Where to cast?

[Chamber005]

So, if you're the only person that can understand it, who's your audience going to be made of? If so far the most success anyone has had at understanding the concept was 10%, doesn't that make you worry a bit how it will ultimatly be received?

Well I don't think that what I create is indiscernable, only that what I'm doing on this piece is too much for one person to effectively engage in unless they spent a large part of their existence devoted to the engagement.

If I told you to watch the entire series of, say, MASH, and then asked you what you know and remember of each episode and every single character that interacted with what we'll call the "main cast" (though outside of a chosen few even the main cast wasn't too much more relevant to the piece than were any number of "guest stars") what percentage of actual information would you say you took away from watching the series?

Maybe 1%? 2? Since I am not creating a television series or mini-series I give my readers the benefit of the doubt on this piece and assume that they grasp on about 10% of the whole. It's not to be derogatory towards their intellect or my ability to deliver a piece that is capable of being understood. I'm simply saying that there are thousands of working parts regarding the story and that attempting to interact with each individual component as it pertains to each individual artist is a huge challenge that has to be handled carefully in order for the sum of the piece's parts to adhere effectively.

Does that make sense? I'm trying to be as specific and articulate as I can without sitting here and devulging every single intricate detail about the piece, as that serves no one, certainly not me or what I'm trying to achieve.

 

[Chris Adler]

Not really, but since I don't know "what" it is that your shooting, maybe it doesn't need to.

If you're shooting any form of narrative story then I'd say 10% absorbtion rate is ridiculously low and won't be very enjoyable to the audience. For example, I would certainly say I "got" more than 10% of LOTR and the others in the series.

 

[Chamber005]

Not really, but since I don't know "what" it is that your shooting, maybe it doesn't need to.

If you're shooting any form of narrative story then I'd say 10% absorbtion rate is ridiculously low and won't be very enjoyable to the audience. For example, I would certainly say I "got" more than 10% of LOTR and the others in the series.

The audience's enjoyment is my entire reason for doing it the way I'm doing it. I believe an audience can enjoy anything narrative, regardless of scope or delivery system, so long as you provide them with numerous minor arcs to absorb and satisfy themselves with. In those arcs exist characters (and their actors) which I've thus far been dealing with only as they pertain to their small piece of the whole, not as the whole concerns them.

Something like LOTR has an established mythology that wasn't just created 50 years ago but also drew from numerous centuries-old mythologies to help its readers (and viewers) understand it. When you're creating a mythology from scratch and are not borrowing from other mythologies (in as much as we humans can keep ourselves from being influenced, as has been mentioned here), it is an extremely tedious process that you cannot have be tedious for a viewing audience. Audiences and actors need the immediate, the now, the moment. That's what I'm giving them to ensure that they stay as the mythology develops around them.

Of course it would be pleasant if people enjoy the final work, but I can't be overly concerned with that right now. Right now it's just about dealing with the day to day matters within the production, including now bringing on additional cast members with whom I can work with on their specific moments in the piece.

 

[Rory_B]

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.

Your whole digression about method and the best way to get a performance from actors is very misguided. The fact you don't seem to know the true essence of Method Acting would make me worry as an actor if you know what you're doing in any other respect when trying to illicit a performance from someone.

Not to mention questions are at the very heart of all films and filmmaking. By allowing an actor to pose questions you allow them to open up their own creativity and create more whole characterization. Again it's your movie and you can do so what you want, but the idea that your idea will be stolen is pretty goofy as well. Pretty much every single possible idea has already been filmed, written, performed, sung in all the world. The art comes from putting your own spin on it and breathing new life into questions that have been around since the dawn of humankind.

There's that word again. Questions. Questions is what we're all about. How does an idea start off to begin with? "What If?" so deny an actor that same opportunity to ask questions, stifles their imagination. You don't have to answer the question, in fact allowing them to discover their own answers or reaffirming their own instincts will work just as well. In the end if they give you the performance you want, who cares what process they use to get there in the first place. The moment you stifle an actor, their performance and your movie cease to have any life at all.

 

[Chamber005]

Your whole digression about method and the best way to get a performance from actors is very misguided. The fact you don't seem to know the true essence of Method Acting would make me worry as an actor if you know what you're doing in any other respect when trying to illicit a performance from someone.

