Where to cast?

[Chamber005]

Okay, so I'm trying to put together my very first casting call. I need to cast one adult male, two adult females and one girl all here in Chicago (and the surrounding area).

Should I start with trying out local theatres (we have a hundred of 'em), put ads in the paper; is Actor's Access the only decent site to get talent from online? We have quite a few universities that have strong acting programs. Just not sure where to start.

Ideally I'd like to just have a bunch of headshots and resumes emailed to me so that I can sift through them and then do the appropriate callbacks.

I'm unwilling to provide any sort of script material to anyone who I'm not actually hiring. I figure I'd just have them read from plays/screenplays that have similar characters in them (or that have a similar writing style).

Any advice on the casting process from the filmmaker's perspective would be awesomeness.

Thanks!

 

[ANGENOUX]

I am a total Newbie so we'll see what the others have to say but, what about Craigslist? You can post your the info about your project there and probably get a ton of responses.

Why are you against providing your actors with original material for auditions though? I don't think there's anything like hearing an actor breathe life into words that I've written and I find it easier to judge than a piece I really had nothing to do with. I'm curious as to your reasoning. Care to share?

 

[Chamber005]

I am a total Newbie so we'll see what the others have to say but, what about Craigslist? You can post your the info about your project there and probably get a ton of responses.

Why are you against providing your actors with original material for auditions though? I don't think there's anything like hearing an actor breathe life into words that I've written and I find it easier to judge than a piece I really had nothing to do with. I'm curious as to your reasoning. Care to share?

Well primarily because the piece is a non-traditional format. Once I have a handful of people I want I can then get into more details with them individually. I'm not just protecting the script, but I'm also protecting the format we're using.

Also I'm incredibly protective of everything I write. I only allow two people to read what I write. I take their critiques and make corrections where needed. With the non-feature stuff I've done I typically won't even give the actor the complete script as I think it detracts from their ability to exist in the moment. A character (and its actor) doesn't need to know the arc of a story, they only need to know their motivation in the moment, the now. It's up to the actor to trust me and my overall vision for the piece. They should be making choices based on the information I'm giving them, not the information they're interpreting from having read the script.

And, IMO, if you can deliver Mamet or Shakespeare correctly (e.g. existing in the moment) you can pretty much deliver anything I'll ever write. Having your actors read your betters can only help the audition process.

 

[Ted Spencer]

I'm incredibly protective of everything I write.

With all due respect, this exact position is a very widely acknowledged trait of amateur, especially first-time filmmakers. It's mentioned specifically as such in more highly reputable screenwriting books than I can count.

One of the very first jobs I got as an actor was handled this way by (surprise!) a very inexperienced director. All the actors signed non-disclosure agreements, were forced to return their scripts at the end of shooting even though the writer/director had hopes that the show would be performed live in numerous venues immediately thereafter, and when the shoot was finished, each actor was only allowed a 60 second DVD excerpt of their performance from the 30 minute piece (which, btw, we all sweated blood to do on the too-tight schedule that was set up, for which we were each paid a grand total of $50). Why? Well...she had to protect her precious project from being stolen by one of us nefarious actor types of course...

It shouldn't be too big a surprise that the script in question was a steaming, heaping pile of donkey-doo, which no one in their right mind would ever, ever want to "steal", let alone ever want to see performed again anywhere for any reason. Which of course, it never was...

With the non-feature stuff I've done I typically won't even give the actor the complete script as I think it detracts from their ability to exist in the moment. A character (and its actor) doesn't need to know the arc of a story, they only need to know their motivation in the moment, the now. It's up to the actor to trust me and my overall vision for the piece.

Again, with all due respect, this is a really, really bad idea. Tell that upfront to almost any highly successful actor and watch them say "thank you" and "goodbye" in rapid succession.

They should be making choices based on the information I'm giving them

That comes later, in rehearsal, and then on set. It's called "directing". In the meantime, there's "preparing for the role" and for the most part, actors must do it on their own, or perhaps, if budget allows, with the help of a professional acting coach. Guidance from the director throughout the process is key of course, and more so if s/he is a skilled actor as well (which, in fairness, most great directors are not), but in any case, most of the hard work must be done by the actors themselves, and there is no way around that.

not the information they're interpreting from having read the script.

For an actor, understanding the overall story arc, character arc, other characters' arcs, dialog style, doing advance work on character development etc., will be *vital* if you, as the director, want fully realized performances. It's a collaborative process. Of course you get to make the final call. That's your prerogative. But to suppose you can pre-empt the actors' process successfully in this way would be the height of hubris if it weren't so obviously, and I do mean to say this respectfully, with apologies in advance, so amateurish.

And, IMO, if you can deliver Mamet or Shakespeare correctly (e.g. existing in the moment) you can pretty much deliver anything I'll ever write. Having your actors read your betters can only help the audition process.

Um..no. Certain actors will do just fine with Mamet, or Shakespeare, or George Lucas, or you-name-it, and do quite badly in your film. Ever see Nicole Kidman try to do comedy ("Stepford Wives")? How about Steve Guttenberg (remember him - "Cocoon"?), who was quite charming in light stuff, trying to do a motorcycle-riding tough guy ("Don't Tell Her It's Me")? It's called "miscasting", and the list of fine actors who have been miscast in cinema's history is endless...

The main point I'm trying to make here, offered sincerely in the spirit of helpfulness is...please...relax. Let the actors see your script. They will *not* steal your ideas. And they *will* give you better performances. Trust me. And while you're at it, get more quality feedback from smart, knowledgeable, kindred-spirit folks on your script. IMHO one of the easiest ways to end up with a weak one is to over-restrict people from reading it, especially if you're doing your first feature. I've seen this time and time again. Virtually all good screenwriters have their scripts read by *dozens* of people. At less professional levels they enter (and win) contests with them, submit them to peer-review sites like zoetrope.com and triggerstreet.com, give copies to agents, actors, fellow screenwriters, family, friends...you name it. They got good *by doing that* - over and over and over - not by starting out locking themselves in an ivory tower of presumptive skill.

Overall, filmmaking is a huge process, and at its best an intensely collaborative one. You will be amazed at what people will deliver to you when you A: trust them, B: empower them, and C: listen to them. With very few exceptions, it's amateurs, zealously guarding what they have no idea are their POS projects (not to say that this describes yours) because they never let enough other folks 'inside' with whom they could creatively collaborate, and from whom they could learn, that find out after it's too late that they made a huge fundamental error in not doing so. I hope you don't find yourself a member of that unfortunately very, very large club.

 

[DadinWestchester]

Ted, you put it beautifully and tactfully. Those were my thoughts exactly.
Chamber, try Actorsaccess and Backstage for casting notices in Chi town.
(I grew up in Palos/Orland Park)
GT

 

[Andrew McCarrick]

You could try the IMDBPro message boards too. I posted there and got a 100 or so submissions.

 

[ANGENOUX]

With all due respect, this exact position is a very widely acknowledged trait of amateur, especially first-time filmmakers. It's mentioned specifically as such in more highly reputable screenwriting books than I can count.

One of the very first jobs I got as an actor was handled this way by (surprise!) a very inexperienced director. All the actors signed non-disclosure agreements, were forced to return their scripts at the end of shooting even though the writer/director had hopes that the show would be performed live in numerous venues immediately thereafter, and when the shoot was finished, each actor was only allowed a 60 second DVD excerpt of their performance from the 30 minute piece (which, btw, we all sweated blood to do on the too-tight schedule that was set up, for which we were each paid a grand total of $50). Why? Well...she had to protect her precious project from being stolen by one of us nefarious actor types of course...

It shouldn't be too big a surprise that the script in question was a steaming, heaping pile of donkey-doo, which no one in their right mind would ever, ever want to "steal", let alone ever want to see performed again anywhere for any reason. Which of course, it never was...



Again, with all due respect, this is a really, really bad idea. Tell that upfront to almost any highly successful actor and watch them say "thank you" and "goodbye" in rapid succession.



That comes later, in rehearsal, and then on set. It's called "directing". In the meantime, there's "preparing for the role" and for the most part, actors must do it on their own, or perhaps, if budget allows, with the help of a professional acting coach. Guidance from the director throughout the process is key of course, and more so if s/he is a skilled actor as well (which, in fairness, most great directors are not), but in any case, most of the hard work must be done by the actors themselves, and there is no way around that.



For an actor, understanding the overall story arc, character arc, other characters' arcs, dialog style, doing advance work on character development etc., will be *vital* if you, as the director, want fully realized performances. It's a collaborative process. Of course you get to make the final call. That's your prerogative. But to suppose you can pre-empt the actors' process successfully in this way would be the height of hubris if it weren't so obviously, and I do mean to say this respectfully, with apologies in advance, so amateurish.



Um..no. Certain actors will do just fine with Mamet, or Shakespeare, or George Lucas, or you-name-it, and do quite badly in your film. Ever see Nicole Kidman try to do comedy ("Stepford Wives")? How about Steve Guttenberg (remember him - "Cocoon"?), who was quite charming in light stuff, trying to do a motorcycle-riding tough guy ("Don't Tell Her It's Me")? It's called "miscasting", and the list of fine actors who have been miscast in cinema's history is endless...

The main point I'm trying to make here, offered sincerely in the spirit of helpfulness is...please...relax. Let the actors see your script. They will *not* steal your ideas. And they *will* give you better performances. Trust me. And while you're at it, get more quality feedback from smart, knowledgeable, kindred-spirit folks on your script. IMHO one of the easiest ways to end up with a weak one is to over-restrict people from reading it, especially if you're doing your first feature. I've seen this time and time again. Virtually all good screenwriters have their scripts read by *dozens* of people. At less professional levels they enter (and win) contests with them, submit them to peer-review sites like zoetrope.com and triggerstreet.com, give copies to agents, actors, fellow screenwriters, family, friends...you name it. They got good *by doing that* - over and over and over - not by starting out locking themselves in an ivory tower of presumptive skill.

