Directing Actors Effectively

Re: Directing Actors Effectively

With a method actor, all the preparation of backstory and character work should be done well before the shoot, leaving only the simple questions of where are you coming from, what do you want and how are you going to get it?

The problem with adopting an intellectual approach, as stated above, is that some actors certainly do not respond well to intellectual character and story analysis. I'm not saying that there's a right and wrong way to talk to an actor, just that you have to understand that there are a few different ways available to you.

A RADA actor works from a completely different place then a Method actor, who both work in a different way then a theater actor, and an untrained actor, and so forth... so there's no magic bullet for a director's method.

Taking an acting class with a bunch of different actors exposes you to different actors. This is valuable because you begin to understand how different people will react to different direction. How different methods of characterization will suffocate or thrive under different forms of creatively corrective attention.

I've found the most useful method of approach for me lies in a simple conflict based analysis. The heart of all story is conflict, and in each dramatic scene there's a simple opposition of intention between characters. If each actor knows what he wants to get from the other character, they can go about the process of trying to get it within the life of the scene, and the result is conflict and drama.

The important part of the process for me is in allowing the character to discover exactly what he's trying to get out of the other character in that moment, but the danger lies in helping him figure out how to get what he/she wants. If an actor has an intention, but no direct method to arrive at that result, it forces them to remain active in the scene.

Telling the actor how to arrive at the result, or giving a strategy for that actor tends to put them on autopilot.

I digress because I'm tired.

The point being that there are as many different styles of acting as there are styles of directing. Understand that what works in directing is not very different from what works in a scene with two actors, a tiny bit of trial and error.

You're both different people trying to arrive at a result and that result is a successful artistic collaboration. In attempting to reach that objective, a director must be as dynamic as an actor and utilize whatever approach proves to work.

The only way to develop that ability to access and identify with diverse personality and methods is to study hard and work with a lot of different kinds of actors through a lot of different types of material.

I think you can definatly learn a small part of what Jason is detailing above, but you will more likely learn the underlying methods of how to talk about the acting craft.

Long answer: yes, why not try an acting class or two? Couldn't hurt a thing if you apply yourself to it.
 
Re: Directing Actors Effectively

Now do you work with actors like that during rehearsals or during the production.

I'm guessing rehearsals since your preparing for the shoot and it might take too much time during production?
 
Thanks Barnes.

Thanks Barnes.

The problem with adopting an intellectual approach, as stated above, is that some actors certainly do not respond well to intellectual character and story analysis. I'm not saying that there's a right and wrong way to talk to an actor, just that you have to understand that there are a few different ways available to you.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. This was one example--I'm not married to Method (and if we use Method, let me clarify that I mean Stanislavski, not Strasberg--though I've worked with Strasberg-oriented folks before, and understand the technique (as much as one who finds it somewhat abusive can). I do find, however, that using the Who Am I, What Do I Want, How Do I Feel is an excellent benchmark in any methodology, providing grassroots questions that even the complete newbie can relate to once imparted.
A RADA actor works from a completely different place then a Method actor, who both work in a different way then a theater actor, and an untrained actor, and so forth... so there's no magic bullet for a director's method.
Click to expand...
Well, I think these lines aren't as distinct as this, just as you probably feel my the above example is limiting. RADA performers are not Strasberg influenced, but RADA performers do theatre, etc...for me, it's a matter of filling your bag of tricks with what is effective for you, not being hindered by a structure that is immutable. I think we're probably coming from the same place here.
I wouldn't say 'Alright, show me the beat you took when you entered that gives me some clue about the prior moment' to someone completely green. I also wouldn't tell a Meisner student to 'just be James Dean.' Yuo have to gauge the actor at his level--which you state in your next paragraph:

Taking an acting class with a bunch of different actors exposes you to different actors. This is valuable because you begin to understand how different people will react to different direction. How different methods of characterization will suffocate or thrive under different forms of creatively corrective attention.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
I've found the most useful method of approach for me lies in a simple conflict based analysis. The heart of all story is conflict, and in each dramatic scene there's a simple opposition of intention between characters. If each actor knows what he wants to get from the other character, they can go about the process of trying to get it within the life of the scene, and the result is conflict and drama.
Click to expand...
I'd say this works with Who/What/How as well, nearly synonymous. Shades of grey.

The important part of the process for me is in allowing the character to discover exactly what he's trying to get out of the other character in that moment, but the danger lies in helping him figure out how to get what he/she wants. If an actor has an intention, but no direct method to arrive at that result, it forces them to remain active in the scene.