Not to mention questions are at the very heart of all films and filmmaking. By allowing an actor to pose questions you allow them to open up their own creativity and create more whole characterization. Again it's your movie and you can do so what you want, but the idea that your idea will be stolen is pretty goofy as well. Pretty much every single possible idea has already been filmed, written, performed, sung in all the world. The art comes from putting your own spin on it and breathing new life into questions that have been around since the dawn of humankind.

There's that word again. Questions. Questions is what we're all about. How does an idea start off to begin with? "What If?" so deny an actor that same opportunity to ask questions, stifles their imagination. You don't have to answer the question, in fact allowing them to discover their own answers or reaffirming their own instincts will work just as well. In the end if they give you the performance you want, who cares what process they use to get there in the first place. The moment you stifle an actor, their performance and your movie cease to have any life at all.

Well the conversation progressed after this about one's individual method vs method acting, at which time the matter was resolved.

And I really just don't understand the anger that seems to pop up from my decisions. I have already said that people have read, actors have acted in and an audience has viewed aspects of the piece. During that time I was able to better understand what the audience and the actors are experiencing and what would be best for them regarding this particular piece. This is all as THIS piece exists -- it is better for the actors not to look to their character's future but instead be allowed to exist in the now.

And I only said that questions were unwelcome if the actor did indeed have the entire script in front of them. If they have the script whatever questions they may have were meant to go unanswered.

And while every THEME may have been addressed in human times, every story most certainly has not. That is as absurd as saying all technology has already been invented because lightning struck a kite. A story is just as valuable and should be treated with the same respect as any inventor treats his/her inventions. Only thieves and the unititiate will tell you to behave differently.

In the end I've said that I approach each situation on a case by case basis. If I was working with Robert DeNiro and he said he needed to know his character's future to inhabit his character's present, I'm sure I would oblige. But if an actor who is unestablished to me gives me no rationale explanation as to why they need to know their future to exist in their present, even within a typical media format, the final decision is going to be based on that actor's specific needs -- absolute needs.

As I've said, I did attempt to work with some actors on this piece engaging them in a slightly larger viewpoint of their character, but it removed their ability to exist in the moment. Was it because they were not highly paid professionals with decades of experience? Possibly. Would Robert DeNiro have had a similar problem? I don't know. But in MOST CASES the reason I feel actors fail in film is because their performances are based on their own perception and interpretation, whereas performances in theatre are typically crafted with a director and/or writer's hand in constant play.

But even in theatre the director isn't going to impress on the actor that he should study and memorize Richard the Second to understand his role as Richard the Third. At best you'd be exhausting your talent and at worst his performance would deeply suffer because he wasn't able to prepare for the production that's being performed today, right now.

I personally believe that film acting has many challenges that the film actor needs to overcome and it's up to the film's director to make sure that the actor doesn't suffer an empty performance because of those challenges.

Remember, if something is wrong with the sound, if something is wrong with the lighting, if something is wrong in a performance it is no one's fault but the director. He is the one responsible for every single detail being perfectly executed. The success of a piece is in its final collaberation, but its failure is only one person's fault. So as a writer/director I want to give my actors every chance to exist in the intended moment prior to them knowing their future. I want to allow them to ask any questions or go to any place of their choosing in their performance. Because once they have the entire script, there is no art, there is no freedom, there is only interpretation.

That's my position. Doesn't mean it's the right one, it's just the way I choose to exist and collaberate as the person who is in command of the entire production.

 

[Rory_B]

Bringing technology into the debate is kind of pointless and I'm not angry at all. My response wasn't based on anger in slightest and I don't feel like debating the semantics of story and theme.

Yes they are different, but they are still connected. Fido the zombie movie is basically the same as Old Yeller or similar types of movies. The pet just happens to be a zombie instead of a dog. The theme is the same and aside from "original" plot points, the story is the same too.

and my entire point is that regardless of whether or not an actor has the entire script you cannot forbid them from asking questions. The amount of script an actor is given has no basis for whether or not they should ask questions.

