Directing actors in the 21st Century

I think directing really hasn't changed. I mean, VFX pieces, yeah - now you have to direct someone to react to something that isn't actually there. But really, direction is direction. People's methods are different. But I wouldn't say that because there is more tech out there that direction is any different.

My methods are different than my friends. I let the actors get to their place, see how they feel and then change the blocking and lead them to a final destination. But they always start the process. I feel as though the character would make the choices not the person standing behind a monitor. So I let them. And then I adjust for image and to get the foundation into an actual construct.

One of the people I worked with often, whom I won't exactly call a friend, was convinced that asking the actor questions is the best way to go. Honestly, it failed every time. I had another friend who almost over-directs. People have different methods. I think you need to figure out what works for you. And if your method isn't flying with the talent you have...adjust. Adjust or die.

You can read theory all you want, but personally, first hand experience is the best way to go. Even if you know all the theory in the world, it might not work with the talent you have. Then what?
 
In my mind theory is just that. Theory.

Practicality for me is the most important thing. So you have a well-rounded perspective, it doesn't make you inherently a good director. Not saying theory isn't important for some, but it shouldn't be everything.
 
You're contradicting yourself Mattykins; your tips and practical advice is your theory. One can simply not do anything without thinking, ideas, in other words, theory, i.e., how you interpret the world and how to solve problems. You might wish to restate yourself as, "you just need to find your own way." That would appear to be good practical advice but that too won't do because finding your own way involves interaction and being influenced with others, as we're doing here with one another, and that happens to be very much like getting well prepared advice from a book. It's essentially the same thing. I'm reading your ideas, your reading mine -- how's that different than reading from a book and being influenced by the author's ideas?

help me!
 
Well, nobody can direct straight from theory. There has to be experience. But then of course that experience forms a theory of directing. So it's the chicken or the egg?

I like to hear perspectives on directing, especially from directors who have directed. Things are changing -- that's what I started out with -- and I want to be able to direct the new generation of actors more effectively.

Specifically, what do you do when your actor is on anti-depressants and you're doing a scene, let's say, about a character who is on drugs, a cocaine addict. What are you supposed to say to the actor?

If an actor smokes pot and you're doing a story where a pot smoker gets a brain tumor as a result of smoking too much pot (I'm saying this is only in the story and not my opinion) -- how do you direct the scene with the actor if the actor suddenly says, "this is BS!"

And it goes to political matters and social issues. There are issues of pornography and gay rights -- things are changing; theories can be helpful.

This thread is teaching me a lot. Yes, many things about directing don't change, but the actors are changing and values are changing. It's a more chaotic world we live in.

There are paradigm shifts; reality is changing.LOL
 
I'm not contradicting myself. If you really want to dig. Yes, I have a theory on directing. That actors should find their own ways. My argument is stated: "So you have a well-rounded perspective, it doesn't make you inherently a good director. Not saying theory isn't important for some, but it shouldn't be everything."

Theory is just that. A theoretical outlook on directing and actors. Studying different theories all day and reading books doesn't help you overcome the challenges of being a director. Putting those theories into practice does. My argument isn't: find your own way. Really it isn't an argument. It is an opinion. I've seen people who think they are great directors because they read several books only to have them bomb. And I watched over 100,000 dollars flow out the window. You need to practice directing, not just read about it.

Same with camera department. So you read the ASC manual, does that make you a great cinematographer? Or I read a sound book, I am now a sound op. Same goes for directing.

And to OP. Anti-depressants isn't a huge deal. I was on them at one point. A huge amount of the US population is. You don't go and treat them like they are handicapped because they are on anti-depressants. They are still people. They aren't any different inside. You treat them as anyone else.

If you have a coke-addict on set and you are dealing with cocaine, I would say you made a terrible casting error.

If they say something is bs mid-scene, explain to them why it is there in the first place. Why you need it. If you don't need it - stray from the written word. If you can't change it - adapt. Let them know why. It shouldn't be a problem since you would have told the actor what is involved with the script before and if there was a problem to bring it up. As a director you need to think about the issues that might come up and address them before they are issues. Especially with a creative decision.

I don't see how values of people would effect anything. Why would you have cast them if they were, say, a conservative Christian and you were doing a short about abortion. I would again say there was a terrible casting error.

