Jarek Zabczynski
Veteran
I think you should be well versed in all aspects if not only just so no one can BS you about something when you catch them doing it wrong.
How hands on should you be?
- Thread starter Jon Chema
- Start date
texvanwinkle
Well-known member
This year I've read Capra's autobiography, a biography of Ford, and Sidney Lumet's Making Movies, about the methods and logic he uses as a director throughout the entire filmmaking process. All of them knew quite a bit to a lot about the technical side. It significantly aided them in making the creative decisions they did. It let them understand their options, and their limits, more fully, as well as gave them more confidence in those to whom they were trusting on the technical side.
In terms of the writing, they all expended a great deal of effort nailing down the screen story and screenplay, often spending days if not weeks with the writer/s getting it ready. But the emphasis was on the story itself, and their fidelity was to that far more than the script. Ford in particular, though he prized a good script from his favorite writers, was notorious for changing things, often significantly, on set. He created Dobe Carey's role in Rio Grande literally on the set. He came up with character beats and business that informed the performances throughout shooting.
When it came to the actors, they were all surprisingly effective psychologists, though in different ways. Lumet and Capra were highly sensitive to the actors' needs, and parlayed that skill into some tremendous performances. Capra was a big proponent of giving everyone, from the A-lister to the one-day extra playing the cashier with no lines, some sort of backstory and business in a scene. Something that gave a context and significance to what they were doing.
Ford, on the other hand, not so much. He was often perversely mean to actors, in fact, usually singling someone out on each film for particular derision and scorn. And yet numerous stars, Wayne and Fonda among them, credited him with pulling the best performances of their lives out of them. Often he would work on actors without them even knowing it, both on set and off, in unexpected ways, giving them things to do and think about that seemed unrelated or at least puzzling until the moment they needed it—and then they'd realize what a genius he was at getting them in the right mindset. Instead of telling an actor to "do it angry," Ford would get him angry and start the scene. Or, as in one case, when someone was supposed to deliver some news with rote detachment, Ford had the actor recite his line—his only line of the film—as they were coming down the stairs, going to lunch, standing waiting for a scene—just random times. And surprise, when the time came to deliver his line, it was mechanical, just as it was supposed to be. Ford messed with people, but he knew what he was doing.
It's actually similar to a technique that Judith Curry talks about in her book Directing Actors (Harold Clurman in his On Directing, too). It's not a matter of telling an actor how to be—"Be angry"; "You're so hurt!"—but rather giving him something to definitive to do that *is that thing.* Give him an action verb—"accuse her" or "punish him"—or an image, or fact, that gives an outlet to the sought-after emotion. Or a physical task that give the actor something to focus on rather than the sought-after emotion, thus freeing him to experience it more realistically.
In terms of the writing, they all expended a great deal of effort nailing down the screen story and screenplay, often spending days if not weeks with the writer/s getting it ready. But the emphasis was on the story itself, and their fidelity was to that far more than the script. Ford in particular, though he prized a good script from his favorite writers, was notorious for changing things, often significantly, on set. He created Dobe Carey's role in Rio Grande literally on the set. He came up with character beats and business that informed the performances throughout shooting.
When it came to the actors, they were all surprisingly effective psychologists, though in different ways. Lumet and Capra were highly sensitive to the actors' needs, and parlayed that skill into some tremendous performances. Capra was a big proponent of giving everyone, from the A-lister to the one-day extra playing the cashier with no lines, some sort of backstory and business in a scene. Something that gave a context and significance to what they were doing.
Ford, on the other hand, not so much. He was often perversely mean to actors, in fact, usually singling someone out on each film for particular derision and scorn. And yet numerous stars, Wayne and Fonda among them, credited him with pulling the best performances of their lives out of them. Often he would work on actors without them even knowing it, both on set and off, in unexpected ways, giving them things to do and think about that seemed unrelated or at least puzzling until the moment they needed it—and then they'd realize what a genius he was at getting them in the right mindset. Instead of telling an actor to "do it angry," Ford would get him angry and start the scene. Or, as in one case, when someone was supposed to deliver some news with rote detachment, Ford had the actor recite his line—his only line of the film—as they were coming down the stairs, going to lunch, standing waiting for a scene—just random times. And surprise, when the time came to deliver his line, it was mechanical, just as it was supposed to be. Ford messed with people, but he knew what he was doing.
