Enough Bowing Before Actors: Take Time to get Actors Who Trust The Director!

[john threat]

A switch up from the usual droning about learning how to direct actors and speaking their language and stuff. poppycock.

How about having a keen eye for talent and making sure that your actors trust you to respond to your communication about ideas and feelings in any given scene. Actors who are in touch with their bodies and feelings. This is what someone must learn and to toss someone quickly who is holding up production by not giving you what you want, or swapping them quickly with whatever talent pool you have around you.

It takes time to master the nuances of this. Just remember DKAA! Dont kiss actors ***!

 

[StMad]

I wear this on my belt, on set. The message needs to be subtle, but clear.

 

[El Director]

View attachment 49481

I wear this on my belt, on set. The message needs to be subtle, but clear.

Nice! Since I moved to Montana, I carry a .44 mag on mine

 

[Pickthorne]

No you don't, either of you. I call bullsh*t.

"...all who live by the sword will die by the sword.'”

Luke 22:51

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

No you don't, either of you. I call bullsh*t.

"...all who live by the sword will die by the sword.'”

Luke 22:51

Well, last I heard, everyone who lives will die. So, it just a matter of time and how... and some people like to pick the how...

I don't know how this relates to filmmaking... but to paraphrase Mao... Directorial power comes from the barrel of a gun... that and a riding crop and breeches (jodhpurs if that is more comfortable...), will project the desired image of commanding the situation...

For the directrix, I think some sort of scanty SS uniform, with riding crop and Luger of course.

 

[Postmaster]

"...all who live by the sword will die by the sword.'”

Luke 22:51

Mat 10:34 Thinke not that I am come to sende peace into the earth. I came not to sende peace, but a sworde.

Luk 22:36 .. and hee that hath none, let him sell his coate, and buy a sworde.

...just saying

and now back on topic:

I really hate self important actors.
Filmmaking is (or at least should be) a team sport.
And on a team everyone should pull at the same rope in the same direction.
A set is no place for snobs, posers, gripers and nobody should need to bow in front of anybody IMHO.




Frank

 

[john threat]

Filmmaking is (or at least should be) a team sport.

Frank

I think filmmaking is a totalitarian sport from the top down - at the very least it is Oligarchy, but really its best as a gentle dictatorship. Too many cooks spoil the broth.

A set is no place for snobs, posers, gripers and nobody should need to bow in front of anybody IMHO.
Frank

I agree here, and I dont think that conflicts with my above statement at all. Egos! Whew!

 

[hscully]

A switch up from the usual droning about learning how to direct actors and speaking their language and stuff. poppycock.

How about having a keen eye for talent and making sure that your actors trust you to respond to your communication about ideas and feelings in any given scene. Actors who are in touch with their bodies and feelings. This is what someone must learn and to toss someone quickly who is holding up production by not giving you what you want, or swapping them quickly with whatever talent pool you have around you.

It takes time to master the nuances of this. Just remember DKAA! Dont kiss actors ***!

I'm unclear about what you are suggesting here. Are you saying that if you're not communicating well with actors that you cast and you are on set in production that you will replace them? What is the "talent pool around you?" I think it's best to sort this out before going into production no? Unless I'm missing something.

I'm an actor and a director and I don't see any reason to kiss an actor's ass. Just be clear and honest and your actors will respond in kind. That's been my experience, anyway.

 

[john threat]

Get actors that trust you and your instincts, not ones who fight against it or ignore them. haha. actor doesnt "get" it.

 

[paulears]

Performers, sadly, do not think or act like non-performers. Look at any bunch of actors from rank amateurs to huge movie stars - they are not 'normal' - whatever 'normal' is.

The trouble is that what they do very often can't be done by non-actors, so expecting them to change to suit our more conventional ways of behaviour is doomed to failure. Sure - some actors can be treated in the same way as other crew or service people, but a large proportion cannot. If you want them to work for you, you conform to their need for support, superstition and meet demands both real and imaginary. They have special needs - which, if not provided provide friction or increase the likelihood of failure.

I've had big names who have been trouble free and perfectly reasonable, and I've had divas who need constant care and attention. I love reading some of my contract terms - where it establishes I am the most senior representative of the production company on site, and everything I do will be supported, right or wrong by the company. Success or failure is up to me. If this means somebody snaps their fingers, and shouts loudly "Paul - tea! Two sugars, Now!" then that's what I do - get them tea. In return I get professional acting, when I want it, repeatable quality. I don't have to guide them through 'how' to act. I don't have to explain what it is I need, they know. Sometimes you just have to put up with the daft stuff. As for replacing your talent if they don't toe the line. Sorry - but that is crazy. You will spend far more time, and spend more money. if you introduce change within an acting group you will destabilise it - and it will impact on their performance.

Performers are not the same as technicians or other production people. Your actors are a resource, just like your lighting budget. Use them poorly and it costs you and is quite likely to bite back!

 

[keylight]

A switch up from the usual droning about learning how to direct actors and speaking their language and stuff. poppycock.

How about having a keen eye for talent and making sure that your actors trust you....

LOL.... It isn't easy for actors to trust directors who know little about acting and hold a naive understanding of actors (and how to direct actors).

I really hate self important actors.

And I'm sure actors really hate self important directors.

Performers, sadly, do not think or act like non-performers. Look at any bunch of actors from rank amateurs to huge movie stars - they are not 'normal' - whatever 'normal' is.

The trouble is that what they do very often can't be done by non-actors, so expecting them to change to suit our more conventional ways of behaviour is doomed to failure. Sure - some actors can be treated in the same way as other crew or service people, but a large proportion cannot. If you want them to work for you, you conform to their need for support, superstition and meet demands both real and imaginary. They have special needs - which, if not provided provide friction or increase the likelihood of failure.

I've had big names who have been trouble free and perfectly reasonable, and I've had divas who need constant care and attention. I love reading some of my contract terms - where it establishes I am the most senior representative of the production company on site, and everything I do will be supported, right or wrong by the company. Success or failure is up to me. If this means somebody snaps their fingers, and shouts loudly "Paul - tea! Two sugars, Now!" then that's what I do - get them tea. In return I get professional acting, when I want it, repeatable quality. I don't have to guide them through 'how' to act. I don't have to explain what it is I need, they know. Sometimes you just have to put up with the daft stuff. As for replacing your talent if they don't toe the line. Sorry - but that is crazy. You will spend far more time, and spend more money. if you introduce change within an acting group you will destabilise it - and it will impact on their performance.

Performers are not the same as technicians or other production people. Your actors are a resource, just like your lighting budget. Use them poorly and it costs you and is quite likely to bite back!

Finally.... a bit of sanity in this thread.

 

[hscully]

Get actors that trust you and your instincts, not ones who fight against it or ignore them. haha. actor doesnt "get" it.

What I don't get from your original post is when. When and how will you discover whether or not an actor will trust your instincts? During casting? If so, I'd be curious how you go about discerning that. If it's something you've discovered on set then that sounds late in the process.

I would suggest a contrary approach. If you're a director and you can't communicate well with your actors, try an acting class. It may help you.

When Sandy Mackendrick was asked "How do I get an actor to do what I want." He said. "You don't. What you do is try to get the actor to want what you need." Now that's nuanced!

 

[john threat]

I don't have to explain what it is I need, they know. Sometimes you just have to put up with the daft stuff. As for replacing your talent if they don't toe the line. Sorry - but that is crazy. You will spend far more time, and spend more money. if you introduce change within an acting group you will destabilise it - and it will impact on their performance.

I dont disagree with what you said, but I probably should have mentioned I meant on truly independent productions. My engagement with talent is totally different and flexible when working on structured gigs with networks and working for production companies other than my own. On a music video for the labels, i certainly cannot fire the music artist who may not be amazing at emoting, but certainly I can move and remove talent that is background - and having the nuance ability to judge when is the time to do so can make a difference in the final product.

That being said, I think it would be really poor to find yourself in a situation where the talent , no matter how big orders you to go get *Tea* for them. I assume that was hyperbole. Unless you are headed to craft services it would be time for a big talk.

Of course big talent has some outragerous riders and egos (sometimes they arent aware that their rider has become so huge! they forget to take things off the list!) - but what are you going to do to handle it as a director?

 

[Doc Bernard]

Curious about "truly independent productions" comment. Do you mean everyone shouldn't bring the same professionalism and dedication to their craft that they would on a big budget film with an established studio?

Hmmm. Maybe that's the reason a vast majority of indie's don't do so well. I expect everyone on any set I work to bring their A game every time, just like I do. The budget or status has nothing to do with that. Treating a job with any less respect means you are not giving your all. Cast and crew alike.

And John, the same goes for Directors. I have run into a few of those that make Atilla the Hun look tame, and they really did not have the right/privilege/credentials to be that way. Any film is a team effort, and the weakest link can be found in any area of the chain. A director that bullies his talent, will soon have a "one-man film", because if you cannot work together, there won't be a film worth anything.

 

[hscully]

Check out Sidney Lumet's "Making Movies." He describes how he gets everyone "working on the same movie." He comes from the theater and he rehearsed for two weeks with his actors before going to shoot. He would have props and tape out the set in the rehearsal studio. Rehearsal is the place to connect your actors your vision. I always have, at least, a couple of table reads to get everyone on the same page but after reading Making Movies again (for like the 4th time ) I'm going back to rehearsing. Sidney said that rehearsals "free" actors. I agree with that.

 

[john threat]

And John, the same goes for Directors. I have run into a few of those that make Atilla the Hun look tame, and they really did not have the right/privilege/credentials to be that way. Any film is a team effort, and the weakest link can be found in any area of the chain. A director that bullies his talent, will soon have a "one-man film", because if you cannot work together, there won't be a film worth anything.

I don't think i was saying to bully anyone. I'm talking about making hard choices of attrition and cutting your loss trying to direct someone who isnt in "the zone" for the current production. It happens. Sometimes it not your ability to communicate - that person just isnt going to be on board. What are you going to do? Cut around them? Replace them? Work in their bad performance into the edit to make it work?

