Performance: Acting Vs Directing

Jim Brennan said:
...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?
Click to expand...

I don't think you can safely assume anything really. Even when all the performances are top notch. The great British director Peter Brook has said that as an actor he's experienced situations where the total incompetence of a director has a great positive effect on a cast making them pull it together and play beyond themselves. I've experienced this once myself. There are so many things that go into the mix that it's really impossible to guess. As I said before, the only time I think you can hazard a guess is when most of the actors (who are usually good) are bad. Then I lay it at the director's feet. Unless of course the script sucked.
 
Couple of things: Yes, an actor has to to bring his/her truth(s) to a part. But let's not forget that we're not meant to be seeing an actor playing the part of a character...we want to see the character. Afterall, the CHARACTER is in the story, not the actor. So yes, the actor MUST bring their own truths and it is more satisfying seeing a wrong choice played truthfully. But there also has to be a respect for the CHARACTER'S truth as well. The trick is an actor's ability to own the part, become that character, so he/she is not acting at all, but playing a character naturally.

I don't want to watch a performance and be thinking: "Wow! Wonderful how she made that face when he said that thing...great ACTING CHOICE." When I'm watching "On The Waterfront," I'm not thinking how smart Brando is for delivering a line a certain way...because I'm not watching Brando. I'm watching him 'channel' Terry. To me, the best actors bring their own truth, but it's hidden because each character they play is dominant. The actor knows how they got there, but the character is front and center.

Also, I know a whole laundry list of actors with higher quotes who have not only not suffered from asking less, but have benefitted from it after playing great roles.
Travolta in Pulp Fiction (think he could ask for more afterwards?), Clooney this past year worked for hardly anything in his most critically acclaimed work, Halle Berry, Keanu, Charlize, Adrian Brody, etc etc etc...

As always, these are my own opinions, and I love each and every one of you.

Besties,

Mischief
 
Mischeif,
I certainly agree with you about wanting to see the character and not the actor - never suggested that you shouldn't play the role - but I'm not sure about the general public in America. Personally I think they're in love with personality, if they were'nt I don't think half the actors you listed would even have the choice of working for less. I think filmmakers spending a whole lot of money play to this all the time, even great ones like Scorsese (if he indeed had a choice), I mean did we really need to see Tom Cruise dance again in 'The Color of Money', did that add to his character in anyway? It only distracted me but I'm sure a lot of people love that he danced in every movie after 'Risky Business' for about 20 years. You gotta put asses in the seats.

Don't get me wrong, it twists my guts to see great actors playing caricatures of themselves but I think there are too many variables involved to chalk it up to the actor's ego. That's just too easy. (Not that you did this.)

As an aside, I think the subject of character is the most misunderstood and most difficult part of acting to talk about. I admittedly have ideas that are very different from most actors I know. How you go about building your Character could be a very intresting thread. Of course it could dampen the love a little also.

Respectfully,
rsbush
 
Last edited:
Okay, I've never directed anyone close to the caliber of people we are talking about, and the best actors I work with do bring a lot of insight to the table. They have strong convictions about their character. That's part of their job (IMHO). BUt the really good ones WANT YOU to direct them. That want you to confront them (in the broadest sense, not necessarily the way you might think) about their POV and how it fits in with the whole. An actor might have a great insight to their character, but that insight may not work as well within the whole as another choice might. That's where the director to be: looking at the whole film.

And I think people cast the DeNiros Pacinos and Nicholsons for the bankability AND the caricature. Producers want them to be what they have become, because it's a safe bet.
 
rsbush said:
When you or I direct Pacino, then we can tell him, 'Great, now cut 90%'.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to diminish anyone's work or experience. Sorry if that's the impression I made. Mostly I'm avoiding starting to cut that project that's waiting for me.
 
Last edited:
rsbush said:
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. .
Click to expand...

Agree that during actual performance it shouldn't be an intellectual exercise, but any performance surely has to be based in the character, otherwise it would just be an actor playing themselves in the character's situation. Of course you could argue that is what great stars, as opposed to great actors, do all the time! And there's nothing actually wrong with that approach - it's just very limiting. I think it's the difference between being entertaining and enlightening. Ideally performance would be both entertaining and enlightening.

IMHO the "truth" actors and directors (and writers) are trying to find, is what a given character as a human being would say or not say, do or not do, in a given situation based on a sense of their lives up to that point and their relationship with the other characters. How exactly actors and/or the director arrive at the point where the actor can just be the character, and not be intellectualising acting choices, will probably differ every time.

Mark Travis, an excellent tutor on one of my many directing courses, suggested that one can think of it as the "actor/character split". Intellectual choices like physical actions necessary to the narrative can be addressed to the actor, whereas movement and emotional choices are often more usefully addressed indirectly to the character (even using their character name over their real actor name) by asking questions of them in character.

rsbush said:
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).
Click to expand...