It's actually similar to a technique that Judith Curry talks about in her book Directing Actors (Harold Clurman in his On Directing, too). It's not a matter of telling an actor how to be—"Be angry"; "You're so hurt!"—but rather giving him something to definitive to do that *is that thing.* Give him an action verb—"accuse her" or "punish him"—or an image, or fact, that gives an outlet to the sought-after emotion. Or a physical task that give the actor something to focus on rather than the sought-after emotion, thus freeing him to experience it more realistically.
Rolf Silber
Veteran
First – my English is probably not good enough to for me to survive this discussion. So I apologize in advance. Second - I come from a time and a background- Germany - where and when acting for film was considered clearly a „second class“ to acting on the stage of a theater. This produced a lot of strange results, namely the in my view often crass over-acting in the early Films of Fassbinder and others, because they wanted to be even greater artists also on cinema-screen but had not so much ideas about the differences between the two media....
What you write actually conforms with a little gem I got hold of at the end of my student days at the Film-Academy – it was the word-protocol of a seminar that the very Mr. Lee Strassberg had held in the City of Bochum. What I gathered from this text and through friends who were both students and teachers at the acting school in this city (an extremely good one in those days) was – in short – that, yes, acting is not so much about the text that has been written by the playwright or scriptwriter, but it’s all the time much more about the subtext. Both of a scene and of a character.
There was an interesting take Strassberg had when discussing with an actress the scene in „Rome & Julia“ when she takes the potion that was given to her by the priest and that she is about to drink to fall in a dead-like sleep. Actually Mr. Strassberg would analyze the situation, together with the actress quite frankly along extremely matter of factual lines: How does Julia know that she will not be disturbed by her maid, when taking the potion? Will she lock the door to her sleeping chamber? Will this not create even more attention? Why does she trust the priest? Isn’t it much more conceivable that the priest will inform her father? Or maybe the priest has given her a real poison? Ist he window open? Ist the room cold? Whadt does the actress believe the potion looks like? Green? Does the actress like to drink green things?
From that the emotions and the emotional associations of the actress were shaped, it gave her a „deep structured“ background fort the part. This is, I believe, one way or maybe even THE way to work with actors and not fall into the trap of pure and simple „psychologism“ that often result in group-therapy sessions that usually produce primarily a festival of mental states and not real, acteable, results. A lot of very silly things have emerged from the Actors Studio’s „method“ though, at least in my country at a certain time, namely by people who granted themselves Guru-like status and behaved as acting teachers more like the famous Madame Blavatsky.
Now, having said this, it’s at least in my experience rather important to understand that certain actors may work differently. Especially British actors more often have a different take on things it seems to me and they alledgedly are not too keen to submerge themselves in over-analysing either themselves or the situation. You may come across actors who do not want to rehearse too much when working on a movie, others will demand long rehearsals (and your production manager commits suicide). So as a director you have to take also that into consideration when forming your cast (if you have a say in this, which usually is so here in Europe). This in itself is a rather edgy task and you need to have also the abilities of a coach who forms a team, knowing that it can’t be successful with too many soloists.
There almost ever is not only one way to come to a result. But I personally try to avoid working with actors about whom I have the feeling they are in love with the rehearsal more than with the result. There are actors who are so much into their introspection that it’s hard to get something out of them at times. Loved to watch that documentary about the making of DRACULA when Winona Ryder and Gary Oldman and Coppolla would hold sessions of breathtaking emotional fireworks in pre-shooting rehearsals, while Anthony Hopkins would sit in a corner, rather bored, playing on a piano and making clear that he had a different idea about what rehearsal are. So, over analyzing acting and the work of actors is as real a danger as just having an mechanical approach towards it.
About Ford and his „method“ I’d say that this reminds me a bit of of the early days of psychology when electro-shocks or a lobotomie where seen as valid methods of healing as they – in fact – did also produce a considerable result. There is always the problem how you want see yourself as a director. Polish director Andrzeji Wajda did let the main character in his film „The Conductor“ say, that there are two types of orchestral leaders – wranglers and gardeners. And you have to decide for youself what you want to be. More of a Karajan or a Bernstein. Especially so as a director.
