Directing Actors

October Black

October Black

Well-known member
Directing Actors by Judith Weston:

Who else loves this book?

I just finished flipping through it while writing a blog post about directing. I learn something new every time I open it.

If anyone wants to read it. The blog post is here
 
Great Book. Great Lady. I took her Directing Actors class in Los Angeles which turned out to be an Acting for Directors class. It was fantastic and humbling.
 
IMHO it is a close to a must read as it gets for anyone interested in directing, and highly recommended for everyone else on the set, particularly actors.

Four out of four big shiny stars...
 
I've been reading it the last week or so. I can see how a director can get confused by her method.. to the point of being afraid to say anything at all to the actor in fear of taking the actor out of the zone. I mean it's a great book with intense insite.. but at a certain point the director has to just trust that an actor can be pro enough to navigate the direction he/she gets..to try to understand what the director really wants verus what the director says.
 
I think this is true at the Hollywood level. Indie directors need to give as much as they can to help their actors. It's hard work breaking a script down into playable direction. But in the end it's well worth that extra effort. Also, sometimes saying nothing is the correct choice.

If you have friends that are actors, talk to them about the process. It's a very different world from ours.
 
Last edited:
This is a great book. I've read it and there are many things to learn from it. The key is to study the techniques and find out what works for you so you can ultimately form your own style. I highly recommend the book.
 
Thanks for posting this! Have been meaning to order and read this book-but out of sight, out of mind.
Your post reminded me to get it, and I've been reading-I love it!
 
Good to see this thread brought back to life. I read the book, and took a similar class on directing actors by a different instructor that was eye opening. I keep saying I'm going to take one of her workshops...

There are two marks that usually make poor indie filmmaking stand out: Weak writing, and poor acting (which is often really poor directing of actors). To quote the late Richard Marquand, "Many directors direct cameras, I'm most interested in directing actors."
 
snowleopard said:
There are two marks that usually make poor indie filmmaking stand out: Weak writing, and poor acting (which is often really poor directing of actors).
Click to expand...

Agreed, 100%. And as far as I'm concerned, it actually represents a real opening for indie filmmakers. Just do the following:

-Start with a *great* story/script (and don't go into production unless/until you have it)
-Cast indie actors for ability (as opposed to mistake #1 - casting for looks)
-Direct according to Ms Weston's guidelines (or the like - to greatly oversimplify, speak to the *inside experience* of the character, and use result-oriented direction *only when all else fails*).

Contrary to the way it's all too often approached, the technical side is quite possibly the *least* important consideration next to the above list, the exception being sound, simply because unlike the visual, it's far too often badly botched. Acceptable cinematography is much more commonplace in (especially micro-) indies than good writing/directing/acting.

An indie filmmaker who gets the above priorities right will start out ahead of about 98% of his competitors.

The work of almost every filmmaker who has graduated from micro-indie to major-feature status will serve to prove this point.

My $.02
 
I like to show aspiring directors this scene from In The Company of Men. A highly acclaimed film. What makes it work? Not the lighting (flat). Not the camera movement (it's on sticks, with only minor panning), it's not film movement from 24fps, film stock (Cinegamma), nor shallow DOF (it has plenty of DOF). The entire film is shot this way actually. It's none of that.

It's the acting, and directing.

The film made numerous top-10 lists for that year, including #4 by the late Gene Siskel.

If that film is too old for you, just to back to Michael Clayton from 2007. While it's sublimely lit, and has nice design and costumes, and there are a few tricky Steadicam and tracking shots, much of the film is shot very straight forward, where the actors are allowed to act out great characters and delivery greatly written dialog to move a superb story forward. That's what make this film work (nominated for Best Picture).

Michael Clayton - Clip 1

Michael Clayton - Clip 2
 
Michael Clayton is in my Top 10. Love that movie!

I fall in love with movies the fastest when the acting is strong. A movie can lose me in a matter of moments if the acting is bad, even if the cinematography and story are brilliant. The live action portrayal of a character is probably the thing we identify with in a movie the quickest - we buy dramatic lighting, fantastic sets, and impossible camera angles, but the acting, I think, has to be the most believable.

The thing is, it's sometimes hard to tell who is at fault when the acting is bad - the director or the actors...or both. There are movies that fail in all departments when they had a big, strong cast, and there are films with brilliant directors making the most of what they have and creating something strong.

