DIRECTING ACTORS / new comprehensive video tutorials from HollywoodCameraWorks

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...

Hi Per,

Thanks for the nice reply-- it's great to hear your thoughts on the questions I raised. First, let me say that if I could write my post again, I would choose some less severe phrasing.

Anyway, it's good to hear that volumes 3 & 4 are the main volumes specifically about objectives/obstacles/verbs/motivations/stakes, but that you have come to believe that those techniques do have limited mileage. You're right-- since I had just watched those volumes, it felt to me like the whole course would be based around those methods.

And points taken on just about everything else in your response. I'd like to reiterate that I found what I've seen of the course so far to be excellent for anyone hoping to vocalize their ideas better.

Let me elaborate on the comment I made about your "light-heartedness." I have the belief that the director's demeanor is what creates the tone of the film. For instance, I imagine that if an actor were working for Stanley Kubrick, Stanley's personality would affect the actor's performance more than any words actually said. The same is true of a Bergman, Woody Allen, or even Judd Apatow. So in my mind, what makes a truly masterful director is his or her personality, not what he or she does or says. I personally have a "words don't really matter" philosophy of directing, and since I come from a different school of directing, so to speak, that's where my criticisms are all coming from.

Anyway, I'm eager to continue learning from the new volumes as they come out. The entire catalogue from Hollywood Camera Work has been truly life-changing and I hate the idea of having possibly offended you with my poorly articulated criticism.
 
Hi Drew,

Thanks for getting back, I appreciate all your comments.

About the tone of the director, I used to believe that this was much more important, but some things have changed my mind. Actually, this was originally supposed to have been a bigger part of the course, but I (1) found that my tone mattered far less than I thought when properly tested, and (2) the following:

I've discussed this with a lot of actors, and there is such a thing as a scene becoming "too real". A lot of directors believe that the more real the scene is (the more we actually believe we're being raped/beaten/murdered), the more real it will seem on camera. But the opposite is often true, that the emotional safety valves kick in, and actors actually hold back in the take, to prevent it from becoming really real. It's the same with stunts. If a stunt is actually dangerous, then you're very cautious, and it shows. If you know you're safe, you can go all out.

I've come to believe that the tougher a scene is (and I include love/sex scenes as something tough to do), the more important it is to have a professional and easy attitude on the set. I've specifically been asked by actors to have more of a check-in after each take, that we come back to reality, shake hands, ask "are you OK?" and laugh it off. It creates an emotional safe place and it actually becomes more OK to really go for it in the take. So I'm intentionally light-hearted in a serious scene, because it gives us permission to go further out the serious road.

Also, it's important to be yourself with actors. I have my own personality, and someone else will have theirs, and that's fine. You being honest, unguarded and not perfect gives them permission to do the same. Imagine Quentin Tarantino explaining to an actor how he's supposed to kick someone in the face. He's likely not somber, but colorful and passionate, because that's his personality, even though the scene is deadly serious. Actors don't take that as a cue to act it like that.

Serious direction also puts a pressure on the actors to be perfect and flawless as actors, and that's a big negative. Actors don't need you to put them into emotional state, they're perfectly capable of doing that. They need you to be enthusiastic, articulate and forgiving. They will steer directly towards the things that get an enthusiastic reaction from you. If you thought it was f--ing awesome when he did some sick and twisted thing, he'll do it double-twisted next time. You direct primarily with enthusiasm. Everybody gravitates in the direction that gets the happiest reaction from you, because everybody basically wants approval. Nobody at any point feels that they have to mirror your emotional state. Every actor knows that their job is to do their own character well. When emotional state matters, they more just need space to find it. The tone of the film comes primarily from the choices you make and the things you consistently approve/disapprove, not so much from your your emotional broadcast, IMO. But your emotional broadcast has a huge effect on work ethic and willingness to take risk or show vulnerability. I'd invest my capacity for tweaking my personality there.

Separately, I'd submit that most people read a bit too much into the actor's emotional state, including actors. I've alluded to this in the earlier volumes, although it doesn't really come up fully until Volume 7, that of all the things that shape a performance, the actor's emotional state is only a small part of it. In the last 20 years, there has been a massive push towards emotional state -- look at many acting classes that are all about just feeling it, feeling it, feeling it. However, feeling it doesn't produce any behavior by itself. You're just kind of standing there, all dressed up and nowhere to go. Emotion is not behavior, emotion is *fuel* for behavior. You still need to know where behavior comes from to give the energy direction, and that's why I spend obscene amounts of time on active ideas.

