Screentesting Tricks

I'm doing this right now.

I take one bit of a scene, something I need to make sure the character can do, and have them perform it. The reader of the other part has to be totally flat so you can truly guage the performance of the one you are testing, IE. don't audition two characters at the same time unless you are shooting a romance.

WideShot said:

The reader of the other part has to be totally flat so you can truly guage the performance of the one you are testing.

Click to expand...

I would disagree with that statement. So much of acting is feeding off of the other performers. If you have a flat performance, chances are you have multiple flat performances.

Poke

Hee Hee

Hi, Nate

I recognise that Drain things.

Wonder who gave you that one. lol

Be lucky All.

take it easy, nate

case

pokewowplayer1 said:

WideShot said:

The reader of the other part has to be totally flat so you can truly guage the performance of the one you are testing.

Click to expand...

I would disagree with that statement. So much of acting is feeding off of the other performers. If you have a flat performance, chances are you have multiple flat performances.

Poke

Click to expand...

I don't mean flat as in no emphasis whatsoever. I mean don't be testing two actors at the same time unless it is to test chemistry because you simply want to guage what an actor would do to a role opposite a mediocre actor. In short, if the actor you are testing is talented, he/she should be able to pull it off to an extent. If they are really talented they will give you some stuff you really like. Then you know you have a good actor. Then when you test him/her with some of the other actors you can see what they will really do in the film.

That is what *I* do after not getting what I wanted doing it the other way. I was probably just doing it incorrectly, but since then I've gotten better results by doing it like this.

The basics are though to have just two characters on the stage total, and to act something that will appear in the film and is a crucial expression or emotion that they have to nail, regardless of whether you have them get into a heated role or not.

Hi, Nate

I recognise that Drain things.

Wonder who gave you that one. lol

Click to expand...

Yea case! that's your trick! the drain strick - and it worked.

Work with, don't audition

I come at this from a slightly different angle, in that I'd rather not run a traditional audition at all.

Firstly, I only audition people that I've seen before or people who are recommended to me by actors I've already worked with or other directors. This means getting out and going to the theatre, and mixing in the acting community.

On the day of the audition, I'll call all the actors together and do a read through of the parts of the script I want to workshop. Then I'll brief them about the character and where in the story it comes. I encourage them to ask as many questions as they need to.

I'll then try different combinations of actors in the roles, so that I can see them working together. I run this the same way I'd run an acting workshop, the same way I'd work with them on location. By doing this, the actors start to relax and I get an idea of how they take direction, what they're like to work with. Do they like to put a lot of their own ideas in or do they rely on me to do all the work? This useful information for when directing them on location.

After a few hours of working on the piece, blocking the action and trying different things it usually obvious, to all concerned, who should be playing which role.

All the scenes undertaken are videoed with MS and CU on each individual. I try to use the same camera I'll use on the shoot, where possible (or at least something the same size) This tells me whether they'll fall apart once a camera starts rolling.

Myself and the producer then give everyone coffee, sit and revue the tape, compare notes, then we go back and assign parts. I also make a point of giving individual feedback to every single actor who turned up to audition. (I do this 1-2-1 and not in front of the group) I think this is very important, it's really useful to the actor to know the real reason they didn't get the part.

I almost never use improv for auditions, unless the plan is to improv the film, which it isn't. I'm not really interested in their improv skills, but in their ability to interpret the text. Improv is something that I use in rehearsal, to help the actor establish character.

I think it's slightly dangerous not to use improv in an audition. Film is about character and emotions, and the only way I feel you can tell an actor's ability to convey emotion is to take them away from a script and get them to improvise. Auditions tied down to a script can distract an actor from truely conveying the emotions you want to see delivered. The other reason for working with improv is that you can test the actor in all manner of ways and find out if the guy/gal is up for working in a team, getting direct etc, you can tailor make your exercises to suit the emotions found in the script. If an actor can improvise an actor can act! Acting is improv.
Clive, you say you only take actors who you're reccommended or seen before? what about all those up and coming hopefuls who are fantastic but yet dying to make a break
rad.
It's good to get a nice tight tight close up on an actor during a screentest as well, watch their emotions and see if you beleive them.[/i]

I think it's slightly dangerous not to use improv in an audition. Film is about character and emotions, and the only way I feel you can tell an actor's ability to convey emotion is to take them away from a script and get them to improvise. Auditions tied down to a script can distract an actor from truely conveying the emotions you want to see delivered

Click to expand...

