This subject came up in a movie discussion thread, and there seemed to be some interest in a separate discussion on the topic -- how do you direct actors into delivering the best possible performance? If your actors are your friends (which is so often the case) how do you get them to take you seriously? What techniques do you use to make your actors more comfortable and more in touch with the character?

Please, feel free to share your thoughts and experiences!

Working with actors is one of my favorite parts of the process of film making. In fact, I could easily give up film and do theatre. Writing and working with actors is my passion, the mdium I work in is just that, a medium.

One of the things that I've only just realised is a massive part of getting good work from people is good casting. I know that with experienced actors it's great to cast them against type, but with most performers putting a person into a role that feels natural to them is 90% of the battle. One of the most common forms of feedback i get from actors I've worked with is "I almost didn't need to learn the lines, it felt like the most natural thing in the world to say what I was supposed to say next."

The truth is that for most of my films I mentally cast before I write, and then I write the dialogue in the vocal style of the actor I have in mind. This is where working with friends is a real bonus, because the better you know someone the easier it is to write for them.

I think the next key to directing actors is to get them stood up and blocking the movement as soon as you can. I think reheasal time before the shoot is vital. Firstly because it give you a chance to tighten up the script, in my experience 30% of the dialogue either goes or changes in rehearsal.

In terms of getting good performances I think that the best thing to do is look at it slighly differently and see the process of directing as mainly about avoiding bad performances. What happens with an actor is simple, if they don't understand why or what they are doing or saying, they will try to cover that with whatever acting trick they feel most comfortable with. For instance, some actors will try to externalise the performance and you get very false facial expressions or wild hand gestures. Other actors just bluff their way through it and some just look terrified. Whatever they are doing the root problem is always the same, they are unsure of themselves and are thinking about the performance, rather than communicating with the other actors.

The first job of the director then is too recognise these "bad" performance moments, not as a failing of the actor's ability, but more a failure of understanding. Curing that failure of understanding is largely about talking one-to-one time with each of the cast members. I always to this one-to-one and not in a group, and I also emply what is know in the trade as the "shit sandwich" technique, which is, if you have to work on one problem in the performance, you start by telling the actor two things that you really liked about what they did before exploring the problem area. If you only ever give critical feedback, you undermine the actor's confidence and you'll get more and more bad acting as the actor's fear grows.

As acting is primarily about confidence, the more you build up your actors the better they do. One thing I think that is vital is at the end of each scene to take a few moments to talk to each of the actors and give them positive feedback about how well they did. Personally I don't diffentiate between extras and leads when I do this (Although I probably would if I was doing an epic), the truth is that more shots have been ruined by shoddy acting from extras in the back of shot than have ever been ruined by the leads. Giving attention to them is the key to ensuring quality control. I try to make my feedback specific, rather than just a quick "well done." Even for an extra I will say "Thanks for what you did in that scene, you don't know it but the way that you walked through shot on that last take was absolutley perfect timing for the composition that I wanted. I just wanted to thank you for that."

If you've got an actor who just can't get the line right and no matter how much you discuss it, it just won't happen, all is not lost. You have two choices, change the line or as an option of last resource show the actor how to deliver the line. Changing the line should only happen if the actor isn't changing the meaning. Sometime an actor will say things like "My character wouldn't say that." It's the hardest response to deal with, because my natuiral reaction is to say "Well I wrote the damn piece, and the character I wrote would say that." However, that is never productive so I generally go "Do you have another line in mind?" and see what happens. This isn't to say that I'm going to change the line, I'm just trying to find out what the actor thinks is going on. Often these moments are an indication that the actors has taken some aspect of script and built a character from it that isn't what you intended. On some magical occassions you see that the actor has a better understanding of the situation than you did, on others it's an opportunity to widen the actor's knowledge of the chracter and the role, allowing htem to make adjustments. This stuff has to happen in rehearsal, because there is nothing worst than hearing an actor say "Ah, now I understand what this character/film is about" two thirds of the way through shooting.

The last resort is spelling out exactly how you want the line delivered, the key to this is understanding that a spoken sentence in drama should only have one word emphasised.

So you can say:

"I TOLD you", or "I told you", or "I told YOU"

Where you place the emphasis changes the meaning. In a situation where you are running out of light and the actor isn't getting it there is no choice but to take them to one side and say, I want you to put the emphasis on the word TOLD.

In those situations I always take the actor to one side after the scene and apologise for having to be so direct in my direction and explain that the time was an issue. I know some actors find this way of working insulting and I can understand that.

The only other thing I would say is that the real key to directing actors is learning to let go of your need to control every aspect of the film and learning to enjoy what happens when other people bring their creative input to a film.

Actors need the director to be like a great Dad, someone they can trust to help them do great work and who will support them when they need it, but who gives them enough freedom to express themselves.

There's a lot more to this, but this will do for the moment.

Clive, thanks for the write-up! Lots of great ideas in there.

It all starts at casting. If they can't adjust to your direction at the casting stage then you will never really get what you want during the shoot. Usually people improve a bit but that's about it. Some actors are loose canons and give different performances every time; I hate those types! Keep in mind that you will have a vision of what the character is supposed to be, based on the script, but once a real human walks in the door it all changes and you have to have an open mind, but also be able to quickly decide if they fit the part or not.

how do you direct actors ?

I use an electric cattle prod and a bullwhip. if they don't do what I want when I want it, they get the business.

http://www.sonnyboo.com/images/sarcasm.gif

Morgan Freeman was once asked, "What do you want from a Director?" He answered "Git out 'ta way."

If I had an actor on the set like Morgan Freeman, I would, "Git out 'ta way."

WC

Before 'on your feet' rehearsals begin, I like to have a table talk rehearsal with my actors. It's pretty common in theatre, but I haven't seen it too much on the films I've worked on as an actor. Basically, we sit around a table, read the script, discuss character ideas, motivation, subtext, relationships, problems, challenges. As the director, I go in with a good idea of where I'd like things to go, but I keep an open mind - very important - because I like to try to create a collaborative ensemble where everyone feels comfortable contributing and even disagreeing with me or each other. Experienced actors come to the table pretty much knowing the rules of how things should go. If you're working with newbies, you have to set the example. I think doing a table talk discussion before anything else is always helpful.

Before 'on your feet' rehearsals begin, I like to have a table talk rehearsal with my actors. It's pretty common in theatre, but I haven't seen it too much on the films I've worked on as an actor. Basically, we sit around a table, read the script, discuss character ideas, motivation, subtext, relationships, problems, challenges. As the director, I go in with a good idea of where I'd like things to go, but I keep an open mind - very important - because I like to try to create a collaborative ensemble where everyone feels comfortable contributing and even disagreeing with me or each other. Experienced actors come to the table pretty much knowing the rules of how things should go. If you're working with newbies, you have to set the example. I think doing a table talk discussion before anything else is always helpful.

I completely agree -- a script read through is an essential part of directing a film -- it's got so many uses -- not the least of which is giving the actors the opportunity to discuss their character. On a feature I'd devote at least a whole day to read throughs, before I even go to blocking and rehearsal.

The thing is, if you don't do this then there is a strong chance that the actors first experience of seeing the story in sequence will be at the premiere.

The other thing that is important about read throughs is it is the start of the relationship between the actor and director -- it's when as a director you start to get a sense of what the actor is going to need from you -- because for every Morgan Freeman who wants to be left alone, there are fifty other actors who desparately need input from their director.

The trick, however, is knowing what that input should consist of -- well, when I say trick, what I actually mean is skill, knowledge and experience.

If I'm honest, which I am, I'd say that in my experience there is no such thing as a bad actor, only bad directors.

