I don't know if this has already been mentioned here but I saw The King's Speech for the first time last night. As a new amateur film director, I was always lead to believe that a director should try and fill the frame with his/her shots. I was intrigued to see that Tom Hooper totally avoided this in some of his shots in The King's Speech. Due to the fact that Hooper won Best Director at this years Academy Awards, it shows that a director doesn't always have to stick to the norm. Just something that I'd thought I'd mention.
The King's Speech
- Thread starter pmk396
- Start date
vcassel
Veteran
Every film has its own visual strategy. Depends on how the audience should perceive the subject at any given time, the relationship between two or more subjects, etc. Despite most actors' chagrin on the matter, I'm a firm believer of the director using the monitor while directing. A director vastly benefits from being an analogue for the audience by being aware of the frame at all times.
Ted Spencer
Veteran
Not quite sure what you mean by this, in spite of my considerable study of cinematography. Could you elaborate? Perhaps there's a teachable moment here...
Otherwise, I thought the (Oscar nominated) cinematography in TKS, like everything else about it, was superb.
Rolf Silber
Veteran
I wholeheartedly disagree. What you miss as a director when you are glued to your monitor are a lot of things that may happen outside the framing and that influence the appearance of an actor vastly. An actor may stand on the wrong food, may cramp slightly, may breath wrongly and this will influence the way he plays - even or especially when in a close up. And you may have to be near to him or her to realize where the problem comes from.
Directors who are glued to their monitors are in my view DoP's in disguise. They are the ones who love to discuss framing and focus and lighting while their movie may disappear because the may lose the emotion and the truthfulness of what holds the story flowing and afloat.
Ted Spencer
Veteran
Rolf Silber
Veteran
It's even worse when they wear the costume I try to ban on all my sets - the "actors costume"..... ;-)
It's seemingly invisible but gets more observable if you are near to "them". Sometimes I believe you can actually smell it.
Just finished shooting with some of the nicest of this monsters I've met in my work life. What a joy.
Ted Spencer
Veteran
That's why acting teachers encourage their students to be "naked" (figuratively, of course). It's a good antidote to the problem you describe...
Rolf Silber
Veteran
Yes. Good advice. But soon after having left the acting school a lot of them dress up again... ;-(
vcassel
Veteran
Those are good points, but I feel the art of the performance (not just the composition) exists in the synthesis between the performer's interpretation and the audience's interpretation. For that reason I believe it's essential during 'action' that the director becomes the audience and sees from their perspective in order to judge the performance accurately.
Rolf Silber
Veteran
Reasonable argument. I have come through my personal experience to another conclusion though. Actually I distrust what the monitor may show me. I try not to be "got" by a nice shot and a perfect pan or travel that may actually help to hide what problems a performance may have. Sure there are sometimes shots - mostly complex camera work - I will watch on a smaller monitor I hold in my hand while actually trying to stand as near to the actors as possible. So I know what the camera does.
What I want to find out is: What does an actor in a certain situation NOT do or why is he hampered doing it? Does he move wrong? Is he, without realizing it, somehow chained by props or furniture or by the boom man? What is happening to his body and muscular structure while he is acting? And why is the leading lady who gives him his lines from off-camera so slightly upset or in love or bored with him? What energies are in the air directly in the set?
Directing from the aisles is not good for me - being as near or maybe even "on stage" gives me the information I need. Becoming the audience in this situation would for me actually be a clear step back. Other directors will disagree with me on this. Fair enough. I try to be an actors director who is also interested in aesthetics and technique.... ;-)
What I want to find out is: What does an actor in a certain situation NOT do or why is he hampered doing it? Does he move wrong? Is he, without realizing it, somehow chained by props or furniture or by the boom man? What is happening to his body and muscular structure while he is acting? And why is the leading lady who gives him his lines from off-camera so slightly upset or in love or bored with him? What energies are in the air directly in the set?
Directing from the aisles is not good for me - being as near or maybe even "on stage" gives me the information I need. Becoming the audience in this situation would for me actually be a clear step back. Other directors will disagree with me on this. Fair enough. I try to be an actors director who is also interested in aesthetics and technique.... ;-)
vcassel
Veteran
I think it's still possible to be an actor's director while looking at the monitor. I'm not an advocate of the director turning his/her back on the actor while monitoring as I've observed Fincher often do--this is ultimately disrespectful and a surefire way to lose an actor's trust. I think it's very possible to have your cake and eat it too while eyeing between the framed film and the staged play as it were.
But no matter the relationship between actor and director at any other time, during 'action' both actor and director become two very different conduits in the process of creation of performance: the actor embodies the fiction from within; the director embodies the observer from without in those moments. I find it essential to empathize fully with the audience in regard to overall decisions.
But no matter the relationship between actor and director at any other time, during 'action' both actor and director become two very different conduits in the process of creation of performance: the actor embodies the fiction from within; the director embodies the observer from without in those moments. I find it essential to empathize fully with the audience in regard to overall decisions.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
Even worse, attractive females put no nude acting into their contracts...
Rolf Silber
Veteran
We had the problem with a leading lady in a movie we made called "The Millionaire & The Stripper" - kind of a romantic comedy "Pretty Woman"-situation in reverse: Everybody thinks the two must have an affair because of the setting and the social situation (and the movie) and they two try hard to be real friends only but everybody goes haywire until in the end they marry - and the actress we chose for the part told us after signing the contract that she would not appear even half nude (we shot for TV so we were extremely civil anyhow)...... ;-)
Soon after leaving acting school some really fall back into all the bad attitudes and mannerisms their teachers tried to work them out of.... in my country it can become nerve-wrecking at times but I try to avoid those guys and gals.
Rolf Silber
Veteran
This is a possible way to proceed. I do not deny, that for some directors this may be their way - but I doubt that it is a rule every director has to observe. For my part I have a different stance: A conductor does not leave the stage to become part of the audience - he is part of the orchestra. A soccer coach does not sit on the audiences bench - he is with his team of players. The results they want may be the same as the audience, yes. But directing for me means to implement myself totally and fully with my actors and my crew and form with them one living, breathing, creating unit. Which is heading - more or less - the way I want.
And to "empathize fully with the audience" would mean that one has to have a clear vision what and who this audience is. I have my doubts that this is possible as I've come to the conclusion over the years that "The Audience" is a rather exotic and quixotic and hard to get entity that changes constantly and has so many different views and viewpoints and fluid tastes and changing convictions that in the end it's near impossible to relate to any other being than..... myself and my team.... with the hope, we will find an audience that shares our approach to a story.
In the end the actual differences of your approach and mine may be negligible, btw.
Sorry if this sounds garbled at times - not a native English-speaker.
Chris S. Alexander
Well-known member
+1. I believe that the director should see what is going on inside of the frame (ie what the actual framing will be), however I do believe that their focus should be on the actual scene after action is called. Blocking can make or break a film. I have watched short films with single camera positions for each scene, but did not get bored because the acting and the actors blocking was phenomenal. There's already one director of photography, you don't need two. As long as you have a trustworthy and talented DP, my belief is that you should let him/her express him/herself.
Personally, I'm offended when a director tries to take over photographing things. Obviously I need the director's approval before I can get anything shot, however I do not appreciate restricted expression.