Overall, filmmaking is a huge process, and at its best an intensely collaborative one. You will be amazed at what people will deliver to you when you A: trust them, B: empower them, and C: listen to them. With very few exceptions, it's amateurs, zealously guarding what they have no idea are their POS projects (not to say that this describes yours) because they never let enough other folks 'inside' with whom they could creatively collaborate, and from whom they could learn, that find out after it's too late that they made a huge fundamental error in not doing so. I hope you don't find yourself a member of that unfortunately very, very large club.

:2vrolijk_08:I'm beside myself...This is an excellent answer. Respectful, honest and full of valid points. To the OP, when you're first starting your career, it isn't unusual to feel the way you feel about your material but I have to agree with Ted (not that my opinion matters much) but it's the collaborations that will make your project truly great and i'm hopeful that you'll welcome that process so that you can make the most out of your film/career. Good luck to ya!

 

[Chamber005]

With all due respect, this exact position is a very widely acknowledged trait of amateur, especially first-time filmmakers. It's mentioned specifically as such in more highly reputable screenwriting books than I can count.

One of the very first jobs I got as an actor was handled this way by (surprise!) a very inexperienced director. All the actors signed non-disclosure agreements, were forced to return their scripts at the end of shooting even though the writer/director had hopes that the show would be performed live in numerous venues immediately thereafter, and when the shoot was finished, each actor was only allowed a 60 second DVD excerpt of their performance from the 30 minute piece (which, btw, we all sweated blood to do on the too-tight schedule that was set up, for which we were each paid a grand total of $50). Why? Well...she had to protect her precious project from being stolen by one of us nefarious actor types of course...

It shouldn't be too big a surprise that the script in question was a steaming, heaping pile of donkey-doo, which no one in their right mind would ever, ever want to "steal", let alone ever want to see performed again anywhere for any reason. Which of course, it never was...



Again, with all due respect, this is a really, really bad idea. Tell that upfront to almost any highly successful actor and watch them say "thank you" and "goodbye" in rapid succession.



That comes later, in rehearsal, and then on set. It's called "directing". In the meantime, there's "preparing for the role" and for the most part, actors must do it on their own, or perhaps, if budget allows, with the help of a professional acting coach. Guidance from the director throughout the process is key of course, and more so if s/he is a skilled actor as well (which, in fairness, most great directors are not), but in any case, most of the hard work must be done by the actors themselves, and there is no way around that.



For an actor, understanding the overall story arc, character arc, other characters' arcs, dialog style, doing advance work on character development etc., will be *vital* if you, as the director, want fully realized performances. It's a collaborative process. Of course you get to make the final call. That's your prerogative. But to suppose you can pre-empt the actors' process successfully in this way would be the height of hubris if it weren't so obviously, and I do mean to say this respectfully, with apologies in advance, so amateurish.



Um..no. Certain actors will do just fine with Mamet, or Shakespeare, or George Lucas, or you-name-it, and do quite badly in your film. Ever see Nicole Kidman try to do comedy ("Stepford Wives")? How about Steve Guttenberg (remember him - "Cocoon"?), who was quite charming in light stuff, trying to do a motorcycle-riding tough guy ("Don't Tell Her It's Me")? It's called "miscasting", and the list of fine actors who have been miscast in cinema's history is endless...

The main point I'm trying to make here, offered sincerely in the spirit of helpfulness is...please...relax. Let the actors see your script. They will *not* steal your ideas. And they *will* give you better performances. Trust me. And while you're at it, get more quality feedback from smart, knowledgeable, kindred-spirit folks on your script. IMHO one of the easiest ways to end up with a weak one is to over-restrict people from reading it, especially if you're doing your first feature. I've seen this time and time again. Virtually all good screenwriters have their scripts read by *dozens* of people. At less professional levels they enter (and win) contests with them, submit them to peer-review sites like zoetrope.com and triggerstreet.com, give copies to agents, actors, fellow screenwriters, family, friends...you name it. They got good *by doing that* - over and over and over - not by starting out locking themselves in an ivory tower of presumptive skill.

Overall, filmmaking is a huge process, and at its best an intensely collaborative one. You will be amazed at what people will deliver to you when you A: trust them, B: empower them, and C: listen to them. With very few exceptions, it's amateurs, zealously guarding what they have no idea are their POS projects (not to say that this describes yours) because they never let enough other folks 'inside' with whom they could creatively collaborate, and from whom they could learn, that find out after it's too late that they made a huge fundamental error in not doing so. I hope you don't find yourself a member of that unfortunately very, very large club.

Thanks for being respectful.

I personally don't let people (except for two) read what I write. That's my personal position as a writer. I have a laundry list of reasons as to why I won't, but lower down on the list is outright theft.

