Muzman on 14/8/2008 at 17:21
He did it on Alien and it worked a treat, but I'm pretty sure he's developed a few other ways of doing things. As mentioned, he was trying this method on Blade Runner and it didn't work quite as well because it's not an ensemble piece where you don't know who's going to survive, it's a precisely structured detective story.
There's many methods for many different films, just as there's many methods appropriate for different sorts of actors and parts.
Rogue Keeper on 15/8/2008 at 08:16
That precisely looking story is mainly result of good editing. In fact, Ford complained that Deckard is doing very little detective work in the film and he was right. Maybe 4th version of the script which was considered as the final shooting version, differs in many things from final product because some scenes were dropped or changed and numerous new ideas came in the process from director and actors. So there is much improvisation, which worked only because such a disciplined talent knew how to choose other disciplined talents. When the film was done, the staff wore badges with "I SURVIVED BLADE RUNNER" on them for a good reason. Just watch Dangerous Days.
One thing is to give actors technical notes like "now you stand here and you walk in from there and this time perhaps try to grab his neck like that" and other thing is to discuss backround of characters and their relations with actors for long hours, what I was talking about. But when an actor knows the script, it gives him good idea what might be expected from him, so he can start act something for himself and he don't have to just stand there like a clueless puppet relying on higher commands.
Thirith on 15/8/2008 at 08:27
Quote Posted by BR796164
One thing is to give actors technical notes like "now you stand here and you walk in from there and this time perhaps try to grab his neck like that" and other thing is to discuss backround of characters and their relations with actors for long hours, what I was talking about. But when an actor knows the script, it gives him good idea what might be expected from him, so he can start act something for himself and he don't have to just stand there like a clueless puppet relying on higher commands.
You don't really seem to know much about directing actors, do you? There are whole worlds in between actors being 150% self-reliant and and actors standing around like clueless puppets. Do you have any idea what can and often does go into the rehearsal period? Have you ever heard of directors such as Robert Altman? Or take Kubrick, who you mentioned earlier (I think) - he didn't use actors as clueless puppets nor did he leave them to their own devices.
Rogue Keeper on 15/8/2008 at 08:53
I think I made it pretty obvious before that directors and actors often get into clashes because of different approaches to work. I was defending one particular style of work (of Scott, Kubrick or Hitchcock), which is completely legitimate. Please ramble on.
Thirith on 15/8/2008 at 08:58
But that's the thing: neither Kubrick nor Hitchcock left the actors up to their own devices. As a matter of fact, both of them worked a lot with the actors. They didn't micro-manage them, but then practically no (good) directors do.
What you wrote earlier and how you wrote it sounded extremely dismissive of directors who actually work with their actors, and that's something I didn't want to let stand without comment, because it was quite simply wrong in describing what directors who work with actors do - at least the side of the equation that does it differently from Scott.
Rogue Keeper on 15/8/2008 at 09:36
Quote Posted by Thirith
But that's the thing: neither Kubrick nor Hitchcock left the actors up to their own devices. As a matter of fact, both of them worked a lot with the actors. They didn't micro-manage them, but then practically no (good) directors do.
Kubrick's sterile, emotionless approach to filming his actors in earlier years of his career is legendary. Detached and in some cases almost wooden performances in 2001, Clockwork Orange, Dr. Strangelove or even Barry Lydon clearly show that he was more interested in wide philosophical picture and design of the world. What doesn't necessarily make these movies bad. The film just focuses more on description of the bizarre world and psychology of the individuals comes short.
They work with actors somehow because they must work with them somehow. „Direction is 10 percent talent and 90 percent communication.“ - so much for Steven Spielberg's take on moviemaking.
As for Alfred Hitchcock, he was extreme :
„Disney has the best casting. If he doesn't like an actor he just tears him up.“
„When an actor comes to me and wants to discuss his character, I say, 'It's in the script.' If he says, 'But what's my motivation?, ' I say, 'Your salary.'“
„Actors are cattle.“
„I never said all actors are cattle; what I said was all actors should be treated like cattle.“
Quote:
What you wrote earlier and how you wrote it sounded extremely dismissive of directors who actually work with their actors, and that's something I didn't want to let stand without comment, because it was quite simply wrong in describing what directors who work with actors do - at least the side of the equation that does it differently from Scott.
I was defending one particular style of direction, which may look ignorant or even disrespectful towards thh actors, but it has been proved thousand times that it can produce good and memorable movies. My alleged contempt of more personal cooperation with actors is just your personal impression which I'm not responsible for. I still believe that good, experienced actor can be self-reliant in what he/she does.