Clive, how do you protect the actor's space from "external stressors" - noisy crew, noisy locations, and so on? I seem to constantly battle to protect the performance space of the actors. I've also found that the DP, Script Supe, and AD also ask actors to cheat around for lighting or for continuity which potentially confuses the direction I'm giving them. I ask my crew to relay requests to actors through me but inevitably the natural instinct is to ask the actors for adjustments directly, potentially altering the delicate chemistry of the actor's performance space/"bubble". On a couple of occasions I've called "clear the set except for actors" if I need to reset the "bubble", but I want a way that doesn't require temporarily removing most of the crew from the set.

Clive, how do you protect the actor's space from "external stressors" - noisy crew, noisy locations, and so on? I seem to constantly battle to protect the performance space of the actors. I've also found that the DP, Script Supe, and AD also ask actors to cheat around for lighting or for continuity which potentially confuses the direction I'm giving them. I ask my crew to relay requests to actors through me but inevitably the natural instinct is to ask the actors for adjustments directly, potentially altering the delicate chemistry of the actor's performance space/"bubble". On a couple of occasions I've called "clear the set except for actors" if I need to reset the "bubble", but I want a way that doesn't require temporarily removing most of the crew from the set.

I think there are a couple of different issues here -- and on many levels you can't protect the cast from the set environment -- I think that's one of the factors that makes film acting so hard.

One of the things you might ask yourself is whether you've put enough "Off Set" rehearsal time in -- the reason I say this is because a film set is a hard environment for an actor to develop their character or figure out how to do a scene -- if most of that work is done before the crew is even there, with just the director and the cast, then when it comes time to be on set, then all you're doing is making the action work for the camera -- in that case the distractions aren't so important.

The other thing that I do with my crews, in particular my key people, is I tell them early on that I don't want any instruction going in to the actors from anyone but me -- if there's any deviation from that during a shoot, I take the person to one side and gently remind them. I had a 1st AD, who was a director in his own right, who had a habit of calling in suggestions to actors about performance, I really put my foot down about that early on and it stopped. I think this is important, because howeverf well meaning the suggestion it can actually cause massive confusion for the actors if they're taking direction from mulitple sources.

Since this thread has been pulled out of the cobwebs, How do *I* direct actors? Well, poorly. That's why I now stick strictly to the technical side of things, and post. ;)

My technique is a little different since I often write the scripts myself. I break the age old rule "write what you can see, not characters thoughts." As I write I often visualize the movie in my head so if there is a specific emotion a character feels I don't hesitate in getting into the characters head. I don't write paragraphs mind you... just a sentence or two that gives the actor an idea of what their character is thinking. This helps on set because the actor then knows exactly where the character is emotionally. Doing this we then don't have to spend a lot of time on set going over it. They already know.

There's a lot more to this, but this will do for the moment.

You sound a lot like the good directors I've seen work.

For me two words... confidence and knowledge. I ahve seen many a director lead by the stunt guy, actor or whoever is the most powerful voice. Know what you want to do and put it across confidently like you are the only voice.

My technique is a little different since I often write the scripts myself. I break the age old rule "write what you can see, not characters thoughts." As I write I often visualize the movie in my head so if there is a specific emotion a character feels I don't hesitate in getting into the characters head. I don't write paragraphs mind you... just a sentence or two that gives the actor an idea of what their character is thinking. This helps on set because the actor then knows exactly where the character is emotionally. Doing this we then don't have to spend a lot of time on set going over it. They already know.

Same here. Glad to know I'm not the only one.

This is an interesting thread. I've only directed once (a short film) and have no real training (just hands-on experience), so i may have gone about everything entirely wrong. I cast the film mostly by finding actors who were similar to the characters. i figured going with type, it'd be easier to get them to do what the character would. all three of the actors needed different direction. one was very much "tell me exactly what to do and how to say it." another was "tell me 'why' my character is doing this and i'll do what they would do." and the third was supposed to be very wild and i actually used a lot of his outtakes in the final film as they were very raw and unexpected.

while this is an odd way of going about directing (i said, i have no real experience), it worked out amazingly well. having written the script, i knew what i wanted from the lines they delivered and if they didn't get the words right, but the meaning was there, i let it go. there were a few times where i did "fight" to get a specific performance, simply because it was necessary for the film. But mostly, if it was a good performance and in character, i'd let them play.

looking through the footage during edit, it was amazing how many takes we had on certain things and how few on others.

another thing i discovered was that one of the actors really responded to being on set (or in "the world") and his performace soared in that environment. he became his character and fed off the fictional world around him. not sure if that is often the case (or if any of this is remotely typical).

love to hear others' insight and personal experiences/techniques.

Not that this comment will mean much, but I would imagine that if they were your friends, they would understand how important it is to get in good performances and complete a movie worth seeing.

But I'm almost certainly being naive.

Hey everyone,

This thread is incredibly interesting!I'd like to add something that I find very useful when directing actors...I'm only a beginner as a director but for me, what works well is to direct with questions.

You know exactly what a line or action means, but by asking your actors about it is better. If you tell them straight away what you want, they won't take it in. But if you question them about it, eventually you will hear the answer you want to hear, and YES. You agree with them. This makes them feel like it was their idea, and they take it in much better. It also assures you that they understand it. At times, you may not get the responses you would expect or would like to hear, but this can be very positive. Because they can say things you never thought about and it works!Or things about your script you never knew about it and its true!So I find its very important to give a lot of freedom to actors in this sense...You would be suprised with what lovely ideas they can come up with...

Read throughs are essential. Spending an entire day just reading and talking about the script will really not only get them to understand it, but built a friendly relationship between you and the actors. I suggest you bring cookies and apples to first read throughs and rehersals. Making the atmosphere as homey as possible will make them feel much more confortable.

Something I did want to ask that I was not sure about is whether it is a good idea to bring a camera to rehersals? I've never done that, but somebody suggested it to me the other day. The reason why I've never done it is because I just want rehersals to be about their understandment of the story and performance. Its about the actor and not getting the shots right. But I'm not sure, I thought I'd ask here see what people think.

Thanks!

Alejandra xox

Hello all,

To see examples of my direction (writing and editing), please visit www.hauntedmovie.com and view clips from several movies and trailers there. Or visit www.youtube.com after a stonepatterson 'search'. I am not famous or rich or anything other then an individual who loves taking an idea from script to scream. Striving to have the best final production possible. So take the following with a grain of salt.

First -- I modify my script, directing and editing to fit the cast as close as possible (as the writer, director and editor I don't have to worry about the writer, director or editor's ego). Not working with proven or professional talent can be a plus if the actors feel comfortable within their character's skin and trust that you will not make them look weak in front of the camera. I rely on the strengths and weakness of the actor's individuality to make the scripted character feel (sound and look) 'real'. Adjusting dialogue as needed.

Next -- I use three cameras (DVcam allows me to use a lot of tape and not waste a lot of money) as often as possible -- in different angles maintaining the 'stage-line' . We videotape one or two 'laid-back' rehearsal sequences -- to let everyone know where they should or shouldn't be in regards to camera(s), location and other cast members. This bonus footage sometimes can be a great 'extra' for later use as actual footage or ambience and sound effects.

Third -- I let my actors act. I let them push the envelope while the material is fresh. We play with what is comfortable for each cast member in body language and dialogue. I bring them closer to character's dialogue and movements by reviewing what we have shot (and getting their feedback -- how can it be better and what doesn't work).

Fourth -- Keeping them in character really works because I shoot several shots at one time (up to a page/full minute of script). Three camera(s) also keeps continuity on target. We may do several sequences five or six times (moving cameras for a wide range of editing choices).

Fifth -- We move in to do close-ups and cut-a-ways last, (the cast is ready for such and confident with material of the sequence by this time). Eventually we get all the needed dialogue. One page/full minute of sequence shooting is a long time. But by having so much material to work with, as editor I have a lot of creative choices.