You as a director are there to guide a performance, in some cases create one. You need to coax out emotions when dealing with newer actors and guide more experienced ones. And that takes knowledge of the talent, the script, and a trust. A lot of that has to do with the casting process. If the person is against everything the film stands for, why cast them?
 
Filmman it sounds like you're experiencing untrained flakes. The actors job is to become something other than what they are, at least to some degree. If an actor plays the role of a Nazi Concentration Camp Commadant, does that mean the actor needs to agree with the idea of liquidating Jewish people, NO! These so-called actors need to go to acting school and learn how to get into the skin of the character on the page. As suggested, the casting process is very very important.

Drug issues, I understand why the studios and the bonding companies have an interest in who's in the picture so they can complete their project and hopefully make some money off of it without it turning into an endless array of lingering delays & lawsuits. People that abuse medicine when they're healthy become ill: physically & mentally. Medicine is for ill people, not the healthy. Why burden yourself with such a person? Set yourself free; it's tough enough just making a picture without having to attend to someone's burdensome flaws. As suggested, the casting process is very very important.

Mattykins, I think we're on the same page. Yes after a little bit of theory a person needs to get on the ground floor of reality and see what it has to teach as well. Hopefully we all learn something we can teach others. What's the saying -- smart people learn from their own mistakes, and really smart people learn from other people's mistakes.
 
Great discussion. My problem is that I'm shooting non-union and no-budget at this point in my career. I have great projects and even great prospects but I'm impatient and must always be shooting movies. I can't sit still. I don't want to regret not having been making movies all the time when the day comes and I can't even lift a camera or get myself out of bed (I'm not that old, just paranoid LOL).

I'm very impulsive and get into production without pre-production and often enough without a script -- felliniesque to the extreme. So I learned here, I need to cast better and be more patient with actors. Thanks guys.
 
Preproduction is very important. Hitchcock used to storyboard every single shot and made the point that his films were already finished before one shot was filmed.

Save yourself production time by casting dependable actors. Save yourself rental costs and hourly wages by holding rehearsals. Everything is reciprocal.
 
10s, I think we were on the same page. Just something was lost in translation.

And I totally agree with the preprod notes. Know what you are doing before you go out there. Know it and know it well so you can convey what you want to have happen. You might get something brilliant on set that you didn't plan for. So don't take your plan as the only way. But at least know what you are doing.
 
Shooting felliniesque or cinema verite means not knowing what is going to happen, and I'd rather know all the theories and the problems of working with the new realities of the acting profession.

1) It is very popular to learn audition techniques and how to get a role; but this gives rise to a whole host of actors that can't do the roles they take on.

2) Many actors just enjoy the audition process but are "saving themselves" for something else. So they're just auditioning to learn something from the experience.

3) Many actors can't analyze a character and do a role consistently. Some of them can't even do lines properly.

4) Many actors think that non-union is like an acting school.

5) Few non-union actors can carry a movie. This is the toughest one to deal with.

Thanks for help and comments.
 
Maybe, just maybe, for your unique felliniesque-capades, over time you could put together a troupe/troop of like-minded actors that want to go do this form of cinema. IMO, I would rather work over & over with like minds on something like this rather than have to go through the whole she-bang each time a newbie comes along. That way your energy goes toward new creations rather than orientations. Just a thought, you're the expert in this fellini area.
 
Last edited:
No, Craig. That's why I'm charging ahead with my second one. I want the inertia to carry my felliniesque movies. I want to steamroller them.LOL

Just kidding. I'm trying to find a welcoming atmosphere for my movie FELLINIESQUE PLAYERS. I'm really very serious about this movie. IMO, it has a tremendous potential as a new genre. The film is really so good that I'm genuinely excited over it and its potential. I'm amazed that it's not getting invited to festivals. There's definitely something wrong there. It's something that I'm missing in my approach. I can screen the movie in Santa Monica at a theater, and I may end up doing that; but I'm not strong in marketing, when it comes to the domestic market. I'm excellent in the foreign market.

So I can't wait to start the next one, because I feel I'm really on to something. Felliniesqe is the way I'd really like to work from now on. I can shoot alone and with no budget and still end up with professional results and produce movies that have tremendous potential for profits.

