Good Directors of Actors

[combatentropy]

What are some directors that you think are good with actors? And if you know, why are they good with actors?

I'll start. One of the directors I admired was Martin Brest. The performances in his movies are uniformly good. Even non-actors seem natural and open (see kid at end of this clip). Despite all my efforts, I can find little information about his approach, except that he would do a lot of takes.

I've always felt comfortable with camera angles, editing, etc. But directing actors is still a mystery to me.

---

Conversely, what are some movies with really bad acting, even with actors who are normally good, and why do you think they turned out that way? One example I can think of is For Richer or Poorer (clip), which actually I haven't seen but just a few minutes of and thought, boy is that bad. What's scary is that if I ask myself, "How do you avoid making a movie like that," I'm not sure the answer. Maybe it is too stylized? Did the director push the actors to be too artificial? But then other directors seem to pull it off (heavily stylized acting), like Robert Zemeckis, in his earlier work (clip).

 

[Josh Bass]

Judith Weston’s book (I think its literally called “Directing Actors”) has a lot of good insights into getting away from how I think most people would instinctively direct actors (“be more angry”, “yell louder,” etc.) which she calls “result-oriented direction”.

 

[kevin baggott]

If there's a better director than mike leigh with actors - I don't know of them. There's a reason why, Scorsese, Coppola, Lucas, Speilberg - got a copy of Naked before it came out and all watched it together. Personally - I think a director needs to study acting in order to work with actors. Even Scorsese - who Ben Kingsley says works like this "Ben - do you want to do another take? Up to you."

 

[OldCorpse]

Well, there are so called "actor's directors", a category of directors whose primary - or big - strength is working with actors and getting performances, so like, that's a thing. And I agree that it is hugely useful for a director to study acting, take acting classes and do some acting (even amateur). Unquestionably, given how important actors are to the final product - I'd argue actors are the #1 most important variable for a movie, with story coming in at #2. But it's not a 100% requirement for a director to "be good handling actors", like a 100% requirement to have a brain, otherwise you're dead - it's more like a kidney, you can not have one and not miss a beat.

That said, everybody and their mother recommends "Judith Weston" - and I don't buy it for one second. If you find value in her book, great. But don't imagine that what she says is somehow gospel. Far from it. The simple truth is that there are as many ways of directing actors as there are directors. Some are going to be pretty poor at handling actors, and yet they'll make good or great movies, even masterpieces. Kubrick is one of the greatest directors ever, and he was frankly pretty poor with actors. Hitchcock was another giant, who similarly was bad with actors (even going so far as to refer to them as "cattle" and treat them as props to be placed about). And the obverse is also true - some directors who are super in-tune with actors and understanding their psychology, turn in films with uninspiring performances - excellent examples would be the many directors who are actors first who decide to try their hand at directing. So get off your high horse wrt. some book or other trying to sell itself as authoritative. There is no one golden method - there are as many ways as there are directors. A director may be good or bad with actors, and turn in any kind of movie, from masterpiece to dreck. There are no rules, there are only artists. Every rule you can think of, has been successfully broken with fantastic results - for example, the rule which these days is regarded as sacrosanct, "don't act out for an actor how they're supposed to perform/imitate you" - yet this is exactly what George Cuckor did, and he turned in many films that are regarded as great classics. Or take Fellini, who obtained masterpieces of performances from his actors - and he worked often with no sound so that he could be giving line by line instructions to the actors as they were performing!

Let me repeat - there are no rules! An acquaintance once gifted me Judith Weston's book and I used it to put a cactus on it, before I gave it to somebody else. I have no time for prescriptive authors that are full of themselves and their solemn "rules" yet can't do basic research that on the most casual examination of the evidence - the history of cinema - would prove them utterly 100% wrong. And again - if someone extracts value for it, great, just don't try to sell me any kind of "authority", cause I'm allergic to that. There's always another way of skinning the cat.

Take Robert Altman - a prime example of an "actor's director". He'd give actors super wide lattitude to do their thing, regardless of the script. Actors generally loved him. Generally he'd get great performances. He's a very fine director in general - but he turned in more than a few turkeys. A director's skill, connection or relationship with actors does not determine the quality of the final product - it just doesn't.

And when you come down to it, there is one skill - instinct - ability - that is far more important for a director to have wrt. actors than the ability to communicate or handle them. That skill is in CASTING. The examples I gave of Hitchcock and Kubrick are instructive here - poor as they were with actors, they had pretty good casting instincts. If you cast your movie well, your odds of success rise astronomically. And if you work with great actors, your odds of success rise accordingly. You may not need to communicate well, or have great technique in "handling" actors, or be in-tune with their psyches, or any of that - because if you cast your actors well, and they're top pros, guess what - you will still get great performances, because the actors understand what the material demands and can give it splendidly. The result is a great success. Not that either Hitchcock or Kubrick were batting 100% casting-wise (see the atrocious casting of O'Neal and Berringer for "Barry Lyndon", which was a technical triumph and a failure in every other respect).

A very instructive example here is Michael Mann - take a look at the film he did twice, once as a made for TV movie and once when he had the budget and pull to get top actors. I'm talking about "Heat" of course. He made it first for TV, an abbreviated version, called "L.A. Takedown", as a kind of pilot idea for a series, I believe. In any case, compare those two, it's super instructive. There are many differences of course, but try to focus on the actors - who frequently reprise the same scenes in both movies. Take for example the famous restaurant scene where the cop meets his nemesis. In L.A. Takedown, the actors are miserable. Just bad. As they are in fact throughout the move. Just rotten. And the reverse is true when Pacino and DeNiro go at it. What a difference! Same director, same general idea, many of the same scenes - yet a world of difference! The difference in outcome wasn't due to the director, since it was the same one, or the material, since it was the same one, the difference were the actors! Based on this, what can you conclude about Michael Mann as a director insofar as his skill with actors goes? Not much! Whatever he did in L.A. Takedown, still resulted in rotten performances. And whatever he did or didn't do, still gave stellar acting results in Heat. See? You cast your actors well, and the actors are good - SUCCESS! You cast them poorly, or the actors are poor - FAIL! The director has very little impact here, outside of casting. I defy anyone to get a better result out of those losers in L.A.Takedown. You could put the greatest "actors" director with those blockheads and it would still be atrocious. You can't make a silk purse out of a pig's ear. Put in top pros - who are also suited to the role (i.e. cast well, not miscast) - and boom - you get scenes that are treasured in cinema, like that restaurant scene in Heat (and NOT in L.A. Takedown!).

The lesson here is: CAST well, and work with GOOD actors. That, right there, will determine 99% of your success in that department, and then the critics can blabber on about great performances, etc.

But one other thing. It also depends on the material, to some degree. If your material is much more loosey-goosey free-flowing kind of stuff, where the actors are making it up as they go along, improvising and ad-libbing, like many movies in the 60's and 70's, a director who is dialled in to the actor's performance might significantly impact the end result, if he's dealing with marginal actors (if he's working with top pros, again, that will be the bigger factor).

 

[Jim Feeley]

We (re)watched On The Waterfront earlier this week (Criterion BluRay from the library; still checking out some of the extras). So Elia Kazan's on my mind. One thing that's impressive about his films is how often he worked with and got great performances from actors (and non actors) making their big-screen debut. He'd been an actor, so that reportedly helped. He dealt with Method actors. He used different approaches for different films and actors. Awe heck, let's go to Google:

Elia Kazan, an actor’s director
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2010-feb-17-la-et-classic-hollywood17-2010feb17-story.html

Elia Kazan > Being an "actor's director"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elia_Kazan#Being_an_"actor's_director"

 

[Batutta]

That said, everybody and their mother recommends "Judith Weston" - and I don't buy it for one second. If you find value in her book, great. But don't imagine that what she says is somehow gospel. Far from it.

No one should take anything as gospel. Even the gospels! But there is a lot of value in her book and it can get you thinking more deeply about your scenes and how you relate to actors. In my experience, her approach works. I don't follow any of her "rules" as you call them. I read the book once and just follow the essence of it. It keeps me from being lazy and working on a superficial level. I got better results from my actors with it. I think especially for directors who come from a technical background, and have no experience writing or performing it can really help you look at scenes in a deeper way, past the surface emotions and at what's under the text. Instead of telling an actor to be more angry, I'll remind them of what's at stake in the scene, or find a metaphor for what's going on in the characters mind. Avoiding result oriented direction is kind of similar to the writing advice to avoid adverbs. It's not that there's something inherently wrong with adverbs. It's that it forces you to find the exact right word, which makes your writing more precise. Avoiding result oriented directing will make your communication with actors more precise. I'm sure there are directors who got great performances in the past by manipulating their actors like marionettes, but it's possible they got those results in spite of their methods. Who is to know? In the end it's impossible to just look at a movie and really know if an actor did it all by himself, or the director really helped them. I can only speak from my own experience.

Making sure your scenes are tight, with playable objectives and physical business is the first step, and probably the most important step. Casting right is the next step. I'll disagree and say you don't necessarily need good actors, but the right actors for the part. Preferably they'd be both, but you can work with a so-so actor who is exactly right for the part and just help them relax and be themselves. When you're working on a low, no budget sometimes you got no choice. Even a non-actor can do good work if you're lucky. Writing for actors you know, and to their strengths, can help a lot. Lastly, protecting the performances in the editing room is the last step. Always choose performance over continuity, if you must.

 

[Josh Bass]

I like what you say and would vote for you not to be eaten first if captured by cannibals.

 

[jamedia.uk]

Hitchcock was another giant, who similarly was bad with actors (even going so far as to refer to them as "cattle" and treat them as props to be placed about).

Was that really true? I am sure that somewhere I read/saw that the original "cattle" remark was misquoted but he used it and owned it as a bit of publicity and public persona he kept going in interviews etc. It was not really how he was on set. I have no direct knowledge either way other than some half remembered interviews on TV years ago. Does any one know definitively? I would be fascinated to know.

 

[Batutta]

Was that really true? I am sure that somewhere I read/saw that the original "cattle" remark was misquoted but he used it and owned it as a bit of publicity and public persona he kept going in interviews etc. It was not really how he was on set. I have no direct knowledge either way other than some half remembered interviews on TV years ago. Does any one know definitively? I would be fascinated to know.

Here's an article from one of the actresses who worked with him. She disagrees with that assessment of Hitchcock, saying he was more involved with his actors, although in a very manipulative way. He liked playing mind games and provoking performances.

https://thefilmstage.com/features/d...ks-directing-methods-and-the-state-of-acting/

 

[OldCorpse]

Was that really true? I am sure that somewhere I read/saw that the original "cattle" remark was misquoted but he used it and owned it as a bit of publicity and public persona he kept going in interviews etc. It was not really how he was on set. I have no direct knowledge either way other than some half remembered interviews on TV years ago. Does any one know definitively? I would be fascinated to know.

Here you go:

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/08/01/all-actors-are-cattle/

Bottom line, yes, although some argue it was more meant as provocation or alternatively a provocative joke. In either case, Hitchcock was definitely not what you'd call an actor's director. And he was often very unprofessional in his treatment of women actors, see the atrocious behaviour toward Tippi Hedren (he'd never survive today's MeToo movement). He often tried manipulating actors, and most certainly bullied them, especially women actors. Hitchcock had many great qualities as a director, but when it came to actors he was very poor - although as I pointed out, he did have one gift in that department, certainly the most important gift, and that was he had good casting instincts.

