Directing Non-Actors...

Re: Directing Non-Actors...

Well, I'd say that it takes great direction to make a truly memorable performance, mostly because the director has to make sure that the performance works perfectly within the film.

For example, it's not usual that every single person has the same idea in regards to how characters interact , be them actors, directors, producers, etc. Because it's his job, the director needs to be able to do what is neccesary to get the best performance out of the actor. If an actor is, without being told what to do, doing a perfect job that follows the director's vision, then it's the job of the director to make SURE that the actor doesn't do anything else. The director would have succeeded by NOT doing anything with that actor...and his job was done well.

Example: Tom Hanks is starring in a movie of mine. Odds are, he's going to give a brilliant performance regardless of what I tell him to do, but if I choose to take the film in the 'wrong' way, and give him bad direction, he'll not be as good neccessarily as he would have. So it would be my job to make sure I didn't interfere...I'm still in charge, but my decision is to let him do what he's doing, so I'm still technically directing.

But putting all that aside, normally, and ESPECIALLY when we're *not* dealing with Tom Hanks, and it's just an average, run-of-the-mill semi-pro actor, he WON'T be insanely brilliant without competent direction. Usually, these actors AREN'T something special, because on average, they're just average.

I'm kind of rambling now, but what I'm saying is that I feel directors need to make sure their vision is being played out as they want. If this is happening, regardless of the WAY he's getting what he wants, then all is well. Then it just comes down to whether or not the director is good, because every other aspect, by default, will.

Man I wish I could actually have Tom Hanks in a film of mine :P
 
Re: Directing Non-Actors...

Tom Hanks, like every professional actor, will give a director choices because in life there are many.   The difference between Tom Hanks and what you call "run of the mill" actors is that Tom will bring you many more choices, but probably be headed in the direction you want to go -- this is a product of talent, dedication to his craft, and experience. Of course, if you do get a chance to work with Mr. Hanks he's going to make sure that you know what you're doing by asking you a lot of questions about the story and the characters -- these are questions EVERY actor (who knows what he/she is doing) wants answered. The nice thing about being Tom Hanks is that directors will answer the questions happily; those of us that aren't Tom Hanks don't typically get the same courtesy.

Regardless of the actor's experience, it is the director's job (as you point out) to know where the story and the characters are going.  In another thread [screenwriting, I think] someone made the comment that what's happening is less important than why it's happening.   I absolutely agree with this statement, and believe the director should be able to articulate the why of things for every element of the story. Without "why" less experienced actors tend to play the problem, instead of experience the problem truthfully (which viewers experience as good acting).

It would be nice if directors would recognize that their on-set life would be easier -- with actors of any caliber -- if they'd communicate "goal" and "why" for story and character early in the process.  I worked with a director once who wounldn't answer my questions before we shot -- and on set I was forced to ask because logical human behavior could allow the character to go in two wildly different directions (this was a supporting character, so not fleshed out as well as the leads, hence there were fewer [almost none] clues to the characters goals). Thankfully, the director answered my questions on the set and we were both pleased with the results. That said, he could have made my life a little easier by communicating the character's motivation (which is not specific in the script) before we started shooting.

If, as you suggest, directors communicate their vision early getting there will be easier.  That's not to say that direction on set will not be needed or even desired by the actor -- even Tom Hanks (you hire us to fulfill your vision; that's what we want to do).  Sometimes things don't work -- and that goes for every actor, even Tom Hanks.  Experienced actors notice when things arent working; they notice because everything feels like acting and not living.  That's when a good director will work with the actor for move the scene in a direction that does work, and remains consistent with the goals of the project.

Yes, I would love to work with Tom Hanks too -- it's on my "things I want to do someday" list. ;D
 
Re: Directing Non-Actors...

I agree with ou mike. Also Agree with you Jonny. And of course I agree with Barry.

Yes, Every actor needs good direction. The director is the leader. He knows what he want and he has the reasons. Some are pretty obvious, some are not, and the last are the things that make some movies more than storytelling (or bad storytelling). Not that storytelling isn't great on itself, but I think movies are a little more than that (very little). And I love them for this little extra.

Every actor needs good directing, because the best of the performances could be ruined by a lousy movie. Not because they don't have the sufficient knowledge to produce a good result by themselves. In fact, a good performance is the one that fits in the movie (kinda like commercials: a good commercial is one the client approves).

But it's not that easy. It's not a puzzle. As soon as you see a film with an actor, it changes from you ideal conception and you also have to adapt. You adapt the actor to the role, but you also adapt the role for the actor. So you need a good actor, to fit in the role, and you need good directing, to make the role "fittable". Not to tell him what you want him to do, but to build a movie as you shoot (and as you rehearse) that will accomplish the same as you envisioned before production.

And actors have one rigid limit to their vision of the movie: they don't see their role in anyone else's skin. Thats a very important bonus we have as directors. To give us parameters to judge and to give us reasons to get someone else.

So everybody is crucial, we can be all happy and feel important and learn not to get snob on anyone.
 
Re: Directing Non-Actors...

[quote author=taubkin link=board=Directing;num=1085259481;start=30#44 date=06/09/04 at 13:49:18]And actors have one rigid limit to their vision of the movie: they don't see their role in anyone else's skin.[/quote]
With respect, I think you're wrong about that -- only egomaniacal actors (and there really aren't that many) see themselves perfect for any role. A real actor will recognize when they don't in fact fit into a role, and work with the director to either make the role fit them better, or bow out.

On a humorous note, I was once called to an audition and I was the only caucasion actor there, everyone else was African-American. Nobody said anything when I signed in, but in the green room somebody looked at me and asked, "Are you sure you're supposed to be here?" I replied, "Yep, my name was on the list -- I guess I'm the 'ringer'." We all had a laugh, but I didn't book that job; I obviously couldn't mold myself to the race requirement of the part.
 
Re: Directing Non-Actors...

Yeah I know what you mean. I'm not trying to offend the acting class by saying they are all egomaniac, in fact actors seem to be very humble in my experience.

But actors don't cast themselves, that's what I mean. That is one very important part of directing (or at least should be) that it's completely up to the director.

On a casting call, you very seldom hear "I think I would be wrong for this part". Not because of ego issues, but simply because generally, they aren't still very tuned on to your artistic intentions while they are applying for the job...
 
Re: Directing Non-Actors...

[quote author=taubkin link=board=Directing;num=1085259481;start=45#46 date=06/10/04 at 20:24:12]On a casting call, you very seldom hear "I think I would be wrong for this part". Not because of ego issues, but simply because generally, they aren't still very tuned on to your artistic intentions while they are applying for the job... [/quote]
Keep in mind that if you've invited an actor to a casting session, then it is YOU who has put them in the running. Perhaps at this stage you're not using a casting director, and if not, then you must be very clear about your character breakdowns when you have open casting sessions. If you don't have a breakdown or are ambiguous, then there is no possible way for an actor to know that he or she is not right; especially since on many projects we only get sides, not the whole script.

This gets back to a point I made early about the director's responsibility to be good communicator. It starts with the casting process.
 
Re: Directing Non-Actors...

[quote author=JonnyMac link=board=Directing;num=1085259481;start=45#47 date=06/10/04 at 20:34:31]
This gets back to a point I made early about the director's responsibility to be good communicator.  It starts with the casting process.[/quote]

Absolutely. We are on the same page, for sure. :)

Not always I get to have a casting call only with people that I find adequate. And that's exactly what I meat. Casting is a hell of an important part of directing.

Especially for me. I tend to cast an actor that I think will work, and let him build his character alone. I usually don't but in. It's fun to see multiple colaborations on the set, and you see the film being built as it goes. I think it's only essential that the director don't let it grow away from it's intended shape, but I'm not into very nerdy directors. Although I can see there are exceptions.

That being sad, I'm not very experienced on it, I'm just a film student who did a couple of little projects for fun...
 
Re: Directing Non-Actors...

Yes we are in agreement; you don't ask actors where to set the camera, so why would we ask you to build our character? That said, we need to know your vision, because our work takes time too. If you're communicating your vision up front (and it seems like you are), you're doing a big service to your actors and I'm betting you have happy experiences on set. I wish more directors had your attitude; most see actors as props that talk....
 
Re: Directing Non-Actors...

Great posts people. There were some really good points, particularly about how to diplomatically tell your actor that they screwed up. I also appreciate how many of you recommend acting to learn how to direct actors...I have done a ton of acting (mostly stage) for the sole purpose of directing. It has made all the difference in the world.

I've discovered that some of the best actors out there are non-actors who think it would be "fun" to be in a movie. On one shoot we found a guy with a really cool car so we cast him. I didn't even meet him until we were on set. He blew me away with his "natural-ness." This can be a risky proposition though...make sure to have an out. Conversely, we had actors from the agency who couldn't act their way out of a paper bag...no lines for them :)

Lesson learned: never bring on cast or crew based on the merit of their resume
 
Re: Directing Non-Actors...

Casting purely based on resume definitely isn't a good idea - you always want to cast people you've met, and people who have a likeable quality in them. There's got to be something that gets you to notice them, something in the way they look, talk, or behave - this will make your movie more interesting, even if nobody knows *why*. All great actors have charisma of some sort, and most of them aren't "perfectly" good looking. The sublte flaws let us know they're still humans, and therefore even more attractive than someone with a perfectly symmetrical face.

Thing is though, most people don't have this quality, and I've found that most professionals do; odds are that you would find that someone with a long and impressive resume likely has this quality, and you won't get that quality from your average joe.
 
Re: Directing Non-Actors...

hey
i'd say if you can try and get actors, go for it. in philadelphia, the film office has a great hotline. i post for free and in return i get about 150 headshots of people willing to work for free. If you want to continue making films it is somethign you should learn to do sooner rather than later. i stalled because i was intimidated and regret it.

i have also had some luck, i think, with non actors. the big trick here is really looking for people who are right for the part, who can communicate your ideas without having to even say the dialog. for my film it took me about 5 months to find those people.

basically - if someone has talent, experience or not, you are halfway there. if they are not comfortable with the camera, you are in trouble and there won't be much you can do to correct it. work with them and do improv and line readings for days before shooting. get them comfortable with each other, with the flow of scenes and the film overall. good luck!
 
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. [/quote]

this is so true! Non actors can be great, but once they these in between people can drive you nuts. They are often divas too and don't realize they need you as much as you need them. grrr.
 
Re: Directing Non-Actors...

Have you guys ever seen a film called "Bicycle thief"? well it was shot with all non actors. Lots of them. the movie is brilliant, simple, and very emotional. was shot in the early 1940's in italy. you will like it. a good and passionate director can turn anyone into a great performer. the problem is with bad directors. they simply shout a command at the actor and when they dont get what they expected, they feel turned off. IF YOU DONT DESCRIBE THE EMOTIONALLY DRIVEN MOMENT TO THE ACTOR YOU WILL GET RESULT DIRECTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
I'm my own actor, so far no success but everytime i watch my work %23 of the time I am amazed at what I can do... All on little to no budget...

tip... Act in your own work if you have real soul and passion, like me

didnt break into mainstream entertainment, still pounding on the door

not 1 soul believes in me,

I feel the hinges of hollywood collapsing because of my natural power
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top