Acting for Directors

If you, as the indie Director, had a chance to take a workshop designed to help you as a Director in your next indie short or feature film, what would you like the workshop to include?

I am starting to work with a local acting coach who might be interested in teaching directors how actors work so we, as Directors, might be able to better understand how the actor gets into character and how to communicate with them on how to develop the character on the set just before a take or at rehearsals.

Any suggestions?

WC
 
I'd like to act. Why not go with the best way to learn? Experience, baby- tops it every time. I say, have the actors direct, and the directors act. Make a short or something, and boom-boom baby, everyone knows what they did right/wrong.
 
It will be immensely helpful to learn about directing. I am an actor first, director second - with not a lot of film directing under my belt. But here's my take, from an actor's POV. Most film directors I've worked are not very good at getting the best performances out of their actors. Why? Because they don't know how to talk to actors in their language. Or they don't talk to them at all. They expect the actor to come to the set, lines down, character developed and ready to go, with minimal rehearsal. Sure, I can do that. But it won't necessarily be my best performance. A director needs to know what's possible from actors, as well. Actors can develop superb nuances within rehearsal or with the right discussion or coaching that can take a character from here to THERE, and knock it out of the park. The best way to learn actor-speak is to get onboard a professional theatre production (have an actor you know who's friendly with an artistic director or a director scheduled to direct a show and have them get you in the back door to observe as many rehearsals as possible). Or, if you can, get in to watch a Master Class in action. (Plenty in NYC or LA, London, not sure elsewhere). You want to see good actors working with a good director/teacher in order to see what's possible from actors. I took master classes from Uta Hagen and watching her critique other actors was amazing, nevermind the lessons I learned from her personally. Like a good direcctor (film or theatre), she could give such amazing notes on a scene - when I'd see the scene performed again, incorporating her notes, the difference was pretty incredible. So watching a class like this would really be great. I know some film directors may not be fans of theatrical acting - that's fine - stage actors sometimes have a hard time toning it down for film, but the lingo actors understand to develop complex characters - is pretty universal. I would bet there are some good DVDs out there.


Actor's Studio, or similar kind of venue, where you can watch actor's at work.
 
I've already written a lot about this subject -- so I won't repeat myself.

I think it's a great idea -- along with failure to properly develop scripts, inability to work with actors is the number one failing of indie film makers.

I actually believe it's the same problem -- because actually directing is primarily about interpreting text, not about framing shots!

Truth is you can teach any idiot to frame a shot in half a day -- maximum, but interpreting text is a life long learning experience.

Directors who understand text tend to do well with actors, because as Media Hero said "they speak the same language"

Anyhow. If you're looking for an overview of what I think the process is, I put an article on the indiewiki

indiewiki
 
Clive,

Thanks. I'll visit the indiewiki site and copy the article to read.

I love reading the book, "Directing Actors" by Judith Weston.

MediaHero,

You observed Uta Hagen in a class? What an incredible experience! I am not often envious, but this is an exception.

I have yet to find a DVDon this subject and would love to find one. I know Judith Weston has two workshops on this subject, but her webspage doesn't mention anything about a DVD of the workshop, and watching is not the same as participating.

WC
 
Last edited:
Here's a video showing Miss Hagen at work (that's what we had to call her):

http://www.hbstudio.org/items/hagen_video.htm

The best note I ever got from her: "You're working too hard."

A simple statement that is easy for an actor to understand. Nobody wants to work too hard, eh? Makes all the sense in the world.

Another good note to give actors: What do you 'expect' to happen in this scene? We all have expectations when we enter into a situation, yes? If, as an actor, you chose an expectation that allows you to make immediate discoveries as the scene unfolds - due to the fact that what is happening (what is written) is NOT what your character expects, the scene is richer, fuller, more interesting. If, as a director, you can get your actors to make discoveries within a scene, wow, you'll see a huge difference. Of course, your actors have to be able to truthfully experience the discovery - not work too hard to make it happen. Tricky, tricky.
Who said actors were cattle, eh? :lol:
 
I had the fortunate opportunity to study with Judy Pioloi in Burbank, who was a student of Roy London's. I was taught "what do you (your character) want out of this scene?" If the director gives another actor a different "want" and the "wants" are at odds with each other, you have conflict (Yeah!) and the scene can end without resolution, so the action will continue at a later time, building "suspense" (another Yeah!)

I also learned the "what do you want from this scene" from Mark Travis in Studio City (who wrote "The Director's Journey", also a book book and acting coach).
 
Judith Weston's book, "Acting for Directors" spends the better part of a chapter on "listening". Some actors wait for the other actor to finish their lines and then repeat the lines writtend for them, instead of listening to the other actor in the scene and moment. The disucssion turns to how to determine when the actor is not listening and how to get the actor to listen to the other actor during the scene. Good stuff.One of the traits of a good listener is when they make eye contact with the other actor. Powerful stuff.

WC
 
Interesting you mention eye contact, Writum. There are frequently instances when having actors make eye contact is not supportive of the text, subtext or relationships.

For instance, I'm directing a play right now - we had rehearsal last night - and I instructed one actor NOT to make eye contact with with the person sitting next to him during his speech. Why? Because the character is revealing some very personal feelings and experiences - and it is much more powerful to have the actor focus on a visual 'memory' of the situation they are describing (using a 'substitute' memory from their own life - Uta Hagen technique), rather than make eye contact with a scene partner. The actor's emotional tie to the visual combined with the text is much more likely to produce real - or true to the scene - feelings and responses. Truthful acting. In this instance, making eye contact weakens the actor's real and honest committment to what he needs to experience within the scene.