 

[combatentropy]

Hitchcock storyboarded every shot, imagined the whole movie before the first day. Directors like that typically aren't also great directors of actors. Actors' directors are more exploratory, more process driven.

I think a director needs to study acting

I took two years' of theater in high school, plus two semesters of acting in college. After a monolog, my teacher said something like "Wow!" After a skit, someone came up to me and said, "You're a good actor." It was all instinct though. Most of my material was comedy --- scenes for class and a one-act play. I did not dive very deep. On a couple of full-length plays, I worked backstage but don't remember witnessing any directing except once, when our high-school drama teacher proclaimed notes from his chair to the whole cast at once. I remember learning about the theater of ancient Greece and lighting. I remember stretching exercises and acting games. The vocal training, in enunciation and tone, was useful.

Judith Weston’s book [...] “Directing Actors”

I own this book. I've read most of it. A lot of it clicked.

Part of the reason I started this thread is because I see Hollywood directors break her rules, even those whose movies have good acting. It's hard to find footage of directors directing, which is understandable since it's intimate. When I do, half the time they're breaking the rules. I saw Roman Polanski telling Nastassja Kinski to get angry on this line. I read about Rob Reiner doing not just a line reading but acting out whole scenes for Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson. Most recently I read that Joaquin Phoenix did not want to do even a table reading before filming Joker. So when exactly would the director have much of an opportunity to influence his performance?

On that note, I have read of several big actors, when asked about what they want in a director, their message was: "Back off!"

Samuel L. Jackson has a class on acting, on masterclass.com. In one segment he talks about directors, saying there are three types:

(1) The ones just trying to get their shot. "I love those guys," he said.
(2) The writer-directors. "Sometimes they know what they wrote. Sometimes they don't," was all he said.
(3) The guys who are lucky to be there. He said often the director is the one with the least experience of anyone on set. So again, back off, was his message.

Where was (4) the actor's director? Samuel L. never mentioned such. His favorite kind of director was the one focused on composition, presumably leaving the actors alone.

Morgan Freeman is another actor whose message to directors is to leave him alone. About his first major role, he said, "Jerry didn't give me one line of direction, stood back and let me do my thing. That's the kind of director I like. [...] People say, how does Clint Eastwood get such performances out of his actors? He doesn't. He hires actors and then he takes a giant step backwards."

Gene Hackman told Ted Kotcheff to only direct with: more or less, faster or slower, louder or softer.

Many directors agree. Ridley Scott said, "Keep it simple. The great actors frequently just want to hear: faster, slower, or medium." David Cronenberg said the same thing, "I leave them alone."

Perhaps George Lucas should not be derided too much for just saying, "faster, more intense." In American Graffiti, he was so quiet that a cast or crew member said that it was two weeks before they knew if the director spoke English. Then there is the hilarious recollection of Richard Dreyfuss: "George is the only film director I've ever met who doesn't like directing. He would say, 'Is that the way you want to do it?' And we'd say, 'Yeah.' 'Okay, Haskell, go put a camera there and a camera there.' And you just knew that he couldn't wait to not direct." And yet American Graffiti was nominated not only for Best Picture and Best Director but also Best Supporting Actress. I think the performances are remarkably natural and funny and poignant throughout.

He was the same way on A New Hope. Mark Hammill says, "I would to talk to George about, say, Luke and what he is feeling. 'Should I be jealous that this guy is hitting on the Princess?' George would say, 'That's interesting. We'll talk about it later.' Which, of course, we never would!" And yet again, A New Hope was nominated not only for Best Picture and Best Director but also Best Actor (Alec Guiness).

Despite his shyness, George Lucas still did many things right.