Last edited:
Ted Spencer
Veteran
Wranglers and gardeners...I like that. But I think you probably need to be a good measure of both!
Rolf Silber
Veteran
Depends on the time of the day, how your leading lady behaves, how the tides of emotions move to and fro and if there is a full moon... ;-)
But yes - "Dr. Gardener as Mr. Wrangler" may be the right mix. If not the latter takes over....
That reminds of a story I read about Hitchcock. I can't remember what movie it was, but for this particular scene the leading guy and girl were supposed to be handcuffed together and irritated with each other. So when they got to the set, Hitchcock handcuffed them and started walking them through the scene to rehearse it. Just as they are finishing up and he is going to uncuff them, Hitchcock gets called away by somebody, says he'll come right back to unlock them, and promptly disappears for several hours. By the time they started shooting, the two actors were well prepared for what Hitchcock wanted out of them.
Rolf Silber
Veteran
Nice anecdote. If true. Yet: In my experience even the wrangling bit is less spectacular and often has to do with giving someone a good talking-to about problems of discipline related to the scenic work, the other actors, the crew. The most important part all the time is trying to find out how an actor responds to what. Some like to approach their part from introspection, others can get really started only when in costume, some do their own research others just like to come and do it. Convince them. Push a little here, a little there. Help them to cross an inner bridge or hurdle they are nervous about.
The final torture: Overwhelm them with praise. This sets them on the slippery slope towards what you want to achieve. David Niven wrote in his books about Hollywood why he loved Lubitsch so much as an director. Lubitsch would walk up to an actor and would say, smiling, with his heavy German-Hungarian accent: "Oh, this was so good... we laughed our heads off, really. Nice. We keep it. It' gold. Now, as we already have it, I just have a little suggestion for another take, why don't we........"
I did take small parts in films of some friends not because I wanted to become an actor, but because I wanted to find out what it felt like when you stand there. After having had quite a complicated monologue, in wintery night, next to a burned out tank, standing in the blinding lights, hearing my director friend shout "action" and later "cut" (over here we normally say "please" and "thank you") and then mumbling things with his DoP about framing, focus, setting, gamma curves and so on.... so while I was standing there without any idea if any of what I had done was any good .... I learned the one thing for life you - in my honest opinion - never ever should do on a set: leave you actor(s) alone. They have opened up. The have thrown their guts out. They are in a way naked. Talk to them. Give them re-assurance.
Tell them, you have seen their work.... and approved.... it's pure gold.... but then: You have just a little suggestion.... ;-)
Ted Spencer
Veteran
Yes, yes, yes
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.
My primary experience in show business has been in music production (often for films), but I'm also a reasonably experienced actor, screenwriter, director, shooter, etc., so for my $.02...
What you're pointing out is in fact *gold itself*, and works equally well in any performer/director relationship (as most people know, in music the latter's called the Producer), and it's *way* too infrequently practiced in all the arts I've been involved with (even when I was in college as a graphic design major!). You're absolutely right about the vulnerability of the artist 'in the moment', which is reason enough to give appropriate encouragement/reinforcement, but what surprises me is how few director types realize how beautifully, and dead-reliably this idea serves *their* goals.
A (reasonably) empowered performer, reinforced by encouraging comments from the director about their performance and capacity to deliver it *with such comments seeded with what you as the director actually want differently*, is almost every single time, a *much* better performer than one who's not. Plain and simple. Yet somehow, not so clear at all to about...geez, seriously...about 90+% of such director types I've worked with, in *all* the arts/crafts I've been in. It's always seemed do obvious to me, and so tremendously effective when practiced, that I'm simply dumbfounded at the rarity of it.
Well, I suppose it just helps guys like me, and you, and anyone else who gets the idea, to make better big-team-collaborative art (and that describes nothing more so than filmmaking), than their competitors.
At least we have that!
