Result Acting

Prodigi Pictures said:
If I ask an actor to think about a time when they were terrified and relive that moment honestly through the imaginary circumstances of our screenplay, their body will instinctively do things none of us could have planned.
Click to expand...

Very true... good points.

We're basically saying the same thing though... most of us on this forum are working with non experienced or little experienced actors. That's why I brought up the subject in the first place. What happened was everybody started sharing directing techniques, and we kind of morphed into how to direct films.

You've brought up some good things such as reliving a moment, that I wasn't thinking of before, but it seems obvious that "Hey, that's a solution".
 
If I ask an actor to think about a time when they were terrified and relive that moment honestly through the imaginary circumstances of our screenplay, their body will instinctively do things none of us could have planned.
Click to expand...

Personally, I hate this. Nothing on you. Just me as an actor, I hate doing that. I don't care if you tell me to do it. It won't bother me. I'll get what it is you are telling me to do, and do it (through my own 'method' [no pun intended]).

My memories, and experiences are precious to me. I don't want to desensitize myself to them, by using them to dredge up emotion, etc, etc. Plus, I think if you do that all the time, you are liable to drive yourself bonkers. :)

I don't want to think about my Mother dying everytime I have to do a scene about someone being dead (My mother is still living, in case you were wondering. Just an example).

Those experiences are just part of my emotional palette. The same one that all of us have had from a very young age (all of us who are not brain dead) . To some people, chipping a nail is as traumatic an experience as a car accident. Whatever, we've got the basic range of emotions. Just have to be able to access and apply them in the proper dosage of each to an experience (or beat in a scene, in this context). Which is what we do in real life, anyways.

Your senses are the access. I believe that feeling a particular mood because of the smell of the air one day, and getting deja vu' both come from the same place. One is more conscious, the other is sub-concious. Which would also be from the same place that I form new emotional responses to sensory stimuli, and the same place that I use to recall those emotional responses, and apply them to a moment (be it real or performance).

The senses are what you use to observe, and what you use to recall.
The body is (of course) the instrument you use to apply/express it to (or within) a situation.
The brain is for rehearsal :)

Genuinity (is that right?) and richness/depth of emotion, are two different animals. Just because you can cry on cue, doesn't necessarily make you 'good'. Makes you honest, though. And, yeah... probably a fair spit better than most :)

If you are paying attention to what you are doing, and focused on what you are doing, then you shouldn't have to play some trickery on yourself to accomplish your objective. Or, if you are one of those bad-ass actors, you don't even have to concentrate. :) Even if it's just blind muscle memory, it's still 803 times better than anything most people can do at their 'most honest'.

Phew. That was a bit of an incoherent ramble, probably. Anyways, from a stage actors perspective (or, at least I like to think so :) ).

Jason
 
Jason Ramsey said:
Anyways, from a stage actors perspective (or, at least I like to think so :) ).
Click to expand...

I didn't think it was incoherent or rambling, I would just like to discuss stage acting, I have an opinion on this that I wonder if anyone agrees with.

You said that acting is more organic, kind of, being your character, being concentrated.

Maybe it's just the plays I've seen, but they always seem to have this real "showy" or "contrived" feel to them. Just very... ping pongy. Like the actors are waiting for their turn to say what they've memorized out loud to the audience.

I've seen some other plays that are more genuine, with better actors, but for the most part, it's the former situation.

Have you noticed this, maybe with less experienced stage actors? It doesn't seem to happen in film, probably because of the editing capability.

When you've got these actors who've rehearsed and rehearsed for long periods of time, it's like they seem to want to just blow right through it.

This is just an opinion, and I'm not trying to bash stage acting.
 
Jason Ramsey said:
Personally, I hate this. Nothing on you. Just me as an actor, I hate doing that. I don't care if you tell me to do it. It won't bother me. I'll get what it is you are telling me to do, and do it (through my own 'method' [no pun intended]).
Click to expand...
there are a number of "deep" directors who think the path to truth is found by treating an actor like a ready-made character and having them spill their personal, emotional guts on camera. something i was definitely guilty of in the past until the experience of working in a highly collaborative environment with the actors taught me otherwise.
 
Sure it happens in film. Ever watch many made for tv movies :) Just kidding.

I see what you are saying, but a lot of that has to do with the particular genre or type of play, too. (At least the way I see it.)

Musicals being a fine example of what you described above. Me, I like small, gritty drama's. They appeal to me. You can probably see why from what I posted above. But, I've also played a character named 'goat' that sang "I love Chicken Sh*t". heh. Doesn't necessarily mean that one is more/less honest or genuine, etc. Or, less internalized by the actor playing the role. It's just using that instrument to express it in a different manner.

Stage is played to 50 or 5,000 at once. Film is really played to just one, in terms of where the 'fourth wall' is coming from. So, yes, the acting is definitely less subtle than how it's played on film. But, it's not necessarily any less subtle in terms of richness of performance, or subtlety of expression. And film performances are not necessarily any less dynamic in their delivery. Just... different. This is where 'technicals' come in. It's still a skill, that requires technical experience, and expertise. One that you are constantly building on. But, making an audience member see a tear 100' away is executed than making them see it 2" away.