When an actor asks a question or wants to ask a question it's because they are trying to look beneath what is written and find the subtext and motivation so that they CAN be in the moment. Once an actor has read a script and figured out the emotional beats for a particular scene then they are able to finally just "be".

I've never stolen idea nor had an idea stolen, so this whole process of thieves online is a bit overblown. At least on a site like this that is nurtured by a collaborative spirit to help one another.

I doubt anyone who has entered a DVXfest has had their work stolen from them. And if someone has stolen their idea, I've got to say I would wager it's less than 1%.

Just because someone can "steal" your idea doesn't mean they'll be able to put the same effort, talent, vision etc. into it. An idea is only the start and it's the drive and passion of the person that makes it great.

Also the fact you bring up Robert De Niro is great, because if Scorsese had only let Bobby D see each scene individually, he would never have been able to prepare and gain the weight for the final 1/3 of Raging Bull.

One other note. Inventors have patents. Writers have protections for their ideas as well. If you hoard an idea strictly to yourself, then you fail to get an objective perspective and grow.

 

[Chamber005]

Bringing technology into the debate is kind of pointless and I'm not angry at all. My response wasn't based on anger in slightest and I don't feel like debating the semantics of story and theme.

Yes they are different, but they are still connected. Fido the zombie movie is basically the same as Old Yeller or similar types of movies. The pet just happens to be a zombie instead of a dog. The theme is the same and aside from "original" plot points, the story is the same too.

and my entire point is that regardless of whether or not an actor has the entire script you cannot forbid them from asking questions. The amount of script an actor is given has no basis for whether or not they should ask questions.

When an actor asks a question or wants to ask a question it's because they are trying to look beneath what is written and find the subtext and motivation so that they CAN be in the moment. Once an actor has read a script and figured out the emotional beats for a particular scene then they are able to finally just "be".

I've never stolen idea nor had an idea stolen, so this whole process of thieves online is a bit overblown. At least on a site like this that is nurtured by a collaborative spirit to help one another.

I doubt anyone who has entered a DVXfest has had their work stolen from them. And if someone has stolen their idea, I've got to say I would wager it's less than 1%.

Just because someone can "steal" your idea doesn't mean they'll be able to put the same effort, talent, vision etc. into it. An idea is only the start and it's the drive and passion of the person that makes it great.

Also the fact you bring up Robert De Niro is great, because if Scorsese had only let Bobby D see each scene individually, he would never have been able to prepare and gain the weight for the final 1/3 of Raging Bull.

And like I said, the whole notion of an idea being stolen isn't very high on my list as to why I work the way I am working on this piece.

But as a rule, yes, I believe writers should be extremely careful with their ideas. Great ideas are as rare as great inventions. Though what a great invention is depends on who you ask, I guess.

You're saying an actor needs to see a character's future in order to act in the present. I don't agree. You aren't correct and neither am I. But in the end, all that matters is what the person who is driving the car decides, because in the end, if or when that car crashes, the guy sitting in the trunk isn't going to be the one who is responsible. So it's up to the driver to make the important decisions for all the other passengers, regardless if they believe, from their perspective as passengers, the driver is making the right decisions.

If they don't trust the driver they won't get into the car in the first place. The people I've worked with trust me and my judgement and know that the most important thing to me is that we succeed at arriving safely at our destination.

Maybe you should try developing a performance based on just a few pages of a script. Just with THAT information create a performance. You might discover something about the character you wouldn't have known had you known where he was going to end up in the third act.

Just sayin'

 

[Rory_B]

Who has said I never have tried that? There's multiple ways to experiment with a scene/movie and there's plenty of ways to go about it. I never said my way was better or that yours was wrong and I've tried numerous techniques when it comes to directing to see how something plays.

Perhaps you should let actors and everyone see your entire scope and vision all at once and see how that works out for you as well? The very point you use towards me is what we're saying to you. WHy don't you try out our method and see how it works?

You're missing a large chunk of my point and I have too many others things to do right now.

Also who in their right mind is getting in a trunk? You use a lot of vague metaphors to make points that simply obfuscate the matter at hand.

And the proper thing would be that I AM CORRECT and SO ARE YOU. There's plenty of ways to skin a cat. Now I've gone and used an absurd metaphor myself.

