How NOT to treat your actors.

The director sounds like a jerk. I mean, it's one thing to be extremely demanding - that's up to the parties involved. But to lack empathy completely in understanding how the demands impact the actors is just contemptible - you don't scream at actors for being tired after 100 takes. Demand 100 takes - that's between you and the actors. But understand what it is that you are demanding and the cost and impact. What a jerk.
 
john threat said:
Doesnt seem like a jerk to me - he seems passionate about his art. Awesome.
Click to expand...

Emotionally abusing actors, ordering them to physically assault and injure each other for your sick enjoyment, yeah that's passion. F--k this guy. Art or no art, if you want to hurt yourself go for it. If you're hurting other people, then f--k you. It's a weak mind that would accept this as tolerable behavior, even in the name of art.

-EMB
 
"It’s nothing compared to what we did. And in that scene, she tried to stop my nose from running and [Kechiche] screamed, “No! Kiss her! Lick her snot!”"

The grungiest porn producers would be appalled at these sorts of quotes. If you just read the first bit it does seem like he's just passionate, but if you can read the rest and be okay with it... something's not right. There seems to be a very different culture where these types of things are considered okay. The example of one actress sneaking away to see her boyfriend is a good one to indicate how different things are between countries. I suppose a culture that views the tortured artist as a sacred archetype might do that, give him ultimate power. The interviewer also doesn't seem to be too shocked, which makes me wonder just how unusual these stories are. Even the commenters on the article seem to have ignored that part, so I guess if no one cares there's no accountability. I suppose I can be a little more forgiving of unions now that I've seen the alternative.
 
While I can see some similarities between him and Kubrick, who would also often shoot hundreds of takes, Kechiche ultimately seems like a terrible person to work for. I can understand perfection, but yelling at your actors because they crack up after 100 takes, or yelling at your actors to hit each other over and over (and won't even stop when someone is legit injured), yelling for your actors to lick the snot off the other persons face, and forcing them to shoot a sex scene for 10 days....that seems way overboard any common decency. Sure it might have produced a well liked film, but is it worth everyone hating you? I understand emotional abuse is a way to get performances out of an actor, but there are other ways, ways that will cause actors to love you and want to work with you again. Ultimately there are other ways to deal with actors that not only are much more enjoyable for all involved, but in fact produce performances just as powerful.

Kechiche strikes me as someone that doesn't know what he wants (or doesn't know how to get what he wants out of the actors), but has the bravado to just scream and yell until he gets enough footage that he can work with. Obviously it worked out for him, but at what cost?

I should also state that I completely understand creating the real conditions that lead to your actors having real emotional experiences. I think this is a legitimate form of directing...but there has to be a line.
 
I'd pack my scripts in a briefcase, hurl them off the Hoover Dam, and settle for a 9-5'er at McDonald's before I'd allow myself to become something like Kechiche. I can understand being an asshole; sometimes, in order to understand human emotion and empathy, some people have to take themselves outside of those emotions, and it can have lingering effects that make it hard to come back to being a good person. But at the end of the day, no art is worth the kind of abuse this asshole decided was acceptable to put his actors through.

As a complete aside, the film actually wasn't anywhere near as "universally loved" as the article's author portends. The film is 3 hours long, and most of the people who saw in Cannes said things to the effect of "It was great, but you know a film's got problems when you look at your watch repeatedly during a lesbian sex scene." The author seems to be blind to the director's misconduct because of his fanboy-esque love for the film itself.

-EMB
 
Ultimately I think my two biggest problems with this are:

1)The actors were clearly not a fan of this. If he had put them through hell but at the end of the day they felt it was for the best and created the best film, then ok. But they didn't, they instead said it was a miserable experience and they would never work for him again.

2) This emotional abuse is not the only way to get this result. I am convinced that a more gentle directing method could produce the same emotion. If this kind of abuse was necessary to getting this kind of performance, I could at least understand. But actors give raw and great performances all the time without being put through this hell.
 
Whenever I hear traumatic method acting stories, I'm reminded of what Laurence Olivier said to Dustin Hoffmann on the set of Marathon Man:

"Why not try acting? It's much easier."
 
Director sounds like a hack POS. I don't get how any 'genius' needs 100 takes, Kubrick included.
 
Seems like a director who can't communicate with his actors and has to resort to bullying to get what he thinks he wants.

I would love to know how he treats his crew as he might have had several real fight scenes if he had such an attitude with most of the crew I know.

There are ways of pushing actors to get more out of them but less is more and communicating what you want out of it tends to get the best results for on screen.
 
He wants a specific feel with this film and it seems like he got it. The actors are lucky to have worked with him. I like to know would the director ever work with the actors again.
 
Stupid quote of the day.

john threat said:
The actors are lucky to have worked with him.
Click to expand...

He shot a 10/1 ratio and if that is the actors fault, then he chose the wrong actors. If not, then he's to blame i.e. he can't direct, he can just do take after take after take until it looks right. A bit like using a stills camera, take enough photos and one will come out good. The guy sounds like a tool.
 
john threat said:
He wants a specific feel with this film and it seems like he got it. The actors are lucky to have worked with him. I like to know would the director ever work with the actors again.
Click to expand...

Am I the only one who sees the sarcams in John's post? This and the others lol. If there is no sarcasm there, I must say, you are a funny dude.
 
capitalP said:
Am I the only one who sees the sarcams in John's post? This and the others lol. If there is no sarcasm there, I must say, you are a funny dude.
Click to expand...

If he's being sarcastic, it's amusing, sure, but at that point, it's just trolling. If you don't include any indication to people who don't know you well enough to tell, that you're being sarcastic, then you're just baiting people to get a rise out of them on an otherwise serious topic.

This, in addition to the fact that I know there are a number of people out there who DO legitimately regard this as acceptable behavior, is why I didn't write his posts off as sarcasm.

As always, it's a man's right to have his own opinion, and I try not to insult someone for theirs differing from mine. But as far as Kechiche goes, I'd still happily lay that f--ker out if I had been on that set.

-EMB
 
Didn't R.W. Fassbender get beat up by his crew when he got out of line? Not a bad way of handling the situation. Stanley Kubrick could be a real @#$%head at times (I believe he left an actor laying on the cold english ground for weeks reshooting a scene because the actor wanted Stanley to get the film wrapped up so he could get back to to his family). Both directors were genius, but I'm not sure how enjoyable it was at times to work with either. As far as this new l'enfant terrible, actors will be forewarned and at least go into his newest film aware of his reputation.
 
The cynic in me wants to think this is a marketing ploy for the film or the director. Or both. Is this a promotional circuit interview for these two?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top