Last edited:
Rolf Silber
Veteran
Hmmm.... yes, if that is the way we want to work then - it is probably good for us. I will not deny though that other directors may get away and some times even quite far with more of the wrangler style directing. Especially (and maybe only) if they are really very, very good. I mean - Kubrick-like very good. Kurosawa-like very good. Ford-like or Bunuel-like very good. Don't know how much of that kind are around and so everybody should be extremely careful to apply such doubtful "privileges" to himself. Because if they are not as good, they will not survive long in this art and neither in this business, I believe. Or hope.... ;-)
But I will try to be careful, especially as this is both an American orientated and a "camera-heavy" forum... and my experiences may differ greatly from the ones most people make who post here. There is all the time a big effect that you can gain if you direct "Blavatsky-style" or like Fassbinder did: Every set becomes a group-therapy theme-park and you may bring actors to perform very weird at least. If that is good for a story is a different question altogether. It can be good. At times. But more often it is not.
In Germany, in the late 60's, the 70's and early 80's, this resulted some times in exquisitely over-emotionalised happenings on the set while the shooting went on. But had the unbecoming feature though that almost nothing what happened behind and around the camera ever made in into the films. Group therapy does not translate well into the motion picture. You can see it in some documentaries about that times - the shooting itself often a great adventure - the films often (with some exceptions) only were so-so or incredibly boring and self-appraising arty-farty stuff .... but that's another story...
The intrinsic contradiction of the directors job, imho, is that he needs to be most of the times a cooperative team-man, the captain of the ship and oppressive or even dictatorial only at a few certain points in the history of a production. Like often people who want to be directors fall in love with the latter only and run around on the set like as if they were the new Patton's of film making. And like often jobs like that of a director attract too much people with - in a mild expression - both authoritarian tendencies and social deficiencies.... as an actor I like once said: "having a small genital and a big ego is not enough to be an director".
The basic thing: Few if any actor (or team member) performs better when someone shouts at him or kicks her around or if a director behaves like a Rumpelstiltskin (even in Germany, the Rumelstiltskin's home-turf). Quite to the contrary. As I said: A director has to be a border-collie at best. Constantly circling the flock and only barking or cautiously biting into the ankles of members of the "tribe" when they are in danger of running off the next cliff.
Usually explaining where you want to go to and why and listening why they may have good reason for an objection to that is enough. Okay - when two border-collies meet and have a glass, one may say then: "You know, I love he sheep dearly but sometimes...." And the other will growl and nod. But: That is the job. If you like to be commander in chief, join the army. And if you do not like running around a group of people and sometimes barking or biting an ankle - become a scriptwriter or something else outside film..
There is, above that, a nice sentence I heard from an acting-teacher: "Most people want to be actors but they hate becoming one". Becoming what you want to be is a constant process in any art and it never ever stops .... and it holds true for directors and actors alike. It's work. So be as hands on as you can be without losing the idea of what you really want to tell. This is the really hard part I think. And if you really like to sit in your nice, flashy directors-chair with your name written on it and feel oh-so great ..... somebody should give you a kick in your behind and make you start running around the flock.... my 0.02 Euro of wisdom.....
Happy holidays...
Zblock
Well-known member
I just worked on a SULB film where the director either didn't know much or just chose to keep his opinions to himself regard tech. I actually would prefer if the director had a good idea of what he was asking for first because it relates to Time and Energy. But the audience probably won't even be able to tell.
texvanwinkle
Well-known member
Perfect. Love Hopkins, and I'm not surprised at all he'd take that approach. I've felt for years that British actors are on the whole superior to their American counterparts, either because they're more natural actors, or simply have a superior method of approaching it. American actors always seem to be acting—putting a character "on"—while British actors—indeed, European actors in general, from what I've seen—be themselves through the character. It's the same distinction I detect between the great American actors of the past and most of the current generation of actors. Gregory Peck, Jimmy Stewart, Paul Newman, Barbara Stanwyck, Katherine Hepburn—they were always *themselves* while in a role, but through whatever character they happened to be playing. They weren't doing impersonations, affectations, unlike the majority of their modern cohorts.
He was better with men than women. He wanted to be like the macho, hard-drinking men with which he surrounded himself. All he was able to emulate was the hard-drinking, but he identified with the men more. While he was seen as a mercurially sensitive soul, that sensitivity didn't extend to identifying with women. Well, not more feminine women. Strong-willed women like Hepburn and O'Hara he got along well with. (But for his Irish Catholicism, he likely would have left his wife for Hepburn.)
Those with whom he identified he was generally less harsh and more constructive, but his version of constructive would probably be seen as little short of Mongol by today's standards.
texvanwinkle
Well-known member
Those three I've most recently read about—Ford, Capra, and Lumet—all ran tight ships. The latter two were highly sensitive to actors in terms of how they worked—read Lumet's anecdote about Pacino's phone call scene in Dog Day Afternoon—but demanded that actors be professionals. They didn't suffer divas, and I think that's how it has to be. This goes back to the leadership mentioned on the first page. You have to know how to privately and respectfully make that point to such an actor. Read both to find out how.
texvanwinkle
Well-known member
I think that's right. Ford got away with it because, for one, he didn't start out as bad as he became later in his life, and by then he'd firmly established his reputation for eliciting great performances. Actors let him get away with more with them even if they personally detested him and his methods.
That said, while I have zero personal experience, only what I read in the trades and magazine articles and interviews, I get the distinct feeling that modern actors, at least on the American side, are far more sensitive than their forebears. I have a hard time imagining a Peck or Tracy or Stanwyck or Hepburn (either one) getting too ruffled by even the Fordian style. They might not like it, might not even thrive with it, but I can't imagine any current actors even being able to sustain it emotionally. I have to wonder how the methods I learn from the old masters will translate to today's crop.
I haven't directed yet myself—that's a major reason for all of this reading about the greats—but I tend to be a firm father of the old school. Kids aren't mini-adults, but nor are they helpless waifs who need constant adulation absent actual achievement to feel good about themselves. Self-esteem should come from achievement. I expect I will take a similar approach to directing, and I wonder how that will go over with today's actors. I'm not talking about treating them as kids, of course, only the idea of not countenancing diva-like or overly-sensitive behavior. I'm a sap for certain things, but in working with people, I expect professionalism and self-sufficiency. In other words, I have a feeling I'd work great with Hopkins. Learning how to work with the non-Hopkins might well be my biggest learning curve. Time will tell, hopefully sooner rather than later.
Last edited:
Rolf Silber
Veteran
Merry Christmas Tex,
running a "tight ship" is okay. But you have to run that ship without strangling the very talent you work with. That's the danger with the "Patton" approach. It may in the end even bring you in danger of starting to fall in love with your picture of directing - and you may soon end as what actors over here some times call a "director impersonater" - someone who is so much in love with his part - the shouting, the ordering, the big director's chair - that he somehow forgets what the direction should be "the tribe" moves to. I have seen this types when I worked in different jobs on sets. And often they come just so far..... but, again you (will) work in a different country and culture.
The real danger would be to get stuck in a dichotomy: either you are the strong leader or a collectivist sissy. That's not what this is about. One actor may be more the "Hopkins type", the next will be different and both may be very good ..... and if you really have luck, you have them in a scene together.... that's when your social skills will be really asked to work good... great directors like Istvan Szabo or Andrezji Wajda usually would direct in a rather cool and clear minded way, often accompanied by impeccable manners. But they would never dream of kicking the talent around. Kicked talent mostly gets not better but worse.
That's why the border-collie is my celestial sign: He keeps an eye on every thing, he knows where to go, he never loses a member of the tribe, can bark and bite if someone attacks or the flock will not move but is rather relaxed most of the times. Okay: A metaphor only.
Love it or hate it: "The Movie" is in the end a collective enterprise and you have all the time to deal with lots of different people and their creative impulses and have to bring this together ... because this is the job: organise that talent in the way that the story is told the way you want, but don't forget you will be going nowhere absolutely without that talent...
So if my personal method is different to yours... good. How can it not? It's not directly directing but the DVD about Leonard Bernstein preparing with orchestra and singers for the "West Side Story" shows for me the ideal mix of how also a film director should work. Knowing, caring but very decisive and firm at points. Again: My perspective.
From my experience I don't trust books about directors or directing too much - too often writers of biographies have the tendency to bend everything towards their "theory" how they want a person to appear - but there is indeed a lot of at least anecdotal advice to be found there. In the end the question remains who you are and how you want to work. And: The days of the Ford's are over maybe.... as much as the days of negative film are nearly over.
