I'm not sure where to post this, but...

Hello. While watching behind-the-scenes footages of movies during shooting, I've noticed (especially after I bought the Life Aquatic DVD) that directors tend to call out directions to the actors or camerapersons whilst acting is occuring. Being a filmmaker myself, I thought "Gee, that would be really convienent!". But, I came to a haunting question: what about what the director says? I guess my question is: Do they take out the callouts from the director in post, and if so how do they still maintain the original audio? Or do the mics just not pick up on the callouts? I'm quite confused :huh:

As long as the director doesn't step on any dialogue, removing his voice is simply a matter of editing it out and replacing it with room tone and sound effects. Almost all of the production sound is replaced in post anyway.

Hello. While watching behind-the-scenes footages of movies during shooting, I've noticed (especially after I bought the Life Aquatic DVD) that directors tend to call out directions to the actors or camerapersons whilst acting is occuring.

Are you sure that the director was giving direction during an actual take or was it just footage from a camera rehearsal?

Personally I can't imagine any thing more likely to result in poor, unbelieveable performances from an actor than shouting in directions during a take. I mean, you might as well work with glove puppets. :lol:

If that really did happen as directorial style on The Life Aquatic, I hope that Bill Murray took the director out and beat him senseless with a big lump of 2"by 4" at the end of the shoot.

It's really not that unusual, particularly with scenes involving very specific timing.

I did a bit of "during the shot direction" during this previous weekend of shooting to great effect. It was after the dialogue of the scene had ended though. It was one of those happy coincidence moments, and the timing on it ended up being perfect, but had I not called it out during the shot it wouldn't have happened, as it was a totally unscripted addition. Also, had we done it as an afterthought that, I believe, is when the poor performance aspect would have come into it. It was a totally improv directing decision that I think really turned out great. :)

(My actress thanked me for it too, she also noticed the chance for the action when I did and was glad I told her to do it. Must have been in the zone on that take...)

I guess this just highlights how "old school" I am as a director. Or maybe that's just "old" :lol:

Clive, shouting out direction to the actors was the norm back in the silent era. And as far as I know, it hasn't really changed that much over the years, although it's not usually actual shouting unless maybe it's an action scene.

It seems to me that you have a strong belief in the effectiveness of talking at actors during takes. I wish you all the best with it. We each come to directing with a unique perspective and I guess this is yours.

Moved to Directing forum.

It seems to me that you have a strong belief in the effectiveness of talking at actors during takes.

I don't have a particularly strong belief in it either way. I'm just saying that it's a very common practice and has been around since the dawn of filmmaking.

Personally, I'm for whatever works.

Well, so far, thank you for your replies. This certainly has turned into a lively discussion. I'm anxious to hear about what else you all think.

As long as you are not stepping on dialogue you can give verbal cues. I hade to do this for an answering machine message. I read the script where the message would play, knowing it was going to be inserted over this, to help the actors with timing and their reactions to the message. Other times, when you don't want to use verbal cues, you can use hand signals, or have the actors count in their head. It all depends on the situation and what you are trying to achieve.

Don't forget to record room tone. ;)

OK. I didn't think this point needed much explaination but it seems I was wrong.

Firstly, like indie just said there are times when things need to be read in from off camera for timing purposes. He gave a perfect example.

Cues for timing in sequences, where that timing is vital to make the action work, and the actors can't cue off each other, can be done verbally or with hand signals.

None of the above instances constitute the director "calling in direction" during a take. In fact, on every set I've ever worked on it's the 1st AD that puts in the verbal cues. Simply because the 1st AD is usually relaying the second cue to the rest of the crew via his/her handset.

But, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about whether giving an actor direction about performance during a take is good directorial practice or not.

In my opinion it's not. It doesn't get the job done. In fact, I'll go further than that, it's a sign of a poor and egotistical director.

There are very good reasons for this and they are primarily to do with focus and attention. More than any other kind of acting, film acting is about focus. In close ups, in particular, we are so on top of the actor that we are aware of changes in their thinking. If an actor mentally changes their atention from the person in front of them to the sound they hear behind them, even if they don't turn round, we are aware of the shift. This is true of every moment within a piece of drama. Every actor on set is on their own personal journey through the story. Their attention is supposed to be within that world. If you have two characters interacting and the director starts calling in direction then their attention isn't on each other, it is on the director. This changes the quality of the acting from deep inner truth to a superficial puppet show and in film that is immediately obvious.

