Help!

A

Angelshare1

Well-known member
So we are doing the table read and we get to a scene that requires my lead to kiss a woman. We were not acting it out at all, just reading. He stumbles over that part and asks if we are doing like a stand in or what.

Okay a couple of problems. It was pretty obvious to everyone that my lead had not yet read the whole script. I can work with that. The big problem though is that he doesn't want to do a kiss scene. Understand, this isn't nudity, or love making or even first base. Just kissing at the end of a date. Not full blown make out session. A nice goodbye kiss. He also stumbled over curse words. Now understand, it's not like my script is wall to wall "edgy" with lots of swear words and N-words. It has 2 f words and 2 Ahole words.

My actor is a born again Christian and he's pretty uncomfortable doing these scenes even though they are pretty tame by most standards. I can comprosmise on the swearing, and I can get by the fact that he hasn't read the whole script but I need him to kiss those women. (There are two kiss scenes.) He has a girlfriend and that's what he's worried about.

I'm venting a little bit here but I'm looking for solid advice on how to get my actor comfortable with kissing a stranger. Any advise is appreciated.
 
Sounds to me like you need to replace the actor. An actor at the very least should read the script...that in itself is a bad start even for a table read...unless they are pros (and pros usually professional) they are showing a lack of excitment for the project. Next, the Christian thing...don't change your script for anyone unless it makes it better. You shouldn;t expect him to kiss her in early rehearsals if they don't want to and definitely not in a tab;e read, but at some point it has to be done. The curse words are the character and if he cannot play the character you have miscast him...sorry but the answer is simpler than it sounds. You will save yourself a lot of heart ache if you re cast.

Just my opinion....
 
Agreed, coming from both a Christian and an actor. Can't do the role as written? Don't take the role.

Your script is your baby, cherish it and protect when necessary. I have things I won't do on a personal level, and I find out if the script has anything that could be an issue later on. (No full nudity, no sex scenes) It is my personal decision, and has no reflection on those that can do those scenes. The actor did not do his homework.
 
I hate to say it just like this, but how (and more importantly, why) did you cast this actor? What sort of experience has he had? It seems to me if he's a reasonably well experienced actor that a little profanity and some heterosexual kissing should absolutely not be an issue. To put it more simply, any actor who refuses to do such things can barely justify calling himself an actor. It's tough enough to get cast in anything decent even with far lower personal boundaries.

Then there's the fact that he hadn't bothered to read the script of a film he's cast to star in. Combine that with his 'special needs' issues, and well...sorry, but I'm calling out amateur here, big time.

He might be a terrific guy and all, but IMHO, as an actor myself, he needs to take a serious reality check...

My $.02
 
ditto what Ted said too...

oy veh an actors job is to portray people unlike themselves...if they can't do that, they should not act!
 
This is a classic reason for why I believe all directors should take a few very good acting classes ...to understand actors and to cast with a little more discretion...

I applaud you for making a film but, and I don't mean this offensively, as green as he obviously is, you have to ask yourself, what was your process or reason for casting this actor...sounds like there are so many problems that he should have been easy to peg.
 
Stan I so get ya...

and also not to offend but hopefully teach...

When making a breakdown of characters for casting sessions, you should always include info on the character description if it includes, kissing, nudity, love scenes, foul language or anything of that nature. If you are going to require the talent to do anything that might make them uneasy the information should be upfront prior to reading anyone.

That way you won't end up reading and casting an actor who does not want to do the things the part requires!

No muss no fuss...
 
A person can be an actor without compromising their own personal morals and ethics. How many good actors do you know who won't do nudity or sex scenes, for instance? This is no different. Kirk Cameron refuses to kiss anyone other than his wife. Granted, it reduces the opportunities available to the actor in question, but that's his choice. To insult him and say he has no business calling himself an actor is both rude and uncalled for.

That being said, I too wonder how he was cast in the first place. The casting process on this project seems to be flawed.
 
Amen Mich...and Chapelgrove, although having no business being an actor because of boundaries was not a quote from me, I will say that this is not really the issue ...you have an actor here that not only accepted a role he was not prepared to play, but it appears he didn't even read the script. The producer, as stated, has a lot to answer for his situation too.
 
stan harrington said:
Amen Mich...and Chapelgrove, although having no business being an actor because of boundaries was not a quote from me, I will say that this is not really the issue ...
Click to expand...

