What do you want from a director?

rsbush said:
Why is it unfortunate if the actor is accepting of it and it works?
Click to expand...

Only the directing style in question is unfortunate (IMO). The fact that the actor can do well in spite of it is certainly fortunate. To a good actor, bad directing is like bad weather. You deal with it, at least to a point...

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.
Click to expand...

Interesting story, and a bit disappointing to me regarding Kubrick's directorial style.

My own background is mainly in music recording and production (a record's producer being the equivalent of a film's director) and I've seen the scenario you describe above play out many, many times (with other producers), usually to very little good effect. Music producing is similar in many ways to film directing, especially with singers, and most of the same rules apply. To get the best performances, a skillful producer (or director) guides the performer into a genuine connection with *their own* muse/talent. Almost always, dictating the phrasing (or other technical consideration) for a singer, or a line reading for an actor will produce a more or less "monkey-see-monkey-do" result. Good performers will manage it far better than lesser ones, but this is rarely the path to a great take. Alternatively, helping to guide the artist into their own creative zone will generally produce the most inspired performance, and inspiration is usually a good thing : ) With struggling singers I've gotten great results many times by suggesting that they forget everything technical (pitch, rhythm, conscious style, etc.) and simply "go to the place where the song came from, and sing it". Magic will replace tragic in a very large number of these cases.

My approach to directing struggling actors is more or less the same: guide them into the 'zone' of the scene/character/story *without* any direct instructions (as in "do it like___"). By clarifying the context of both the scene and the actor's 'life' in it through my own knowledge (which must be very deep) of the story and characters, the actor will tend to find his/her own connection to it, and the performance will come alive. I've been profusely complimented by actors on a number of occasions for doing just this (and please excuse me for saying so).

On the other hand...rules are made to be broken, right? So...

*Sometimes*...sometimes...the above method just doesn't work. Thankfully, it seems to be the rare exception, both in music and film. But when it doesn't, [cue weary sigh here], I have reluctantly resorted to the direct, "tell 'em exactly what you want them to do" approach. After a certain point, it's arguably better than just saying "let's go again"...

It's like, if your tree ain't makin' apples, sometimes you just gotta go buy 'em at the store : )
 
Last edited:
I think you're assuming that I'm talking just to you, rsbush. But in all honesty, the way you started this whole conversation didn't clearly indicate to me "I want a director who can show me what to do – during those rare times when I am stuck." It indicated to me that you want that ALL THE TIME. I see now that you don't, and that's good. But there are "actors" out there who DO want that all the time, and I'm just not interested in the frustration of working with that or the mediocre performances it tends to yield.
 
wow...lots of great answers to the question at hand. i can't think of much to add but there is one thing...

if the actor is doing perfect but you never speak to them...they might alter things because they are waiting for any kind of feedback from you.

one of my favorite directors i ever worked with had said next to nothing to me on the first day of shooting. and this project was going to be going for 31 days. i was playing the leading lady (5th down on the cast list though...so many male leads and supporting...sighh...lol)...but, he kept on talking to the leading actor and giving him notes and i started to wonder if i was just fluff...

finally...the director walked up to me half way through the day (good timing because i was about to alter things)..and he said "i am so sorry we have hardly spoken. you are doing everything i need but you may have noticed our leading man is not delivering and it is taking a lot of my focus. don't change anything for now and if i see anything that needs fixing I will give you a note"

sigh of relief....cause i was starting to wonder why he was not talking to me. and the last thing you need is for an insecure actor to get more insecure!! and all actors...all of us have some insecurities!
 
Right, Michelle. How to handle a performance that's going really well can sometimes be no less of a challenge than when it's not. Sometimes no comment is the best plan, sometimes not. It sounds like your director friend handled the situation very skillfully.

Speaking for myself as an actor, I simply cringe inside when a director says to me, especially early on, "that was great! Do it just like that! Every time!". Oy... Problem was, I wasn't actually 'doing it' any specific 'way'. The take was good because I was *there in the moment* in the scene. Maybe I'm just not good enough of an actor, but when I try to do it 'exactly' like I did before, it's usually not as good as the take I'm imitating, precisely because now *I'm imitating a take* rather than living in the imagined reality of the scene. I really want to tell directors never to say that to me, but I don't because I fear they'll be offended (and they very well might!). Argh...

What I try to do as director (or music producer) in that context, assuming I haven't already said "cut - print!", is usually something *generally* complimentary, so folks know they're not doing anything wrong, and excess attention is not focused on them. Making them too aware of how much you liked the last take can actually work against the next one, for the same reason I described regarding myself above. IMHO you *never* want a performer to try to duplicate anything exactly. Yes, I know, I know, continuity is crucial and all, and it is, but I have to say I'd rather deal with great scenes with a certain amount of continuity issues in the edit room than mediocre ones (or worse) that match perfectly. That's why God invented coverage...and B-roll...

