The Great Acting Blog: "Poetic Acting In Noirish Project"

As many of you probably already know, filming began on Noirish Project recently, and, generally, it went very smoothly. We all had worked together before, and we all wanted to work on this material, which created, despite the early start on a cold February morning, a very happy, productive camp. It was also my first opportunity to try out my notion of “poetic acting” (which I outlined here). In a nut shell, poetic acting requires austerity on the part of the actor, aswell as simplicity and discipline, rather than forcing things, he simply allows moments and expressions to “pop out” of his performance, as a by-product of his attempt to do his action. Poetic acting also requires pared-back camera work, and minimal editing,  as this clears the way for those organic moments and expressions to become significant – such subtleties would be lost without this minimalism. The object of poetic acting is to offer the viewer the chance to interpret the behaviour of the characters they see upon the screen, using those momentary expressions created by the actor as signs.  This invites the viewer to engage more intensely with the scene, and witness hidden truths, witness that which is not manifest in the script. This does require  the viewer to pay acute attention to what he is watching, and clearly the minimalist filmmaking helps by offering the minimum of distraction.

The script is very gentle and slight, which requires the acting to be likewise, and again, this is in order to  give precedence to small moments. Ironically however, I find this gentle form of acting enormously challenging, it’s more natural for me to play high drama or (sometimes) high comedy. If I don’t feel as though I’m hurling my very soul at a brick wall as forcefully as I can, then I don’t think I’m doing any work. However, when I reviewed the scenes we had done, the little moments, which are so important to the film, were certainly present, and shockingly so at times. This has certainly re-enforced my belief in the aesthetic we are employing, and hopefully, we will see it strengthen and produce even more vivid results as the production progresses.

 

Next up, Billy and Jimmy get lost in the woods, which should be a lot of fun to do. We will be taking a slightly different approach this time, as the scenes are only sketched out in the script, and we will, on the day, improvise specific tragi-comic events, and then, the week after, we will be back to fully scripted scenes.

"Re-Rehearsals"

Production on my new feature film, Noirish Project, will continue through March and April.

Meanwhile, a free download of short film, Prelude (To Noirish Project), can be got here.

 

We fully rehearsed scenes last month, only for the shooting of those scenes to be postponed due to snow. This week, we are in the odd position of having to re-rehearse those scenes, as we are shooting those same scenes next week. It’s odd because our original rehearsals had been rigorous, and we had reached the point where we were ready to do the performance proper. Now, all actors have a creative metabolism, which is to say that each actor has his own rhythm of work and knows how to time his development in rehearsals so that he peaks when the scenes are to be done for real. So when you reach that peak but the performance doesn’t happen, it creates an odd feeling when you have to come back to re-rehearse those scenes. Usually, once I’ve performed a scene and it’s done, I can let it go, and put it behind me, but these recent unperformed scenes still linger at the back of my mind, as I haven’t been able to go through the process of discharging them. As I approach this week’s rehearsals, there is a feeling of history in the air, there are ghosts, and they need to be exorcised.

How to approach these new re-rehearsals of old scenes then? Well, we do not need to go through the script analysis process, as that has already been done, and it will be just a question of re-focusing and reminding. After that, I think it is a question of forgetting about how we did it before, not re-heating that old work, but instead, just create afresh, using the same analysis to support and enable that. My feeling is, that once we’ve broken the seal as it were, the creative energy within us will be unlocked, and something new will emerge. Cobwebs will be blown away, then that sense of the old work still hanging around will dissipate.

Well, that’s the theory. Either way, we’ll find out soon enough.

The Great Actin Blog: "Fear Of Failure"

Commitment is a tricky thing. At the moment just before we need to commit, our minds suggest all kinds of alternatives as preferable to the thing we are about to commit to. One of the reasons commitment is so hard, is because we are putting our good opinion of ourselves on the line: if it all goes wrong then there are no excuses, and it hurts. Note how distraught elite sportspeople get when,  despite giving absolutely everything, they lose a big match. Rarely do we see them shrug during such a moment, they would only shrug if they  didn’t care, and hadn’t spent themselves. However, when we fear failure, we don’t give  a proper effort or we don’t try at all, so as to avoid the pain failure may bring. The trouble with this approach is, the failure becomes self-fulfilling, because our lack of effort ensured, from the outset, that we would fail.

Creative endeavours are rarely, if ever, as cut and dry as the sports field, and, in acting, the symptoms of fear of failure take very, very subtle forms, so subtle infact, that sometimes they may even be mistaken for great acting. What I’m talking about here is undercutting the scene with a cutesy bit of humour, or with some “characterization”, or a bit of emotion, or even something oh-so ironic. This usually happens when something unforeseen moves the actor internally, something rears itself which had not been part of the actor’s cosy, little plan for playing the scene. What was this terrible unforeseen horror? Why, it was the truth of the moment of course. The courageous actor, doesn’t flinch from that moment, instead, he grapples with it no matter how unnerved by it he may be, he sticks to his task ruthlessly, and does the best he can. The phoney actor denies the truth of the moment, he tries to defuse the potential of the unplanned, he tries to suffocate it,  for he must always be seen to be in control, superior to the scene, superior to the audience, and cannot bear anything which threatens that control, threatens that feeling of superiority. He tries to masque the truth with a lie, he tries to render the truth imperceptible. But this phoney bit of behaviour, often extorts a moment of admiration from the audience, and well it might, for that was it’s original intention, that is, the actor uses a bit of cleverness to distract the audience from the fact that he is not flawless.This actor is scared, scared of criticism,  scared of being hurt, and protects himself with empty trickery. The truthful actor is like the sportsman, he gives everything even though he knows that by the end, exhausted and drenched in sweat, he may still come up short.

 

The truthful actor commits fully despite his fear. This is called courage.

