Directing style?

Azmyth

Azmyth

Veteran
Is it against rules to "act" out scenes for actors.. for example, when describing a scene or how you want the actor to portray said character in scene, is it bad to "mimmick" yourself the way you want that character to react so that the actor can "see" it? I've never really done this but was told by another director friend of mine that this was one of the biggest signs of a poor director, if he's unable to give direction without "showing" the actor what to do by acting it out himself for them.
 
I would say in almost all circumstances, acting it out or giving a line reading is the wrong direction.

However, there are exceptions for everything, and if it is the only way to get the actor to do what you want, then it's the right thing to do. Usually, though, it will only work once. The performance will likely get very stale after 1 take, if it survives that. The Actor isn't trying to be a character; they're trying to be you and in a very specific, artificial, result-oriented way. It also puts a great deal of stress on the Actor to "nail it" on that reaction you just showed them you want; and if this is the kind of Actor that needs you to act it out for them, then they are likely going to be even more distracted and come off even more fake.

I think the question Directors need to ask of themselves when they feel compelled to give a line reading or act it out, "What is it I want from this performance?" If it's something like "to make the audience laugh," then there are so many more options, and one should explore them with the Actor. If it's to "to make the audience sympathize when he says this certain line," then it's down to the technical side of performance directing, and one should explore the objective, beats, facts, and actions of the scene. For example, a line said on or just after a major beat change could make the audience sympathize - like, if the Actor is talking about something that has made them upset, and then they chuckle when they deliver the last line, the contrast in emotion - from upset to laughing - and the contrast in the dialogue compared to the actor's performance - something upsetting said while laughing - could generate that sympathy.

The Director's vision for the scene should be at the forefront, but there should be room to play for the Actors. If one has to show the Actor how to act, then there's likely a problem with the fundamentals of the scene's direction, and it could also mean the Director doesn't have a clear vision and is relying on the movie he or she sees in their head to direct the scene instead of the Director's tools - the script, imagination, verbs, images, facts, backstory, and - most importantly - the Actors.
 
typically the director needs to have the power of "direction", echem, i mean, a director needs to be articulate and intelligent to get his or her point across. hence why knowing technical and acting lingo is so important for a director and why so many amateur directors fall on their face..

that being said a director isn't expected to be an acting expert, and thats why many have an acting coach on set to act as the intermediate.
 
Jordan Scott Price said:
The Director's vision for the scene should be at the forefront, but there should be room to play for the Actors.
Click to expand...
You either got it, or not. You can't really develop that. I don't think though. About the room for actors, I don't remember which director usually let the actors the liberty to act like "how they feel" the scene. It's like carte blanche acting. I don't know if there's many directors that work that way, but I think if an actor is really "in" the role, it can work even better than how the director is seeing it. Both can be good, but each situation's different.
Paul Hudson said:
Not considered good form but with untrained and new actors it may be the only way to do it.
Click to expand...
That's another point! Trained actors don't share the same knowledge as anybody else. I think it's the best advice Az.
imdjay said:
a director needs to be articulate and intelligent to get his or her point across. hence why knowing technical and acting lingo is so important for a director and why so many amateur directors fall on their face.
Click to expand...
That's for sure. Like I said, you're meant to do it, or not. If you can't express yourself so others understand clearly what you want, then there's a big issue in your direction. You can visualize it like no others, but if everyone else don't see things like you...no big deal.
 
drapeama said:
You either got it, or not. You can't really develop that. I don't think though. About the room for actors, I don't remember which director usually let the actors the liberty to act like "how they feel" the scene. It's like carte blanche acting. I don't know if there's many directors that work that way, but I think if an actor is really "in" the role, it can work even better than how the director is seeing it. Both can be good, but each situation's different.
Click to expand...

Right. I'm not saying "there should be no bounds for the Actors, and they should do as they please." My point is that there should be freedom for the Actors to explore the scene and provide their own input. They should challenge the Director - in a constructive way - that makes both the Director and Actor work harder, which will strengthen the scene.