I promise you, there is nothing amateurish about not posting your screenplay or novel or poetry on the internet -- or just handing it out at random casting calls. If you're a writer or artist hired by a comic book company do you think it would be okay for that writer to post the script before the comic is published? Do you think he'd be allowed to show that script to thousands of potential comic book artists? It's absurd. Someone who is giving away all that they have because they can't earn the talent on personality and premise alone is the reason you see people everywhere giving their scripts away in bathroom stalls and posting their crappy poetry online, they're desperate and talentless.

Any writer worth his/her salt should never, ever put their story out into the world until it is complete (and, in the case of film, it isn't complete until it's been shot and edited and printed). It doesn't mean an initiate few won't see the parts of the whole and maybe even understand it (e.g. I have two people, by the end of the piece there may be 5 or 6 more included in that small group, specifically for this piece).

When the remaining actors are actually cast I'm sure we'll start having a dialog about the piece which may even entail (if they are incapable of operating in a more method tradition and need to experience their character's arc prior to creating their performance) giving them a larger, character-specific portion of the script to read.

But like I said, theft is not my primary reason for keeping things close to the vest. If I was doing some traditional form of media maybe I could articulate to the individual the various progressions of their characters; but in this regard, from any normal perspective, I would essentially be taking every single extra on the set and giving them the entire script and working with them on their character (just to exhibit an example).

The piece isn't something that can be articulated. If it was I would be going through normal channels to produce it. I'm not making a feature or a show or anything that can operate in a normal context. *I* can comprehend the entirety of the thing, but even my most devout reader has only thus far been able to grasp about 10% of the whole.

So, nutshelled, A) Though written, it would be extremely challenging for any one person to "read the script" in any concievable terms and comprehend it and B) I would have to give the script to every single extra and crew member on the set if I was taking your advice.

It's better for me to say (and the talent to hear) that we're simply shooting a feature. From the perspective *I provide them* (the lines I give them to read) they'll be able to digest and exist in the moment that they need to for the purposes of their performance.

If other people could comprehend the totality of the thing they wouldn't be actors and crew members and the audience, they'd be writers.

 

[Ted Spencer]

Thanks for your reply. It reminds me ever so much of language I've heard from several inexperienced filmmakers I've known and/or worked with who subsequently produced laughably amateurish films.

I hope this isn't your outcome, likely though it seems to me, if my instincts are worth anything. The world will certainly give you the definitive answer when you're done. When that day comes, if it's widely acknowledged as a brilliant film, I'd like to be first in line to shake your hand and congratulate you on proving my advice needless.

Break a leg!:beer:

 

[Ted Spencer]

One more thing: there's a remarkable documentary called "Overnight" about the making of "Boondock Saints" that should be required viewing for any ambitious first-time feature filmmaker with a budget. Object lessons-galore. If you haven't seen it, I recommend it very highly. I found it absolutely riveting.

I sincerely hope your experience does not in any way resemble the way theirs unfolded...

 

[Chamber005]

Thanks for your reply. It reminds me ever so much of language I've heard from several inexperienced filmmakers I've known and/or worked with who subsequently produced laughably amateurish films.

I hope this isn't your outcome, likely though it seems to me, if my instincts are worth anything. The world will certainly give you the definitive answer when you're done. When that day comes, if it's widely acknowledged as a brilliant film, I'd like to be first in line to shake your hand and congratulate you on proving my advice needless.

Break a leg!:beer:

lol

Well, first off I'm not even understanding what "laughably amateurish films" means. You talked about the person you worked with on a short writing something that you felt was horrible. I know the writing isn't horrible from critical and audience feedback over the last 5 months. I did what turned out to be a beta test run online with the piece prior to having some associates of mine come in and match my proposed investment to do a more elaborate straight to DVD/blu-ray version.

While there is a "no-budget" aspect to the piece in which I'm managing the film and consumer HD aspects, the additional more well-funded professional HD stuff does indeed have professional crew, etc on set (of course there is a blending between the two absolutes as it all regards the same piece).

The thing that I think might be getting misinterpreted here is that I am not doing a feature. I'm not doing a short. Not doing a show or mini-series. I'm creating a specific format for this piece so I'm doing what I can to make sure that I can arrange each member of the staff and talent in capacities that they can handle and engage themselves in.

If I was doing a feature, I still would not simply give away an entire script to random people online (or off). No professionals (none) would ever do this prior to having contracts signed. It's absurd.

Whether or not I felt it was important for the actor to know how their character progresses would regard that specific scenario -- something between myself and the actor. For instance, if I have an actor walking through a house and I want the boogey man to jump out at them, I might not necessarily tell them where I hid the boogeyman. I come from a purely method approach as I believe that makes for the best action/reeaction in acting. If an actor has no interest in taking part in that kind of production, obviously we wouldn't be two individuals that would work well together.

But, to your point, if I was doing a typical format, like a feature, there's a good chance I could take a more lenient approach. But on this specific piece (which is not a feature), the actors are largely on a need-to-know basis. Once everyone is cast, if I find someone incapable of rising to the occasion without the entirety of their future (not past or backstory) laid out for them, I'll take that on a case by case basis.

