I just read with interest the discussion about technical directors vs character driven directors that evolved from the directing book recommendations. I was a cinematographer for over 20 years before I began directing about 6 years ago - so I was comfortable with the "technical" or camera-centric approach to directing. But I have the greatest respect for directors who are "actor's directors" as well as accomplished visual storytellers. I knew that I needed a lot of practice and catching up in order to become proficient at directing actors. For a while, I thought that I was doing OK just using my instinct and common sense. That was before I read Judith Weston's "Directing Actors." What a huge difference that book has made! I now realize that my old "results oriented" approach (unfortunately, most directors work this way) could never truly help an actor achieve a great performance. Ms. Weston also teaches workshops in LA & NY (I highly recommend) and has a new book - "The Film Director's Intuition." I would like to challenge all of you "camera oriented" directors to try this out. It takes balls to really embrace her methods and lots of practice to replace your bad habits with new techniques. But if you want to be a great actor's director - it is a very effective approach. I'm not advocating ignoring visual storytelling - just a more balanced approach to filmmaking. You might even find a new way of working visually. Instead of "what kind of really cool shot can I do here?" - you may ask yourself, "how can I visually interpret the subtext of this scene to support the character's intention?"
Directing Actors Effectively
- Thread starter rsellars
- Start date
Jim Brennan
VHS Member Old Skool
Re: Directing Actors Effectively
I agree.
I agree.
Bill_Hooper
Active member
Re: Directing Actors Effectively
rsellars
I started reading this a little while back but put it aside. Good stuff. I'll have to get back to it. Since you read it, have you noticed any differences? Do actors seem to respond better, or anything else?
Thanks
Bill
rsellars
I started reading this a little while back but put it aside. Good stuff. I'll have to get back to it. Since you read it, have you noticed any differences? Do actors seem to respond better, or anything else?
Thanks
Bill
Woodson
Well-known member
Re: Directing Actors Effectively
[quote author=Shaw link=board=Directing;num=1101629432;start=0#5 date=11/29/04 at 19:22:23]Does anyone know of some good online articles that discuss this topic? I'm going to order the book mentioned here but I would like to find some stuff to read in the meantime.[/quote]
that's what I'm looking for.. but can't really find anything on this topic.
[quote author=Shaw link=board=Directing;num=1101629432;start=0#5 date=11/29/04 at 19:22:23]Does anyone know of some good online articles that discuss this topic? I'm going to order the book mentioned here but I would like to find some stuff to read in the meantime.[/quote]
that's what I'm looking for.. but can't really find anything on this topic.
Josh_Boelter
Well-known member
Re: Directing Actors Effectively
I agree. Weston's book is great. Also, if you've never acted, it never hurts to take an acting class just to feel what it's like to connect with the dialogue and really get inside a character.
I agree. Weston's book is great. Also, if you've never acted, it never hurts to take an acting class just to feel what it's like to connect with the dialogue and really get inside a character.
Mike_Donis
Veteran
Re: Directing Actors Effectively
Taking acting lessons can let you know what it's like to be an actor - I think it most definitely does help, and at least it can't hurt.
Taking acting lessons can let you know what it's like to be an actor - I think it most definitely does help, and at least it can't hurt.
J_Barnes
Veteran
Re: Directing Actors Effectively
In my opinion, taking acting lessons is the only effective way to learn about directing in an educational setting. I've worked as an assistant teacher and substitute in both acting and directing classes and from those experiences, I found the general level of learning to be greatly imbalanced between the two.
The problem with directing classes is that you typically have a director (the teacher) trying to teach aspiring directors how to direct aspiring directors.
It's a room full of chiefs, and unless people are selfless enough to occasionally play Indian, you can't get any practical learning done. You can sit around and talk about actor theory, interpersonal relationships, subtext approach, method application, substitution, Stanislavski, Adler, Hagen, Strasberg, Mamet and whatever else...but you won't get to solidify the concept and theory until you begin to apply those concepts and theories in a practical exercise.
It’s just a lecture until you start applying some of the stuff you’re talking about, and in that sense, a Directing class is by nature, ill equipped to apply those techniques in an educational setting.
Even when a directing class uses outside actors, the environment is typically not conducive to a free exchange of experience between the actor and the directing student. The actor will be eager to please and perform and will not readily correct the directing student’s approach or technique. Furthermore, in a room full of student directors and a teacher, there is little opportunity for an actor to develop a sense of trust with a directing student, further hampering the learning experience.