The other reason that it is bad directorial practice is because actors are part of the creative process and by putting their own interpretation onto a piece they add new dimensions to the story. A good director understands this and keeps quiet, because 99% of the magical moments on screen happen by accident or chance, when an actor trancends the role and does something unexpected. The director's job is to nuture that process and the best way to do that is to shut up, watch and listen. There isn't anything that a director can say to an actor when they're working that can't wait. There is always another take.

Another problem with giving direction during a take is that it is broadcast to everyone on the set and that's just not good practice either, good communication with an actor about their role should be done one to one, away from everyone else. It particularly shouldn't be done within the hearing of other actors on set. They shouldn't be aware of the inner processes of any role but their own.

The problem with many directors is that they have no real understanding of acting as a process or of actors. This leads them to give poor quality direction. Calling in direction during a take is demonstration of poor directorial skills. It leads to bad work. It does not get the job done. It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what the job is and I don't care if everyone in Hollywood does it, it is poor practice and no subsititue for real direction.

Firstly, like indie just said there are times when things need to be read in from off camera for timing purposes.

Um, (tap tap tap) is this thing on? Here's my comment from earlier:

It's really not that unusual, particularly with scenes involving very specific timing.

I didn't give a specific example, but like you say, I didn't think any further explanation was necessary.

But, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about whether giving an actor direction about performance during a take is good directorial practice or not.

Are we? Gopher only said he thought it was odd to see a director shouting out directions to the actors or camerapersons during a take because it seemed like it would affect the audio. Since the shouting was also directed at a cameraperson, it's more than likely a verbal cue by the director or the AD, which we've all now acknowledged is not an uncommon practice.

So the question was about production sound, not about how the relationship between the director and actor should manifest itself on the set.

that directors tend to call out directions to the actors or camerapersons whilst acting is occuring

I see what the problem is. It's a language thing.

You're talking about cueing and I'm talking about direction. If you'd written "Directors sometimes need to cue actors or cameras during a take and the sound is taken out in post" I would have understood the point you were making.

Is this a USA/UK production language thing? On a UK set "calling out direction" would mean exactly that "The director working on the actor's performance, blocking or talking to the DOP about composition or framing"

The process you're talking about we'd call cueing.

If you use "direction" to mean both and that's a USA thing I apologise. I've learnt something.

Oh, and I'm not convinced that your interpretation of the original question is right. I understand that Gopher was asking how it would work techically, which had been answered. But, I felt that linked into that question was another about whether it was OK to give actors DIRECTION whilst the camera was rolling. I maybe wrong about that, but as this thread has proven language is tricky. Words don't have set meanings but usages and different people's perspectives on language give different interpretations. One of the key skills of a director is a ability to see the mulitplicity of usages of the same words.

If you use "direction" to mean both and that's a USA thing I apologise. I've learnt something.

In the US, direction is any kind of instruction the director gives the actors. If I tell them "Okay, wait until you get the news to pick up the phone," that's as much a direction as if I say, "Your mother just died but you're happy about it instead of sad."

That said, it's also not uncommon for directors to shout out performance direction. "Faster." "More intense." "Bigger." And so on. And if that process works for them, then it works for them. The director in Gopher's original question was Wes Anderson, and I don't think anyone would really criticize his methods given the consistently high performances of the actors in his movies.

That said, it's also not uncommon for directors to shout out performance direction. "Faster." "More intense." "Bigger." And so on. And if that process works for them, then it works for them. The director in Gopher's original question was Wes Anderson, and I don't think anyone would really criticize his methods given the consistently high performances of the actors in his movies.

I think every director finds their own way into the work and comes to it with a different agenda. If a director wants to work in that way, God Bless them. I still think it's a poor practice and nothing anyone can say will convince me otherwise. And I still hope that Bill Murray beat Wes Anderson half to death with a 2x4 for doing it. In my book it's just so disrespectful and egotisical.

i agree with clive

I still think it's a poor practice and nothing anyone can say will convince me otherwise.

