Working with Actors

[dg1]

In my experience, not all actors are the same. Some can give you many different readings on the same lines with limited direction or motivation and some simply need to be shown and told.

very true, i also agree that all actors are not the same just as all people are not the same, but a professional actor should be able to give the line as it is described for the scene, and if he/she has misinterpreted must be able to be flexible, and deliver it differently. i understand that finding a marlon brando, johnny depp, al pacino, ie... is going to be hard to find if you're low budget. i also understand from a director's p.o.v. that you must end up with the "vision" intact and the overall scheme making sense, but i believe there are ways of getting results without taking over the actors job.

If I have to read it for them or enunciate a line or literally show them exactly what is needed I will and should. Many times, an actor doesn't know what a director wants, becasue their direction consists of 'More intensity!' (That is a quote from a director who several actors I know hate working with.)

i agree... i would hate to work with that director too! if the only direction i got was more intensity. be more upset...... it's my personal opinion, but i've seen better results without turning the actor into a robot.

as far as fixing the problem... i say fire him as well. you're production is on the line. if it were me i wouldn't think twice. i wouldn't be rude, but sometimes firing someone is not the easiest thing to do. if you can't fire him..... give him some motivation.... pull him aside before you shoot while everyone else is setting up the shot and work with him until he's got it, and hope and pray he can keep it fresh for the camera. i hope this helps.......

 

[Ted Spencer]

It really depends on whether or not the actor is capable of internalizing whatever you're doing, as a director. If I'm given a line reading (being an actor myself), I will make mental notes of how the director wants the dialog performed. If he or she gives good direction, as in specific goals that need to be reached, then that's great - I will adjust the performance to accommodate that. If the director says "more intensity", then fine. I will change the imaginary circumstances so that there's a REASON for my character to be more intense about the material.

Then you're directing yourself better than the director is directing you, which pretty much means that he's...uh...

 

[Zak Forsman]

i've never given a line reading that wasn't a total disaster. so I don't do it anywmore. I stick with objectives/intentions, info about where they're coming from and what's on the characters mind. the closest I get to a line reading is to say "and you're just like 'what the f*ck'?!?!" but I don't perfom the actual line.

 

[dg1]

i've never given a line reading that wasn't a total disaster. so I don't do it anywmore. I stick with objectives/intentions, info about where they're coming from and what's on the characters mind. the closest I get to a line reading is to say "and you're just like 'what the f*ck'?!?!" but I don't perfom the actual line.

absolutley!! for an actor his/her motivation comes from the "what if" and "why".

a great dvd for any artist actor, director, painter, whatever..... check it out.

miesnerdvd.com

 

[Joops]

The Miesner is a method. A good one too. But really when it comes down to it is the method the director uses to get the performance that he/she wants. You have actors that can deliver at that level or above on their own and then you have those that can't. Part of being a director is to direct, not the scene, not the scenery, or lighting or rain machine but to direct people. And you have to understand your actor and how they will respond. Some need hand holding some need room. A good actor/director relationship is like any other relationship built on trust and understanding. Actors have egos and of course you don't want to bruise that by insulting them by force feeding lines. But sometimes you have too when they don't understand the motivating factors. We've all heard stories of directors intentionally pissing off an actor to get them in that natural state of mind for a scene. I believe if you keep a balance of hand holding and freedom everyone will be happy in the end. You can't always be a good guy. But don't be an a**hole either. That goes for both sides.

 

[Batutta]

We've all heard stories of directors intentionally pissing off an actor to get them in that natural state of mind for a scene.

My favorite is from The Exorcist, where William Friedkin wanted a priest at the end to look properly shaken up. After a few lousy takes Friedkin asked the actor, "Do you trust me?". The actor, who was a real priest, said yes, and Friedkin reared back and slapped him as hard as he could and screamed, "Now do the f-ing scene!". Needless to say the actor was sufficiently shaken up and Friedkin got what he wanted.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

Awesome story !

 

[seunosewa]

It's not awesome; it's abuse. I can't tolerate that sort of thing.

 

[dg1]

But really when it comes down to it is the method the director uses to get the performance that he/she wants. You have actors that can deliver at that level or above on their own and then you have those that can't. Part of being a director is to direct, not the scene, not the scenery, or lighting or rain machine but to direct people.

absolutley! everyone has an ego.... how you deal with it is what matters. i certainly wouldn't stoop to slapping someone (although i do find it slightly humorous, excessive, but humorous)

Actors have egos and of course you don't want to bruise that by insulting them by force feeding lines. But sometimes you have too when they don't understand the motivating factors.

though i still don't think that "feeding them lines" is going to get the job done. if a director wanted an action more menacing, and he and i couldn't communicate, i'd rather him growl and portray rather than give me a "do it like this" the words themselves aren't the motivating factor, it's the reason behind the words that motivate the character to say them.

but all in all directors like actors will direct and perform the way they see fit to get results.... and i'm sure everyone has been doing what they do for a reason, and i'm sure everyone's doing just fine! cause i mean the exorcist rocked!! hell i might even take a slap in the face if it came from spielberg!!!

