I'll be shooting a black and white 16mm short soon and would like to get some tips off anyone out there as regards working with the talent.
Should I be as quiet in my instructions as possible (non-obtrusive)?
If a scene is not going right should I cut midway through?

I'd be happy to know of any little tips to loosen them up.. ice breakers, words of advice etc.

If you have the budget to not cut in the middle of a scene that isn't going as planned that's probably preferable.. things might look different in the editing room. As for how to actually direct your actors, everyone has their own style. If quiet and non-intrusive is your style and it works for you, go with that.

As for tips on loosening them up, let them know that you appreciate them, and that it's ok for them to mess up. (This is where a decent budget helps)

If you have the budget to not cut in the middle of a scene that isn't going as planned that's probably preferable.. things might look different in the editing room.

Second that! If you have a habit of interrupting their performance, actors will tense up, expecting you to jump in at any second. I'm an actor as well, and I can tell you that being stopped in the middle of a scene is akin to being awakened in the middle of a dream...sort of. It's hard to get back to that place.

As I've got more experience on the other side of the camera (though I've been in front of it as well) I'll say this...

It's surprising how a shot you thought was great on set can fall flat when looking at it in post, but one you thought was a total disaster has a perfect reaction or some other aspect that makes the sequence work, where it wouldn't have otherwise.

It's surprising how a shot you thought was great on set can fall flat when looking at it in post, but one you thought was a total disaster has a perfect reaction or some other aspect that makes the sequence work, where it wouldn't have otherwise.

On my most recent film, I shot the rehearsal for a scene (as I usually do) but the main actor didn't seem to be communicating what I was looking for. After they finished, I cut camera and had a quiet conversation with him explaining what the scene was about, then rolled a couple more takes. I felt he nailed those, so we moved on.

In post, I looked at all the takes and realized, to my embarrassment, that the first (rehearsal) take was far and away a better performance than my "directed" ones. Used it almost exclusively in the cut. A slice of humble pie for a director whose mind wasn't quite as open that day as it should have been.

(BTW, I haven't admitted that to the actor and probably never will.)

As I've got more experience on the other side of the camera (though I've been in front of it as well) I'll say this...

It's surprising how a shot you thought was great on set can fall flat when looking at it in post, but one you thought was a total disaster has a perfect reaction or some other aspect that makes the sequence work, where it wouldn't have otherwise.

Sure I know exactly what you mean.. I was directing a documentary recently and I lost a nice turn of phrase because I cut early. Well you live and you learn right:yes:

Rehearse early; rehearse often. KNOW what they are bringing before you roll. It is your job to make sure everything in your vision is also in your frame, and if the most important thing IN the frame is the actor, then you have to know what they are bringing. Rehearsals are there for making adjustments to performances so you don't waste time making these adjustments on set.

As a director, how you treat an actor depends a great deal upon the actor and the scene. If you're looking to rile them up because they need to be riled up for the scene, then get off your feet and rile them up and get pumped and get them pumped! If it's a quieter, more subdued scene then adjust your approach accordingly. Some actors like to be out of control (meaning they like the director to control their performance, not that they are crazy) while some like to be totally in control. You have to know how to direct each kind.

You set the tone on your set, amongst the cast and crew. Set the tone however you need to get the results you need.

But if you know something isn't working, don't waste time and footage...yell cut and fix it.

Rehearse early; rehearse often.

That's a 100% valid technique. One that I personally do not subscribe to, but no less relevant for it.

When I direct a stage play (and I've directed many of them over the last 20 years) I rehearse the hell out of it -- hundreds of hours.

When I direct a movie (3 features so far) I have a table read of the script and discuss each character with the performer. On set, we block the scene then I roll camera. First take belongs to the actors, always. I don't care if they play the scene like the 3 Stooges (no one ever has).

In editing, I'll find as often as not there is at least one moment from that first take that has a certain spark to it that I never expected.

Just another technique -- personal preference, neither right nor wrong. :)

90% of directing is casting. That's the first thing I'll say.

Next...set up some rehearsals, and see how things go. Work with your actors, talk to them, discuss character, wardrobe, etc...however, I will say this...don't OVER rehearse. That is the bane of some films I've worked on--this isn't stage. You want a natural energy and (I'm going to say it) an ORGANIC feel. Often times when you over-rehearse, you'll kill that organic tone.