The Great Acting Blog: "The Creative Process by Alfie Black"

Noirish Project was always going to be a different experience for me. This is my third film Collaboration with writer/director James Devereaux. For me, having the back story prepared for my role is always a necessity. It is this part of the creative process I enjoy the most, thinking like my character and working out his personality, right down to what he would wear. It may sound strange but I have always given less thought to the actual script. Obviously I would read and memorise the dialogue, but I would approach it with less energy. So when James told me our first rehearsal would consist of a script analysis, I was eager to become the student. Breaking down the scenes gave me a different understanding of what was happening to both the character and the story. We began with the obligatory first few rusty line readings. It always takes a few times to adapt to another actor saying the dialogue that you have only been hearing in your head. Once we were comfortable with the words, we filmed the scenes and watched them back. This was something I’d never really done before, working mainly in theatre I do not get to see my performance at any stage, so I was intrigued to see how this would influence my execution. Watching the playback it became evident I had given my safe, maybe lazy soap opera style acting. It was still honest and had some nice moments and maybe any other Director would have been satisfied with it, but Devereaux wanted to take me out of my comfort zone and delve deeper. To help me realise an action choice for the scene we used improvisations from my own past experiences to create a truth I could mirror within the character. I was confused by this new method at first and tried to fight it going in and out of my safety net, but once I relaxed and didn’t over think, Devereaux’s wax on wax off style training proved to deliver the goods. When we recommenced with the scenes I had a new confidence and began to enjoy saying the dialogue which also enhanced my performance. Why had I not been taught this way before? The difference on screen was incredible, I was already so proud of the film and this was only the rehearsals we were filming, roll on the shoot. Unfortunately due to severe weather conditions the filming had to be postponed. I was so disappointed, never before had I ever felt this ready and prepared for a role. As we were not filming James asked me if I would still like to shoot some footage and make use of our hard work. My first instinct was to play it safe and go back to bed, it was cold outside and I was feeling let down. This moment passed and I began to like the idea, I wanted to learn more about these characters. The first scene was an interior and it involved Billy arranging to meet Jimmy on the phone. The improvisation was a success, we shot it in one take. I was very comfortable with the character of Billy, the words oozed out with ease. I felt I knew everything about him and this was of course due to the intense rehearsal period. We continued to film throughout the day and I enjoyed every minute of it, sometimes with the pressures in the acting world you forget it can be fun. I was glad it snowed that weekend because we would have never created Prelude To Noirish Project. I am so pleased with the result and proud of what we have accomplished so far. I’m looking forward to filming Noirish Project, learning more and developing my craft even further.

The Great Acting Blog: "The Creative Process by Alfie Black"

 

Noirish Project was always going to be a different experience for me. This is my third film Collaboration with writer/director James Devereaux. For me, having the back story prepared for my role is always a necessity. It is this part of the creative process I enjoy the most, thinking like my character and working out his personality, right down to what he would wear. It may sound strange but I have always given less thought to the actual script. Obviously I would read and memorise the dialogue, but I would approach it with less energy. So when James told me our first rehearsal would consist of a script analysis, I was eager to become the student. Breaking down the scenes gave me a different understanding of what was happening to both the character and the story. We began with the obligatory first few rusty line readings. It always takes a few times to adapt to another actor saying the dialogue that you have only been hearing in your head. Once we were comfortable with the words, we filmed the scenes and watched them back. This was something I’d never really done before, working mainly in theatre I do not get to see my performance at any stage, so I was intrigued to see how this would influence my execution. Watching the playback it became evident I had given my safe, maybe lazy soap opera style acting. It was still honest and had some nice moments and maybe any other Director would have been satisfied with it, but Devereaux wanted to take me out of my comfort zone and delve deeper. To help me realise an action choice for the scene we used improvisations from my own past experiences to create a truth I could mirror within the character. I was confused by this new method at first and tried to fight it going in and out of my safety net, but once I relaxed and didn’t over think, Devereaux’s wax on wax off style training proved to deliver the goods. When we recommenced with the scenes I had a new confidence and began to enjoy saying the dialogue which also enhanced my performance. Why had I not been taught this way before? The difference on screen was incredible, I was already so proud of the film and this was only the rehearsals we were filming, roll on the shoot. Unfortunately due to severe weather conditions the filming had to be postponed. I was so disappointed, never before had I ever felt this ready and prepared for a role. As we were not filming James asked me if I would still like to shoot some footage and make use of our hard work. My first instinct was to play it safe and go back to bed, it was cold outside and I was feeling let down. This moment passed and I began to like the idea, I wanted to learn more about these characters. The first scene was an interior and it involved Billy arranging to meet Jimmy on the phone.  The improvisation was a success, we shot it in one take. I was very comfortable with the character of Billy, the words oozed out with ease. I felt I knew everything about him and this was of course due to the intense rehearsal period. We continued to film throughout the day and I enjoyed every minute of it, sometimes with the pressures in the acting world you forget it can be fun. I was glad it snowed that weekend because we would have never created Prelude To Noirish Project. I am so pleased with the result and proud of what we have accomplished so far. I’m looking forward to filming Noirish Project, learning more and developing my craft even further.

Prelude To Noirish Project Is Now Complete. Delighted to share the film with you here...

 

 

We made this short film when the shoot for our feature film, Noirish Project, was snowed off. Noirish Project is a noir about Billy, who steals the family jewels and gives them to low-life Jimmy to sell to a Fence. But their problems begin when the jewels turn out to be fake. Prelude, takes place before the robbery, and Billy is trying to convince Jimmy to help him out.

 

Check-out notes about the film...here 

 

The Great Acting Blog: "Improvising"

Check out this quick teaser I put together. We've still some work to do on the sound, but the film will be completed in the next week or so.

I had planned to shoot Noirish Project in two chunks: the first last week, and the second later in the year.  Unfortunately, I had to postpone shooting the first chunk last week because of the snow, obviously this wouldn't have matched with anything we would have shot in the second chunk when in all likelihood there wouldn't have been snow. However, seeing as everything was set up anyway, I thought it would be a waste to not do anything, and so decided to go out and make a short, using the landscape as a snowy backdrop. I wanted the short to still be connected to Noirish Project in some way, and hit upon the idea of the short film being a sort of "backstory" for the feature, where we would learn a little bit more about the characters and how the events in the feature came about, calling the short; Prelude To Noirish Project. 

