I'm curious about what it takes to train actors. Imagine you had to use "real" people and train them yourself. Say, you were limited to using only real rodeo stars for your rodeo film, real firefighters for your firefighter film, whatever. I know, it makes way more sense to use actors, but indulge me. How would you go about spotting potential talents? How would you go about training them? How long would you think it would take someone with good motivation and some natural talent to go from being painfully awkward (the norm, I'd guess) to someone competent in front of a camera? Not crying on command or award material, but competent? What would be in your tool kit, what would you budget, etc? How long would you work with someone before you were satisfied that they're "hopeless" (thinking business-wise here; ROI, diminishing returns and all that)?
"Real" people as Actors
- Thread starter Joe Citizen
- Start date
In my opinion, you can't train them. Unless you happen to be an experienced acting coach, and have a great deal of time on your hands (like, a year or more, just to start).
Unfortunately, when pooling your resources from "real" people, casting isn't so much who is right for the role, but who is nice enough and excited enough to want to take part (and actually show up when they say they will). "Real" people have "real" jobs, so you kinda just gotta count your blessings, and role with what you've got.
Some people have a natural charisma that comes to life when they're in front of a camera; others turn into cardboard robots instantly. You'll find yourself feeding them lines, telling them exactly what to say and how to say it (an extremely bad habit that does not bode well when working with experienced actors).
It can be a frustrating endeavor; it'll require patience and a whole lot of moxy. But I believe it's how almost all of us start out. So, best of luck, and have fun!
Unfortunately, when pooling your resources from "real" people, casting isn't so much who is right for the role, but who is nice enough and excited enough to want to take part (and actually show up when they say they will). "Real" people have "real" jobs, so you kinda just gotta count your blessings, and role with what you've got.
Some people have a natural charisma that comes to life when they're in front of a camera; others turn into cardboard robots instantly. You'll find yourself feeding them lines, telling them exactly what to say and how to say it (an extremely bad habit that does not bode well when working with experienced actors).
It can be a frustrating endeavor; it'll require patience and a whole lot of moxy. But I believe it's how almost all of us start out. So, best of luck, and have fun!
Movies aren't about acting or stories anymore. Just get people who kinda look the part then add more CGI. And if your actors and story are really bad, make it 3D
To answer your question; grab a camera, write out some dialogue and use yourself as a test subject. How long would it take before you can deliver a line and look natural.
To answer your question; grab a camera, write out some dialogue and use yourself as a test subject. How long would it take before you can deliver a line and look natural.
I would go about it the same way I go about casting "real"
actors. I would audition the regular, non-actors.
I'm not an acting teacher so I would not train them. I think it
could take a year or more. Or someone with natural talent could
take to acting immediately. An audition would be a great way of
learning about the individual.
I was kind of thinking of coaches as a given. I mean that in the theoretical sense, btw. This is all just me wondering about this and that, I won't be making any movies for a long time yet.
Again, good advice no doubt, but I'm talking theory atm. E.g., assume you can pay people, even better than their "real" jobs, if that helps.
At the risk of just going on my own intuition and speculation, I agree. And most are the latter. I don't really believe in EQ as a rival to IQ but you have to admit some people just have that "something," a personality where they could probably just walk on and start acting (competently, again, not necessarily academy award material), especially once you get them used enough to performing for the camera that they're totally comfortable (I come from a family full of hams and soapbox-standers). I suppose that's kinda what I'm wondering about here - how far a few weeks or months of training can take people like that, assuming some natural talent, some motivation, and a good director.
So you're saying a director in this position should be careful not to apply his experience in this regard to experienced actors?
Frustrating is another of those things I was wondering about. If you have these goals, how to cut one's losses sooner rather than later? I guess experience is the best guide?
Thanks for the luck but it's all theoretical for me at this point. Just thinking out loud.
Call it the speculative psychometrics of acting.
Last edited:
So you're saying a director in this position should be careful not to apply his experience in this regard to experienced actors?