If direct criticism of one person's contribution is needed I always try to wrap it in sugar, like: "this is going to be really great, but let's try it [insert direction here]." Always make sure the performers feel appreciated. Pointing out what's *right* in a problematic performance (along with your notes on making it better) might be all the nourishment a struggling player needs to rise above the issue.

If the take is going well but not quite 100% of what I want, I like to play the "insurance take" card. It goes like this:

"That was terrific, guys. I loved it." Then pause for everyone to feel good about that. Then:

"So listen - we've got a great one in the can. It's fabulous. But what the heck - let's grab another one - just for insurance, ok? I mean, we're all set up and everything, so why not, right?" Big smile... Then the next take rolls...

...and suddenly everyone is relaxed, confident they're doing well, and....they top the previous take by a country mile. And *now* we're done. I can't tell you how many times I've seen that little 'trick' work : )
 
Last edited:
Ted Spencer said:
Right, Michelle. How to handle a performance that's going really well can sometimes be no less of a challenge than when it's not. I simply cringe inside when a director says to me as an actor "that was great! Do it just like that! Every time!". Oy... Problem was, I wasn't actually 'doing it' any specific 'way'. The take was good because I was *there in the moment* in the scene. Maybe I'm just not good enough of an actor, but when I try to do it 'exactly' like I did before, it's usually not as good as the take I'm imitating, precisely because now *I'm imitating a take* rather than living in the imagined reality of the scene. I really want to tell directors never to say that to me, but I don't because I fear they'll be offended (and they very well might!). Argh...
Click to expand...


Ted...you know what is cool about the above statement...I think that gets exactly to the heart of why stage and film are so different AND to one of the things a film actor has to be able to do to be really great.

Continuity! As simple a word as it sounds...it can be very difficult to do in the stale environment of a working film. I only mean stale in the sense of not having the feedback from a live audience. That audience can bring a stale show back to life but on a set where you seldom get any feedback other than the notes a director may or may not give you....continuity can be a b*tch!

It can be hard to get back in the moment over and over but that IS exactly what some of the best do.

I also love your trick on doing the extra take after you have a good one because I would assume that does relax everyone enough to take the edge off and might end up giving some incredible takes to work with. I could also see it harming now and then...only if it gives the talent too much comfort that their focus shifts. I imagine it works more often than not though...
 
Renowned acting coach Harold Guskin (James Gandolfini, Kevin Kline, Glenn Close, Bridget Fonda and many others), and author of the great book "How To Stop Acting", actually *explicitly* recommends against a strict "continuity policy" for the reasons I mentioned above, even for A-list actors. His approach is much more about achieving the magic, even if it's at the expense of (some) consistency. Reading his book is a large part of the reason why I see it that way...
 
Last edited:
My 2 cents: This conversation is interesting for me because it seems to highlight some of the differences in how actors are educated and what they expect. Most actors are trained in a stage acting manner and directed like wise. Cinema is a different beast than stage. Cinema plays with time, locations can fly by in an instant, great distances can be a split second apart, sound, and other cinematic grammar that has no equivilent with stage productions and performances. Therefor directing actors in a cinematic production requires some of the same old familiar tools and some new & different tools.

I can see a legitimate use of line reading and showing actors. This is considered bad, but I will take exception with this. When the director is using a (Eisenstein / Kuleshov) Theory of Montage approach and has pre-concevied shots (storyboarded) so the total sum works as a cinematic piece this may require this type of directing. This could explain some of the Spielberg (bts) directing (line reading & showing) I've seen on DVDs. He's simply getting pieces for the edit and needs actors to do certain things precisely so it will fill out the designed puzzle. If it's well designed the finished shot construction will take the audience on a great emotional & intellectual journey using juxtaposed shots which takes full advantage of the power of cinema by using montage, i.e., harnessing the power of the cut.

IMO, when using a Montage approach the director needs to let the actors know beforehand that there will be times when he will be absolutely precise on the shot construction because he has already designed the shots is a very precise way, and now it's time to film it.


The other main strategy for shooting is Coverage. Coverage is a much better for allowing actors to do their thing because you often shoot the whole scene instead of pieces. Both strategies are legitimate.

Summary: Actors need to know they may need to act out some very small and seemingly useless bits, nothing at all like the stage or even classroom acting practice. In the end, when the puzzle is put together, it should all add up and make sense.
 
Last edited:
I guess this is a great conversation in hypotheticals. Like I say in a lot of my posts when it comes to this kinda thing. Theory is only theory.