In the feature film, Billy has stolen his families' heirloom, some pearls, which they have owned "since before the War", and he gives the pearls to the only person he knows who has even a vague connection with the world of crime, Jimmy, to sell to a fence. Prelude takes place before Billy has stolen the pearls, and is structured around a telephone call, i.e. - Billy ringing-up Jimmy to see if he'd be interested in the pearls. The telephone call is then intercut with imagery of Jimmy on his way to meet Billy in the park. This structure lends the film a sort of fantasy quality, where we are not sure whether Billy is imagining the events we are seeing or not. I'm starting to think that the telephone is perhaps my favourite dramatic device of all - it's just so economical, and it creates plenty of scope for the acting, it's always fun to watch actors trying to express themselves through a phone. Also, I think telephones are very strange indeed (far stranger than email or text message, which seem far more natural), and therefore they possess a mystery which is intrinsically dramatic. It also opens up structural possibilities, and in Prelude, often I use the telephone conversation as a voice-over: we hear the characters talking, but we see imagery from another time and place.

There wasn't time to write a script, so I just decided on subject matter and the overall structure of the film, and we improvised the specific dialogue. We had, however, during the preceding weeks, been rehearsing the scripted scenes  we had already scheduled to shoot, and had arrived at performance level. This work had a strong impact on the improvisation, especially in terms of style and rhythm of dialogue. The actual script has repetitive, punchy dialogue, and we found that to be true of the improvisation aswell, as if the rhythms of the script had lodged themselves in our minds. I also found it easy to access my character's (Jimmy) sardonic intent toward the other character (Billy). The net result is that Prelude feels very much a part of the full Noirish Project feature film, it seems part of the universe of the full film, which is a very pleasant result.

I am currently in the process of re-scheduling the scenes we were unable to do, probably for mid- February. Snowfall has been rumoured, but we'll have to wait and see. 

The Great Acting Blog: "Improvising"

Check out this quick teaser I put together. We've still some work to do on the sound, but the film will be completed in the next week or so.

I had planned to shoot Noirish Project in two chunks: the first last week, and the second later in the year.  Unfortunately, I had to postpone shooting the first chunk last week because of the snow, obviously this wouldn't have matched with anything we would have shot in the second chunk when in all likelihood there wouldn't have been snow. However, seeing as everything was set up anyway, I thought it would be a waste to not do anything, and so decided to go out and make a short, using the landscape as a snowy backdrop. I wanted the short to still be connected to Noirish Project in some way, and hit upon the idea of the short film being a sort of "backstory" for the feature, where we would learn a little bit more about the characters and how the events in the feature came about, calling the short; Prelude To Noirish Project. 

In the feature film, Billy has stolen his families' heirloom, some pearls, which they have owned "since before the War", and he gives the pearls to the only person he knows who has even a vague connection with the world of crime, Jimmy, to sell to a fence. Prelude takes place before Billy has stolen the pearls, and is structured around a telephone call, i.e. - Billy ringing-up Jimmy to see if he'd be interested in the pearls. The telephone call is then intercut with imagery of Jimmy on his way to meet Billy in the park. This structure lends the film a sort of fantasy quality, where we are not sure whether Billy is imagining the events we are seeing or not. I'm starting to think that the telephone is perhaps my favourite dramatic device of all - it's just so economical, and it creates plenty of scope for the acting, it's always fun to watch actors trying to express themselves through a phone. Also, I think telephones are very strange indeed (far stranger than email or text message, which seem far more natural), and therefore they possess a mystery which is intrinsically dramatic. It also opens up structural possibilities, and in Prelude, often I use the telephone conversation as a voice-over: we hear the characters talking, but we see imagery from another time and place.

There wasn't time to write a script, so I just decided on subject matter and the overall structure of the film, and we improvised the specific dialogue. We had, however, during the preceding weeks, been rehearsing the scripted scenes  we had already scheduled to shoot, and had arrived at performance level. This work had a strong impact on the improvisation, especially in terms of style and rhythm of dialogue. The actual script has repetitive, punchy dialogue, and we found that to be true of the improvisation aswell, as if the rhythms of the script had lodged themselves in our minds. I also found it easy to access my character's (Jimmy) sardonic intent toward the other character (Billy). The net result is that Prelude feels very much a part of the full Noirish Project feature film, it seems part of the universe of the full film, which is a very pleasant result.

I am currently in the process of re-scheduling the scenes we were unable to do, probably for mid- February. Snowfall has been rumoured, but we'll have to wait and see. 

The Great Acting Blog: "Noirish Project Rehearsals"

Billy: What if he, y'know, tries to glass us or something?

Jimmy: Glass us? Dickie? Dickie wouldn't glass us. You don't know him. He's actually a really nice guy.

Billy: I thought you said he was dangerous.

Jimmy: I said he was POTENTIALLY dangerous. 

Billy: That's dangerous enough.

- Some dialogue from the script for Noirish Project.

 

Rehearsals continue apace. The ground-work has been done. The script analysis process which I discussed last week has been gone through, followed by the next stage, which is to find a concrete, exciting action to play for each scene. Then the fun starts, which is to actually start doing the scene with the chosen action. This is where the scene starts to take shape, and the acting begins to fizz because we now have the confidence to commit fully to playing the scene, and working off eachother in the scene, creating afresh each time (rather than deciding in advance how to do the scene, and doing it that way regardless of what the other actor in the scene is doing). I have decided to record the rehearsals this time, and replay the recording each time we do the scene. I have found this to be immensely useful (especially since I am directing aswell as acting in this production), because obviously I can see exactly what we've done and respond accordingly, but it also gives credence to my notes: I can literally point on the monitor to what I am talking about.  Also, as a bonus, I can review all the wonderful, unplanned moments which spin out of doing the action, and which we are not conscious of whilst playing the scene, little physical "tells" emerge, especially when the character is lying. As always, it is important to forget about these moments the next time I do the scene, because if I consciously try to jimmy them in, then they will no longer be organically created with that vital energy, but inferior reproductions.

