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

[Doc Bernard]

The story board and shot list tell me there is serious consideration involved. Even if it is deviated from on shoot days. If they have one, it means someone on the crew gave serious thought about it and there is at least a plan in place.

If everything else falls to crap, go by the shot list.

 

[J Davis]

There are exceptions to the rule as there are some incredible films out there made without shotlist, storyboard or script.
Their presence is an indication of preparation, not a guarantee that the outcome will have great performances.

I've said this on another thread and got scorned for it. 80% of the directors work is in the casting.

80% is a huge number, it doesn't mean the director just coasts along afterwards. It means that you build your team right before
you start the production.

One thing - its great to see discussions happening in this forum as too much of dvxuser is about nitpicking cameras

 

[Doc Bernard]

Their presence is an indication of preparation

The presence of preparation gives me a much better feeling on set. Even if it is fake. There are ways to run a set, and there are ways to not run a set.

80% of the directors work is in the casting.

No argument here. If the director was really involved in the casting process, most of the OP's problems with actors would be non-existent. Though he might have to see every person in his area that calls themself an actor. An experienced actor might not want to work with him, but there are enough entry level actors out there. You should find a couple that fit your needs.

Or if the money was good enough, even experienced actors would overlook his "issues" of being the resident dictator on set. Though, you get what you actually invest (not pay for) in your talent.



So Jon, you have a couple choices here:

Figure out the real problems, or have a budget big enough for real actors to sign on and tolerate a diva new director. Sorry, there is a call to be frank here, and I obliged you based on your comments about actors and and an overall mistaken belief in how a director "rules" a set and how it's not a cooperative effort from EVERY department.


EDIT: Been searching for you on IMDB for any directing credits, Jon, please provide link. But IMDB is not a great indicator of work done, so provide links of work done as director, if not IMDB listed, other than your banner ad. Based on your comments....... I seriously now want to see what you have done, and if you have the juice/pull/influence/experience to demand from actors that may have years of experience over you.

Based on what you have stated here.

 

[Rolf Silber]

I've said this on another thread and got scorned for it. 80% of the directors work is in the casting.

I think you are very right and a bit wrong at the same time: Clearly casting is a decisive thing but it decides primarily on the conditions of the then following process of shooting. The casting itself doesn't do it - it's not that you put all the good stuff and the staff into the big blender and just switch it to "on". Casting & preparation & rehearsals before shooting together are nearer your 80%. If you have all this, you "only" need to shoot the film.

The casting & rehearsal give you a hint, probably even some clear information how the process with the actors may work later on. With no guarantee of success. It's a strange mix of a clear concept and intuition at work and that's why this profession is so thrilling - because apart from all professionalism, we decide on a social, cultural and psychological process we want to set in motion.

In the end all depends if we are interested in this highly complex and volatile and sparkling process .... or if we are more interested in the commanding side of "I'm the decider". Schizophrenically one can not exist without the other - what we can decide though is how much valence or weight we give it: If we are more the von Strohheim type of director or behave like Leonard Bernstein in this wonderful documentary rehearsing "West Side Story" (one of the best films about directing I've come across especially because it is not about film but music).

So: Being at the same time a shepherd dog giving the flock a clear direction while singing the Beatles tune "Dear Prudence, will you come out to play..?" ... ;-)

 

[J Davis]

Every production is different and their are many paths to the final successful product. If you are making a special effects laden film then casting is probably the least of your worries.

For me, growing as a director I'm moving in the other direction. I took that 80% line as my new motto, I think it was first said by the director of Let The Right One In after he spent two years casting the two children.

I don't know how much attention dvxuser's pay to the acting forum but I have a little thread there where I'm just concentrating on running through sketches with actors, this in itself is a process of casting for me. Its like a filmmaking commandment. Know your actor.

 

[J Davis]

I think you are very right and a bit wrong at the same time: Clearly casting is a decisive thing but it decides primarily on the conditions of the then following process of shooting. The casting itself doesn't do it - it's not that you put all the good stuff and the staff into the big blender and just switch it to "on". Casting & preparation & rehearsals before shooting together are nearer your 80%. If you have all this, you "only" need to shoot the film.

I'm not saying do less work during production. I'm saying do the same effort as you are but double, triple, quadruple your workload and put all that extra time into casting.

 

[rsbush]

Casting is 90% of directing has been a maxim in the theater forever. It goes hand in hand with the maxim 'the last 10% is 90% of the work.'

 

[Melvin Harris]

The story board and shot list tell me there is serious consideration involved. Even if it is deviated from on shoot days. If they have one, it means someone on the crew gave serious thought about it and there is at least a plan in place.

If everything else falls to crap, go by the shot list.

