Performance: Acting Vs Directing

Jim Brennan

Jim Brennan

VHS Member Old Skool
I was watching the new Harry Potter movie last night. Although i find the films to uffer by comparison to the books (which I love), they are still entertaining on their own. Mike Newell is the 3rd director in the series, and naturally the film has a somewhat different flavor. What has struck me the most is the performace of Michael Gambon as Dumbledore. I know that he replaced Richard Harris in the third film (directed by Cuaron), but there I found his performance different; more likeable. I'm no authority on HP, but I have read all the books and found the character to be much closer to Richard Harris' interpretation (or was it Chris Columbus'...?). In the current film, the character seems more arrogant and scattered; almost panicked, which were traits he never displayed in the books.

I know Gambon is a fine actor, so this is not a criticism of his craft. Newell is also a good director. So the question I put to you is: how much is the actor and how much is the director? We are talking more about creative choices than competence. So I don't want to devolve into a discussion of whether or not these 2 people are skilled and talented. They are. But in the broader sense, are you more likely to give credit to the actor or the director for a great performance, and why?

Discuss.
 
It seems to me, and I may be off base here, but when you bring in someone of Richard Harris' stature (RIP), you are looking for what he can bring to the table. I watched the 1st three in an HP marathon because I felt I needed to see what all the fuss was about. I really liked RH's performances. I'm with you, sometimes it can be very difficult to see where the directors' and actors' choices begin and end.

With some of the REALLY big guys (DeNiro, Pacino, Hoffman et.al.) this is a problem because they seem to be doing the same thing over and over, as if the director is afraid to push them to do something unique. Boy, I'd better quit, as I'm straying here...
 
Interesting question. By default I'm more prone to giving the credit to the actor, but as I type that I'm reminded of an article that I read regarding the making of My Fair Lady where Audrey Hepburn (the unparalleled actress of all time in my opinion) was talking about how much she owed that performance to the director and how she took the role without having any real concept of what was appropriate for the character. Had My Fair Lady had a different director, then Hepburn's performance, in that case, would have been completely different.

I wonder if this is a situation where we never really know. There's an account in Sidney Lumet's book Making Movies where he talks about having to coach Marlon Brando in a scene to get a good performance. Coach?!? Brando?!? I didn't know Marlon would allow such things.

Now contrast that with an actor like Johnny Depp, who, by all accounts that I'm aware of, pretty much defines everything about a character for himself, even down to the costuming and score (Once Upon a Time in Mexico).

I don't think I really answered the question. :undecided
 
krestofre said:
I don't think I really answered the question. :undecided
Click to expand...
In a round about way you have. There really is no definitive answer. It is SO dependent upon the actors and directors involved.
 
Absolutely, and I'm not looking for answers as much as insights. And I agree that it depends on the people. Some directors are known to be autocratic about performance (like the Coens) others are maddeningly nebulous (Cassavettes). The issue of ego and experience also play in (Good point about DeNiro and Pacino, which is not straying at all, IMHO), giving more leeway to the bigger name isfairly common, I would think. Some actors even get final cut, which also effects how the performance is perceived. Can you imagine directing Nicholson, Streep, or Depp?
 
I think it's a symbiotic relationship. The actor is cast to bring something unique to the role, making it personal in some way (The Method, etc.). The director is there to, well, direct the actor in his/her performance.
IMO, it is both in an ideal partnership. The actor needs to own the part, take chances, etc. The director is there to see what the actor cannot, and guide the performance. There is a contract of trust: You bring what you got, and I'll make sure you don't look like a fool and we get what WE (both) want.
Just as a director can help 'make' a performance, he/she can also help 'ruin' it. I'll tell you from firsthand experience, nothing can help kill a performance more than a director giving vague, un-playable directions. Or worse yet, a line reading of how each syllable should sound.

Blaine- I'm with you on the 'biggies.' Look back on when they were just starting out...obviously they are great actors. But now it seems like Pacino is 'doing Pacino doing the role.' It's almost a caricature.
 
That's a great analyses, IMHO. I think the best thing a director can give an actor is an environment where they can take risks. The worst thing they can do is set the actor up to monitor their own performance. And that's just what they will do if the actor is unsure of what the director wants, or is getting result oriented direction. Once the actor starts watching themselves, it all comes from the head instead of the gut.
 
Think Cinemischief is spot on, and agree with Blaine about the biggies. Although have to say Pacino is the most annoying in this respect. The adjective that comes to mind is "shouty". If it's supposed to be emotional, let's just shout it really loudly! I wonder if, given the chance to direct him, would I have the guts to call him on it! :undecided

DeNiro showed in "Analyse This" and "Meet the Parents" that he's aware of his stereotyping and willing to poke fun at his image, and himself. And he's successfully played against type in "Mad Dog and Glory". Also really rate his cameo as a scarred fireman in Backdraft - pure class in a tiny part.

Hoffman was also a lot more comedic than usual in "Meet the Fockers" recently.

But I guess they don't really disappear into their characters as they did when they were starting out. It must be tough for directors if the stars can get them sacked if they disagree with them! Still, Terry Gilliam managed to tell Bruce Willis to lose his trademark Die Hardisms for "Twelve Monkeys".
 
I don't think you can rule out the possibility that Pacino is giving the directors what they want. Or the possibility that the director doesn't have the chops to help guide Pacino to a place we haven't seen him go before or rein him in. Maybe Pacino's truth IS to shout loudly when he's emotional, not uncommon with a lot of Italians I know. That said, I get weary of seeing an actor play the same card over and over again, but where the fault lies is a very hard call to make.

