More on Directing Actors - a guest post by Jay Jay
Last month, I wrote an article about directing actors in a realist film.
Interestingly, my fellow Raindancer, Jay Jay, posted this long reply on our closed Facebook group, which I thought was worth making into a guest blog post in its own right.
"It's interesting that you informed that theatre directors spend time analysing the script - that may be true for a lot of practice, but what's interesting, is that if you dive into the works of theatre directors Grotowski or Staniewski - you'd see that their approach into working on a theatre piece is very physical. In fact, there's a French director, Ariane Mnouchkine, who founded a company called Théâtre du Soleil, and sometimes she rehearses her actors in complete silence.
The sense of script analysis, believe it or not, is relatively new in the history of acting, as the same goes for the ever-so-popular "method" acting - they're new to the thousands of years of actor training, but they're popular - and no doubt one can stem various marketing / cultural pulling of strings behind that, namely the influence of Hollywood / USA / and its acting gurus such as Strasberg, Adler, and Meisner.
In contrast, have you ever considered the concept of TIME - in this situation? For example - is realism the same if it was with an actor who appeared in a film in the 1950s, vs now?
This was raised with actor, Eileen Atkins, who did a film back in the 1970s, and in an interview, she informed that she thought her acting was in the mode of realism, and to her amazement, she said that a young actor told her that they watched that film to see it for "stylised acting of the 1970s".
Also, if you look at directors, such as Robert Besson - and how he approached acting - "Human models" - as he refers them, you'll see that in terms of director-acting approaches - it is the antithesis to things that Judith Weston said - but by the same token, there is a realism in his films.
Actors are very good at adapting, and it's true to say that, just because an actor may be able to speak the same language as the director provides, doesn't always necessarily mean that deep down, the actor will work that way to get what the director wants. They may be very diplomatic in response - just to keep the peace (!)
Cate Blanchett exemplifies that - she doesn't prescribe to being a "method actor" nor what she calls a "Bible actor" - someone who adheres to a specific acting guru's approach - When she was giving an interview at the Actors Studio - many years ago, she informed about Yat Malgrem's approach to acting - which is a very analytical approach - and she knew that her audience was very much "devotees" to the likes of Adler, Strasberg, etc... so, when they heard about this - they were totally baffled - their reactions were - what is she talking about? I have no idea acting could be like this, as well?!
Yat Malgrem talks about many things - one of which how shapes and space can help an actor create a character.
Realism is a funny word, because, in many respects, it may have a "used by date" - but maybe the emphasis on what makes acting something people feel affected by isn't the term "realism" - but the selection of effective communication? If that is the case, then that can transcend - it doesn't involve an actor having to learn a method, or not, the actor can do pantomime, mime, Commedia del Arte or clowning around, or the actor can improvise to their heart's content, but its that striking moment of connection which can just be as relatable as it is with a person doing a drama or naturalism or realism.
These "styles of acting" - often coat or cover the human condition. Whatever approach a director takes to try and achieve it - e.g. filming when the actor is unaware, asking them to do playable actions, improvise, etc... It's interesting to see how the results take place.
Similar to acting, there's no real one way nor golden rules as to how to "effectively" direct actors. You can't put a blanket and say, "Oh Judith Weston says this must be done because if it's not, it's not acting!" - no -
It's perfectly ok for directors to change their approach for each project if that's how they feel the best way is.
A director may give actors a prep time of doing mime for a film because she or he wants a particular style real for the picture, but in the next project, it could be script analysis, or improvisation, or discussion into the psychology of the characters.
The way Woody Allen directs is different from the way Ang Lee directs. Both, one can say, have their own realism within the context of the worlds they create, the time they are depicted in, and the themes they express. Both have humans communicating what people can relate to - at various levels of consciousness."
Jay Jay also posted this link to a short video in which Ron Howard talks about what happens when great acting becomes high art.
Please feel free to leave your comments below!
Until later,
Lukas
Last month, I wrote an article about directing actors in a realist film.
Interestingly, my fellow Raindancer, Jay Jay, posted this long reply on our closed Facebook group, which I thought was worth making into a guest blog post in its own right.
 |
| Robert Bresson's last film, L'Argent/ Money (1983). Bresson seemed to oppose actors and "acting itself" and proposed the idea of "human models" instead (Pipolo, 2010). All guises of 'performance' are peeled away, transmitting a stiff effect that displays as both complex and raw (Ben-gad, 1997) |
"It's interesting that you informed that theatre directors spend time analysing the script - that may be true for a lot of practice, but what's interesting, is that if you dive into the works of theatre directors Grotowski or Staniewski - you'd see that their approach into working on a theatre piece is very physical. In fact, there's a French director, Ariane Mnouchkine, who founded a company called Théâtre du Soleil, and sometimes she rehearses her actors in complete silence.
