Directing Non-Actors...

Re: Directing Non-Actors...

"I never said all actors are cattle; what I said was all actors should be treated like cattle."

-Alfred Hitchcock

Ingrid Bergman, triying to make Hitchcock help her understand the motivation for the feelings of her character told Hitchcock:


I dont feel like that, I dont think
I can give you that kind of emotion

and Hitchcock replied:

Ingrid -- Fake It

To anthony Perkins: Don't wory Tony, it's only a movie

When an actress asked Hitchcock if her right or left profile was better, he told her, "My dear, you're sitting on your best profile."
 
Re: Directing Non-Actors...

either you have it or not,,,no matter how much you try to rehearse...if the actors dont have it, then they will never have it...get real actors.......
 
Re: Directing Non-Actors...

I'd actually tend to disagree, gearman. Actors, both professional and not, all need sufficient direction to give a good performance. Professionals obviously tend to do a better job, but with great direction you can get a relatively decent performance from a non-actor. They may not have that 'quality' that the best professionals have, but they'll get the job done.
 
Re: Directing Non-Actors...

[quote author=gearman link=board=Directing;num=1085259481;start=15#23 date=05/30/04 at 12:16:48]either you have it or not,,,no matter how much you try to rehearse...if the actors dont have it, then they will never have it...get real actors.......[/quote]

Even "real actors" have to start somewhere; Keisha Castle-Hughes was terrific in "Whale Rider," for example, but she'd never acted before. The lead actor in "Bicycle Thief" was ostensibly an amateur, and IMHO, that's one of the greatest movies ever made.

Still, I do agree that in some cases, someone who's uncomfortable or wooden in front of the camera, may just not have it in them to ever appear natural, no matter how much you try to mold their performance through direction and editing, and it winds up being a waste of your time and effort if you cast them.

Ideally, you discover this before you shoot. If not, you end with Jake Lloyd's performance in "The Phantom Menace."
 
Re: Directing Non-Actors...

[quote author=Stas_Tagios link=board=Directing;num=1085259481;start=15#25 date=05/30/04 at 22:58:29]

The lead actor in "Bicycle Thief" was ostensibly an amateur, and IMHO, that's one of the greatest movies ever made.
[/quote]

??? :P :-/ :-X :-X :-X :-X :-*

Will . . . not . . . go . . . off . . . topic!!!!    :D

But other than that, Stas, good post!
 
Re: Directing Non-Actors...

[quote author=Stas_Tagios link=board=Directing;num=1085259481;start=15#25 date=05/30/04 at 22:58:29]
If not, you end with Jake Lloyd's performance in "The Phantom Menace."[/quote]

Er... I don't know if Jake Lloyd can act or not. But if he survived the audition process for that role, the odds are that he's a very good little actor. But you've got to look at that film and see some other terrible performances: Sam Jackson... Natalie Portman... these are incredible actors who ended up on camera with lousy performances. Is it the actor? Or is there perhaps a common thread -- the director? After watching Natalie Portman in "The Professional", I refuse to believe that the "Queen Amidala" thing is her fault. That lady can act. And so can Samuel L. Jackson. I think George might have more to do with the quality of Jake Lloyd's performance than even Jake did.
 
Re: Directing Non-Actors...

I never thought of it that way, Barry...Jake Lloyd *did* beat out all those kids in the auditions...so he must have been at *least* better than most of them...

All the actors gave quite wooden performances, you noted Portman and Jackson....what about Liam Neeson and Ewan McGregor. They're awesome, too, but seem bored in Star Wars...poor Georgie :P
 
Re: Directing Non-Actors...

Well, it's hard to give more than wooden performances when termites could have a feast on the dialogue.

The sad thing is, the first ten minutes of Phantom Menace kicked ass -- right up to when Qui-Gon and Obi Wan ran like little girls in the face of robots with (gasp!) shields. At that moment, the Star Wars franchise began a snowball roll that continues to this day.
 
Re: Directing Non-Actors...

Well, it's hard to give more than wooden performances when termites could have a feast on the dialogue.
Click to expand...

True...

The sad thing is, the first ten minutes of Phantom Menace kicked ass -- right up to when Qui-Gon and Obi Wan ran like little girls in the face of robots with (gasp!) shields.  At that moment, the Star Wars franchise began a snowball roll that continues to this day.
Click to expand...

