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: "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.

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 play the scene.

8. Directors do not “draw” performances from actors. Actors draw perfromances 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.

 

TThe Great Acting Blog: "Some Thoughts On Self-Producing"

 

I'm often an advocate on this blog, of actors being their own bosses, creating their own productions, the reasons for doing so are too numerous to mention here, but in the modern era I would say it's essential rather than an option. Having recently produced Phone Box Gun, a short film noir, I would say one of the toughest parts of self-producing is ensuring that the quality of your own performance doesn't diminish due to multi-tasking. Typically, on productions where I am the actor only, what I would do going into the take, is relax, and let my mind rest onto the action I was about to perform, then go for it. However, on those productions where I am director aswell as actor, I may go through my usual routine but at the last minute, some problem with the shot may crop up, which I as the director need to address, so I have to turn my thoughts away from my acting action and onto the said problem. Once the problem is sorted, I then have to let my mind find my acting action again, and go into the scene – not easy to do, especially if fixing the problem has flustered you in any way, and some other detail may have entered your thoughts in the meantime. In order to keep making this adjustment, the actor needs to have total confidence in his technique, and the will to forget about everything else, and trust that everyone around him is doing his job, and focus only on doing his action in the scene, and doing so with total commitment. I have self-produced on stage and in cinema, and would have to say that stage is easier. Why? Because it's simpler. Assuming rehearsals have done the job, you just have to step on stage and do it. Whereas in cinema, there's all those nasty bits of technology which don't always do what you want them to do, and, if you're shooting on the streets of London, the general public don't always behave in a way that's best for your film – on Phone Box Gun, one scene was set in a public park, but we only had to egt one very simple shot there, unfortunately, a dog decided to join us, and starting barking at us to throw the ball he had just dropped at our feet. My relief at the arrival of the dog's owner quickly turned to despair, as the owner thought it was very cute that his little doggy had interrupted our schedule, he was proud, and he seemed genuinely bemused when it dawned on him that we did not share his sentiment. A small issue, for sure, but one which caused a little bit of anxiety, especially when spots of rain began to appear, and suddenly, what had appeared on the shot list to be a very simple task, had infact sent the mind off in all sorts of directions – I never thought I'd find myself in negotiations to get a dog moved. So yes, actors self producing requires; total confidence in what you're doing, iron discipline, and enormous mental strength.

 

Woof!

The Great Acting Blog: "Take Pride In Your Work"

I always take great delight in seeing a director's face light up because of something I have done. I don't mean the loathsome ass kissing which goes on, I'm talking about delivering a difficult moment such that it solves a problem the director could not previously articulate – this often leads to genuine relief and joy on the part of the director. I always try to fit myself into the mode of the production, even if it contradicts my own aesthetic - this is correct – the production is not for the actor to impose himself on and make bend to his will, rather he is there to serve it. The actor should never compete with a director, and always remain respectful, if there is disagreement then it should be handled privately. It's not the job of the actor to judge the director, it's the job of the actor to communicate the play to the audience. The director is the actor's boss, and has brought the actor in to deliver very specific goods within the overall production. Moreover, if an actor cannot keep his petty insecurities in check, then he should get lost – the actor who allows his neurotic fears to dominate his reason and make the rest of the group suffer is a despicable act of gross selfishness, and is singularly the most destructive thing I have ever witnessed within a company. As the saying goes: keep the drama in the play. We are living in a society which has infantilised it's citizens by enshrining “how you feel”, however, all good actors know that how you feel is unimportant, it's action that counts. Great actors are spiritual warriors, and exercise self-control. Ultimately, generosity toward those he is working with is an important quality for the actor to possess. The actor comes across many varied working cultures and working methods, and those actors who survive in the jungle are the ones who can adapt to changing circumstances quickly, infact, I have come to believe that this is how the quality of an actors talent should be measured, ie: his ability to function effectively in a diverse range of situations. The actor then, needs to be adaptable.

However, it is important that the actor take a break from adapting to the modes and cultures of other peoples' productions, and produce his own. I've written before how an actor can understand his own work better and come to define his own aesthetic by producing his own stuff (and therefore function better on other peoples' stuff), however, I also think he should take time out periodically to do this, a sort of creative pit-stop, a chance to tend to the core which is present in all his work. Writing, directing and acting in his own productions can give the actor a crystal clear view of his work, he will be applying his own aesthetic from top to bottom, and so can see what's changed in his work, where any kinks may have developed and iron them out, what needs to be improved, what has improved. Producing one's own work means working with actors and crew, which provides a test of whether the ideas behind the work can be communicated to other people. Personally speaking, I find directing other actors is an especially useful task because it forces me to articulate my thoughts about the script in simple, actable terms (the way I would want to be directed), which also functions as a confirmation of my own working methods. Explaining what I think to other people is a very good bullshit test too, because if I cant explain it to another such that they understand it, then I don't know what I'm talking about. Furthermore, these explanations must be practically useful to the listener when in the field, pretty theories are useless in the rehearsal room. The pressure which comes with taking responsibility overall for a production then, keeps you honest because other people are relying on you to help them do their job well, this humbles, and helps to shake off the crust of decadence which may have formed while working on other peoples' productions, where the actor is responsible for himself only, and need not concern himself with the minutiae of production (where even finding the right prop can turn into a major endeavour). Accountability is the thing, there is no place to hide, there can be no excuses, that work up on the screen or on the stage is undeniably yours, the totality of it this time, not only your performance. You set the standard, how you perform sends out a message to those around you, a message about the work in hand, about your work generally, and about how you think it should be done. Accomplish a standard which is high enough to keep the idealism of those who decided to collaborate with you intact, and hopefully then, they will want to see your face light up by solving a difficult problem – this happens when we work on something we're proud of.

 

Taking time out to repair, renew and improve, is taking pride in your work.