At least you're open-minded about it. :lol:

At least you're open-minded about it.

You're right I'm not open minded about it. But that's not an opinion held for the sake of bloody mindedness, it's an opinion based on thirteen years professional experience of directing and training actors. Plus extensive professional experience as an actor myself.

As you can tell it's something that I get passionate about because I see hundred of filmmakers who can tell you the specifications of the latest three chip camera, but who've never read a single book on acting technique. In this country the vast majority of film schools give almost no teaching on basic directorial technique and as a result you have a genration of directors who are techno geeks with no real knowledge of drama.

If you talk to enough actors they will tell you that some of the most miserable acting experiences they've ever had have been in film, simply because the director didn't know how to work with them.

The truth of the matter is that the technical aspects of film production, although important, aren't anywhere as vital as the ability to create great drama, but, great drama is hard to achieve. The good news is that once you understand how to do that, the technical details are largely irrelevant.

Even in Hollywood this is true. Why did Nicole Kidman suddenly decide, against her agent's advice, to do Dogville with Lars Von Trier. It's because she's got to the point in her career where it has to be more than a big paycheck, it's got to stretch her as an actor. Most directors can't give that experience. Even the ones getting the huge paychecks.

I agree clive. While I'm quite fascinated with the technical side of making movies, the real fun is working with actors. Emotions are what I value most about film. The ability to impart emotion should always be one of the main goals in cinema - which of course can not be done with poor directing :).

You're right I'm not open minded about it. But that's not an opinion held for the sake of bloody mindedness, it's an opinion based on thirteen years professional experience of directing and training actors. Plus extensive professional experience as an actor myself.

And that's makes your approach to directing the only viable and professional one?

Whatever goes on behind the scenes, the work has to speak for itself. At the end of the day, if Wes Anderson gets a great performance out of his actors, I don't really care how he does it. He could have the worst relationship in the world with them, what matters is what's on the screen. And since this is Bill Murray's third film with him, the relationship can't be all that bad. Certainly the performances in those films are top notch, so I'd score at least one on the side of Anderson's approach, at least when it comes to working with actors.

I think this is the point where we agree to having different opinions and call it a day.

And that's makes your approach to directing the only viable and professional one?

He never said his approach to directing was the only viable and professional way. He was stating his opinion which he is intitled to.

He never said his approach to directing was the only viable and professional way.

Technically, you're right. What he actually said was that it was "poor practice," "disrespectful," and "egotistical."

I might agree with clive about his view on shouting out directions if I saw any evidence at all that it consistently resulted in bad performance. Otherwise, it's just an academic theory, whatever his experience on the set. But if you show that someone can use an approach and get good results and that the actors themselves respect that process, then how you can denegrate that method as anything clive says it is?

And the other interesting bit is the utter shutting out of even the possibility that this method might work well for some people, despite what is, at least in Wes Anderson's case, a very positive result.

Obviously that's Clive's opinion and the way he prefers to direct, simple as that.

Obviously that's Clive's opinion and the way he prefers to direct, simple as that.

I'm essentially telling Clive the same thing you're telling me, "Obviously that's Wes Anderson's opinion and the way he prefers to direct"?

The difference is that I haven't denegrated Clive's approach to directing the way he has Anderson's or anyone who shouts out direction.

I read this thread differently than you. The way I read it is Clive is passionate about his style of directing, and he disagrees with disturbing the actors while they are working.

I read this thread differently than you. The way I read it is Clive is passionate about his style of directing, and he disagrees with disturbing the actors while they are working.

And I don't have a problem with that. But why would you expect me to respect Clive's methods (and I'm not saying I don't) when he shows no such respect for others? Wouldn't your comment apply just as well to him as me?

Basically, what I don't understand is this: You're telling me that I should respect Clive's opinion when I'm the one saying that both methods can work and Clive is saying that one method is clearly better than the other.

Would it have been more acceptable if I had said that Clive's method was "disrespectful" or "poor directing," which is what he's said about Anderson?

:lol: I'm done in this thread.