Within the confines of a given production, are you going to bow down and take a huge ego that refuses your direction at every turn? When do you do that and when do you move on to another actor? There have been giant movies that worked out well critically and economically with the actor doubting the director(s) at every turn - there are also those that have been unmitigated disasters.

 

[Doc Bernard]

That's what casting calls are for, and why the director should be involved.

Again, it's the same with directors. They shouldn't be treated as gods either. And I have seen directors fired by the producers for it.

So your point still leaves a lot to be explained. And sometimes those attitudes feed off of each other. It can start with either side and infect the other. So if you are having this problem a lot.......you may want to take a hard look elsewhere for the cause of it.

Just by reading what you have posted and how you said it, I get the feeling your directing style is extremely authoritarian which may work for some actors, but for others that want a team effort (director and actor), it may not work out so well.

Not saying you are, but I have seen many novice directors who think that by substituting a hard attitude for experience, the actors and crew will respect them. When a take goes bad, an actor doesn't hit a mark precisely.........they lose it on set and start throwing things, yelling, slamming doors, etc. They get in your face and attempt to show their "leadership" by talking down to you.

The sad thing is, everyone on set sees it for what it really is. A director that thinks they are the prima donna. The prima donna factor is not pretty in actors, but doubly ugly when directors have it (especially when they have not earned the "privilege").

From the very first post, though, it has been focused on you and how actors should trust you. Not about how there should be a two-way street of trust and collaboration. How have you shown that you deserve that level of trust? Just having the title "director" alone doesn't merit blind trust. You have to show your actors how much you trust them too. Actors have a professional reputation to consider too. And if you are taking them somewhere that they feel will make them look bad professionally by poor direction.......then that's when a director may want to consider what an actor has to say, especially if they have more experience acting than the director directing. It's that two-way trust thing.

But you want your actors to blindly trust you, and that, to quote you "DKAA". That right away tells me, as an actor, you don't care what emotional range I bring to the production, nor my experience. I don't need you to kiss any part of me, but in order to do my job, I may need certain things: quiet area to prep myself, giving me the motivation to show that emotion, helping my character become what you need, changing a word for the dialogue to flow better in my mind.

You want clay figurines that have a pull string, which means you probably do have a lot of problems with actors, because there are not too many of those out there.

 

[Doc Bernard]

It's just like a guy who has been fired from twelve jobs. Is it that all 12 companies were out to get him? Probably not. Or could it be there is something that he needs to change about himself? Probably.

So if you are having that many problems with actors, it may not be the actors that need to change. It could be your casting method, it could be an attitude issue, it could be a directorial style, it could be.................

 

[thisisapocalypse]

Performers, sadly, do not think or act like non-performers. Look at any bunch of actors from rank amateurs to huge movie stars - they are not 'normal' - whatever 'normal' is.

The trouble is that what they do very often can't be done by non-actors, so expecting them to change to suit our more conventional ways of behaviour is doomed to failure. Sure - some actors can be treated in the same way as other crew or service people, but a large proportion cannot. If you want them to work for you, you conform to their need for support, superstition and meet demands both real and imaginary. They have special needs - which, if not provided provide friction or increase the likelihood of failure.

I've had big names who have been trouble free and perfectly reasonable, and I've had divas who need constant care and attention. I love reading some of my contract terms - where it establishes I am the most senior representative of the production company on site, and everything I do will be supported, right or wrong by the company. Success or failure is up to me. If this means somebody snaps their fingers, and shouts loudly "Paul - tea! Two sugars, Now!" then that's what I do - get them tea. In return I get professional acting, when I want it, repeatable quality. I don't have to guide them through 'how' to act. I don't have to explain what it is I need, they know. Sometimes you just have to put up with the daft stuff. As for replacing your talent if they don't toe the line. Sorry - but that is crazy. You will spend far more time, and spend more money. if you introduce change within an acting group you will destabilise it - and it will impact on their performance.

Performers are not the same as technicians or other production people. Your actors are a resource, just like your lighting budget. Use them poorly and it costs you and is quite likely to bite back!

+1 and very well said, one of the best posts I've ever read on here.

 

[Rolf Silber]

Performers are not the same as technicians or other production people. Your actors are a resource, just like your lighting budget. Use them poorly and it costs you and is quite likely to bite back!

Yep. Still there are those (few) around who won't let themselves to be either convinced, seduced or tamed. Miscast. Happens at times. So you have to fumble your way through if you can not re-cast.

The downside in the relation "actor with exploded ego and reasonably tempered director" is - same as in the opposite of "directing storm trooper vs. sensible acting human" - that a lot of trust, understanding and, even worse, tons of creative impulses may be lost - even if the more intelligent side in the conflict may find a way to make it work somehow in the end.

This is what saddens me at times: When you know the piece you do may not get to the point where it could go to. But: Every captain shows his/her real qualities only in storm.....