In my blog, Poetic Acting, I expanded more fully on the style of acting the film will employ. The script is very gentle and slight in places, and so the performances will be mostly made up of small but meaningful moments, with the occasional bouts of drama and comedy. Despite the minimalism, the acting challenge posed by the script is a considerable one. High drama and comedy create an energy, a  momentum, which the actor may "surf" and carry him through the scene, however, this will not really be the case in Noirish Project, where the actor will have to remain focussed through some quiet moments, but then, from a standing start (so to speak), snap-up some energy for other, more intense moments. Absolute attention will have to be paid at all times.

 

 

I will certainly let you know how it goes.

 

 

RELATED

 

Poetic Acting

 

Noirish Project Swings Into Motion

 

Noirish Project - Feature Film Announcement

The Great Acting Blog: "Noirish Project Swings Into Action"

Rehearsals for Noirish Project have begun. The film itself is a slice neo-realism masquerading as a film noir: Billy robs some precious pearls from his own family, and gives them to local scheister, Jimmy, to off-load to the local fence. The trouble starts however, when it emerges that the pearls are fake and Jimmy barely escapes from the fence with his life, let alone the pearls. The film effectively functions as a road-movie, as the protagonists set about reclaiming the pearls from the fence, who has suddenly become very elusive. Filming begins next week, and I'm delighted to announce that the super-talented Rouzbeh Rashidi will shoot it for us, as he will be in town working on the next stage of his latest film, There Is No Escape From The Terrors Of The Mind. 

First rehearsals involved script analysis, a process I especially love, not because of any intellectual predilection, or wanting to know "what do oranges symbolise", but because it helps to give a wonderful clarity of thought, and enables me to state in simple, actable terms what is happening in the scene. This eliminates the weird, potentially neurotic elements which can arise, and serve as barriers to work, or excuses not to act - a state I'm sure all actors recognise, if not everyone in the world. Instead, a simple analysis of the scene helps to decide on a simple, concrete action, which I can commit to doing in the scene, freeing me up to create and go for it.  

It goes something like this....

1. What does the character literally do in the scene?

2. What am I going to do in the scene?

Note that what the character is doing in the scene, is not the same thing as what the actor who is playing the character is doing in the scene. That's because the actor can never believe the fiction of the scene, and so he needs take something into the scene which will ground him in truth and make him active: an action, in short. But the action the actor chooses for himself must be in line with the writer's intentions (or as the actor discerns his intentions, if the writer is not present at rehearsals).

Below is a very simple scene from Noirish Project: - 

BILLY

I’m sorry, Jimmy.

JIMMY What for?

BILLY Putting you in jeopardy like that.

JIMMY Don’t be silly.

BILLY I’ve really made a mess of this.

JIMMY Hey, never put yourself down in public.

BILLY

I’ve wasted your time.

JIMMY It happens.

BILLY I’m sorry.

JIMMY Don’t apologise.

BILLY I’m stupid and weak.

It is fairly obvious that what Billy is literally doing is apologising to Jimmy.

But an actor might choose the action; "to beg a friend's forgiveness", to do in the scene. This is do-able, in line with the writer's intentions, and would certainly get me up and working (note; the choice of action, and the wording of an action may vary from actor to actor - each actor needs to find an action which is exciting to himself). 

Rehearsals will continue for the rest of this week and the beginning of next week, then filming will start. I'll post regular updates here.

The Great Acting Blog: "Robert De Niro Notes"

 

De Niro offers practical advice here, which means alot coming from an actor of his stature, and especially him I suppose, because so much theoretical voodoo has grown up around his work, in order to explain away his performances - the truth is, acting requires skill and technique and a little bit of aptitude. For me, the central theme of De Niro's view, is that it's about getting the work done and getting on with doing it, aswell as respecting the scene at hand.  

 

 

• De Niro says acting is not about neuroses and playing on your neuroses, it's about doing the character - "the tasks of the character".
• He says don't go about it as though the character was you and how you would do it - it's about the character.
• Be faithful to the text/script. 
• Says it's about script analysis, seeing something for what it is, breaking the play down - not fictionalising but taking whatever you get from the analysis, and making your choices based on what you pick up from the analysis - "the talent is in the choices" - Stella Adler.
• "Earn the right to play the character" -  make it your own and feel comfortable in doing it by researching the character, try to be close to the character, so if you have to improv or ad lib, you have an idea about what the character would do in that situation.
• Acting is about having an action, like "to sell something."
• He says you've got to get up and do it - the sooner you get to knowing you've got to get up and do it, the sooner you'll do it.
• He says he had a problem when he was a young actor : he was afraid to make a move "I have to feel it, and I have to do this".- but says you've got to sometimes jump in - "if i jumped in I arrive at that place" (where he is playing the scene) - whereas before he thought he had to do all sorts of weird preparation before he could arrive at that point.
• Says, don't pamper yourself, you've got to get out there and do it, and if you make a mistake, you do it again.
• Never comment on the character, never put the character down.
• While working on Mean Streets with Scorsese, they improvised scenes, but it was set and structured by the time they did it in front of camera.
• For Godfather 2, he studied and studied Brando's performance to find the boundaries.
• Says he doesn't like to expend a lot of energy on the set: does the scene then goes back home and rests.
• Says the last thing he wants to do is worry about the scene, because then his action becomes "to worry!"
• Says Scorsese has great respect for actors, which is important to get the best out of them.
• Listening is essential in acting - says actors have problems just listening, trusting themselves, but if there's nothing to do don't do anything.
• Says the notion that if actors look at the dailies it creates a problem, is a myth. Doesn't subscribe to it.
• Says he and Scorsese understand each other, that's why they're able to work with each other so many times and have a good time.. Says they have the same sensibility, says you have to be very honest with each other, about how you feel about things.
• Says he always wanted to direct, that's why he made Bronx Tale.
• Says do authentic work, regardless of how you think people may react. That'll distinguish you from other people.

The Great Acting Blog: "Robert De Niro Notes"

 

De Niro offers practical advice here, which means alot coming from an actor of his stature, and especially him I suppose, because so much theoretical voodoo has grown up around his work, in order to explain away his performances - the truth is, acting requires skill and technique and a little bit of aptitude. For me, the central theme of De Niro's view, is that it's about getting the work done and getting on with doing it, aswell as respecting the scene at hand.  

 

• De Niro says acting is not about neuroses and playing on your neuroses, it's about doing the character - "the tasks of the character".
• He says don't go about it as though the character was you and how you would do it - it's about the character.
• Be faithful to the text/script. 
• Says it's about script analysis, seeing something for what it is, breaking the play down - not fictionalising but taking whatever you get from the analysis, and making your choices based on what you pick up from the analysis - "the talent is in the choices" - Stella Adler.
• "Earn the right to play the character" -  make it your own and feel comfortable in doing it by researching the character, try to be close to the character, so if you have to improv or ad lib, you have an idea about what the character would do in that situation.
• Acting is about having an action, like "to sell something."
• He says you've got to get up and do it - the sooner you get to knowing you've got to get up and do it, the sooner you'll do it.
• He says he had a problem when he was a young actor : he was afraid to make a move "I have to feel it, and I have to do this".- but says you've got to sometimes jump in - "if i jumped in I arrive at that place" (where he is playing the scene) - whereas before he thought he had to do all sorts of weird preparation before he could arrive at that point.
• Says, don't pamper yourself, you've got to get out there and do it, and if you make a mistake, you do it again.
• Never comment on the character, never put the character down.
• While working on Mean Streets with Scorsese, they improvised scenes, but it was set and structured by the time they did it in front of camera.
• For Godfather 2, he studied and studied Brando's performance to find the boundaries.
• Says he doesn't like to expend a lot of energy on the set: does the scene then goes back home and rests.
• Says the last thing he wants to do is worry about the scene, because then his action becomes "to worry!"
• Says Scorsese has great respect for actors, which is important to get the best out of them.
• Listening is essential in acting - says actors have problems just listening, trusting themselves, but if there's nothing to do don't do anything.
• Says the notion that if actors look at the dailies it creates a problem, is a myth. Doesn't subscribe to it.
• Says he and Scorsese understand each other, that's why they're able to work with each other so many times and have a good time.. Says they have the same sensibility, says you have to be very honest with each other, about how you feel about things.
• Says he always wanted to direct, that's why he made Bronx Tale.
• Says do authentic work, regardless of how you think people may react. That'll distinguish you from other people.

The Great Acting Blog: "Thomas Doret In The Kid With The Bike"

Doret plays Cyril, a 12 year old who has been dumped into foster care by his father, who, unbeknownst to the boy, doesn't give a damn about him, and just wants rid of him. Doret runs away from the foster home to his dad's apartment. When the caretakers find him, Doret flees to a nearby doctor's surgery where he grabs hold of a woman, Samantha, so that they won't take him away. To calm Doret down, they take him back to his dad's apartment, and show him that it is empty and deserted, confirming that his father has left. With Samantha, Doret finally finds his father, who is however, none too pleased when the boy shows up, and tells him he never wants to see him again. Samantha in turn, takes the heartbroken Doret under her wing. However, falling under the spell of a local drug dealer, Doret robs a shopkeeper, beating the owner and his son with a baseball bat. Fearing Doret has been indentified in the robbery, the drug dealer abandons Doret and forces him to keep the stolen money. Doret gets caught by the police, but the matter is dealt with through a mediation with the shop owner, who accepts Doret's apology. Some time later, the son of the shop owner sees Doret by chance on the street, and beats him up, forcing Doret to hide up in a tree for safety, until the son throws a stone, which causes Doret to fall out of the tree. Doret lies on the ground, seemingly unconscious, until he comes to, and calmly walks away from the trouble.  

Doret's performance is remarkable in it's simplicity and directness. There is a scene where Doret visits his father again, only this time to offer the money he got from the robbery, thinking this will win his father's acceptance. His father is a little stunned, before refusing the money and sending Doret on his way. Doret hardly inflects the scene at all, he offers the money to his father with an almost animalistic simplicity, and it is this simplicity which renders the moment heartbreaking. Compare this to James Dean's performance in East Of Eden, where there is a similar scene of rejection involving money; Dean explains the character's pain to us with the preposterous emotional excretion; "YOU'RE TEARING ME APAAARRTT!", rendering the moment false and meaningless. Doret is courageous in resisting the temptation to explain what is happening, enabling us to engage with the scene for ourselves, which in turn, makes it meaningful. 

Doret had never acted before, so much of his performance will have been instinctive, and perhaps he has yet to become inhibited by the protective guff of adulthood, and so we get this wonderful unfettered performance from him. There is perhaps only one scene where Doret appears to be comprehendingly expressing the inner pain of his character, and what an extraordinary scene it is. While driving in the car with Samantha, Doret suddenly begins to scratch at his own flesh, and punch himself, it is gut wrenching to watch - it represents a bout of self-loathing, induced by Doret's belief that he is the cause of his own rejection, that he is the source of his own pain, and so wants to destroy the thing which is causing him pain (as he perceives it). Again, Doret performs the scene completely free of James Dean-style sentimentality, but with his customary simplicity and directness. I have to say that, generally, I am not a fan of child actors, and have held off seeing this film largely because the protagonist is a child, but the strength of Doret's performance here, may just have given me cause to change this view.

Doret had never acted before this film, or, at least, I have not been able to find any record of him doing so, and I am not aware of him receiving any training, and yet he is able to deliver this quite brilliant performance. No-one can know what the future holds for him, the vast majority non-actors fail to kick on after terrific debuts. Having said that, Doret does re-inforce my general view that acting is a talent which cannot be instilled. 

The Great Acting Blog: "Poetic Acting"

Poetic acting is expressive but not expository, it is intense but with a sense of ease, it's minimal, but most importantly, it seeks to express something in-the-moment, but which cannot always be explained away. On a practical level, the actor commits to doing the actions of the scene, and does not worry about the outcomes. This approach can lead to facialexpressions, small movements, bits of emotion, which the actor may not even realise he was doing until after he has seen his performance on screen (he may never realise them on stage). These unconscious, unfettered, unplanned expressions are the poetry of acting. Poetic acting is very different to expository acting, or “doing a character”, whereby the actor consciously and rationally designs his performance, explaining the character with thought-out detail, and detail which may not even be germane to the scene at hand. Designing a performance is not necessarily the same as including those things which are essential to creating the illusion of character – for example; if one were to play a hunchback, a prosthetic hunch may be employed.

 

Poetic acting gives expression to human experience which cannot be dealt with in any other way - for example; if, in the scene, the actor tries to conceal a difficult emotion (perhaps has to tell a lie in the scene), the repressed energy may express itself, for example, as a displacement, such as the actor handling an object or adjusting an item of his clothing. These small actions may not necessarily “mean” something in terms of the literal plot of the scene, but are the symptom of some deeper movement within the actor. These wonderful, subtle expressions may never happen for the by-design actor, because he is controlling everything to the extent that he doesn't allow deeper movements to occur within himself, and so there is no poetic spin-off during his performance.

The full implications of a poetic performance may not be fully understood by an audience on an immediate, conscious level, but the performance does create a sense of harmony (even when the action is tumultuous). That's why the poetic actor produces richer results than the by-design actor. The by-design actor may produce a performance which is more immediately impressive, may at first appear to be “natural”, but it is usually generalised and superficial, and the effect dissipates fairly quickly, whereas the poetic actor's performance may at first give the impression that nothing is really happening, and his effect may creep up on the audience almost imperceptibly, but all of those organically created moments of his performance add-up to something deeply affecting, they leave us unsure, they hang in our minds long after the action has finished,lodging themselves there (even if it is only certain moments of the performance which do this). 

I intend to use the poetic form of acting for my feature film, Noirish Project, and I do not mean my own perfromance only, but the performances of all the actors in the film. The camera-work and editing will be pared back, and the script is flat and minimal, with scenes where the characters are hanging around and waiting. It is out of these seemingly empty situations that I hope this poetic form of acting will emerge to create wonderful, unplanned expressions, with the minimalism of the film giving them centre stage.

The Great Acting Blog: "Poetic Acting"

Poetic acting is expressive but not expository, it is intense but with a sense of ease, it's minimal, but most importantly, it seeks to express something in-the-moment, but which cannot always be explained away. On a practical level, the actor commits to doing the actions of the scene, and does not worry about the outcomes. This approach can lead to facial expressions, small movements, bits of emotion, which the actor may not even realise he was doing until after he has seen his performance on screen (he may never realise them on stage). These unconscious, unfettered, unplanned expressions are the poetry of acting. Poetic acting is very different to expository acting, or “doing a character”, whereby the actor consciously and rationally designs his performance, explaining the character with thought-out detail, and detail which may not even be germane to the scene at hand. Designing a performance is not necessarily the same as including those things which are essential to creating the illusion of character – for example; if one were to play a hunchback, a prosthetic hunch may be employed.

Poetic acting gives expression to human experience which cannot be dealt with in any other way - for example; if, in the scene, the actor tries to conceal a difficult emotion (perhaps has to tell a lie in the scene), the repressed energy may express itself, for example, as a displacement, such as the actor handling an object or adjusting an item of his clothing. These small actions may not necessarily “mean” something in terms the literal plot of the scene, but are the symptom of some deeper movement within the actor. The wonderful, subtle expressions may never happen for the by-design actor, because is controlling everything to the extent that he doesn't allow deeper movements to occur within himself, and so there is no poetic spin-off during his performance.

The full implications of a poetic performance may not be fully understood by an audience on an immediate, conscious level, but the performance does create a sense of harmony (even when the action is tumultuous). That's why the poetic actor produces richer results than the by-design actor. The by-design actor may produce a performance which is more immediately impressive, may at first appear to be “natural”, but it is usually generalised and superficial, and the effect dissipates fairly quickly, whereas the poetic actor's performance may at first give the impression that nothing is really happening, and his effect may creep up on the audience almost imperceptibly, but all of those organically created moments of his performance add-up to something deeply affecting, they leave us unsure, they hang in our minds long after the action has finished, lodging themselves there (even if it is only certain moments of the performance which do this). 

I intend to use the poetic form of acting for my feature film, Noirish Project, and I do not mean my own perfromance only, but the performances of all the actors in the film. The camera-work and editing will be pared back, and the script is flat and minimal, with scenes where the characters are hanging around and waiting. It is out of these seemingly empty situations that I hope this poetic form of acting will emerge to create wonderful, unplanned expressions, with the minimalism of the film giving them centre stage.

 

The Great Acting Blog: "Strive To Be Great"

A forthcoming Daniel Day-Lewis performance is always turned into a huge event by the media - we were told his turn in PT Anderson's There Will Be Blood was the performance to define cinematic acting for all time. Then there is the psychophantic reporting about the lengths Day-Lewis went in order to “research the character”, and that he “stays in character” between takes. All of this stuff of course, has helped to create a mythology around Day-Lewis, a mystique, a narrative, and which has become self-perpetuating. When Day-Lewis quit the run of Hamlet early, claiming that the death of his own father weighed too greatly on his performances (others juicily claimed he actually saw the ghost of his father on stage), this only added to his legend. Whereas most actors would have been branded incompetent and unreliable for quitting, for Day-Lewis this was seen as an example of just how far he is willing to go to give a truthful performance. His failure is held up as his commitment to his art (quitting is a sign of commitment in our topsy-turvy modern world). On another occasion, Day-Lewis disappeared to make shoes in Italy somewhere, and again this was cited as evidence of his commitment; he'd spent so long in the blazing furnace of creation, he just needed to get away from it all, and make shoes. Perhaps the most remarkable aspect about all this however, is the fact that Day-Lewis has been able to maintain the intensity of the attention on his work for so long - the only comparable actor I can think of is Robert De Niro during the 70s and early 80s, a far better actor than Day-Lewis, but focus on his work has faded as his career has worn on.*

 

Whatever you may think of Day-Lewis, the sheer ambition of his acting choices is an example, and should be an inspiration. Few other actors these days strive to give something extra, something remarkable, in the way that Day-Lewis does. The great explorations of acting, the will to deliver a performance of force, the longing to express, the love of art, the desire to thrill, seems to be broadly lacking in contemporary acting. Any actor who strives to be an artist is sneered at, brand names on the CV are all that count, few take the technical and aesthetic aspects of acting seriously. That's generally why acting and actors are less exciting than they were, less fun, and in turn, less loved.

