Directing actors in the 21st Century

filmman

filmman

Veteran
I'm wondering if there are new methods in directing actors now that the Internet is looming as the big equalizer.

Attention spans have shrunk.
Speed of perception has increased.
Special effects are easier to create.
There are so many more actors now.

How do we approach directing actors in this age? Your thoughts are appreciated as I embark on my 2nd felliniesque movie, namely FELLINI DIRECTS AGAIN!
 
I don't think the web is going to change one important fact...

Does the actor understand what the director is saying to them? Do they communicate well under pressure? Do they get what each other needs from them?

As much as directors need us to get their point...in some cases we need them to get ours too. It always comes down to the communication. If during the audition the actor can't understand and director or re-direct...don't hire them because it won't get better on set while under pressure.

I always tell actors this...and some hate that I say it but I bet directors and producers will nod their heads on this...

"Half the time it does not matter how much talent you have...do you get along well with others and can they (above the lines) stand to be around you for 12-16 hour days"

but...maybe that is just me noticing this!
 
if you're talking about how technology has lead to a democratization of the artform, then yes, there has also been an elevation of improv-based, participatory collaboration in working with actors too. I'm speaking on this very subject as part of a panel August 1st at DIY Days Philadelphia.
 
Zack

I am intrigued...can you elaborate a little without giving too much info away? I love learning any new ideas...and would love to hear more on "democratization of the artform"...

Michele
 
simply that filmmaking used to be the domain of artists with money and tons of it. the affordability of the technology, the ability to find an audience and distribute via social networks has opened the artform up to the common people. now those who were exclusively "the audience" have the ability to make the content they want to see. and this democratization is extending into the making of the films as well, as many are ignoring the conventions of mainstream filmmaking, eschewing the notion of a film having a single author and a creating their films collectively, and in collaboration with all the artists involved on a much higher level. and the democratization of the artform continues to evolve... with the emergence of crowdsourcing, we are now seeing films financed and content provided by a community of fans surrounding the artist(s). take a look at Lost Zombies, a faux documentary about a zombie apocalypse made entirely from fan contributed footage from all over the world.

so that's all it really is. its not something that is replacing conventional cinema, but something that is emerging in addition to it, as a result of inexpensive technology and increased exposure to social networks. and while technology has democratized the way some films are being made, it has not changed the skillset needed to do it well.
 
Last edited:
Michele wrote: As much as directors need us to get their point...in some cases we need them to get ours too. It always comes down to the communication.
Click to expand...
If the first reading I get from an actor in rehearsal is good or better than what I expected, I go along without giving any direction. I prefer for actors to do it their own way as often as possible. But I love filmmaking and if I get an idea, I always communicate it.

I'm casting Fellini Directs Again! to be shot in June of this year, so I'm hoping to find actors that not only can improvise, but actors that have an attitude. I mean that in a positive way. Maybe the expression "to have an attitude" is misleading, but you know what I mean?
 
That's very interesting Zak, but democratization is too broad a term to apply to the creation of a movie. It shouldn't mean directing by committee of artists, right?
 
Even if the footage is contributed by many filmmakers, all must be combined within a single vision. Therefore, filmmaking must always remain under the control of a filmmaker.
 
A play is collaborative, but a movie is the vision of one individual. If a play is filmed, it's still a play.
 
filmman said:
That's very interesting Zak, but democratization is too broad a term to apply to the creation of a movie. It shouldn't mean directing by committee of artists, right?
Click to expand...

everyone on set is a filmmaker. traditrionally, only one is the director. perhaps you misunderstand what i'm describing as a free-for-all. it's not that. I am there to guide and foster creativity and participation by all the artists involved. there is still a top-down hierarchy in this way.

filmman said:
A play is collaborative, but a movie is the vision of one individual. If a play is filmed, it's still a play.
Click to expand...

why the hardline? we don't work that way. and this, i think, is what the democratization of cinema (or is it socialization?) speaks to. i'd get pretty bored simply recreating a vision held in my mind. but the films of SABI PICTURES are not ego-driven in that way. they're community-driven -- from tossing the screenplay and rediscovering the film on set, to our willingness to embrace the newly emerging distribution models. its much more fulfilling for me to bring together friends and collaborators with bright minds that i admire, and collectively make something bigger than any one of us could have achieved alone. that's why we tag our films as "a film by SABI". what's my alternative? "a film by ZAK FORSMAN"? who gives a sh*t about Zak Forsman? if you've seen our work at SABI, you must contend with the idea that they are not "filmed plays", they are highly collaborative AND cinematic. very much so.

and I'm not saying that this is how it is supposed to be. im saying this is how things are "in addition to" the traditional model.
 