Casting. As has been mentioned in this thread, many directors and actors say that directing is 90% casting. Well, George spent a lot of time casting. He held hundreds of auditions. He also cast in a way that went the extra mile, he auditioned actors in groups. He didn't just audition Carrie Fisher. He auditioned Carrie Fisher, Mark Hammill, and Harrison Ford reading a scene together. And he would switch out actors, to see not only who was a good actor but what were good groups of actors, what actors had good chemistry together. This is something that should always be done. How many movies have the critics lamented: Well, he's a good actor, and she's a good actor, but they just have no chemistry.

World building. George may have been shy but he was not indecisive. He stubbornly stuck to his vision. He spent a lot of time and money bringing that vision to a reality. Therefore, even if the actors did not have much access to George's words, they had a script and costumes and sets that I'm sure were rich for the imagination. In fact I think that George's success in the early days was that he had such cool and fun ideas, which attracted talented people. If you say you're going to make a movie about the 1950s or science fiction, people are going to bring ideas of their own, without you needing to ask. And if you hire talented people, like Ralph McQuarrie and Ben Burtt, then all you need to do is give them some rough guidance and then set them free.

Trust. George gave his actors freedom, because he was too shy and disinterested in the nuances of acting to want to micromanage performances anyway. And again because he was shy he was probably nice, which came across as supportive to whatever ideas they had. Many actors talk about the importance of something like: trusting them, protecting them, making the set a safe place. I don't know exactly what that means, but George's gentle demeanor probably was a step in the right direction.

I mean the George of the 1970s. By the prequels, he had become a different person. Billions of dollars later, and decades of being told he was a genius, gave him confidence but apparently not much more intelligence about directing actors. Also, maybe being a father made him more domesticated. In his teens, he raced cars and almost died in a crash. In his 20s, he made documentaries and art films. In his 30s, he was a rebel with the zeitgeist around his finger, helping overthrow old Hollywood. Then in his 50s, he was saying that Greedo shot first and that the Force is just a strain of bacteria.

 

[Drew Ott]

Judith Weston’s next book “film director’s intuition” is much better than her more famous first book.

 

[jamedia.uk]

Here's an article from one of the actresses who worked with him. She disagrees with that assessment of Hitchcock, saying he was more involved with his actors, although in a very manipulative way. He liked playing mind games and provoking performances.

https://thefilmstage.com/features/d...ks-directing-methods-and-the-state-of-acting/

Interesting article. I note that as Executive Director of the Academy of Art University’s acting school she says that she uses a lot of Hitchcock’s methods in teaching her 250 or so students, comparing Hitchcock with Elia Kazan.

 

[kevin baggott]

combatentropy - I got out of film school and did my first indy feature and saw the main actor struggling at time and knew he was struggling but didn't have the skills to help him. Actors speak their own language as you know. It was tough watching this go down btw. I threw the film away - didn't even edit it. It was my own money so I could do that. It didn't cost all that much. I then went to learn acting/directing for next ten years. Didn't make any films in that time. What did I learn - somethings. It's like that Brando thing where when working with a new director he gave them two takes and watched to see which they printed. One take was from the gut and hurt the other take looked pretty close to the first but didn't skin his ass as much. If the director printed the second take - that's what he delivered for the rest of the picture. I feel studying acting for ten years I could tell the difference. That's about it. And I think it's importance to know the difference. There's no one way to direct actors. Some people want directions others not. Anyway - not sure what my point was - except I'm glad I studied acting. I'm not as scared of actors - though still in awe of the process and frankly just as bewildered by it Also - all those references you make are about actors and directors with lots of experience. It's a rarity to get in that room with that kind of talent so you better be able to work with actors who are not geniuses or don't have that kind of experience. I was just in India last week shooting some b roll stuff and small scenes for a film - and worked with all non actors - but I knew how to help them being an actor myself. Anyway.... I'm not saying anything you do't know

 

[kevin baggott]

ps - hadn't had my morning coffee yet when I wrote this - " It's like that Brando thing where when working with a new director he gave them two takes and watched to see which they printed. One take was from the gut and hurt the other take looked pretty close to the first but didn't skin his ass as much. If the director printed the second take - that's what he delivered for the rest of the picture. I feel studying acting for ten years I could tell the difference. " HA! Brando would have fooled me too

 

[John Brawley]

I've been lucky enough to work with many dozens of high profile and successful directors because of the episodic TV work I do.