I've never aspired to be a director, but it's sucking me in a little more every day now because its so conjoined with acting - something I've always wanted to be able to do but can't. I noticed I've started studying my favorite movies, trying to imagine what the director was thinking, what and how he was communicating to the actors, and what I would do differently.

I think I might have to check out this book. I do have a class in directing actors this spring, too.
 
jscottprice said:
The thing is, it's sometimes hard to tell who is at fault when the acting is bad - the director or the actors...or both.
Click to expand...

It's ALWAYS the director's fault...for either not working the scene hard enough, or not getting the script right, or for casting the wrong actor in the part. I suppose you could have a situation where you were forced to cast somebody you didn't want, but a clever director would then have the script adjusted to that actor. A great story is Coppola on The Godfather, he cast this actor to play Luca Brasi, big hulking guy who fit the part he needed. On the day of his scene with Marlon Brando, he was so intensely nervious he could barely deliver his lines. Coppola realized he'd never make the scene work as is, so he shot a scene to go right before it of the actor in character reciting his lines, as if he was nervous about what he was going to say to the Godfather.
 
The book is incomplete without attending her workshops. Our generation missed out on things like the actor's studio, at least we can participate in something as tangible as Judith's classes that demystify the directing process.
 
I'm someone who has no clue what I'm doing and decided to get into filmmaking about three years ago. Learned a lot of stuff and finally got to the point where I needed to learn to direct. I read her book and was quite surprised at her 10 don'ts in the beginning because I thought that's exactly how direction was done.

I've gotten a lot of compliments from actors who are tired of directors telling them to "be more emotional". I think my main stregth as a director is that I never learned to do it the tradtional way, just the Judith way. Her method of auditioning is really nice because it gives you a chance to surprise and showoff to potential actors who are used to the "dreamlover" approach to auditions.
 
The thing I want to add here is that you can't simply rely on great performances and writing either. One of the greatest, if not THE greatest director of all of cinema, Robert Bresson, approached acting in a completely different way than most modern directors consider. In fact, he tried to completely remove the actor's performance from his films:

Watch these 10 minutes from Pickpocket, it contains one of the most riveting sequences in all of cinema and some of the "strangest" acting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEn7A9Er9_8&feature=related

Or this absolutely haunting scene from his film Au Hasard Balthazar, where the only actors are animals:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC2PseaQyNU

What's important here isn't the writing or acting, it's the way he approaches cinema and how he realizes his vision. Through sound, editing, composition, camera movement, shot choice. It's not any one thing, and important to keep in mind.

Here is another example of great filmmaking that only relies on a single voice actor, the beginning of Chris Marker's San Soleil:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKOJUgTqFtY

If you want great performance examples though, look at Cassevetes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJcZFFh3fUU

Or Bergman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUK3JPdrR8Y

Or Carl Theodor Dreyer (HINT: TURN THE SOUND OFF ON THIS CLIP):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmYinywnqt4&feature=related


Notice how each director approaches his vision of filmmaking. Some rely on performance but care little about lighting and sound effects. Some rely on editing. Some rely on every single device cinema has to offer to bring their vision together.

My point is, there is no one set way to direct actors or how to make your movie. I know this is an advice thread, but I'd be weary of anybody telling you "this is how it should be done". There are infinite ways to do it, and you should only follow what feels right for your vision.

You may have great performances in your film, but if they don't fit the overall vision, it'll stick out in a bad way. Much like putting a shot in because it looks "Cool" or "beautiful". One of the ways I usually evaluate a film is I ask "Would this still be the same thing if it was a play instead of a movie?" You shouldn't simply film a play. Your film's acting should be unique to the medium, there should be some reason we're viewing it in the cinema instead of watching it on the stage...and I mean that with the utmost respect for stage acting. But stage acting should be separated from cinema acting. Because you can probably save quite a bit of cash that way, for one thing.



PS> I'm not advocating you watch any of those films in their entirety on youtube. That would be AWFUL. All are available in great DVD editions to rent on Netflix.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for posting those. I haven't seen A Woman Under the Influence in a long time. What a powerful, gut wrenching film. Most people know Cassavetes as an actor, but what a masterful director he was with actors.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top