If they're not talking, they're not acting?

:huh:

Read this:

" Why do actors not talk in silent movies but still act? "

Acting isn't all about talking. They can use their body language and can still act, but have to be in role. Actors may believe that if they're not talking, they're not acting because they are not true actors. They just want to talk because they don't know what acting actually means.

They don't. Only really bad actors fit that description.

I've never worked with an actor who thought that.

I'm not the first filmmaker to run across actors who think that way. One such actor even sent me an email saying they need roles with lines for their demo reels.

I had an actress email me a month ago saying she was dropping out of the production because she does not have enough dialogue.

Her role got recast last week by another actress only to happy to be in an action film.

I get tons os submissions with people with no stunt or action experience, only talking roles and I'm tossing their applications away for their own safety. These actors believe a stunt coordinator is a miracle worker who can turn them into action stars. They will get hurt with stage combat, martial arts, ans stunt training. And, stunt coordinators don't want to work with people without experience in stage combat. Some list they came dance, but they really have no experience with choreography.

I had 2 actors duck out on me 3 years ago for the role of an android soldier with one page of all action with no dialogue. I had to use my DP to play that role. With my new production where we are casting the silver demon hunters, which are all action no dialogue roles, one of the same actors who dropped out for the role of the android soldier sends me his one role reel just showing him walking down a flight of stairs talking and talking until he joins a group of people just talking.

So, these are actors who think that way.

Two things to consider:

Cracker Funk’s comment is correct. Only bad actors think that.
If you were paying $500/$600 per day they wouldn’t drop out. I
suspect if you were paying even $15/hr. they wouldn’t duck out
simply because they weren’t didn’t have enough dialogue.

I believe you when you say you aren’t the first filmmaker to run
across actors who think that way. But I’m like Uranium City - I
have never worked with an actor who thought that.

I’m sorry you’re having so much trouble with actors not living up
to your expectations. I’m sure it frustrating.

Well directorik,

We are living in hard times. Going 2 weeks without pay is hard and I just lost a good actress today because of the economy. But, next month my salary is being cut $200 a month and I should be stopping the production and looking for part time work to fill the gap to pay my monthly bills.

However, I'm an artist and my art comes before my personal finances. I told the actress I hear where she is coming from and wished her all the best.

And now I'm sending out casting notices. BackStage.com just gave me a $65 discount as a returning customer. So, I posted a notice for the new role for $15.That will be both in their hardcopy magazine and the Internet.

I don't believe many actors do, or atleast i haven't ran across any that have. It's a possibility that the actors within the specifics that you set, regarding the small fee, action requirements etc. are simply not at the level. No serious actor would mention any such statement, it sounds as though they've been given some bad advice.

Having read alot of the threads you've posted on this project, and more often than not, it's implications towards the budget stretching to its breaking point. May i ask whether you factored any "extras" within your budget at the beginning of the project?

I fully understand the extent of your position, it's testing, extremely. I just can't help but feel, having followed the threads and the twists and turns, and listened to your "Ideal" for your project, that it's going to take alot more funding wise for you to honour your material.

Extras, such as actors or perks for being in the production? We have background extras for cheap this time with the posable stunt dummies. All we have to do is cloth them.

The fact the the script and characters are so interesting is bringing in good people for cheap even in this bad economy. I have a retired fight choreographer and martial arts instructor on board who gave a great audition and willing to work with us because he likes what we are trying to do. And, since he is retired, he has the free time to help.

Extras, such as actors or perks for being in the production? We have background extras for cheap this time with the posable stunt dummies. All we have to do is cloth them.

The fact the the script and characters are so interesting is bringing in good people for cheap even in this bad economy. I have a retired fight choreographer and martial arts instructor on board who gave a great audition and willing to work with us because he likes what we are trying to do. And, since he is retired, he has the free time to help.

"Extras" as in a section factored into your budget to cover the "what ifs", and the common hiccups of the production.

It seems an intricate project you're running, and massively extensive given the action requirements, it would benefit hugely from a well-prepared funding scheme. I can't help but feel it's a missed opportunity not to approach crowdfunding as i would imagine this genre, and the overall style, has a huge following.

I do have backup plans to live up to promises, such as completing post next year and bring the final cut to NATPE a year later, using tax refunds to cover expenses.

We will shoot greenscreen and record VOs during rehearsal week to help post ahead of time.

We will be trying crowd funding soon just for that purpose and our stunt budget. But, we have to be prepared for the fact we may not reach our target.

We will be trying crowd funding soon just for that purpose and our stunt budget. But, we have to be prepared for the fact we may not reach our target.

Most definitely, there's alot of potential in the following behind the genre for you to really push for a strong budget.