On set you can be as directory as you want...if an actor messes up thier lines, blocking or whatever bigtime...you don't always need to cut and start from 1...you can stop them (while still rolling) and say, 'pick it up from [so and so line].' Just be quick about it, as you're shooting on film. Good actors should be prepared to do this anyway. You're shooting on film, so time is money, takes are money...try and make each shot count. Let the scene play through if you can, and fix it in the editing room. Make sure you get enough coverage and always get a safety.

If your actor isn't giving you what you want on set, and your direction between takes isn't working...take five, and pull the actor aside and discuss what you're looking for. Try and be creative with your direction, don't always go 'on the nose' with what you want. Sometimes actors respond better (or at least read better for the camera) when you give them something else to ponder while they are doing the scene (ie. instead of saying 'you're scared to death', it might work to say, 'in this shot, pretend like the room is freezing cold.') That's just a silly example, and it may not always work, but that's what it means to be a creative director.

Basically you want to let your actors run with their choices...until you aren't getting what you want. Then you can jump in with some direction.

Also, after each take, it's a good idea to tell the actors what you thought...you don't have to stroke thier egos...but a simle 'that was good...nice work...let's do it again.' The worst thing you can do after a take is not say a word and ignore the performance. Actors are insecure for the most part, and we like to hear something...anything, after a take. Feedback is good.

Good luck.

Great advice guys thanks a million, the rehearsals lends an answer to another burning question I had in mind.. what to do if an actor doesn't work out in their role? Changing the actor in rehearsals would save all that time and money... How do you tell an actor (after asking him and without sounding like a total asshole) that he/she's not good enough for the part?

I'm working with a pair of identical twins too :no: that should be a riot. They're kids around 8 years old any advice on working with tiny talent??... (please no animals and kids gags :lol:)

Great advice guys thanks a million, the rehearsals lends an answer to another burning question I had in mind.. what to do if an actor doesn't work out in their role? Changing the actor in rehearsals would save all that time and money... How do you tell an actor (after asking him and without sounding like a total asshole) that he/she's not good enough for the part?

I'm working with a pair of identical twins too :no: that should be a riot. They're kids around 8 years old any advice on working with tiny talent??... (please no animals and kids gags :lol:)

You have the power--and the right--to recast if you'd like. As long as you are professional and friendly, you can make any decision you feel necessary.

To keep yourself out of that awkward situation, I suggest you reeeeeally pay attention during the audition. I also suggest you give the actor a few pieces of direction during the audition, to see howt hey handle it. It doesn't even have to make sense...ask the actor to do something different, and see how they take direction. I also suggest--if you have the time--to hold callbacks, and use the callback for matching. Put the actors you're thinking of for the roles opposite each other. See how they play. You'll see a lot more of an actor when you let them drop the script and work opposite another actor in the scene.

If you decide to shoot the whole thing with an actor you don't like, you're going to compromise in the editing room, and in addition, you'll be compromising the potential of the entire movie. Believe me, it happens to all filmmakers at some point--not being happy with an actor after being cast and into a shoot.

Good luck.

How do you tell an actor (after asking him and without sounding like a total asshole) that he/she's not good enough for the part?

Spend enough time during casting to try and avoid the situation as best as possible.

At the end of the day, it's a job. Much like if you were unable to be civil with customers and run the fry cook would likely get you fired from the local burger joint, if someone isn't working out, fire them.

But, to save face and not have to worry about coming across as an asshole in this kind of situation, especially since you're more than likely not paying these people, spend more time casting so it doesn't become an issue.

For kids, the simple rule is to make it lots of fun and exciting...be animated, be excited about their participation, let them know how important they are to this production, how excited you are for them, etc. Make it AS FUN AS CHRISTMAS! That's not to say make it Romper Room...it can be fun but serious at the same time.

If an actor isn't right, canning them in the rehearsal phase is ideal. And you pretty much nailed it in your question...

How do you tell an actor (after asking him and without sounding like a total asshole) that he/she's not good enough for the part?

You simply pull them aside, after or between rehearsals and especially not in front of anyone else, and without being an asshole tell them they aren't working out, that you're moving in a different direction, that you appreciate their participation and perhaps would like to work them again in the future.

Lots of good advice here, so I'll leave you with that.

rapid payment.

rapid payment.

That sounds reasonable...but actually, money has zero to do with talent and what an actor brings to set. Money can't buy love, just the same as money can't make a good actor.

I disagree. You'd be surprised how motivating (or unmotivating) the bottom line can be.
I hear young directors often mention how they have an actor on set that is less than motivated. I say fire em and hire someone glad to be there and they'll state it's a deferred thang.
I then quack up like a duck.