Now, opposed to that is the typical acting class. The typical acting class has a small body of students working under the tutelage of a teacher, exploring the methods of dramatic presentation. If you just sit there and shut up, you'll get to see a solid two to four hours of a director (teacher) working with various actors on a wide range of material. You'll get to hear each aspect of the director's interpretation of the text, you'll get to listen in as the director explores the back-story and subtext with the actor. You'll get to see the actor's resistance and struggle. You'll understand what the actor used to get into the scene, the substitutions, the past events, the emotional memories, the relaxation techniques.
You'll get to see, from a first hand perspective, what the teacher did to try and get a performance out of the actor and you'll see the results of those attempts. You won't get anything close to that in any directing class.
From what I’ve see, the attentive and insightful person will learn more by sitting in an acting class and never getting up to participate then you will by diving into the most involved directing class.
I could be wrong, but it is my firm belief and it's based on direct personal experience in that educational environment.
If you’re brave enough to actually get up and participate in an acting class, your capacity for understanding the actor will greatly increase, and that will have a positive effect on your abilities.
In my opinion, taking acting lessons is the only effective way to learn about directing in an educational setting. I've worked as an assistant teacher and substitute in both acting and directing classes and from those experiences, I found the general level of learning to be greatly imbalanced between the two.
The problem with directing classes is that you typically have a director (the teacher) trying to teach aspiring directors how to direct aspiring directors.
It's a room full of chiefs, and unless people are selfless enough to occasionally play Indian, you can't get any practical learning done. You can sit around and talk about actor theory, interpersonal relationships, subtext approach, method application, substitution, Stanislavski, Adler, Hagen, Strasberg, Mamet and whatever else...but you won't get to solidify the concept and theory until you begin to apply those concepts and theories in a practical exercise.
It’s just a lecture until you start applying some of the stuff you’re talking about, and in that sense, a Directing class is by nature, ill equipped to apply those techniques in an educational setting.
Even when a directing class uses outside actors, the environment is typically not conducive to a free exchange of experience between the actor and the directing student. The actor will be eager to please and perform and will not readily correct the directing student’s approach or technique. Furthermore, in a room full of student directors and a teacher, there is little opportunity for an actor to develop a sense of trust with a directing student, further hampering the learning experience.
Now, opposed to that is the typical acting class. The typical acting class has a small body of students working under the tutelage of a teacher, exploring the methods of dramatic presentation. If you just sit there and shut up, you'll get to see a solid two to four hours of a director (teacher) working with various actors on a wide range of material. You'll get to hear each aspect of the director's interpretation of the text, you'll get to listen in as the director explores the back-story and subtext with the actor. You'll get to see the actor's resistance and struggle. You'll understand what the actor used to get into the scene, the substitutions, the past events, the emotional memories, the relaxation techniques.
You'll get to see, from a first hand perspective, what the teacher did to try and get a performance out of the actor and you'll see the results of those attempts. You won't get anything close to that in any directing class.
From what I’ve see, the attentive and insightful person will learn more by sitting in an acting class and never getting up to participate then you will by diving into the most involved directing class.
I could be wrong, but it is my firm belief and it's based on direct personal experience in that educational environment.
If you’re brave enough to actually get up and participate in an acting class, your capacity for understanding the actor will greatly increase, and that will have a positive effect on your abilities.
J_Barnes
Veteran
Re: Directing Actors Effectively
Very few of them allow you to observe or audit the courses. The acting schools have an interest in protecting their teaching methods, so they don't allow independent observers to come in without paying some dough. Also, there are a number of schools that require you to take a number of courses rather then allow you to take a single class, so it has the potential to be expensive.
The school where I was employed prevented any audits or outside observers and you were required to take a minimum of 20 hours per week in order to enroll. It certainly wasn’t cheap, but teachers are quite expensive.
Universities should be a little bit more flexible about observation, but I think you'd do better outside of a university setting. Acting courses in college tend to be far more academic and intellectual in order to satisfy the requirements of a graded system. Purely dramatic non-collegiate classes tend to focus more on practical training at an emotional level and have little requirement for an intellectual aspect to the course.
It winds up being less encompassing for the actor, but the down and dirty approach allows for a more immediate grasp of the process.
The best thing you could do is to find out if there’s any mid-sized dramatic course or school near you. If you can find one that offers an ‘acting for camera’ course, then perhaps you could offer to intern in their camera class as a free technician in exchange for observing an acting class or two (and I mean an acting class or two for an entire semester, not a single session).