But don't assume that because someone isn't traditional in the way they hold a paintbrush that they won't be able to paint a pretty picture. I'm not a category or a statistic, I'm me, an individual and an artist. I want to create what I'm compelled to create and I want to create it in the way that my vision dictates is best. Advice in the arts really only has any merit when it regards technical specifics, and even then there are still no absolutes. Just sayin'

:love4:

 

[Ted Spencer]

If I was doing a feature, I still would not simply give away an entire script to random people online (or off). No professionals (none) would ever do this prior to having contracts signed. It's absurd.

Absurd? Hmm...

Let's see here...a quick look at zoetrope.com's feature screenplay "hall of fame" page shows that people who posted scripts for review and feedback there (presumably properly copyrighted beforehand) accomplished the following things *within the last year alone*...

-2 Semifinalist Nicholl Fellowships (Nicholl is arguably the most prestigious of all screenplay competitions, and has gotten countless very lucrative Hollywood script writing contracts for its top entrants)
-Grand Prize Winner of the '09 Creative World Awards
-Best Comedy Screenplay at the Thrill Spy Film Festival
-Winner of the 2009 Gideon Media Arts Conference & Film Festival’s WinePress Original Screenplay Contest
-8th place - 77th Annual Writer Digest Competition (national, with over 17,000 entries)

The page contains a total of about 600 zoetrope.com-submitted scripts that have won or advanced to the latter stages of various screenplay contest awards over the last several years, including *all* of the most prestigious ones. All 600 of them (and thousands more that didn't win anything - yet) were publicly viewable by anyone who wished to do so. Most of the people involved included enthusiastic thank-you notes to their zoetrope reader/reviewers who helped them hone the scripts before entering the contests.

Certainly, (some), as opposed to (none), of these people are or have become full-time professional screenwriters. And no one (none) who read and reviewed their scripts was obliged to sign any contracts or 'keep anything under their hats'.

So...absurd? I don't think so...

 

[rsbush]

Chamber005,
I'm not going to tell you your approach won't work. Indeed, there are a couple of successful examples of directors working that way in Wong Kar Wai and Andrei Tarkovsky. But be aware, even they had to endure some very frustrated actors who were not used to playing without any idea of where they were going. This is uneasy ground for even the best among us.
On a purely technical note, heads up: Every Americanized version of Stanislavski's technique that people call "method" emphasizes knowing "where the character is going" as an integral part of the actor's preparation. Implying that what you intend to do is some kind of "method" directing only makes it look like you are misinformed at best.

 

[Chamber005]

Absurd? Hmm...

Let's see here...a quick look at zoetrope.com's feature screenplay "hall of fame" page shows that people who posted scripts for review and feedback there (presumably properly copyrighted beforehand) accomplished the following things *within the last year alone*...

-2 Semifinalist Nicholl Fellowships (Nicholl is arguably the most prestigious of all screenplay competitions, and has gotten countless very lucrative Hollywood script writing contracts for its top entrants)
-Grand Prize Winner of the '09 Creative World Awards
-Best Comedy Screenplay at the Thrill Spy Film Festival
-Winner of the 2009 Gideon Media Arts Conference & Film Festival’s WinePress Original Screenplay Contest
-8th place - 77th Annual Writer Digest Competition (national, with over 17,000 entries)

The page contains a total of about 600 zoetrope.com-submitted scripts that have won or advanced to the latter stages of various screenplay contest awards over the last several years, including *all* of the most prestigious ones. All 600 of them (and thousands more that didn't win anything - yet) were publicly viewable by anyone who wished to do so. Most of the people involved included enthusiastic thank-you notes to their zoetrope reader/reviewers who helped them hone the scripts before entering the contests.

Certainly, (some), as opposed to (none), of these people are or have become full-time professional screenwriters. And no one (none) who read and reviewed their scripts was obliged to sign any contracts or 'keep anything under their hats'.

So...absurd? I don't think so...

What does a contest have to do with a production? These people are all SO DESPERATE to see SOMETHING happen with their writing that they're joining contests? That's your proof that this is the way artists should behave? IMO the only artistic contest a person should ever be taking part in is the one their work was submitted to automatically or was submitted unbeknownst to them.

What vane purpose does winning an award serve? How incapable is a person functioning in society that the only way they can make a dime is by whoring their art?

Being financed, compensated and obtaining profit margins is one thing, but a contest, really? Did Martin Scorcese enter a contest this year? How about the year prior? Oh wait, that's right, he's a professional.

How about this, when Stephen Spielberg and James Cameron start posting their scripts online prior to their movies being shot I'll agree with you. I still won't follow suit, but I think that's completely reasonable as we're talking about what professionals do verses non-professionals.

Amateur people doing amateur things enter contests and give their works away freely to be judged (or not). The only reason to ever give anything away for free as a professional is if you're doing so for marketing reasons.