I think the need for a Director to "act out" how he/she wants the Actor to perform comes from his/her reluctance to give the Actors freedom - that Director is probably glued to a very specific idea of how the Actor should react on this line and what facial expression the Actor should have when that happens, etc. It leaves no room for the Actors to create freely, which often means a dull performance - at least, duller than it could have been.

The Director should understand the scene and the characters deeply and fully, but he/she should also be open to the Actors' input, making room to be surprised.
 
imdjay said:
...a director isn't expected to be an acting expert...
Click to expand...

Disagree completely with that. Directing the actors is 90% of the directors' job, they very much need to be an expert in the craft.

Acting coaches are never on the callsheet or crew list - they are brought in only by weak actors. They should NEVER act as a communication link between director and talent.

Look at the ratio of directors who are former actors versus ANY other background. Acting is the one thing directors DO need to be experts in, unless you are shooting a car commercial.
 
nothing said:
Disagree completely with that. Directing the actors is 90% of the directors' job, they very much need to be an expert in the craft.

Acting coaches are never on the callsheet or crew list - they are brought in only by weak actors. They should NEVER act as a communication link between director and talent.

Look at the ratio of directors who are former actors versus ANY other background. Acting is the one thing directors DO need to be experts in, unless you are shooting a car commercial.
Click to expand...

When it comes to directing for film, I would say directing the Actors is less than 90% of the job. There are plenty of successful film Directors who are more visual artists and not really Actors' Directors. David Lynch comes to mind. Performances in his films can be extremely robotic and unbelievable, but his shots and design tend to be pretty compelling. Then there are some Directors who are all about the performances - e.g., David Mamet.

There are a ton of accomplished Directors who are also former DP's, too - e.g., Barry Sonnenfeld.

A good Director should understand how to design his shots as well as direct his Actors, but some Directors are stronger in one or the other area.

And acting coaches aren't just to pick up a weak Director's or weak Actor's slack. An acting coach named Maria Fatima Toledo was brought in for the film Lower City - a film about a love triangle - to work with the top 3 billed Actors. She ran intensive exercises with the Actors to prepare them. The Director couldn't be there because the timeline of the film demanded he be out of town a lot on location scouts, so he brought in an accomplished acting coach. By the first day of principal, the Actors were ready, and the Director took over.
 
There are so many problems created by a director attempting to act out what s/he wants from the actor that it is best left to the last of the last resorts, and even then it often fails badly. Fundamentally it creates an imitative performance that is thus inherently the opposite of an intuitive one. In other words, definitively fake.

The best results I've gotten with directlng actors (when direction is necessary, and it isn't always) has come from helping them understand the situation they're in, in considerable detail. Like: "you *must* get (what looks to be) the girl of your dreams' phone number, but you're traveling to an incredibly important meeting on a train and your stop comes up in 4 minutes". If the actor's performance is too flat, remind him of the stakes in the situation *as if it were real*. Get the actor into the imagined reality and (if you've got a decent actor)...presto...out comes the right performance. Telling him to play it "more urgently" is one level of bad directing, but acting/demonstrating the desired level of urgency yourself brings it to an entirely new level of badness. Not that it can't *ever* work...it can...but it should be avoided at all costs.

If you haven't already done so, please do yourself a huge favor and read Judith Weston's great book "Directing Actors". It is the closest thing to an acting Bible I know of, and many very knowledgeable people agree. You'll find much of the same advice I and others have mentioned here and a lot more, very comprehensively explained and illustrated. IMHO it's one of the smartest (and cheapest) investments in directing ability, not to mention filmmaking in general, that anyone could ever make.
 
Last edited:
nothing said:
Disagree completely with that. Directing the actors is 90% of the directors' job, they very much need to be an expert in the craft.
Click to expand...

Agreed, unless you're stipulating that directors must be great actors themselves (which I don't think you are). Many of the greatest directors ever weren't/aren't good actors. But they do know how to direct actors' performances very effectively, which is a different skill.
 
Ted Spencer said:
Agreed, unless you're stipulating that directors must be great actors themselves (which I don't think you are). Many of the greatest directors ever weren't/aren't good actors. But they do know how to direct actors' performances very effectively, which is a different skill.
Click to expand...

