Filmmaking / Directing : Working with actors by Roy Tunnell

I hire the right one then turn them loose

https://www.thetaraerickson.com/

Good hiring, good prep time, room to perform!

As David Santo and Cherelynn Baker said. Hire the best and give them the tools to do their job. True story: Orson Welles had sought Eartha Kitt for a role in his theatrical presentation of Time Runs and "Faustus" in 1950. After a couple days of rehearsal, Eartha asked Orson. "Why haven't you given me any direction?" to which Orson replied, "Real directors only direct stupid people." Stated only as Orson Welles would, but he does mean the same thing. It's up the the actor to create the character.

To get the “most” out of actors a director can never stop “giving.”

Orson Wells comment was probably right for him at the time, being a producer/director icon who saw a tailor made role for someone who already existed in real life. However I find the statement derogatory in general. “Real” directors aim to instruct the most intelligent artists available to them whether micro budget or studio big bucks and would not adhere to collaboration with stupid actors. A character is the third dimensional being born of a meeting of two intelligent minds, actor and director, both who may have very different skill sets.

Debbie Croysdale I am not sure exactly what you are saying, could you clarify? If referring to Kitt, the role of Helen of Troy was certainly not tailor made for her; at a last minute audition, she replaced someone who was already cast and who was having difficulty with the role. And it was actually Eartha Kitt's first acting role after having left the Katherine Dunham dance company. Of course Orson Welles was aiming the comment at directors, and I don't find it derogatory at all. I find it classic Welles, and in the context it was said - in a conversation among artists who were colleagues after a large meal and too much champagne - it was correct, if rather barbed: directors who really are directors let real actors do their jobs. He was sensitive to that as a very fine actor himself, which was his principal career. I don't agree, however, that a character "is born of a meeting of two intelligent minds." The character is not created by the director but is imprinted in the script by the writer, who is inevitably absent. In bringing the character to life, it is the creation of the actor, who is better at it than the director. If she isn't, she shouldn't be there. The director facilitates where necessary, but otherwise needs to get out of the way. Having worked with many fine actors, many with names you wouldn't know, and others whom you would, including James Woods, Jacqueline Bisset, Robert Beltran, Sally Kirkland, Sarah Paulsen, Don Johnson and many more, I can't think of one who would put up with being "instructed" on their character choices or performances outside of limited parameters and in diplomatic language. As professionals, they must be able to assess their own performance better than others, including the director, and they can, and they do. (I have seen more than one utterly humiliate a director who wasn't up to their level. It was always called for, in the circumstances.) Now this is my attitude and it may actually be more a question of personal style than a fundamental difference from other directors. Of course we talk about character and interplay in the script. Of course, there is rehearsal, time and budget permitting. But inevitably and almost without fail, the best actors see different and more interesting things in the character than the director or the writer ever has in mind.

I was NOT aiming the comment at you or Orson Wells but my reply was solely for the particular words "REAL DIRECTORS ONLY DIRECT STUPID PEOPLE." Someone directs the actors in regular A list box office hits where there is no doubt whatsoever that both parties are talented and further down the line this happens in budget films. Acting and directing are fine arts (give or take individuals particular talent) and nobody no matter how famous they are has the right to belittle anyone else in their field .

I have them use a real emotion they can pull from in their own life. They don't have to be specific but a situation that was similar. Sharing first always helps. I had my first scene as a director on a college film and my leads chemistry was robotic. I pulled them aside alone and asked my actress if she had a boyfriend. She said yes, I asked my actor the same and he said, "I'm married". Great, say those lines like you would to them. We shot the scene and the rest of the scenes that day looked good.

Debbie Croysdale Oh, I suppose. But since it IS Orson Welles, known for respecting talent, in a private conversation, I think you are reading into it an unarticulated intention which isn't there. Have you considered that Orson might actually have been directing Eartha in that moment?

@Shadow Yes I was probably over sensitive about the statement because directing is my main passion. I was not aiming my comment at a person, merely the words on the page. Actually I’m a fan of Orson as an actor, director, producer and was surprised when I attended London Film Academy that I learned something I did not know previously that he’s master of earliest invisible cut. I’ve known talented actors who both need and ask for direction and always felt it a privilege to be catalyst to a meeting of minds rather than a weakness in either party. Off course it’s great if a “natural” flow occurs with no need for interaction/intervention in giving birth to a character but it tends not to be the norm. I was told by a successful West End actress in 2018 “We are craving direction.” Thanks for your share and I am looking into the film mentioned and excited to learn something new.

I try to cast the best actor I have access to and then try to connect with them so the I know what they're like and that they know my vision and then try to explain what I'd like to see for every scene that we're shooting.

Usually the result is something that plugs into what I tried to loosely imagine as what I want to show.

This actor has very much enjoyed this thread.... thank you.

The anecdote I would like to share is from the HBO documentary, "Spielberg" (2017). While filming "Schindler's List," Liam Neeson was asked, by Spielberg, to sit and smoke a cigarette. Mr. Neeson was upset because he thought the direction was absurd-he wasn't acting, he wasn't doing anything he felt was of value. Mr. Neeson vented his frustration regarding what he believed was bad direction to his co-star Ben Kingsley. Mr. Kingsley replied, "A great conductor needs a great soloist." The way that Mr. Neeson smokes that cigarette, in combination with DP, lighting and of course, direction, speaks volumes about who Oskar Schindler was.

If I understand the original post correctly, Mr. Tunnell, your soloist isn't as proficient at their instrument as perhaps all involved wish they were. All I can recommend, is to look your actor(s) in the eye, breathe deeply, connect calmly, and be very precise with what you want from them. If Spielberg could do it with Neesom, I'm sure you have it within you to do the same. Wising you the best outcome with your production.

On occasion I've had to surprise them during a scene. I had one actress and I couldn't get an extreme look of surprise and shock out of her. Finally I stood off to one side where she couldn't see me and, at just the right moment, pounded a wooden stand with a hammer. It got the look I needed and turned out great.

What Taylor D Edwards said (and well said, I might add)!

@Bill yeah sometimes a director has to make actors think rehearsal over then throw a wild card on a budget set cos time is NOT an option so visual thoughts and feelings need to come quick .