Sixth -- I shoot on the weekends -- all day Saturday and Sunday. I edit Monday through Thursday and author to DVD-R the edited footage (with or without music/FX). Cast gets to review that footage like a 'weekly' daily. By shooting in sequence as often as possible -- cast gets a solid feel of their character and movie pace. If we need to re-shoot, to add or alter anything we make the plans to do so (during the week or after a weekend shoot).

And Seventh (but not last) -- Having all that extra ambience, sound FX, footage, close-ups and cut-a-ways, as editor it is really easy to manipulate the best combinations of footage available.

Some may think this is cheating. There is no such thing as 'cheating' in the story-telling for me. You either get a believable story or you don't. My goal is to make my cast look good and tell the best story that I can.

Please visit and view the actors and stories. The actors are very good and a lot of fun to work with -- I cannot give them enough praise... would also like to hear any comments.

There are a number of methods that are used when directing actors. My personal experiences and belief on this subject sums it all up for me and they are that what works the best is doing what will yeild a more effective performance based on the type of actors you are working with.

When working with friends, relatives, friends of friends, relatives of friends, etc. and the list goes on from there, it is important to not only know exactly what you want, but to be able to communicate that in a way that non-professional actors can understand and to also maintain control of your set and your vision to ensure that the story does not go off on some other path. Friends, relatives, etc. may not take the production seriously because they are not concerned about a future career in acting and may be doing it for fun, so one of the most important things to do with this type of cast is to make sure that the production
time is being spent getting quality footage and performances and not spent goofing around, thus wasting valuable time and production money.

When working with children, it helps to take one of two approaches. They can be deprived of toys, food, television and any other enjoyment until they get the scenes right (This works best with relatives and one's own children. I would not recommend this for kids that you picked out of a casting call, because you could be sued by their parents) or they can be met at their level where you do whatever is necessary to get the desired performance. For example, offering the chance to watch a Hanna Montana DVD or playing a Wii game with a child in exchange for a stellar performance may help to get the scene done faster with all of the shots that you need. Also, directors that are in to that "goo goo, ga ga" baby talk could use that on set to bring out good performances in children...or at the very least, keep them from crying and running all over the set, throwing your props all over the place.

Professional actors are by far, the best actors to direct because there is no need to babysit them or cater to their selfish needs. They show up, get the job done and go on to their next project. There are tons of professional actors, even non-SAG actors who really enjoy the work that they do and take everything seriously as if it were their one and only role. Rehearsing is helpful beforehand, just to make sure that the director and cast members are all on the same page when it comes to how the storyline is going to play out. Also, giving them some tips and pointers on certain details about each character definitely helps as it can create some great performances. After a good rehearsal, it is usually easier to just shoot the scenes and let the actors act. Even if they mess up a line, some professional actors may pick up where they left off immediately, without you having to yell "cut" or telling them to do so OR they may adlib the scene and the resulting action or dialogue may turn out to work better than the original blueprint in the screenplay.

Overall, it all comes down to good communication. Directing actors should include clear communication...thats a good way to get the ideal performance.

Hey everyone, I had a wonder and would like to hear some suggestions.

I'm only a beginner, but usually the method I use for directing actors is by asking questions. I never tell them exactly why the character does certain things, I rather ask them about it, and let them find it themselves rather than me telling them. This way I feel they understand it better. However, if you find yourself with someone who still feels confused about his character, should I keep going by encouraging him to find out by asking further questions or should I be more splicit and tell him what it is, and explain to him why the character does certain things. I'm not sure if this would benefit the actors or not...Suggestions and ideas very welcome..!

Thank you

Alejandra xox :)

Hey everyone, I had a wonder and would like to hear some suggestions.

I'm only a beginner, but usually the method I use for directing actors is by asking questions. I never tell them exactly why the character does certain things, I rather ask them about it, and let them find it themselves rather than me telling them. This way I feel they understand it better. However, if you find yourself with someone who still feels confused about his character, should I keep going by encouraging him to find out by asking further questions or should I be more splicit and tell him what it is, and explain to him why the character does certain things. I'm not sure if this would benefit the actors or not...Suggestions and ideas very welcome..!

Thank you

Alejandra xox :)

Asking questions can work out great, as it helps to bring more collaborations that may work toward the film's benefit. If you are having trouble with an actor even after asking questions, that is the time to give that actor specific details about the character that you want him/her to portray.

I first trained myself as an actor. Took classes at my local college, and theatre at my highschool. I ended up getting a lead in Pride and Prejudice! (the father, Mr. Bennet). Anyway, from my experience, you never ever want to tell an actor how to act; that is why most actors hate it when directors "direct" them.

Here is my routine. I first tell them to get their lines memorized til its second nature. Then we work on blocking til thats second nature. I then share with them my vision. I let them rehearse a few times and only at the end do I tell them what I want them to correct. When we start getting serious and want to start shooting, or put on a little show on stage, I never correct them after that; I have already shared with them how I want to see it, so I must let them get there naturally. I tell them to be as natural and comfortable as possible, if you feel like hitting the wall, do it, what ever comes natural. 9/10 times I do this, I get the most natural performences.

Ae there any experiences to share while directing multiple star actors on the same film. What are the difficulties one faces or things to wary of .

I've worked with actors for about 25 years now, both on camera and on stage. Absolutely love it. I've also acted in several productions for different types of directors. Some of the lessons I've learned are:

1. Actors are not cattle. Despite Mr. Hitchcock's claim (which I suspect may have been made with tongue firmly implanted in cheek), it is not particularly effective to lead them into the parlor, milk them, then boot them out the other side.

2. It's extremely helpful to have stood in their shoes. Would you try to coach a sports team if you've never played the game?

3. Actors are individuals. Trying to direct every actor using the same technique is like trying to cook using the same seasoning in every dish. Garlic doesn't do much for apple pie. Be open to understanding the needs of each actor, then adjust your directing style to meet them.

4. Be respectful. It will be reciprocated.

5. Be open to input. Presumably you've cast each role carefully, based not only on an actor's look and skill, but on their creativity as well. It's fine to have a directorial vision, but only a true narcissist believes there's no room for improvement. Assuming an actor has a clear understanding of your vision and a professional demeanor, s/he will not waste your time with inappropriate suggestions. You are the filter. You may reject 90% of it, but that other 10% just adds more flavor to the mix.

I've worked with actors for about 25 years now, both on camera and on stage. Absolutely love it. I've also acted in several productions for different types of directors. Some of the lessons I've learned are:

1. Actors are not cattle. Despite Mr. Hitchcock's claim (which I suspect may have been made with tongue firmly implanted in cheek), it is not particularly effective to lead them into the parlor, milk them, then boot them out the other side.

2. It's extremely helpful to have stood in their shoes. Would you try to coach a sports team if you've never played the game?

3. Actors are individuals. Trying to direct every actor using the same technique is like trying to cook using the same seasoning in every dish. Garlic doesn't do much for apple pie. Be open to understanding the needs of each actor, then adjust your directing style to meet them.

4. Be respectful. It will be reciprocated.

5. Be open to input. Presumably you've cast each role carefully, based not only on an actor's look and skill, but on their creativity as well. It's fine to have a directorial vision, but only a true narcissist believes there's no room for improvement. Assuming an actor has a clear understanding of your vision and a professional demeanor, s/he will not waste your time with inappropriate suggestions. You are the filter. You may reject 90% of it, but that other 10% just adds more flavor to the mix.

I was going to write something, but I think you said exactly what I was about to type.

Directing actors is not an easy task. It requires having a lot of patience and being able to listen. You have to understand where your actor is coming from and why. It’s all about creating an environment where actors can feel secure and do their best work. Remember that a lot of them, even the most experienced ones, still feel nervous and confident when they are in front of the camera.
---------------------------------------------
Jenilopaz

(mod note - signature link removed. For premiere members only.)