Directing styles are very different from person to person. It isn't unfortunate one way or another. A buddy of mine that can't direct her way out of a paper bag. That is unfortunate. Someone who is getting the response needed by a different, not condoned by theory, methodology - I don't think that is unfortunate at all.

It's almost like saying, man - the way you hold the steering wheel isn't what my book said. That's unfortunate for you and the car.

Different methods work with different people. One actor might be excellent, needing little direction, others - need a little push forward. Some need you to coax the response out of them, and even some more need you to beat them over the head to get the take you want. You can't cluster talent together just as you can't cluster directorial styles together.

Let's take a look at a special effects piece. You can guide them gently all you want, but you still might not get what you are looking for. There comes a time where something needs to be shown. Not just in blocking.

Another piece, the "whenever you are ready" approach works fine. Giving them the motivation they need.

Another piece might be a totally hands off approach to the talent. Yet another you might have to bring them along for the ride.

Actors are people to. Your guidance might not be good enough. If you can get the response and have it be powerful, then you are a good director - whatever your methods.

Direction isn't a book, it isn't a theory. You can't write about the end-all-be-all style of excellent direction and frown upon anything that isn't done by Kubrick. You need to innovate. Direct for the talent you have and the scenes you are doing. Direct in a way that feels right.
 
Zak Forsman said:
yeah, i think what you're describing is simply blocking the action for the shot.
Click to expand...


There's a bit more to it than blocking to say the least. Mamet has some interesting ideas along with Hitchcock about this. They both look at film-making this way. I feel actors need to be trained to act in film by actually filming in class so they learn continuity and how it works. I tend to agree with Mamet about this. He has some interesting advice for actors on what role they play and how to go about it.



Mattykins, didn't we go over this before? somewhere? anywise...

All "thoughts about how..." are based in a theory of some kind, even if it's half thought-out or just plain stupid, it's still a theory of some sort. Theory is simply one's way of understanding and explaining some object. Your post is an example of your theory.

Good craftsmanship is built on mastering technique. Film making is a craft and directing is a key subset of the craft. There are techniques that have proven to be useful for obtaining predictable results.

"In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities; in the expert's there are few." (Shunryu Suzuki)
 
Last edited:
Ted Spencer said:
Direct in a way that gets results.
Click to expand...

Yes, we did talk about it, because everyone dissected the definition of theory. Look past my use of theory as a word. Look past the semantics to the idea. That is what I am getting at.

And didn't you just negate your entire argument Ted? If results aren't up to "theory" (as in Kubrick directing is the way. Or Mamet's directing is the way, or the book I read is the way. Then isn't it unfortunate even if it yields results?

So I guess 10's I speak as theory as an "I read it, so it must be the way" akin to "The Force". Not a general idea of how to do something.

PS.

Moss No. What do you mean? Have I talked to him about this [Pause]
Aaronow Yes. I mean are you actually talking about this, or are we just...
Moss No, we're just...
Aaronow We're just "talking" about it.
Moss We're just speaking about it. [Pause] As an idea.
Aaronow As an idea.
Moss Yes.
Aaronow We're not actually talking about it.
Moss No.
Click to expand...
 
10s said:
There's a bit more to it than blocking to say the least. Mamet has some interesting ideas along with Hitchcock about this. They both look at film-making this way. I fell actors need to be trained to act in film by actually filming in class so they learn continuity and how it works. I tend to agree with Mamet about this. He has some interesting advice for actors on what role they play and how to go about it.
Click to expand...

i see. well respectfully, i don't think we're going to see eye to eye on this one. i've read much of what mamet has to say on directing and I think the results in each of his films are not of the sort that I'm after... to put it politely. :)
 
There's no need to see eye to eye. It's good we agree to disagree and keep sharing ideas and insights. I learn all sorts of things from the different perspectives put forth by everyone ... even from all you guys! :)

Mattykins, I hear you.

I'm also not too keen on all of Mamet's work but his insight on the craft is well worth listening to.
 
Mattykins said:
And didn't you just negate your entire argument Ted? If results aren't up to "theory" (as in Kubrick directing is the way. Or Mamet's directing is the way, or the book I read is the way. Then isn't it unfortunate even if it yields results?
Click to expand...

I think there's a tendency in discussions like this to reflexively dismiss points made that reference books or other non-directly experiential sources. I know I've been guilty of it myself in my music recording work when newbie clients pull out references to magazine articles that are at odds with my decades of hard-learned methodology. Humble pie is all too often consumed shortly thereafter (by me) when said inexperienced person's point turns out to be well taken, and I subsequently incorporate in into my own "expert" body of knowledge. So much for contempt for the Great Unwashed...

But back to the subject at hand, you may recall that after espousing my pet theories on directing (born of both formal study and many years of experience in numerous different contexts), I added a big "on the other hand" section that basically said "sometimes you have to toss the whole approach in the trash and do what works, however 'heretical' to your preferences it may be".

I've tried every darn approach in (and out of) the book many times, and the one I primarily advocated earlier in the thread is by far the most effective in my experience. And it's very similar in nature to what Judith Weston describes in "Directing Actors" (re: result-oriented = bad idea), as well as what Harold Guskin suggests as an acting coach (stay alive in the moment at [almost] all costs).

And I didn't say "Direct in a way that gets results" lightly. I start with my default approach, and will stick with it pretty far down the road, because it usually *works*, eventually, even if not right away (and it usually does work right away). But when it doesn't, I'm perfectly willing to toss "the book" out the window if I must, and try something else until *I get results*. This can include direct instruction, dictated line readings, jokes (often at at my own expense), lunch breaks, chuck-the-script improv, massages, a case of wine....whatever. Go ahead and break all the 'rules' if you have to. Whatever it takes to make it happen...

And of course, sometimes it just doesn't. So you regroup - maybe it's a casting error, maybe you need a rewrite, maybe you try another day, maybe you cut the scene.

But in the end, what matters is that the finished product *works*. That's *all* that matters. In the end nobody in the audience sees how you got there. All they see is whether you did, or didn't...
 
This is a fascinating conversation - and not to derail it, there was something I wanted to add.
One topic I haven't seen come up yet is the issue of expectations - and it's something I've been trying to deal with quite a bit lately, and I feel has made a huge difference in my communication with actors.

Anytime I'm working with a new actor we take a good chunk of time to talk about the process itself. I give them some insight as to how I like to work, what they can expect from me, etc.
This goes back to what Michele brought up - I'm one of those who probably doesn't give actors much feedback, especially on the first couple of takes. Most of the time its because I've found that saying the wrong thing can cause more harm than good - and also I want to see what the actor is bringing to the role themselves, before I try to shape it too much. Those first couple of run throughs give me a chance to see it fresh from the actors perspective, instead of immediately trying to push them back to what my preconceived notions of the performance were.

Problem is - I quickly realized that many actors were getting insecure, thinking the lack of feedback meant I wasn't happy, and at a loss for what to tell them - and, just like Michele mentioned, altering their performance in hopes of hitting something I was happy with.

By talking about the process beforehand, and setting up some expectations with the actors I found that they are all much more comfortable, and willing to put themselves out there for me.

Point is - I'm not certain if WHAT we do as directors is as important and making certain that the actors we are working with know what it MEANS when we do it.

Silence from one director may mean something completely different than another.
Running 15 takes with one director may mean things aren't going well... or it may simply mean the director wanted to do that many takes and everything is going according to plan.

I guess in many ways its no different that any other working relationship (client, crew, etc).
Setting expectations definitely helps keep everyone on the same page - and can help actors feel much more confident and secure in what their doing.

Just my two cents.

This is a great thread by the way.
:)
 
That's great advice Luis. I'm going to start doing that. I think it would solve a lot of the issues I've had.
 
This isn't exactly production, but when I'm casting leads and major supporting characters I don't have the final callback in an office or audition setting. I literally make a short film with myself operating and a wireless mic on them at a location similar to the sides I've selected. It's usually my house and backyard or a park.

(NOTE : The short film itself is not a scene from the movie, but something that I've made up with the character in mind. Usually this is a scene that I wrote that never made the final cut of the film or a backstory to a character that we never see but is important so that actor knows the mindset I want in the first scene. Too many times have I seen directors cast an actor based on the most important scene from the film. In some cases this is important, but I've noticed that there are cases where an actor / actress has problems bringing to me what they brought into the audition and I like actors to be more fresh in the process when that scene happens).

It's maybe 3 different shots that take about a half an hour then an extra ten minutes topped onto that to talk about my project/character/etc. I feel like they sort of get to know who I am, how I do it, etc without me having to describe myself and how I work. The great thing is that it's a moment working with a person. There are great audition actors that sort of freeze up on set. I get to know their patience, quirks, and probably most importantly their personality comparatively to the character I'm selecting.
 
Auditions can be very liberating for an actor, especially if you don't tend to be fearful - chances are you won't even get the role, so what the hell - go for broke. But for some actors, once they do get the role and memorize the lines they can actually get worse, particularly where keeping it fresh and spontaneous after doing it many times in a row are concerned - which is, after all, the ballgame in the end. I think this is probably the biggest single reason why callbacks are so essential. The actor has (usually) memorized the sides by then, and gets a sort of mini-version of the on-set experience. And the director/casting crew get to see the actor in it. Often it can much more accurately reveal who's got the chops and who hasn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top