Honestly, I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but I don't agree. You can shoot master scene and that's a plan. All a storyboard and shot list tell a person is that they spent time wondering about the shots, but if time wasn't spent thinking about the impact of subjective or objective angles, or about the scene's destination, or performance choice of the actors then your organization will allow for the filming of a bad movie no matter how good the script is. Now in the case of complex action scenes or fight scenes, it's almost obligatory, but if you shoot master scene and get coverage from performance choice for other scenes without a list or piece of paper it doesn't make anyone any less prepared if they know their stuff and are talented...

If everything else falls to crap, you didn't do your job.

 

[Gary Huff]

Really, people have a misconception about what a director's job is. The director's primary job is to make sure that a movie can come together in the end, making choices along every twist and turn as budget/weather/unforeseen circumstances come into play that constantly threaten to derail the entire project.

At the end of the day you don't want to end up in the editing bay and realize that you have to seriously reshoot the movie in order to make it work. Reshoots cost money, people may or may not be available, ect. so you need to have the end goal in mind as you direct, making sure that when you dump the footage on the editor's desk that he/she can make a coherent film out of it in the end.

If you can't succeed in that, then everything else is just academic.

 

[Rolf Silber]

Casting is 90% of directing has been a maxim in the theater forever. It goes hand in hand with the maxim 'the last 10% is 90% of the work.'

I love good analogies & metaphors so I really love this one. I may slightly - only slightly - disagree more profoundly later because of what the numbers game implies.

For now: I hope to have at least half ways saved some films from complete disaster caused by my and the producers miscasts. So directing - by maybe bringing a mule to an at least somehow convincingly impersonation of a race horse - has some merits when coping with disastrous decision in the "90% quarters". But, yes: 10% lacking from being alive is still 100% death... ;-)

 

[john threat]

Really, people have a misconception about what a director's job is. The director's primary job is to make sure that a movie can come together in the end, making choices along every twist and turn as budget/weather/unforeseen circumstances come into play that constantly threaten to derail the entire project.

I dont agree with that. I think - I like to think it's the producers job to see the movie came come together. The Director provides the vision and talent to infuse to the project and inspire all the departments to bring this vision to life. Only time a directors job is primarily making sure it comes together is at the end if he is a journeyman director for hire with very little creative input. But there are many types of directing and different projects. I've done soulless ones with no creativity before and I hopefully plan not to have to do that ever again. But one never knows what the future holds. I bring vision and creativity first way before being a bureaucratic or diplomat.



PS:

most of the OP's problems with actors would be non-existent.

I started the topic, but I dont have a direct on going problem at all - in fact one could say its the opposite of a problem.

 

[Gary Huff]

I like to think it's the producers job to see the movie came come together.

No, the producer's job is to make it so that the director is able to do his/her job when it comes down to making those choices that could derail the movie.

 

[keylight]

I like to think it's the producers job to see the movie came come together.

No, the producer's job is to make it so that the director is able to do his/her job when it comes down to making those choices that could derail the movie.

This is kind of an interesting issue, and I think you're both right to some extent. On some (usually smaller) projects, directors and producers can be the same person. But where they are different people.....

The director does have responsibility to the production to make sure that unforeseen problems are dealt with so as to not derail a production (part of Gary's position). But a producer can share this responsibility with the director (although John appears to lean in the direction of this being only the producer's responsibility). But more than that, the Director is responsible for the overall tone of the film, and provides the initial creative vision, which he/she then works in collaboration with the cast and crew to develop and bring to fruition.

To me, a director is like the lead developer/designer who handles the day to day putting together of the film, responsible for making decisions about how the story is told. And yes, the director has to make sure that everything that needs to be done, gets done, in service of the story.

A producer on the other hand, is like the project manager. Producers pull together the resources (including people) that the director (and others) need to tell the story on screen. And of course, they share the responsibility to solve problems as they arise and make sure that everyone stays on target.

 

[Gary Huff]

You're correct, keylight, in that those lines get blurred all the time, but that's how the template breaks down (in a nutshell).

 

[Doc Bernard]

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 ***!

Sure would have been a good idea to explain to people that this was a purely hypothetical discussion at the very beginning and you being honest to your level of experience in this area. There are probably a lot of people with the wrong idea about you now.

And another area of consideration. You are on a public forum, asking questions (and that is cool, if you frame the question properly), if you are new to the biz. But it sounded like you were an experienced director asking a entry level question and one that went completely against the grain. And you got the brunt of the vehemence from directors and actors alike.

This question challenged the relationship of professionals working with professionals. And is one that should be approached with serious consideration for any repercussions. Asking it without that forethought, only invites the asker to gain a reputation that you may have already gained.......by just framing it the way you did.