...And True!
 
Re: Directing Non-Actors...

Okay, granted, Lucas is primarily to blame for the suckiness of TPM, from the horrible writing to the stilted performances. And it's hard to imagine anyone being able to deliver the film's tin-eared dialogue well. As for Jake Lloyd, perhaps judging his acting ability from TPM may not be entirely fair, but take a look at his audition footage on the TPM dvd... not too good.

Still, Lucas is ultimately at fault, since he chose the actors. Perhaps because actors are in front of the camera, they take much of the blame for turning in a weak performance, when it's just as much, if not more, the director's fault for casting either a bad actor or miscasting a good actor.
 
Re: Directing Non-Actors...

It definitely is the director's fault as much as it is the actor's themselves. Unless of course the producer forced the director to cast someone, which could also make for a mis-cast part.

But I stick to the fact that even a mediocre actor can give a good performance with great direction.
 
Re: Directing Non-Actors...

In my experience there are basically three camps: there's real actors, there's non-actors, and then there's the middle ground, those who want to be actors.

Real actors are absolute gold.  Nothing ruins an independent movie quite as quickly as bad acting.  Real actors (who have been properly directed and given the right material to work with) are just magic.

Next in line are the non-actors.  These guys can give tremendous performances.  The key is, they have to already be the character.  Don't ask them to be something they're not.  Put them in a situation on camera that they face in real life, and they can do just fine.  Ask 'em to step outside that, and they'll flop.

The worst of the bunch is the wanna-be actor, who wants to ACT.  You can see these guys coming from a mile away, they "get into character" and put on this mask of anonymity and try to control their inflection and the pacing of their speech to deliver the most impact... blah blah blah.  It comes off canned and fake, because that's what it is.  Fake.  Real actors can put themselves into the role so deeply that they become what they're saying.  Non-actors actually ARE that role.  But the wanna-be actor, who wants to give a "performance" -- that's what you need to stay away from.  You'd have to be a magician to get a believable on-screen character from someone trying to "act".
 
Re: Directing Non-Actors...

[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=Directing;num=1085259481;start=30#33 date=06/01/04 at 10:13:35]

The worst of the bunch is the wanna-be actor, who wants to ACT.  You can see these guys coming from a mile away, they "get into character" and put on this mask of anonymity and try to control their inflection and the pacing of their speech to deliver the most impact... blah blah blah.  It comes off canned and fake, because that's what it is.  Fake.  Real actors can put themselves into the role so deeply that they become what they're saying.  Non-actors actually ARE that role.  But the wanna-be actor, who wants to give a "performance" -- that's what you need to stay away from.  You'd have to be a magician to get a believable on-screen character from someone trying to "act".[/quote]

*cough* Quentin Tarantino *cough*
 
Re: Directing Non-Actors...

barry ..that post was DEAD ON.. absolutely gold.
david.. lol actually so was yours..bwahahahaha :)
 
Re: Directing Non-Actors...

I would humbly suggest reading "On Directing Film" by David Mamet.

here it is.

It's a fast, short read and it'll give you an amazing new sense of how simply you can get good performances!
 
Re: Directing Non-Actors...

[quote author=Mike_Donis link=board=Directing;num=1085259481;start=15#24 date=05/30/04 at 13:12:08]I'd actually tend to disagree, gearman.  Actors, both professional and not, all need sufficient direction to give a good performance.  Professionals obviously tend to do a better job, but with great direction you can get a relatively decent performance from a non-actor.  They may not have that 'quality' that the best professionals have, but they'll get the job done.[/quote]

I will respectfully disagree -- saying that actors all need sufficient direction is like saying the DP needs a lesson in gels for every job. The amount of direction required, especially for experienced actors, is entirely dependent on the script.

How do you define "great direction" when it comes to the actor? I have my ideas from the actor's point-of-view, but I'd love to know what a director thinks "good directing" vis-a-vis the actor is.

In my opinion, most directors think they know something about acting but haven't got a clue. The reason -- as I've stated before -- is that nearly all of the actor's work happens away from the set. This is where a great director shows him/herself: by discussing the script with the actor so that the result is known before our process starts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top