Directing style?

Azmyth said:
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...

If this would be true, Federico Fellini would have been a poor director. But, yes, usually one should not do it and mainly because it can "fence in" creative impulses coming from the actors and, strangely, from the director himself as most "acting out"-directors don't realize how terrible their acting is and - worse - that they may over-look something interesting coming from an actor. As a director needs to balance his own concept of how things should work in an ideal universe, where everything works like he wants (definitely not ours) with this other impulses coming in, he better should seek for good analogies and metaphors to convey what he wants and at the same time give creative impulses the appropriate leeway.

The great Italian theater director and playwright Dario Fo is not imaginable without acting things out himself - but, coming from "commedia dell'arte", his acting out was "inclusive", one step in of getting to how a scene may work - the director co-rehearsing, in a way. So one may "act out" things at times but only if one has the ability to do it, when it is asked for and when it is a process not ending in puppeteering actors. At times so, with extras.... different story.

In the end all this questions will get reduced to one: "What kind of a director do you want to be?"
 
I think we've reached a consensus of disagreement, here. At the end of the day, I stand with those who have said that the rule is not to give the actor line reads but I'm a big believer that the rules are made to be broken. I am known to break the rule of thirds, jump the line, even say the name of the Scottish Play on set (not in earshot of the actors). But this is one that I personally don't break, but as tipota says: "What kind of director do you want to be?"
 
Here's a situation which always comes to mind when I think about this.

The Matrix. Cypher (Joey Pants), when talking about why he has to view the Matrix in base code, while they can watch the Construct in pictures, says "the monitor program works FOR the Construct." Which, to me, doesn't make sense. The stress should be different: "the monitor program works for the CONSTRUCT." Meaning, it works for the Construct and not for the Matrix. It doesn't make sense to stress "for."

As a director, especially if I had written the line and knew what it was supposed to be explaining, I'd have a problem with Joe's delivery. But if nothing else I try could get him to stress the right word, which to me would have been important, what could I do BUT a line read, or at least tell him specifically to stress the correct word?

(It could be that Joe didn't really understand the purpose of the line, and an explanation would take care of it -- but if I couldn't make him get it, what other choice is there?)

Other times, it might not be important at all, but in that situation, it seems to me it is.
 
David Jimerson said:
Here's a situation which always comes to mind when I think about this.

The Matrix. Cypher (Joey Pants), when talking about why he has to view the Matrix in base code, while they can watch the Construct in pictures, says "the monitor program works FOR the Construct." Which, to me, doesn't make sense. The stress should be different: "the monitor program works for the CONSTRUCT." Meaning, it works for the Construct and not for the Matrix. It doesn't make sense to stress "for."

As a director, especially if I had written the line and knew what it was supposed to be explaining, I'd have a problem with Joe's delivery. But if nothing else I try could get him to stress the right word, which to me would have been important, what could I do BUT a line read, or at least tell him specifically to stress the correct word?

Other times, it might not be important at all, but in that situation, it seems to me it is.
Click to expand...

I don't think it would be inappropriate at all to call attention to which word you want stressed. 100% agree. It's not about the specific movie you have running in your head and locking in the Actor to play that part verbatim, but a matter that pertains to the exposition of the story and is necessary for clarity.

It would all be in the wording of the direction - "I think if you're going to stress a word in that line, try stressing the "Construct" part, since the monitor program works for the Construct" and blah blah blah, whatever else you need to say to clarify it for the Actor.

The Matrix was on TV the other day, and all I could think while watching it was, "Man, the Wachowski's are certainly not Actors' Directors..."
 
Right; that is my point. If it's important, and you can't get it any other way, then just do it and move on -- even if you have an established actor. The Ws let that delivery go; I wouldn't have. Better to have an actor annoyed with you for five minutes than have a pooched line in your film forever.

But make sure it's important, and not that you would just do it a different way.

Of course, most of this stuff should be worked out before cameras roll . . .
 