Telling the actor how to arrive at the result, or giving a strategy for that actor tends to put them on autopilot.
Click to expand...
Which is why I attempted to show, perhaps ham-handedly (there's a whole lot more to this than one isolated example) how to inspire the actor to getting him on his feet rather than telling him what he needs to do. I don't feel there's a danger in helping to kick-start a process that has halted--some actors have intentions, no method of arriving at them and remain active enough but vague. On the set, specificity is required in a relatively short amount of time--suggestions after the asking of questions are a recourse to getting the ball rolling, but not all scenarios will require this. Which is why I was hesitant to even give an example without a situation attached--everyone comes at it from different directions, and my example of using a methodology rather than a more organic approach might fly with some, but not others.

The point being that there are as many different styles of acting as there are styles of directing. Understand that what works in directing is not very different from what works in a scene with two actors, a tiny bit of trial and error.

You're both different people trying to arrive at a result and that result is a successful artistic collaboration. In attempting to reach that objective, a director must be as dynamic as an actor and utilize whatever approach proves to work.

The only way to develop that ability to access and identify with diverse personality and methods is to study hard and work with a lot of different kinds of actors through a lot of different types of material.
Click to expand...
Agreed wholeheartedly.
 
Re: Directing Actors Effectively

Yes, didn't mean to discount anything, just an attempt to round out the discussion further.

Also, I would suggest that true Strasberg is not abusive, so perhaps you were unduely influenced against it in the past. The problem with it, as with any acting method, is that people have always held incorrect assumptions about the technique itself. Lee never intended it to be used as a "first level defense" in working towards a character or reality. The idea behind his version of the Method was to assist people in accessing things they could not directly access through more simple methods.

This misconception has lead people to apply "method"ology to scenes and characters they could work on in easier ways. Strasberg technique was never intended to be an acting technique that an actor's skills would be based in, it was intended to be a second level of tools that an actor could draw from. So many people misunderstand it and teach it as a basic acting technique, and I think that's one of the major reasons why it can get an occasional bad wrap.

Also, the other major problem with assessments of Strasberg is that the people out there teaching Strasberg were not taught to be Strasberg teachers, they were taught to be Strasberg actors. Lee always altered his aproach to fit each individual actor, but because of this, they get only a very small sampling of the application of his method. They wind up teaching a very small personalized application of method with the intention of fitting that to a diverse body of students.

That just doesn't work on a basic level, and also shows you why you can learn Strasberg method from eight different teachers and get eight different methods.

Anyway...off to work.
 
Re: Directing Actors Effectively

That makes sense--I used abusive perhaps too loosely; in my experience, the actors who claim 'Method' and hang their hats entirely upon Strasberg's techinique have problems with flexibility within the art, and often become self (or, sometimes, others) deprecating and isolated. Your insight is well noted--I'd like to meet someone who uses Strasberg as a tool, not the whole toolbox. :)
 
Re: Directing Actors Effectively

So do you guys work with actors like that during rehearsals or during the production.
 
Re: Directing Actors Effectively

[quote author=Jason Bortz link=board=Directing;num=1101629432;start=15#28 date=12/29/04 at 22:32:31]Yup.


:D[/quote]


which one?
rehearsals or production?
 
Re: Directing Actors Effectively

I don't like rehearsals, but that's just my style. I like to do what the actors like to do, within limits of course. Some actors (particularly theatrically trained) really draw on a rehearsal process...but it is my suspicion that this phase is largely a comfort issue rather then an actual "work" issue for most actors.
 
Re: Directing Actors Effectively

How do you help your actors prepare, backstory, etc... so they hit the set with the right choices if rehearsal isn't your approach?

What method gives you confidence they are ready?
 
Re: Directing Actors Effectively

Backstory is generaly our (actors') job.  By creating our own personal details that fit the script, we can in fact connect to them emotionally.  I would suggest for directors that write to be prepared with the same specificity that you desire from us -- sometimes we have questions.  

I recently worked on a HiDef indie that the director wrote, and he wasn't very forthcoming with important [to me] details because he had never considered them.  In the end, I was on my own (though I worked with my acting coach) to create a backstory that motivated me to say the writer/director's lines honestly.
 
Re: Directing Actors Effectively

JonnyMac, I would think a Director should be in on these details such as backstory (if any) so they can direct according to the wants & needs the character has. These desires, choices and impulses of the character comes from somewhere (the backstory) so I would think directors and actors would want to go over this so they're on the same page. Actors of course should & will take this further with freshness because they become the character and transcend the intellectual and emote through action.

Rehearsals are place for refinement and discovery. I would think it's indespensable for everyone to further their understanding.
 