Here's a story.
I get to set (director's house) and get ready to film the jailbreak scene for Macbeth 3000. I'm in costume, getting in character, going over the lines. Director has already dressed his basement (unfinished room) with "electical fence". We call the other actor again and find out he decided to go to work. Crap. Now here's where the problem starts. Me, being the writer and main character, have a lovely image of what is to happen. Unfortunately, the director refuses to postpone this scene. I refuse to butcher the script again. Unfortunately, we end up filming anyway. I'm pretty pissed, but that's ok- my character is too. Director calls over a buddy and we dress him up like a guard and have him escort me to the cell. After this point, since the script is out the window, I have no idea what I'm doing. So director rolls camera and starts shooting, telling me what to do over the camera.
Now... looking back.. it's one of the scenes where my acting is at it's best, because I look REALLY pissed off. Because I AM pissed off. Pissed off that my script is being mutilated and important comic jokes and character development are being excluded at the sake of whims... and even MORE pissed off that there is no faith in my ability and I'm being strung up like a puppet.
In the end, the scene turned out pretty good, and me and director are buddy-wuddy again... but production halted after that scene for a few months because of a quable between director and I. If we hadn't made up our differences and pressed on, the movie would've been trashed.
So I agree with Clive on the whole, unless the director desires the actor to be authentically pissed off at being used like a puppet. Cues are fine, but telling someone what to do on a consistent basis is the flaw of an ego-driven director.
It works much better if you explain the shot thoughouly in advance, rehearse, and take up issues in rehearsal. It's much more professional, and doesn't make the actor look like a tool, versus a professional doing his/her job.

That's my two cents.

Logan

PS- the scene originally had the actor playing Superdaiv (yes, Superdave Osborne reference) putting me in the cell and getting his fingers caught in the door right after Macduff (me) tries to convince him to join the good guys. In the script, Superdaiv's character relationship with Macbeth is revealed a bit more... but alas, now a guard who has no lines or comedy puts me in and nothing very exciting happens. That's just my opinion though...

Woah, woah, woah, I think people are getting a little misunderstood. I'm not referring to director saying, on camera, "Now say 'blah'... turn left, just a LITTLE more, now emphasize this next line...". In retrospect, I'm pretty srue what I was referring to cueing the actors and camerapersons, at least that is what Wes Anderson seemed to be doing. I hope that helps.

And thanks for the editing out advice.

Basically, what I don't understand is this: You're telling me that I should respect Clive's opinion when I'm the one saying that both methods can work and Clive is saying that one method is clearly better than the other.

The problem is not whether you accept both methods, it's the way you cannot accept that Clive's opinion differs to yours.

The problem is not whether you accept both methods, it's the way you cannot accept that Clive's opinion differs to yours.

Clive isn't any more accepting of my opinion on directing than I am his. So why am I the one being criticized for not accepting other opinions? Because most of you agree with him on the issue of the technique and are defending him for that reason. But imagine if I had said that anyone who doesn't smack the actors on the head in the middle of a take is a terrible and incompetent director and that no other method besides my head smacking technique works to get the best performance out of an actor. First of all, my method might very well work for me, but that doesn't mean that anyone who uses another method is a bad director; but that's what Clive is saying, that anyone who uses a technique he doesn't like is a bad director. Second, chances are most here would not only disagree with me but would strongly disagree. And that's okay. That's what discussions are about.

So why is it basically okay for Clive to disrespect other directors and their opinions but not for me to disagree with him? Would it really have been more respectful for me to say the same thing Clive has, that you're a bad director if you don't do it my way, than it is for me to say that I don't agree with that?

BTW, I too have worked for a number of years in the film industry. I started out as a professional director and have worked variously as a writer, director, and producer, and have won awards for directing. I've seen all kinds of styles of directing and have never seen a director made or broken over any one technique. I think we all use what more or less comes naturally to us. Some actors respond to certain methods, others respond to a different method. So I think it's absurd to suggest that any one technique, particularly a common one, is automatically bad in all circumstances.

So why is it basically okay for Clive to disrespect other directors and their opinions but not for me to disagree with him?

To be honest, Beeble, he never disrespected anyone. He stated an opinion, albeit strong, based solely on how he works. He never said anything like, "Any director who does this is an amateur and should be shot!" He simply stated that he felt that the process of directing actors mid take was disrespectful of the actors.

