Adam Orton

So, ultimately, my advice is always to direct by sharing your interpretation with the actors. Since the dawn of the art form, actors have also done a breakdown of the script and interpreted it, so if the actor is a solid, professional actor and you're not getting the performance you need, the disconnect isn't probably in the acting technique but more likely in that you're reading the scene differently.

Great advice! I get so caught up in being the actor's Director (with a capital 'D') that I occasionally lose touch of the basics and what's immediately important. Thanks a lot for your insight, Jim!

Here is a simple rehearsal exercise. This is so simple and effective. Take 2 actors. Assign each of them a character from the script. But create a situation that is not actually in the script. But you privately tell each actor what their goal is. Dont make it life and death. Nothing too extreme. Something that can create a little healthy conflict, but not violent aggression. Then when they act it out (improvise actually) you watch both of them to see how they behave in trying to reach their goal. If there is overacting, that is, a rush to dramatize and be aggressive in reaching their goal, chances are they need work in understanding acting and what truthful human behavior is. But if they are playful, subtle, maybe some manipulation going on, patient and comfortable with themselves - you may have something.

Very interesting. I'd like to play around with this sometime. And all of what you said holds true to the common saying, "90% of directing is casting." Thanks for your comment!

BTW, I've read and own both of Judith Weston's books on directing. The script analysis sections have especially helped me.

I've always found a mix of all the above is the best way to get it. "I want you really angry and to stomp your foot on this line, so maybe it's as if she reminds you of your abusive kindergarten teacher, or perhaps you go from a 'mold' to a 'smash'..." until I learn how the actor is working.

Jim, you mentioned that you use a mix until you learn "how the actor is working." What are some of the other methods you might use?

I've taken a few acting workshops just to familiarize myself with the process; there have maybe been one or two extra things I've picked up from it that have helped me become a better director, but unfortunately I simply haven't had the time and experience that you have probably had. (And looking back, the acting workshops were pretty sub-par as far as acting courses go.) So, for my own learning and curiosity, how has your personal experience as an actor helped you become a better director?

Some will say, "tell me what result you want, and I'll give it to you." Believe them.

This reminds me of a recent directing experience. I started putting the scene in a different context with a metaphor...talking about how the actor's character hasn't talked to his sister in years...how his sister has treated him in past, comparing it to a confrontation at a school yard with a bully in Elementary school.

The darned conversation consisted of me talking for a half an hour. Finally the actor broke and said, "What do you want!?!" I felt pretty dumb.

Anyway, thanks for all advice. I guess I do have a tendency to care more about the process than the result, mainly because I'm very self-conscious of frustrating my actors. But in that case, the exact opposite happened...so this goes to show there are exceptions to every rule.

Michael Caine is one of my favorite actors!

I'm training myself to watch the actor...as a low-budget director I've kind of been stuck in a rut of putting too much focus into the 'shot' as a DP would (lighting, framing, focus, etc...) So lately as the stuff I've worked on has become more and more and more complex (from a dramatic, text analysis standpoint), I'm making it a priority to keep my eyes and attention locked on the actor. Which I'm very proud to say I'm making progress. (I recently used a take with a small continuity error in the lighting simply because the performance was better. Granted, the lighting error was pretty inconspicuous...)

You answered my question perfectly in regards to my "how to shoot it" question with the Walken illustration. That's the kind of performance I try to get...not something I contrive, but something that comes from some organic place within the actor. Spielberg was obviously smart enough to use that take, even if it didn't technically stay continuous. So basically, we aren't always going to be able to plan for such occurrences, but sometimes there are ways to make them work.

Lately I'm trying to steer away from coverage with a capital C. I love two-shots and masters. However, like you said, this is entirely dependent on the actor and the scene.

Anyway, very nice insight, Alex. Thank you.

I've come from various points of training and some have suggested that you keep actors rigidly headed in a direction... to be resultant here, lets pretend you need a character 'angry' at his wife in a scene where he catches her cheating on him. (I'm aware that 'angry' is a massive oversimplification...but I'm using it as an example of what would be read on the surface of the script.)