Look, DVXUser is a close knit society. But it is also a public forum. And open to public/Search Engine access. If an actor, doing their homework on a role you post somewhere (you better believe I do it, if even just a Google search), and they read this thread.......what do you think will be their first impression based on your initial post will be????? I can tell you what I thought at first.... I wouldn't even attempt to audition for you based on your comments.

Don't need that kind of hassle in my life, based on my first impression of what you were saying. I paid my dues as an actor, and to hear you say it was all about the director?????? Now maybe you understand the issues I and a lot of other people were having.

So, with any public forum, if your reputation is important to you...........don't be your worst enemy.

 

[Melvin Harris]

Sure would have been a good idea to explain to people that this was a purely hypothetical discussion at the very beginning and you being honest to your level of experience in this area. There are probably a lot of people with the wrong idea about you now.

And another area of consideration. You are on a public forum, asking questions (and that is cool, if you frame the question properly), if you are new to the biz. But it sounded like you were an experienced director asking a entry level question and one that went completely against the grain. And you got the brunt of the vehemence from directors and actors alike.

This question challenged the relationship of professionals working with professionals. And is one that should be approached with serious consideration for any repercussions. Asking it without that forethought, only invites the asker to gain a reputation that you may have already gained.......by just framing it the way you did.

I don't think there was a question in the OP post. He simply stated that simply bowing to an common discussion on these boards should be avoided for attempting to get the job right and take time in casting to find the best talent who can give repeatable performances with understanding of character and technique, etc. In fact, I believe he says that it takes time to master the nuance of learning to balance casting choices with problem solving that may extend to dismissal of the talent which happens all the time to people with a higher pay scale than all of us.

I don't see how that would tarnish a reputation.

Look, DVXUser is a close knit society. But it is also a public forum. And open to public/Search Engine access. If an actor, doing their homework on a role you post somewhere (you better believe I do it, if even just a Google search), and they read this thread.......what do you think will be their first impression based on your initial post will be????? I can tell you what I thought at first.... I wouldn't even attempt to audition for you based on your comments.

Don't need that kind of hassle in my life, based on my first impression of what you were saying. I paid my dues as an actor, and to hear you say it was all about the director?????? Now maybe you understand the issues I and a lot of other people were having.

So, with any public forum, if your reputation is important to you...........don't be your worst enemy.

I, along with others, am usually ignored around here. Very rarely have I had a discourse with members here. I skulk around the directing forum waiting for a great discussion, but usually its filled with threads on how to get something for nothing. This was a good thread that is very relevant to a great many people. This is exactly the discussion I am having with my students. The idea of casting the right person for the part is considered a newbie idea, but if it is such a grossly amateur concept, why is it that I see rigid performances with false emotions and miscast parts; or read the nightmare actor thread or nightmare experience thread more often than not.

Ok, you paid your dues. Cool. We all either have or are now. I have slowed because I teach filmmaking and broadcast production in the public school system, but I'm still working on projects. But that's not what this was about. He rhetorically asked (it was a statement more than a question), "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." That is something a director has to work on. It's the only way that Judith Weston's book can become more than just coffee table reading, or credibility giving indiespeak. That also happens during careful and deliberate casting. If you miscast some one and then spend all your time messaging their ego to cajole a performance out of them that they can't give because they are not right for the part... that's your fault.

I defend the narrative persona of John Threat in asserting this.

And as far as reputation is concerned, it's a two way street.

 

[keylight]

He rhetorically asked (it was a statement more than a question), "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."

Honestly... The OP started the thread with a statement that contained a lot more harshness and negativity than what you quoted from him. In fact, the whole context is missing from that quote. Here's his quote excluding the one sentence you quoted: (Emphasis mine):

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

[SNIP] 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 ***!

That is exactly the wrong tone for a director to take IMO. I'm not an actor, but I can certainly understand how actors might be completely turned off by the OP's first post. And as a producer, I personally would not want to hire someone with this kind of an attitude, for any kind of position.

Other things the OP has said in later posts have just reinforced his tone:

filmmaking is a totalitarian sport from the top down

Um, it most certainly is NOT.

Of course big talent has some outragerous riders and egos

Maybe 1% of the top 1% of actors, and frankly, irrelevant to the discussion because few if any of us will ever work on projects with budgets that can afford marquee actors. Work with great actors, yes. But work with one of the 0.001 actors whom this might apply to?

you can't learn or improve on directing from a book or from a online forum

Actually, I think you can. This forum (and others) are such great places to get ideas for how to do things in new ways. Maybe the OP can't, but others can and do.

you are forced to trust the actor the minute you run the camera

You give trust and trust is returned. It's so much easier for a director to make an actor look bad than for an actor to make a director look bad.