I'm in the same boat as a few others on here. I write, direct, and edit. We've done two no budget comedies (one a dark comedy and one a romcom) and I try to just let things come out spontaniously. We'll rehearse, do readings, and I encourage paraphrasing and making the character their own. We do this for as many sessions we can pull off (I've been working with friends, friends of friends, craigslist classified actors, and all with some degree of theatre or performance background). Then there's somethings I'll have to hammer down a bit more to make sure my vision isn't dilluted.

So basically, most of my direction comes within the rehearsals. When a situation occurs when we have to shoot publicly (we shot our first "talking and walking down the street" shot for this last one) I'll just walk them through the location as they read lines. Then we shoot it until we have our shots and some back up just in case. With the romcom, we had a few people who had to cry on camera. That was rough, but you just have to be patient and know who you're working with. Try to figure out their personality and what you can do to encourage them into the right direction. When you're shooting an hour and forty minute feature with unexperienced actors, a sophmore no budget director, a few public settings, virtually no crew at all and all in four days you just have to roll with the punches and pull off some magic. lol

I think it's different for everyone. You just have to make sure you're working with people who are excited about the project and treat them like the talent you'd like them to be. If you want their best, do all thats in your power to give them the same.

Don't be too nice cast and crew will walk all over you.

*moved because this is an old thread.

The very first short film I wrote and directed was a disaster. Granted, I casted my friends. But I think it all comes down to how you treat them. I yelled quite a bit, and got really frustrated with them, because they were dicking around/not taking it seriously. I had a very clear vision of how I wanted my scenes to play out, and I refused to be flexible. So, when the actors didn't get it perfect (which was every take), I got angrier and angrier. I think I also walled myself in by creating impossible standards. I did not write a script that was taylored to my resources. I wrote a script that needed oscar-worthy actors to be effective.

So, my advice is NOT to make the same mistakes that I did. If your actors are your friends, kindly let them know how much the film means to you. Let them know that you need full committment. More often than not, they will understand and help you. Or they'll let you know if they can't fully commit, in which case, you can cast someone else for their role. When on set, don't yell or get frustrated. Don't set impossible standards for them either. Work with them. Do as many takes as you need. Be flexible, and take input. Coach them into their roles. Work around their personal needs. Adapt to their personalities. Film making should be an enjoyable experience. Even if you don't nail one of your films, there's always the next.

Well, I work a lot with teenagers and children, but I always feel I get the best performances out of them that I can. My first aim is to always get them spending time together, as on-screen chemistry for me is the most important thing. If possible, I'll cast two actors who are already friends, and the results are always a lot more fresh and real.
I also want to keep it happy and fun on set. Most of the people I work with are actors/aspiring actors so they're serious about what they are doing, but it's so important to have a laugh to keep the energy up.
Hopefully, when we have enough time, we do a couple of read-throughs before blocking, that way they can really understand the character. And when I give directions I always make myself sound excited, passionate and animated (even if I'm exhausted and just want to get gone) and hopefully this is rubs off on them, particually young children.

Obviously, I'm not a professional. I'm still a teen myself, been directing my own films for around four years and constantly learning. This thread has been extremely useful.

I've been thinking about the difference between directing non-professional actors and professional actors. I think both groups have the potential to give honest performances, but I think you can end up doing more with trained actors.

Trained actors can memorize lines while your friends can't. I think this is one of the biggest differences. As soon as an untrained actor strains to remember lines at the right places, he flounders. He gets stressed out, the performance turns completely unnatural.

With my friends, I can decent performances just through general direction. I tell em, "follow the emotional structure of the scene as closely as you can, but don't worry about delivering the lines exactly as they are. Improv if you want to." I play through the scene many times in many different angles and about 80 percent of the footage is unusable. Through cherry-picking the best parts in editing, I can stitch together a scene with actual flow; I've written about this about a million times on this forum, so I'll save you the in-depth explanation, but it works.

Just watch Ebony and Ivory http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWLFnHPAB7I&feature=channel_page These are untrained actors, we went through the script real quick and I gave them a general outline of the flow of the scene, each of their objectives and so forth and it works.

With trained actors, I think you can get more polished performances and better lines because you can really go in depth of the flow of the scene. You'll see many more tiny emotional transitions and creative choices. Trained actors can process and creatively interpret direction too. Watching Ebony and Ivory compared to Dave Hall's Sexual Perversity in Chicago http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGWTV0Pwf48&feature=channel Dave Hall is a senior student and one of the more talented students in our program at Point Park University. This was a directing project, obviously a lot of time went into breaking down the scene and rehearsing with actors who understood some of the principles of acting.

I don't think you can spend a lot of time dissecting a scene with a non-actor, because I think the more he thinks about the lines, the less he is able to forget about them. You can't go about directing the way you can with actors because an actor is trained to do digest lines and then deliver them without thinking about the lines, but of the circumstance and the other actor's intent. I believe the most valuable aspect to a performance is the honesty and I think that as soon as a non-actor tries to be an actor, he loses that honesty.

So, my approach is completely different depending on the experience of the actor.

Basically, make yourself in charge but don't make them hate you. If they get out of line, make sure you pull them back on track but don't be so hard on them that they can't stand you. If they are your friends, do the same. Let them know that you are in charge and there is an agenda that needs to be followed. Any good actor will understand when it is time to be focused.

In charge comes from Confidence, not cockiness :)

How do you direct actors into delivering the best possible performance?
I agree with a lot of what has been said on this forum and in some cases I will echo words.
As the writer, director & editor, I cheat to the actor's benefit whenever possible. First I cast for similarities. Then write to fill in the personality traits of the character based upon listening and watching the actor as he/she reads the 'rough' dialogue (I believe in getting the entire main cast together for a full script read before production starts). I want the actor(s) to feel comfortable in the character's skin with dialogue and body movements -- I believe in giving the actor room to act and recreate (if needed) the character's image/persona within the story line. I want the actor's to have the freedom to act -- even to the point of allowing them to add to the character's back story. I am not a strong arm director. I respect those that I work with and see them as equals. I appreciate that they are willing to work with me on any and every project. After a walk through on location, I use three cameras -- shooting one to three minute takes when possible -- rearranging cameras for different angles and lighting as needed through several takes. I keep location clear of non essential cast/personal, thus the importance of procurring and contracting use of all locations in advance. I do not want my cast's concentration distracted. I have found that the earlier takes are fresher and more believable then later takes. By having three cameras running with ample visual and audio ambience recorded, I can get the best of each actor in the editing. I try to get my close-ups and medium shots early while the actor's lines are fresh. Cutaways and object shots last. I listen and I watch my actors carefully (praising often) -- as director, in my humble opinion, that is an important part of making the story believable. The listening and watching. I try to get the cast to do the same -- hearing and seeing in every shot as if for the first time. It may seem redundent, but I learn from listening and from watching people. Just as I learn dialogue from listening and watching those around me on a day to day basis where ever people are that I am at. I constantly take notes too. Hope this helps.
In regards to working with friends and family.
I tried having close-friends and family as actors and it was almost a total disaster. Almost all of my actors are not from my personal 'group of friends'. The actors I have been fortunate enough to work and continue to work with, have become sort of 'working' friends. We stay in touch because we enjoy the creativity of what we do and strive for.
Hope this helps -- everyone works in different ways. I personally try to work as fast as possible with plenty of footage to edit with -- I have not made a lot of films but I have found the way I work is efficient.

80% of directing is casting. :) That's all I have for now. I'm going to read what you all wrote, and I'll get back with you in detail.

