How do YOU direct actors?

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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
Direct

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.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top