It's a subtle line not best served by run away actors and egos

Valid or not, reading this one made me wonder, "egos much like OPs?"

"The director rules the set.

I like to look at a director as the person who guides the set - and works to gets the best from everyone. Directors who "rule" the set can too often end up getting their film made, with far less than enthusiastic performances from their cast AND crew. The set is not a kingdom. True, a director is the person who makes final decisions, but film making is very much a collaborative effort. People take direction from a good director, but a great director listens to and makes use of the expertise of everyone on set.

...why is it that I see rigid performances with false emotions and miscast parts; or read the nightmare actor thread or nightmare experience thread more often than not.

I'd put my money on inexperienced actors (likely hired more for less pay than more experienced actors) - a common error made by inexperienced directors who think they can get great performances out new actors if only they would - damn it! - trust their directors and do what the hell they're told. After all, if they don't follow orders, directors can solve the problem by

"swapping them quickly with whatever talent pool you have around you."

 

[Rolf Silber]

People take direction from a good director, but a great director listens to and makes use of the expertise of everyone on set.

Amen - and make that the motto of the directing sub-forum.

 

[Melvin Harris]

First of all, thank you for this opportunity to dialogue and disagree.

Honestly... The OP started the thread with a statement that contained a lot more harshness and negativity than what you quoted from him. In fact, the whole context is missing from that quote. Here's his quote excluding the one sentence you quoted...

Personally, I would call it tongue in cheek. Admittedly, I am more aligned to his original post than to subsequent statements, but if we were to honestly speak to filmmakers about their films we would see people casting for look and from single isolated performance because of either time or money. I think that the dictator thing is a lot of hooey, but I am keen on this point- the conversation paradigm needs to shift to proper casting from results from improper casting directing.

I have been listening to the Q and A podcast and yet another director, Taika Waititi, expressed the fact that alot of his directing work with the young actors came from casting the correct actor the first time, or finding an actor so good, the part was re-written.

See, this is what I think we should be talking about. When I see a director ask about directing actors, I always want to ask them about their castings.
Did they have a casting director?
How many people did they see?
How long were the casting sessions?
When did they come into the process?
Did they have sides indicative of what they were looking for (performance vs nuance)?
Those things always seem more important than how to get an emotion.
I think of the Gandolfini/Figgis story. The only way Gandolfini could have done that to Mike Figgis was if Gandolfini was Tony Soprano... and he was. He had already proven that. That was excellent casting. Mess up Tony, the center does not hold. Directors become almost superfluous.
True grit was another case of excellent casting. Another Cohen masterpiece, No Country for Old Men (my favorite movie as I am a Cormac McCarthy scholar in academia), was genius level casting, I mean savant.

This is what I mean.

We have to think about tabling conversations about how to direct actors until how to cast them is understood. I extrapolated this from the OP's post much like you extrapolated this position:

I'd put my money on inexperienced actors (likely hired more for less pay than more experienced actors) - a common error made by inexperienced directors who think they can get great performances out new actors if only they would - damn it! - trust their directors and do what the hell they're told. After all, if they don't follow orders, directors can solve the problem by

From this:

...why is it that I see rigid performances with false emotions and miscast parts; or read the nightmare actor thread or nightmare experience thread more often than not.

When I actually said this:

The idea of casting the right person for the part is considered a newbie idea, but if it is such a grossly amateur concept, why is it that I see rigid performances with false emotions and miscast parts; or read the nightmare actor thread or nightmare experience thread more often than not.

See, one position puts the weight on the behavior of the director after the "job" is done, and one is a presupposition which is where I am coming from.

Personally, I am on the side of every good and great director working hard to create something lasting, but if this extremely adept statement is true:

People take direction from a good director, but a great director listens to and makes use of the expertise of everyone on set.

Then you have to surround yourself with experts because this:

I'd put my money on inexperienced actors (likely hired more for less pay than more experienced actors) - a common error made by inexperienced directors who think they can get great performances out new actors if only they would - damn it! - trust their directors and do what the hell they're told.

And this:

If you miscast some one and then spend all your time messaging their ego to cajole a performance out of them that they can't give because they are not right for the part... that's your fault.

Just can't work. And ifI am wrong in my assertion then all of the people I am aligned with will never work for anyone other than each other ever... and that's OK.

 

[john threat]

Thanks pharpsied for seeing what I was trying to say clearly! Knock down those straw men! I am given to express myself epigrammatically.

Short Version: Knowing what I know now - on a personal project - I'd cancel a shoot and start over if I suddenly discovered I had the wrong actor. I wouldn't even be worth it to finish.