I agree. But it was stated here...

Ted Spencer said:
To put it more simply, any actor who refuses to do such things can barely justify calling himself an actor.
Click to expand...

...and I felt it was unfair.


stan harrington said:
...you have an actor here that not only accepted a role he was not prepared to play, but it appears he didn't even read the script. The producer, as stated, has a lot to answer for his situation too.
Click to expand...

If he was given the script and didn't read it, then he dropped the ball. But more and more I read posts here from people who don't even allow the actors to read the script before being cast. If that's the case, then the director, producer or casting person is at fault for not making clear to the talent the requirements of the roles they were being cast for.
 
Last edited:
Agreed...If the guy wasn't given the script... but the gentlemen's first gripe was that the actor hadn't read the entire script which would indicate that it was given in this case.
 
stan harrington said:
Agreed...If the guy wasn't given the script... but the gentlemen's first gripe was that the actor hadn't read the entire script which would indicate that it was given in this case.
Click to expand...

What he said was it was 'pretty obvious', meaning it's what everyone assumed. And it may be true. If it is, then the actor is certainly at fault for accepting a role without a clear understanding of the requirements for that role.

Best advice was given earlier -- thank the actor for his time, and cut him loose. Or, if the director really wants to keep him, then find a way to accommodate his concerns.
 
OK, I know it may peeve a few people off but I have watched way to many actors shoot themselves in the foot because they won't do this or that. On nudity, ok...if someone does not want to do nudity or sex scenes I can get it BUT an actors job IS to portray someone other than themselves and in doing so 'they' are not the one kissing a stranger, in essence the character is.

I know one actress while working on a period film who refused to shave her under arms because SHE did not like to shave. However, her character was upper class and would have. They had a heck of a time in editing. That cost production more money.

An actors job is to play the character...and if the actor won't do anything they themselves would not do, they don't develop a range. If they wait until they are on set to voice these things, they cost production time and money.


In this particular case from the original poster...I can't get over the fact the guy did not even read the entire script prior to the table read. And if he was cast to play the lead, I don't know why he did not read the entire script before accepting the part.
 
I agree he should have read the entire script and voiced any concerns he had before accepting the role. To do otherwise is unprofessional, to say the least.

On the other topic, it's fine to say the actor 'becomes' the character and therefore should have no objection to kissing someone because "...'they' are not the ones kissing someone, in essence the character is." But using that logic, no actor should object to anything, including nudity and sex scenes, because "it's not THEM doing it."

The reality is, like it or not, it IS them doing it. If they did a snuff film, they couldn't escape a murder charge by claiming, "I didn't kill her -- my CHARACTER did!" Reality is reality, no matter what the circumstance.

Every actor is entitled to have a line which he or she will not cross. Where that line falls is up to each person to decide for themselves, and accept the consequences of that decision. To say that a person "can barely call himself an actor" based upon where that actor's line falls is, in my opinion, unfair.
 
I think we are getting a little sidetracked by semantics...we all seem to agree that the actor and the director made errors...the one objection...the right to call oneself an actor...is harsh, yes, but in defense of Michelle, this is the hardest profession to make it in and if your boundaries are such that it prohibits you from accepting what I would estimate to be at least 80% of the films out there, then you really being unrealistic if you expect to get anywhere...if you don't care or just make your own movies, fine...good luck to you. As for Mr. Cameron, he kissed many a girl on screen getting to the top to put himself in a position to continue in the business and call some shots and set some boundaries...I don't believe he would have made it in the beginning if they were his boundaries being primarily cast as a cool kid but that's just my speculation. I think if you are not planning to make your own films you are in the wrong business if you cannot kiss someone or cuss...Whether that prohibits you from calling yourself an actor is a debate that can go on forever and really doesn't help prepare actors who are reading from here and trying to learn about the complexities of the business. Harsh yes... Wrong??? Anyone can call themselves anything, that's their right... but this business isn't definitely for people who can't take some occasional harsh feedback...
 
