Handling an Actor Trying to Direct?

[gonzo_entertainment]

Of course you should strive to be a leader and to be respected as a leader, however, there is ONE ultimate decision maker. You don't act in an arbitrary way, you don't like an a-hole, but in a situation where I am also the producer (as is usually the case). I am the one passing out the checks at the end of the shoot. That means when push come to shove you will do what I say or you will get the F off my set.

 

[David W. Richardson]

Of course you should strive to be a leader and to be respected as a leader, however, there is ONE ultimate decision maker. You don't act in an arbitrary way, you don't like an a-hole, but in a situation where I am also the producer (as is usually the case). I am the one passing out the checks at the end of the shoot. That means when push come to shove you will do what I say or you will get the F off my set.

Of course, when push comes to shove. But far too many are ruling with an iron fist from Day One. It's not about arrogance, ego or power. It's about assembling, motivating and leading a team to achieve your vision. Do it right, and those people will want to work with you again and again.

 

[David Jimerson]

I don't think I've ever seen an actor do quite that. I've seen ADs do it. I've seen DPs do it. I've seen producers do it. But never an actor.

I wonder if the actor was going by what the previous director had decided and communicated.

 

[Rolf Silber]

But in my view, you should always -- ALWAYS -- strive to be a team leader first and foremost.

A lot of years ago director Andrzej Wajda made a film - not his best, but still interesting - called THE CONDUCTOR. It was meant as kind of a parable into questions of leadership (still in times of communist rule in Poland). In short he did set two principles of conducting against each other: The Karajan approach and the Bernstein way. Both can be efficient, yet the latter has the ability to bring more creative and variable resources out while the first has a tendency transforms too much into pillars of marble.

In the end it says more about yourself which way you want to go. Dictators in the movies may for a certain time prevail. But team leaders can more easily cope with a medium that has so much variables - most of them human - as ours has.

 

[PopcornFlix]

I'm all for an easy, friendly set. If someone is trying to take over your job as director, you have to draw the line.

It's no different from being the captain of the football team or the conductor of an orchestra. You're the Leader and the Boss. It's part of your job to set limits. If everyone's nice as pie, you can be laid back. If someone's trying to push you around or usurp you, you stand up to them.

It's not about being a tin despot. It's about owning the production and setting the ground rules. The crew will respect you for it. They know you mean business. If nobody's trying to take over your job, the issue never needs to come up.

Hey, I'm not such a harda$$ -- I wouldn't go as far as Oliver Stone, who likes to fire someone on the crew the first day just to get the crew's attention.

 

[MrSeth]

This is a very interesting discussion.

There's a wide range of directors from a dictatorship-like authority to a democratic.

I don't know which one is better. Both styles in extreme are dangerous, but moderately, they produce amazing directors and even better results! Plus, people are different. Some actors you can be upfront with them, others you have to nurture their egos.