Re: Directing Actors Effectively

While it may seem counterintuitive, you actually don't need to be on the same page as your actors. Much in the same way that your audience isn’t privy to the backstory, it isn't universally important that a director and actor be in agreement about what the backstory actually is.

This is usually where writer/directors get nervous.

The fact that something is "backstory" means it does not appear in the script or on the screen. It is preparation, a tool for the actor to arrive in a state of conflict or connection with something…it is not a function of story and it is not a tool of the director unless an actor is in direct need of an adjustment.

The only thing you need to be in agreement about is the conflict, reality, emotion or portrayal of the scene, everything else has too much room for interpretation and creativity to actively control. If the scene results in a way you both deem satisfactory, the method to arrive there is not important.

You may have a character that hates cops, and in the writer's mind he hates cops because of some incident when he was a young boy and he witnessed blah blah blah. Maybe you as the director imagine a detailed story of a wrongful conviction.

That's all well and good, but if the actor reads this story and connects with something in his personal history, this allows him/her the opportunity to play something with an authentic emotional connection rather then some logical but ultimately fictional story.

The place this comes up most often is in the classic method substitution.

Perhaps your actor went to a particularly rigid Catholic school where he had numerous run-ins with a stern Nun. If so inclined, this actor just has to take the emotional connection with this Nun and apply it to the fictional police in the story, substituting the fictional party of "the police" in the place of a historical relationship.

In this sense, it does not matter what-so-ever if the Director, actor and audience are all pulling from an agreed backstory...if the performance is authentic, then the subtext it is pulled from is completely unimportant.

Furthermore, if the actor’s work is authentic or powerful enough, they will be very unwilling to share it with anyone, let alone have it openly discussed with a director.

Obviously this truth will vary depending on the quality, experience and personality of each actor you encounter...but in general, the axiom of less-is-more holds true.

You can insist that you co-create every moment of backstory, or that you sit there with your actors and approve and deny their character choices, but their work will always be stronger if you wait for them to come to you for guidance before you suggest it to them.

Finally, the obvious exception is in matters of cinematic or thematic logic. There are certain parts of the backstory that are important to discuss openly and be understood among all parties for the sake of maintaining the storyline.

In general, if it’s backstory for the plot, discuss it openly. If it’s backstory for the emotions, don’t assign roles. (just my take on a very complex and personal issue)
 
Re: Directing Actors Effectively

J_Barnes, what are your thoughts on the British school of acting, meaning, the Technical approach, outside -in ?

Since cinema is the art of illusion, if the audience is deeply moved by the performance even though the actor is thinking about something else, than I guess it works.... the whole thing is a fabrication anyways.

I enjoy reading Mamet's approach; simple uniflected...to the point, direct motivation.
 
Re: Directing Actors Effectively

My thoughts on any school of acting is that they are all 90% BS...

...until they aren't.

It's like religion, when it works for you...it works. When it doesn't, it doesn't. It's more about the person working on the technique then the technique itself, and that's what's so difficult to accept in any art form.

One thing I can say about the outside-in approach, it's remarkable how easily people fall into a character when they costume themselves. The best acting teachers I've worked with have all really stressed a character-based attachement and work with props or costumes.

I really have no experience with Mamet and I have great difficulty making it through books about acting or directing, so I can't really venture an opinion about Mamet (other then what I've seen in his films).

That being said, it's really difficult to tell how good any director is when he surrounds himself with such powerful and independant actors!
 
Re: Directing Actors Effectively

J_Barnes, I think I understand what you said, the school of anything is 90 % BS. For me, a school of such & such simply means they have an approach (philosophy, or point of view) they feel works. That's how it is for most anything, i.e., medicine: western surgical vs. eastern holism, sciences, you name it.

For me, I accept whatever school/ point of view/methodology of acting anyones comes comes from, because it works for them & I'm always interested in their personal insights and learning new ways of seeing things.

Most of the time while working on a project I'm mainly interested in pulling off the illusion of cinema! Will the audience accept the piece and enjoy the journey. If it works.. .well then it works! :).... if doesn't,... let's try another approach. :-/
 
Re: Directing Actors Effectively

exactly. It's the only healthy and dynamic approach you can take...to not always take a specific approach.
 
Re: Directing Actors Effectively

I hope Acting classes and workshops are not BS. Cause as I am being told from EVERYONE and now that I'm convinced even though I don't want to act, but as the title of this thread "Directing Actors Effectively" if you want that.. take those acting lessons.

Is this what some of you did? or doing it?

J_Barnes, where did you learn about all of this?
Did you go to school for directing actors?
Read?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top