Result Acting

[Zak Forsman]

I just don't get it. what do mean an action? Can u give more examples? I think of an "action" as something physical, like running. an emotion is an emotion. Happy for example.

to give an actor an action to play is to give them an objective to internalize, which will produce an emotion. people cannot choose to simply have an emotion. and that includes actors. sure they can mimic an emotion, but it will usually feel forced and unnatural. as a director, if you ask for a specific emotional result, only the most skilled actors can fill in the gap with an appropriate action to play that will lead them to that emotion. but most actors are not nearly so adept. and you can consistantly get better performances by understanding the language and methods that actors have been trained in.

some examples of result oriented direction vs. action oriented direction...

don't cry vs. hide your feelings
be sexy vs. seduce him with every word
you should be longing vs. convince him to go for a walk with you
be mean vs. punish him with your eyes
you're forlorn here vs. play the scene as if your mother just died


you see how a specific action-oriented direction can help an actor tap into the emotion you're looking for? if an actor is floundering because he can't find a path to an emotion, it the director's responsibility to provide the adjustment that will guide him there.

 

[ericyoung]

I just don't get it. what do mean an action? Can u give more examples? I think of an "action" as something physical, like running. an emotion is an emotion. Happy for example.

Result direction does have its uses, and is fine for non-emotional things like hitting marks, using a certain prop etc. And the crew generally likes result direction. Also, if it's a out and out action movie, subtle multilayered performances are just not usually required or expected. The following assumes you aren't directing the next Segal film!

The trouble with asking an actor to be happy or angry or sad or any other emotion is that what you are really asking them is to turn an emotion on like a tap. At the same time you are also asking them to be a mind reader to match the level of the emotion you have in mind at the time. When the actor, more often than not, misses the mark, they are then repeatedly asked to make it bigger/smaller or faster/slower or more/less intense.

Now put yourself in their place. It's rather difficult to stay in character and yet be thinking analytically about the level of an emotion they are being asked to play. Emotion and analysis of those emotions aren't easy bedfellows, but you are expecting them to deliver a natural performance? It's even worse if you ask them to change the level for specific sentences or even parts of sentences!

Of course, some good natural or experienced actors will be able to translate your result direction into something they can play emotionally. But it's better if you have time (and you should try to make time) to avoid that extra step by directing them in a way they can stay in character in the first place.

So if the action calls for an actor A to confront actor B about something B has done, and to get increasingly angry, you could ask them simply to be angry and hope they get just the right amount of angry you are hoping for. You may be lucky and get what you want. But if not, you'll watch them get very frustrated as you ask them repeatedly to adjust their performance by degrees.

Alternatively, you could ask B to absolutely deny everything A is accusing her of, and ask A to not let B leave without getting an admission of guilt. That'll escalate the confrontation naturally and the actors in character will be reacting to each other rather than trying to act a certain level of angry at each point in the scene.

Now, you could reduce the level of anger by, for example, reminding each actor of something from their backstory which will mean that getting too angry is inappropriate. Maybe A has a heart condition, or B is guilty as charged and knows it.

To ratchet up the level of anger, you might tell A that B has done this many times before and got away with it... and then secretly remind B (if it's in the script) that this time they are innocent!

Obviously this does take more time, and it is certainly demands the director be more creative, be in tune with the actors and know the script and characters back to front.

Can you result direct an entire movie? Sure, but at least some of your actors will find it a less than enjoyable experience. It's easy to be lazy (like I was when I started) and rely on result directing alone, but IMHO a good director finds out and learns about other tools and techniques and uses them as appropriate.

 

[-zach-]

don't cry vs. hide your feelings
be sexy vs. seduce him with every word
you should be longing vs. convince him to go for a walk with you
be mean vs. punish him with your eyes
you're forlorn here vs. play the scene as if your mother just died

you see how a specific action-oriented direction can help an actor tap into the emotion you're looking for? if an actor is floundering because he can't find a path to an emotion, it the director's responsibility to provide the adjustment that will guide him there.

That is exactly what I was talking about.

