Directing style?
- Thread starter Azmyth
- Start date
Rolf Silber
Veteran
Yes, but ..... clearly if you hire talent and over-control it, you soon end in a situation like Chuck Berry/Keith Richards in the documentary when Berry demands from Richards narrow-mindedly how exactly he HAS to play a riff... not good. If I hire Keith Richards I want him to play more or less like Keith Richards ... at the same time: The conflict may come if an interpretation by an actor really goes against the directoral concept. Either because an actor does not understand it or the actor may not be able to deliver or he/she is too vane and self-centerd to understand it (exactly the same applies to directors too at times, no doubt).
So in a situation of conflict, when you and/or the cast really got stuck, almost everything can be allowed to "un-stuck" the situation. "Acting it out" does not mean to read them the line which usually is the most self-defeating thing one can do. But if you want a character to have a certain behavioural or motoric structure of movements it may be helpful if you can, as a director, maybe mimic the movements of a mongoose (or whatever) just to help someone over the hurdle. Actors often are good impersonators and sometimes this can be the way to get them unstuck. Not by mimicking an at most time embarrassingly lousy acting-out by a director but - by transforming it into something new and completely their own - using it as one tool in the box to overcome an obstacle.
john threat
Carbonite Member
there is a part of brilliant directing that a book cant teach you - and that is the part where a director can pull on many different references, observations of life, literature, and many other things to be able to communicate ideas both concrete and abstract to actors (and other crew members). things can can inspire beyond just saying "in this scene you are in love" - although amazing actors - that may be enough - but not for most.
Jordan Scott Price
Veteran
Well, gee, mister... :embarasse:happy:
john threat said:
Good point and good punctuation to a fun thread.
Cracker Funk
Member
tipota, I hear what you're saying, but I'm not sure that you and I are commenting on the same type of situation. I was commenting on a situation in which the director just literally gives the actor their entire performance. It basically amounts to the director saying, "Do this". And then the actor just replicates exactly what the director just did. I can tell you, from personal experience, that it doesn't work so great. I could be wrong, but I believe this is the scenario the OP was talking about.
What you're talking about seems fair enough, but the method you describe seems more like a creative meeting-of-minds, instead of one mind telling the other mind exactly what to do.
Anyway, I'm not sure how much it applies to this thread, but I just saw a great interview, and I think it's at least a little bit relevant to this thread. I'm still relatively young as a director, but I definitely feel myself wanting to head more and more in this direction, as far as my methods are concerned:
What you're talking about seems fair enough, but the method you describe seems more like a creative meeting-of-minds, instead of one mind telling the other mind exactly what to do.
Anyway, I'm not sure how much it applies to this thread, but I just saw a great interview, and I think it's at least a little bit relevant to this thread. I'm still relatively young as a director, but I definitely feel myself wanting to head more and more in this direction, as far as my methods are concerned:
Ted Spencer
Veteran
Agreed. And 80% of the rest of the outcome is in the script. Have a great one, cast it brilliantly, and the rest will be as close to 'paint by the numbers' as it will ever get.
Not to underestimate the immense value of *all other factors* of course - I like to say "everything matters" (a lot!). But no matter how great, none of it will matter if the script and acting suck...
Jordan Scott Price
Veteran
+1,000
Ted Spencer
Veteran
Thanks for the reminder, Drew; it wasn't the first...probably not even the first from you. I got "Director's Intuition" last week and skimmed through a bit ('cause I'm still finishing another book). It does indeed look even deeper than the first, which was not exactly a pamphlet... Looking forward to digging in, especially in light of an upcoming casting/directorial situation for me.
Tip 'o the hat : )
john threat
Carbonite Member
disagree there strongly. 100% of directing - is directing.
sleepwalk thru your film - and it shows.
Well it takes all kinds of directors!
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
Watched, "Legion"(2010), which had a couple of names people could recognize, Denis Quaid, and Paul Bettany, but in general the film 'lacked'... I think it was due to 'script'... I watched "Gabriel"(2006) the next night. I much preferred "Gabriel" over "Legion" (I happen to like the sub-genre...). In the case of "Gabriel" there were a number of issues... no name brand actors, at least for the US, minimal sets, CGI/Effects along with 'real' decayed buildings serving as sets... to create dystopian look.
In terms of differences. "Legion" had more of an ensemble 'feel', but eventually paring down to a human pair, and a pair of combative angels... Still 'too many'. "Gabriel" is pretty consistenly 'one angel' against ever increasing 'baddies'... till the final conflict.