 

[Chamber005]

Who has said I never have tried that? There's multiple ways to experiment with a scene/movie and there's plenty of ways to go about it. I never said my way was better or that yours was wrong and I've tried numerous techniques when it comes to directing to see how something plays.

Perhaps you should let actors and everyone see your entire scope and vision all at once and see how that works out for you as well? The very point you use towards me is what we're saying to you. WHy don't you try out our method and see how it works?

You're missing a large chunk of my point and I have too many others things to do right now.

Also who in their right mind is getting in a trunk? You use a lot of vague metaphors to make points that simply obfuscate the matter at hand.

And the proper thing would be that I AM CORRECT and SO ARE YOU. There's plenty of ways to skin a cat. Now I've gone and used an absurd metaphor myself.

I think you missed the numerous times that I stated that I did in fact allow some of the actors (and certainly the readers) to view the piece. It hindered the actors' abilities to perform in the present effectively. For example, by anyone's judgement Hamlet has nothing to do with Richard, but in this piece Hamlet has everything to do with Richard. But to play Hamlet as Richard or vice versa inhibits the actor's ability to play either. Thus I let them play and examine Hamlet giving them no indication that who they really are is Richard, who is in fact Hamlet.

The future of my characters is not for the characters to know. And my honest opinion is that most actors aren't good enough liars to pretend to not know what they're going to be performing in the next scene and the next. The same as most writers aren't good enough to pretend to not know where the characters are going to be at the end of a story.

So I have taken your advice and the consequences were negative. I don't need to do the same thing again and again to prove my own point to myself.

 

[gi-jones]

I usually post a small description of the project and story together with the casting notice. In most cases I only give people the entire script (for a feature) until the second round of casting, but this is mainly because I don't want people, who I haven't even met yet, to waste hours of their time reading a script. If they ask I will give it to them.

I highly doubt any actor with any kind of talent would accept doing a film, without seeing the entire script. Unless you've already proven yourself as a brilliant director, your script is your only way of convincing people that the project is worth doing, and that you're not all talk.

 

[Chamber005]

I usually post a small description of the project and story together with the casting notice. In most cases I only give people the entire script (for a feature) until the second round of casting, but this is mainly because I don't want people, who I haven't even met yet, to waste hours of their time reading a script. If they ask I will give it to them.

I highly doubt any actor with any kind of talent would accept doing a film, without seeing the entire script. Unless you've already proven yourself as a brilliant director, your script is your only way of convincing people that the project is worth doing, and that you're not all talk.

We'll see. So far everyone I have worked with or gathered funds from have been people I know or people who I know who know people (of course, I know quite a few actors and quite a few folks in finance so thus far that's worked out for me). You may be right that no actor will want to work for me unless I do what they ask me to do, but honestly I kind of doubt it. If I'm working on a piece of machinery in a factory, I don't need to know how that piece is going to be used in order for me to do my job effectively.

And in the end, whether you're asking someone for money, sex or a performance (or, heck, all three) it has a lot more to do with who is doing the asking and how they are asking for it. My entire livelihood is based on whether or not people trust me. In business (as with film) pretty much everyone is going to give you the same basic product. Sure, one film may be different than the next, but like shoes, the mechanics of it all is about the same. So the question then is only do you want to buy from me or do you want to buy from the other guy? Whether the shoes or loan or film is right for you doesn't matter as much as your trust in the person who is telling you to take it.

People trust me because I know I can be trusted and have confidence in my word built up from experience. If I can't sell an actor on what it is I need them to do, then I've failed at that and there are more fish in the sea. But personally I'm confident that no actor that I would ever choose to work with would be someone who doesn't trust me at my word, as it's my entire life's work to be trusted and to be committed to gaining and maintaining the trust of others.

We'll see how it all comes together. I've no doubt, though, that I'll have the remaining slots filled with people who are talented and who are best for the remaining roles.

 

[ANGENOUX]

My oh my has this thread exploded! rogar-Shock(DBG):

Chamber, I don't mean to be disrespectful but you're starting to seem a bit fishy to me. If you want a film career, you've gotta get over being afraid to discuss your ideas with your potential talent and others that you expect to commit to your project. If you keep everything a secret, how else folks decide if they want to participate?

