Directors Calling Directions

[gopherguy500]

I'm not sure where to post this, but...

Hello. While watching behind-the-scenes footages of movies during shooting, I've noticed (especially after I bought the Life Aquatic DVD) that directors tend to call out directions to the actors or camerapersons whilst acting is occuring. Being a filmmaker myself, I thought "Gee, that would be really convienent!". But, I came to a haunting question: what about what the director says? I guess my question is: Do they take out the callouts from the director in post, and if so how do they still maintain the original audio? Or do the mics just not pick up on the callouts? I'm quite confused

 

[clive]

At least you're open-minded about it.

You're right I'm not open minded about it. But that's not an opinion held for the sake of bloody mindedness, it's an opinion based on thirteen years professional experience of directing and training actors. Plus extensive professional experience as an actor myself.

As you can tell it's something that I get passionate about because I see hundred of filmmakers who can tell you the specifications of the latest three chip camera, but who've never read a single book on acting technique. In this country the vast majority of film schools give almost no teaching on basic directorial technique and as a result you have a genration of directors who are techno geeks with no real knowledge of drama.

If you talk to enough actors they will tell you that some of the most miserable acting experiences they've ever had have been in film, simply because the director didn't know how to work with them.

The truth of the matter is that the technical aspects of film production, although important, aren't anywhere as vital as the ability to create great drama, but, great drama is hard to achieve. The good news is that once you understand how to do that, the technical details are largely irrelevant.

Even in Hollywood this is true. Why did Nicole Kidman suddenly decide, against her agent's advice, to do Dogville with Lars Von Trier. It's because she's got to the point in her career where it has to be more than a big paycheck, it's got to stretch her as an actor. Most directors can't give that experience. Even the ones getting the huge paychecks.

 

[Shaw]

I agree clive. While I'm quite fascinated with the technical side of making movies, the real fun is working with actors. Emotions are what I value most about film. The ability to impart emotion should always be one of the main goals in cinema - which of course can not be done with poor directing .

 

[Beeblebrox]

You're right I'm not open minded about it. But that's not an opinion held for the sake of bloody mindedness, it's an opinion based on thirteen years professional experience of directing and training actors. Plus extensive professional experience as an actor myself.

And that's makes your approach to directing the only viable and professional one?

Whatever goes on behind the scenes, the work has to speak for itself. At the end of the day, if Wes Anderson gets a great performance out of his actors, I don't really care how he does it. He could have the worst relationship in the world with them, what matters is what's on the screen. And since this is Bill Murray's third film with him, the relationship can't be all that bad. Certainly the performances in those films are top notch, so I'd score at least one on the side of Anderson's approach, at least when it comes to working with actors.

 

[clive]

I think this is the point where we agree to having different opinions and call it a day.

 

[lux]

And that's makes your approach to directing the only viable and professional one?

He never said his approach to directing was the only viable and professional way. He was stating his opinion which he is intitled to.

 

[Beeblebrox]

He never said his approach to directing was the only viable and professional way.

Technically, you're right. What he actually said was that it was "poor practice," "disrespectful," and "egotistical."

I might agree with clive about his view on shouting out directions if I saw any evidence at all that it consistently resulted in bad performance. Otherwise, it's just an academic theory, whatever his experience on the set. But if you show that someone can use an approach and get good results and that the actors themselves respect that process, then how you can denegrate that method as anything clive says it is?

And the other interesting bit is the utter shutting out of even the possibility that this method might work well for some people, despite what is, at least in Wes Anderson's case, a very positive result.

 

[indietalk]

Obviously that's Clive's opinion and the way he prefers to direct, simple as that.

 

[Beeblebrox]

Obviously that's Clive's opinion and the way he prefers to direct, simple as that.

I'm essentially telling Clive the same thing you're telling me, "Obviously that's Wes Anderson's opinion and the way he prefers to direct"?

The difference is that I haven't denegrated Clive's approach to directing the way he has Anderson's or anyone who shouts out direction.

 

[indietalk]

I read this thread differently than you. The way I read it is Clive is passionate about his style of directing, and he disagrees with disturbing the actors while they are working.

 

[Beeblebrox]

I read this thread differently than you. The way I read it is Clive is passionate about his style of directing, and he disagrees with disturbing the actors while they are working.

And I don't have a problem with that. But why would you expect me to respect Clive's methods (and I'm not saying I don't) when he shows no such respect for others? Wouldn't your comment apply just as well to him as me?

Basically, what I don't understand is this: You're telling me that I should respect Clive's opinion when I'm the one saying that both methods can work and Clive is saying that one method is clearly better than the other.

Would it have been more acceptable if I had said that Clive's method was "disrespectful" or "poor directing," which is what he's said about Anderson?

 

[indietalk]

I'm done in this thread.

 

[Spatula]

Here's a story.
I get to set (director's house) and get ready to film the jailbreak scene for Macbeth 3000. I'm in costume, getting in character, going over the lines. Director has already dressed his basement (unfinished room) with "electical fence". We call the other actor again and find out he decided to go to work. Crap. Now here's where the problem starts. Me, being the writer and main character, have a lovely image of what is to happen. Unfortunately, the director refuses to postpone this scene. I refuse to butcher the script again. Unfortunately, we end up filming anyway. I'm pretty pissed, but that's ok- my character is too. Director calls over a buddy and we dress him up like a guard and have him escort me to the cell. After this point, since the script is out the window, I have no idea what I'm doing. So director rolls camera and starts shooting, telling me what to do over the camera.
Now... looking back.. it's one of the scenes where my acting is at it's best, because I look REALLY pissed off. Because I AM pissed off. Pissed off that my script is being mutilated and important comic jokes and character development are being excluded at the sake of whims... and even MORE pissed off that there is no faith in my ability and I'm being strung up like a puppet.
In the end, the scene turned out pretty good, and me and director are buddy-wuddy again... but production halted after that scene for a few months because of a quable between director and I. If we hadn't made up our differences and pressed on, the movie would've been trashed.
So I agree with Clive on the whole, unless the director desires the actor to be authentically pissed off at being used like a puppet. Cues are fine, but telling someone what to do on a consistent basis is the flaw of an ego-driven director.
It works much better if you explain the shot thoughouly in advance, rehearse, and take up issues in rehearsal. It's much more professional, and doesn't make the actor look like a tool, versus a professional doing his/her job.

That's my two cents.

Logan

PS- the scene originally had the actor playing Superdaiv (yes, Superdave Osborne reference) putting me in the cell and getting his fingers caught in the door right after Macduff (me) tries to convince him to join the good guys. In the script, Superdaiv's character relationship with Macbeth is revealed a bit more... but alas, now a guard who has no lines or comedy puts me in and nothing very exciting happens. That's just my opinion though...

 

[gopherguy500]

Woah, woah, woah, I think people are getting a little misunderstood. I'm not referring to director saying, on camera, "Now say 'blah'... turn left, just a LITTLE more, now emphasize this next line...". In retrospect, I'm pretty srue what I was referring to cueing the actors and camerapersons, at least that is what Wes Anderson seemed to be doing. I hope that helps.

And thanks for the editing out advice.

 

[lux]

Basically, what I don't understand is this: You're telling me that I should respect Clive's opinion when I'm the one saying that both methods can work and Clive is saying that one method is clearly better than the other.

The problem is not whether you accept both methods, it's the way you cannot accept that Clive's opinion differs to yours.

 

[Beeblebrox]

The problem is not whether you accept both methods, it's the way you cannot accept that Clive's opinion differs to yours.

Clive isn't any more accepting of my opinion on directing than I am his. So why am I the one being criticized for not accepting other opinions? Because most of you agree with him on the issue of the technique and are defending him for that reason. But imagine if I had said that anyone who doesn't smack the actors on the head in the middle of a take is a terrible and incompetent director and that no other method besides my head smacking technique works to get the best performance out of an actor. First of all, my method might very well work for me, but that doesn't mean that anyone who uses another method is a bad director; but that's what Clive is saying, that anyone who uses a technique he doesn't like is a bad director. Second, chances are most here would not only disagree with me but would strongly disagree. And that's okay. That's what discussions are about.

