What do you want from a director?
- Thread starter Jason Adams
- Start date
Ted Spencer
Veteran
Yes, in general it's regarded as one of the worst things a director can do to give a line reading or attempt to demonstrate what they want from an actor. It's otherwise known as "result-oriented" directing. See Judith Miller's great book "Directing Actors" for the definitive explanation, and the related advice on what usually works much better to do instead.
Last edited:
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
i don't do that because i don't want you getting there artificially. if you aren't getting where we need you need to go, it's my job to direct you along the proper path to find it, not to show you what the destination looks like in my head. besides, what's in my head is a totally idealized fantasy you simply can't live up to.
directors give direction. what you're asking for is a tour guide.
10s
Veteran
In many behind-the-scenes on DVD it seems like Spielberg and other top directors often give line readings and showing the A list actors what they want. They act it out briefly and will even speak the lines demonstrating how they want it phrased. Ideas about this anyone?
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
10s
Veteran
What comes to mind is a BTS on "Catch me If You Can" and another one is, if I remember correctly, on "Amistad." Lucas does it also, of course he doesn't always get the greatest performances. From what I can tell, they effectively instruct the actors on what they want and they get it --- and it also happens to work.
Ted Spencer
Veteran
[Re: 10s]
Well, unfortunately, actors get this sort of direction all the time, and the better ones know how to deal with it pretty well. They've simply had to learn how, because there's no escaping it. And many actors, I believe, don't actually know how much better it (directing) can be done.
Something compelled me recently to watch "Eyes Wide Shut" again, and there were some interesting things in it on this subject. As I watched the film I was simply blown away by Nicole Kidman's acting in a few scenes, notably one where she has a very long, angry monologue in a hotel (IIRC), wearing a nightgown or the like. Unfortunately I don't recall right now what the context was otherwise, but she was simply overwhelming in her command I thought, and so completely immersed in the moment that it was simply breathtaking. It was one of the most impressive pieces of acting I've ever seen in a film.
I later watched all of the DVD's special features, which were extremely interesting in their own right, and highly recommended for anyone who appreciates Kubrick's work. In them he discusses his appreciation of acting, his affection and respect for actors, and how he important it was to him to get the best performances possible, even at the expense of extreme amounts of time and budget. It was clear that he was anything but a "my way or the highway" director at least where acting was concerned.
He went on to discuss the very scene I was so blown away by. Apparently, they had shot it quite a number of times (Kubrick was famous for doing extreme numbers of of takes), and even after all that he still allowed Kidman to have a few shots at it her own way, and (completely amicably) *left the set*! It was one of those takes that ended up in the film.
To me it was a perfect illustration of brilliant directing. The overall sequence might have gone something like this:
1. Cast an excellent actor
2. Rehearse thoroughly
3. Shoot the scene with a collaborative, actor-friendly non-"result-oriented" approach.
4. Be so unselfish, and show so much faith in Kidman's own ability as to allow her to completely immerse and invest herself in the scene with absolutely no interference from him.
For my money, Kubrick's generous decision to leave the set (along with everything else that led up to it) is why this stellar performance is in the film. Sure, Kidman played it brilliantly, but it was only because Kubrick *gave her complete (though meticulously nurtured) freedom to be brilliant* that it happened, got filmed, and made it into the movie. As far as I'm concerned, this makes Kubrick not only a man of great talent and sensitivity as a director, but also smart and humble enough to, as they say, "get out of his own way", and then choose the take that was done *when he wasn't even there*.
*That's* great directing...
Ok...back down off the soapbox now : )
Well, unfortunately, actors get this sort of direction all the time, and the better ones know how to deal with it pretty well. They've simply had to learn how, because there's no escaping it. And many actors, I believe, don't actually know how much better it (directing) can be done.
Something compelled me recently to watch "Eyes Wide Shut" again, and there were some interesting things in it on this subject. As I watched the film I was simply blown away by Nicole Kidman's acting in a few scenes, notably one where she has a very long, angry monologue in a hotel (IIRC), wearing a nightgown or the like. Unfortunately I don't recall right now what the context was otherwise, but she was simply overwhelming in her command I thought, and so completely immersed in the moment that it was simply breathtaking. It was one of the most impressive pieces of acting I've ever seen in a film.