Listen, I get that you're passionate about your project and I get that you're set on being nontraditional in the way you cast. What I don't get is your constant need to defend yourself and the decision that you've made when clearly, no one is on your side. If this way works for you and your cast and crew, do it. Who cares what anyone else thinks? It's art and art is subjective. While I do think there's a right way to cover the basics and that there are tried and true methods when it comes to these things, if you don't feel that way, screw it. Try it your way and see how it goes. The people here are giving you excellent advice. I completely agree with most of what's been posted. At the end of the day, you can either take their advice or not. It's your film/nonfilm or whatever...This is your first time casting and since you don't appear to be game to taking the advice you've been offered, just do things your way and learn as you go. You'll either discover a great new method that works for you or you'll fall flat on your ass and cry yourself to sleep at night wishing you would have listened :violin:

I have done some acting and personally, I like to know where I'm going so that I can prepare the best way to get there. What emotions do I need to recall to get to that place? How can I make it great! There are a million ways to say "get in the car". One of the actor's many jobs is to deliver the line in a way that best fits their characters motivation and overall objective. I don't know how to do that without a script. Yes, I'd trust my director but, I don't want to phone in my scene. I don't want my performance be me mimicking my director, whose acting like the character and sucking at it... You're going to spend tons of time directing, redirecting and trying to get your actors to say the lines the way you hear them in your head simply because you didn't give them the materials, allow them to go through their process and do what they need to do to bring their best work to the film and make it great! You may have a grand idea but you're stripping your talent of the very reason they're in the room in the first place.

I've gone on a rant here... This is all my most humbled opinion. Do what you want. We're just trying to help. Personally, I wish you the best with your project. I checked out your Facebook, website, myspace, youtube etc. etc. The artwork does look interesting but there is just no way on earth I'd jump into what appears to be a SciFi project, or any other project for that matter, without having a full scope on what I'm getting myself into. We're all doing this for a reason and if the project doesn't fit my goals for personal and/or professional growth, I'm not going to waste my time. But again, I can't decide that without a script.

Lastly, if you really want to be taken seriously as a producer/director, you've gotta get over the whole "I'm so brilliant and must protect my equally as brilliant idea from the simpletons that don't exist on the same astonishing celestial plane as I do". You're setting yourself up for harsh judgment in a way that screams "I'm totally new to this. I'm inexperienced and I don't have a clue as to what I'm doing". That may not be true (and I'm sure it isn't) but again, that's how you come across and that ain't good.

Again, my apologies for writing a novel. I do wish you all the best with your project. Hopefully you'll stay alive on these boards and keep us posted on how things go for you. :love4: Said with love. L-O-V-E

PS For great talent, check out the students at Columbia College. They are exceptionally talented, if I do say so myself!

 

[thisisapocalypse]

I think the OP means well, but the attitude really comes across as a disrespect for the talent, even though I don't think the OP actually does disrespect talent. Even if the characters are just meant as props, you should let them in on this. The more I read OPs posts, the more I think there's something that is just not coming out quite right - I'm not getting the impression that he feels that his idea is so brilliant that he is afraid to share it, but is actually of a very different mindset entirely and he's having a hard time expressing it within the paradigm of the most of the rest of us - I do think OP would be well suited to tone back a bit on being divinely inspired, he may believe it, but it comes across as extraordinarily arrogant, and either way, the OP as a mortal is the one who has to at least use his body to create the divine output, and anything that doesn't work out very well is really going to open him up to extreme criticism, lack of trust, etc. - it sounds like a cop-out or affords him a scapegoat (it's not my art, it's the divine). To each his own, but he sure seems convinced about this if he's being truthful, can't fault him for that.

 

[Chamber005]

Last two posters -- I hear ya, I know I can get all Silver Surfery when it regards anything artistic. I think it's just me trying to articulate something that isn't able to be articulated and so that indescribable stuff comes off as sounding ostentatious, or worse, self important.