We're not only talking about features vs contests but we're also talking about artists vs money-seekers.

I personally don't support the idea that artistry should be used as a bargaining chip for money matters/fame/awards, etc. That's my own personal position. Everyone is entitled to their position. I simply choose my position to be in the same vicinity as other professional, respected artists, just as creators primarily concerned with money matters/fame/awards are welcome to group themselves with the persons inspired by that pursuit.

It's all good. We all have our own ambitions and create our own paths to achieve said ambitions. My path does not have me devaluing my art by giving it away unfinished nor does it urge me to create things in hopes of fame and fortune. Millions of people do, though -- they're just not the ones I was referring to when I wrote about writers. Maybe we need a different phrase to distinguish between the types of people who enter writing contests and people who simply write?

Since all the contests already bear the name, I vote to give all the contest-goers "Writer" and the rest of us will just call ourselves Storytellers. Of course, a storyteller wouldn't care what anyone else calls him/her because it's of no consequence to their craft so the point's all moot anyway.

As an actor you disagree with my methods and so assume my work is some wretched, vile thing. But don't you see how *absurd* that assumption is? I'm left handed so I'm a lesser architect? Really?

And if this were a philosphical debate, my presumption that a person who is primarily using their art in the pursuit of awards, monies and accolades is probably not much of an artist at all is undoubtedly a more sound one.

In the end it's whose works are being read and watched 100 years from now, that's all that matters. No amount of personal triumphs and experience in life or monies won or earned can save us from our works true nature being revealed long after we're worm food. That's all art is -- everything that does not pertain to us personally; the very definition of being a vessel. What we create is for others to experience. Once we release it back to the universe, it's not in our control anymore. The only question left is whether or not you gave everything you are, every last breath and ounce of will to asserting the vision of the piece that was originally intended.

There's lots of layers a storyteller has to deal with -- things far more important than worrying about some idea being stolen or winning some contest. There's a whole other pursuit happening that has very little to do with credits or applause. The Storyteller defines and sometimes even creates entire social structures. The Storyteller invented the human as we've come to understand it.

So please, enough with the "Look what those financially well-off award winning hacks do!" It doesn't pertain to me or my knowledge of what I am or the art I create. I already made all my money and won all the plaques I'll ever need in business. I don't need my art to pay my rent.

 

[Chamber005]

Chamber005,
I'm not going to tell you your approach won't work. Indeed, there are a couple of successful examples of directors working that way in Wong Kar Wai and Andrei Tarkovsky. But be aware, even they had to endure some very frustrated actors who were not used to playing without any idea of where they were going. This is uneasy ground for even the best among us.
On a purely technical note, heads up: Every Americanized version of Stanislavski's technique that people call "method" emphasizes knowing "where the character is going" as an integral part of the actor's preparation. Implying that what you intend to do is some kind of "method" directing only makes it look like you are misinformed at best.

Method is about motivation. I'm not even an actor and I know that. The "intention" is the motivation. And it's not the actors' need to know true motivation, all that matters is what is captured or shown. Thus, if I tell the actor that he is desperately thirsty and wants the glass of water behind the woman in front of him but that he is not allowed to look around her or move her aside, he may then inhabit the purpose of the scene which was to show lust and disdain for the woman (who just so happens to be standing in front of a glass of water).

But again, this is only a minor aspect of my reasoning. Again, if I were doing a feature, a typical format, I may very well deal with each actor according to how I feel they will give their best performance (including perhaps even giving them the entire script, front to back). But as it pertains to this piece I believe I WILL be giving the actors that I HIRE enough of the script and information for them to be able to effectively enact their personal craft. My point was that for this piece it wouldn't be pertinent to give every actor the script as the script does not pertain to what I need from them and their piece in the whole. That's all. I'm not 100% against giving an actor a script if filming a feature. I personally would probably try anything and everything prior to doing so, but if the actor was especially cebrebral and I trusted that they wouldn't have any additional questions to things not mentioned in the script, I'd consider it.

 

[rsbush]

The method is not about motivation. Motivation is one aspect in a very comprehensive technique. But I'll give you this. It's the one aspect that the general public knows. So you're just proving your ignorance in your response. Start with Stanislavski's 'An Actor Prepares" before you go throwing around terms you know nothing about.

 

[Chamber005]

The method is not about motivation. Motivation is one aspect in a very comprehensive technique. But I'll give you this. It's the one aspect that the general public knows. So you're just proving your ignorance in your response. Start with Stanislavski's 'An Actor Prepares" before you go throwing around terms you know nothing about.

You're right, I put myself in a position where I started talking about "method" opposed to "my method approach" thus finding myself defending my interpretation of someone else's established method as a way to better articulate what it is I do with actors. I shouldn't have attempted to define and defend a methodology that I'm not personally specifically employing in my own art, even if the methods have some similarities.

 

[thisisapocalypse]

That's all. I'm not 100% against giving an actor a script if filming a feature. I personally would probably try anything and everything prior to doing so, but if the actor was especially cebrebral and I trusted that they wouldn't have any additional questions to things not mentioned in the script, I'd consider it.