I later watched all of the DVD's special features, which were extremely interesting in their own right, and highly recommended for anyone who appreciates Kubrick's work. In them he discusses his appreciation of acting, his affection and respect for actors, and how he important it was to him to get the best performances possible, even at the expense of extreme amounts of time and budget. It was clear that he was anything but a "my way or the highway" director at least where acting was concerned.
He went on to discuss the very scene I was so blown away by. Apparently, they had shot it quite a number of times (Kubrick was famous for doing extreme numbers of of takes), and even after all that he still allowed Kidman to have a few shots at it her own way, and (completely amicably) *left the set*! It was one of those takes that ended up in the film.
To me it was a perfect illustration of brilliant directing. The overall sequence might have gone something like this:
1. Cast an excellent actor
2. Rehearse thoroughly
3. Shoot the scene with a collaborative, actor-friendly non-"result-oriented" approach.
4. Be so unselfish, and show so much faith in Kidman's own ability as to allow her to completely immerse and invest herself in the scene with absolutely no interference from him.
For my money, Kubrick's generous decision to leave the set (along with everything else that led up to it) is why this stellar performance is in the film. Sure, Kidman played it brilliantly, but it was only because Kubrick *gave her complete (though meticulously nurtured) freedom to be brilliant* that it happened, got filmed, and made it into the movie. As far as I'm concerned, this makes Kubrick not only a man of great talent and sensitivity as a director, but also smart and humble enough to, as they say, "get out of his own way", and then choose the take that was done *when he wasn't even there*.
*That's* great directing...
Ok...back down off the soapbox now : )
10s
Veteran
Sounds great! I'll have to watch it, the scene & bts. This reminds me of the Directing book by William Ball, 'A Sense of Directing" (one of, if not the best book on directing IMO that I've come across) where we become more creative when we turn on the intuitive and off the critical brain. There's something to be said about preparing and then throwing it away so our pure intuitive instinct can take over and make choices that are true and rise above the mundane.
dougspice
Veteran
Personally, I like to prepare/cast actors to the point where "show me how to do it" is not even a question that would ever come up. If a [truly talented] actor knows enough about the backstory of the character they are playing, they'll work out for themselves how that character would see the scene, what he would do. Occasionally an actor will come talk to me as we're starting out the day and say "I was thinking about the scene last night, and I really think Morales would feel this way about it, because of what happened to his family." I love that. But it takes an inspired actor to get there in the first place. The good news is I can tell pretty easily most of the time in audition who has that ability and who doesn't.
filmman
Veteran
all the rules are out the window
it depends on the actors ... how well they're trained
traditionally, yes, let the actors give you what they have prepared and then adjust ...
when there is no time, the sun is going down, the shot has to be made or it will never be made ... tell 'em and get the shot in the can
loving what you do is the main thing ... if you do it with love, it works great
it depends on the actors ... how well they're trained
traditionally, yes, let the actors give you what they have prepared and then adjust ...
when there is no time, the sun is going down, the shot has to be made or it will never be made ... tell 'em and get the shot in the can
loving what you do is the main thing ... if you do it with love, it works great
Ted Spencer
Veteran
I should add regarding the Kubrick commentaries on the EWS DVD that since he passed away right after it was made (or was it during?), some of the comments I cited were made by others on his behalf.
rsbush
Well-known member
As I said, I'm talking about when I'm stuck. As a last resort. If I'm not finding it you can give me all the direction you want but if my wheels are stuck in the mud I ain't gettin there. I don't want a roadmap I just want a director who can show me how it can be played. I don't have a problem seeing someone else play something. I can still breath life into it and make it my own. Some actors have a mythology that gets them hung up with this, I don't. I can actually think of only one time that I was really stuck and needed this kind of help and I got it from another actor, not the director. I took it and ran with it. It was a tremendous help for me. By the way Jack Lemmon said just about the same thing when he was asked what the difference was between a good director and a great director. I think he said he only had about six directors in his entire carrer capable of this. Most director can't do it, they don't have the acting chops. What's in your head doesn't neccesarily come out in your behavior. All that "don't give me a line reading," "I'm not really feeling it" "I can never watch myself," are part of a bad mythology actors have in my opinion. I say "Own the line," "Loosen up, take a leap of faith, trust your instrument to fill you up while you're playing, just like it does in life," "Watch yourself and LEARN, just like any musician learns from listening to the playback".i don't do that because i don't want you getting there artificially. if you aren't getting where we need you need to go, it's my job to direct you along the proper path to find it, not to show you what the destination looks like in my head. besides, what's in my head is a totally idealized fantasy you simply can't live up to.
directors give direction. what you're asking for is a tour guide.
