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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually - the tea comment was absolutely true! The same person would phone me up and tell me to take her for lunch, and never ever carry money! The other actors could see this, and it's not really a problem. Sure, I could have grabbed one of the junior people and made them tea maker, but that wasn't what was needed. Whil I have my life made miserable to a degree, the others can get on with the job, hassle free. How about ITVs Good Morning programme - live OBs from various locations, like shopping malls - so as soon as the floor manager yelled "OK everybody, back to us in 5 minutes" - I'd get the click of the fingers, and the word "coat" - indicating a need for the coat to keep warm. Then on the 'Standby everyone", the fingers would click again, and I'd remove the coat to just behind the camera line. Not at all my job - but it just has to be done. In fact, looking back - pandering to the needs of the artistes is high on the list of 'have to, but hate it'. How about having to provide a never sat on before toilet seat, and with one pop star, famous for being a vegan and ultra temperamental, I actually got requested to always have my back to him when he was on stage as he didn't make eye contact with strangers, and could walk off! I've had other people refuse to go on stage when a certain member of the crew is in the building because they don't get on - and my refusal to sack them was not received well. I love my job, but dealing with actors can be so frustrating. what is absolute though, is that in most cases, you need them, so end up doing these stupid things for a quiet production.
 
Its disturbing how many stars (Seems regulated to music stars) have a rider that says they dont want crew looking or making eye contact with them.

We all need money in life, but i cant take a job if that is required of me or any of my crew. Im not demeaning another human being to get some $$$. I know other might have to fill that gap. Id rather go broke than have a p.a. Fired because he looked another human being in the eye handing them their tea.

If everyone indistry wide stood up to that, those pop stars who request thst couldnt get away with it

That being said, i get food or drinks or help talent out physically all the time. Its part of a human connection. This post isnt about abusing anyone. I personally never found myself in a position yelling at talent on set and banging things (other than being demonstrative or directing action). That's not the vector of my statement at all.
 
john threat said:
Its disturbing how many stars (Seems regulated to music stars) have a rider that says they dont want crew looking or making eye contact with them.
Click to expand...

Regulated? Did you mean relegated? And is this from first hand experience or "everyone hears the stories" experience?

We all need money in life, but i cant take a job if that is required of me or any of my crew.
Click to expand...

Send me a PM when you get that kind of gig. I'd be happy to take it off your hands.

Im not demeaning another human being to get some $$$.
Click to expand...

Why is it demeaning? IF someone has such insecurity that they don't want to be looked at, that's their problem.

I know other might have to fill that gap. Id rather go broke than have a p.a. Fired because he looked another human being in the eye handing them their tea.
Click to expand...

Hey, I suppose a little hyperbole never hurt anyone....
 
This whole discussion is predicated on the thought that actors are "a dime a dozen", and that you can just recast, or find anyone that would be perfect for the role you need.

If you find an actor that envisions and embodies the character you need, are you saying, John, that if they have a few quirks, you are not willing to make a few concessions? I am just a bit curious on this. Or what if they are under contract and money is involved. Certain talent are cast because they are NAMED actors and their involvement will be used for publicity for the project. So, if you want to keep them on the project, you do what needs to be done to keep them happy.

And, as a director, how many shoots have you directed where this was a real issue? Every director I have worked with, either in front of or behind the camera, has always tried to make sure the talent was in good spirits. And sometimes that meant sending a PA for a specialty coffee (LOL, not for me when I act, I am good with the same as crew), telling everyone not to approach an actress as she was prepping, having someone hold a coat off camera (yep Paulears, I have done it too, and had someone do it for me also, because I was in light clothes and it was a freezing set.)

I am just trying to figure where the intolerance for a standard practice is coming from.
 
well the truth is, you can't learn or improve on directing from a book or from a online forum. so there is that.
 