I just have to chime in and say that again this does not seem like a very good idea - your talent does need to understand the script and where its going, at least in regards to their own character so they can take it all in, process the character, and become that character.

Performances in a film, yes, while they are individual stand alone scenes, need to add up to more than the sum of their parts in order to be really, really good, you're going to lose out on a lot of the actor's subtlety of performance, little things that would come out in every scene because the talent knows who the character is and understands him or her, just the way the talent moves, the way they blink, minor facial expressions, nervous ticks, tendencies, infinitely many things.

Not only that... but "trust that they wouldn't have any additional questions?" Seriously? You think that's a good thing? Questions are good, obviously, within reason and in a way that's effective and workable...but *no questions* at all? If they *are* cerebral they will have questions.

I don't disagree that you can direct each scene individually, and probably get decent performances, but those performances will lack something, and something that you won't see right away, in my estimation, and in the end something is just not going to add up quite right.

You're also going to miss out on good feedback and ideas that the talent may have for the character, and of course, while you don't have to accept the ideas or advice, the talent may have good ideas and/or insights that they can bring to the role that are worth integrating and will make the film better than it would have been otherwise. You can't escape collaboration in filmmaking, as soon as you're working with someone else (anyone) you're collaborating, and if you insist on micromanaging things at every level (really, who is going to want to work with you if you tell them that they can't read the script because they won't understand it? You seem to have a great deal of disrespect for just...people in general here), you are going to be a difficult person for others to work with, you're going to have a hard time retaining talent for the duration of the film, nobody is going to have any fun, and you'd better be a super-genius.

You're taking a lot of heat on this thread because nearly everything you are saying comes across as extraordinarily amateur, know-it-all, and (and I don't know if this is the case or not) it all sounds very much like it is coming from someone with either very little, or zero professional writing experience...and you're talking to people on this board who do. Writing and editing go hand in hand...everyone (yeah, even the great writers...especially the great writers) gets edited, and with good reason - when you're the writer, you're too close to the writing and you lose the ability to see it all objectively, a good editor will take your writing to the next level, guaranteed.

It's not necessary that you put your screenplay on the web for advice, but talking to folks about it, getting feedback, and showing it to smart people, good writers, good editors, and getting their feedback is a good idea - it will help.

However, in this case, I think what I might be most concerned about is that someone who "devoutly" reads your material only comprehends 10% of what you're trying to do here. Either you aren't being honest about that, don't really grasp what 10% means, or...well, I really don't know, it sounds like ego to me.

My honest guess is that this problem is not about your reader's ability to comprehend, this is a problem with your ability to present what you want to do in either written or spoken form that makes sense to people - you seem to be of the mindset that nobody else is "cerebral" enough to "get it." While it's not a 100% perfect approach, if you can write a 15-second "elevator pitch" that's compelling, chances are you've got something worth doing. If you can't, chances are you don't.

The fact of the matter is that most people are probably smarter than you give them credit for, and if they're not "getting it," you might want to think about your approach...and if nobody gets it, who's going to watch it?

 

[Chamber005]

I just have to chime in and say that again this does not seem like a very good idea - your talent does need to understand the script and where its going, at least in regards to their own character so they can take it all in, process the character, and become that character.

Performances in a film, yes, while they are individual stand alone scenes, need to add up to more than the sum of their parts in order to be really, really good, you're going to lose out on a lot of the actor's subtlety of performance, little things that would come out in every scene because the talent knows who the character is and understands him or her, just the way the talent moves, the way they blink, minor facial expressions, nervous ticks, tendencies, infinitely many things.

Not only that... but "trust that they wouldn't have any additional questions?" Seriously? You think that's a good thing? Questions are good, obviously, within reason and in a way that's effective and workable...but *no questions* at all? If they *are* cerebral they will have questions.

I don't disagree that you can direct each scene individually, and probably get decent performances, but those performances will lack something, and something that you won't see right away, in my estimation, and in the end something is just not going to add up quite right.

You're also going to miss out on good feedback and ideas that the talent may have for the character, and of course, while you don't have to accept the ideas or advice, the talent may have good ideas and/or insights that they can bring to the role that are worth integrating and will make the film better than it would have been otherwise. You can't escape collaboration in filmmaking, as soon as you're working with someone else (anyone) you're collaborating, and if you insist on micromanaging things at every level (really, who is going to want to work with you if you tell them that they can't read the script because they won't understand it? You seem to have a great deal of disrespect for just...people in general here), you are going to be a difficult person for others to work with, you're going to have a hard time retaining talent for the duration of the film, nobody is going to have any fun, and you'd better be a super-genius.

You're taking a lot of heat on this thread because nearly everything you are saying comes across as extraordinarily amateur, know-it-all, and (and I don't know if this is the case or not) it all sounds very much like it is coming from someone with either very little, or zero professional writing experience...and you're talking to people on this board who do. Writing and editing go hand in hand...everyone (yeah, even the great writers...especially the great writers) gets edited, and with good reason - when you're the writer, you're too close to the writing and you lose the ability to see it all objectively, a good editor will take your writing to the next level, guaranteed.