The sense of script analysis, believe it or not, is relatively new in the history of acting, as the same goes for the ever-so-popular "method" acting - they're new to the thousands of years of actor training, but they're popular - and no doubt one can stem various marketing / cultural pulling of strings behind that, namely the influence of Hollywood / USA / and its acting gurus such as Strasberg, Adler, and Meisner.
In contrast, have you ever considered the concept of TIME - in this situation? For example - is realism the same if it was with an actor who appeared in a film in the 1950s, vs now?
This was raised with actor, Eileen Atkins, who did a film back in the 1970s, and in an interview, she informed that she thought her acting was in the mode of realism, and to her amazement, she said that a young actor told her that they watched that film to see it for "stylised acting of the 1970s".
Also, if you look at directors, such as Robert Besson - and how he approached acting - "Human models" - as he refers them, you'll see that in terms of director-acting approaches - it is the antithesis to things that Judith Weston said - but by the same token, there is a realism in his films.
Could realism also be in the framing of the truth in the style portrayed? In other words, can there be many kinds of realism?Actors who train in a conservatory manner - i.e. go to a program that is 3 years or so, learn that there is more to acting than the method approaches - more than the typical Adler, Meisner, etc... they learn French period acting, Suzuki, Viewpoints, etc.... and basically - this kind of training allow them to be "malleable" - whatever the director wants, they can tap into ways to get closer to an agreement to it in a visual sense. With that in mind, concepts such as "truth" may not even adhere to some acting theories - and other areas of focus are - such as TiME, SPACE, ENERGY, etc... there's no such thing as being "objective" in the acting approach, but to use communication such as "let the blue rays shine through" - or "work with the architecture here" or even "heat up the moment" - so, more metaphorical directing takes place - and the actor, will understand that - due to their training.
Actors are very good at adapting, and it's true to say that, just because an actor may be able to speak the same language as the director provides, doesn't always necessarily mean that deep down, the actor will work that way to get what the director wants. They may be very diplomatic in response - just to keep the peace (!)
 |
| A superb Cate Blanchett in Woody Allen's drama Blue Jasmine (2013), for which she won a Best Actress Academy Award |
Cate Blanchett exemplifies that - she doesn't prescribe to being a "method actor" nor what she calls a "Bible actor" - someone who adheres to a specific acting guru's approach - When she was giving an interview at the Actors Studio - many years ago, she informed about Yat Malgrem's approach to acting - which is a very analytical approach - and she knew that her audience was very much "devotees" to the likes of Adler, Strasberg, etc... so, when they heard about this - they were totally baffled - their reactions were - what is she talking about? I have no idea acting could be like this, as well?!
Yat Malgrem talks about many things - one of which how shapes and space can help an actor create a character.
An actor doesn't have to "feel" what they express, but as long as it appears effective, that's what counts.But what's more interesting is that similar to directing, or any other form - one of the persisting factors of acting, regardless of what approach an actor takes, whether it's a psychological one or not, it is an art form that communicates, just like visual design, or sound, but it is a very dominant art form, too. It's like the "elephant in the room" - you can't miss it when it's there.
Realism is a funny word, because, in many respects, it may have a "used by date" - but maybe the emphasis on what makes acting something people feel affected by isn't the term "realism" - but the selection of effective communication? If that is the case, then that can transcend - it doesn't involve an actor having to learn a method, or not, the actor can do pantomime, mime, Commedia del Arte or clowning around, or the actor can improvise to their heart's content, but its that striking moment of connection which can just be as relatable as it is with a person doing a drama or naturalism or realism.
These "styles of acting" - often coat or cover the human condition. Whatever approach a director takes to try and achieve it - e.g. filming when the actor is unaware, asking them to do playable actions, improvise, etc... It's interesting to see how the results take place.
Similar to acting, there's no real one way nor golden rules as to how to "effectively" direct actors. You can't put a blanket and say, "Oh Judith Weston says this must be done because if it's not, it's not acting!" - no -
It's perfectly ok for directors to change their approach for each project if that's how they feel the best way is.
A director may give actors a prep time of doing mime for a film because she or he wants a particular style real for the picture, but in the next project, it could be script analysis, or improvisation, or discussion into the psychology of the characters.
The way Woody Allen directs is different from the way Ang Lee directs. Both, one can say, have their own realism within the context of the worlds they create, the time they are depicted in, and the themes they express. Both have humans communicating what people can relate to - at various levels of consciousness."
Jay Jay also posted this link to a short video in which Ron Howard talks about what happens when great acting becomes high art.
Please feel free to leave your comments below!
Until later,
Lukas
References
- Ben-gad, Shmuel (1997). "To See the World Profoundly: The Films of Robert Bresson". CrossCurrents. Retrieved from https://crosscurrents.org/bresson.htm
- Pipolo, Tony (2010). Robert Bresson: A Passion for Film. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete