Question specifically for people with theater background.

I've been reading some terrific threads about different people's experiences with directing, getting the most out of actors, etc. But I'd like to address one particular group of people -- theater-trained actors and directors.

The extent of my formal training only went so far as what to do with a camera, and how to shoot a piece that cuts together well. I feel like I'm quite good at that aspect of directing. The other side of directing, and perhaps the most important part -- working with actors -- I've learned how to do that by trial and error. Mostly error.

In the beginning, my actors were whichever friends I could get to work on my project -- people with no acting experience whatsoever. With this group of people, I found myself feeding them the lines, telling them EXACTLY how to say it. "Repeat after me" is what a typical shoot basically amounted to.

Eventually, I finally got a chance to work with real actors. A creature of habit, I reverted to the directing style I had gotten used to, and uhh..., actors don't like being told how to say their lines.

Good. I don't want to tell you how to say your lines. Working with theater-trained actors is such a more positive experience. They take it more seriously. They think about their choices. They add creativity, and they have more fun with it.

So, I've mentioned one example of how NOT to direct. What methods have you used, or seen people use, that work well with theater-trained actors? Which methods don't work so well?

The reason I ask this question is because, as I read through prior threads, it's sometimes difficult for me to see what type of actors a particular director is dealing with. Untrained actors and trained actors require entirely different directing methods. This thread is intended to address the directing methods that work best with classically-trained actors only.
 
I fall into the "let them do their job" method. When
I'm working with classically trained actors I like to
give them the freedom to do what they have been
trained to do. I ask question about their motivation,
I make sure they understand clearly my overall vision
of the project, but other than that I leave them alone.
 
Hardest transition for theatre actors is being SO much smaller in everything they do.

"No luv, I've got a 135 on here, your face fills the entire screen, the raising of an eyebrow is a huge action."

Even in a master, you usually (at least initially) have to remind them "you are acting in a tiny little box, bring it alll down about 5 notches".
 
I like to work with actors who have theatrical backgrounds. It's not a "better" way to work, but I prefer it, mainly because I like to have a couple of rehearsals and see what discoveries they bring before the cameras roll. Theatrical actors aren't as averse to a rehearsal process as actors that have only screen backgrounds, for the most part.

While I mostly let them do their jobs, if I feel they need a line reading to get it the way I need it, I don't hesitate giving them one.
 
As far as the rest of their performance, I am also of the "let them do their job" schoool, UNLESS their delivery of a certain line is not what I want, then I will tell them, very nicely, and explain why I want it done a specific way. If they won't do it that way, then we have a problem.
 
I've directed actors both for camera and onstage. Although the performance styles are very different - like Gonzo said - there are certain fundamentals that are true for both. If you have the opportunity, I highly recommend directing a stage production, even if it's just a short one-act. As a director, you are almost entirely freed from technical concerns, which is wonderfully liberating. It's just you and the actors - blocking, rehearsing, discussing - without worrying about the time and working in chronological order. You will learn more than you ever thought possible from the experience.

And as far as directing people's performances I'm in the same camp as the others: cast good actors and try to stay out of their way.
 
Cartoon voice direction is easy:

(over the telephone ISDN connection) Give it to me 5 ways and we should be good,


Think it will ever get like that on live-action film sets? A skype connection via an iPad sitting on the director's chair?


And I have had firsthand experience in the voice over world that the above is absolutely true that you get good actors to begin with and stay out of their way. So much time is lost literally "teaching" the actor how to do something he should inherently know how to do, even stuff like not popping the mic or their projection level, etc. etc. and I'm sure it's the same for the set.

And also, theatrical actors make the best voice-over actors.

The only method I have seen of someone directing a theatrical person was that he used a whole bunch of references like "do it the way (insert old shakespeare play character name here) did it" or something. They are also much more intelligent and aware of timing etc. And they have much clearer voices which makes their dialogue very easy and a breeze to record and mix.
 
Last edited:
I say stay from Result Direction, a lot of directors make the mistake of telling the actors "Be more angry" " The character needs to be happier" etc, also best to stay away from giving the actors line readings, Try using Verbs to direct, Instead of "Be more angry" try asking the actor "To Accuse" " To threaten" "To Ignore" or whatever the situation calls for. Also try using "As Ifs" Playing the part as if someone has just insulted you, As if someone has stolen something of yours etc.
Or just read either of the books by Judith Weston
 
Working with a quality actor, in terms of professionalism, is the same regardless of their background. Both a theater actor and a film actor will come prepared, off script, with strong choices for the character (and a handful of questions for the director).

The only major difference is, you may have to tone a stage actor down. Many of them--even if they are good--will be a little too big for the camera. But if they are experienced and intelligent, you'll be able to bring them down no problem. You also have to watch that a stage actor doesn't become stiff on camera...especially during their closeups. Let them know they can still be natural, and that they only need to be aware of their framing.

And of course, every actor worth a damn will not like getting a line-reading. If an actor can not for the life of you get a line right, pull them aside out of ears reach from the others, and work with them. If they still can't hit it, give them a line reading. A quality actor won't need it to go this far, there comes a time when a good actor will say, 'just give me a line reading.'

Absolutely agree with the above notion that you hire good actors and let them do their job. A director's job is not to teach the person how to act--they should know how to do that already. I like the phrase: 90% of directing actors is in the casting of them.

I have a strong theater background, which transfered into film around 12 years ago.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top