I think one of, if not the most primary problems between actors and directors, is that in the rehearsal process problems were not ferreted out. I my, opinion, the homework wasn't done. By that I mean, the actors didn't do enough research. Didn't write their own character history. Don't know how to break down a scene. The director calls action without making sure that they both know what the prior event was. So many actors, when asked where did they just come from will respond with either, out there, or, my trailer. I can admit that when I worked on my very first film, I didn't do any of the above. Well, maybe I did without really knowing it, fortunately I was very well trained and ready. Now, as a director, I can easily sit back and go through all this...in my mind. The audition/interview process is really supposed to be where the wrong actors are vetted out. Sadly, there is way too much influence with who has the most power on a set. My boyfriend, my girlfriend wants the part. Unless the director is at the point in his/her career, (ala; Eastwood) they usually don't have the final say. So, be writer, producer and director. Make sure the actor hired knows what the process is. And yes, it is a collaboration. But if you look at someone like Michael Mann, he researches, he writes to the most finite detail each characters history. With all that done, he hires, what he feels is the best talent for the job, then allows each actor to bring their specific gifts to the project. A lot of directors want robots, and that is the sort of film they end up with. So, I'll stop my rambling.
 
Here's a novel idea -- how about you do whatever necessary to establish a relationship in which the actor trusts the director, and the director trusts the actor?

Trust is rarely a one-way street.
 
john threat said:
you are forced to trust the actor the minute you run the camera
Click to expand...

Yes, which is why you shouldn't treat them like cattle or movable props.

The audience doesn't watch YOU. They watch the actors. The actors make or break your film. Everything you do rides on them doing their jobs well. Why not do everything you can to make their jobs easier?
 
Trying to understand this cattle and moveable props comment - there is nothing from the original premise that would suggest that. I'm talking about the subtle nuances of directing and power and being able to elucidate you vision to the cast. It's a subtle line not best served by run away actors and egos.
 
john threat said:
I'm talking about the subtle nuances of directing and power and being able to elucidate you vision to the cast. It's a subtle line not best served by run away actors and egos.
Click to expand...

I agree with David, I did not pick up on that "subtleness" at all in this thread.
 
john threat said:
you are forced to trust the actor the minute you run the camera
Click to expand...

I'm not forced to trust anyone. I choose to trust them, right out of the gates. And I'm sorry but I gotta be honest, if you refer to your set as totalitarian, I don't think there's a whole lot of trust there.
 
john threat said:
Why would you hire n actor you dont trust?

The director rules the set. If he doesnt - it runs away. see here.
Click to expand...

If you didn't trust them, they wouldn't/shouldn't have made it past your casting call. So that's the real issue.

I got to say, I am getting a real "Casear" vibe from what you are saying, and what you are expressing. And those types of new directors usually don't last long in this biz (especially if they have nothing to base that attitude off of), as no one will work for them once word gets out. (and it will) And that spells "the Ides of March" for your directing career.

I would seriously reconsider why you feel the way you do on this. And make sure what you have been saying here is NOT how you are on set, if you are directing. The director may "rule" the set, but he needs to do it in a way that his/her people don't want create a regime change. That's where maturity, experience and tact come into play on the part of the director.

Let me tell you a non-hypothetical horror story, Jon:

I got called in to assist a film and work directly with the actors, provide weapons and advise. The director had no real experience in doing a narrative, but the plotline was intriguing, so I took the job.

We got on set, and I could see right away that the level of organization was below even student film standards. No shot list, no storyboards, script was an "essay" style 3 pages. The "director", told the talent right away that I was going to be working with them and helping them with their characters, but and I quote "I am the director and what I say goes here" in front of me, the crew, and the cast. So, we are already dissolving from being a team.

The shoot continued on, and there were a few action/fight scenes that I was supposed to coordinate, and when we got to them, I started blocking the scenes with the actors. The director stepped up and said "no, I don't want it this way, do it this way." Okay, fair enough. He then told me that I was overstepping my bounds by directing the actors in their lines of action. ??????????? I pulled him aside and told him that is exactly one of my responsibilities for him. If he was going to prevent me from doing my job, then he would not have the level of film he wanted.

So......we get into the fight scenes. And I notice on camera that the angle is off and showing "swishes" and "pulled punches". This is due to the changed blocking. So I talk to the DP/Camop, and ask if would be able to move the camera a touch over to block those misses. He said he could, it wouldn't change the minimal lighting. I told him I would talk to the director about it.