I thought I put it in terms pretty simply when I said that I wouldn't have an actor study Richard the Third if they were playing Hamlet. I would give them Hamlet to read and that's it -- which, for the most part, I'm doing. I'm giving the actors Hamlet to read and study and build a performance around, I'm just not also giving them Richard the Third as that performance has nothing whatsoever to do with their performance in Hamlet. Completely different things that I've found, for most people who have read or worked on the piece, only corrupt their performance of Hamlet if I attempt to press them into the complete context (which includes Richard).

My view on my own personal creative art and my interaction with other artists are really two separate things. I think I've found myself defending them simultaneously and so might have come off as blending the two. I, personally, do not feel "divinely inspired" to direct the piece the way I'm doing it. It has just become the most logical and approproate way to do it.

IN THEORY if I was doing a feature, I would consider doing things moreso the way I've found they develop in theatre, which usually does not entertain the entire script (depending on how you direct). Most times rehearsals are about scene structure, not overall script structure. And, nothing against actors, but I've known quite a few in the theatre and most of them do not spend their nights toiling away on character considerations. They wait for rehearsals to do that, and many of those rehearsals are based, again, on scenes, not script.

The people who have actually sat down and attempted to engage in the piece as something on paper, not something yet performed, cut and printed, have been distracted by the context that doesn't adhere to the immediate. Think of every show or feature you've ever seen and that is what I mean by the immediate. Now while watching that feature think about the feature last week and ponder on the one you're seeing next week -- it's unimportant and distracting from what you're trying to engage in, right? That's the way it is for people with regards this script. It has nothing to do with how it can be viewed only how it can be perceived by a reader who is attempting to find a foothole in the whole thing. I'm simply stripping away all that doesn't matter to them in the immediate and am giving them their foothole.

 

[rsbush]

For the record, Chamber005's thoughts on dealing with his actors is very similar to Andrei Tarkovsky's, which is the reason I posted the link to Tarkovsky's views on film acting. http://people.ucalgary.ca/~tstronds/nostalghia.com/TheTopics/On_Acting.html It is my perception that acting techniques are still, for the most part, theater based. We have acting for the camera techniques, but these seem to be mostly about toning down projection behaviorally and vocally. And being comfortable with that. I believe as actors we desperately want to know where we're going because we're trained that way because of the demands of the theater. To me, it's more a case of what's comforable for us rather than what is neccesary for film.

Also, one needs to look no further than Jerzy Grotowski's theater group for artists who feel the creative impulse is indeed divine and should remain that way. While this is not conventional western thinking, it does exist and is relatively healthy in world theater today.

 

[Chamber005]

For the record, Chamber005's thoughts on dealing with his actors is very similar to Andrei Tarkovsky's, which is the reason I posted the link to Tarkovsky's views on film acting. http://people.ucalgary.ca/~tstronds/nostalghia.com/TheTopics/On_Acting.html It is my perception that acting techniques are still, for the most part, theater based. We have acting for the camera techniques, but these seem to be mostly about toning down projection behaviorally and vocally. And being comfortable with that. I believe as actors we desperately want to know where we're going because we're trained that way because of the demands of the theater. To me, it's more a case of what's comforable for us rather than what is neccesary for film.

Also, one needs to look no further than Jerzy Grotowski's theater group for artists who feel the creative impulse is indeed divine and should remain that way. While this is not conventional western thinking, it does exist and is relatively healthy in world theater today.

Well, and I personally worry about an actor's ability to perform if they're not focused on the immediate. As a writer I know I can't effectively compose a believeable character if I know where he is going or what I want him to say next. We've all experienced that moment in a script when one character says something so that the next character is then enabled to deliver a specific, rehearsed response. To me that isn't art, that isn't something that is functioning in the moment of creation.

My comparison to theatre and how rehearsals are conducted is simply stripped down to its most important and immediate components and demanding not that the film actor construct a linear performance but instead construct a performance based on the scene.

So we rehearse the scene (which in this particular piece has actual arcs in and of themselves and are aspects of a massive whole, all separate but all still serving a single narrative). With my help and encouragement, Jane and John build their characters based on SCENE, not script, which in this case should be okay because the scenes themselves have arcs -- the scenes are the complete stories despite being only an aspect of the whole.