 

[seunosewa]

I bet most actors would rather be fed a line or two than fired.
I bet most producers wouldn't fire an actor for messing up one line out of many.

 

[dg1]

yes... professionalisim! if the director is force feeding you lines do them the way the director wants. i've had it happen, and the bottom line is the director is your boss.... sometimes... maybe a lot of the time, you and the director don't see eye to eye. that doesn't mean you can't produce good results. especially if it puts food on the table! if so, then you better keep your job.

 

[lawriejaffa]

When i was doing a short film that featured a young man committing suicide due to depression/drugs (for a social project) and the actor was (kind of trying but not really being serious enough) - ie. farting around a little bit heh,

I er, printed a pile of photographs of 'portraits' of young people who had ended up killing themselves and taped them on the wall of the set - i then told the actor he was playing to 'them' that 'they' were his audience now.

It had the desired effect albeit grim though it was!

One particular problem we have is that many of our actors will inevitably be students, young people and volanteers ( i mean i know the pros here will only have professional actors volanteering or being hired etc) but for some of us micro-dudes the challenge is we end up working with novice actors and we end up getting a skewed perspective as it were - of what they are like

 

[Loki]

being an actor and a director there is one shall we say "faux-pas" that i consider unacceptable to do to an actor, and that is to read their lines for them. for example, "say it like this....." or "move like this....." that's not directing properly and possibly you've picked the wrong actor. it's an actor's job to bring the words to life. it's the directors job in terms of the actor to get them on tape and help propel the story along. if an actor is not delivering the lines like you intended then maybe his/her motivation is interpreted slightly different than yours. maybe they need to be given a different motivation to give you what you want. and as long as the emotion brought forth is true then you should get true honest acting that both you and the actor can live with and feel good about.

I tell my actors to "move like this" all the time.. I call it blocking the shot the way I want it.. If they nail the blocking the first time without my assistance even better.. but that is the whole point of directing... If they are not doing what you want, tell them what to do. I am happy to let actors give me their take, but if I want them to walk somewhere.. or move a certain way.. everyones life is just made easier when the director just says what they want.


Line readings are a different beast entirely. I agree if they are not giving you a reading you want, they are either a) the wrong person for the role.. or b) you're not giving the right direction for them to interpret.

 

[Jim Brennan]

My .02

I avoid line readings like the plague. I can't say they are never appropriate, but they are generally a bad way to go. Unless of course you dont' know the difference between Acting and acting...then you wouldn't know the difference anyway. And result oriented direction (Be happy, be sad, be angry) also gets a failing grade from me. Those emotions can mean different things to different people and can manifest themselves in different (and inapporpriate ways)

But you're job (as has been stated here) is to DIRECT. That means communicating to the cast what they need to know to get them where you need (or the performance needs) them to be. Actors cannot work well when they have to direct themselves by default. And the better the actor, the worse this can be. Good actors CARE about their performance. If they don't trust you, or aren't sure you know what you want, they are going to monitor their own performance. That is (IMHO) the worst position to put an actor in. As the director, you are responsible for getting them there, and getting them out of that spot is almost impossible.

I wish people worked as hard to understand the inner working of acting and perfomance as they do a mini-35 adapter, or put as much time and research into casting a part as they do picking a shotgun microphone.

Good casting, a good script and properly executed rehearsals solve 90% of a director's problems with performance befoore they happen.

Blocking to me is another issue. I avoid telling an actor specifically where to go unless it is essential to the plot, or there are technical requirements. That's where rehearsals help. But if I need them to, I just tell them, and tell them why (not necessarily my reason, but always the character's reason)

Finally, the hardest job a director has is understanding the way each of his or her actors work. They are all different. Some just show up, deliver the lines and they are done (and you can get a brilliant performance that way), others will question ad naseum aboout backstory and motivation. Some react well to public debate, others need private diiscussion. Some start slow, some give you the gold on the first take. Another reason for rehearsals is to get to kno your actors.

And I love Judith Weston's book, as well as her follow-up The Film Director's Intuition.