Last edited:
Zak Forsman said:
simply that filmmaking used to be the domain of artists with money and tons of it. the affordability of the technology, the ability to find an audience and distribute via social networks has opened the artform up to the common people. now those who were exclusively "the audience" have the ability to make the content they want to see. and this democratization is extending into the making of the films as well, as many are ignoring the conventions of mainstream filmmaking, eschewing the notion of a film having a single author and a creating their films collectively, and in collaboration with all the artists involved on a much higher level. and the democratization of the artform continues to evolve... with the emergence of crowdsourcing, we are now seeing films financed and content provided by a community of fans surrounding the artist(s). take a look at Lost Zombies, a faux documentary about a zombie apocalypse made entirely from fan contributed footage from all over the world.

so that's all it really is. its not something that is replacing conventional cinema, but something that is emerging in addition to it, as a result of inexpensive technology and increased exposure to social networks. and while technology has democratized the way some films are being made, it has not changed the skillset needed to do it well.
Click to expand...

That was really well put. Great points!
 
People have been coming together and sharing ideas, etc. since the Lumiere Brothers rolled the first reel. That's how it all started. Read up on Buster Keaton, Charlie Chaplin, Lillian Gish and others, they did alot of playing around and everyone pitched in with ideas. A community co-creating cinema isn't really anything new, it might be fun and exciting ... but it's been done before. Go read up on the Early Russians: Eisenstien, Pudovkin, Vertov................ While they did have directors, positions and different jobs, the system was much less defined and much looser.

When Hollywood took over from Jersey and studio systems came about they resembled factories and that clamped down hard everyone and still does.

As far as directing actors differently because there's more data buzzing around. I don't think helping an actor find the moment is any different than it ever was. What would cause the change? Abundance of data and stimulation exhaustion? I doubt it, stress? I doubt it, they had the great depression & WWII; that was stress! .... interesting question, something to ponder.
 
Last edited:
10s wrote: I don't think helping an actor find the moment is any different than it ever was.
Click to expand...
Could you write a little about "finding the moment". You seem to know a lot about the history of directing.

10s wrote further: What would cause the change? Abundance of data and stimulation exhaustion? I doubt it, stress? I doubt it, they had the great depression & WWII; that was stress! .... interesting question, something to ponder.
Click to expand...
Exhaustion and stress? yes. Anxiety, depression? yes. I've worked with actors on anti-depressants and perhaps even on illegal drugs. I don't ask :-) but sometimes they tell me about certain prescription drugs they're on and I have to modify my directing somewhat. I don't fire actors for being on prescribed drugs.

But actors aren't trained well anymore (maybe it's because there are too many theories -- I don't know.) Maybe it's my fault, but I notice a difference in technique. I want to learn anything new that might help me with directing actors in this day and age.

Things have definitely changed. I hope you'll spill the beans. LOL
 
filmman said:
Could you write a little about "finding the moment". You seem to know a lot about the history of directing.

Exhaustion and stress? yes. Anxiety, depression? yes. I've worked with actors on anti-depressants and perhaps even on illegal drugs. I don't ask :-) but sometimes they tell me about certain prescription drugs they're on and I have to modify my directing somewhat. I don't fire actors for being on prescribed drugs.

But actors aren't trained well anymore (maybe it's because there are too many theories -- I don't know.) Maybe it's my fault, but I notice a difference in technique. I want to learn anything new that might help me with directing actors in this day and age.

Things have definitely changed. I hope you'll spill the beans. LOL
Click to expand...

The few Magic beans I have are this: IMO

#1. proper casting. select characters who are very similair to the character in the story. That's a difficult challenge to overcome but look at what it solves. The actors don't have to pretend very much. I bet Walter Brennen, Cary Grant, John Wayne, etc... were pretty much like we see em. Today's casting is terrible, everyone looks the same, sounds the same ... there's not too much unique identity on the screen these days & that's a problem.