You'll have noticed that I categorize this into the Layers Of Behavior, and emotional state is just one of them. None of the layers are really more important than the others, but they're all different access points to behavior -- it's like they're on different frequencies. But each aspect eventually maxes out. Objectives/Active Verbs/Obstacles/Motivations max out -- quickly for me personally. But emotional state also maxes out, and then you just don't get any more from pushing that button. Relying too heavily on just getting into state, the characters can feel idle and aimless. In that case, you depend on actors who can make the rest of the character specific without talking to you, but then you're possibly losing control of the movie as a storyteller -- or create animosity when you set aside the actor's weeks of homework in order to change the character on the set.

But bottom line, I'd really want you to invest more in all the other layers. It sounds like you've found your favorite layer, which many director *and* actors do. The hazard is that when the layer maxes out, they keep pushing it harder because it worked the first time. When you push objectives harder than they will go, it creates this over-attentive acting like a staring contest. If you push the Present layer (projections/as-ifs/transferences etc) too hard, it makes the actor feel oddly disconnected from the person in front of them. It's about having more repertoire by always being able to push another button and get another outcome. And then, with skill, it's about saying very few, highly potent things to actors. You do need the hard skill of active ideas. And actors *love* directors who are good at saying simple things that immediately do something.

Cheers,

Per
 
Unfortunately most of the Hollywood Camera Work products are out of my 'budget'... being zero or less than... I did buy Shot Designer, so, when I can I do buy products... I believe there was some form of 'streaming' option, but as yet I've not got the time to do that... Doesn't seem to be that option for the series under the present discussion...
 
Is there a chapter on stylized acting, like in the Coen brothers' movies?

The free volume (thank you very much) focuses on realistic acting, the goal in most movies. But sometimes I wonder how Robert Zemeckis, Peter Jackson, or the Coen brothers get performances like in Forrest Gump, The Lord of the Rings, or O Brother Where Art Thou. While just some of Zemeckis's movies have zany, caricatured performances, every single one of the Coen brothers' movies contain goofy, exaggerated acting.

How do you do it without being a results director? I had always imagined the Coens giving result direction all day long, acting it out in front of the actors, practically pushing on their faces to mold their performance. The actors act different than they do under other directors. I can't figure out how they would get to that interpretation by giving them a series of active verbs.

But when I tried googling for the answer, I got even more confused. Allegedly they hardly do any directing:

“It’s funny even talking about working and stuff on the set,” says Ethan, “because most of the time we’re, like, reading the newspaper.” “We’re very up on current events,” adds Joel. “Most of the set would operate just fine if both of us…” “Were not there,” continues Ethan. “And if you were on the set you’d think, who is that person? Maybe he’s a friend of the DP [director of photography], because…” Joel: “He sits and talks with the DP. They seem to be sharing some joke. It really isn’t as if, if you leave the helm, the ship starts going in circles.”

--- The Telegraph​


What! That can't be the whole story of what they do.

Josh Brolin says about his character in Hail Caesar, "I [ask], Well, what's the guy? And they go, Whatever you think he should be. And I go, Well, what is that? Like what were you thinking when you wrote it? [And they say] Well, we were thinking we wanted it to be interesting." --- The Frame

I'm sorry, that doesn't make sense. I think under such light directing, actors will naturally choose safe, realistic performance. I could never get performances like in the Ladykillers by just being hands off.


Just to clear, if I were directing I wouldn't go for such a style. Quite the opposite. I tend toward minimalism and understatement. But I am just so befuddled!
 
Last edited:
Hi Combatentropy,

There is an answer to that. I happen to personally know one of the directors you mention, and while I can't mention any names, I can make an observation about many major directors that most people don't realize -- that in a technical sense, they're not guaranteed to be good directors -- and are actually shielded from the results of what would be considered bad directing in many other circumstances.

Many people are under the erroneous assumption that there's that much to learn from a Stanley Kubrick or a Ron Howard, but you have to realize that these are people who are directing in a completely different environment than almost every other director, including other major directors. When you reach a certain level, you're working with actors who are a brand in themselves and who make more money on a single movie than a small business makes in its lifetime. These are often incredibly talented actors, who are extremely well prepared and have an army of support behind them, including coaches for every aspect of their performance.

The director's job looks different when you're working with people who (a) have a personality that's already the main attraction and you paid $20m for it, and (b) are so good at creating characters that they really don't need more than some overall thoughts on how you see the character. With those people, result directing is actually more respectful, because you don't pretentiously open up their brains and mess around. You direct from a distance, realizing that this is more calibration than anything. In that case, "higher, lower, faster, slower" is perfectly valid direction.