A lot of training I've received says that you need to keep the actor going in this direction; it's your job to inspire the right emotions. It's your job to make sure that character looks 'angry' at his wife.

Recently I happened upon a book that talks about letting actors listen to each other. If the actor playing the husband is aware that he loves his wife (up until this event), and truly listens to what she says in the scene (not just the words, but the meaning), you'll achieve a more naturalistic, moment-by-moment performance. For example, he won't just be angry...he'll be distraught, castrated, maybe then curious...alone...finally, anger. At the end of the scene you won't care about what you thought the performance was supposed to look like because you'll have something amazing and better than what you ever could have thought.

Which is great and all. I'd rather have true to life performances in my film than 'resultant', audience-effect "fakery".

The problem is, I've noticed that when an actor is truly 'listening' to the other character, it results in takes that don't always stay continuous. This is great for the stage, but what about a scene that must be covered in five different angles? How do you capture or recreate that spontaneous brilliance that is known as Moment-by-moment acting so it actually cuts together? This question could also be asked differently: How do you keep an actor 'fresh' take after take?

I'm really asking three questions here. How do you guys spot bad 'listening' ? How do you encourage an actor to engage in better listening without seeming arrogant or hurting their feelings? Lastly, how the hell do you shoot it once you get it?

Very nice work!

I love the "L" shots with the shallow DOF.

I remember seeing "Eyelids" at Take 1 and I loved everything about it.

Out of curiosity, how/where did you transfer the "Eyelids" footage? I'm looking in to getting my PI film transferred to a higher quality. Right now I only have the DVD transfer Take 1 gave me.

When I saw Gran Torino, there was a certain uneasiness I had toward the humor. Often times it was hard to tell if I was supposed to laugh at the absurd racial slurs or just realize that his character has a lot of faults.

I think the film's true intention was to show that he was a good man, yet incredibly hard and racist. Unfortunately there were times when it seemed the movie couldn't make up its mind with what the true purpose of the racism was for -- it seemed as if we were supposed to laugh.

I sensed that same feeling was with the rest of the audience in the theater. At times there were a few chuckles that fizzled out when the audience realized, "Wow. That's kind of mean." Also, the laughter was never really unanimous...

Finally, this movie has some of the WORST acting I've seen in a long time. Eastwood was OK, but every other person in that film was terrible. (Except for maybe the barber and one of the gang-bangers.)

I've talked to other people about it and they claimed that it wasn't as bad as other movies they've seen. They must be talking about narrative porn or zero-budget zombie action because I don't know what kind of film could have worse. Someone on here said it's on par with a lot of student films. I agree, but only if you believe that most student films have unwatchable performances. :rolleyes: Maybe it is just me.

Surprisingly, and this is strange to say, in the end I enjoyed it. I guess the film is exceptional in that way. The weak aspects I've mentioned here didn't completely drag the movie down for me.

:rolleyes:

This is the whole problem with reductive sayings like "casting is 90% of the job" or whatever... under close scrutiny, they always break down.

 

But the point of simple concepts like that is not to be accurate, but to make a point -- if you've miscast a movie, then it's hard to compensate for that with all of your directorial skills, just as if you are working from a bad script, it's hard to make up for that. But then if you say that "90% of a great movie is a great script" then how do you account for exceptions to the rule? And it doesn't therefore follow that everyone else just has to put in 10% of their effort if they've got a great script to work from. You can't break it down into percentages like that because maybe it's that the script is 90%... and the casting is 90% -- and everything else is another 90%!

 

The reason that being able to direct actors is the lion's share of a director's job on a movie set is because it's no one else's job. A director can get back-up from his DP or editor or AD, whatever... except when it comes time to direct an actor in a dramatic scene. Then it's just the director and the actor working together, no one else. That's a one-on-one relationship, not committee work.