I'd offer an example of the desired distinction using a different line, to prevent the possibility of the actor directly copying me. So in this case I'd say something like:

"Joey, what I'm looking for, in different words, would be like: 'the car runs on diesel', not 'the car runs on diesel'"

It's a small thing, and may seem slightly odd, but:

A) It eliminates the risk that the actor might *precisely mimic* your reading - i.e. your exact inflection, pacing, pitch, etc., none of which were the point, and all of which will work better if they're *his* (a very common tendency otherwise).

B) It eliminates the result-oriented "stress this word" direction.

The above should help reduce the risk of the actor being taken out of his own version of the character.

David Jimerson said:
Here's a situation which always comes to mind when I think about this.

The Matrix. Cypher (Joey Pants), when talking about why he has to view the Matrix in base code, while they can watch the Construct in pictures, says "the monitor program works FOR the Construct." Which, to me, doesn't make sense. The stress should be different: "the monitor program works for the CONSTRUCT." Meaning, it works for the Construct and not for the Matrix. It doesn't make sense to stress "for."

As a director, especially if I had written the line and knew what it was supposed to be explaining, I'd have a problem with Joe's delivery. But if nothing else I try could get him to stress the right word, which to me would have been important, what could I do BUT a line read, or at least tell him specifically to stress the correct word?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Ted Spencer said:
I'd offer an example of the desired distinction using a different line, to prevent the possibility of the actor directly copying me. So in this case I'd say something like:

"Joey, what I'm looking for, in different words, would be like: 'the car runs on diesel', not 'the car runs on diesel'"

It's a small thing, and may seem slightly odd, but:

A) It eliminates the risk that the actor might *precisely mimic* your reading - i.e. your exact inflection, pacing, pitch, etc., none of which were the point, and all of which will work better if they're *his* (a very common tendency otherwise).

B) It eliminates the result-oriented "stress this word" direction.

The above should help reduce the risk of the actor being taken out of his own version of the character.
Click to expand...

Possibly. I don't really see that as much different, though. Guess it depends on the specific actor.
 
David Jimerson said:
Possibly. I don't really see that as much different, though. Guess it depends on the specific actor.
Click to expand...

It isn't *that* much different. But the actor can't say "construct" exactly like you say "diesel", so the risk of him literally 'parroting' your reading is eliminated. I see actors repeating the director's exact inflection too often (being good scouts as they are), and losing their connection with the 'scene moment' in the process, which is the classic result-oriented directing effect. This takes that possibility away.
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
Well, one would suspect that in order to be an 'actor's director'... one would have actors to direct...
Click to expand...

Is that a shot at Keanu? Or the whole cast?

If so - I thought Carrie Anne Moss was a bad Actress, since this was the first film I saw her in. Then I saw several others and realized she doesn't suck at all :)

And Laurence Fishburne is no slouch.
 
I think Ted's difference is very big. Make the actor understand what you want to convey, rather than inviting him to mimic you. There's nothing wrong with "Hey do you get the purpose of that line?" If you have rapport with the actor.

I would say:

"Dude, do you get that line? The inflection doesn't sound right to me, like you're not putting the emphasis on the Base code and Construct. Do you see the difference?"

If he didn't ever get it, I suppose you could feed him a line read but I'd let it go or change the line because frankly - it's not very well-written. If the actor can't say it with the right inflection it could be that he's either too thick-skulled to get it or the line is too convoluted to get.

One of the greatest directions I ever got as an actor went like this:

Dir: "Joe, where is your scene partner?"
Joe: "Really?"
Dir: "Yes."
Joe: "She's on the bed."
Dir: "How do you know?"
Joe: "She's on the bed."
Dir: "You didn't look at her once."
Joe: "Okay, so I should look at her when?"
Dir: "Right now."

I look at my scene partner and she lit up like a light-bulb. It hadn't occurred to me that she couldn't deliver without bouncing her lines off of me. I was too absorbed in the mechanics of the scene.