All direction in some way starts with result directing, and the first 10% of result directing is outright beneficial, and I'd say this goes for all actors. You have 10 billion options for how to make a character, and without the director narrowing it down, the actors are lost. But just as good a thing result directing is in the beginning, just as toxic it is if you don't know when to quit, and keep going because it worked the first time. Gradually, there's a transfer of ownership, that when you feel that the actor understands the character as you originated it, you start to give them more and more control, until you're really not needed except for calibration and enforcing the character arc.

With mega-actors, the transfer of ownership happens almost immediately, and then your role as a director becomes being the emotional sounding board. You are the taste and judgment of the entire production. You're the person we can all go to, to ask if something feels right.

This is a perfectly normal way to work at a high level. But when Ron Howard says that the director's job is simply "taste and judgment", that's a piece of advice that nobody can use for anything. First, he doesn't realize how competent he actually is about acting, and the moment we need to troubleshoot a performance, he has a giant toolbox. Secondly, he can only do that because of the unique selection of actors.

And also, keep in mind that it's not by a long shot every mega-star actor who shows up on the set with an already nailed character. There are lots and lots of big actors who need the same things as anyone else, which is the ability to help come up with active direction and making the character specific. It's often a problem that directors are so afraid of giving direction to mega-stars that they actually harm their performances. An undefined character is an undefined character, and most actors, big or small, have a very resulty indicated general character until it becomes specific. You have a major role to play in helping make the character specific.

If you've avoided the hard skill of real meat-and-potatoes directing, and gone for idealizing directors who work in what is essentially a parallel universe, you will fall flat the moment real directing is demanded of you. I've had the sad pleasure of watching a legendary director fall very flat when needing to give specific input to an actor. As a mega-director, you're helped a lot by the fact that your reputation precedes you, and that means that people read a lot of authority into everything you say, even if it isn't that clever. And like the aliens in Galaxy Quest who took our science fiction and actually built it for real, the actors take your input and actually make it work even though it's flawed, because they believe it must be genius coming from you. But you can only do that if you're really well known.

So in terms of how you get stylized performances, keep in mind that your primary job as a director really *is* to be the sounding board for the production. What you actively allow and encourage is what will happen. Even if you never tell the actors what you want, they'll figure it out soon enough if you consistently love it when they exaggerate. Then stylized performances simply become the path of least resistance, it becomes the shortest, fastest route to praise. Literally everybody on the set wants to make you happy, and everybody is trying to read your mind to find out what will make you the happiest. You direct with your enthusiasm.

I hope you get from this is that you shouldn't put major directors on a pedestal, which is too common. You can easily respect what someone does, liking someone's camera style or someone else's somber acting, but admiring idols, you take too much credit away from yourself and give it to others. The real take-away from watching legendary directors work, and I know many people who share this experience, is that you realize that there isn't some magical thing that they know that you don't. It's very important that you give yourself more credit.

I hope that helps!

Best,

Per
 
Thank you. Very thoughtful and thought-provoking. Yes, many A-list directors do things that should not be emulated.

I guess what you're saying is that a certain style of acting is gotten by feeding some choices with praise and starving the others.

I do hope I can scrounge together the money for your video series soon.
 
I have Per's Hollywood Camerawork DVD set and I watched the sample for Directing Actors online. Per is very dedicated to presenting as much detail as possible.

Directing is an extremely delicate art/craft much like learning to play a musical instrument at a high level or writing meaningful screenplays. While you can learn a lot online, and on your own, I honestly feel you're best off with a dedicated instructor and live actors to work with in order to learn what's working in real time, receive criticism (even harsh criticism), and improve over time, often years. This is where a workshop environment lead by a seasoned instructor is most beneficial.

As with all modes of instruction, you should never completely "drink the Kool-Aid". IOW's take what works for you from Judith Weston, Per, MasterClass, University programs, and TONS of practice in the field to hone your craft and, most importantly, find your voice as a director.

No disrespect intended toward Per, I can tell he's done more than his share of homework here. I think the best approach is to take as many workshops as possible, work with as many actors as possible THEN supplement all that with "Directing Actors". No single approach should be considered gospel.

----

Side note 1-
Since George Clooney was mentioned, I can't imagine the collaboration he's had with the Coen brothers will bear much in common with the relationships he's had with, Steven Soderbergh, or Wes Anderson, or Jason Reitman. Each have their own approach, and elicit something unique in their actor's performances.

Side note 2-
I've recently had the opportunity to direct a cast that have worked with Soderbergh, Spielberg and Gary Ross and I can tell you, there's a lot less heavy lifting for me than when working with cast members who have solely worked in the theater, or in low/no budget production (which, ironically, mine was). I think the director has to tailor their approach based on each actor's needs, hence the need to study multiple schools of acting.