I bought "Midnight in Paris"(2011), after many years of not buying Woody Allen's films, or even watching many... just watching the trailers would put me off... but everyone claims Allen has 'changed'... well for me that's not true...

But despite my dislike for Allen's nonfunny stuff... there were several useful things to watch for in his films. Long takes. Monosound... both allow for a much 'cheaper' production than the fast cut, 5.1 sound, that is so popular these days. In that regard the no/low budget filmmaker can take note.

But on the single 'special feature', a group interview at Cannes, I believe, Owen Wilson made the statement that Allen allows for quite a bit of 'freedom' in how a scene goes. I interpret that as, Allen may write a scene, dialog, but really does not take that as cast in concrete, and does allow for more leaway. I don't think the 'improv' is done while the cameras are rolling, but perhaps because he's Woody, the actors make more time available to do some sort of improv rehearsals.

Some people say rehearsals 'kill' a performance, but then again, others may find it beneficial if the script is just a guide.

-----
Of the three films that I've watched recently that do 'historical revision/fantasy', I've liked "Hugo"(2011), "Inglorious Basterds"(2009), but did not like the results in "Midnight In Paris".
All of them have some amount of 'film history', but just some how the 'lecture' from Scorsese and Tarantino came off better than Allen's.
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
Some people say rehearsals 'kill' a performance, but then again, others may find it beneficial if the script is just a guide.
Click to expand...

Only if it's done wrong. If the purpose of a rehearsal is to get the Actors to repeat a scene ad infinitum until they have memorized every emotional cue and every bit of forced blocking and every syllable of dialogue, then the performances have been killed. If the purpose of the rehearsal is to create a trust between the Director and Actors, to foster an environment of creativity and new ideas, and to get the Actors more comfortable with one another and with the Director, then the performances will stay fresh.

One of the single most important things I've walked away with after reading Weston's Directing Actors was the fact that principal shooting is just a continuation of rehearsal. Everything is rehearsal, from the first time you and the cast meet and go over lines through the martini. It keeps it fresh and allows for some wonderful options in post. And this generally relieves the tension and engenders a fun, energetic environment on set, which everyone feeds off of - it's practically tangible.
 
Some thoughts.

Some thoughts.

j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
I bought "Midnight in Paris"(2011), after many years of not buying Woody Allen's films, or even watching many... just watching the trailers would put me off... but everyone claims Allen has 'changed'... well for me that's not true...

Of the three films that I've watched recently that do 'historical revision/fantasy', I've liked "Hugo"(2011), "Inglorious Basterds"(2009), but did not like the results in "Midnight In Paris".
All of them have some amount of 'film history', but just some how the 'lecture' from Scorsese and Tarantino came off better than Allen's.
Click to expand...

I hear you, but personally, Allen's style is what makes him interesting to me.

Allen is famous for dialogue. Many actors have commented on how he writes lines and then criticizes the actor for not changing them off-the-cuff. For Woody, making it impactful, funny or witty is more important than reciting it by rote. I believe it was Diane Keaton who used to say it was what made his films so challenging for Actors.

If you look at the Star Wars prequels, you'll get a great example of the difference between self-directed vs line-read acting. We know from Life as a House and Shattered Glass that Hayden Christiansen can act. But in Star Wars, he was absolutely wretched as Anakin. (big disappointment over here). But Ewan McGregor, in usual form, was AMAZING. Natalie Portman also amazing. Liam Neeson left a little to be desired, which is a shame for the man who played Oskar Schindler and so many other amazing roles.

From my experience acting and directing, I believe that bad acting happens when the actor is either "in their head" or misdirected. The director must understand how to make his direction come viscerally or "from the gut".

I've found, when I was studying acting in college, that the single most useful tools for directing actors were these:

1. Use 'verbs' instead of line-reads. Instead of saying "here, like this..." say "I need you to _______ [your scene partner]. Really ____________ her/him."

I always make it a point, when it's important, to repeat the verb twice so that it comes to the forefront of the actor's mind in the take. If the actor can condense the energy (you might say "motivation", though don't use that word - some actors consider it taboo) of the action into a single verb, it's easier to accomplish without "getting in their head" which is when you see "bad acting".

For example:
"I really need you to punch him with that dialogue. Punch him with the words until he feels it."

"I'm not feeling you sinking in this take. You're sinking from the emptiness in the room. It's like your empty life and drowning you in a sea of boredom. Sink."

2. Refer to the actor in-character. In brief: instead of "your character thinks", say "you feel..." and address them by their character's first name. It may seem simple, but treating the actor like they are the character can help you both to show respect for their craft. That makes them feel like "this guy takes me seriously, I better not disappoint him". Overall, make sure they feel that you put pressure on their performance being genuine and even non-actors will rise to the occasion.

3. Acting is Reacting. Shakespeare said: "All the World's a stage, and the people, merely players." Even if it's through the fourth wall, everyone has a scene partner - someone they are reacting to or getting to react. Everyone who has borrowed their Dad's car has acted. Everyone who has sold something, has acted. Everyone who has gone on a first date has acted. Reciting lines should be so well-memorized that it's mechanical, brainless. Treat people like they are actors and if they take you seriously, they are actors.

4. Use obstacles/objectives. Acting is being in the moment and getting what you want or trying really hard but ultimately not getting what you want. Either way is fine, because it's the trying and the reacting to the success or failure of trying that is "drama". Getting/not-getting what you want is something everyone understands. Along with verbs, obstacles are the best way to keep the action well-defined.

Example:
"Your objective is to get those keys from him. He can't go anywhere and get himself back into the same trouble without those keys. Get those keys if you have to dig them out of his pocket. Your obstacle is his suspicion. You must get those keys without him suspecting that that's what you're going to do until you strike and get those keys."

Turn to the scene partner: "These keys are your lifeline. Don't you dare let him get these keys!"

5. Require commitment. Being in-your-head is obvious when something is done half-assed. We'll just skip to examples, here.

examples:
"You get out that door! He will stop you. But get your ass out that door, whatever it takes. Don't stop for him. Make him stop you."

"Why do you let her talk over you? You're the parent! The two of you have a lifetime of you telling her what to do or not to do. She doesn't get to talk over her own parent!"

6. Give "stage direction" in as concise and friendly a way as possible. This one was learned by experience. The more you talk, the more they have to "think" in the take. Make it as brief and direct as possible. I usually "sandwich" stage direction between ego boosts.

Examples:
"Jeff: great stuff, man! I love it right up to where you walk out-of frame. Oops. Do me a favor and don't go past this mark. Otherwise, just like that again, it's perfect."

"Cindy: your face is giving me exactly what I want. Unfortunately, I can't see it because you're moving too much. Plant these feet in concrete up to your hips, okay? Then give me just like that, again."

Anyway, I hope that's helpful to someone. I find them to be real tools, and not the fluff that they're often mistaken for.
 
Ted Spencer said:
There are so many problems created by a director attempting to act out what s/he wants from the actor that it is best left to the last of the last resorts,
Click to expand...

Agreed. But if it is your last resort - better do it before the actors that are skilled can start to spend more time looking at their wrist watches when the sets held up by someone who's not getting it.
 
Azmyth said:
Is it against rules to "act" out scenes for actors.. for example, when describing a scene or how you want the actor to portray said character in scene, is it bad to "mimmick" yourself the way you want that character to react so that the actor can "see" it? I've never really done this but was told by another director friend of mine that this was one of the biggest signs of a poor director, if he's unable to give direction without "showing" the actor what to do by acting it out himself for them.
Click to expand...

Polanski does that all the time. Watch the behind the scenes of "The Pianist" or read about his directing style.
 
Yeah - you probably want to stay away from that sort of thing. I've never done it. But as Kazan said Directors are desperate creatures "you have to get yer shot." Welles during the filming of catch 22 constantly asked nichols for line readings so its been told. Apparently nichols was brilliant doing it. Weston book is indeed good. Go study acting though. I got out of film school a hundred years ago - and realized i didn't know anything about working with actors. This was made painfully aware during an indy feature i did. I stopped making films for a decade and went to study acting for ten years. I can usually spot when the actor is having a problem but still struggle with how to help them. good luck
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top