, that it's not that difficult to find talent that is reliable.

Even in professional shoots, though, flaking happens. I've yet to do a single shoot where I haven't had one flake at all. I've always been able to manage, whether I was able to replace the person well in advance of the project (ideal), or right before the project starts (tougher), or go without. One shoot we just went a grip short, and things still went well, everyone just had to bust their butts and PAs ended up doing a bit of grip work, but at least we had a few PAs. I more or less expect that I'm going to encounter problems like that, it's just a matter of whether I can deal with them. It's like you have to plan so that if you get 75% of what you need any given day, the ship sails, you complete the mission, etc. So far I feel fortunate that no major disasters have happened and I've always gotten the result I wanted. I just know that eventually, though, there will be that day where something really bad happens, weather ruins something, a DP flakes or gets sick, a big actor doesn't show up, etc. It just seems destined to happen one day. But who knows, so far luck has shined on me with my professional work.
 
thanks a lot for all of your advice. the situation was relatively hypothetical. I opened auditions on LA casting for a short film I'm shooting on the si-2k, and I had an overwhelmingly positive response (as I expected with actors being a dime a dozen in LA). however, as I was booking and scheduling auditions one girl just blew my mind she was so similar to the mental picture I had whilst writing the story and script over the past year. on her LA casting page was a link to her website, which had her reel, and she's gorgeous on film. she's very unassumingly beautiful, with a natural "girl next door" look to her. unfortunately, after all the glamour film shots in her reel came her actual acting, which was subpar to say the least. fortunately, I didn't have the chance to see her in person - she didn't show for auditions.

anyhow, now that the first round of casting is over (callbacks are wednesday) I'm happy to say that I've found three or four girls who look the part already or could easily look the part with the right makeup and wardrobe, who are also skilled actresses and take direction well. so again, thanks for clearing up that uncertainty even if it was only half there! sometimes a beautiful girl can sway me, what can I say? I'm only human. a guy, at that. :D
 
Shoot it twice .... once with each actress ... use it as an instructional video ... and answer your question .... unless it turns out ... she can act ....

give her a screen test on the key parts ....
 
I was once told that to succeed in photography I only had to do two things .... ``f8 and be there``

I had the perfect actress ... I even rewrote the screenplay to account for her Russian accent. She turned out to be a talented ``flake``

I went with the lesser talent who was early on the set every day.
 
Let me ask you guys this...where do you hold you auditions? I've used a local acting school before and it works well because most of the local actors know about it and it's set up perfectly for doing the casting but it's $275 per day. If at all possible, I'd like to save that money to put towards production. Any ideas on a cheaper alternative?
 
Champloo said:
Let me ask you guys this...where do you hold you auditions? I've used a local acting school before and it works well because most of the local actors know about it and it's set up perfectly for doing the casting but it's $275 per day. If at all possible, I'd like to save that money to put towards production. Any ideas on a cheaper alternative?
Click to expand...

I used this place called the complex in LA. its a nifty little theater building that has seven or eight small theaters (each one seats 18 people plus the stage). it's $15/hour, and they're pretty trusting with filmmakers - I booked the theater a few days in advance, I walked in, gave them my name, and they handed me a key and I was there with my crew and the actors, unbothered, for the whole duration of the audition.

the best thing about the complex is that it's a major avenue for lacasting.com - many of the people who are on lacasting have used complex, so its familiar to them and its central LA, right in hollywood, making it accessible. there's even some smaller residential neighborhoods with free street parking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top