I haven't done a lot of movies, but I have done a few low-budget features and shorts. Last few movies were not bad, so I have learned a little from experience with non-professional, no-name talent. So. Here's my two cents.
First, I do pre-shoot reads with cast. Laid back and relaxed. No pressure on anyone. Let them have fun with the character they are about to become.
If I have chosen someone for a specific part (it is because they are close to that person 'in my head') -- so I let them act. Let them push the envelope a little and then bring it back to reality. You just never know what you have (good or bad) till you see the dailies (footage). DVcam tape is cheap, 16mm and 35mm not so much...
I use three cameras when I shoot (set up on tripods at different angles, etc.). In the past, while working in DVcam, (repeat, which has been an inexpensive format/tape to work in) I let the cameras run -- as we go through 'dress' rehearsal scenes, on location with lights and audio rolling. I try to do as much of the scene as possible, not individual shots. Keep it fresh. Not strained. Let the words feel real and cast 'listen' to dialogue not just waiting for their cues. I also grab (some tape of) audio ambience. Then do specific shot sequences and cutaways, close-ups, etc. When I edit, I have lots of material to choose from. My goal is to make the cast and story 'look' real and not like they are acting and this is a movie.
Hope this helps. I try to keep it fun for all on and off the sets, location. Try not to make anything hard or complicated. I like the people I work with. I want them to feel good about their talent and the project they are working on. If it isn't such, I take responsibility -- and it becomes my fault. I also let the cameras run from time to time and set up sequences in order to get the mood or emotion I want from a specific cast member that might not be cutting it. But that is very rare.
Once again, I am not a 'name' film-maker or famous in any way, not rich, whatever, just my two cents...

I disagree. You'd be surprised how motivating (or unmotivating) the bottom line can be.
I hear young directors often mention how they have an actor on set that is less than motivated. I say fire em and hire someone glad to be there and they'll state it's a deferred thang.
I then quack up like a duck.

I think we are talking about two different things. There is a difference between motivation and talent (ie. the performance the actor brings).

ya can't teach talent anymore than passion. Motivation is how to get the best out of any artist.

ya can't teach talent anymore than passion. Motivation is how to get the best out of any artist.

Well...actually you kind of *can* teach talent...that's what schooling and practice do for you. Of course, if you are a lost cause, you are a lost cause, but good training and constant practice will always improve your craft.

I think the thread title 'How to get the most out of my actors' may not completely refer to performance, but I definitly think it's a major part of the point...and money isn't going to do that. Unless of course you spend money on quality coaches...which won't change night into day instantly, but it will produce better line-reads in general...

But paying an actor more, doesn't make them a better actor.

:) Just saying.

Cheers.

but it does motivate them.

just sayin'.

The reverse can be true though.. being able to pay (more) can get you better actors. :P

The reverse can be true though.. being able to pay (more) can get you better actors. :P

Ah, yes...this is different. Getting better actors from the get-go is an entirely different beast...

Hopefully, it's not necessary to go through the 700 page SAG book and the pile of paperwork to get said talent. :)

just dont be another David O'russel and attack your attack your actors and crew then you should be okay

Speak softly and carry a large stick.


Oh, and use the stick.

Large?

;)

Large?

;)

HAHA! I just looked up the actual quote. Thankfully paraphrasing isn't illegal ;)

HAHA! I just looked up the actual quote. Thankfully paraphrasing isn't illegal ;)

Tee hee...had to tease ya.

Just wanted to throw out there (especially for Michael) That I decided to pay SAG low budget rate (whether they are SAG or not) on my next film. Only having one actress makes it possible, but hey I'm making progress. What this did is open up agencies etc... to me. I have 25 girls scheduled (of which if I'm lucky 15 will show up) to read for one role. I should be able to find a pretty good actress.

Just wanted to throw out there (especially for Michael) That I decided to pay SAG low budget rate (whether they are SAG or not) on my next film. Only having one actress makes it possible, but hey I'm making progress. What this did is open up agencies etc... to me. I have 25 girls scheduled (of which if I'm lucky 15 will show up) to read for one role. I should be able to find a pretty good actress.

So...you're going to pay whomever gets the role SAG rates? Or you're going through SAG and making this a SAG-sig picture?

Not sure what you mean.

You want to pay SAG rates...but you don't care if they are SAG or not? Interesting. So...it's on the principle of the matter...do you want a SAG actor? Or do you just want the best actor?