Most of the great directors I've liked working with are great at reading the room, and try to set a tone.

I don't mean in demeanor, but with what they're looking for in performance. Then they make the actors partners in that journey.

TV drama is also a quirky weird place, because TV directors have a very different skill set to "film" directors, whom I imagine is what most of this discussion alludes to. Weirdly, many of the working directors in TV come from a FILMMAKING background.

But I've seen some great directors work within those very narrow TV parameters, and mostly what I see that's successful is highly empathetic, emotionally present and insightful explorers of the human condition. All have a natural curiosity and desire to learn and explore.

Most of the directors I've seen that fail tend to be the directors that try to "direct". They try to control the stage in a way that stifles input and collaboration....To impose themselves and see only their preconceived ideas of performance, to try and hone to singular idea of what they think they want, with no flexibility to adapt and work with an actor to build on ideas.

Most of the best directors I see stay out of the way most of the time and only intervene when they absolutely have to, and they do it in the most minimal way that they cam. But they're prepared and know the scene and can answer questions the actors have. Treat every scene and every gig as important. Even on silly jobs take the privilege of directing very seriously and earnestly.

It's terrible when you get directors that can't even remember the actors name, let alone know the material. They haven't watched any of the show or even read the preceding episodes or later eps after the one they're directing. Don't be that guy.

JB

 

[bill totolo]

Paul Thomas Anderson. Steven Soderbergh, QT, Alexander Paine, Sydney Lumet, Coppola, Spike Jonez, Hawks, Michael Mann, many more...

 

[kevin baggott]

I'm reading two extremes here - bad director puts ring in nose of actor and leads them everywhere and good director leaves actor alone - steps in only when siren goes off.
Some of the best directors we had in film when it came to performance was Kazan, Cassavetes, Lumet, Mike Leigh, Mike Nichols. These are directors who KNOW acting - who were all actors themselves at one time.
As with cinematography or any skill it takes at least 10 years of hard work to learn it.
The ring in the nose directors - are not good directors - as are the hands off. Neither of those are going to get you the kind of consistent acting you will see in a mike leigh film. Sure you can cast well and be a sensitive person and keep telling the actor to 'don't act - try not to be funny, etc. I'm sure each director has their pocketful of acting proverbs. But its the same as Kubrick knowing his lenses and knowing light and as Alcott said himself - "IF he wanted to Kubrick could have been one of the greatest cinematographers." As we all know Kubrick started out as a photographer. Did he go and study acting for 10 years? No. One of the reasons in my opinion why he was doing all those takes was he didn't know how to really rehearse. Anyway - thoughts before I had my cup of coffee.

 

[OldCorpse]

Ultimately, it doesn't matter how a director treats an actor, what matters is the performance s/he gets. Whether it's by being super in tune with the actor, or whether it's by being totally dictatorial - doesn't matter as long as the result is good. A bad director is not one who has bad technique with actors, but one who gets bad results. You could be the most empathetic director with actors, but if you get a bad result, you're a bad director, period. There are no firm rules. As to the director like Kubrick doing tons of takes, if it was because of the actor, it's not because he doesn't know what he wants. It's a psychological technique - a tool. On occasion Polanski used to do the same thing - as did others. If you make the actor do 20-30-70 takes, at some point the actor breaks down, his acting method falters and that is what the director is looking for and can't get any other way... he can't give the actor instruction because it's not under the actor's concious control, only when the actor loses control do you get that effect a director is perhaps looking for in this case. Perhaps it's a bit manipulative, but it's the result that counts.

