DIRECTING ACTORS / new comprehensive video tutorials from HollywoodCameraWorks

D

david_p

Veteran
i just bought this a few weeks ago. they released (they call it a soft release) the first 3 volumes of (eventual 17 & the rest are to be out in the next 6 months) they have stated.

you can download or watch online for free all of Volume 1 which is about 70 mins. this is what i watched to see if it was worth the asking price of $600.00 if you buy Part 1 & 2 at the same time. for me this was a no brainer and its so good IMO.

im a fan of hollywoodcameraworks comprehensive "shot blocking" tutorials so was pretty excited to finally see this come out. I've found it to be very informative and easy to watch and absorb.

http://www.hollywoodcamerawork.com/da_index.html

curious to see what others think of this?

david
 
Last edited:
Not bad, good or indifferent. It's just at this age of the internet, it's pre-programmed into the audience psychology that information is freely out there. So, selling a tutorial for 600$ is not a good idea, not by a long shot. That's why people are not interested.
 
hi Ebrahim.

i won't disagree that there is endless "free" stuff on youtube and really good stuff on youtube but i surely don't know where i could find anything remotely as comprehensive, clear and in one tidy package.

i had no problem paying $600 for this package because i see value in its content but can see where some people wouldn't want to lay out that much cash as well if they are willing to poke thru the free stuff and stitch together information from youtube. nothing wrong with that if a person is so inclined.

thanks for responding!!
 
David,
I think you made a wise choice. I started watching this very skeptically, thought I'd take a quick look and find it was just another oversimplified convoluted approach that you find in most tutorials on the web and even in a lot of College and University acting/directing programs. General information about any craft or art form is not only pretty much useless, it's downright dangerous to the formation of a good solid working technique. The arts demand specificity, always. In the choices you make and in the way you execute those choices. It will also save you a lot of time and frustration if you learn certain things before you learn others. Just as in any sport, you need to know the fundamentals first. Putting the cart before the horse is always going to cause problems somewhere down the line.

What I gleaned from Volume 1 is a program that seems very well organized and thought out. In fact, I ended up watching the whole thing, only because I was impressed in such an unusually good way and wanted to see how long they could keep that up. If a director used this approach with me as an actor I would be very relieved and happy. Mostly, what you get with young directors is absolutely nothing (which is the least egregious), convoluted nonsense that is just confusing, or dictatorial crap that doesn't allow you to employ the talent you were cast for in the first place (the absolute worst nightmare of any actor).

For what it's worth, I am a highly trained actor in Meisner, Strasberg and Shakespearian techniques with more than 35 years experience. Of course I know it's not worth much on the internet because you don't actually know me, and the fact exists, that for some people, it takes them 30 years or more to collect all the bad ideas they have in their head.

So yeah, all in all I think you made a smart choice. Even if you are able to find all this information for free on the web, it still needs to be structured in a way that only experience will allow.
 
great analysis rsbush. I'm a rookie as to myself being a director but have worked along side several as a cameraman & editor. I'm looking to learn mostly just so i can understand the process better when I'm around it. i appreciate your input and can see that you know things from your experiences even though you say its hard to validate on an internet forum but still i found your break down of this course very solid and validates my impressions on it and no second thoughts on dropping that much cash.

thanks
david
 
Last edited:
Ebrahim Saadawi said:
Not bad, good or indifferent. It's just at this age of the internet, it's pre-programmed into the audience psychology that information is freely out there. So, selling a tutorial for 600$ is not a good idea, not by a long shot. That's why people are not interested.
Click to expand...

I take that back. I have been watching the available material and this is incredible. Will definitely get the entire course once I have the extra cash laying around. I just wish it was a little less as it really deserves a wider audience!

Thanks for the find
 
I'm a big fan of HollywoodCamerawork. I use their Shot Designer on every project. I have picked up the DVDs for camerawork and refer to them regularly. From the little bit I've checked out, these seem right on the money, especially the note to let the story tell the story arc and have your actors simply perform actions relevant to the moment. I won't be surprised if this series is excellent.
 