It's not necessary that you put your screenplay on the web for advice, but talking to folks about it, getting feedback, and showing it to smart people, good writers, good editors, and getting their feedback is a good idea - it will help.

However, in this case, I think what I might be most concerned about is that someone who "devoutly" reads your material only comprehends 10% of what you're trying to do here. Either you aren't being honest about that, don't really grasp what 10% means, or...well, I really don't know, it sounds like ego to me.

My honest guess is that this problem is not about your reader's ability to comprehend, this is a problem with your ability to present what you want to do in either written or spoken form that makes sense to people - you seem to be of the mindset that nobody else is "cerebral" enough to "get it." While it's not a 100% perfect approach, if you can write a 15-second "elevator pitch" that's compelling, chances are you've got something worth doing. If you can't, chances are you don't.

The fact of the matter is that most people are probably smarter than you give them credit for, and if they're not "getting it," you might want to think about your approach...and if nobody gets it, who's going to watch it?

Well the discussion certainly evolved, for sure. My original point was with regards giving the script to people I hadn't hired yet. That, to me, is unprofessional and an altogether bad idea for several reasons.

And yes, during the course of a collaberation, the people who you trust and work with in the editing and reconfiguration of a given piece grows beyond your typical range of people whose opinions and critiques you seek out (I have two in my everyday life, people who are not piece-specific).

The "comprehension of only 10%" really is not an exaggeration as I am not doing something of a traditional format. I can certainly (and have) given the elevator pitch. I can reduce it to its fundamentals so that people can understand the theme and purpose. I, personally, do not believe in or work with notions of "plot", so I don't pitch that aspect.

I've certainly given some extreme examples in my effort to explain my style of working with actors (which is extremely collaberative btw, just not in the sense that we're collaberating on the story or character, we're collaberative strictly in the sense of what is present -- what I give them to understand and work with, which is quite a bit).

The audience that experienced the beta test of the piece enjoyed it for what it was, though they had no idea what they were seeing or what it meant. The actors I worked with had a similar reaction. And, fyi, in the beginning I did take one of the lead actors aside and tried to explain to him some of the complexities of the piece and what its eventual progression would become and he had an extremely difficult time absorbing the greater picture and consequently it hindered his performance in the very minute, present situation that he as his character had to experience. He's since told me that he put it all from his mind and says he trusts what it is I'm looking to achieve, and that's it. He trusts me and that's all I ever need from the people I work with.

I comprehend the whole of this piece as well as the numerous other stories I have because I've dedicated my entire life to this one thing -- existing for story. No matter what I ever write or show no one else besides me will ever really, truly be experiencing the totality of what it is I've personally discovered as anything I give to anyone else, no matter how strictly I adhere, will only be a representation of the truth.

But to the actors and how much information to give them or not to give them, I can't be swayed on the stance that it's purely a case by case basis. Some actors will need more than others, some will have more questions (a good thing so long as you aren't in the presence of the entire piece, as any questions ARE indeed bad. Any questions that have not been answered within the piece are meant not to be answered), but as a rule of thumb I feel that each actor needs really only understand their own character's nature and the nature of that character's relationships in the past and present, the now. To think that Sally knowing what Ben is doing in a sort of omniscient perception and then further knowing what she will be doing tomorrow and next week is a good thing is, IMO, difficult to accept.

Actors are human. Once they know the answer to the question, I believe it is much more difficult to conceal the truth. By keeping the truth from them it gives them the FREEDOM to exist as things are, not as they may or may not become. I feel actors are like children. They need to feel free to explore, change, reacte to situations and new information. An actor attempting to construct a performance based on a script is doing my job. If you choose to be a director everything in the film is your responsibility. If the make-up isn't right, that's not the make-up person's fault, it's your fault. Sound? Lighting? Set design? If any of these things fall short of your vision it's your fault, period. So it's the director's job to make sure that everyone has the opprotunity to do their job to the best of their abilities. For the technical side of things that very much means having a shot list. For the performers, though, I think when the performance itself is evolving, the actors need to be able to create the performance in the now, in the knowledge only of what is two inches in front of them.

But again, it's not like I'm giving an actor 10 pages and saying "See you tomorrow!" It's just a matter of maintaining a certain level of secrecy for things that may hinder their ability to exist in truth, that's it.

 

[rsbush]

Chamber005,
Here is some information from Tarkovsky's writings that I think you will find useful. http://people.ucalgary.ca/~tstronds/nostalghia.com/TheTopics/On_Acting.html
I personally am not trying to dissuade you from your approach. I just thought I'd point out what you will undoubtably be up against with your actors. And if you talk about "method" acting without a firm grasp of the technique you may scare away some people who would be happy to work with you otherwise. Check out the link above, I think you'll like it.