Actors now see the audience as an appendage to their career, rather than the object of it. This has been evidenced in recent years by the spate of incidents in theatres where actors have broken out of character and told the audience to shut-up whenever their mobile phone has rung or when they eat crisps. I can't help but feel that in the old days, actors like Donald Wolfitt or Anew Macmaster would have rendered such distractions irrelevant and quelled any noise by the sheer greatness of their performances. Infact, Harold Pinter tells the story about when he was a young actor touring Shakespeare in MacMaster's company, they were doing Othello in some Irish village, and the 2000 strong audience were drunk and bawdy to the extent that the actors on stage couldn't hear eachother speak, that is, until MacMaster entered, and who, by the end of the play, held the audience in rapt silence – you could hear a pin drop – but he didn't ask or tell them to be quiet, he stunned them with his brilliance. That's what we should be aiming for in our work.

 

 

 

* Day-Lewis has a much lower output than De Niro, making only 6 films in the last 15 years, while De Niro has made 44 in the same timeframe. This may go some way to explain why the intensity of attention on Day-Lewis' work has endured.

The Great Acting Blog: "Non-Actors, Employee-Actors, & Artist-Actors"

“with professional actors they have an imaginary in between you and them. In other words they have some model in their minds about how to act, or how someone did it before, or some techniques, visual or physical, they can use....it's as if you are writing a book and you are two” - Albert Serra

 

Serra is a filmmaker who primarily works with non-actors. He says he doesn't like professional actors, and the above quote gives us a clue as to why. What Serra is really doing here, is criticising actors in general for a lack of creativity, or more precisely, a lack of in-the-moment creativity: actors work-out in advance exactly how they are going to do the scene, down to each gesture, each facial movement, each inflection, and simply implement this preparation regardless of what is actually happening in the scene as it unfolds (and regardless of what the other actors in the scene are doing). This approach makes it that much harder for the director to work with the actor, because the actor has already set their performance in stone. The model of acting Serra talks about, is the model of the employee-actor, whose goal is simply to rubber stamp a performance of complacent, base professionalism, and where every effort is made to explain the character rather than create organically, because the greatest terror is that anything the actor does may be even slightlymisunderstood, every I dotted and every T crossed to absolute death, and any semblance of art is eliminated mercilessly. Of course, all this leads to the bland, meaningless, presentation-without-mistakes type of performance which so dominates contemporary acting, and which so irks filmmakers like Serra.

 

There is the non-actor and there is the employee-actor, but there is also a third kind of actor: the artist-actor. This actor arrives at the scene with nothing, and creates something out of that nothing. For sure there is preparation – memorising lines, understanding what is happening in the scene, practice – but artist-actors don't merely re-produce this preparation and call it “performance”, they use preparation as a tool for liberating their creativity, the preparation is a means and not an end. The artist-actor responds to what is actually happening in the scene, and respondsregardless of their preparation. They come to the work ready to discover. And the work that is produced with this approach is intense, various, intriguing, and true. Also, by creating in-the-moment, we are closer to the actors source personality, as oppose to the layers and layers of guff piled on in the name of technique, and being close to the source leads to a more vivid performance. Artist-actors don't bring things to the scene, they simply try to understand what the scene is, and fit themselves into it. The employee-actor almost ignores the scene entirely, and sees the whole project as an excuse to showcase themselves (“my character wouldn't do that”), and in a sense, this is what Serra is referring to when he says; “it's as if you are writing a book and you are two”: the actor is, without invite, bringing things in from outside the original conception of the project, which effectively creates a rival to the original conception, trying to turn it into something else, hence two authors. The artist-actor is flexible enough, sensitive enough, and good enough, to respond to whichever way the director may want to work the scene. The artist-actor does not want to co-author but serve the form. For actor-artists, aesthetic truth is the goal, and organic creation is the way to attain it. These artist-actors struggle enormously in a world where little more is expected of the actor than having the right colour hair.

 

The mistake Serra makes (and others do too) is to speak of actors in general – he is effectively saying all actors are the same, and take the same approach. Clearly this is not true. It is a shame that a filmmaker of Serra's calibre sees it this way. More broadly speaking though, it is utterly crucial that we recognise and endorse artist-actors, otherwise they will disappear in that gap between employee-actors and non-actors, and the art of acting will disappear with them.

The Great Acting Blog: "Non-Actors, Employee-Actors, & Artist-Actors"

 

“with professional actors they have an imaginary in between you and them. In other words they have some model in their minds about how to act, or how someone did it before, or some techniques, visual or physical, they can use....it's as if you are writing a book and you are two” - Albert Serra

 

Serra is a filmmaker who primarily works with non-actors. He says he doesn't like professional actors, and the above quote gives us a clue as to why. What Serra is really doing here, is criticising actors in general for a lack of creativity, or more precisely, a lack of in-the-moment creativity: actors work-out in advance exactly how they are going to do the scene, down to each gesture, each facial movement, each inflection, and simply implement this preparation regardless of what is actually happening in the scene as it unfolds (and regardless of what the other actors in the scene are doing). This approach makes it that much harder for the director to work with the actor, because the actor has already set their performance in stone. The model of acting Serra talks about, is the model of the employee-actor, whose goal is simply to rubber stamp a performance of complacent, base professionalism, and where every effort is made to explain the character rather than create organically, because the greatest terror is that anything the actor does may be even slightly misunderstood, every I dotted and every T crossed to absolute death, and any semblance of art is eliminated mercilessly. Of course, all this leads to the bland, meaningless, presentation-without-mistakes type of performance which so dominates contemporary acting, and which so irks filmmakers like Serra.