And you have a right to disagree with everything he says. The problem I see here is that he basically said, "Let's agree to disagree." and has not posted since. But you have kept at it.

My advice, drop the argument against clive, because I don't think he'll argue back.

what about what the director says? I guess my question is: Do they take out the callouts from the director in post, and if so how do they still maintain the original audio? Or do the mics just not pick up on the callouts? I'm quite confused :huh:

One thing no one has seemed to touch on (at least I haven't seen it) is ADR. I've also seen directors calling out directions to actors during takes and have come to the conclusion that on big productions like The Life Aquatic approx. 95% of the dialogue is done through ADR.

Personally, I think I would fall on the side of letting actors get into the scene and direct them in between takes. Even if the shot has no dialogue or sound, a person yelling directions at them would seem to take awy the authenticity of the performance. I mean, I will probably get a better reaction from an actor if all the direction they get during a take is coming from inside them, and not from me standing ten feet away.

Poke

The problem I see here is that he basically said, "Let's agree to disagree." and has not posted since. But you have kept at it.

Obviously I have a lot to learn from Clive about how a respectful opinion is phrased.

At any rate, your method of directing is simply egotistical and poor practice and I hope that whatever actor you try it on hits you over the head with a 2x4; and even though directors have used your method effectively in the past, nothing is ever going to change my mind on this.

But let's just agree to disagree on that.

One thing no one has seemed to touch on (at least I haven't seen it) is ADR. I've also seen directors calling out directions to actors during takes and have come to the conclusion that on big productions like The Life Aquatic approx. 95% of the dialogue is done through ADR.

On big productions, most of the sound is replaced for a variety of reasons. On location shoots in particular, almost all of the sound is replaced because the production can't control the noise even under the best of circumstances. Also, sound is so enhanced and mixed and edited nowadays that production sound simply doesn't have the impact or range needed for a Dolby Super-mega Surround Sound Experience.

Hold on a moment guys. Beeblebrox is right.

I hold very strong opinions about directorial technique, which he has the right to disagree with. He is also perfectly within his rights to believe that I'm an arrogant fool for holding my beliefs.

So can we close this thread with these conclusions:

1) Clive really, really doesn't like directors who talk to actors during takes
2) Beeblebrox believes that Clive's an arrogant fool for holding that opinion and therefore doesn't deserve his respect.

I can live with these outcomes.

If I wanted everyone in the world to love me I wouldn't be a director, I'd be a Panda.

If I wanted everyone in the world to love me I wouldn't be a director, I'd be a Panda.

We definitely agree on that much, as I quite obviously have no desire to win any popularity contests. Heck, I didn't even agree to disagree. ;)

But for the sake of the pandas, I think we've pretty much said what can be said.

Alfred Hitchcock was particularly fond of this method when a scene required perfect timing.

Ahoy there Drew.

My god, Zoolio. Your signature has become a monster unto itself!

yes, you're quite right i'll go contain the beast

Interesting comments, and too bad they ended up with two very strong personalities clashing. I can see both their points.

I, for one, will give my actors "cues" to when to move if I think they are taking too long a "moment" when I know I have what I need. It happens more when the actor is not as accomplished as I need (which is the burden a low budget/no budget film has to bear.) If you have a great actor, I like the comments Morgan Freeman had of "what do you want from your director...? (answer)..."Get out 'da way." With Morgan Freeman, I plan to "get out 'da way."

On my shoot this weekend, I had a number of shots where the camera was moving and dialog had to occur just as the camera was done with it's move. I had the DP giving me hand signals which I was relaying to the actors. I am not sure how else I would have done it. I don't really consider that "directing" tho -

Two slighly unrelated examples:

-Because he never (or rarely) recorded source sound in his movies, Fellini used to play records of classical music in the background while the actors were acting - kind if the same technique, but didn't, as clive was describing, break the actors' concentration

-When James Dean was working on East of Eden, the actor who played his father had some tension due to the fact that Dean swore frequently, which the other actor found offensive. During scenes when their characters were fighting, Dean used to mutter cusses under his breath to piss off the other actor to make the scene more realistic


Hope this is relevant...