Mountains of research, and perhaps a long, long wait to gather the necessary solid reel/pitch, but there's most certainly an opportunity.

I agree with everyone who's said that good actors would never think like this...

...however... If you're a jobbing actor taking on unpaid gigs in order to built up a showreel and get better parts, I can see why non-speaking parts wouldn't appeal so much. There's only a certain amount that they can do for free and it simply looks a lot better to have had speaking roles (not to mention e fact that it's a lot more fun on set!).

MDM, have you tried to raise a 'budget' in order to shoot, rather than skinting yourself?

Family, friends, friends of friends, associates etc?

Action, stunts, reheasalss, two weeks shoot etc. Sounds a lot of financial, physical commitment from all involved, a little more budget will go a long way I'm sure.

All the very best, respectfully jim.

Michael Caine once said, "Think of all the wonderful things to say when you're not talking, and decide not to say them."

I wouldn't say, 'Why do actors believe this...', I would say, amateur actors believe this. Most good/experienced actors have a lot going on all the time.

And let's not forget two of the most important concepts: Acting is re-acting, and acting is about listening.

Now, if we're discussing why actors won't take a job because they don't have dialog...well, that's different. Most good actors want jobs that showcase themselves. Not just so they can do what they love, but also so they can showcase themselves for future jobs. Landing a non-speaking job isn't going to do this...actors shouldn't put extra/BG work on their reel. I don't take BG work anymore...I want to be showcased. Again, not just because I love acting, but because I want all of my future jobs to be another rung on the ladder. I would rather take a non-paying job that gives me a great reel piece than take a BG job that pays me 100 a day. Only if I'm absolutely in need of money will I take non-speaking roles...and 99% of the time, I'll look for stand-in work instead of BG work...better pay, and better networking.

You know, you've hit on something that I am passionate about personally. I was an "extra" for a couple years, and I learned so much in acting because of it. No, obviously, I had no lines, but I learned that subtle nuances in body language, a emotional change at the right time, the slightest physical action could tell an entire story.

Now granted, there are many actors out there that shun non-verbal roles, but that's to their loss, in my opinion.

On the other hand, if the role is a non-verbal one, I do look for those roles that are extremely physical and strongly featured, because, hey, I do have to look after my career.

The more words the person says the more money they are paid.

I have a good friend who was in There Will Be Blood.

His character is named "Man with Wife" and the rest of the characters were just named "Man #1" etc.

He got paid more money than the others because he had a bigger and more important character name than the other men.

Thinking laterally, it seems that you could turn it around.

All the actors you meet want lines? Then you can attract actors by giving them a few lines.

Here's the key - if they need it for their reel, does it need to be in the main production? Could you shoot alternate takes that you know you're not going to use, but give them the footage? Or if they need something that's actually out there in distribution, could you do a promotional webisode or similar?

Twenty minutes of shooting some additional footage could give you a much wider range of possibilities for actors.

Could you shoot alternate takes that you know you're not going to use, but give them the footage? Or if they need something that's actually out there in distribution, could you do a promotional webisode or similar?
I like your ideas immensely.

Set or negotiate an allocation of "pay" as an understudy or verbal role experience to non-speaking roles desiring reel material knowing in all likelihood it won't be included in this release, but will certainly be useful in consideration of casting future speaking roles.

Some "personalities" don't fit current required roles while being perfect for a character in the future.

Win-win now.
Increased potential in the future.

As a director/producer look at this approach as yet one more tool in your managerial skill-set tool box.
Usually the job can be done with a just a monkey wrench. Sometimes you gotta use both a monkey wrench and a ratchet.

Additionally, bit parts in features are frequently expanded because the director/producer enjoyed their on screen performance.

I'm going to chime in belatedly and say that most actors study acting from a script - on stage, it's all dialog so the producer/director can place their vision on top of it.

At the low budget level, most of the script's I've seen for short films are all dialog... supporting the falsehood that acting is speaking dialog. The most common note in the margin of a script that I've ever written is "TMD" -- too much dialog. Only Kevin Smith can get away with writing like Kevin Smith - grumbly note to up and coming script writers! More action blocks in your script (at least, a 50/50 balance, better yet 75/25 action/dialog). Dialog should never reveal the plot directly, but be something the character would say while immersed in the plot - otherwise, you can write for radio).

That said, actors are taught that the written word is EVERYTHING THAT MATTERS in every way... I hate that attitude. The word informs the audience and the actor of the plot, plot and story should always be considered more important than the words - and if the words are wrong, the director should be ok changing them on the spot (and know the script well enough that the changes won't ripple problems through other parts of the script).