Most acting schools would be receptive to this sort of arrangement.
Very few of them allow you to observe or audit the courses. The acting schools have an interest in protecting their teaching methods, so they don't allow independent observers to come in without paying some dough. Also, there are a number of schools that require you to take a number of courses rather then allow you to take a single class, so it has the potential to be expensive.
The school where I was employed prevented any audits or outside observers and you were required to take a minimum of 20 hours per week in order to enroll. It certainly wasn’t cheap, but teachers are quite expensive.
Universities should be a little bit more flexible about observation, but I think you'd do better outside of a university setting. Acting courses in college tend to be far more academic and intellectual in order to satisfy the requirements of a graded system. Purely dramatic non-collegiate classes tend to focus more on practical training at an emotional level and have little requirement for an intellectual aspect to the course.
It winds up being less encompassing for the actor, but the down and dirty approach allows for a more immediate grasp of the process.
The best thing you could do is to find out if there’s any mid-sized dramatic course or school near you. If you can find one that offers an ‘acting for camera’ course, then perhaps you could offer to intern in their camera class as a free technician in exchange for observing an acting class or two (and I mean an acting class or two for an entire semester, not a single session).
Most acting schools would be receptive to this sort of arrangement.
Jason_Bortz
Active member
Nice.
Nice.
Good stuff, Barnes.
I came at it from the other direction--I was an actor first; every director's class needs actors, so I began volunteering for every session I could at a local acting conservatory..
I agree--the best way to learn about the art of directing an actor is by learning the process. The language an actor speaks is roughly universal, at least shades of the same playbook resound throughout all of the methodologies you'll find out there. Terms like objective, obstacle, tactics, beats, interior monologue, prior moment, given circumstances, character arc--all of these help save time immensely when communicating effectively with an actor on-set.
The first thing I do when directing any piece is to sit all of my principals down and ask them questions. I don't tell them my impressions until we've explored theirs--they may have some ideas I haven't even thought of for the overall project, or traits I hadn't explored that might enrich the character. Only after this do I give my impressions/vision for the piece (actors excel if they've a clear understanding of the vision you're offering) and then strive toward creating a piece that utilizes the strengths of everyone's contribution to the scenario. Once my actors are squared away, that I trust we're all working from the same foundation, I can turn my attention toward the technical aspects of the process--because unless the folks in front of the camera are secure, really doesn't matter what nifty tricks I can pull behind the scenes.
I've always believed that the best directors don't tell people what to do--if there's an obstacle, they ask the questions that inspire an answer from the actor that leads him/her back to the objective. There's no way for me to ask those questions if I'm speaking a different language--the only way I'll just 'tell them what to do' is if a.) they're at a total loss or b.) they're really, really tired and they ask me to.
Nice.
Good stuff, Barnes.
I came at it from the other direction--I was an actor first; every director's class needs actors, so I began volunteering for every session I could at a local acting conservatory..
I agree--the best way to learn about the art of directing an actor is by learning the process. The language an actor speaks is roughly universal, at least shades of the same playbook resound throughout all of the methodologies you'll find out there. Terms like objective, obstacle, tactics, beats, interior monologue, prior moment, given circumstances, character arc--all of these help save time immensely when communicating effectively with an actor on-set.
The first thing I do when directing any piece is to sit all of my principals down and ask them questions. I don't tell them my impressions until we've explored theirs--they may have some ideas I haven't even thought of for the overall project, or traits I hadn't explored that might enrich the character. Only after this do I give my impressions/vision for the piece (actors excel if they've a clear understanding of the vision you're offering) and then strive toward creating a piece that utilizes the strengths of everyone's contribution to the scenario. Once my actors are squared away, that I trust we're all working from the same foundation, I can turn my attention toward the technical aspects of the process--because unless the folks in front of the camera are secure, really doesn't matter what nifty tricks I can pull behind the scenes.
I've always believed that the best directors don't tell people what to do--if there's an obstacle, they ask the questions that inspire an answer from the actor that leads him/her back to the objective. There's no way for me to ask those questions if I'm speaking a different language--the only way I'll just 'tell them what to do' is if a.) they're at a total loss or b.) they're really, really tired and they ask me to.
Jim Brennan
VHS Member Old Skool
Re: Directing Actors Effectively
Both excellent posts. I often discuss my next-to-final draft with the principal actors. I write the plot, but they draw the characters. This can really help the project. Especially if they come up with a good idea that might effect other scenes/characters. I'd hate to stumble across a great idea from an actor that affects what I've already shot.
Both excellent posts. I often discuss my next-to-final draft with the principal actors. I write the plot, but they draw the characters. This can really help the project. Especially if they come up with a good idea that might effect other scenes/characters. I'd hate to stumble across a great idea from an actor that affects what I've already shot.
Woodson
Well-known member
Re: Nice.
Re: Nice.
[quote author=Jason Bortz link=board=Directing;num=1101629432;start=15#15 date=12/16/04 at 11:35:33]
I've always believed that the best directors don't tell people what to do--if there's an obstacle, they ask the questions that inspire an answer from the actor that leads him/her back to the objective. There's no way for me to ask those questions if I'm speaking a different language--the only way I'll just 'tell them what to do' is if a.) they're at a total loss or b.) they're really, really tired and they ask me to.
[/quote]
Can you give us examples of what these questions might be for actors?
Re: Nice.
[quote author=Jason Bortz link=board=Directing;num=1101629432;start=15#15 date=12/16/04 at 11:35:33]
I've always believed that the best directors don't tell people what to do--if there's an obstacle, they ask the questions that inspire an answer from the actor that leads him/her back to the objective. There's no way for me to ask those questions if I'm speaking a different language--the only way I'll just 'tell them what to do' is if a.) they're at a total loss or b.) they're really, really tired and they ask me to.
[/quote]
Can you give us examples of what these questions might be for actors?
Jason_Bortz
Active member
Hmm...an example...
Hmm...an example...
Well, I'll try--they're primarily situational.
Characters can be broken down into three essential elements:
Who am I?
What do I want?
How do I feel?
Depending on where the difficulty lies, I can pin it down to one of these three areas relatively quickly.
Who am I is backstory driven, including all of the elements that comprise the character up until the now, at this moment in time.
What do I want is the objective in the scene, the fuel that drives the character toward grabbing the gun or refusing it. This connotes not only an understanding of each moment, but of each scene, and how each scene builds toward the totality of the piece.
How do I feel involves the emotional trappings, the layers the character has clothed themself in as a result of understanding the previous two elements. If I a.) know who I am and b.) know why I'm here then I should c.) know how I feel about being here right now.
If an actor is having a problem understanding, say, the gravity of a character's choice in a scene--doesn't know how to play it--rather than just say 'be pissed!' or 'you hate him!', I would rather instill a deep-seated reason why they're pissed, why they hate him. I might ask:
-------------------
DIRECTOR
Alright, you're not sure what to do here. What's going on in the scene for you?
ACTOR
Well, seems like I can go a ton of ways. I'm really glad to see her, but I'm suspicious--but I want to override the suspicion because I'm attracted to her, but I remember what the guy says back at the diner, I, I just--I mean, what do you want to see in this scene, more attraction or more suspicion?
DIRECTOR
Well, what happens at the end of the scene?
ACTOR
Um...I leave.
DIRECTOR
Right. And what's your objective for the scene?
ACTOR
Heck, that's the problem. I can't decide if I want to go to bed with her or cross-examine her. (Laughs)
DIRECTOR
Well, there you go. What do you think would be a stronger choice--playing 'I want to have sex with her' but being held back by knowing you want to hear the truth--or playing 'I want to make her confess' but knowing that if you press her about it you'll mess up your chances in winning her trust--and as a result, her favors? You can go either way--
ACTOR
Well, I leave, so obviously I don't win her over...not until the end of the script, anyway.
DIRECTOR
Right.
ACTOR
It's probably stronger to play needing to know the truth than needing to have sex with her--
DIRECTOR
Sure.
ACTOR
Can we do one both ways?
DIRECTOR
Sure. But honestly, I think you've hit it. If bedding her down was his objective, I think this guy would ignore the truth in favor of his appetites--but nothing else in the script really supports him being a dog, and he leaves at the end of the scene when she doesn't tell him anything instead of just saying 'oh well, let's jump in the sack'--
ACTOR
Right, no, right.
DIRECTOR
And everything kinda leans toward his needing to know, you know?
ACTOR
Yeah. But I do still want her, right?
DIRECTOR
Heck yeah. But do you want her to know that?
ACTOR
Probably not if I want to get the truth out of her about Michael's murder.