I've purchased everything Hollywood Camera Work has ever done. So far Directing Actors is my least favorite of their products. (Note: only 4 volumes have been released, out of a total of 17).

All the instruction in Directing Actors is great. If you've never felt comfortable with actors or never felt you knew how to communicate your ideas well, this course will be terrific. So far it has covered the fundamentals quite well.

The problem is that the performances just aren't good. The examples of "good" acting in the course, to my eye, are still just not good at all. This unfortunately undercuts the entire purpose of the course.

You can also tell that the main influence for the course is Judith Weston's book, "Directing Actors." There's a very particular flavor of directing that results from anyone who has read and internalized that book. Students of Judith Weston use the same specific phrases, the same tone of voice, and--most important of all--have the same gut-level fear that they're going to say the wrong thing (I'm generalizing of course).

Judith Weston's sequel, "Director's Intuition," is far superior to her earlier book. One advantage is that it doesn't advocate any specific framework for directing actors. It is simply a collage of strategies that all conflict with each other. You can't read that book and walk away with any clear understanding of exactly how to do anything. It is also a far less language-based book.

The last thing I'll say here is that the HCW course "Directing Actors" is too language-based. We know that the majority of communication exists non-verbally. But Per Holmes has the same basic demeanor when directing a scene of a serial killer strangling a woman in her house, as he does when directing a scene of a man asking a woman on a date. His light-hearted attitude subcommunicates a light-heartedness into every scene. You don't direct "The Shining" or "There Will Be Blood" type performances with a light-hearted buddy-buddy vibe.


edit--

I want to add a big caveat to my review here, half a year after the fact, partially in response to Per Holmes's nice response below. In the past couple of years I've come to personally reject a lot of what I've learned in books about directing actors. Whatever critiques I made above are my own personal objections to an overall theory of directing that I happen to reject. That doesn't mean that the theory is not extremely useful for others, or that the method does not work for other people.
 
Last edited:
Hi Drew and everyone,

Per Holmes here. I saw the comments here, First let me thank everyone for their wonderful compliments.

Drew, if it's OK, I'd love to respond to some of your points.

On the Judith Weston note, I found this curious, because I don't agree with her approach. She's a great lady, but in my view, she's far too heavy on script analysis and active verbs, and while it's hard for anybody but Stanislavsky to take credit for those techniques, I've come to believe that these "classic" techniques have limited mileage. No question, you need objectives, but once you know that, you don't get magically new behavior by keeping pushing the objective.

As for active verbs, I've come to believe that directors should dial back their use -- it's an acting technique, not a directing technique. If you have actors play "to flirt", you're not just taking too much control of the acting performance leaving no space for the actor to think, it also devolves into trying various active verbs for the sake of trying them, like trying on hats, and everybody loses sight of the character. The point is to trigger behavior, and you can't as a director expect that any particular idea will produce any particular behavior. Two actors will play two very different "to flirt"'s.

But actually, I realize that all the Objectives/Obstacles/Active Verb/Motivations/Stakes stuff is on Volume 3-4, which is exactly where you were watching when posting, so I understand it could give that impression. But in total, it's a tiny part of the course, and beyond their initial utility, these objective-centric techniques quickly run out of steam.

Regarding the comments on the acting performances, I want to defend my actors a little bit. I do think it's too much to expect consistently nailed performances for hours and hours from non-union actors -- although a several of them got network shows after shooting. This is also behind the scenes. But I also think this is a wrong way to watch the course. All that matters is whether a technique has an effect. If something changes, it works. If nothing changes, it doesn't. I feel like that should be the criteria, not that every actor turns into Meryl Streep.

I also think it's important to be careful with bringing a judgy attitude to your actors. Even if you judge them from a distance, it's a disqualifier in my book to be quick to divide acting performances into good and bad -- leave that to critics. You need to be positive with your actors, even if they aren't always amazing. There's simply nothing to be gained from criticizing an actor's core skill once he's been hired. You should be the one in whose eyes they can't fail. You should be the safe space where they're safe to stink it up, because EVERY actor needs the wiggle room to try things that might fail. Perfection is the enemy of acting, and if you're judgy with your actors, even if it's about other actors, it has a toxic effect on their openness.