 

But obviously a director's job extends beyond the period of shooting, from prep through post to release and beyond sometimes.

Very well said. I like that more than my half-witted answer. And I won't disagree with Mr. Allen's comment either :rolleyes:

Just so everyone knows, Benson is like fourteen or fifteen (not an insult Benson, just some info.).

That old? :rolleyes: Thanks for reminding me though.

To bring the debate back to the issue, I don't concur that directing is 90% casting, unless you consider hiring a DP, production designer, recording engineer, editor, composer, foley artist, mixer, etc. to be "casting."

Yeah, I see where you're coming from. And I think that you could very well consider it to be casting. Whether you're talking about directing actors exclusively or directing the crew, it's all the same idea. You get talented people to bring more to the table. Theoretically, if you spend enough time hiring a cast and crew who all have the same vision and excel at their jobs, you wouldn't have to do much :rolleyes:

My argument is that Sundance is likely referring to the verb "to direct" as in a collaboration between the director and actor. For theatre people, "directing" is almost exclusively that...

Obviously there's more to making a film than just running a casting session. The most important part of directing, to me at least, is working with the actors.

As far as Sundance is concerned, let me be honest with you. Have you ever made a single must-see film that actually got loads of cash at the box office and was very well received by audiences everywhere?

Doesn't matter. I'm not mouthing off nonsense.

I don't know what to say to you, buddy. I don't mean to be rude to you, but you come off with an attitude that triggers a negative reaction. Your answers are more opinion-based than anything. That's fine, but when your answers are subjective people look to you to have some experience...which you have none.

I gave my opinion on this thread because I have enough experience in theatre and directing to know how difficult it really is. And I've experienced the pitfalls of putting weak actors in a movie with a darn good script. Doesn't work.

I've also worked with professional actors and professional directors and have had to struggle with learning how to communicate with them. I could be wrong about everything I say, but I'm coming from somewhere, at least.

Anyway, cheers man. Just go make a movie!! I mean that in the nicest way.

I sure don't.

 

Let me just give you a basic overview of what directing is, in my humble opinion, and as short as I possibly can. Let's assume you're about to direct a one-page scene and your budget permits a three-week shoot with 50,000 feet of film. To make a long story short, this allows you 20-25 minutes per shot. In these minutes, you rehearse and shoot the scene with a master shot, exposing 90 feet of film stock. You're on schedule and on budget, and if you're Jim Jarmusch working on Stranger Than Paradise, or Kevin Smith working on Clerks, you are done. Now let's think art (aka coverage) and get production value. You've scheduled 120 minutes and budgeted 550 feet of film and have only used 20-25 minutes and 90 feet. You now have 460 feet and almost 95-100 minutes left to create art with a selection of medium shots, close-ups, cutaways, over-the-shoulder shots, etc. If directing on a 6:1 shooting ratio, you could get the master shot six times (six takes). Or you could get the master shot with one take and use the remaining budgeted film to get five different shots (master and coverage) with one take each. Does that look like a casting session to you?

 

Seriously, if Sundance actually believes that 90 percent of directing is casting, no wonder they've become such a joke. In fact, most of the film festivals and award nominations (including Oscar) have become a joke these days. The Reader is one of the best movies of 2008. Yeah, right.

Wow. So wrong, Benson.

When Sundance is referring to "directing" (as it relates to casting, and as Theatre Directors refer to it), they are talking about the responsibility of the director to obtain a dramatically effective performance from an actor.

Yeah, directors have to worry about coverage and coordinating the talents of everyone on board the project, but a HUGE part of directing is working with actors. Directing actors is probably one of the most difficult and intuitive processes on the set. You can't learn it from reading a book or from figuring out many feet of 35mm film equates to running time as you've illustrated for us.

For a movie to be dramatically effective, it must have good performances. For a movie to have good performances, it needs to have good actors. You catching on yet?

Do you know what beats are? Action verbs? Do you know what drama is? Acting? You clearly don't if you think directing is only about "covering" a scene.