Start noticing how much - or how little - people make eye contact in real life. Of course, eye contact is 100% dependent on an individual's own emotional health and relationship to whomever they are speaking with. We look to another person's eyes for confirmation and approval of what we're feeling, for deeper understanding of the information that they're conveying (although if we don't agree, we look away). But frequently, when we're talking, we're focused on the visualization in our own head of what we're talking about, we glance around the room, we touch base with the eyes of who we're talking to, but we don't 'latch' on because the vision in our mind of what we're talking about takes precedence. It's complex. Fascinating.

Director's - try this when you're rehearsing: give your actors the note NOT to look at each other during a scene and see what happens. I guarantee you will make some terrific discoveries.

I've been meaning to take another look at Glengarry Glen Ross, and in particular Jack Lemmon's performance. If I remember correctly, his work in this film illustrates what I'm talking about pretty well. In fact, everyone's work in that film is pretty mind blowing.
 
"having actors make eye contact is not supportive of the text, subtext or relationships. "Understood and agreed to a certain extent, but there are always exceptions to the rule.

Sidney Lumet's book, "Making Movies" states that in "Network", William Holden "rarely made eye contact with his acting partners. When it came time to film his big emotional scene with Faye Dunaway, the only direction Lumet gave Holden was to look in Faye Dunaway's eyes for the whole scene and to never look away. Emotion poured out of Holden."

Weston continues, "Eye contact is very helpful to listening. In my acting for Directors class I begin with a listening excercise; first I ask each student to make eye contact with his partner. The eye contact I am asking them to make is different from regular "looking". When we use our eyes in the regular way, we are checking, evaluating, categorizing - this is not a bad thing to do when you are driving a car. for instance. But the eye contact I am asking for is a giving and receiving; it is using your eyes in a sense that the eyes are the windows to the soul. It is a surrender, a tiny leap of faith. It exactly means that the actor puts more attention on the other actor than on her own performance, and allows her linesto be informed by that attention, dictated by that attention. The lines come out of her attention to the other actor, out of her interest in the response to the other actor, rather than out of a decision how to say them.

Now this is the key. Listening is not simply hearing the words the other actor says and responding to them - it's allowing one's concentration to be the on the response of the other actor..."

Interesting way to get the actors to listen.

WC
 
Cool Network story! What an amazing little piece of direction. Stories like those are so inspiring. I'm going to have to take another look at Network, it's been a loooong while - and the Weston book, too. The eye contact thing is so interesting to me. Listening with your eyes is a great concept.
 
Other excercises that play well and give the actors something to do other than just read lines work well too.

I like to give conflicting physical objectives to the actors: Actor A try not to make eye contact, Actor B try to acheive and hold eye contact.

I've used it to get physically motivated performances too: Actor A needs to cross this line, Actor B needs to prevent him from doing so.

Or to generate tension and attention: Actor A, Pick a few words in your dialog and change it...Actor B, correct any mistakes Actor A makes in their lines...but stay in character while doing so.

It gives them something to force attentiveness to the other actor and makes the lines secondary.
 
I think the problem with these kinds of approaches is that they only really scratch the surface.

The actual task is interpretation of the text. So from the text you establish the motivation and goal of each character and have them act accordingly. If their goal can be furthered by eye contact they make eye contact, if it isn't they don't.

Directing actors is both simple and complex at the same time.

In simple terms it is nothing more than understanding how a person might reacte if their back story was A, their goal was B and they are confronted with C. All of which has to come from the text.

However, the complexity of the process is that requires a deep level of understanding of people and what makes them tick -- it is further compounded by the complexity of understanding the personality of the people who are acting.

Acting games are good ways to bind a cast in rehearsal, but the real work is pure text work.
 
Last edited:
As a director, acting games are good to know to use if your actors aren't getting you what you need on the day. A couple of small excercises to get the ball rolling is a good tool to have in your director bag (in your actor bag too). It also gives you a common language for when your ability to communicate your needs for the scene break down.
 
Clive,

I agree, and that is why it is so important for the Director to break down each scene and know each character so well, so if the actor doesn't supply the right development, the Director must know all characters and their objective for each scene. Asking each actor in each scene, "what does your characer want?", and then giving two characters conflicting goals is the way to develop conflict and build suspense!

Knightly,

GREAT ideas for character development. Good advice.

WC
 
I agree, and that is why it is so important for the Director to break down each scene and know each character so well, so if the actor doesn't supply the right development, the Director must know all characters and their objective for each scene. Asking each actor in each scene, "what does your character want?", and then giving two characters conflicting goals is the way to develop conflict and build suspense!

That's why there are real advantages to being a writer/director -- the information you supply the actor in terms of motivation/goals is exactly the information you develop in the writing process to form the plot in the first place. It ought to be a much simpler process.

When you're working with someone elses script it's more like a detective process, where you hunt for clues in the text for the character's motivation and goals. This is the reason that having a theatre background is invaluable if you intended to direct other people's scripts -- because in theatre you are almost always working off someone elses text and not only that it's been written by some of the greatest writers of all time.

Al Pacino did a film called "Looking for Richard" which was about his rehearsal process for a production of Richard III. It's a great insight into the actor's and therefore by extension the director's process.

In the process of the detective process, that's when acting games become invaluable tools. I think using them on set is almost definitely an indication of insufficient rehearsal time prior to shooting. I don't think I can stress too much how important proper rehearsal time is for a film. A stage play devotes the minimum of two whole weeks and anything up to six to rehearse a 90 minute play. I don't think it is therefore extravagant to provide two or three days to rehearse a feature film.
 
Back
Top