So why is it basically okay for Clive to disrespect other directors and their opinions but not for me to disagree with him? Would it really have been more respectful for me to say the same thing Clive has, that you're a bad director if you don't do it my way, than it is for me to say that I don't agree with that?

BTW, I too have worked for a number of years in the film industry. I started out as a professional director and have worked variously as a writer, director, and producer, and have won awards for directing. I've seen all kinds of styles of directing and have never seen a director made or broken over any one technique. I think we all use what more or less comes naturally to us. Some actors respond to certain methods, others respond to a different method. So I think it's absurd to suggest that any one technique, particularly a common one, is automatically bad in all circumstances.

 

[NicklausLouis]

So why is it basically okay for Clive to disrespect other directors and their opinions but not for me to disagree with him?

To be honest, Beeble, he never disrespected anyone. He stated an opinion, albeit strong, based solely on how he works. He never said anything like, "Any director who does this is an amateur and should be shot!" He simply stated that he felt that the process of directing actors mid take was disrespectful of the actors.

And you have a right to disagree with everything he says. The problem I see here is that he basically said, "Let's agree to disagree." and has not posted since. But you have kept at it.

My advice, drop the argument against clive, because I don't think he'll argue back.

what about what the director says? I guess my question is: Do they take out the callouts from the director in post, and if so how do they still maintain the original audio? Or do the mics just not pick up on the callouts? I'm quite confused

One thing no one has seemed to touch on (at least I haven't seen it) is ADR. I've also seen directors calling out directions to actors during takes and have come to the conclusion that on big productions like The Life Aquatic approx. 95% of the dialogue is done through ADR.

Personally, I think I would fall on the side of letting actors get into the scene and direct them in between takes. Even if the shot has no dialogue or sound, a person yelling directions at them would seem to take awy the authenticity of the performance. I mean, I will probably get a better reaction from an actor if all the direction they get during a take is coming from inside them, and not from me standing ten feet away.

Poke

 

[Beeblebrox]

The problem I see here is that he basically said, "Let's agree to disagree." and has not posted since. But you have kept at it.

Obviously I have a lot to learn from Clive about how a respectful opinion is phrased.

At any rate, your method of directing is simply egotistical and poor practice and I hope that whatever actor you try it on hits you over the head with a 2x4; and even though directors have used your method effectively in the past, nothing is ever going to change my mind on this.

But let's just agree to disagree on that.

One thing no one has seemed to touch on (at least I haven't seen it) is ADR. I've also seen directors calling out directions to actors during takes and have come to the conclusion that on big productions like The Life Aquatic approx. 95% of the dialogue is done through ADR.

On big productions, most of the sound is replaced for a variety of reasons. On location shoots in particular, almost all of the sound is replaced because the production can't control the noise even under the best of circumstances. Also, sound is so enhanced and mixed and edited nowadays that production sound simply doesn't have the impact or range needed for a Dolby Super-mega Surround Sound Experience.

 

[clive]

Hold on a moment guys. Beeblebrox is right.

I hold very strong opinions about directorial technique, which he has the right to disagree with. He is also perfectly within his rights to believe that I'm an arrogant fool for holding my beliefs.

So can we close this thread with these conclusions:

1) Clive really, really doesn't like directors who talk to actors during takes
2) Beeblebrox believes that Clive's an arrogant fool for holding that opinion and therefore doesn't deserve his respect.

I can live with these outcomes.

If I wanted everyone in the world to love me I wouldn't be a director, I'd be a Panda.

 

[Beeblebrox]

If I wanted everyone in the world to love me I wouldn't be a director, I'd be a Panda.

We definitely agree on that much, as I quite obviously have no desire to win any popularity contests. Heck, I didn't even agree to disagree.

But for the sake of the pandas, I think we've pretty much said what can be said.

 

[Drew]

Alfred Hitchcock was particularly fond of this method when a scene required perfect timing.