Do you have a film in Sundance? Or anywhere?

I heard a couple of times at Sundance this year that 90% of directing was casting. Do others agree?

In terms of directing actors at least, I'd agree. The more suited an actor is for a role and the more talent they bring to the table, the less time you have to spend "polishing".

It's completely normal.

Infact, I would only be worried when you're not feeling that way. Blind over-confidence usually gets in the way of good vision, just make sure you get what you want, and that it works.

Completely agree.

[Are the measurements on the lens Metric or US? Were you using the same for the distance?]

 

They would not be US. They would be Imperial/International.

FYI, you quote someone by simply pushing the 'quote' button, as I've done.

And Imperial is also referred to as US customary units.

Anyway, if you aren't aware of what measurement you are using to focus, this can really screw up your footage, obviously. It's a simple mess-up but is easy to do if you're constantly switching between lenses.

This is just a wild guess....I only know because I know someone who did it with a Bolex.

Are the measurements on the lens Metric or US? Were you using the same for the distance?

Our school has both, so you always have to make sure you know what lens you have.

...Or having honest, subjective logic. After that, they can only hope a few audiences agree.

I think I know what you're getting at... "A true director does what he/she believes will make a good film and can only hope that others appreciate it."

I still believe that good directors usually get people to like their movies. They don't have to appeal to masses, but they should be able to consistently deliver work that pleases the film's intended audience or creates an intended response. Otherwise, they ain't gonna be making movies very long...at least financed ones.

I can put all the subjective logic I want into filming myself pooping on a stick; no one will buy it, though. Therefore, I would consider myself a very BAD director. :rolleyes:

I don't know if you'd agree with me on this one, but I think the only true enemy of art is taste. True art has no taste, good or bad (Although it can be disgusting and tasteless).

 

Think of it this way. Does the explosive "Last Judgment" in the Sistine Chapel have taste? No. Or even the Sistine Chapel itself? No, again. Is a penetrating late self-portrait by Rembrandt showing the artist as a bloated wreck in good taste? Of course not. Great works of art are beyond taste, fashion, and what's trendy.

 

Virtually anything can be art, but there are levels of quality. I suppose a cute green clay frog or a sad circus clown on fuzzy black velvet can be a phenomenal work of art, but I doubt it. Yet something created out of chopped up green-frog clay or the paint made by grinding up the tatters of paintings of oh-so-sad circus clowns can definitely be art and may even be great art, too.

 

I stand by my saying that I think the best way to know why a great director is great is by his or her intelligence.

??

In Sidney Lumet's book, he discusses how people attempt to judge certain aspects of filmmaking and how often times it can be really inaccurate to simply give any single person blame or praise.

For example, he talks about editing. You can't look at a film and call an editor good or bad just from that one film. What if there are a lot of jumps in continuity? Does that mean that person is a bad editor? Maybe it was just shot poorly and the editor was doing all he/she could to make it work.

I believe the same thing applies to directors. You can't simply look at one good film and believe that the film was "well-directed". A newbie could have gotten lucky... a producer who knew how to restrain the director's crazy impulses...an actor who gave himself direction...an editor who made a poorly covered scene work...etc... Inversely, a terrible movie might have an amazing director with really bad luck.

I think it's helpful to look at a director's entire line of work. Or at least two or three films...If there is a consistent element of quality to it, it's fair to say that that person is a good director. (Hitch, for example)

If you're looking for a short answer, I think the quote from above works well: "Being a good director is all about having good taste"

I've always equated Nazism with religion, since there were a lot of people blindly following a guy with a God complex. But I see what you're saying.

 

I didn't mean to imply that believing in God is evil. I don't think it is. Maybe instead of this, " And we've found new ways to repair ourselves, which is sometimes suppressed in the name of God." I should have said this, " And we've found new ways to repair ourselves, which is sometimes suppressed in the name of religion." That statement was mostly in reference to stem cell research, or lack thereof.