Thirith on 15/8/2008 at 09:49
Quote Posted by BR796164
Kubrick’s sterile, emotionless approach to filming his actors in earlier years of his career is legendary. Detached and in some cases almost wooden performances in 2001, Clockwork Orange, Dr. Strangelove or even Barry Lydon clearly show that he was more interested in wide philosophical picture and design of the world. What doesn’t necessarily make these movies bad. The film just focuses more on description of the bizarre world and psychology of the individuals comes short.
Emotionless != leaving actors to do their own thing. Look at Kubrick's work with Shelly Duvall. Kubrick didn't psychologise his characters as some other directors do, but in his later work at least he most definitely didn't take an attitude of "actors are professionals, I can leave them to it."
Same for Hitchcock. He treated some of his actors like shit, but he did so in order to elicit a performance out of them. See Tippi Hedren in
The Birds, for instance.
Quote:
I was defending one particular style of direction, which may look ignorant or even disrespectful towards thh actors, but it has been proved thousand times that it can produce good and memorable movies. My alleged contempt of more personal cooperation with actors is just your personal impression which I’m not responsible for. I still believe that good, experienced actor can be self-reliant in what he/she does.
What you wrote suggested that professional actors know what they have to do and need no directing (apart from "stand there, okay, that's it"). The only alternative you wrote of was actors like mindless puppets who have to be told every single thing. Call me crazy, but that sounds pretty dismissive to me.
Look, I don't think we're getting anywhere here, so I'm okay if we leave it at this (or after your reply, if you write one).
Rogue Keeper on 15/8/2008 at 10:23
Quote Posted by Thirith
Emotionless != leaving actors to do their own thing. Look at Kubrick's work with Shelly Duvall. Kubrick didn't psychologise his characters as some other directors do, but in his later work at least he most definitely didn't take an attitude of "actors are professionals, I can leave them to it."
Quote Posted by BR796164
As I heard his approach to actors has humanized in his later years...
Quote:
Same for Hitchcock. He treated some of his actors like shit, but he did so in order to elicit a performance out of them. See Tippi Hedren in
The Birds, for instance.
If you suggest Hedren wasn't able to do such performance for herself, I have no problem accepting that. Who knows. Birds was just her second film.
Quote:
What you wrote suggested that professional actors know what they have to do and need no directing (apart from "stand there, okay, that's it"). The only alternative you wrote of was actors like mindless puppets who have to be told every single thing. Call me crazy, but that sounds pretty dismissive to me.
Ok I agree I could sound harsh in few moments. But just try to look at it from director's point of view. You have said there is often big ensemble to direct, that's completely right. Expecially in case of big productions that's also the reason why directors often can't pay enough attention to talks with the actors, there is just so much to do, to watch, to organize, to develop and tweak. Some compromises have to be made if dozens of new creative ideas are coming during shooting. Directors should be as much technical as psychological and empathic towards the staff, but since we are just imperfect people, not everyone has these abilities balanced. Some directors focus more on actors, some more on design. And they have to learn to compensate their weaknesses. So if somebody is more technical like Scott, at least he's smart enough to choose actors who are experienced and self-reliant, so he can focus on technical aspects which he rocks in. And even then he can't completely avoid frowns and complaints from the staff who thinks he doesn't pay attention to him/her, and still even then a good film can be made and everyone from the staff can see on the final product that the director had good vision and he knew precisely who he needs to guide more and where and in what measure he can rely on professional self-sufficiency of the staff. And often director just has to be harsh because if anything goes wrong, he's the first one who takes knocks and bashes from every direction.
Quote:
Look, I don't think we're getting anywhere here, so I'm okay if we leave it at this (or after your reply, if you write one).
Agreed, high five. Afterall I believe we both want the films to be good. :)
BEAR on 19/8/2008 at 19:20
Quote Posted by Thirith
From what I heard, Will Smith was actually one of the better things about
I Am Legend. And the father and son in
The Road are not alone on earth, which is part of the problem. No light-sensitive vampires in that one, though.
The first half maybe or slightly more was among the better things I've seen in terms of post-apocalyptic cinema that I've seen. I was pretty well stoked on it up until the part when
you started seeing the zombies a significant part of the time. After that it was pretty downhill from there, with him meeting the other survivors and then insinuating them curing the illness. Rogue Keeper on 20/8/2008 at 07:24
I had problem with the kid, Ethan. He was completely useless there, it just seemed that having a surviving man, woman and a KID on the screen is there for sole purpose of fulfilling that spielbergish quota of lucky american family in thriller... That boy practically turned this hard-edge survivalist drama/thriller into family horror. Then also Neville could have had some psychological and philosophical/religious conflicts with Anna.
That almost heavenly colony of survivors at the end could have been portraied far less idilically.
I've heard they're going to make prequel... yawn...