Although I know I should, I don't know much about Stanislavsky, so can't comment on this. One of the many things on my list of "Things I should really get round to studying as a director"! However widely used and respected though, Stanislavsky is just one school of thought on how to act.

rsbush said:
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 weren't there can't lay it all on him. When you or I direct Pacino, then we can tell him, 'Great, now cut 90%'.
Click to expand...

Yes, you're right of course, and I don't lay all the blame on Pacino. I keep meaning to watch "Looking for Richard" to see what he does when he's in complete charge. Anyone seen it want to comment on whether he performs differently when playing Richard III?

rsbush said:
I don't mean to antagonize. I just think that's it's way too easy to second guess great artists...
Click to expand...

No offence taken. Yes, it is easy to criticise, but unless Mr Pacino secretly frequents these forums, we can't ask him directly why he does what he does, so we have to base our criticisms on what information there is available to us. My frustration is that his early work clearly shows he's got more range than we have seen in most of his later work.
 
Last edited:
Actually I've just remembered "Donnie Brasco" - he was great in that!

Although in fairly familiar gangster territory, it wasn't his usual casting type in that his character was not a dominant one. He was a low ranking mafia solder with a vulnerable emotional side. Course, Depp was on fire too, so maybe the competition combined with somewhat atypical casting freed him up.
 
Eric,
You give a very thoughtful articulate argument and I think you're spot on with what you say. I personally take a very different approach to characterization than most if not all actors I know, although maybe it just come down to semantics in the end. To simplify; it's stems from the knowledge that since I don't really know what I'll do in a given situation in my own life, how can I decide definitively what a character will do? For me that would introduce falseness. (My wife often says "Bobby can't do hypothetical.") I steadfastly hold on to the notion that I don't know what my character would do. I don't decide the quality of my character, others do. So I've devised a technique over the years that works for me. It's very hard to articulate it face to face with people I've worked with for years, yet alone on a forum. While all of my training has been based in Stanislavsky, I don't consider myself a "method" actor. Especially where character is concerned.

Jim,
I think you've raised a really good question. Precisely because it is unanswerable to those of us who witness only the result and not the process. This condition of being unanswerable forces us to dig deep to satisfy our curiosity about why something is the way it is. The ability to dig deeper and deeper is priceless to directors and actors.

and speaking of price...
Just to clarify. While noteworthy and laudable, any actor who accepts less than his/her quote for a role is taking a huge risk against his/her future earnings.
 
Yeah, I like the fact that this is unanswerable. Not only will it vary by situation, but even within a given project you will find different opinions on the same relationship.

Although I have yet to take any acting classes, I have purposely given myself a few small parts in a couple of my films, and one in a friend's film. I did this not because I want to act, but because i want to understand that craft better, at least from the emotional standpoint of the actor. I have a huge respect for good actors. They need to make themselves incredibly vulnerable to get to something real.

I am far from being an expert, but the performances in my last film were amazing...at least by indie standards. A big reason for that (IMHO) was allowing the actors a voice in pre-production to get involved with the final development of their characters, part was their own talent and craft, and to a smaller degree, part was my direction.

The less than stellar moments however, I believe were fully my responsibility. My job as the director was to see if I was getting what the film required, and I dropped the ball there. Especially in this case, where the actors showed they had the ability. They just needed the direction
 
I think it's a great idea to have the actors involved in the creation of the role. Especially for directors who don't have a huge talent pool to pull from.

Mike Leigh is a master at this. If you're not familiar with his work & approach to directing & screenwriting you may want to check it out. Absolutely brilliant!
 
Last edited:
dvxwheelr said:
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
Click to expand...

Coppla said something to that effect, but I agree. Of course without a good script can't have good acting =) (writer in me speaking)

Directing actors is probably the hardest thing for a director to learn, if he ever can. I think it's important to understand the plight of an actor. Ive acted, even taking classes now to better understand. But, a director is an allower to me. Allow people to do their jobs, including acting. To me it's all about the MOMENT... and actor as a person themselves. You are both serving the story and character. I dont like to think of directing an actor... but like others have said, guiding them. Which... is the hardest thing to do.

Ugh or you can just take the Pavlov approach an implant an electrical charge into an actor's neck and try and shock therapy your way into an oscar performance.
 
That's a good way to think of it. OF course, that is dependent on you and the actor having at least similar ideas about the character and the film.

I think the biggest thing that stands in the way of that attitude is ego, or if you will, insecurity. It's like hiring an electrician. You tell him where you want the lights and the sockets, but he's the expert on how to get it there. You are both necessary to the process, but you should trying to avoid telling each other how to do each other's jobs.
 
Well there the egos clash. I know it's a little hubris I have, when someone offers a better idea than mine, especially the actor, want to take the boompole and whap them. But truth is, need to find a balance. If an actor has an idea on something for his character to do, of course, ask or do. Set aside the egos, or conflict, and do what must be done for the story and characters. Easier said than done of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top