This was so wise of my director, because I never had to remember "At this point in the blocking, look up and I see her, then I move here." I just slipped into using eye contact with her constantly, forbidding her eye contact to punish her, giving her eye contact to reward her. using my expression to change her expression - it just came naturally and it changed the whole mood of the scene.

Look, you gotta do what you've gotta do, to me the important thing is that the actor internalizes it any way that you can. In my estimation, I fail the actor when I have to resort to a line-read. But that's me speaking in criticism of me.
 
Re: the acting in "The Matrix":

...and Joe Panteleone is no slouch either, whether he's talking about diesels or constructs or whatever : ).

For my own $.02, I thought the first Matrix film was great. I've seen it many, many times. And I didn't have any problem with the acting. On the other hand, the two sequels did nothing for me. Pretty much a night and day difference there...

Acting-wise I could find more nits to pick in most big action-blockbusters I can think of, including classics like Raiders (Karen Allen's very stiff IMO). Fishburne's great, Joey P's in his usual top form, the cookie lady/psychic is splendid, Moss is perfectly ok, Hugo Weaving is just fine... There are some lesser roles that aren't great (like "Tank" and "Mouse"), but they don't spoil it. Even Reeves, who is unlikely to win any big awards for acting (and never has), was perfectly cast as Neo IMHO. His spaced-out natural state fit the character to a 'T'.

Why the acting on Matrix (the first one at least) is a subject of harsh criticism is a little beyond me. And I'm a working actor, btw...

But of course it's all just my opinion. And as they say, everyone has, like certain anatomical features, one of those... : )
 
Last edited:
I don't think that line is unclear at all, really. Don't know why Joe pooched it. Heck, maybe the Ws wanted him to say it that way.
 
Right now I direct with a hand held laser. I point the spot where I want the actors eyes to go when it's a red dot and where to walk with a green dot and what to touch with a blue dot. It's working out really good!
 
john threat said:
Right now I direct with a hand held laser. I point the spot where I want the actors eyes to go when it's a red dot and where to walk with a green dot and what to touch with a blue dot. It's working out really good!
Click to expand...

Those are great for blinding people too...
 
In my very first few short films, I had no choice but to feed actors their lines. I was working with unskilled actors, and they felt lost when I didn't. It is also true, of course, that I wasn't yet very good at directing, and I didn't know how to coax a good performance otherwise.

Nowadays, I would avoid it, at all costs. For the most part, I'm blessed to work with some really talented actors/actresses, but every now and then I need to call on an unskilled friend, and I refuse to feed them their lines. There are always ways of talking them through it.

To be honest, I'm kind-of developing a filmmaker-crush on Jordan Scott Price, from this thread. Dude, you're laying down some serious knowledge! From my experience, I enthusiastically 2nd everything JSC has said thus far in this thread.

Think of it this way -- would you tell your DP exactly how you want them to light every scene, right down to the nitty-gritty details of lenses and wattage of bulbs? If you were to do that, then why the hell did you hire a DP? Would you tell your composer exactly how you want the music? Would you tell your editor exactly how you want it edited? If so, then why don't you just score and edit it yourself?!

It's no different with your on-screen talent. It's THEIR JOB to bring the performance, not yours. It's your job to communicate with them what you're looking for, and to mold their performance to match your vision, but you're seriously hurting your production if you don't allow them to add their creative input, by doing what they do best.
 
1. As suggested by at least two other people, read Judith Weston's Directing Actors.
2. Read Sidney Lumet's Making Movies. His process for directing, and how to handle, actors is explored throughout the book.
3. Watch the in-depth making-of and listen to the commentary for Peter Bogdanovich's Paper Moon. Outstanding film, and you get to see and hear Bogdanovich on how he directed the actors. He did in fact at times act out what he had in mind, but it wasn't the sum of his directing method.
4. Go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top