And about someone wanting to run after a Katherine Hepburn in her days - include me in. If I don't stumble over a Lauren Bacall, that is..... ;-)
running a "tight ship" is okay. But you have to run that ship without strangling the very talent you work with. That's the danger with the "Patton" approach. It may in the end even bring you in danger of starting to fall in love with your picture of directing - and you may soon end as what actors over here some times call a "director impersonater" - someone who is so much in love with his part - the shouting, the ordering, the big director's chair - that he somehow forgets what the direction should be "the tribe" moves to. I have seen this types when I worked in different jobs on sets. And often they come just so far..... but, again you (will) work in a different country and culture.
The real danger would be to get stuck in a dichotomy: either you are the strong leader or a collectivist sissy. That's not what this is about. One actor may be more the "Hopkins type", the next will be different and both may be very good ..... and if you really have luck, you have them in a scene together.... that's when your social skills will be really asked to work good... great directors like Istvan Szabo or Andrezji Wajda usually would direct in a rather cool and clear minded way, often accompanied by impeccable manners. But they would never dream of kicking the talent around. Kicked talent mostly gets not better but worse.
That's why the border-collie is my celestial sign: He keeps an eye on every thing, he knows where to go, he never loses a member of the tribe, can bark and bite if someone attacks or the flock will not move but is rather relaxed most of the times. Okay: A metaphor only.
Love it or hate it: "The Movie" is in the end a collective enterprise and you have all the time to deal with lots of different people and their creative impulses and have to bring this together ... because this is the job: organise that talent in the way that the story is told the way you want, but don't forget you will be going nowhere absolutely without that talent...
So if my personal method is different to yours... good. How can it not? It's not directly directing but the DVD about Leonard Bernstein preparing with orchestra and singers for the "West Side Story" shows for me the ideal mix of how also a film director should work. Knowing, caring but very decisive and firm at points. Again: My perspective.
From my experience I don't trust books about directors or directing too much - too often writers of biographies have the tendency to bend everything towards their "theory" how they want a person to appear - but there is indeed a lot of at least anecdotal advice to be found there. In the end the question remains who you are and how you want to work. And: The days of the Ford's are over maybe.... as much as the days of negative film are nearly over.
And about someone wanting to run after a Katherine Hepburn in her days - include me in. If I don't stumble over a Lauren Bacall, that is..... ;-)
Filmmaking, 99% of the time, requires the willing involvement and work of other people.
But I disagree with "collaboration" in the sense that you should let actors or cinematoagraphers create something from their vision.
For me, it's very important that I, as the director, convey the vision in my head correctly to everyone involved and that we're all working towards that vision. If someone suggests something as an alternate way, I have to think about it and decide whether or not it will work within the vision of the film. I've been on other people's films where cinematographers start doing whatever they want and actors simply "Act" to look good on their reel. This is bad news, and ultimately is the fault of the director for not being able to contain these people's talents within the actual vision of the film.
Besides that, I think directors are always dictators. Sometimes you need to be mean, sometimes you need to be gentle, sometimes you need to be confusing. It all depends on what you want from your actors/collaborators. But you can't really get away with being mean unless these people trust and look up to you...so it's really important to form a family-like bond with your colleagues.
But I disagree with "collaboration" in the sense that you should let actors or cinematoagraphers create something from their vision.
For me, it's very important that I, as the director, convey the vision in my head correctly to everyone involved and that we're all working towards that vision. If someone suggests something as an alternate way, I have to think about it and decide whether or not it will work within the vision of the film. I've been on other people's films where cinematographers start doing whatever they want and actors simply "Act" to look good on their reel. This is bad news, and ultimately is the fault of the director for not being able to contain these people's talents within the actual vision of the film.
Besides that, I think directors are always dictators. Sometimes you need to be mean, sometimes you need to be gentle, sometimes you need to be confusing. It all depends on what you want from your actors/collaborators. But you can't really get away with being mean unless these people trust and look up to you...so it's really important to form a family-like bond with your colleagues.
texvanwinkle
Well-known member
Merry Christmas back! I agree with that, but don't mistake me: I have no intention of being the Patton "We'll go through them like s%#! through a goose" sort. I'm not a yeller, kicker, or denigrater when it comes to guiding or persuading people. Quite the opposite, in fact, as I find that approach to be counterproductive. I'm firmly in the Capra camp rather than Ford in terms of how I'll engage with actors. I do have to wonder how well today's crop of actors, especially the Americans, would do under even a Capra, though. He was as respectful as they come, and loved actors—"THERE ARE NO BAD ACTORS, ONLY BAD DIRECTORS" should be inscribed on the exterior of the DGA building, he wrote—but he knew what he wanted and wasn't above the occasional lie and/or downright dirty trick to get it—namely, the realism— he wanted. It's a far more pampered generation than in decades past from which spring today's actors, and when you're talking about actors, that's saying something.