As I said above, directing is 80% casting. When I say this, I don't just mean the 'type' or 'look' or 'personality'...I mainly am talking about straight-up talent...skill. If you cast a GOOD actor, more than half the battle with character, blocking, action, reaction, and overall choices are already brought to the table when shooting begins. The difference between casting an experienced actor and a random friend is night and day. And really, the goal of independent filmmakers is to befriend the talented actors, and keep them coming back.

When you hire a bad actor, you just have to understand that most of this bad performance will be handled in the editing room (you can also use reaction shots more often if the other actor is decent enough). There are so many techniques to directing, it’s really hard to create a definitive guide…at least not in a single post.

As an actor who has worked in the craft for over 15 years, I’ve had the chance to work on many stage productions, and dozens of shorts and features. Every now and then you'll run into a real bastard of a director...these are the ones I personally avoid, no matter how good the production...don't get me wrong, it's good to have a LITTLE bit of bastard in a director...for the most part though, most directors are harmless, safe, and easy to get along with. These are usually the ones that don’t try and mold an insanely complicated character from an actor…especially an actor that simply can’t absorb ideas and direction and realistically, lucidly play these ideas and concepts. Most indie, unknown directors don’t want to over-step their bounds…whatever that means—they know no one is being paid, and they feel ‘lucky’ to have their entire production cast. Personally…I think this attitude is bollocks. Directors should take responsibility for who they cast, and how they massage out of the script, the character they envision.

First thing you want to do is cast someone you trust…someone you’re confident will bring to the production something fresh, highly workable, and interesting. You have to trust they will ‘understand’ where the script is coming from. And if you don’t know this, at least know that they will be mold-able.

A director can gently nudge an actor during takes to get what they want. This may mean telling them a story, giving a backstory, explaining to the actor what just came previously, or in the best cases the director will tell the actor an action or emotion they want them to play that does NOT relate directly to what the director wants. This technique is usually employed by veteran directors, but is also being taught at a handful of schools around the world. What this technique does is get the actor to move, feel, and play to the camera the way the audience is meant to see it, without clogging up the actor’s processes. Instead of saying, “You’re so in love with her. You’ve realized you want to be with her forever, and you don’t know how to handle that. You’ve just made love for the first time and you’re so emotional you’re almost in shock” OK OK…instead of throwing all of that to the actor, why not say, “You’ve just made love to the women you want to marry, and you’ve suddenly become very cold, and begin to shake.”

Directors have to be creative about how they pull performances from actors. You can’t always just tell them what you want…you have to understand how actors think, as well as how the audience will perceive an action. Crafting what you want can be as easy as breaking it down into movements and blocking…tone…however you want to get that tonality is up to you. Have the actor play something entirely different, as long as it PLAYS appropriately to the camera and audience.

I could write a book on this, but I’ll save you the painful read. I’ll end by telling you what I like in a director…I like a director that trust what they cast for one…second, I like a director that gives a breakdown of the character, and then allows an actor to play with what they feel is right—either at rehearsal or during actual takes. If the director then sees that they want something different, I like a director that feels free to express what they want, and if they aren’t getting what they want, they can creatively bring the performance out of the actor. Thirdly, I like a director that will pull aside an actor if they just can’t get what they are looking for…no need to make an actor feel incompetent in front of the entire cast and crew. Fourthly, I like a director that says ‘Nice job, looking good. Good take’ after a take…I don’t need high praise…but I do want to know if that’s a good direction I’m going with the scene. Saying nothing after a take is brutal for actors. Know that. Remember that. You don’t have to stroke our egos…you simply have to approve or disapprove. Anything. And lastly, please don’t give a line reading, unless you’ve tried all other methods. Make sure you exhaust all your techniques before you give that wonderful line reading some of you love to give…trust me, a good actor will ASK for a line reading before you have to force it. :

Thanks everyone for reading.

I just finished 8 weeks of rehearsal for a 1 day, 5 page shoot. Each of the actors has different needs and ways of working. I look at it solely as a collaboration where we explore the lines, what they really mean, what the character wants from moment to moment and how we can play with the delivery and physical manifestations of their feelings.

Directing is getting in the moment with the actors and creating that safety net where we can play. This is why I won't work with non-actors as much as possible. I want people who understand the craft of acting and enjoy really getting into the moment and feeling very real emotions to the situations.

I just finished 8 weeks of rehearsal for a 1 day, 5 page shoot. Each of the actors has different needs and ways of working. I look at it solely as a collaboration where we explore the lines, what they really mean, what the character wants from moment to moment and how we can play with the delivery and physical manifestations of their feelings.

Directing is getting in the moment with the actors and creating that safety net where we can play. This is why I won't work with non-actors as much as possible. I want people who understand the craft of acting and enjoy really getting into the moment and feeling very real emotions to the situations.

The best actors I know are all non-union. Contrary to popular belief, the majority of SAG actors do nothing but background work, with only a few examples of speaking roles on their resume (which they got when they were non-union). Most of the non-union actors (at least on the east coast) have much more experience than SAG actors. Union means precisely dick when it comes to chops and professionalism. Excuse the French.

You just have to find the good ones, and keep them coming back.

And Sonny! What the hell are you rehearsing so much for a 5 page shoot? You're going to burn your actors out, not to mention stifle their performances. The professional actors you elude to using can handle that easy--all they need is an hour or so to go over the scene with each other...mostly for blocking and major choice matching. Most film actors--if they are pros--show up to set ready to go without a single rehearsal run...most of the directors I work with do very little rehearsal...but now'adays I'm not sure why...rehearsing months before a film shoot has become a 'thing.' I don't think it's necessary. I can understand how a massive dialog scene could use a few hours rehearsal...or a major action sequence needs choreography practice and stunt runs...but 8 weeks for a 5 page shoot? Who are you doing that for? Your actors or your crew? :) Because actors don't need that.

You're going to burn your actors out, not to mention stifle their performances.
Actors don't get burnt out from rehearsals - they get burnt out from trying to guess what a director wants. Every actor, though they may not need it, ALWAYS appreciates having the chance to rehearse as much as possible. I cannot even fathom how being prepared (via rehearsals) would stifle an actor -- that's just a crazy statement.

im still a newbee in directing but when ive made videos with friends. to make them shut up and do what i want them to do i change my personality from an easy going, funny guy to a serious assertive monkey.
the change in personalityy helps them not think im the same person to muck around with and to take me seriously.
:)

And Sonny! What the hell are you rehearsing so much for a 5 page shoot? You're going to burn your actors out, not to mention stifle their performances. The professional actors you elude to using can handle that easy--all they need is an hour or so to go over the scene with each other...mostly for blocking and major choice matching. Most film actors--if they are pros--show up to set ready to go without a single rehearsal run...most of the directors I work with do very little rehearsal...but now'adays I'm not sure why...rehearsing months before a film shoot has become a 'thing.' I don't think it's necessary. I can understand how a massive dialog scene could use a few hours rehearsal...or a major action sequence needs choreography practice and stunt runs...but 8 weeks for a 5 page shoot? Who are you doing that for? Your actors or your crew? :) Because actors don't need that.

These are some of the best actors I've seen in other things, but we needed it all. Yesterday we did the shoot and it showed we rehearsed and explored the script and got it where it needed to be. We'd spend 2 hours lighting a shot and then only have time for 2 takes. I know I got what I wanted from it and so did they because we rehearsed it well without killing it.

You don't blow out the performance with all-out rehearsals every week, you just EXPLORE the characters, the lines, the interaction, the moments, the blocking, and just try to find out what works and doesn't in a scene... in rehearsal so you don't find out it doesn't work on the set with a crew waiting. Maybe once or twice at the end of the process do you do any full out performances. It's more about finding something there for everyone, actors and director.