Maybe this is a sub-sub-genre thing I like... australian minimalist <fill in the genre blank>
Ted Spencer
Veteran
J Davis can speak for himself, but I'm pretty sure you're missing his point. Great actors usually need much less direction - they tend to 'get it' already. It has nothing to do with a director "sleepwalking"; a great director knows when the right thing to say is...nothing. Of course, the reality is that a cast full of actors who need no direction is almost inconceivable - so directing skill is absolutely necessary. But even the best directors will be severely challenged by weak enough actors. In the kinds of low budget scenarios that typically play out for folks on this board it's likely that there will be directing challenges aplenty, so sleepwalking is a moot point (incompetence being something altogether different). But even at this level (or perhaps especially), skilled actors will make directors' jobs vastly easier (assuming said director is competent enough to know when they've got a genuinely good actor). I think that was J Davis's point...
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
So, exactly how does one deal with such a incident as depicted here:
john threat
Carbonite Member
Yeah i don't get where that translate to 80% of it - just getting good actors - then why arent casting directors - directors? Great actors can be lost - weak actors can nail a role they get if guided by a director with vision. I think it would be bad form to even slip into any mindset that said, oh well if I just get great actors itll all work out. There are many elements to putting together a vision for bring a script to life and you have to be able to communicate that vision to a wide array of different human beings.
Still have to laugh at the notion of a great actor just showing up and it magically happens - then why doesnt everyone do a film with every amazing actor in the world and then it should just magically happen!
Ted Spencer
Veteran
Still don't think you're getting the point, but I'll leave it here for now...
Cracker Funk
Member
Rolf Silber
Veteran
This is exactly what I mean. If you are a coach and you tell your team "win" that's.... not really enough ..... if you tell your players to only and only run in a certain manner .... you are a puppet player and highly likely to lose the game. What you do as a director is to analyse with your actors, what the situation is. Including often why it may be different than they thought it was. Why it may be more complex. Why the impulses may be stronger, weaker, have a different timing. Why a change in reaction time may greatly enhance or destroy a scene. To help them to play it maybe completely different than they first thought it should be played. Why at a point that seems to demand "great acting", shouting, wringing, crying a cool reaction may be better or vice versa. And understand to leave them alone when they already have it - which, different to what Ted's position seems to be, happens at times but mor often actors are much too much in love with themselves and with their part as to understand, what the movie really is about.
There is nothing more terrible to watch as movies where actors are un-leashed and throw all the might of their acting-magic at each other - it's like an orchestra only playing uncontrolled "tutti".
Yes: Our art is a creative meeting of minds with one mind giving all the energy, the ideas, the emotions, interpretations a direction, a structure, it's timing - a directors work is to instigate, to awake, bring to live and to emulate all those different impulses into something new. And this is why the same script will become a different film with a different director. And, in danger of repeating myself: Both over-controlling or just letting a movie become a runaway train are the dangers a director faces. And so, no: A movie is by far not finished when you have a good script and a good cast. And this I say with conviction being a writer first and a director second.
Last edited:
Cracker Funk
Member
I hear what you're saying, dude. I do. If it were all casting, then what the heck is the difference between McG and Nolan? Am I supposed to believe that given the same cast, they'd direct the same movie? Of course not. We all know and understand the whole bit about the director having and communicating the "vision". A lot goes into that.
I don't think we should get hung up on the number 80% (in different circles, I've heard that casting is 90% of directing). I don't think it's intended to be a scientific formula. For me, all this phrase means is that it's REALLY REALLY important that you cast the right people for their roles, then try not to get in the way of them delivering the great performances that they already have in them.
I think the phrase is mostly just intended to teach a director a lesson about how to direct actors. It has no bearing on all of the many other things that a director has their hands in. I could be wrong, but that's how I interpret it, and 60% of the time, it works all the time.
JoeRawlins
Active member
I agree. I love Paul Bettany's work and he is a phenomenal actor and I love the "Fallen Angel" sub-genre (speaks to my ex-religious mind) and so I was stoked about LEgion and it just didn't fit the bill for me. The effects were great and everything else great but the plot was too much like a horror film and as a horror film, it sucked. I wanted him to have much more conflicted backstory than that. And the dialogue was only so-so for me. Bad writing is impossible to make up for, in my opinion. Part of why I hate Avatar.
There! I said it! Strike me down, now! I hated Dances With Wolves Remixed! What will they do to me! I seek no quarter nor forgiveness!
James Cameron can eat me. Boom!
Rolf Silber
Veteran
Yes. And all those other things are not just added together, it's not that a director is just the collector of other peoples art but the directors work is to actually merge and transpose this, knowing about the repercussions between the different aspects, knowing why the tone and the movements of an actor are not just reflected by camera movements but that those creative "entities" and impulses inter-act in multiple ways.... that way the set is decorated influences the way something is acted and perceived and so on ..... and why all this aspects become a multi-layered, intertwined, colourful being in itself .... and this is why directing is NOT just reading the script to actors and they act as they see fit. This is what bad directors do who do not really understand what their craft is about and yes: There are a lot of them "out there".
Last edited: