Directing style?

tipota said:
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.
Click to expand...

I can agree to all of that. And this I say as with the conviction of being a director first, editor second, and writer third. Cheers. :)
 
tipota said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with the above in the slightest. Perhaps the aforementioned "80%" number threw the impression off. It is rare for actors to know exactly how to play a role 'out of the box' and require no direction, and yes, even (ultimately) good ones will 'run away' with it sometimes. And that's where skilled directing comes in; to gently, firmly direct the performances where they (in the eye of the director) belong. That's why directors are called that...

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".
Click to expand...

Agreed. And it is indeed a hallmark of weak, passive direction. Been there as an actor (although not as one of the set-chewing perpetrators!).

Our art is a creative meeting of minds with one mind giving all the energy, the ideas,
Click to expand...

Gonna stop the quote right there on the "ideas" thing, just to point out that many great directors actively encourage creative input (aka 'ideas) from the cast, and almost everyone else. This is a good thing IMO. Not to put too fine a point on it though - I suspect you might well agree...

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.
Click to expand...

Again, no argument, and I don't think that's what J Davis's point (or my defense of it) meant to infer. Just that having a particularly well chosen cast will make the director's job a lot easier. Can we agree on it in those terms?
 
Ted Spencer said:
Just that having a particularly well chosen cast will make the director's job a lot easier. Can we agree on it in those terms?
Click to expand...

Completely. As with the wrong cast you can lose a movie altogether. And with a bad script you will lose a movie for sure. And a bad director can do to the nicest ship what Commandante Schettino in Italy did to his (while I have to say: A really good script will stay afloat for very, very long).

One paragraph earlier you should not have stopped there, as the point I tried to make was exactly that direction is an in a lot - if not most - aspects an "integrating" art: Get the most out of any element / person involved and make it into one. The question is if you stay just a collector of other's creativity - a set-organizer if you will - or if you really have both a concept and a feeling where you want to bring this film to. And the really complex ability to bring this across to the bunch of wonderful creative madmen in the crew and cast. The really good directors seem to have that ... I hope to have it at times.... but then: I am a writer first...... ;-)
 
tipota said:
the point I tried to make was exactly that direction is an in a lot - if not most - aspects an "integrating" art: Get the most out of any element / person involved and make it into one.
Click to expand...

Again, no dispute there. Like I said, I figured we agreed anyway...

...the really complex ability to bring this across to the bunch of wonderful creative madmen in the crew and cast. The really good directors seem to have that
Click to expand...

Indeed that is the larger gift of a great director - the art is so diverse in nature that it requires a really expansive talent. Which is rare. Many directors can do well by relying in part on key associates to cover their gaps, but the more one understands of all the elements the better one can handle them artfully.

... I hope to have it at times.... but then: I am a writer first...... ;-)
Click to expand...

I'm a writer first too, but also actor, director, shooter, editor, composer, sound mixer... Better (and more experienced) at some than others, but I've been paid to do all of 'em at least a few times, and a few of them a great many : )

IMHO the filmmaking hierarchy goes: writing, acting, directing, and then pretty much everything else. Not to diminish the technical side *in the slightest* though...it's hugely important in every aspect...
 
This thread = be crazy.

Directing is instinct, not text book. You do what you have to do to create what you're imagining. Sometimes it's REALLY hard to get an actor to literally stress a line in a certain way and you need to just walk them away and explain to them, five seconds, that you've got to do it this way.

I don't do it, I've developed (borrowed) techniques to convey my intentions in a very concise fashion, but I also talk to actors often off set to gain a better understanding of what they do and do not like. You'd be surprised how many of them just wish they would've been told to "say it this way so we can move on." versus repeated takes that make them feel stupid in front of others. Remember, they're pretty sensitive and egotistical people.
 
Kholi said:
This thread = be crazy.

Directing is instinct, not text book. You do what you have to do to create what you're imagining. Sometimes it's REALLY hard to get an actor to literally stress a line in a certain way and you need to just walk them away and explain to them, five seconds, that you've got to do it this way.


I don't do it, I've developed (borrowed) techniques to convey my intentions in a very concise fashion, but I also talk to actors often off set to gain a better understanding of what they do and do not like. You'd be surprised how many of them just wish they would've been told to "say it this way so we can move on." versus repeated takes that make them feel stupid in front of others. Remember, they're pretty sensitive and egotistical people.
Click to expand...

Ted Spencer said:
^ this post is a bit of a muddle if you don't mind my saying...
Click to expand...

I don't think I'd call it "muddled", because I think I understand perfectly what Kholi is saying. In fact, I've been there, in a situation in which my actors sometimes just wanted me to bluntly lay it down for them -- this is exactly how I want you to say it.

Two things about that, though -- first, those aren't the kind of actors I want to work with. I love seeing the written characters brought to life by my actors, and that doesn't come from me, it comes from them. Yeah, I'm there to guide and mold, but it should be their performance, not mine. Secondly, really this just brings us back to the original question. JSP, in an earlier post, says it much more eloquently than I am now, but an important point he makes, that I agree with very strongly, is that the actors' performances are likely to be wooden and dull, when being fed to them by the director.

Jordan Scott Price said:
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.
Click to expand...

Again, I've been there, and I've done it (fed actors their lines), but I won't do it anymore. I've found that even the most timid and inexperienced "actors" (read: friends and family I coerced into joining the project) can find their performance if you're willing to talk them through it. A couple examples I can think of, of the top of my head:

A friend of mine was a complete novice. No formal training whatsoever, never took part in theater in high school, or anything like that. I needed her to deliver just a couple lines, in a really bitchy way (and we were on a really tight schedule). Her first couple takes were lifeless, no anger or bitchiness at all. We went through a few takes with my directions not really helping her get anywhere. I finally just gave a little mini-speech, in which I told her that it's okay for her to over-act. Don't be afraid to be cartoonish, over-the-top, or to go too far, because if she thinks she's going too far, she probably hasn't gone far enough yet.

The result:
PW: dvxuser


First of all, if this is the first you've seen of my work, please don't judge me by the comparatively-poor production values. I am aware of the deficiencies, and workin' on it. :) As far as her performance is concerned though, I'm pretty darn happy with it. Again, she is a total non-actress, and not a particularly animated person in real life. She's usually kinda quiet, and her first few takes were very reserved. The performance we ended up with is, in my opinion, pretty believable, and I didn't have to feed her any lines. Really, all I did was just give her permission to, and to make her feel safe to, just let go.

In an ideal world, I wouldn't have cast her in that role. And she knew that she was actually filling-in for the professionally-trained actress I had cast, but whose schedule just didn't mesh with the production schedule. I'm grateful that she was such a dear to show up when I needed her, and I think she did great, all things considered, but the point should be made that this is an extreme example to highlight the original question. A younger me would've fed her her line (and she probably wanted me to do that). In my opinion, the older me got better results than the younger me would've.

On the flip-side of the spectrum -- let's say you're working with an actor who really knows how to bring it. They make excellent contributions, but in one particular scene, maybe just one particular line, their performance doesn't fit with your vision. I suppose you could tell them to "say it this way so we can move on". But in my opinion, if they're "sensitive and egotistical" (a generalization I disagree with), wouldn't this approach be kind of an insult to them?

When I've been in this situation, I've found it much more helpful to just have a frank discussion about what's going on inside the characters' head. If they emphasize this word, that shows that they feel such-and-such way. If they emphasize that word, that shows that they feel this-and-that way. If I were this character, in this situation, I kinda think I would feel...

And then the discussion begins. Sometimes the actor gets what I am saying, and agrees that they should change their performance to be that way. Other times, the actor explains their logic to me, and it is I who ends up changing my mind. It goes both ways. If I would've just told them to "say it this way so we can move on", then we never would've had that discussion, and I never would've seen their point of view, robbing us of the potential for an excellent creative idea.

Either way, whether working with experienced or inexperienced actors, I can imagine almost no scenarios in which I think it best to feed them their lines.
 
Ted Spencer said:
^ this post is a bit of a muddle if you don't mind my saying...
Click to expand...

I dunno, it sounds pretty simple to me? You don't have eternity to shoot. If there's a line that you're not getting that you feel you absolutely need a certain way, get it.

It's irresponsible to spend fifteen minutes waiting for an actor to "get it", at least to me it is.
 
Kholi said:
It's irresponsible to spend fifteen minutes waiting for an actor to "get it", at least to me it is.
Click to expand...
This brings up an interesting story an actor once told me. In the very first film he appeared in, a major studio production, the first shot on the first day was of him alone. The director pulled him aside and said "What I want you to do is go out there, turn your back on everyone and take all the time you need to prepare. BUT, it took the crew an hour to set up this shot. I want you to take at least an hour to prepare, take more time if you need it, but don't take less. When you are ready, put your hand behind your back and wave to me. Then we'll proceed." Then the actor asked me, "Now what does that tell you?"
Sound odd? Consider this. The film? Baby Doll. The actor? Eli Wallach. The director? Elia Kazan. Now, what does that tell you?
 
rsbush said:
Well, I knew that was coming. I just didn't expect it to come from one of the finest minds on this forum. You certainly got a laugh out of me though.
Click to expand...

Sorry - but I really would like to have the time to maybe do what Kazan did. We don't have it. Point blank. At least over here where I work. I don't say Kazan did anything wrong. Honestly: I would be happy to have that time at times. And yes: In certain scenes I will give my actors as much space as possible. Not an hour though. Completely impossible if you shoot 90 minutes in 21 to 25 days as we have to do it here.

My approach is more often that I do try to find out who "owns" a scene - if a scene or a shot will more depend on the camera work or if the scene is owned by the actors. This gives me a hint, how to set up a schedule that leaves enough room for preparation. But: There is the small, white (producer) rabbit with it's watch in it's hand shouting: "no time, no time". And I can't make it totally go away. Can you?
 
tipota,
My understanding is that being the first shot of production that this was to set the tone for both actor & crew. He didn't repeat this process during this film. I also don't know if he ever did this at any other time in his career. Maybe it was just to get a first time film actor firmly on his feet. Never had the privilege to speak with Kazan so I can't say.
 
Last edited:
rsbush said:
tipota,
My understanding is that being the first shot of production that this was to set the tone for both actor & crew. He didn't repeat this process.
Click to expand...

Then, indeed, I raise my hat. Good meditation.

I try to convey to my crew the simple idea that all of us are working humans and that actors can not be switched on/off like machines. And that certain by- and sideways in trying to "find" what a scene is about, how it should be worked and played sometimes may appear strange but still can be a sign of just that: pure professionalism. What I do not like though is if actors try to wear an "actors costume" and the set becomes something like a group therapy session.

But then, again: There is only the rule of thumb to all of that, imho. And directing as I understand it is all the time "situational" - hopefully on the basis of a clear concept. Hard to do practically all of the time. Have I ever said that I love this job, especially because of that? I love this job. Until the little white rabbit with the watch in it's hand appears... ;-)
 
tipota said:
That Kazan had a hell of a budget and/or shooting time?
Click to expand...

I don't know what Wilder's budget was... but I think these may be up for the max take record for a single utterance...

---------- IMDB Trivia for "Some Like It Hot"(1959)

Marilyn Monroe required 47 takes to get "It's me, Sugar" correct, instead saying either "Sugar, it's me" or "It's Sugar, me". After take 30, Billy Wilder had the line written on a blackboard. Another scene required Monroe to rummage through some drawers and say "Where's the bourbon?" After 40 takes of her saying "Where's the whiskey?", 'Where's the bottle?", or "Where's the bonbon?", Wilder pasted the correct line in one of the drawers. After Monroe became confused about which drawer contained the line, Wilder had it pasted in every drawer. Fifty-nine takes were required for this scene and when she finally does say it, she has her back to the camera, leading some to wonder if Wilder finally gave up and had it dubbed.

------

On the DVD I have the special features has a few of the takes from 'Where's the Bourbon" shot.

Also, as a note, while the film takes place 'in Chicago and Florida', in actuality the 'Florida' hotel sequences were shot in and around a hotel in San Diego, 120 miles from Downtown Hollywood, named "Hotel Del Coronado". It is a working (still..) 'vintage' hotel, but the 'main' reason given was so that Monroe could be housed there and never have an 'excuse' as to why she couldn't make it to the set...
 
Last edited:
tipota said:
Then, indeed, I raise my hat. Good meditation.

I try to convey to my crew the simple idea that all of us are working humans and that actors can not be switched on/off like machines. And that certain by- and sideways in trying to "find" what a scene is about, how it should be worked and played sometimes may appear strange but still can be a sign of just that: pure professionalism. What I do not like though is if actors try to wear an "actors costume" and the set becomes something like a group therapy session.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

There's really no one size fits all approach here. Directing style can and should vary based on the particulars of the production and more importantly the actors you're working with. {Cliche alert} I think it's always a good idea to ensure that getting a good performance is at the top of one's filmmaking hierarchy. Giving line readings should usually be a no-no, but I have a mentor who has directed several big budget pictures and from time to time he's done it even though he preaches not to. It should be more of a last resort then a typical approach with your actors.

I agree with the person earlier who said something along the lines of him wanting the talent to elevate the performance to a place that the director can only help them get to. Exactly! That is an essential component of directing - to create the atmosphere from which honest performances are born. I would argue this is how one would get the most honest performance from their actors - because there's a limit to what an actor can do with an idea that has been force-fed to him. Directors do not make great performances! We can only hope to get the actor to a place where he is able to take our material and convey the honesty of the moment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top