 

[seunosewa]

What if an actor gives you the reading you want 99% of the time but 1% of the time gives you something that doesn't work? is that actor still the "wrong actor"?

 

[Ted Spencer]

What if an actor gives you the reading you want 99% of the time but 1% of the time gives you something that doesn't work? is that actor still the "wrong actor"?

Of course not. That theoretical 99% "on it" actor is a walking gold mine. But in the 1% case, you should still avoid giving a line reading. If the actor is otherwise that good, they should be able to "get it" in terms of what you want by means other than a dictated line reading. A better understanding of the scene/character's objective/superobjective/subtext is usually enough.

If we're assuming that has already failed, then, only as a last resort, you could try giving him a suggested reading. Think of it as a sort of "amputation" of their own imperative acting-wise though. If it's the only way to save the "patient" (the scene) then do it. But only if it's the *only* way. With good actors, it very rarely is.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

My .02

I avoid line readings like the plague. I can't say they are never appropriate, but they are generally a bad way to go. Unless of course you dont' know the difference between Acting and acting...then you wouldn't know the difference anyway. And result oriented direction (Be happy, be sad, be angry) also gets a failing grade from me. Those emotions can mean different things to different people and can manifest themselves in different (and inapporpriate ways)

But you're job (as has been stated here) is to DIRECT. That means communicating to the cast what they need to know to get them where you need (or the performance needs) them to be. Actors cannot work well when they have to direct themselves by default. And the better the actor, the worse this can be. Good actors CARE about their performance. If they don't trust you, or aren't sure you know what you want, they are going to monitor their own performance. That is (IMHO) the worst position to put an actor in. As the director, you are responsible for getting them there, and getting them out of that spot is almost impossible.

I wish people worked as hard to understand the inner working of acting and perfomance as they do a mini-35 adapter, or put as much time and research into casting a part as they do picking a shotgun microphone.

Good casting, a good script and properly executed rehearsals solve 90% of a director's problems with performance befoore they happen.

Blocking to me is another issue. I avoid telling an actor specifically where to go unless it is essential to the plot, or there are technical requirements. That's where rehearsals help. But if I need them to, I just tell them, and tell them why (not necessarily my reason, but always the character's reason)

Finally, the hardest job a director has is understanding the way each of his or her actors work. They are all different. Some just show up, deliver the lines and they are done (and you can get a brilliant performance that way), others will question ad naseum aboout backstory and motivation. Some react well to public debate, others need private diiscussion. Some start slow, some give you the gold on the first take. Another reason for rehearsals is to get to kno your actors.

And I love Judith Weston's book, as well as her follow-up The Film Director's Intuition.

I prefer readings as well as blocking.

I'm a control freak when directing.

 

[Jim Brennan]

What if an actor gives you the reading you want 99% of the time but 1% of the time gives you something that doesn't work? is that actor still the "wrong actor"?

Solving that "problem" is what makes you a good director. You need to learn how to get what you think the script demands from an actor as often as you can. If the actor isn't giving it, then I always take the responsibility, and I tell the actor that.

But keep in mind (control freaks like Kubrick and Hudson aside ;-)), sometimes you are wrong. You hire actors for the same reason that you hire a DP; they bring something to the project that you do not. Let them use that. There are 2 mistakes that I see directors make that underly most of their issues (aside from being clueless about acting...which is another story). The first is that they don't know what they want. This frustrates actors beyond belief. Second, they are so tied to what their vision is, that they don't make room for improvements. They see other people's input as a threat. At some poiint you have to collaborate. It's not about your way or their way. It's about how the mixture works.

Learning when to question your own convictions, and when to hold fast is a humbling skill that I doubt anyone ever truly masters. But striving for that is one of the keys to being a good director.

 

[dmc]

Excellent posts Jim

: )


dmc

 

[filmman]

on directing

on directing

I always enjoy reading about directing. Being an ultra low budget filmmaker and often shooting movies all by myself, I'm always looking for ways to direct efficiently and with as little effort as is possible.

So I appreciate the sensibilities of experienced directors.

As you may imagine, I rely heavily on actors to bring the interpretation to me from the first rehearsal. With digital production, I roll on the rehearsals as well. Then I ask for another take and another take. I look at everything -- I'm editing in the camera already -- and I may use bits and pieces of every take.

I always say positive things to my actors and try very hard to keep them engaged, amused, committed to the story as it unfolds.

I'm not afraid to go where the actors want to take me usually. Only when the sun is setting or I'm under some time and place constraint do I give specific directions, and then I sound like a typical TV director

Anyway, keep it coming. It's great information.