In a feature, it seems completely resonable to rehearse, construct, implement and shoot a scene and then progress (in linear fashion or not) onto the next complete scene. I'm only saying that the actor should have the OPPROTUNITY to build a performance based on a scene without checking their answers first. I can't imagine something as stifling and uncreative as would be writing a script for which I already knew every single beat and measure. That, to me, is creative suicide.

But, yes, if an actor is indeed wholly cerebral in the constructing of their performance, of course it is not out of the question to give them an entire script. And it's not as though I'm leading people into something and then telling them, "Oh, btw, you don't get the script." That, to me, should be part of the auditioning process. Would the actor in question like to see what happens organically before I give them the answer, or would that be impossible (or too uncomfortable) for them to achieve?

Because of the scope of the piece I'm doing, trust, friendship and artistic collaberation are key components to completing it. So although it pains me to do it, I have to move outside of my extended circle of creative individuals and reach out for new friends and new people who will have to trust me without knowing me. Of course that's a challenge and of course there may be scores of actors who won't want to come aboard, but to me, the ones who do come along are the ones that were meant to in the first place.

And just so it's clear, I'm not defending my position as a way to try and earn converts or even prove my points, I just think this kind of debate stirs the soul in general. I think we're all much better off talking about and disagreeing about art than not talking about it at all.

 

[ANGENOUX]

Well, and I personally worry about an actor's ability to perform if they're not focused on the immediate. As a writer I know I can't effectively compose a believeable character if I know where he is going or what I want him to say next. We've all experienced that moment in a script when one character says something so that the next character is then enabled to deliver a specific, rehearsed response. To me that isn't art, that isn't something that is functioning in the moment of creation.

My comparison to theatre and how rehearsals are conducted is simply stripped down to its most important and immediate components and demanding not that the film actor construct a linear performance but instead construct a performance based on the scene.

So we rehearse the scene (which in this particular piece has actual arcs in and of themselves and are aspects of a massive whole, all separate but all still serving a single narrative). With my help and encouragement, Jane and John build their characters based on SCENE, not script, which in this case should be okay because the scenes themselves have arcs -- the scenes are the complete stories despite being only an aspect of the whole.

In a feature, it seems completely resonable to rehearse, construct, implement and shoot a scene and then progress (in linear fashion or not) onto the next complete scene. I'm only saying that the actor should have the OPPROTUNITY to build a performance based on a scene without checking their answers first. I can't imagine something as stifling and uncreative as would be writing a script for which I already knew every single beat and measure. That, to me, is creative suicide.

But, yes, if an actor is indeed wholly cerebral in the constructing of their performance, of course it is not out of the question to give them an entire script. And it's not as though I'm leading people into something and then telling them, "Oh, btw, you don't get the script." That, to me, should be part of the auditioning process. Would the actor in question like to see what happens organically before I give them the answer, or would that be impossible (or too uncomfortable) for them to achieve?

Because of the scope of the piece I'm doing, trust, friendship and artistic collaberation are key components to completing it. So although it pains me to do it, I have to move outside of my extended circle of creative individuals and reach out for new friends and new people who will have to trust me without knowing me. Of course that's a challenge and of course there may be scores of actors who won't want to come aboard, but to me, the ones who do come along are the ones that were meant to in the first place.

And just so it's clear, I'm not defending my position as a way to try and earn converts or even prove my points, I just think this kind of debate stirs the soul in general. I think we're all much better off talking about and disagreeing about art than not talking about it at all.

I agree, a healthy debate feeds the soul. I think I just look at acting from a different perspective. I like to have my goal in mind. I like to know where my character is trying to end up. Can I exist in the moment and do that? YES! That's my job as an actor. Knowing where I'm going but delivering my performance as though I don't. If I'm doing a scene in which I'm visiting my dying mother in the hospital, and my line was "I love you" I'd deliver it a certain way if I knew that in the next scene, I was having a stone fit and collapsing at her funeral. I'd deliver it a different way if my next scene was "later that night" and I returned to the hospital to smother her with a pillow and finish her off.