Often times, playing to a small house in the round, etc, can be just as 'subtle' as what you describe film performances to be. And, often times, more rewarding for an audience and an actor. (ok. maybe not often times, but sometimes. Most plays suck. Most movies suck. Most TV sucks. But, not all of it, all the time.)

If it seems like an actor is just waiting to say their lines, they probably are. Means they aren't listening. A nice edit can smooth some of that out. On the stage, it's right there. So, if you ain't listening, the audience ain't either. It's a great way to get yor brain out of the way. Actually listening to the other actors :) heh. I'm better at listening on stage, than I am in real life, but not very good at either...

Jason
 
-zach- said:
Maybe it's just the plays I've seen, but they always seem to have this real "showy" or "contrived" feel to them. Just very... ping pongy. Like the actors are waiting for their turn to say what they've memorized out loud to the audience.
Click to expand...

No, you're not alone at all in this. It's a definite phenomenon. In fact, some people (and I'm one of them) will look at an actor's resume before they bring them in and see what kind of experience they have. If it's mostly theatre, I'm on the lookout specifically for the ability to play small and subtle. If they can't do that, they're not going to survive in my films. But that's me.

This is not an assassination of stage plays, of course, or theatrical actors. But it is a different media. On a stage you have to project, you have to play it big, so the audience can see and hear what you're doing. On film it comes across as phony bravado. The talent lies in being able to work in both modes. I know many people who can do both very well.
 
What amazes me is the fact that acting theory hasn't come up at ALL (at least I don't think it has.) There are different acting theories. Modern acting is decended from Stanislavski, who, basically, developed the modern form of acting. Some have taken his theories and have changed them. Some for the better (Chekhov, Adler, Meisner) and some for the worse (Strasberg).

If you really want to be a good director, learn about the different acting theories, get some opinions from different actors for what works for them, and take some acting classes. It WILL help you as a director, I promise! :)
 
Prodigi Pictures said:
Therefore, I've studied Stanislavsky, Meisner and Strasberg and Mamet...

take a Meisner class.
Click to expand...

post 60. Also discussed (perhaps without names) a bit before that, I believe. Anyway, I'm not trying to curtail further discussion... it's something I'm interested in!
 
dougspice said:
post 60. Also discussed (perhaps without names) a bit before that, I believe. Anyway, I'm not trying to curtail further discussion... it's something I'm interested in!
Click to expand...

Ah, I missed that one. That's what happens when you reply to something and it takes you to the last page of the thread...
 
You know, in User CP, you can change the number of posts per page to 40.

That way, this thread is only two pages long. Smuggler's Ransom thread is only 24 pages long - instead of 100s.
 
This is the only DVX thread I've ever bookmarked. I wish there was like a hall of fame forum here, I'd nominate this one....
 
I'm glad you did. By posting again you brought it to the top of the page where I read it today for the first time. Great read. Thanks.
 
I think the best example of the failure of 'result' directing was hearing a director say, "OK, that was great, but can you do it with a little more irony?"

Communication, especially in English, is fairly non-emotive. So when an actor is feeling out a direction you don't want them to take, you have to strip dictating how to feel and have them focus on coming to a mutual understanding of what, in this scene, they, and you, are looking for. From there you can ask questions, and make active suggestions. Creating a new idea in the scene ('you don't want to take the letter' or 'you want him to be mad at you') creates something the actor can feel and react to. Trying to dictate that usually fails, especially when you're making a big adjustment.

Zak, your spot on, this is just a bad way to direct. Even with amateur actors, you can easily create a dialog about what's going on with the character, goals for the scene, etc.

The best way to do this is definitely rehearsal. You get the opportunity to discuss what is going on in a scene, what the motivations are and where they want to be at the end. My favorite part of that process is getting feedback from the actor about the script. They may read something in a completely different way, one that works better than what you planned. Then, hopefully, the rehearsals are about as good as it's going to get (hopefully a little better while you're shooting.) and you can continue that type of communication on set and keep the actor on track.

I do think when someone is being too loud, or is just slightly too high or low energy, you can ask them to do this/that and it can work.

Talking it through, asking questions about how they felt about their performance and using the action verbs will get you better performances. I think that works really well with amateurs. By creating some meaningful dialog that makes the actor feels more involved and comfortable discussing your adjustments. Face it, when a director wants an actor to do something else, they're basically saying 'No, you did that wrong." Dictating a solution can make people uncomfortable about what they're doing.

I've got one good friend who is a pro actor, and this type of directing really bothers him. For an actor it most often isn't a constructive way to get what everyone wants - a great take.
 
just read through this old thread. funny looking back when my name was "cygnet74" and mark harris was "desperate comfort", etc.
 
Cliff Wildman said:
The best way to do this is definitely rehearsal. You get the opportunity to discuss what is going on in a scene, what the motivations are and where they want to be at the end. My favorite part of that process is getting feedback from the actor about the script.
Click to expand...

I swear I was going to post something just like this, but with less eloquence and more spelling errors. Yeah. Basically just sit down with the actors and let THEM talk about the script--their character specifically. You'll find out a lot--namely if they've read the script; how they interpret the character, how they view the story.
 
Several people are advising against saying "don't" or "stop", but what if an actor is doing something physically should simply be ended instead of changed (tapping their foot, moving an object, etc.)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top