In further defense of Michelle (oops - I mean Michele) the allegedly "harsh" terms came from me, not her (i.e. "he can barely call himself an actor" etc.). I stand by that statement without hesitation, but my intention was not to insult or demean the actor in question (recall that I wrote: "he may be a great guy and all" - and I meant that). And I never wrote that he "had no business being an actor". That was chapelgrove's rewrite/misquote, effectively amplifying the alleged harshness, much like most of his main line of argument here, which makes liberal use of amplifications and escalations of the rhetoric to make his dubious point.

Kirk Cameron became a born again Christian as an adult, years after achieving fame on the "Growing Pains" TV show (I had too look all this up since I haven't been much of a TV series watcher for some time now). He's apparently become something of a specialist in Christian films. According to IMDB, he starred in all three of the "Left Behind" films, as well as "Miracle Of The Cards", and more recently "Fireproof", two other Christian-themed films. This along with a "Touched By An Angel" TV episode and a "Growing Pains" reunion show comprises his entire IMDB resume for the last 10 years. So, we're talking about an *exclusively* Christian film actor, who's also a former child TV star. Hardly an example that aspiring actors could look to follow unless they are strict Christians as well, skilled actors, and are willing to work in films that might never pay more than the electric bill for them (which is the lot of many a talented actor, even those with almost *no* personal boundary issues). I am assuming btw, that none of the 'Left Behind' series was particularly profitable since the first one cost $17M to make and grossed about $4m, and the two sequels don't appear on boxofficemojo.com at all. A search on their DVD sales, which I suppose could be substantial, if perhaps still not exactly profitable, came up similarly dry.

I should also not fail to say that for the most part I have the utmost respect for the Christian filmmaking industry, 'end times' alarmists aside. Christians tend to generally be highly moral, ethical, respectful, and constructive, while overtly discouraging drug, alcohol, and interpersonal abuse and so on. All of that is just great in my book - I can't imagine anyone having a complaint about it.

But holding Kirk Cameron up as an example of an actor who succeeds while refusing to kiss anyone other than his wife etc., is an extraordinarily weak argument in support of the OP's miscast lead, and against my stated position. And trying to play the sex scene/nudity question card as "the same thing", not to mention snuff films for heaven's sake (ahem) is just more irresponsible debater-nonsense (also see the above reference to "rewrite/misquote"). There's a big difference between a few curse words/heterosexual kisses and onscreen nudity/sex, no? And a snuff film? Please. Why are you damaging your own position with such sloppy arguments?

For the sake of discussion, let's imagine that instead of an actor we're talking about an aspiring professional baseball player:

A talented young catcher, right out of high school, with a hot bat and a great arm etc., wants to make it in the major leagues. Great! However, due to 'personal boundaries', he stipulates that he will not sign to a team where the manager, coaches, or other players ever use foul language or chew tobacco, he must have complete privacy when showering after a game, and refuses to "tag" any opposing player on or near the buttocks or groin area. Like the OP's 'actor' who I said can "barely call himself" one (I'm guessing it was actually just one of his buddies who looked the part), our hypothetical baseball player has pretty close to a zero chance of making a living at it. Sure there are exceptions, but people win multi-million dollar lotteries all the time too. Just *not quite* as many as hope they will...

So, if you're willing to only act in niche films that have their (and your) own strictly enforced moral universe (and there are very few film genres that are as strictly defined as Christian aside from those made by other religious groups) then fine. Knock yourself out. But you'll be drastically lowering your odds on a bet that is already has about a .1% win ratio. To wit, here's a relevant fact:

Members of SAG, the prestigious actor's union, for which one must be a bona fide pro to belong, and which charges annual dues for membership, average about $7500 in annual income. Less than half of what they'd make working at McDonald's. And I'll bet about 98% of them have no problem with kissing or cussing in a film if they're asked to. On the other hand, a line they'd probably rather die than read is "You want fries with that?"

Lastly, I want to say that I have no personal animosity toward you, chapelgrove, in spite of your playing a bit fast and loose with my words initially. I bet if we met or worked together we'd get along just great.

Peace
 
Last edited:
"I know one actress while working on a period film who refused to shave her under arms because SHE did not like to shave. However, her character was upper class and would have. They had a heck of a time in editing. That cost production more money."

I volunteer to shave my pits for money. But no one would want to see me hairless with my shirt off except for my wife who gives me unconditional love. I'd look like a big albino rat! Does that mean I shouldn't have taken the part?

Grant
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top