Acting is also reacting and there's always the underlying "I really know what's going to happen" aspect of acting. Good actors don't let it show though. You talk a lot about trust and artistic collaboration however, you don't want to divulge too much of your script out of fear that the actor won't be "in the moment" enough to pull off a good performance. If you hire them for your production, shouldn't you trust that they can do that. After all, that is their job. An actor should be able to walk his beautiful, pregnant wife to her car parked in the driveway of their sprawling suburban mansion, knowing that when she gets in the car and starts the ignition, the car will explode and never let the audience see it coming.

I just think it saves time if actors are allowed to prepare. Rather than you saying "well no, because later in the story..." But that's just my opinion.

 

[Chamber005]

I agree, a healthy debate feeds the soul. I think I just look at acting from a different perspective. I like to have my goal in mind. I like to know where my character is trying to end up. Can I exist in the moment and do that? YES! That's my job as an actor. Knowing where I'm going but delivering my performance as though I don't. If I'm doing a scene in which I'm visiting my dying mother in the hospital, and my line was "I love you" I'd deliver it a certain way if I knew that in the next scene, I was having a stone fit and collapsing at her funeral. I'd deliver it a different way if my next scene was "later that night" and I returned to the hospital to smother her with a pillow and finish her off.

Acting is also reacting and there's always the underlying "I really know what's going to happen" aspect of acting. Good actors don't let it show though. You talk a lot about trust and artistic collaboration however, you don't want to divulge too much of your script out of fear that the actor won't be "in the moment" enough to pull off a good performance. If you hire them for your production, shouldn't you trust that they can do that. After all, that is their job. An actor should be able to walk his beautiful, pregnant wife to her car parked in the driveway of their sprawling suburban mansion, knowing that when she gets in the car and starts the ignition, the car will explode and never let the audience see it coming.

I just think it saves time if actors are allowed to prepare. Rather than you saying "well no, because later in the story..." But that's just my opinion.

Maybe it's because I'm in sales or maybe it's because I've been surrounded by actors my entire life, but most of the time I can tell when an actor is lying just like I can tell when I'm looking at a computer generated image of a person on the screen (and even Avatar isn't going to change that).

No matter how great of a liar and manipulator someone is (which could define most actors and writers), there are people who tell the truth in the moment and people who lie in the moment during the creative process. If someone is just reacting to and believing in the moment what I am telling them to believe without knowledge of the actual truth (which may be variable or open to interpretation), then they are incapable of lying in their performance. If I tell them that the flower they give me is blue, but when I give it back to them the flower is now green, they will have to accept that the flower is still blue, regardless of whatever they may have learned throughout their lives regarding color labels (assuming I succeed at convincing them).

A director can't rewrite an actor's brain to morph them into the character they're going to portray, just as an actor cannot ever do more than lie if they know the truth. The most successful and accomplished actors of our time are capable of hiding the truth from themselves; that is an inhuman and blessed talent that speaks to the most elite of all artists -- e.g. not the kinds of actors I've ever met or worked with.

I'm sure Kevin Spacey or Al Pachino are capable of hiding the truth from themselves. Maybe they've found a way to separate the self from the performance from the creation. But that is NOT the norm.

I have literally been asked the question, "But what about what I do later on? I can't do that here because of that later scene." Unfortunately, that is the way so many actors exist -- in the totality of the piece, the structure of the entire performance, worrying about how now pertains to later which is none of their concern.

If indeed there is the intention to keep a secret (e.g. the character is coming back tonight to murder his mother), that is something the actor MUST know because the CHARACTER knows it. But to think that an actor should know that the test came back positive or that the wife is pregnant prior to focused, intense rehearsals on THAT particular scene (and after other scenes not pertaining to that revelation are secured), is IMO a bad choice and leaves the actor vulnerable to the truth.

Actors and writers make up the greatest liars of our species, but an actor is only as good an actor as they are a liar, and most actors, like all people, are not inherently great liars.

 

[rsbush]

an actor is only as good an actor as they are a liar,

Good acting is much more about revealing a great truth about one's self - thus, all of us - under imaginary circumstances. The liar thing is an oversimplification. Just food for thought.

 

[ANGENOUX]

Good acting is much more about revealing a great truth about one's self - thus, all of us - under imaginary circumstances. The liar thing is an oversimplification. Just food for thought.

Exactly.