As for being too verbal, the course is certainly both verbal and mental, but it is so for a reason: The two primary skills you need as a director, above almost everything else, is the ability to come up with direction that's active and specific. You can ALWAYS go back to being non-verbal and experiential, but you can't turn up the volume on something that isn't there. If you're non-verbal because you don't have the skill in the first place, then this is a cop-out, and it won't work.

It's a huge grievance of actors that directors can't express what they want. It results in take after ambivalent take that drives the actors' self-confidence into the ground while you slowly find out what you want to say. Being specific and active is a hard skill that you can't fake, and this is where every director has to man up. This is why I make the point over and over in the course that you'd never dump all of these techniques on the actors. You simply have to be ABLE to. And the bigger stars you work with, the less they'll tolerate you slowly figuring it out. You have to nail, in 10 words or less, something that delivers the character. You need to learn that kind of precision, and that means that we have to do all the techniques. But in real use, you'll use 3 or 4 precise ideas. The more you talk, the worse it gets. But the opposite is also true. If you say nothing because you don't know how, that's also bad. There is a certain quantity of precise direction that's best for most actors.

As for demeanour, every Director has his own. I totally understand that my nature is indeed often too joky, and while that works well for some things, I have to remind myself to be more serious in other situations. But I just don't like a serious set focused on capital "A" Art. Keep also in mind that one of your primary jobs is to take the pressure off the actors. Many very serious scenes have been shot in a light atmosphere. It's scary enough to stand naked in front of the camera. If you're on the other side of the lens ready to judge the actors, it's just not a safe place.

But anyway, I just felt like responding. I thought about whether I should just be a big boy and take criticism, but I'm genuinely proud of this course, and I wanted to at least clarify these points.

Cheers,

Per
 
Will there be a price drop?

Will there be a price drop?

Hi Per Holmes, just out of Curiosity will the price for 'Directing Actors' be dropping anytime soon?


perholmes said:
Hi Drew and everyone,

Per Holmes here. I saw the comments here, First let me thank everyone for their wonderful compliments.

Drew, if it's OK, I'd love to respond to some of your points.

On the Judith Weston note, I found this curious, because I don't agree with her approach. She's a great lady, but in my view, she's far too heavy on script analysis and active verbs, and while it's hard for anybody but Stanislavsky to take credit for those techniques, I've come to believe that these "classic" techniques have limited mileage. No question, you need objectives, but once you know that, you don't get magically new behavior by keeping pushing the objective.

As for active verbs, I've come to believe that directors should dial back their use -- it's an acting technique, not a directing technique. If you have actors play "to flirt", you're not just taking too much control of the acting performance leaving no space for the actor to think, it also devolves into trying various active verbs for the sake of trying them, like trying on hats, and everybody loses sight of the character. The point is to trigger behavior, and you can't as a director expect that any particular idea will produce any particular behavior. Two actors will play two very different "to flirt"'s.

But actually, I realize that all the Objectives/Obstacles/Active Verb/Motivations/Stakes stuff is on Volume 3-4, which is exactly where you were watching when posting, so I understand it could give that impression. But in total, it's a tiny part of the course, and beyond their initial utility, these objective-centric techniques quickly run out of steam.

Regarding the comments on the acting performances, I want to defend my actors a little bit. I do think it's too much to expect consistently nailed performances for hours and hours from non-union actors -- although a several of them got network shows after shooting. This is also behind the scenes. But I also think this is a wrong way to watch the course. All that matters is whether a technique has an effect. If something changes, it works. If nothing changes, it doesn't. I feel like that should be the criteria, not that every actor turns into Meryl Streep.

I also think it's important to be careful with bringing a judgy attitude to your actors. Even if you judge them from a distance, it's a disqualifier in my book to be quick to divide acting performances into good and bad -- leave that to critics. You need to be positive with your actors, even if they aren't always amazing. There's simply nothing to be gained from criticizing an actor's core skill once he's been hired. You should be the one in whose eyes they can't fail. You should be the safe space where they're safe to stink it up, because EVERY actor needs the wiggle room to try things that might fail. Perfection is the enemy of acting, and if you're judgy with your actors, even if it's about other actors, it has a toxic effect on their openness.