The trouble with asking an actor to be happy or angry or sad or any other emotion is that what you are really asking them is to turn an emotion on like a tap. At the same time you are also asking them to be a mind reader to match the level of the emotion you have in mind at the time. When the actor, more often than not, misses the mark, they are then repeatedly asked to make it bigger/smaller or faster/slower or more/less intense.
Now put yourself in their place. It's rather difficult to stay in character and yet be thinking analytically about the level of an emotion they are being asked to play. Emotion and analysis of those emotions aren't easy bedfellows, but you are expecting them to deliver a natural performance? It's even worse if you ask them to change the level for specific sentences or even parts of sentences!

This is a great point. Specific emotions cannot be brought to the surface unless the person is actually feeling them, or a great actor. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[brianluce]

Result direction does have its uses, and is fine for non-emotional things like hitting marks, using a certain prop etc. And the crew generally likes result direction. Also, if it's a out and out action movie, subtle multilayered performances are just not usually required or expected. The following assumes you aren't directing the next Segal film!

.

Hey that's pretty cool stuff.

When I read it I kept thinking of something Christopher Walken once said in an interview that has always stuck in my head. He mentioned in passing about "Studying" his scripts. STUDYING. None of the actors I've worked with do that. They just kind of show up with a "what do you want me to do" attitude. If the script is strong, and you have a performer who actually *studies* a script, I think a lot of this stuff is irrelevant. Personally, I think a thoroughly prepared actor who knows the character inside and out is the best of all directing techniques. I wish it were a perfect world...or could afford Chris Walken.

 

[Justin Kuhn]

I've been looking for "the secret" of directing...and I think I just had an epitome reading this thread. Thanks guys.

 

[deedive]

I think the first step to directing is erasing the word "don’t" from their vocabulary. I've been on shoots with new directors and cringe when I hear it.

 

[yagfxg33k]

"Studying" his scripts. STUDYING. None of the actors I've worked with do that. They just kind of show up with a "what do you want me to do" attitude.

There are some directors that do not let the actors see their lines until just before they shoot the scene. And get good results - The idea being that they have not had time to rehearse it and make it lose it's fresness.

I think there is no one right way.

 

[iain.bason]

Rehearsals are great, but when you deal with amatuer actors it seems like every take is different--they can never do it twice the same way. Pro actors? it's like hitting the "rewind" button. Impresses the hell out of me actually...

Speaking as an amateur actor, I'd say the difference is not so much between amateur and professional as between good and bad (err, let's say not-so-good -- and I consider myself to be competent, but nothing special). I've known and worked with some very good amateurs, and some not-so-good professionals.

As to this specific "rewind" button issue, that can be a good thing or a bad thing. Most of my experience is on stage, but I acted in a student film where the directors were delighted that they could interchange shots of me from several takes. On the other hand, I recall listening to the director on the commentary track for Lord of the Rings say that he loved working with Ian Holm because each shot was a completely different performance. I suppose it all depends on what you're going to need for editing.

The broader question of how best to direct actors is, as others have pointed out, entirely dependent on the actors themselves. I personally feel that my performances are best when the director is able to articulate clearly what she is looking for, and what she is seeing me do. I once had an experience where the director kept telling me that I was being too angry, and I didn't understand how to make the scene work without showing anger. It took about five minutes of discussions before she realized that I wanted her to tell me what she wanted instead of anger. (She wanted frustration, for those who are curious.)

That brings us back to the issue of casting. Not only do you want to cast people who are appropriate for the role, you also want to cast people with whom you can communicate effectively. As much as you need to adapt your directing style to the individual actor, you also need to be aware of your own limitations. If you just don't know how to work with a particular actor, there's no point casting him.

Just my opinion, of course. Apply grains of salt to taste.

 

[Jason Ramsey]

Rule number one for a director, from an actors perspective with a little directing experience: The best actor's director is one who recognizes that every actor has their own process. The director who recognizes that, and can react accordingly to each individual actor, is light years ahead, in terms of getting results from their actors.

Rule number 2: Actors are sensitive people, and need constant reinforcement. I once had a director say something along the lines, of knowing when to pat them on the back, and when to slap them in the back of the head. That's important, and every actor needs a different dosage of each.