Gotcha :-)

I agree with your Nazism as a religion. I think of it like this: Darwinism is to Nazism as Theism is to Fanatical Fundamentalism. It's rational thought that leads to...well, ridiculous behavior :-) Too many people fail to distinguish the jump, however.

Yes, we've found new ways to kill each other, often in the name of God. And we've found new ways to repair ourselves, which is sometimes suppressed in the name of God.

...and we've also found ways to kill each other in the name of Darwinism. Don't forget the Nazi's.

Not saying evolution is evil...but you can't (and shouldn't) imply believing in God is either.

Definitely. Thanks Adrian! And also, I think I'll leave the color up to the DP :-)

Actually he does have a vibrating model. It works well as long as your shutter is somewhere below 1/100th.

If you're looking for as cheap as you can get, I found this guy on the internet who builds them for HV20's and 30's:

http://web.me.com/jehug/JAG35.com/Products.html

I actually ordered one for my HV20 and it works great for the price. (I also have three Pentax K-mount lens. Search eBay for an EOS to K-Mount adapter ring.) It doesn't have a prism so you have to get an inverted monitor. And I'm not sure if this can be adapted to work with your camera. Anyway, if your looking for something better, I've seen some awesome footage from the Letus adapters.

Besides a DP being hired by production to see the images through all stages to be the best it can be, there is also a physical reason I think the DP should be involved with color timing. They, after all, are trained to create the finest images. They may see things that the direct doesn't, or can't. I do believe that our visual acuity is in great part trained.

 

For example, I can see color with much finer accuracy than I could several years ago. I can see the green in fluorescents where I never noticed it before. 2 points of a color in photoshop means something to my eyes where it never did before. I am young, older more experiences DPs are likely to have an even greater ability.

 

DPs involve themselves in this training every day at work. Some directors may have similar visual training, some may not. If you're a director, you should think of this as a service, not a hindrance.

Awesome advice. Thanks!

So far I haven't been at the point where I need someone to actually time my film...everything I've done has finished on digital so I've never looked at it as something that's that hard to do to get a decent image. (What with the ease of color wheels in any standard NLE these days) However, I never thought of it as how you described the skill. (Which is why I'm glad I'm learning this here before getting kicked in the face later, haha)

But yeah, like the longer movie I'm working on that's still in post, I'm really glad my DP is doing all the color stuff :rolleyes: I'll quit hijacking this thread now.

Well intelligence design is obviously a joke, no need to even discuss it. It's akin to Scientology and other beliefs that DESERVE (forgive my modesty) ridicule.

I believe evolution to be true, but the idea that the first cell arrived from nothing immediately seems just as ridiculous as claiming some "spaghetti god" did it. Yes, "chance" seems the most tangible and scientific of all hypotheses, but for the first cell, it's still a Gap theory. What happened was that Darwin said, "Hey look, all life seems to be related and the most fit creatures adapt and overcome" and that was the only thing some people needed to kill God. But wait a second, we still have questions!

Until we get a decent explanation with a testable model, that first cell theory is open for takers, and I don't believe anyone should be ridiculed. Even that one idiot on TV who believes in Scientology :rolleyes: (kidding) But otherwise I respect your opinions.

And the truth is, if a creator did make the first cell (which I believe to be true), then evolution is really just Intelligent Design with science to back it. If God got life started, then He made evolution. You actually make this assertion:

Evolution vs. God? This is supposed to be the fight of the millennia, even though they're completely compatible with each other.

Bravo. I'm actually going to start a new theory: Intelligent Evolution. Any takers?

AO

To apply to film: do more read-throughs. More rehearsals. Storyboards, blocking diagrams, shot by shot breakdowns. Get as familiar as possible with what you intend to do before you walk onto the set. Having your actors just as familiar and working out their issues before film day seems pretty valuable to me.

Very good advice. Combine this with Whiskey and you'll be unstoppable! :-) Hope the show went well.