As always, the problem isn't the actor, it's the writer/directors who have been feeding them the line that their "art" is unchangeable and their "art" only contains the words, no hints of action or emotion. If you want an example, pickup any copy of a monologues book that actors use as excercises... there are absolutely no stage directions in them whatsoever. Actors are trapped by words.

Have them run a scene without any dialog if you run into that problem, let them experience the moment silently, then add the dialog on top of that. The director is responsible for the outcome; end statement.

That said, actors are taught that the written word is EVERYTHING THAT MATTERS in every way.

As an actor myself, I can tell you that I've never been taught this, and would have zero respect for a teacher who said something like that.

Comparing stage acting technique to film is tricky. The mechanics of each are completely different, but the approach is (or should be) identical.

Likewise stage scripts versus screenplays (I've written and directed many of each). Plays should have only the bare minimum stage directions - the dialogue conveys the story - whereas dialogue in a screenplay is of far less importance. Hitchcock believed you should be able to shut off the sound and still follow the story.

Perhaps it's simply because all my exposure to acting has been specifically for stage, and any deviation from script has been strictly verboten... but that's been everything I've seen... certainly there are excercises for realizing a moment, but the focus on the script as bible easily gives the impression to actors who are starting out that the dialog (as most script they see are extremely dialog-centric) is more important than the interpretation of the intent behind them.

As a 20+ year improv actor who runs every show with almost no script, the intent brings words - I'm firmly in the screw the script camp so long as the intention behind it is clung to faithfully - unless that doesn't fit the actor/moment/scene/whatever. In a perfect world, we'd be able to provide our extremely seasoned actors brilliant scripts...

But the fact is that at the level most of us are currently working, our actors have limited experience, any classes that may have been taken are generally taught with the focus on all of the same excercises to get folks to interpret the written words faithfully to someone else's vision.

2001: I'm bolstered to hear that your experience has shown you differently than I've seen, but I've had to come to my own way of improving based on trial, error and audience reaction. All of the training I've received (from several drama teachers) has been the same "Word as bible" crap that I hate... and all have been from the stage as this area is only just now getting more access to training in acting for film (but still from theater folks generally).

Note to actors: many of your directors were also the writers of the work you're doing... they'll tend to be more aggressive about the words being as written. Don't change them without asking or you may find difficulty finding work in the future from those directors (if you so choose to work with them)...

Note to writer/directors: If you're the afore mentioned director, you'd be shocked what an actor who has taken time delving into the character can bring to the role if you let them, including reworking dialog to fit not only the character better, but the actor's portrayal of them as well.

Ah, I think I misunderstood you. Yes, it's true that plays should be spoken as written. I actually agree with that. The stage is the writer's medium. A good script is like poetry; you wouldn't change stuff when reading a poem.

For film, I feel exactly the opposite. Film is a director's medium and the script is more of an outline. Change it, expand it, let it breathe!

Since you're experienced at improv (an impressive skill, btw; I delight in a good improv actor) I can see how you might prefer to take an idea and run with it rather than lock yourself to the written word.

Keep in mind, I was trained on stage and found that a live audience didn't respond to bits I had written, but as a writer, coming up with bits on the fly in response to the immediate needs of the audience got me better results. Sticking a slightly over-written text gets bad results, even from a great story. Most of the actors I can get my hands on here in town (and many I see online) end up with the same initial training... written word is law.

I've acted on stage next to less than good actors in the past, and changing the words to actually get them into the scene at the last moment, while on stage has gotten better audience reactions than even brilliantly written text from established plays.

I've acted in plays written by - among others - Shakespeare, Mamet, Ibsen, Simon, Ionesco, and Bogosian. The day I feel like I can improve on their dialogue is the day you have permission to whack me upside the head with an iron skillet. :D

I'll take it upside the head with the skillet, because I had to alter Bradbury's dialog on stage to get my co-actor in the scene through it... on the fly... in character. The page went right out the window in every performance of that play we did... I kept the scene flowing and alive... otherwise, his words would have been half a conversation.

In the perfect world, all actors would be A list... but that's not the real world - and "The show must go on" I will always argue to defer to the written dialog, but it just doesn't always work. Getting shakespeare out to a less educated audience requires some fanagling for them to understand the emotions of the play in the way the bard intended - but since the language has moved past the popular culture to which he was writing, I will say with the utmost confidence; the responses to the words have changed from his original intent.

His baudy jokes are lost on a modern audience and the political satire is heavily outdated. The words are genius, but haven't changed with the language - as during his time, more english speaking folks actually spoke the english in which he was writing.

True, the audience has to work a little for Shakespeare. But the actor bears the brunt of the responsibility there. If an actor doesn't have the chops for it, you are absolutely right: the meaning goes straight out the window. If performed well, however, it's as clear as day.

I've definitely worked with both kinds.