As for being too verbal, the course is certainly both verbal and mental, but it is so for a reason: The two primary skills you need as a director, above almost everything else, is the ability to come up with direction that's active and specific. You can ALWAYS go back to being non-verbal and experiential, but you can't turn up the volume on something that isn't there. If you're non-verbal because you don't have the skill in the first place, then this is a cop-out, and it won't work.

It's a huge grievance of actors that directors can't express what they want. It results in take after ambivalent take that drives the actors' self-confidence into the ground while you slowly find out what you want to say. Being specific and active is a hard skill that you can't fake, and this is where every director has to man up. This is why I make the point over and over in the course that you'd never dump all of these techniques on the actors. You simply have to be ABLE to. And the bigger stars you work with, the less they'll tolerate you slowly figuring it out. You have to nail, in 10 words or less, something that delivers the character. You need to learn that kind of precision, and that means that we have to do all the techniques. But in real use, you'll use 3 or 4 precise ideas. The more you talk, the worse it gets. But the opposite is also true. If you say nothing because you don't know how, that's also bad. There is a certain quantity of precise direction that's best for most actors.

As for demeanour, every Director has his own. I totally understand that my nature is indeed often too joky, and while that works well for some things, I have to remind myself to be more serious in other situations. But I just don't like a serious set focused on capital "A" Art. Keep also in mind that one of your primary jobs is to take the pressure off the actors. Many very serious scenes have been shot in a light atmosphere. It's scary enough to stand naked in front of the camera. If you're on the other side of the lens ready to judge the actors, it's just not a safe place.

But anyway, I just felt like responding. I thought about whether I should just be a big boy and take criticism, but I'm genuinely proud of this course, and I wanted to at least clarify these points.

Cheers,

Per
Click to expand...
 
Wow, very interesting read! I didn't expect the creator himself to drop in too. I've been wanting to get a hold of this myself as it does seem like a very helpful resource. I have read Judith Weston's Directing Actors (I'm in the middle of Director's Intuition) and would like more material on the subject. I appreciate putting the first volume online for free as it did give me reassurance that this was for real and not something sloppily put together. Since I read plenty of material both online and in books there were a lot of familiar concepts. Some were made much clearer to me seeing it explained with examples than just reading about it.

As a side note I also wouldn't mind a slight discount at some point — I've been trying to convince a few friends to help me afford this who I know could benefit from it. :smile:
 
Directing Actors has two parts. Each part has 8 or 9 volumes. Each volume has several chapters.

I watched volume 1, which is about 70 minutes and, again, the first of 17 volumes.

How long is the whole thing? 20 hours? I think it might be worth $600. That's how much you might pay for a college course. At a film school like USC, a class would be a few thousand dollars.

It could save directors a lot of trial and error. In fact the more I study this topic, the more I feel sorry for actors. The way we all naturally start out directing is looking more and more like the most obnoxious, even hellish, experience to put actors through, so much so that most of the time it seems like it would be better for the director to be mute. Save the actors! Learn how to direct them, so that you stop making them so miserable ;)
 
HCW is an incredible resource. They're worth every penny and more. I don't say this lightly. There is a metric ton of movie-making education resources out there, books and DVDs/tapes that purport to show you this and that, and more often than not, they're either money-making schemes, or put out by deluded souls. HCW is different - genuinely good information, solidly researched, and devoid of hucksterism. Without hesitation, I can pay it the highest compliment in my book - they are a treasure and worth every penny they charge (and more).

That said, it is meant as a foundation. As an artist you are supposed to absorb it, and then put your own stamp on it, and move beyond it.

Re: directing actors. I personally found it enormously useful to take acting classes and then act in shorts and films made by friends and even trying to get jobs. That gave me some insight into being on the other side of the camera and what an actor may want from a director. Working as an actor alongside other actors and talking to them, is an invaluable experience. I realize that not everyone has the inclination or ability to do this, but if you do, I can highly recommend this approach. The other thing is to understand that every actor is also an individual - what may be a good approach with one actor is not necessarily good with another... you know that expression "read the room"? Well, you as a director need to be able to "read" an actor too - they're all different, and a cookie-cutter approach won't work.
 