In this context I'm reminded of the photographic and film portraits Andy Warhol used to do. He'd get a celebrity to pose - f.ex. he did that with Salvador Dali. At first, the celebrity, or whoever was being photographed/filmed, would adopt a pose - Salvador Dali was famously highly mannered. So he'd adopt his trademark elevated head, staring eyes, mustache forward etc. - but Andy would throw the subject through a very simple way - he'd just leave the camera running and walk away. After a few minutes, the celebrity would be unable to keep the pose, would get bored or whatever when he saw that nobody was paying attention to them and Andy would get spectacular candids that were somewhere beteen posed and unposed, completely unique and utterly fascinating. That, friends, is genius.

So don't knock a director for their technique. Evaluate them only by the results they get, and only the results. There are no rules. Only the end result counts.

Sometimes you can make arguments as to how ethical the director is in being brutally manipulative and ruthless. Polanski would sometimes intentionally infuriate an actor and then immediately do a take, because he was looking to put the actor in a certain mood he couldn't get by any other means. Everyone has to draw a line somewhere - how far would you go to get a performance... lie? troll? provoke? attack? Everyone has their limit. There are things I wouldn't do no matter how great the result - it's an ethical limitation I have. Not for me - but I don't judge someone who has no such scruples. I acknowledge my limitation and have no desire to overcome it. So be it.

But the bottom line is - know your history. Know your industry and know what was done before. The more you know, the less likely you are to make sweeping statements regarding supposed "rules" and how things are done and who is a good/bad director. Because as soon as you assert something, I can point to cases that thorougly undermine and debunk your point.

As I never tire of saying: there are no rules! There are only results. Which is why William Goldman's most famous sayings is such a golden truth: nobody knows anything. There are no rules. Get your results whichever way you think fit - and if you succeed, you need no further justification, and if someone tries to tell you about this rule and that rule, smash them in the face... kidding, just ingore them. Go do your thing. It's the results that count.

 

[paulears]

You're joking when you say no rules? Really? Well - I'm looking at the things I'm responsible for in the next production I'm managing and there are PLENTY of rules. The Harvey Weinstein story has changed everything. Production companies are taking no chances and transparency and conduct is mega high impact at the moment. Directors have to be extremely careful nowadays because some of them have a style and attitude that while perfectly harmless to some, could easily cross lines and lead to action being taken now, or as we see in the press, later - sometimes years later.

So there now ARE rules. Many perhaps crazy rules that everyone in our business ignore or put to one side, but beware that everyone's conduct is now scrutinised and often recorded in writing. The days of the Casting Director being able to choose by any whim they may have, or Directors being able to scream and shout, are now VERY dangerous. Clearly - some of the activities that happened in the past were bad, but now it's swung and system are in place to maintain standards of behaviour from everyone. I hate it, and many ignore it.

"Sexual glances", "touching, kissing or hugging" and "sexual innuendo" are now banned. Detailed descriptions, observations and report forms now exist for these things to be recorded, just in case. So the movie star walks through the door, the Director rushes up to them, hugs them and kisses them on both cheeks. Perfectly normal behaviour. Nope - it's on the list. What happens really? The older ones carry on as before, but to do this to a younger actor? Plenty of Directors and the actors themselves do the innuendo scenario perfectly innocently - I'm not sure if the US audience would remember Kenneth Williams from the British Carry on movies of the 50s-60-70s, but you just couldn't do it now. The actors and Directors who would yell, scream and verbally abuse everyone cannot function like this any longer - whoever they are.

The notion that it is all about results is simply not true any more. It matters little who you are, the presses attitude is the only one that counts now. The world is getting very intolerant now. We have rules, and have to live with them. It is unacceptable for a Director to do lots of the old practices. Hell - we even have bullying rules here in the UK, and newbies are encouraged at college to report ANYONE who bullies anyone else. We have a term for them now - "snowflakes", but their patheticness and lack of a thick skin doesn't make the problem go away. Careers are already being wrecked by reputation.