What I liked and appreciated about Ford's method was his use of subtle and sometimes diversionary tactics to get actors in the proper mindset for a scene. I like the idea of detouring around a block when a block exists, either consciously or subconsciously. It was that aspect that I thought mirrored Curry's approach, which I do like. I'm not much for psychologizing. I like the idea of the actionable. Capra, too. Give an actor an identity, he says, some concrete details as a touchstone, and then sit back and see some magic.
(I cannot recommend enough Capra's autobiography The Name Above the Title to aspiring directors. It's worth reading for Chapter 13 alone.)
Rolf Silber
Veteran
Hi Tex,
we are not so far away from each other as I thought - maybe it's just another flavour.... ;-)
About pampered actors I can agree to a certain point. After all: It's a job and they have to deliver something. I am not so sure about tricks you play on them - those should be reserved for the few who are at the same times very good actors and.... how shall I put this? ..... not exactly rocket-scientists.
What I personally read from the "Strassberg protocols" was exactly that: Finding ways and actionable things by analysing the situation, the story, the scene, the character. Maybe I should have made clear that this for me is a process for pre-shooting discussion of characters and scenes. Once the machine is rolling there is not the time to go deep into that again. When someone tries to transform the situation on set into a group-therapy session a director should have his fangs out immediately....
Concerning your citation from Capra, I heard a nice thing from a well known actor: THERE IS NO BAD DIALOGUE, ONLY BAD ACTING. Had the luck to come across good actors most of the times. But the others are around too. Like bad writers and directors... have the Capra book at home, may have a peek into it again when I'm back...
And for MeAgain:
What you describe is not what I mean with film being a collective work - what you described as a certain situation on a set either is result of collectivist mumbo-jumbo taking over or/and total lack of authority of a director and/or incredibly self-centred, unprofessional team members. In the end the director has to own the set. No one else.
Does he need to be a dictator for that? Maybe at times. I'd think that he should first and foremost be an "overwhelming convincer". Talent, especially acting talent, usually doesn't get much better when kicked around. So a dictatorial approach can become self-defeating quickly and usually is a sure sign of someone lacking the ability to convince people. It has to be the last resort only... but that's just my approach....
we are not so far away from each other as I thought - maybe it's just another flavour.... ;-)
About pampered actors I can agree to a certain point. After all: It's a job and they have to deliver something. I am not so sure about tricks you play on them - those should be reserved for the few who are at the same times very good actors and.... how shall I put this? ..... not exactly rocket-scientists.
What I personally read from the "Strassberg protocols" was exactly that: Finding ways and actionable things by analysing the situation, the story, the scene, the character. Maybe I should have made clear that this for me is a process for pre-shooting discussion of characters and scenes. Once the machine is rolling there is not the time to go deep into that again. When someone tries to transform the situation on set into a group-therapy session a director should have his fangs out immediately....
Concerning your citation from Capra, I heard a nice thing from a well known actor: THERE IS NO BAD DIALOGUE, ONLY BAD ACTING. Had the luck to come across good actors most of the times. But the others are around too. Like bad writers and directors... have the Capra book at home, may have a peek into it again when I'm back...
And for MeAgain:
What you describe is not what I mean with film being a collective work - what you described as a certain situation on a set either is result of collectivist mumbo-jumbo taking over or/and total lack of authority of a director and/or incredibly self-centred, unprofessional team members. In the end the director has to own the set. No one else.
Does he need to be a dictator for that? Maybe at times. I'd think that he should first and foremost be an "overwhelming convincer". Talent, especially acting talent, usually doesn't get much better when kicked around. So a dictatorial approach can become self-defeating quickly and usually is a sure sign of someone lacking the ability to convince people. It has to be the last resort only... but that's just my approach....