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
respectfully, I cannot approach every actor as though they are jack lemmon.
rsbush
Well-known member
Zak,
I get that. I think it's a pretty tricky thing to be able to suss out what the actor you're working with needs from you. If demonstrating a bit of behavior, timing or energy is going to bind someone up, you definitely don't want to do that. For me personally, none of those are a problem. That said, if someone wants me to be a puppet, then I've got a problem.
Ted,
Why is it unfortunate if the actor is accepting of it and it works? Like a lot of other things it's often abused in the wrong hands, but that shouldn't rule it out for those that know how to use it. You should use what works for you. A great actress once told me about working with Kubrick. Take after take all he would say was "Let's go again." Thirty odd takes later she finally broke down and said "Please Mr. Kubrick, just tell me what you want me to do and I'll do it." Kubrick responded,"Darling, I would never tell an actor what to do. Let's go again." That's how he worked. It worked for him. But she was sure that had he told her what he wanted her to do, she would have been able to do it. Who's to say? But I don't doubt her.
As Sanford Meisner used to say, use some of it, all of it or none of it.
Dougspice,
Are you intimating that I'm not talented enough to be in one of your films? (I'd put one of those stupid smiley thingies here - but I don't do that sort of thing.)
I get that. I think it's a pretty tricky thing to be able to suss out what the actor you're working with needs from you. If demonstrating a bit of behavior, timing or energy is going to bind someone up, you definitely don't want to do that. For me personally, none of those are a problem. That said, if someone wants me to be a puppet, then I've got a problem.
Ted,
Why is it unfortunate if the actor is accepting of it and it works? Like a lot of other things it's often abused in the wrong hands, but that shouldn't rule it out for those that know how to use it. You should use what works for you. A great actress once told me about working with Kubrick. Take after take all he would say was "Let's go again." Thirty odd takes later she finally broke down and said "Please Mr. Kubrick, just tell me what you want me to do and I'll do it." Kubrick responded,"Darling, I would never tell an actor what to do. Let's go again." That's how he worked. It worked for him. But she was sure that had he told her what he wanted her to do, she would have been able to do it. Who's to say? But I don't doubt her.
As Sanford Meisner used to say, use some of it, all of it or none of it.
Dougspice,
Are you intimating that I'm not talented enough to be in one of your films? (I'd put one of those stupid smiley thingies here - but I don't do that sort of thing.)
dougspice
Veteran
I'm just saying that there is a particular type of actor that I am able to get excellent results from again and again. I'm sure other people get results they're happy with in other ways.
But, if you can't bring me something that is unique and interesting and honest about this character – if you must wait for me to tell you exactly what I want – then yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.
But, if you can't bring me something that is unique and interesting and honest about this character – if you must wait for me to tell you exactly what I want – then yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.
rsbush
Well-known member
How does being stuck on something equate to an unhonest complete characterization? And again, I don't want you to TELL me, show me something. If you show me how you see it, if you can act it out, show me some behaviour, a timing, a certain energy, even if you're indicating, it may give me something that will get me unstuck. You can try to twist what I'm saying to fit you're argument but I never suggested that I want someone to tell me how to play the character or give me a (warning generic term following) line reading or roadmap (no disrespect Zak.) I'm referring to a specific moment that I may have trouble bringing to life. Here's my one real life example - "I can't get that joke right for the life of me!" "Dude, it's easy it's like this." "Ohhhh, O.K. thanks man." From what you're saying you would have absolutely nothing to give me that might help. So you're gonna let me go down. No thanks. And if the hypothetical question from your hypothetical actor is as deep as they go, best of luck.I'm just saying that there is a particular type of actor that I am able to get excellent results from again and again. I'm sure other people get results they're happy with in other ways.
But, if you can't bring me something that is unique and interesting and honest about this character – if you must wait for me to tell you exactly what I want – then yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.
Last edited: