Why Do Actors Believe . . .

I'm going to chime in belatedly and say that most actors study acting from a script - on stage, it's all dialog so the producer/director can place their vision on top of it.

At the low budget level, most of the script's I've seen for short films are all dialog... supporting the falsehood that acting is speaking dialog. The most common note in the margin of a script that I've ever written is "TMD" -- too much dialog. Only Kevin Smith can get away with writing like Kevin Smith - grumbly note to up and coming script writers! More action blocks in your script (at least, a 50/50 balance, better yet 75/25 action/dialog). Dialog should never reveal the plot directly, but be something the character would say while immersed in the plot - otherwise, you can write for radio).

That said, actors are taught that the written word is EVERYTHING THAT MATTERS in every way... I hate that attitude. The word informs the audience and the actor of the plot, plot and story should always be considered more important than the words - and if the words are wrong, the director should be ok changing them on the spot (and know the script well enough that the changes won't ripple problems through other parts of the script).

As always, the problem isn't the actor, it's the writer/directors who have been feeding them the line that their "art" is unchangeable and their "art" only contains the words, no hints of action or emotion. If you want an example, pickup any copy of a monologues book that actors use as excercises... there are absolutely no stage directions in them whatsoever. Actors are trapped by words.

Have them run a scene without any dialog if you run into that problem, let them experience the moment silently, then add the dialog on top of that. The director is responsible for the outcome; end statement.
 
That said, actors are taught that the written word is EVERYTHING THAT MATTERS in every way.

As an actor myself, I can tell you that I've never been taught this, and would have zero respect for a teacher who said something like that.

Comparing stage acting technique to film is tricky. The mechanics of each are completely different, but the approach is (or should be) identical.

Likewise stage scripts versus screenplays (I've written and directed many of each). Plays should have only the bare minimum stage directions - the dialogue conveys the story - whereas dialogue in a screenplay is of far less importance. Hitchcock believed you should be able to shut off the sound and still follow the story.
 
Perhaps it's simply because all my exposure to acting has been specifically for stage, and any deviation from script has been strictly verboten... but that's been everything I've seen... certainly there are excercises for realizing a moment, but the focus on the script as bible easily gives the impression to actors who are starting out that the dialog (as most script they see are extremely dialog-centric) is more important than the interpretation of the intent behind them.

As a 20+ year improv actor who runs every show with almost no script, the intent brings words - I'm firmly in the screw the script camp so long as the intention behind it is clung to faithfully - unless that doesn't fit the actor/moment/scene/whatever. In a perfect world, we'd be able to provide our extremely seasoned actors brilliant scripts...

But the fact is that at the level most of us are currently working, our actors have limited experience, any classes that may have been taken are generally taught with the focus on all of the same excercises to get folks to interpret the written words faithfully to someone else's vision.

2001: I'm bolstered to hear that your experience has shown you differently than I've seen, but I've had to come to my own way of improving based on trial, error and audience reaction. All of the training I've received (from several drama teachers) has been the same "Word as bible" crap that I hate... and all have been from the stage as this area is only just now getting more access to training in acting for film (but still from theater folks generally).

Note to actors: many of your directors were also the writers of the work you're doing... they'll tend to be more aggressive about the words being as written. Don't change them without asking or you may find difficulty finding work in the future from those directors (if you so choose to work with them)...

Note to writer/directors: If you're the afore mentioned director, you'd be shocked what an actor who has taken time delving into the character can bring to the role if you let them, including reworking dialog to fit not only the character better, but the actor's portrayal of them as well.
 
Ah, I think I misunderstood you. Yes, it's true that plays should be spoken as written. I actually agree with that. The stage is the writer's medium. A good script is like poetry; you wouldn't change stuff when reading a poem.

For film, I feel exactly the opposite. Film is a director's medium and the script is more of an outline. Change it, expand it, let it breathe!

Since you're experienced at improv (an impressive skill, btw; I delight in a good improv actor) I can see how you might prefer to take an idea and run with it rather than lock yourself to the written word.
 
Keep in mind, I was trained on stage and found that a live audience didn't respond to bits I had written, but as a writer, coming up with bits on the fly in response to the immediate needs of the audience got me better results. Sticking a slightly over-written text gets bad results, even from a great story. Most of the actors I can get my hands on here in town (and many I see online) end up with the same initial training... written word is law.

I've acted on stage next to less than good actors in the past, and changing the words to actually get them into the scene at the last moment, while on stage has gotten better audience reactions than even brilliantly written text from established plays.
 
I've acted in plays written by - among others - Shakespeare, Mamet, Ibsen, Simon, Ionesco, and Bogosian. The day I feel like I can improve on their dialogue is the day you have permission to whack me upside the head with an iron skillet. :D
 
I'll take it upside the head with the skillet, because I had to alter Bradbury's dialog on stage to get my co-actor in the scene through it... on the fly... in character. The page went right out the window in every performance of that play we did... I kept the scene flowing and alive... otherwise, his words would have been half a conversation.

In the perfect world, all actors would be A list... but that's not the real world - and "The show must go on" I will always argue to defer to the written dialog, but it just doesn't always work. Getting shakespeare out to a less educated audience requires some fanagling for them to understand the emotions of the play in the way the bard intended - but since the language has moved past the popular culture to which he was writing, I will say with the utmost confidence; the responses to the words have changed from his original intent.

His baudy jokes are lost on a modern audience and the political satire is heavily outdated. The words are genius, but haven't changed with the language - as during his time, more english speaking folks actually spoke the english in which he was writing.
 
True, the audience has to work a little for Shakespeare. But the actor bears the brunt of the responsibility there. If an actor doesn't have the chops for it, you are absolutely right: the meaning goes straight out the window. If performed well, however, it's as clear as day.

I've definitely worked with both kinds.
 
Back
Top