Directing on a Per-Line Basis...Am I Expecting to Much?

Hey all,

Some of you may have seen some of my stuff I've posted over in the screen room, and as I've been making films for the past couple years now, I feel like I've begun to hit a plateau. I'm reaching a point where I feel like the weakest link in my films is the acting, whereas it used to be more the technical side. The acting was always passable enough, but now I'm really reaching a point where I want to take things to the "next level", which has me asking the same question after every shoot: "am I a terrible director?"

I often times find myself having to direct on a per-line basis with my actors. Is this normal? I have a hard time believing that when I watch Lost that the directors would have to come up to Matthew Fox for each line and get him to deliver it well by coming up with every possible synonym for what they want, then eventually devolving into line readings. I understand in that case we're talking about professional actors. I guess the question I have is how do I draw the line between what my responsibility is as a director and what the actors responsibility is? I find myself often demoralized because I have to try and get every line delivery to be good, and it still never comes out right. Does this make me a bad director because I can't teach my actors more ways to empathize with their characters? Or does it mean I have incapable actors?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be a director who "phones it in", but at the same time, I feel a director's job is to collaborate with an actor to try and create the best atmosphere possible for the film, not to teach an actor how to act. This is where my frustration comes in. As someone who has never worked "professionally", it's really hard for me to tell when I'm not doing my job well, or when it's the actors, or if it's both. Thoughts would be greatly appreciated!

- Tommy
 
My first question would be, are you working with professional/experienced actors? If you are, then they should be able to do a lot of that themselves. Actors should be collaborated with - they are supposed to bring things to the table, you shouldn't have to give them everything.

Next question - are you being too rigid in what you expect and not allowing them to explore?

Are you rehearsing before you shoot? It's a lost art. It can be very beneficial, discoveries can be made, and it saves time on set.

I come from a background in theatre - so I highly recommend you try that. Try to be in a community theater production and see how the directorial process works there. Or see if you can find a local theater that will let you observe the rehearsal process of a show.....I know this is where I learned to direct actors.

Biggest lesson I've learned is: don't give them a line read, or a line by line delivery....give them a nudge in the direction you want to go and see where they take it.....Let them create too.
 
I think you just need to work with better talent. Better actors wouldn't let you get away with that; they'd be offended if you fed them all their lines. You can do it on rare occasion, but it's definitely not Standard Operating Procedure.

One of my favorite things to see is an actor's interpretation of a role, and how they can often take it in a completely different direction than I originally imagined. Sometimes it's not really what I want, so we start discussing changes, but sometime it's F-ing brilliant. That give/take director/actor relationship really only works when the talent is capable of pulling that off, and if you find yourself constantly feeding them lines, I think that's a reflection of needing better talent.

P.S. Don't feel bad that you find yourself doing it. I believe pretty much all of us have done it, out of necessity. I remember my actors used to want me to do it. Finding and working with better talent is truly liberating.
 
Very. When you are working with actors who just aren't that good.

Good actors do not need it. 90% of being a good director is casting good actors.

This is what I believe too. It's in the casting. As far as I'm concerned, the actor owns the character. I read a recent NYT's article about Steven Soderberg's upcoming spy film "Haywire". It stars a female MMA champ with no acting experience. Soderberg mentions that the key to casting untrained actors is discovering their actual nature and personality. He accomplished this with a 4 hour brunch. Anyway, if you can grasp a person's nature, then that becomes your foundation for the character, you use what's already there. Expecting the chameleon like skills of a Kate Blanchet won't work with an unskilled performer.

Maybe that will be useful -- something seems terribly wrong if you're spoonfeeding lines.
 
Agreed.

We have all read stories about first timers simply knocking it out
of the park. The directors never say they directed these novice
actors by directing them line per line. The directors always say
they worked with the strengths and within the limitations of the
person they hired.
 
My first question would be, are you working with professional/experienced actors? If you are, then they should be able to do a lot of that themselves. Actors should be collaborated with - they are supposed to bring things to the table, you shouldn't have to give them everything.

Next question - are you being too rigid in what you expect and not allowing them to explore?

Are you rehearsing before you shoot? It's a lost art. It can be very beneficial, discoveries can be made, and it saves time on set.

I come from a background in theatre - so I highly recommend you try that. Try to be in a community theater production and see how the directorial process works there. Or see if you can find a local theater that will let you observe the rehearsal process of a show.....I know this is where I learned to direct actors.

Biggest lesson I've learned is: don't give them a line read, or a line by line delivery....give them a nudge in the direction you want to go and see where they take it.....Let them create too.

The problem is that scheduling times to rehearse is ridiculously hard. A lot of the actors I use come from an hour or two hours away, so when I can even get them in one place just to shoot it's a miracle, let alone scheduling additional times for rehearsal. They don't want to do that much driving. I'd love to have rehearsals and read throughs, unfortunately it's just not usually very feasible.