 

There is the non-actor and there is the employee-actor, but there is also a third kind of actor: the artist-actor. This actor arrives at the scene with nothing, and creates something out of that nothing. For sure there is preparation – memorising lines, understanding what is happening in the scene, practice – but artist-actors don't merely re-produce this preparation and call it “performance”, they use preparation as a tool for liberating their creativity, the preparation is a means and not an end. The artist-actor responds to what is actually happening in the scene, and responds regardless of their preparation. They come to the work ready to discover. And the work that is produced with this approach is intense, various, intriguing, and true. Also, by creating in-the-moment, we are closer to the actors source personality, as oppose to the layers and layers of guff piled on in the name of technique, and being close to the source leads to a more vivid performance. Artist-actors don't bring things to the scene, they simply try to understand what the scene is, and fit themselves into it. The employee-actor almost ignores the scene entirely, and sees the whole project as an excuse to showcase themselves (“my character wouldn't do that”), and in a sense, this is what Serra is referring to when he says; “it's as if you are writing a book and you are two”: the actor is, without invite, bringing things in from outside the original conception of the project, which effectively creates a rival to the original conception, trying to turn it into something else, hence two authors. The artist-actor is flexible enough, sensitive enough, and good enough, to respond to whichever way the director may want to work the scene. The artist-actor does not want to co-author but serve the form. For actor-artists, aesthetic truth is the goal, and organic creation is the way to attain it. These artist-actors struggle enormously in a world where little more is expected of the actor than having the right colour hair.

 

The mistake Serra makes (and others do too) is to speak of actors in general – he is effectively saying all actors are the same, and take the same approach. Clearly this is not true. It is a shame that a filmmaker of Serra's calibre sees it this way. More broadly speaking though, it is utterly crucial that we recognise and endorse artist-actors, otherwise they will disappear in that gap between employee-actors and non-actors, and the art of acting will disappear with them.

The Great Acting Blog: "There Is No Escape From The Terrors Of The Mind"

This week, I journeyed to Cork City, to attend a screening of HE  (the new feature film by Rouzbeh Rashidi in which I play the lead role), which was wonderfully hosted by The Guesthouse. Rouzbeh and I participated in a Q & A session after the screening, and I very much enjoyed answering the few questions about acting which came my way, especially in light of the unusual, highly collborative methods Rouzbeh and I employ. I found it enriching to engage with the audience in this direct way, and it was pleasing to see that the film was very well recieved.

 Also while in Cork, production was set in motion for There Is No Escape From The Terrors Of The Mind, the fourth feature film collaboration between myself and Rouzbeh - it's a fragmented, experimental, horror film, with a melancholic inflection, and will be shot over the next year in various countries. The film also features Maximillian Le Cain in a leading role. Visually, the film will again be driven by Rouzbeh's high visual artistry, and I will again create scenes in response to brief notes given to me by the director. There Is No Escape From The Terrors Of The Mind marks a slight change of approach for us however, in the sense that long monologues have been prominent in our previous films, whereas in this new film, dialogue will be extremely limited, although a voiceover will be added upon completion of filming. So the scenes we shot in Cork then, were largely physical, which is to say I was expressing myself through movement and actions, which is a form of acting I particularly love, because I love to find ways of expressing the internal life of the character through physical movements and the handling of objects: using these tools to show states of being like; distraction, pre-occuption, or an important thought suddenly entering my mind. There was one scene in particular, where my character is waiting to play an important game of chess, and the key challenge was moving between being mildly aggitated and nervous, to trying to alleviate this state by finding ways of distracting myself, to sudden bursts of intense clarity of thought, where my character has come up with some moves to defeat his opponent. Agitation and nervousness can be done physically through the body, using a certain amount of physical tension and intensity of concentration. In order to alleviate this state, I scanned books on the shelf, but with no particular object in mind other than distraction. And finally, in order to show an important thought coming into my mind, I grabbed my pen and scribbled notes into my notebook. It's important to stress that each of these beats was given to me by Rouzbeh just before we were to shoot the scene, and my job was to express the meaning of the scene using these beats - and the meaning of the scene is: waiting for important events. We continued in this fashion for several more scenes, employing the notions of distraction  and agitation and thought, sometimes using different objects to express the moment (a Super 8 camera in one scene, for example), but the notebook was always present. Whether we are creating dialogue, or physical actions, the idea which unifies our approach in all the scenes (here, and in the other films where I have worked with Rouzbeh) is; improvising in response to the immediate situation, and so create "moments of cinema".

Work on There Is No Escape From The Terrors Of The Mind continues early next year.

The Great Acting Blog: "Directing Actors"

Noirish Project continues apace, and I will very soon begin rehearsals with the actors. I've not directed actors within a rehearsal context for awhile, although, as an actor myself, I like to think I have an idea about what is useful direction for an actor, and what really gets actors' goats.

 

The director is in a privileged position among a company of actors, because effectively the director is the actor's boss, and so the actor is obliged to defer to the director, and listen to what the director says in service of doing a good job. However, the director's directions should not be accepted merely because of the fact of the director's exalted position, the director's directions should only be accepted when they are effective at helping the actor do his job. I have often found that a gentle, constructive questioning of the director's direction is very healthy, or, as David Mamet said; if the director cannot explain himself to the satisfaction of the actor, then the director does not know what he is talking about. So, the happy position that I want to be in as a director, is to say nothing that isn't helping the actor in practical terms, and to be able to back-up everything I say. Preparation is the key - afterall, would any actor with any semblance of self-respect, trust or accept the authority of a director who was poorly prepared?

 

Here are some thoughts: -

 

1. Director's vanity is a crime.

2. Director's “cool ideas” will not help the actor do the scene.

3. Explain the literal action of the scene in simple terms.

4. Don't give notes merely because “that's what directors do”. If the scene is fine, let it be.

5. If you are going to give a note, make sure you know what you're talking about, and are able to communicate it properly. If not, go away, think about it, and come back when you can communicate it properly.

6. Stop talking as soon as the actor is ready to do the scene (generally demarcated by the actor nodding his head repetitively, or some such), anything beyond this point, becomes an obstacle to the actor's creativity.

7. Assist the actor in finding a concrete, do-able action for the scene, but the final choice of an action must rest with the actor, because the action needs to be interesting to the actor, who, afterall, is going to have to do it.

8. Directors do not “draw” performances from actors. Actors draw performances from themselves. Get out of the way director!

9. The director is there to serve the actor.

10. The actor's trust is hard won, but can be lost in the blink of an eye. Tread carefully.

11. The actor's dignity should be protected at all times.