Feel free to take all that with a grain of salt, I'm no Soderbergh (though I wish I was).
 
bill totolo said:
I think the best approach is to take as many workshops as possible, work with as many actors as possible THEN supplement all that with "Directing Actors". No single approach should be considered gospel.
Click to expand...
While you're certainly having a point here, it's a lot easier to say that for someone living in LA than someone in a part of the world where these workshops are hard to find at all :)
 
Hi Bill,

Thanks for your post. Directing Actors is slightly different kind of effort than I believe you to assume it is. This project is essentially a reboot grown out frustration with the fragmentation left behind by many/most acting and directing teachers. This is my chief criticism at how others have approached this, that many have been too eager to partition what should have been a unified whole into a hundred seemingly different approaches each carrying their name and brand. There is massive commonality between all of these traditions, but you wouldn't know it. I feel that a large part of why this subject is hard for so many people is the territoriality of the teachers.

If you study the laws of physics, this has been reduced to a standard model that contains almost everything and is incredibly simple. Yet this same pressure to unify doesn't appear in acting and directing. Instead, people are in my observation making everything more complicated and incomprehensible by dividing this skill up, claiming that their small corner of it is the whole truth.

I originally was supposed to do this project with several of the leading acting/directing gurus. I had completely accepted that I wasn't the expert. You've mentioned some of their names, but it's not fair for me to name them.

But what I found was a shocking lack of curiosity. The relationships eventually broke because I was asking too many questions. As I kept probing them, they got really annoyed because I was confronting logical inconsistencies in their "method". They simply weren't interested in anything immediately outside of their brand. I also got the distinct sense that I probably knew better than them, and that actually, their self-imposed tunnel-vision gave them a significant disadvantage.

So that put me back to square one. I should say that I was never bad at working with actors, and I also have a significant background in psychology and personal growth, and media production (music videos, commercials and as a music producer), which means that I've inadvertently spent decades going to all the same places that actors go to.

I gave up on making a course, and I decided to simply see if I could figure it out, and for years, I was collecting techniques, talking to countless actors and directors, and basically trying to get everything that was known on the table, to see if I could find a pattern.

And boy, is there a pattern. There is a way to understand all of this that is actually quite simple, even if the explanation itself takes forever. There is a pattern that leaves me wondering how everyone missed something so obvious, because it's right there.

Feeling more confident, I rebooted the project with the stated purpose that the goal was to test everything, get hundreds of actors involved, set my personal beliefs aside, and just find out what the truth is, whatever it is.

Even as shooting started, I wasn't necessary settled. The goal was simply to test techniques and communication forms individually to find out what actually works and what is superstition. There were many approaches that I personally believed in that just fell completely flat. There was other approaches that seemed minor, that turned out to be massively important, and almost universal among actors. I would be very surprised if you can find a single technique that isn't rigorously tested in the course.

As part of this, I think I can safely say I've done the most intimidating thing a director has ever done. I've been filmed directing for MONTHS, I've been debriefing with countless actors, sitting with them looking through video of me directing them and taking criticism, discussing what it was like when I said this or that. Basically, a full-on rectal exam.

The assumption of this project is that everybody is right. If someone has had success with a technique, my job isn't to tell them that they didn't. My job is to be a good scientist and come up with a model that explains it and makes all the pieces fit together in a simple way. I had to abandon significant parts of what I believed. At the same time, I got massive confirmation of intuitions I had initially brushed off because I had been taught otherwise.

So the ambition of the course isn't to do this my way, the ambition is to attempt to integrate all of these seemingly different traditions on the assumption that there has to be something that binds them together, or so many people couldn't all be right in each their own way. And I believe there is. It isn't a single truth. It accommodates that actors are different, but different in specific, non-mysterious ways. And it accommodates that acting is to a large extent not controllable, but triggerable, meaning that this is more about the mental environment than actually controlling the acting. And everyone has different triggers. You have to work in a way that doesn't assume that two people have the same frame of reference.

But the point is that if this ever becomes "The Per Holmes Method Of Directing", then in some way I will feel that I have failed. The ambition is to make something bigger than that. I don't know that it's possible to completely get rid of my personal biases about what technique ought to work, but I am at least consciously trying to. When the course is assertive, it's done this way to clearly state what it believes in a way that you should be able to test and verify or disprove.

I hope this helps explain where I'm coming from.

Cheers,

Per
 
stip said:
While you're certainly having a point here, it's a lot easier to say that for someone living in LA than someone in a part of the world where these workshops are hard to find at all :)
Click to expand...