10s wrote: over time you could put together a troupe/troop of like-minded actors that want to go do this form of cinema.
Click to expand...
I'd love to have my own troupe, like Bergman and Fellini :-) I agree I'd be happy to work with the same actors. I have a few already. I'm in the process of calling them back. It's just that at this point they don't see the potential. Once my felliniesque movies are playing in festivals, they will believe in what I'm doing. Because my films are really fun to make. Everybody loves it.
 
"Once my felliniesque movies are playing in festivals, they will believe in what I'm doing. Because my films are really fun to make. Everybody loves it."

It seems like the real question to ask yourself is, "are they fun to watch?" that's what counts, the other is incidentel.
 
I haven't had a screening where I was present. I can only go by what I like at this point. I'd love to sit with an audience and watch in the dark.
 
You cant' make it to your screenings? Are they across the globe?


During film festivals its always interesting to go out into the lobby and see the filmmakers biting their finger nails. I remember a comedian / first-time director was sitting in the lobby listening for laughs. This was the one criteria he was using to gauge how his movie was doing. I'm sure it must be nerve-racking.

And it can be tough to sit through your own film in a tense environment like that but you really really should so that you can grow and learn to cope with people's mixed reactions. And there will always be mixed reactions.

In the end, making your films for yourself and your crew may just end up being better motivation to get you going longer. But dive into the audience reaction anyways for the hell of it.
 
filmman said:
5) Few non-union actors can carry a movie. This is the toughest one to deal with.
Click to expand...

disagree entirely. being in SAG or being SAG eligible means that some fool on a set somewhere signed your SAG app papers. you have no idea who, or when, or for what role, or any details about anything relating to the production. the fact of the matter about talent is simple: it exists. you've just got to seek it out. handfuls of thespians and theatrically trained actors go right through the fingers of the directors and casting assistants for one reason or another. the trick is to perceive that you've a diamond in the rough, and to have the sensibility not to let her/him slip away.

as far as directing methodology, I tend to side with a very close and personal relationship with actors. as a director, I spend most of my time developing a working relationship with the people I've casted for roles. if they're comfortable with you, and you with them, everything goes more smoothly. I've found that actors do better when they feel they're the center of attention - so I go with smaller crews, and try to work out all things technical before talent gets onto set (although this isn't always realistic) - so I can spend time giving detailed descriptions of mindsets, delivery, and performance.

the director/actor relationship is very much connective - good actors can feel what the director feels during a take, and vice versa. it's important to work on developing that connection because it can allow for much more efficient shooting as far as the technical aspect goes, but more importantly, it can allow for a more immersive viewer experience due to an incredible performance.
 
Thanks Finnegan.
so I can spend time giving detailed descriptions of mindsets, delivery, and performance.
Click to expand...
I agree about forming close relationship with actors. They're all I have -- especially as I'm shooting alone on this one as well.

To me working felliniesque also means going with the flow, and so knowing the actors well and having a close relationship with them is very important for me as well.

Thanks for your insights.
 
Knoxworth wrote: In the end, making your films for yourself and your crew may just end up being better motivation to get you going longer. But dive into the audience reaction anyways for the hell of it.
Click to expand...
This year I'm going to really try and make it to the Ava Gardner Film Festival. I want to take Felliniesque Players there this year.

I like being in an audience without anyone knowing that I'm the filmmaker. That way the reactions are honest. I've been in the audience many times when a movie I'd worked on played in theaters in Europe.

I waited too long to make my personal movies, but now that I'm older it's easier to have my own personal point of view, or as it is know as "my vision".LOL

I found "my voice" a few years ago; but now I have "my vision". This is bigger :-)

I agree, it's more satisfying to hear what friends have to say about a movie. I remember reading that Scott Fitzgerald would tell a story to Hemingway at a restaurant and Hemingway marveled at how easily and smoothly Fitzgerald would tell a story. Hemingway said that the way Fitzgerald told it, he wouldn't change a word if he were writing it.

As you know, Hemingway would work a whole morning on crafting one paragraph. He'd write it on a yellow legal pad and erase the mistakes and do his rewriting on one sheet of paper. So in the end there was only this one paragraph that was finished.

I'd love to make a movie that way. I'm going to :-) I wish I could do it the way Fitzgerald did though. I must try to do it that way then.LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top