Trust me, if you don't have to go through all the paperwork, the headaches, and the potential hassle, I suggest you go non union, and just pay the girl SAG rates on principle. Perhaps that's exactly what you plan to do...I'm just a little confused about whether you're going SAG or not.

So...you're going to pay whomever gets the role SAG rates? Or you're going through SAG and making this a SAG-sig picture?

Not sure what you mean.

You want to pay SAG rates...but you don't care if they are SAG or not? Interesting. So...it's on the principle of the matter...do you want a SAG actor? Or do you just want the best actor?

Trust me, if you don't have to go through all the paperwork, the headaches, and the potential hassle, I suggest you go non union, and just pay the girl SAG rates on principle. Perhaps that's exactly what you plan to do...I'm just a little confused about whether you're going SAG or not.

Actually prefer NOT to have a SAG actor because of the paperwork. I guess I wan't clear. I am paying the actress the SAG rate for a low budget film of $100/Day, and pretty much complying with the workday rules. I am paying that rate whether the actress is SAG or not.

Actually prefer NOT to have a SAG actor because of the paperwork. I guess I wan't clear. I am paying the actress the SAG rate for a low budget film of $100/Day, and pretty much complying with the workday rules. I am paying that rate whether the actress is SAG or not.

Gotcha. I'm with ya.

Very cool of you to do that. It would be nice to get SAG minimum anytime I worked...

Gotcha. I'm with ya.

Very cool of you to do that. It would be nice to get SAG minimum anytime I worked...

Committed to to the acting taking a big leap forward in this film, and even that nominal amount of money has brought 6 or 8 girls to my audition that wouldn't have come for a "no pay" gig. I'm reading over 20 women for 1 part.

Nice Gonzo...hey, when you're serious about casting and finding the right person, it can be a arduous process, but it's worth it in the end.

That's a 100% valid technique. One that I personally do not subscribe to, but no less relevant for it.

When I direct a stage play (and I've directed many of them over the last 20 years) I rehearse the hell out of it -- hundreds of hours.

When I direct a movie (3 features so far) I have a table read of the script and discuss each character with the performer. On set, we block the scene then I roll camera. First take belongs to the actors, always. I don't care if they play the scene like the 3 Stooges (no one ever has).

In editing, I'll find as often as not there is at least one moment from that first take that has a certain spark to it that I never expected.

Just another technique -- personal preference, neither right nor wrong. :)

I agree, I have acted and directed a number of plays, and acted in two films, directed one. And with Theater it seems rehearsing the hell out of it makes it better, makes it great! But with film it seems like that doesnt work for me. It always looks hollow, or fake. Like we the actors know what's coming, one tip I got from a director was "you are hearing, seeing, feeling everything for the first time. So take that in. Let it all effect you." I've always remembered that. I like to run the lines at a table, like you said, then go home with it and really get into it on my own. Then come to the set and show what I got.

If I may ask a related question (and kindly use the OP's thread for it):) :

If I don't have the budget to pay SAG rates(or ACTRA in Canada), is there really a problem with going through the local community theatre groups work something with them?

I just don't know if its frowned upon or whatever. I just hear horror stories about a low budget picture making it reasonably decent in visibility, and the producers of the film getting flack, not from the actors-they've been paid and have paperwork in hand to show it-but from SAG/Actra union, because they didn't pay the going rates, used non-union personnel, ect ect.

This article is specifically about directing actors http://www.raindance.org/site/index.php?id=47,196,0,0,1,0&highlight=actors

its written by a guy who also does a course focussed on how to work with your actors http://www.raindance.org/site/index.php?id=19,2995,0,0,1,0

Hope the article helps

I just don't know if its frowned upon or whatever. I just hear horror stories about a low budget picture making it reasonably decent in visibility, and the producers of the film getting flack, not from the actors-they've been paid and have paperwork in hand to show it-but from SAG/Actra union, because they didn't pay the going rates, used non-union personnel, ect ect.

Dude, I might be slow today or something, but I can't really understand what you're saying...

Getting flack from the union because they didn't pay the going rates? Well...you have to pay the minimum if you use a union actor--and of course if you're using a union actor, the entire film must then become SAG signatory or low or ultra-low budget. However they are broken down.

Not sure if that's what you meant...there's a lot of mish-mash in that paragraph.

I got a bit of information in this area.. for the 48 hour film project, there is negotiated SAG day rate minimum DEFFERD payment. If the film does anything other than 48 hour film and other festivals Ill have to pay my SAG actors for the deferred amount. Seems OK to me, but Iv only one on the list so.. meh..

When all else fails, Kuleshov them.