The only thing I think you can be sure of is that if most of the cast is performing poorly, it's the director's fault.
 
Last edited:
rsbush said:
I don't think you can rule out the possibility that Pacino is giving the directors what they want.
Click to expand...

And I doubt it was "Al who? Lemme see a headshot. Oh, him. Yeah, ok."

It's unlikely anyone would cast him thinking he could be squished into a Ronald Colman-ish performance.
 
That's true, but look at his performances under Coppola. As Michael Corleone in GF I and II, he was much MUCH more reserved (and his best ever performances, IMHO) In III he was more reserved than the Pacinoesque Pacino, but he was edging towards it. I wonder how much of that was Coppola having a hard time reining him in. Or maybe Coppola loved it , thinking 'this is what Michael would have become'.
 
I'm torn on the Godfathers... Very well done, and all. But I look at the cast, and I listen to the script, and I sometimes wonder what FFC actually did as a director.
 
Based on most credits in movies, the title comes first (the movie is most important), the actors come next (They are next in importance, and the director comes last (he/she has the last word). This may be an over-simplification but there it is.
_dvxwheelr
 
GenJerDan said:
I'm torn on the Godfathers... Very well done, and all. But I look at the cast, and I listen to the script, and I sometimes wonder what FFC actually did as a director.
Click to expand...

If all he did was recognise he didn't have to do anything if things were working out without his input then he wasn't being stupid. Sometimes the right decision is to just let things flow, and just give gentle nudges only if necessary or asked for.
 
rsbush said:
I don't think you can rule out the possibility that Pacino is giving the directors what they want. Or the possibility that the director doesn't have the chops to help guide Pacino to a place we haven't seen him go before or rein him in. Maybe Pacino's truth IS to shout loudly when he's emotional, not uncommon with a lot of Italians I know.
Click to expand...

Would love to see Pacino successfully play completely against type without Pacino-isms - how much more surprising and interesting would that be than the usual? And surely it's the character's truth an actor should be finding - what if the character isn't Italian!
 
If all he did was recognise he didn't have to do anything if things were working out without his input then he wasn't being stupid. Sometimes the right decision is to just let things flow, and just give gentle nudges only if necessary or asked for.
Click to expand...

Excellent point. Sometimes the best direction is to just stay out of the actor's way.
 
I've been spoiled through the years, working with actors who never really needed "direction" as such.

A lot of it has to do with casting, of course. Find the actors to fit the parts (no sense in casting Pacino as Richard III, for instance. ;) ), and you wind up being a manager more than anything else.

All the plays I've been involved in...except for the occasional must-have specific bit of "business", the direction consisted mainly of blocking and pacing management.

Maybe I shouldn't say "spoiled". "Blessed" might be better. :)
 
Yes, but if that were true in the case of the GF, how come both Pacino and Brando gave what might be the most understated performances of their careers? No doubt about either their talent or their craft, but when an actor plays a role that is so different from the majority of their other work, shouldn't you assume that the director had a lot to do with that?

And does Coppola have a rep as a "hands-off" director?
 
ericyoung said:
Would love to see Pacino successfully play completely against type without Pacino-isms - how much more surprising and interesting would that be than the usual? And surely it's the character's truth an actor should be finding - what if the character isn't Italian!
Click to expand...

I also would love to see Pacino play against what we could call "Pacinoisms" again. But who's gonna pay his rate for that?

An actor must play out of his own sense of truth. A wrong or bad choice played truthfully is always better than any good choice made intellectually about a character's truth. When an actor starts trying to play the character's truth they are most definitely screwed. Basic Stanislavsky (even the Brits are into it these days).

My point is that we on the sidelines can only guess why these moments are edited into a film. These kind of outbursts may be inherent in Pacino's emotional life, that his sense of truth guides him to react this way and noone has the courage or clout to tell him to try it differently. Maybe he's just giving the people what they want. Maybe he played the scene 20 different ways and the director and editor chose to use the outburst. Maybe he's tired of playing the same role over and over again and is walking through it. But the people who were'nt there can't lay it all on him. When you or I direct Pacino, then we can tell him, 'Great, now cut 90%'.

I don't mean to antagonize. I just think that's it's way too easy to second guess great artists who basically have no vehicle for the breadth of their talent in our age. If your quote is 20 million and you take 4 million just so you can play a good part, it's gonna be real hard to get others to give you that 20 million again. Theater? And make a living? Not today unfortunately. Today, theater work for a great actor is charity work.

A cat can look at a king. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. You may think think I'm a huge Pacino fan. I'm not really. I much prefer his early work. But that's also true of Brando, Nicholson, Hoffman, DeNiro etc... I feel the problem is more one of the current "state of things" than of the individual.
 
Last edited:
Brando has long been understated. Um....maybe not fair. I've always found him to be exactly what he needed to be for the part.

But Pacino...hmmm...that was very close to his start. I don't really remember all that well, but I don't think he was all that loud and frantic in Serpico, either. (At least, no more than called for.) Did he really start going to extremes before Dog Day Afternoon?

As to whether FFC did a lot or a little? Obviously, I was just a wee tyke at the time, and on the wrong side of the country, so I don't know. :) But can you picture the film(s) being done any differently? With that cast? I always watched them with "Yeah. That's how I'd do it, too." in the back of my head.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top