It was entirely worth it to do 8 weeks of rehearsals, at least for me (and these actors). With everything technical going on on set, this was how we worked out every kink, every line, and we still had some new moments on set.

Theater actors are used to this kind of thing, but acting for the camera means pulling the performance down a lot, but the "work" and the rehearsal means deeply getting embedded in a character.

Actors don't get burnt out from rehearsals - they get burnt out from trying to guess what a director wants. Every actor, though they may not need it, ALWAYS appreciates having the chance to rehearse as much as possible. I cannot even fathom how being prepared (via rehearsals) would stifle an actor -- that's just a crazy statement.

Well. What do I know.

I've been acting for over 15 years...and all of the FILM actors I know get annoyed, and never seem to benefit from OVER rehearsing. Film is different than stage. This is the first thing we must understand if we want to continue with this discussion.

I cannot even fathom how being prepared (via rehearsals) would stifle an actor.

With all due respect, are you an actor? I'm do not at all mean to be an ass here...but are you? Trust me...over-rehearsing an actor--especially a film actor--is stiffling. Granted some actors are different than others, but most of the actors I know want freedom...and when FILM directors ask FILM actors to rehearse like crazy, it adds something unnatural to the gumbo, and thwarts progression. It's hard to explain. Basically, over-working anything as an actor can be detrimental. Yes, certain shows (on stage) require a lot of rehearsal...but again, stage is different than film...totally different beast, and we won't go there.

You have to ask yourself as a film director...why am I asking my actors to rehearse as if it was a stage production? A film actor comes to set prepared...ready with the character...ready with multiple ideas. When you have them continually rehearse THE choice that's been made, it will create an over-played feeling for the actor, and consequently, for the audience. As an extreme example, what about an emotional crying scene...would you have the actor play that out in full everytime? Of course you wouldn't...you want to save some of that energy for the performance. Well, this is sort of the same thing for a film actor. You want to go over the scenes, so that the choices are clear, and then you want to let the actor run free. If they've been rehearsing for weeks...they feel like they can't even budge with their performance. They will begin playing the character like a carbon-copy everytime (at least a lot of actors tend to do this)...and this is not what you want. You want organic and fresh...and over-rehearsing doesn't allow for an organic feel.

Another reason plays have such an extensive rehearsal, is because they are insanely dialog heavy, in addition to the fact that the actors must play out the entire piece in one go. Film on the other hand is a completely different beast. Film isn't all about talking...it's a lot about visuals as well...telling a story not just by verbage, but by visuals...a moving painting. This usually means the dialog sequences are not as intense. Secondly, a film is broken up in many days of shooting (usually a feature is done in 15-30 days depending on the production company). And most professinal production companies give out a detailed shooting schedule. This means that actors don't necessarily have to memorize their entire part...they can work the script, make their choices, and get completely comfortable with the scheduled days they are needed. That is why stage-based rehearsing is not necessary for film...

I could go on and on...but it's kind of silly. If this isn't clear to a film director...than I don't think my explaining is going to help. Film has been handled this way for many many decades...why start treating it like stage now? There is no need. Don't get me wrong here...I DO agree with rehearsing here and there for key dialog scenes or big action sequences...but overall...a good film actor comes totally prepared to the set with many ideas which the director can mold on the fly if need-be.

Thanks.

Film has been handled this way for many many decades...why start treating it like stage now? There is no need. Don't get me wrong here...I DO agree with rehearsing here and there for key dialog scenes or big action sequences...but overall...a good film actor comes totally prepared to the set with many ideas which the director can mold on the fly if need-be.




I think an important thing to note is that you're speaking for yourself and the actors you know, but not every film actor shares this point of view. Far more importantly, many directors do NOT share this point of view, as people like Francis Ford Coppola goes through EXTENSIVE rehearsal periods before filming with the actors.

I agree that some actors are better at just showing up and doing it without rehearsal, but the problem lies in that it may not be what I want as a director and on set I have very little time to explore and try to get the best performance for the movie and I can get stuck with something that doesn't work. The rehearsal process is a way to work around that, at least that appears to be the most obvious answer for avoiding that problem. Fixing it "on the fly" is not something most actual film directors get the luxury of because of time constraints, so again - how to overcome that problem? Rehearsal.

If I'm dealing with an actor who can't rehearse a lot or can't replicate a great performance over and over again like a xerox machine; I can't use that kind of actor, nor can any editor I know of. In my experience rehearsing a lot for any movie tends to yield better results as opposed to worse. I've been directing/editing for 10 years professionally as my sole income, but I must re-iterate that every actor is different and requires different levels of attention and process to do what they do. If you're as good as you say you are, then I probably wouldn't need to rehearse as much because you'd know exactly what I want.

To each his own!

I think an important thing to note is that you're speaking for yourself and the actors you know, but not every film actor shares this point of view. Far more importantly, many directors do NOT share this point of view, as people like Francis Ford Coppola goes through EXTENSIVE rehearsal periods before filming with the actors.

I agree that some actors are better at just showing up and doing it without rehearsal, but the problem lies in that it may not be what I want as a director and on set I have very little time to explore and try to get the best performance for the movie and I can get stuck with something that doesn't work. The rehearsal process is a way to work around that, at least that appears to be the most obvious answer for avoiding that problem. Fixing it "on the fly" is not something most actual film directors get the luxury of because of time constraints, so again - how to overcome that problem? Rehearsal.

If I'm dealing with an actor who can't rehearse a lot or can't replicate a great performance over and over again like a xerox machine; I can't use that kind of actor, nor can any editor I know of. In my experience rehearsing a lot for any movie tends to yield better results as opposed to worse. I've been directing/editing for 10 years professionally as my sole income, but I must re-iterate that every actor is different and requires different levels of attention and process to do what they do. If you're as good as you say you are, then I probably wouldn't need to rehearse as much because you'd know exactly what I want.

To each his own!


Each actor is different...as is each director. Of course. I was simply stating that in my experience (over 15 years), most of the actors and directors I've worked with don't hold lengthy rehearsal periods. Why? Well, I think for some of the very reasons I stated earlier. You don't need to.

As I said before, plays are rehearsed for weeks and weeks...that's because there is no 'cut, let's do it again.'...you have to get it right the first time through. That's the huge difference between film and theater.


If I'm dealing with an actor who can't rehearse a lot or can't replicate a great performance over and over again like a xerox machine; I can't use that kind of actor, nor can any editor I know of.

So, you can't use an actor unless they can ball their eyes out as intensely the 8th time as they could the first time? Well...you're going to have a hard time finding an actor to work with then. We aren't machines. Yes, for the most part, I can duplicate a performance once we've settled on how it's going to be played...and for the most part this is important for matching and continuity...but that's different than asking an actor to rage with tears the same way 15 times. And there isn't any level of rehearsing that's going to help with that. Most of us just can't do it.

Look...to each is own. I know that. But out of the dozens of directors I've worked with in film...not a single one required more than a weeks rehearsal. And out of the hundreds of film actors I've worked with, very few would have benefited from massive rehearsal.


The rehearsal process is a way to work around that, at least that appears to be the most obvious answer for avoiding that problem. Fixing it "on the fly" is not something most actual film directors get the luxury of because of time constraints, so again - how to overcome that problem? Rehearsal.

If you have time for rehearsal...you have time to mold a performance on the fly. That makes little sense.

Thanks guys. I love hearing each of your experiences and ideas. Cheers.

Maybe a defining of terms here would help, 8 weeks of rehearsal is sort of vague; was it once a week, every day, every weekend, etc? Were all of the rehearsals, well, "rehearsals" as opposed to something like a short character discussion meeting over coffee or some other simple table discussion. 8 weeks sounds like a long time, but it could easily have been 8 sessions of a couple hours just spread out to accommodate schedules - that happens all the time.