Also, being that actors are sensitive people, you will find the best results when your actors think that your ideas are there own.
Most good actors hate (with a passion) being told how to say their lines. Bad ones, you will just make worse and more mechanical if you tell them how to say it. You have to find a different way, other than "say it like this" to get the message across to an actor, that will allow him/her to process the information, and hopefuly make it their own.

As a director, you are the puppet master. You have your hands in every aspect of the project, and you have to create the balance.
Another think, that I personally like (though rarely got to work under these circumstances) is a director who keeps a calmer, cooler kind of environment. And I tried to do the same in my directorial pursuits.
I once heard clint eastwood, describing it best, I think, on an episode of Inside the Actors Studio... He said he wasn't the kind of director screaming into a mega-phone and yelling action, cut, etc, etc.
He said, actors are like horses... you don't want to spook them... (paraphrased) He never says action... He says "whenever you're ready" and "ok, that's good." or "that's enough of that ****" I took that last method and used it when I directed, and my actors loved it (I think). It just created a flow in rehearsal, even with me constantly stopping them.
I also like to be very hands on when I am directing. I was always right up there on the stage with them, much of the time, and going through the motions with them. Hopefuly, my energy fed them, and, at the very least indicated to them, the emotional intensity that I had in mind for any particular scene.
Everything I have just told you, is from my experiences on stage in a Theatre, not behind the camera, but hopefuly some ideas are there for you.
Hope it helps
Oh, and one more rule. Everyone does things their own way. If you like something use it. If it doesn't work for you, or even more specifically, for that particular shoot, or scene, then don't use it. You must be fluid, and adaptable.

Jason

 

[imageonepictures]

Jason,

Well said. I'll keep this in mind when shooting my feature film "A Life" next summer.

Chris

 

[kimko]

Read David Mamet's Book ;true And False.........................that'll Tell You About Action..............................

 

[cinealma]

I once heard clint eastwood, describing it best, I think, on an episode of Inside the Actors Studio... He said he wasn't the kind of director screaming into a mega-phone and yelling action, cut, etc, etc.
He said, actors are like horses... you don't want to spook them... (paraphrased) He never says action... He says "whenever you're ready" and "ok, that's good." or "that's enough of that shi*" I took that last method and used it when I directed, and my actors loved it (I think). It just created a flow in rehearsal, even with me constantly stopping them.

I think this is an excellent way to work, ESCPECIALLY when shooting on tape. You can let your cameraman know when to start rolling and then let the actor(s) ease into the scene whenever they are ready. Cut when you feel like the actor has wound down. It's hard for me, as a director, to cut an actor in the middle of an emotional scene because then I'd feel like I was just "using him" instead of collaborating. Because a lot of times, the actor has gone off to some "place" in their heads and their hearts and asking them to just turn it on or off isn't going to work out very well.

Just think of shooting each scene as running a bath. You know, turn the water on and let it run a bit until it's just warm enough, and then plug it. It's never gonna be the perfect temperature when you first turn the faucet on.


John G.

 

[-zach-]

I know this is resurrecting an old thread but,

In the Fellowship of the Ring commentary, Peter Jackson tells us that he used a form of directing that we're talking about.

At the "forming of the fellowship scene", right after Frodo says, "I will take it. I will take the ring to Mordor". Gandalf then gives a look of "great sadness" as described by Phillipa Boyens. Peter Jackson said this in the commentary:

"I said to Ian to imagine that he's just heard his son volunteering to go join the army in World War I, which was [this] look here that he gives. Understanding that it has to be done, but it could kill him."

That's pretty cool right there.

 

[Tom Marshall]

Why on earth *wouldn't* an actor study a script? If he doesn't study the script, how can he or she possibly find the character?

 

[-zach-]

....

I guess I don't know what you're talking about.

No, I really don't. I tried to write a response, but I really don't.

 

[Zak Forsman]

Why on earth *wouldn't* an actor study a script? If he doesn't study the script, how can he or she possibly find the character?

granted my approach is far from conventional, but i don't give a script to my actors. we develop the characters during the rehearsal period using guided (by me) improvisations. i take what's borne from those sessions and rewrite the script. but again, here's where i differ from the norm, i do not write dialogue. so the cast has this blueprint of the story's structure. and in place of dialogue, each scene has notes on motivations and thematic relevance, clear objectives for each character and playable actions. i wouldn't even call it a screenplay. it's a structurally ordered collection of information for each scene. i suppose they could study that as its a guide for the path the story takes. but by that point, they know their characters better than i do from the improvisational work they did.