Hi guys,

Re. discounts, there's a discount for anyone who asks, so write to sales@hollywoodcamerawork.com. Eventually volumes will be available individually, and eventually it'll also stream. But we actually do need someone to buy them, because the cost of making this is pretty crazy -- break-even is way up there. The reality is that money means different things to different people, and HCW is trying to be flexible so it's not too expensive for anyone. For a guy in Africa, $600 is two months pay, and you'd kind of be a jerk asking for that. For Dreamworks, $600 is just change.

Volume 1 is the shortest volume; it's the philosophical setup to the course, and there's a natural break after the last chapter. After that, the volumes are around 1 1/2 hours give or take. That puts the whole course at about 25 hours of structured material.

As for acting classes, I think that's a great thing, although not completely obligatory. But an acting class will teach you in two seconds how noisy and verbose most directing is, and you'll learn immediately that you can't act more than 1 or 2 thoughts at a same time. You'll understand immediately that actors don't have the level of control that director's think they do, and micro-managing a performance is 99% destructive -- even for the latest Oscar winner. The core lesson you'll learn from acting classes is that direction needs to be a simple, easy thought to think, it needs to be active, specific, and it needs to be not very much.

I don't know if you know what I mean with active, but it's on Volume 1. Basically, the goal is a behavior, meaning a demeanour that runs by itself whether you have lines or not, and that runs throughout the scene without you having to push it along. If you're playing "everything he says really means that he's trying to trick you", or "any minute now, she's going to dump you", then that single idea impacts your entire behavior. There's nothing you have to do, it runs by itself and colors the entire performance whether you're talking or listening. This is an active idea, and Volume 2-8 are all active ideas. This is the brain-crunching part of the course, but this is where you need the most skill, because the only way to reduce your direction is by becoming more precise, so that every time you talk, is has a very high chance of being something the actor can immediately turn around and use, and can feel is working.

But point is that you don't have to take an acting class for that. You can test active ideas on yourself. If you look at those two directions above, you should be able to feel that they immediately call you to action, but not in a micro-managed way. It just gives you a sense of knowing what to do, and it informs everything you'd do holding that thought in your mind. I'm not much of an actor myself, but I can tell if a thought is active. So you can test direction on yourself. If it has movement without you having to push it, then it's active.

Besides that, I think the most important thing is to just learn what makes acting tick. Then you'll find that it's a craft like any other that has its own language and techniques, and that makes it not mysterious, but just a thing you have to learn -- same as cinematography or costume. When directors talk about actors, it's like they're this strange alien species, and my mission here is bring back a normal relationship. It's so weird to talk about actors from such a distance, because while our jobs are different, and actor is an artist just like you are, and that's a common ground that makes you fully capable of knowing what the world looks like from an actor's perspective. And then we can all just get to work creating this thing together.

Cheers,

Per
 
I bought the course (and have recommended various studios I've worked at to get HCW's earlier resources, as well). It's quite specific, very helpful and offers a lot of different doors into the world of communicating with actors. So far I'm quite pleased and I'm thankful to have the depth of info presented in a clear and organized way. The only complaint I'd have is that it seems like a long time between volume releases, but my own life is an endless circus of uncontrollable events conspiring to make me utterly unproductive in any meaningful way, so I can't really complain. :D
 
Thanks for sharing. I've seen some of the samples, and this looks like a solid and valuable course to me.

Good work Per, we might pick it up.
 
perholmes said:
Basically, the goal is a behavior, meaning a demeanour that runs by itself whether you have lines or not, and that runs throughout the scene without you having to push it along. If you're playing "everything he says really means that he's trying to trick you", or "any minute now, she's going to dump you", then that single idea impacts your entire behavior. There's nothing you have to do, it runs by itself and colors the entire performance whether you're talking or listening. This is an active idea, and Volume 2-8 are all active ideas.
Click to expand...

I think that's the one thing most directors I experienced had trouble with. If that is a mahor part of the course I can see it being very valuable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top