I think you just need to work with better talent. Better actors wouldn't let you get away with that; they'd be offended if you fed them all their lines. You can do it on rare occasion, but it's definitely not Standard Operating Procedure.

One of my favorite things to see is an actor's interpretation of a role, and how they can often take it in a completely different direction than I originally imagined. Sometimes it's not really what I want, so we start discussing changes, but sometime it's F-ing brilliant. That give/take director/actor relationship really only works when the talent is capable of pulling that off, and if you find yourself constantly feeding them lines, I think that's a reflection of needing better talent.

P.S. Don't feel bad that you find yourself doing it. I believe pretty much all of us have done it, out of necessity. I remember my actors used to want me to do it. Finding and working with better talent is truly liberating.

I agree, I love to see an actor's interpretation of a role. The problem is that most of the people I work with aren't interpreting the role, they aren't making it their own. They're very much surface performers. I can't tell you the number of times I've had actors show up to a shoot and tell me they never even looked at the script.

Very. When you are working with actors who just aren't that good.

Good actors do not need it. 90% of being a good director is casting good actors.

I wish I could cast better people, but I've been through a few casting calls for projects now and I've never gotten anyone who is truly talented. I don't feel like I'm being too rigid because honestly at this point I'd just be happy if actors could deliver lines naturally, which is why I have to direct on a per-line basis.

I was watching behind the scenes on Smallville about Allison Mack's first time directing. She and Tom Welling went through a scene, after it was over she told him "one more time, less decisive". His performance completely changed. The original wasn't bad at all, it was just different. I'd love to find an actor who could do this, instead of me trying to just get the line to be believable instead of "less decisive".
 
$100 a day. And I PROMISE you'll find someone better then you can imagine.
$50 and the odds are still very good.

Even at $100 is not really WORTH it for the actor if you consider that these days $50 will barley cover gas, but its the idea of GETTING PAID. Being a WORKING actor is important to the resume.

You will need to travel to a central location for rehearsals.
 
$100 a day. And I PROMISE you'll find someone better then you can imagine.
$50 and the odds are still very good.

Even at $100 is not really WORTH it for the actor if you consider that these days $50 will barley cover gas, but its the idea of GETTING PAID. Being a WORKING actor is important to the resume.

You will need to travel to a central location for rehearsals.

Well the problem is if I pay one actor, I should pay them all AND I should pay my crew. I really can't afford that. I *might* be able to afford to pay one actor $100 for 2, MAYBE 3 shoots, then I'm done. Let alone multiple actors for multiple shoots and crew. I would LOVE to be able to pay people, but I aint exactly getting rich off this either.
 
Well the problem is if I pay one actor, I should pay them all AND I should pay my crew. I really can't afford that. I *might* be able to afford to pay one actor $100 for 2, MAYBE 3 shoots, then I'm done. Let alone multiple actors for multiple shoots and crew. I would LOVE to be able to pay people, but I aint exactly getting rich off this either.

Not necessarily. Even a big tent pole movie, there are interns working for free, and Johnny Depp working for 20 million.
 
I would base pay on the percentage on on set requirement. More time commitment = more money. sImple business. That way, you can pay your actors hourly and be really diligent about only having them on set long enough to get your footage... The main actors will likely be in every shot, so they get paid more... extras will often do the work just for the reel footage.
 
Not everyone lives 150 miles from civilization ;)

Here in the NY Tri-State area things get very expensive, very fast. Gas is still close to $4 a gallon, but the biggest killer is tolls. The Lincoln & Holland tunnels, the George Washington, Bayonne & Goethals bridges, and the Outerbridge Crossing are $12. Many others are $6.50 or more each way. It's not much cheaper traveling by rail - and you have to get to the train station. So it can easily be $50 round trip. Most folks don't mind working for the experience and to add to their reel, but not when it's going to cost them money.
 
I would simply offer a stipend. A one time payment for services not based on hours. Like Knightly said, divide the money according to on set time requirements, with the most going to the person that will be there the longest.

That way, if you have a $300 budget for paying your actors, you give the two leads $50 each, then step it down from there for the rest. Granted, it's not much money, but they ARE getting paid, and you can put that in your casting calls. Getting good actors to audition is half the battle of getting them to be in your movie. If a good actor likes your script and you're willing to pay SOMETHING, the chances are much better that they'll say "yes."
 
Does your college have a theater department?

Are there any acting classes in your area?

Are their any theaters in your area?

Is there a college near by that has a theater department?
 
There is a theatre department at my college, yes...and there is one at the local community college. I've been to many shows, I wouldn't use those people if they payed ME. Unfortunately, I've explored A LOT of local avenues such as community theatres, colleges, etc. Generally people don't commit to projects and the ones that do are incredibly unreliable, let alone whether or not they're talented.
 
Back
Top