This is not meant to sound snarky, but if you're serious, and I mean serious about this craft, then you should move to a place that allows you to pursue it to the fullest. That could be NY, LA, Michigan, Atlanta, wherever.
I live in LA, and I'm surrounded by people who have moved here from around the world. Some stay for a season, some a year, and some, like me, for life.
 
david_p said:
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
Click to expand...

The best material I have seen on this topic. The complexity of acting and directing is broken down into meaningful pieces to be more easily absorbed. Learned a lot just from watching a few of the free clips. Might buy this down the road at some point. Very useful for directors and actors.
 
perholmes said:
Hi Bill,

Thanks for your post. Directing Actors is slightly different kind of effort than I believe you to assume it is. This project is essentially a reboot grown out frustration with the fragmentation left behind by many/most acting and directing teachers. This is my chief criticism at how others have approached this, that many have been too eager to partition what should have been a unified whole into a hundred seemingly different approaches each carrying their name and brand. There is massive commonality between all of these traditions, but you wouldn't know it. I feel that a large part of why this subject is hard for so many people is the territoriality of the teachers.

If you study the laws of physics, this has been reduced to a standard model that contains almost everything and is incredibly simple. Yet this same pressure to unify doesn't appear in acting and directing. Instead, people are in my observation making everything more complicated and incomprehensible by dividing this skill up, claiming that their small corner of it is the whole truth.

I originally was supposed to do this project with several of the leading acting/directing gurus. I had completely accepted that I wasn't the expert. You've mentioned some of their names, but it's not fair for me to name them.

But what I found was a shocking lack of curiosity. The relationships eventually broke because I was asking too many questions. As I kept probing them, they got really annoyed because I was confronting logical inconsistencies in their "method". They simply weren't interested in anything immediately outside of their brand. I also got the distinct sense that I probably knew better than them, and that actually, their self-imposed tunnel-vision gave them a significant disadvantage.

So that put me back to square one. I should say that I was never bad at working with actors, and I also have a significant background in psychology and personal growth, and media production (music videos, commercials and as a music producer), which means that I've inadvertently spent decades going to all the same places that actors go to.

I gave up on making a course, and I decided to simply see if I could figure it out, and for years, I was collecting techniques, talking to countless actors and directors, and basically trying to get everything that was known on the table, to see if I could find a pattern.

And boy, is there a pattern. There is a way to understand all of this that is actually quite simple, even if the explanation itself takes forever. There is a pattern that leaves me wondering how everyone missed something so obvious, because it's right there.

Feeling more confident, I rebooted the project with the stated purpose that the goal was to test everything, get hundreds of actors involved, set my personal beliefs aside, and just find out what the truth is, whatever it is.

Even as shooting started, I wasn't necessary settled. The goal was simply to test techniques and communication forms individually to find out what actually works and what is superstition. There were many approaches that I personally believed in that just fell completely flat. There was other approaches that seemed minor, that turned out to be massively important, and almost universal among actors. I would be very surprised if you can find a single technique that isn't rigorously tested in the course.

As part of this, I think I can safely say I've done the most intimidating thing a director has ever done. I've been filmed directing for MONTHS, I've been debriefing with countless actors, sitting with them looking through video of me directing them and taking criticism, discussing what it was like when I said this or that. Basically, a full-on rectal exam.

The assumption of this project is that everybody is right. If someone has had success with a technique, my job isn't to tell them that they didn't. My job is to be a good scientist and come up with a model that explains it and makes all the pieces fit together in a simple way. I had to abandon significant parts of what I believed. At the same time, I got massive confirmation of intuitions I had initially brushed off because I had been taught otherwise.

So the ambition of the course isn't to do this my way, the ambition is to attempt to integrate all of these seemingly different traditions on the assumption that there has to be something that binds them together, or so many people couldn't all be right in each their own way. And I believe there is. It isn't a single truth. It accommodates that actors are different, but different in specific, non-mysterious ways. And it accommodates that acting is to a large extent not controllable, but triggerable, meaning that this is more about the mental environment than actually controlling the acting. And everyone has different triggers. You have to work in a way that doesn't assume that two people have the same frame of reference.

But the point is that if this ever becomes "The Per Holmes Method Of Directing", then in some way I will feel that I have failed. The ambition is to make something bigger than that. I don't know that it's possible to completely get rid of my personal biases about what technique ought to work, but I am at least consciously trying to. When the course is assertive, it's done this way to clearly state what it believes in a way that you should be able to test and verify or disprove.

I hope this helps explain where I'm coming from.

Cheers,

Per
Click to expand...

This is the best course I have seen on the relationship between actor and director. I have gained a much better perspective on the world of actors and what they are experiencing. This would be valuable information for any level of film making or video production.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top