Casting yourself in your film.

Hey everyone!

So I'm writing a film that is very close to my heart, and I'm not sure if I can find anyone to play the lead, so I was wondering if it's wrong to do it myself (even though I am directing.)? I have a lot of experience acting, and that's what I primarily do.

Do you think this is a bad idea?

Thanks,
Drew (:
 
It's not a bad idea, but I can speak from personal experience that it is very difficult. If you don't have talented people who you have complete faith in behind the camera shooting you, then you won't get what you want, and you will always have your mind on what is going on behind the camera, and you'll wish you would have found somebody else to act.
 
Woody Allen
Clint Eastwood
Kevin Costner
Ben Stiller
George Clooney

How about Charles Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Jerry Lewis and Orson Welles.


I don't think it's a bad idea. There are many examples where it was a good idea.

Didn't the the directors listed make big budget films?

Sure, directors can act, but could a low budget present problems?
 
Didn't the the directors listed make big budget films?

Sure, directors can act, but could a low budget present problems?

Budget has nothing to do with talent.

But yes, low budgets present problems. For a director and for a
writer/director and for a writer/director/actor. Overcoming the
budget problems is the sign of a good filmmaker. I don't see how
a low budget presents more problems for a writer/director/actor
than anyone else. In many ways directing and acting can be a
benefit for a low budget filmmaker - one less person to feed.

But I'll bite, you want low budget actor/directors? Woody Alllen's
"Take the Money and Run" and "Bananas", Kevin Smith's "Clerks",
John Sayles' "Return of the Secaucus 7" (okay he didn't star), Billy
Bob Thornton's "Sling Blade", Spike Lee's "She's Gotta Have It",
Clint Eastwood's "Play Misty for Me"

My point being it's not a "bad idea" for an experienced actor to also
direct their first film. Nor is it a bad idea for a beginning actor/director
to make their first film doing both. Their will always be problems to
overcome.
 
I wrote/directed a low budget feature film, ended up having to play one of the smaller roles myself. My crew consisted of just a cinematographer and a production sound guy. The main scene involved me and and an actress at the beach, then my character getting hit by a car, and it was by far one of the most difficult shoot days we had.

I don't regret doing it, but I would not do it again without a larger crew.
 
Low/No Budget director/actor Vincent Valentino - a good friend of mine for over a decade acts and directs his own movies, I help with a lot of the camera work when he is in front of it.

Check Out his 'Vick's' Series - http://valentinofilms.ca/

That said I can't do it (act/direct at the same time); and I know it takes a particular self-visualization skill not many have; or they need to hone through practice.
 
Yeah, I'm with Rik on this one. If you feel like you're the best person to play the role, then go ahead and cast yourself.

The only way I envision it being tricky (and I think budget does actually come into play here) is that in the ultra-low-budget world, the director is typically wearing many hats, doing lots of things that wouldn't normally fall under the job-title of director. I can imagine how that'd be far more difficult (impossible) to accomplish, if you're also the lead actor.

But that doesn't mean you can't do it. That just means you need a crew that you can really trust and rely on to get it done. If you've got an awesome DP, and awesome Sound Recordist, maybe an Associate Producer, etc., then you can be free to truly just do the job of director, and since that largely entails working with actors, then I see no reason why you can't also be an actor.

And, just to add to directorik's list, don't forget about Ben Affleck. He just won the Oscar for Best Picture, and that wasn't even his best movie (as director/actor), in my opinion.
 
I think the biggest thing here is being able to trust your crew, and have enough of them that when you're acting you don't really need to to fill in other odd jobs too much. If you can trust the crew, then you can focus on your acting, but if you're focusing on the camera or something while acting, your acting might pay for it
 
If it clearly must be so, then everyone will accept the truth of the matter. On the other hand, if you're just being an egoist and trying to write/direct and star in a film that is all about you, I think it's going to be hard to get other people on board with that. I hope you have some great supporting characters in the script. And I hope you have a large crew, because the director has a lot of responsibilities and you're going to need people to delegate those to while you're busy acting
 
I think the biggest thing here is being able to trust your crew, and have enough of them that when you're acting you don't really need to to fill in other odd jobs too much. If you can trust the crew, then you can focus on your acting, but if you're focusing on the camera or something while acting, your acting might pay for it

This would be my main concern.

If you are making a low budget film with a DP that doesn't share a similar vision as you do, or a boom op that is unexperienced, some huge problems could arise.

So I guess the most important thing when directing and acting a film you are is hiring a capable crew you trust.
 
Yeah sure you can do it. There are downsides to both acting and directing. If you are not relatively experienced in both acting AND directing I wouldn't suggest it. I'm not saying you should not do it. You just might be the right person to do both jobs. I do hope you're not planning on taking any other roles during the production. That could introduce an additional set of problems.

There are a whole bunch of things that need to be covered if you're directing for the first time.

I wish you the best of luck in your production. One thing, I'm sure you're going to have a lot of fun making this work.
 
Back
Top