Speaking as a novice who will probably not have the benefit of actors with a great deal of experience for a while, I can see the benefit of a middle ground here. I wouldn't try to burn folks out on a ludicrous schedule - but unless I spent some time working the material, exploring options and the ideas the actors are bringing to the characters *I* would feel unprepared to go into production.

If you have time for rehearsal...you have time to mold a performance on the fly. That makes little sense.


Rehearsals are done BEFORE the shoot when there isn't money rolling through a camera and an entire crew is waiting and you have multiple setups to get done in a day. Molding a performance, especially anything with complexity and depth, takes more than a few seconds or minutes on a set with everyone waiting to mold, at least in my experience.

So having time BEFORE the shoot versus on the set are completely different time schedules (since one takes place during a hectic shoot and the other in a safe, easy environment of your choosing). This makes pretty simple sense to me, not sure why that would be confusing.

Maybe a defining of terms here would help, 8 weeks of rehearsal is sort of vague; was it once a week, every day, every weekend, etc? Were all of the rehearsals, well, "rehearsals" as opposed to something like a short character discussion meeting over coffee or some other simple table discussion. 8 weeks sounds like a long time, but it could easily have been 8 sessions of a couple hours just spread out to accommodate schedules - that happens all the time.

Speaking as a novice who will probably not have the benefit of actors with a great deal of experience for a while, I can see the benefit of a middle ground here. I wouldn't try to burn folks out on a ludicrous schedule - but unless I spent some time working the material, exploring options and the ideas the actors are bringing to the characters *I* would feel unprepared to go into production.


Yes, one night a week for 2 hours for 8 weeks. Some rehearsals were just 2 of the 3 actors to work on their chemistry and scenes alone with me.

Rehearsals are done BEFORE the shoot when there isn't money rolling through a camera and an entire crew is waiting and you have multiple setups to get done in a day. Molding a performance, especially anything with complexity and depth, takes more than a few seconds or minutes on a set with everyone waiting to mold, at least in my experience.

So having time BEFORE the shoot versus on the set are completely different time schedules (since one takes place during a hectic shoot and the other in a safe, easy environment of your choosing). This makes pretty simple sense to me, not sure why that would be confusing.

This is called 'indie talk' right? How many of us here have thousands of dollars 'rolling' through the camera on set every day? I would guess not many. I would guess the majority of us here have time to play around on set with minor character development and director choices. As I said before, any actor worth his salt is going to come prepared with multiple ideas, so there really doesn't have to be a ton of time wasted. Usually, the director watches what the actor brings, and then nudges them accordingly...it's not a huge waste of time, it never is...and usually you'll always get good stuff out of what a good actor brings forthright.

Now, of course when we delve into 'big budget' films...where millions are being spent a week...well...do whatever you think is necessary. But I'm guessing less than 1% of accounts on Indietalk are shooting with millions of dollars. And actually...when you think about it...big budget films with name actors don't have rehearsal time. The actors come prepared with a character, and like I've suggested, they mold them on the fly. 'Let's see what you've got'...ACTION! CUT. 'Good good...now let's try something a little more...' That's how it gets done. I don't know any set (no, micro, low, or big budget) which holds extended rehearsals.

Not that you're a bastard for holding them...lol...not at all. Just remember...this is film...not theater.

Not that you're a bastard for holding them...lol...not at all. Just remember...this is film...not theater.

I have never been involved in theater, and as I mentioned, I'm a professional with a decade of experience as a director. Shoots that have even tens of dollars in the budget still get under the crunch of time and with time being the most valuable commodity, I'd prefer to spend it on the technicals of filmmaking and spend the much cheaper free time on rehearsals working on the acting and performance, but I cannot speak for any other director than myself. I can say that I've worked with actors who audition well, but come to set unprepared, or just plain not good. With time in rehearsal, something can be culled. With no time on set, you're screwed and I'd personally not like to make a movie with subpar performances.

I can make a list of directors of the last 50 years that have had extensive rehearsal periods for big budget movies, but it seems we are at an impasse of opinion, and it's important to note that neither of us is ultimately "right" or "wrong" in a broad sense, as this is a very preferential thing.

I think you're coming at this from the persepctive of being a GOOD actor and being prepared, but quite frankly, not all (and most) actors are NOT prepared or necessarily good at what they do at the LOW BUDGET, NO BUDGET levels. Kudos to you and I think I'd love to meet more actors like you.

I've been acting for over 15 years...and all of the FILM actors I know get annoyed, and never seem to benefit from OVER rehearsing. Film is different than stage. This is the first thing we must understand if we want to continue with this discussion.
Just because I disagree doesn't mean I don't understand you. Yes, film acting is different than stage acting. Of course, it is. Very different. That fact does not necessarily preclude the need for rehearsals in preparation for a film role. Nor does it mean that all film actors feel stifled by rehearsals. In my experience, both stage and film actors appreciate and welcome the chance to rehearse as much as they can, in order to, at the very least, understand their role and the material better.
With all due respect, are you an actor? I'm do not at all mean to be an ass here...but are you?Yes, indeed I am, since the early '80s, though my focus is now filmmaking (still fairly new at that). Not that I have to back up my opinion, anyway. My opinions are just that... my opinions.
Trust me...over-rehearsing an actor--especially a film actor--is stiffling. Granted some actors are different than others, but most of the actors I know want freedom...
Trust me... rehearsals don't take away an actor's freedom. Rehearsals are simply an effective means to get them familiar with the material and stimulate their approach to making choices. Sure, an actor can improvise and wing it and get great results, but there's nothing wrong with having some solid ground for them to stand on.
You have to ask yourself as a film director...why am I asking my actors to rehearse as if it was a stage production? . . .You want to go over the scenes, so that the choices are clear, and then you want to let the actor run free. If they've been rehearsing for weeks...they feel like they can't even budge with their performance. They will begin playing the character like a carbon-copy everytime (at least a lot of actors tend to do this)...and this is not what you want. You want organic and fresh...and over-rehearsing doesn't allow for an organic feel.I don't see rehearsing for eight weeks as "over-rehearsing." It seemed obvious to me that wasn't an every day thing, and it also seemed (to me, anyway) a peculiar assumption of yours that Sonnyboo's eight weeks of rehearsals were just automatically, across-the-board excessive, before knowing the parameters and how the rehearsals were done.

I say that an actor's "freedom," achieving an "organic feel" to a performance, and being well-rehearsed are not mutually exclusive. A good actor with a reliable technique that works for her or him will be able to express a spontaneity and "freedom within the harness" (as my old acting teacher used to say) no matter how many times they rehearse. Every take will be alive and new because from moment to moment the actor is alive and new. I guess you would rather have them do 22 takes and pick the best one in post, but I'm an editor, too, and it is painful, literally, to have to sift through a gazillion takes and tons of footage to put the scenes together. Having your actors well-rehearsed beforehand eliminates a lot of the undisciplined or off-base on-set experimenting that will never get used. To me, it makes much more sense (and is more economical of time, $$, and resources) to have the actors arrive on set feeling confident and solidly knowing the material inside and out, and having already developed a sense of the director, and an understanding of how the director works and what she or he wants. That way, they are able to improvise and take off from that foundation as a jumping-off point, rather than showing up on set and doing it pretty much like a cold reading. I feel that it is not necessarily accurate to conclude that having many rehearsals per se will automatically get in the way of creative freedom. I think the lynch pin is always the actor's technique.
Another reason plays have such an extensive rehearsal, is because they are insanely dialog heavy, in addition to the fact that the actors must play out the entire piece in one go. . . . That is why stage-based rehearsing is not necessary for film...
Curious that you assumed eight weeks of rehearsing must be "stage-based rehearsing." Obviously extensive rehearsals don't work for you, but making blanket statements that all film actors are stifled or will be over-worked and robotic from a few weeks of rehearsals is a bit extreme. I can't even count how many times I've read or heard Hollywood actors say in interviews how much they appreciate having rehearsals, and how much they love-love-love the directors who give them the time to rehearse and be well-prepared before filming. In fact, I'd say that most film actors consider extensive rehearsals for a film a luxury that doesn't happen often enough. Can't name 'em, 'cause I forget who, but I've read or seen it numerous times. And most directors appreciate an actor who is able to be consistent and have a grasp on who their character is, even if big things change at the last minute on set. It's not a foreign concept -- preparation is a good thing.
Shoots that have even tens of dollars in the budget still get under the crunch of time and with time being the most valuable commodity, I'd prefer to spend it on the technicals of filmmaking and spend the much cheaper free time on rehearsals working on the acting and performance, but I cannot speak for any other director than myself.
Also a great opportunity to build camaraderie among the cast, before they get to the set. What you say makes perfect sense to me. Right now I'm in pre-pro for a short, and before I even read this thread, I knew I wanted to make sure I schedule a few weeks of rehearsals. The last fictional narrative project I did (another short) was difficult to edit because the acting was inconsistent. I had thrown together the project at the last minute and we hadn't had any rehearsals. I had a very small crew, and there was no one in charge of continuity except me, and I was also shooting and directing. One of my actors had great technique and was spot-on every take. No worries with him (he has since moved to Hollywood and I just know he's gonna make it big), but my other actor was very wild and improvisational. Though she stuck to the script, her delivery was so varied from take to take, and since I was directing, I missed some continuity mistakes she made -- so, trying to edit together her scenes was a nightmare. From my experience, as a filmmaker AND as an actor, rehearsals are meant to serve a need, and having many of them allows a variety of issues/questions to get addressed. For me, they will be a "must have" from now on. Glad to know it works so well for you, Sonnyboo.

.

It's good to see different directing styles. I've never done a rehearsal. I do a script read through and make sure the delivery of the lines is what I want. I like the magic to happen on the set. If I saw a magic moment in a rehearsal I'd just be pissed it wasn't being filmed :lol:

Also a great opportunity to build camaraderie among the cast, before they get to the set. Glad to know it works so well for you, Sonnyboo.


I like to build a relationship with the actors as a director. We find the character and the meaning of the lines together as an exploration and a team. Having a good rapport helps save time on set with a short hand and understanding of what we both mean. I would never presume to say that my every direction is clear to every actor and vice versa. I like to work out those kinks when the whole crew isn't watching which can make some (not every) actor nervous or distracted. I hate having my first direction to an actor be between a boom mic, a wireless lav, the 2 grips, a camera, a DP, the PA, and a tripod or dolly. How much trust does that build if we haven't already established a relationship somewhere, like I don't know... rehearsals? Not every actor, even good ones, can psychically know what it is I want as a director. Then again, I have worked with some actors who don't need rehearsals at all. It's very circumstantial, but the camaraderie and building of some kind of mutual respect between actors in rehearsal go a long way to helping make convincing relationships on screen.


I think if more filmmakers rehearsed, we'd see better acting in "indie" films...

Here's my perspective... at least in regards to the feature film I'm currently embarked upon....

So I'm the "writer/director" (and supporting actor) in the movie. Now, 2 weeks back I got my core crew and available cast together for a technical test shoot to make sure the two cams we have will synch up ok, and to test a SPFX (I'll post it soon enough, I'm just tweaking the edit). Anyway, in the scene test we shot it was me and my best friend (and long time co-actor) Bill acting opposite of Bill's girlfriend Jenn (our makeup artist and a first time supporting actor).

Now, Bill and I have a developed chemistry so it's very easy for me to write scenes for the two of us... but what I always find is that no matter what I write, when we get to it and actually start acting it out, things HAVE to evolve. Whether it be an idea, a line or an action, once we get on set and go through the motions of a scene, we can start filling in the blanks of a sequence and oftentimes it ends up better than the original- as it did in this case. Two jokes in particular made it into the scene that I hadn't written but enhanced the scene greatly.

But with other actors, non-actors and new actors, we don't necessarily start off with that chemistry - and improv is easier if you know where your scene partner tends to go. Thus, I would say that rehearsal would be integral to understanding actor's tendencies to interpret the script, their role and lines. By going through the motions we can weed out and replace any dialogue that doesn't sound natural and allow the actors to find replacements that suit their taste and liking.

Part of my job as Director is to make sure that the changes don't go outside the boundary of the big picture... and on set I'm more tempted to sign off to whatever makes the current scene better- without consideration to future events that may have relied on a particular line, action or emotion. But in rehearsals I have the opportunity to get those "Gems" and still go back and make sure it works into the full picture.

Now, because I wrote the script keeping in mind an easy production plan, it's segmented so that with rehearsals I can "group" actors to make it easier. So I'm dedicating one day or two to the lead protagonists and their interactions in scenes, their character development and their deliveries of lines. I'm gonna do another for the bad guys, and then another for "physicalization" for the zombie roles. Just enough to get the idea for each scene in their heads, but not so much that they become robotic and stilted for the actual shoot.

The way I've planned shooting, we have a 7-10 page per day average, half of which will be shot indoors in the day and the other half outside at night- which is EXTREMELY tight. So the way I've figured is that while my crew will be setting up each shot, we can run through the details of each scene on set and rehearse each chunk before we shoot. This will give my camera and audio team a chance to see the action on location and then adjust. It's not film, but I'm still hoping for a 3:1 shot ratio, and the only way to do that is to have crew and cast running through each shot at least 2-3 times before we even shoot a take. That being said, I'm a big fan of shooting rehearsals. That also being said, I hate having to pick shots from 7 takes that are all different levels of good.

But I think the best way to work with non-actors and friends is certainly this- give them control over their lines, have them play it the way "they would play it" (natural delivery as opposed to characters, accents), steer them with very specific directions, and always make sure they know when they did something right.

Pants are optional.

Oh well...*shrugs* I guess we all have our own stories. I do see all of your points...but I think I was misunderstood a tad. I wasn't 'assuming' an eight week cycle was every day...of course not--once or twice a week for a few hours each...I know that. But this is for a five-page script...is it not? I think that's where the word 'extensive' came from. Anyway...

I just wanted to throw my two cents in...it isn't just purely opinion...I'm basing much of this on personal experience. If people can find a way to disagree with nearly everything I've said...then obviously this is a great example of just how different people can be, and just how unique each person handles their craft.

Hey...I like a little rehearsing. I think I stated that several times. I just think rehearsing 8 weeks (no matter how often) for a five-page script is a little 'extensive.' So shoot me! lol. :)

Thanks guys for sharing and listening.

In smaller films, I try to have a round table at the beginning of production where I sit down with ALL of the main actors at once. I discuss the film and what I am trying to do and make certain character suggestions for certain scenes and hopefully that will guide an actor with all of the other scenes. If you have a scene that a single line delivery is in itself the nuts and bolts of the entire scene, I have no problem showing an actor exactly how I want that line delivered. On the other hand, I try to leave the majority of the actor/character to the actor to see what they come up with. There is another reason for the meeting. If those who don't know you and haven't worked with you before are taking you seriously and see how no nonsense you are with them, then your Uncle Phil and next door's Billy Beckley are going to learn from the start that your relationship with them outside the film is one thing but your relationship ON the film is another. If you get that straight from the start, you'll find that your friends and relatives WANT to be as professional as the other actors on the set. Or else they don't and you can get them out of your movie at the start BEFORE you have to reshoot everything they messed up or deal with cast problems they shouldn't be causing.

This must be a good topic. This thread is almost four years old and still going strong. Thanks, everyone!