 

[-zach-]

but by that point, they know their characters better than i do from the improvisational work they did.

That's pretty awesome.

It's cool to think that you can watch an original idea go through a transformation with the actors and they have input into what happens.

 

[Brandon Rice]

Rule number one for a director, from an actors perspective with a little directing experience: The best actor's director is one who recognizes that every actor has their own process. The director who recognizes that, and can react accordingly to each individual actor, is light years ahead, in terms of getting results from their actors.

Rule number 2: Actors are sensitive people, and need constant reinforcement. I once had a director say something along the lines, of knowing when to pat them on the back, and when to slap them in the back of the head. That's important, and every actor needs a different dosage of each.

Also, being that actors are sensitive people, you will find the best results when your actors think that your ideas are there own.
Most good actors hate (with a passion) being told how to say their lines. Bad ones, you will just make worse and more mechanical if you tell them how to say it. You have to find a different way, other than "say it like this" to get the message across to an actor, that will allow him/her to process the information, and hopefuly make it their own.

As a director, you are the puppet master. You have your hands in every aspect of the project, and you have to create the balance.
Another think, that I personally like (though rarely got to work under these circumstances) is a director who keeps a calmer, cooler kind of environment. And I tried to do the same in my directorial pursuits.
I once heard clint eastwood, describing it best, I think, on an episode of Inside the Actors Studio... He said he wasn't the kind of director screaming into a mega-phone and yelling action, cut, etc, etc.
He said, actors are like horses... you don't want to spook them... (paraphrased) He never says action... He says "whenever you're ready" and "ok, that's good." or "that's enough of that shi*" I took that last method and used it when I directed, and my actors loved it (I think). It just created a flow in rehearsal, even with me constantly stopping them.
I also like to be very hands on when I am directing. I was always right up there on the stage with them, much of the time, and going through the motions with them. Hopefuly, my energy fed them, and, at the very least indicated to them, the emotional intensity that I had in mind for any particular scene.
Everything I have just told you, is from my experiences on stage in a Theatre, not behind the camera, but hopefuly some ideas are there for you.
Hope it helps
Oh, and one more rule. Everyone does things their own way. If you like something use it. If it doesn't work for you, or even more specifically, for that particular shoot, or scene, then don't use it. You must be fluid, and adaptable.

Jason

GREAT post Jason, and precisely the way I like to direct.

 

[Tom Marshall]

granted my approach is far from conventional, but i don't give a script to my actors. we develop the characters during the rehearsal period using guided (by me) improvisations. i take what's borne from those sessions and rewrite the script. but again, here's where i differ from the norm, i do not write dialogue. so the cast has this blueprint of the story's structure. and in place of dialogue, each scene has notes on motivations and thematic relevance, clear objectives for each character and playable actions. i wouldn't even call it a screenplay. it's a structurally ordered collection of information for each scene. i suppose they could study that as its a guide for the path the story takes. but by that point, they know their characters better than i do from the improvisational work they did.

Hey Zak, I like your approach. The whole reason for studying a script is to find out the objectives of your character in the scene and the super-objective of the character throughout the script. By going over the points with your actors in rehearsal, you're doing 2 things:
1) You're letting the actors know what you're looking for so that they'll have an idea that's closer to your goal
2) You're making sure that each character interacts in a certain way that helps to fulfill the arc of the overall story.

 

[Zak Forsman]

Hey Zak, I like your approach. The whole reason for studying a script is to find out the objectives of your character in the scene and the super-objective of the character throughout the script. By going over the points with your actors in rehearsal, you're doing 2 things:
1) You're letting the actors know what you're looking for so that they'll have an idea that's closer to your goal
2) You're making sure that each character interacts in a certain way that helps to fulfill the arc of the overall story.

yes, now if i could just be counted on to write a compelling story, i'd really have something!!!