Different directors have different ways of working, I like to work with text. Some like to work in a more Stanislavski manner. I am not the only director who believes that emotioning for the sake of it and improv are in appropriate methods for actors. Can I suggest that you read David Mamet's book, True and False. (It may be called Truth and Lies, I can't be bothered to go downstairs to pull it off the bookshelf)

If the emotion you require portrayed in the fim isn't in the script, then you've got the script wrong. If the actors can't find that moment of truth, by working on the actual script then how is it going to appear in the finished film?

The actor's job is to interpret the script. Improv is a distraction from that job, it doesn't tell you anything about the actor or their abilities to do that job.

Clive, you say you only take actors who you're reccommended or seen before? what about all those up and coming hopefuls who are fantastic but yet dying to make a break

Click to expand...

As to only working with people that I've seen or who are recommended, well, there is nothing in an audition that will tell you whether the actor, once given the job is capable of getting out of bed in the morning and ready to do the job. After a couple of experience of having actors turn up hours late on shoots or so hung over that they couldn't work, everybody I work with has to have some form of reference.

If the emotion you require portrayed in the fim isn't in the script, then you've got the script wrong. If the actors can't find that moment of truth, by working on the actual script then how is it going to appear in the finnished film?

Click to expand...

It's not a question about whether the emotion is in the script or not in the script it's a question of what is effectively going to get an actor expressing emotion and what is going to give them a clean performance.

I would rather have them say 'I'm going to kill you' in an improvisation bit rather than have them trawl through a script spectacles on head reading 'I'm going to kill you' with all the other factors weighing against a clean performance.

I don't think you call really expect or get an actor on the first day they have seen a script and on audition to draw all the emotion out of the text

Words effect performance until words become familiarity.

Plus, if the actor has his/her head buried in a book it's going to be hard to see the face, and the emotion of the face is the forfront of film

But these are all opinions... and it's a healthy discussion to have. And yes different directors work in different ways.

rad.

I completely understand what you are saying, when you say that most actors don't sight read very well and that the performance doesn't start to come together until they are off book. You're right, it isn't until they've got the words down that the perfomance starts to build.

However, I think the problem here is that you've never seen the way that I work with actors with text, so your understanding of what I'm talking about is different from what I actually do.

What you are talking about is a read through, which is the starting point. What I'm doing, is running my audition the same way I'd run a rehearsal. Most film scenes aren't that long and after three or four runs throughs, most actors can put the book down and start exploring the role. They won't be word perfect, but that doesn't matter, providing that they understand the meaning and intentions of the character within the scene.

It takes time to do this. My auditions tend to last for between four to six hours. I very rarely see more than ten people at the audition, so they get a lot of my time. Some really good actors take time to find a role and can't just pump the part out on demand. I give them the opportunity to grow into the role, to get past initial audition nerves and show me what they are really like to work with. I actually believe that instead of making my actors jump through emotional hoops, just to prove that they can, what I am doing is treating them like the professionals that they are and working with them.

This isn't a process that I've just dreamt up, I've directed actors professionally for over thirteen years now for radio, theatre and film. I'm a professional actor myself and have spent the last four years of my life teaching acting technique to drama students.

Hee Hee

When you use Improv, you can let your actors show you how they've formed characters, demonstrate movement, achieve dynamics and give you ideas.

Sight-reading is nothing to do with auditioning, and shows you nothing of the actors. How frustrating for people who turn up, and how useless if you imposed that on a director.

I've worked at the City Literary Institute, Drury Land, and trained with some of the best in improv, physical theatre etc.

There's lots of good ways to stage/run auditions, and I hope you'll all keep finding them.

case

I think everyone finds their own way to audition actors. I guess it depends on what you are looking for and what your working experience is.