I called the director over after the first take, and had the cam op replay the take and I pointed out the issues. And asked if he wanted to fix this (reblock/adjust talent or move camera a touch). Even the talent from set said the take felt "wrong" and if they could tweak there performance a bit. I gave him some options.

His response to me in full hearing of everyone "Who is the Director here? Me or you?" I responded "You are, so if you need my advice, or for what you hired me for, I'll be over there off screen, reading a book. Call me you when you need me." The sad thing is, I heard him use that line on several other people that day, including talent.

That is one "director" - in quotes because he is not a director, he thinks he can direct scenes, but that does not make him a Director - that I refuse to work with again, until he gets some experience under his belt. Some of the cast contacted me afterwards to thank me for trying to go to bat for them and help them make their performances better. Of course they should have been calling the director to thank him, because that should have been his job. But instead they called me.

Oh, and BTW, I sent a letter to him, requesting my name be removed from the credits. The end result was THAT bad.

And the feel I am getting from what you are saying is really reminding me of him.
 
Last edited:
Yes rank has it's privileges. And the Director is the "general" on set. But when you truly become a Director, you also bring with it tact, diplomacy, trust of the people you surround yourself with, and delegation of authority/responsibility.

john threat said:
Why would you hire n actor you dont trust?

The director rules the set. If he doesnt - it runs away. see here.
Click to expand...
I disagree with that mentality. They should "guide" the set. The crew and cast already know the director is in charge. But having the mentality that you rule the set...........says your mindset is already not in the right place to be a Director and guide the film. You are focused on "ruling the set".

Look at the language you are using:
"Just remember DKAA! Dont kiss actors ***!"
"toss someone quickly who is holding up production by not giving you what you want"
"filmmaking is a totalitarian sport from the top down"
"actor doesnt "get" it"
"Of course big talent has some outragerous riders and egos"
"you can't learn or improve on directing from a book or from a online forum"
"you are forced to trust the actor the minute you run the camera"
"It's a subtle line not best served by run away actors and egos"
"The director rules the set."

Jon, these are direct quotes from you just in this thread alone. Where do you speak about how a director should work with their cast like a partnership, and how a director should have flexibility and give respect too? I don't see it with the tone and statements you have shared here. It all about bowing to the director. There is nowhere in your language that speaks of the two-way street of trust an actor and a director have. It's all about how the director is in charge.

Call me crazy.......but I think I have a good understanding about the issue you are having with actors. I suspect there is an ego/diva problem, and it is not from your cast. Once you get past the ego issues and realize trust cannot be demanded and ordered, I think you will find things get a ton easier for you. When a good director and a good actor get together, it is like a great marriage. Each person has their own personality, but there is a merged personality as well and that is what is seen on screen. You don't see the individual on screen.

But then again, what do I know? You have the title "director", me I have just directed scenes, worked with actors for TV shows, understand that personal relationship between actor/director.


Like I said before, as big of an industry field film-making is........it's actually small. And word gets out fast if you have a reputation for stuff like this. Especially when you are saying it on a public board with your name attached to it. There are a lot of working actors out there that are considering directing. I wonder if, after reading this thread, how many are going to be lining up to audition for your next project.

Something to think about.
 
Last edited:
I once heard Kevin Spacey say that stage acting is about performance and film acting is about choices.

I think there is a middle ground.

If the director is charged with visualizing the picture, then actors should trust that the director has done due diligence and is leading them to the right choice which, edited together, should yield a wonderful performance. If you haven't done your part as a director, you deserve no ones trust. Likewise, if you can't be directed towards making good choices for the edit, you should be on stage. Brando was notorious, but made intelligent choice based on character, whatever... but that was Brando. Kubrick was a bastard about his vision... but that was Kubrick.

These yahoos ain't Brando, and those yahoos ain't Kubrick.
 
@Doc Bernard

Good points on all but the shot list and story board. Very few directors use them except for action scenes or big set pieces I was surprised to find out. Script however... That was unacceptable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top