Well, no, I just mean to say that with experienced actors, they are expected to, and will deliver, a fleshed-out character. You give them a piece of paper; they give you a character. In this respect, it's really great to allow the actor to explore the material, and add their own creativity to it. That doesn't mean you just sit by idle; you still are the person in charge, and it's ultimately still your vision.
With people who have no acting experience, they look to you for WAY more direction. They're often unsure of themselves, and you kind have to coddle them, helping them along the way in a manner that an experienced actor would find insulting.
It can also be a heck of a lot of fun, so don't let me be discouraging.
Discouraging is in the eye of the beholder. One man's downer is another man's reality check. I tend to need reality checks.
If you get a chance check out a movie called Gomorrah by Matteo Garrone. He used a combination of experienced actors and total novices for his movie about the Camorra in Naples Italy. A few of the actors were real Camorra guys and got pinched and put in prison after the movie came out. He had a lot of characters he plucked right out of the housing projects over in Scampia, a drug and crime infested part of Naples. They did a Hell of a job. I guess it depends on what kind of film you're planning on making...if you're after gritty realism, then I think you can get away with some wannabe actors, but as someone else said, be prepared to walk them through it every step of the way..Garrone made a good point...in the digital age, its just a matter of deleting the scene and dong a re-take as many times as you need to..its not like you're wasting money on film every time.
I don't think it's about 'training' real people to act as much as it is about directing them so that they don't have to act. Real people in real life don't (generally) come across as stiff, wooden, melodramatic, distracted or insincere - but put them in front of a camera and tell them to 'act' and that's exactly what you get. So you have to work on directing them so that they stop acting and just do the things as they normally would. You don't tell someone to 'act really excited', you tell them to call their friend and tell them they won the lottery. The first gets them trying to imagine what 'excited' looks like, and then they mimic it (usually resulting in exaggeration), while simultaneously trying to observe and gauge their own performance. The second version lets them imagine winning the lottery and then the reaction comes more naturally. It doesn't always guarantee a natural performance, but you'll start out much closer in most cases. I find it's a good idea to direct trained actors this way as well - the difference is good ones will already work this way naturally even if you don't give them that type of direction, whereas non-actors usually won't.
Whilst shooting THIRD CONTACT I cast several non-actors. One of my main characters was actually the make-up artist. I asked her to read the part for a telephone conversation scene. Then started to realise she would be great as the character.
I find directing actors and non-actors provides different challenges. At the low-no budget level of film making, the actors you cast will most likely have learnt certain habits or techniques which get them through. In some ways, this is good because you are guaranteed a certain level of performance. On the down side, they can often rely too heavily on these techniques, making their performance a bit predictable.
With non-actors, you need to make sure there is something about them which will work for your character. However, they will most likely require more direction than actors. It might take them longer to relax into the scene or they might need more coaching to get a certain bit right.
My main actor was a very skilled professional. He liked working with the non-actors because they gave some different, unexpected.
You just need to remember, we are all actors. Every time we go to work or talk to a neighbour, we are acting, to a certain extent. Everyone understands how we 'act' in certain social situations, tap into that.
I would advise against casting non-actors in emotionally demanding roles. If they have to weep buckets or get really expressive, they might struggle to be convincing.
I find directing actors and non-actors provides different challenges. At the low-no budget level of film making, the actors you cast will most likely have learnt certain habits or techniques which get them through. In some ways, this is good because you are guaranteed a certain level of performance. On the down side, they can often rely too heavily on these techniques, making their performance a bit predictable.
With non-actors, you need to make sure there is something about them which will work for your character. However, they will most likely require more direction than actors. It might take them longer to relax into the scene or they might need more coaching to get a certain bit right.
My main actor was a very skilled professional. He liked working with the non-actors because they gave some different, unexpected.
You just need to remember, we are all actors. Every time we go to work or talk to a neighbour, we are acting, to a certain extent. Everyone understands how we 'act' in certain social situations, tap into that.
I would advise against casting non-actors in emotionally demanding roles. If they have to weep buckets or get really expressive, they might struggle to be convincing.