DIRECTOR
Why?
ACTOR
Because she'd have something over me she could use.
DIRECTOR
Ah, true.
ACTOR
So I have to hide the fact I'm really attracted to her.
DIRECTOR
Good call. Let's play with it.
-------------------------
It's just an example, but right off I ask him about who he is, what he wants and as a result of identifying some key elements we come around to how he feels--and something he's excited to play with instead of shuffling off to 'do what the guy who signs the checks tells him.' I know what I want from him--but I've led him there by questions and suggestions that inspire his involvement in the process.
Actors having probelms playing their scenes in good scripts almost invariably go back to backstory (the moments that lead up to the present world of the character) and understanding where s/he is in the overall arc of the storyline.
Other than this, the biggest problem an actor faces is a poorly written script or a director who only knows how to move his actors around the camera and not hte other way around.
Hmm...an example...
Well, I'll try--they're primarily situational.
Characters can be broken down into three essential elements:
Who am I?
What do I want?
How do I feel?
Depending on where the difficulty lies, I can pin it down to one of these three areas relatively quickly.
Who am I is backstory driven, including all of the elements that comprise the character up until the now, at this moment in time.
What do I want is the objective in the scene, the fuel that drives the character toward grabbing the gun or refusing it. This connotes not only an understanding of each moment, but of each scene, and how each scene builds toward the totality of the piece.
How do I feel involves the emotional trappings, the layers the character has clothed themself in as a result of understanding the previous two elements. If I a.) know who I am and b.) know why I'm here then I should c.) know how I feel about being here right now.
If an actor is having a problem understanding, say, the gravity of a character's choice in a scene--doesn't know how to play it--rather than just say 'be pissed!' or 'you hate him!', I would rather instill a deep-seated reason why they're pissed, why they hate him. I might ask:
-------------------
DIRECTOR
Alright, you're not sure what to do here. What's going on in the scene for you?
ACTOR
Well, seems like I can go a ton of ways. I'm really glad to see her, but I'm suspicious--but I want to override the suspicion because I'm attracted to her, but I remember what the guy says back at the diner, I, I just--I mean, what do you want to see in this scene, more attraction or more suspicion?
DIRECTOR
Well, what happens at the end of the scene?
ACTOR
Um...I leave.
DIRECTOR
Right. And what's your objective for the scene?
ACTOR
Heck, that's the problem. I can't decide if I want to go to bed with her or cross-examine her. (Laughs)
DIRECTOR
Well, there you go. What do you think would be a stronger choice--playing 'I want to have sex with her' but being held back by knowing you want to hear the truth--or playing 'I want to make her confess' but knowing that if you press her about it you'll mess up your chances in winning her trust--and as a result, her favors? You can go either way--
ACTOR
Well, I leave, so obviously I don't win her over...not until the end of the script, anyway.
DIRECTOR
Right.
ACTOR
It's probably stronger to play needing to know the truth than needing to have sex with her--
DIRECTOR
Sure.
ACTOR
Can we do one both ways?
DIRECTOR
Sure. But honestly, I think you've hit it. If bedding her down was his objective, I think this guy would ignore the truth in favor of his appetites--but nothing else in the script really supports him being a dog, and he leaves at the end of the scene when she doesn't tell him anything instead of just saying 'oh well, let's jump in the sack'--
ACTOR
Right, no, right.
DIRECTOR
And everything kinda leans toward his needing to know, you know?
ACTOR
Yeah. But I do still want her, right?
DIRECTOR
Heck yeah. But do you want her to know that?
ACTOR
Probably not if I want to get the truth out of her about Michael's murder.
DIRECTOR
Why?
ACTOR
Because she'd have something over me she could use.
DIRECTOR
Ah, true.
ACTOR
So I have to hide the fact I'm really attracted to her.
DIRECTOR
Good call. Let's play with it.
-------------------------
It's just an example, but right off I ask him about who he is, what he wants and as a result of identifying some key elements we come around to how he feels--and something he's excited to play with instead of shuffling off to 'do what the guy who signs the checks tells him.' I know what I want from him--but I've led him there by questions and suggestions that inspire his involvement in the process.
Actors having probelms playing their scenes in good scripts almost invariably go back to backstory (the moments that lead up to the present world of the character) and understanding where s/he is in the overall arc of the storyline.
Other than this, the biggest problem an actor faces is a poorly written script or a director who only knows how to move his actors around the camera and not hte other way around.