#2. I like simplicity of action, ala Mamet approach, uninflected action so montage can do it's job in the audience's mind. Simple action with good editing makes good cinema. If the story is well built an actor doesn't need to help the story by doing all sorts of extra things that actually disrupt, they usually overdo it, because they're acting, not truly committed, which is too often the case. Look around, everyday you witness pure simple action by real people being real, & that's what an actor tries to do but often they over do it.

I suggest reading Mamet's advice in his little book On Directing Film, & there's another wonderful book by a theatrical director, William Ball, titled, A Sense of Direction, my favorite on this topic.

Will this help the undisciplined find the moment? no, but why would I want to work with hacks in the 1st place? It begins with good judgement in the casting process.
 
The definitive book on Acting will also give insight to a director. So I would recommend reading "An Actor Prepares" by Stanislavski

Even if you disagree with the "System", it will take you couple chapters of reading this book to actually know you disagree. Otherwise you are disagreeing with a misconception. Talent comes from anywhere. The System cannot really help with that. But the System helps develop discipline. Michele touched on the concept of discipline but I disagree with her that discipline is far more important than talent.

Talent and discipline are equally important. The idea is not to let the actor become overly obsessed with talent that he/she forgets discipline.

An actor who has talent but no discipline is a raw material that can never be properly sculpted. This principle becomes clearer when you read the first chapters of "An Actor Prepares" and since its written so wonderfully you'll be doing a disservice to yourself to neglect it.
 
Last edited:
wow, these two posts are gems. thanks guys. I noted down the names of these books. i actually had heard of them, believe it or not but never read them. I generally don't read books on acting, thinking I'm not an actor.

And I don't read books on directing, because I figure if I don't know how to direct by now, it's never gonna happen;

But how wrong I was! I'm going to read these books! One can never stop learning.
 
filmman said:
One can never stop learning.
Click to expand...

And this is precisely the sentiment you want your actors to share with you. All too often actors walk into the room already knowing everything there is to know, wanting no other thoughts but their own.

This is usually a result of their insecurities. And its the director's job to push past as many of the actor's insecurities as possible. If you can't get your actors to learn from each new experience, they will most certainly resort to the path of least resistance. They have little tricks and behaviors that they use by default, after they have neglected to invest in their original characters.
 
That's actors like Anthony Quinn and Rod Steiger. But what about actors like Jimmy Stewart and Marlon Brando? They were always playing themselves to some extent. Maybe that's a bad way to put it; but you know what I mean? There are some mannerisms which you want actors to keep so they will be recognizable.

You can always tell the style of Hemingway as soon as you read a few words :-)
 
And you've got Jack Lemmon and Walter Matheau. Two actors who had hilarious reputations, one as the every man and the other as the crank.

But you named Marlon Brando, who oddly was the boldest step toward method acting anyone had seen at the time.

Sure you've always had bold performances, but before Brando so much of acting was dependent on the studio system categorically placing stars into stock scripts. Marlon Brando showed so many people what a genuine performance could be.

You might say that he leaves a piece of himself in every role, and I do not say there is anything wrong with that. But it is funny that you mention the most notorious actor for lacking discipline while on the set. He ruined so many movies by simply being himself.

But no one can deny he was one of the greatest actors who ever lived.


Jimmy Stewart is a classic star too. But who would be his contemporary? Vince Vaughn? Will Ferrell? I think not. Ferrelisms and Vaughnisms appear to be a result of laziness compared to hardworking disciplined talent such as Lemmon and Matheau. Watch the Billy Wilder movies for further evidence.
 
Last edited:
Today's Jimmy Stewart is Tom Hanks, the guy everyone likes.

That (Stella!) craziness of Brando is something we can & should tap into to bring out freshness in acting. It's that right brain spolied child side that discovers the new while thel eft brain is trying to say stop, be good.... it's a balancing act.

William Ball covers all this and more. Chapter one is my favorite, "Art, Consciousness, Belief, Unity." He shares some wonderful insights that apply to theatre and for me it also applies to cinema as well on what we are trying to do. Why do we want to do this silly looking activity in the 1st place?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top