I think the important thing is, that you find good people to work with, who can make your film everything you want it to be.

Just like directors, actors come in different forms as well. There are lots of actors who really like the way I work, so I guess I'll work with them.

All I've tried to do is here is share my experience. Improv isn't the answer to everything. Text work is important. However, maybe I'm just completely wrong about this. Maybe actors hate the way I work, maybe I run really bad auditions.

Ironically, I do use improv when I'm helping actors develop the character, just not in auditions.

I've re-read this string a few times and something has been bothering me. I realised that I hadn't really been completely honest. What I meant to say was ...

Improv sucks ...

Text rules ...

and anyone who doesn't like that can kiss my hairy ....

Improv sucks, text rules

Click to expand...

I don't think it's possible for directors to work with that simple a mindset But let your opinion be your opinion.

Many great tips here. As I am about to cast for this one, I will utilize many, thanks

I don't think it's possible for directors to work with that simple a mindset

Click to expand...

Actually, it's not a simple mindset at all, but a very complex one. I'll try to explain.

Improv looks like a good way to audtion, because it allows you to take away the actor's fear of dealing with the text and lets them show you their ability to emote and create character, and because improv is a tool used extensively in actor training, it's a comfortable way for them to work.

Working from the script is harder, because you have to deal with the actor's lack of knowledge of the part, their general fear of sight reading and if handled badly, it can create a barrier to performance.

Surely then improv is the obvious way to audition?

Well, no. And the reason why is this.

When you audition someone to play a role, you are auditioning them not on thier general acting ability, but their ability to play a particular role. The role that has been created by the writer, the role that only exists in the text. Once you've given the actor the role, at some point you are going to have to sit down with them and work with the script. What I'm saying is that the audition is the time to do that, not after you've hired them.

In comparision with theatre, most actors find direction from film directors very poor/bad/non existent. Most actors will tell you that most film directors give almost no help when it comes to interpreting the text. I think this is because theatre has a rich history of employing its directors from people with acting and literary backgrounds, whereas, film gets its directors mainly from people with technical backgrounds.

The only reason that an actor will give a better performance from improv, rather than from working with the text in audition, is because the director running the audtion does not have the skills to work with the actor properly. The director's job is to know enough about the text, acting technique and the directorial needs of each individual actor to guide the actor to a great performance. Of course your actors are going to sound dreadful working off the script if you haven't got the skills to direct them.

Threrefore:

Improv sucks ... because it only tells you about general acting ability, not the actor's ability to create that particular role.

Improv sucks ... because it takes the actor away from the primary job of interpreting text.

Improv sucks ... because it's just a way for the director to cover their inability to guide the actor through the text

Improv sucks ... because it makes the actor pull their favorite peformance tricks out of the bag and leads to stereotypical performances

Text rules .. because it's the foundation of your film

Text rules ... because the actor is working towards developing the actual character, not some generic performance

Text rules ... because it means that you are using your audition to pave the way for the performance.

Text rules ... because working with it tells you what directorial style and input the actor will need in rehearsal and on set.

Text rules ...because it is the starting point, for the creation of the role and all actor's answers are in it.

None of this is to say that there is no room for improv in the set of tools that a director uses with actors. Improv is particularly good at helping the actor get familiar with the character. Perhaps one of the best ways is to get two characters to improvise a scene which isn't in the film ... what were they saying to each other just before they walked throught the door? Or, when the first met twenty years ago. What are they like when they argue over mundane every day stuff? But, this kind of improv isn't any use in audtion, because at that point the actors haven't done enough text work.

Oh, and putting a :wink: after calling someone narrow minded doesn't turn an insult into banter, unless you've known them for a very long time.

Hee Hee

All Clive's points are incorrect.

Keep taking the pills.

--------------

Good luck with further screentesting, SR.

:roll:

Cool...

Ok guys, lets bring this back into perspective here.

This is a forum about Screentesting Tricks... it's here to help people and support people! Remember that! Everyone has their own ground to stand on but just be careful how you fight for it.

Talk, Discuss, and be merry!