The Great Acting Blog: “Know What You’re Doing And Know What You Want”
“Nobody respects us”. – Something I overheard an actor saying this week.
The director-actor relationship is unique. During the course of his work, the actor makes himself incredibly vulnerable, which is to say he loses his self-consciousness (which is a tool for protecting the self) in order to perform in the scene. The director however, remains hidden behind the camera or in the stalls, observing, critiquing. So we see clearly how the actor needs to feel that the director is on his side. We live in an era when the director is regularly credited with good work by the actor (director x drew a great performance from actor y). The director dominates the actor in the sense that the actor is there merely to serve “the director’s vision”, as if the actor possesses no creative individuality of his own. The actor works to please the director. So we can also see how actors are wide open to abuse from directors – the director, angry at his own shortcomings (and that of his “vision”) may take it out on the actor, bullying the actor, or, more slyly, criticise the actor using charm. The director may fail to articulate his ideas properly (either through inability or lack of will) but berate the actor for his lack of understanding. There is the fear of unemployment too, the actor defers to even incompetent directors, while the director may feel he is doing the actor a favour by casting him in an over-crowded market-place. This situation is relatively new however, a hundred years ago, directors had no such power (the job barely existed) and actors headed their own companies, but today, it is easy to see why actors may not feel respected, and begin to not respect themselves as a consequence.
Franklin Akers/ 12.05.2013
This sounds like it’s written by an actor who had a bad experience w/ a director, which is entirely believable. But i feel the need to add that an actor can be just as abused when a director doesn’t direct AT ALL!
As a director of many, many community theatre productions, I have learned increasingly that the actor/director are partners, and that if both take that approach good results can happen, and everyone can feel respected and productive.
I approach a play knowing pretty much what I want, which is honesty and generosity on the part of the actor. I LISTEN to the actor when there is a difference of opinion, but I also expect the actor to listen to me. With that mutual respect, both parties should end up happy with what they achieve.
It has been my experience on occasion that an actor may not WANT to be directed and there is too much push back. This never results in a good performance.
TRUST is ALL – and it takes a lot of ego smashing on the part of both!
Fen/ 13.05.2013
Wow, I totally agree with this. 🙂
I am an actor and feel that it works best to trust and enjoy the process.
I refuse to let my bad experiences with directors in the past dominate my approach to current and future ones in a negative way, such that it makes me scared or guarded and not approach the actor/director relationship as a partnership.
The more I trust myself and my own boundaries and feel worthy, the easier it actually becomes to trust another person.
I also see my ‘letting go of self-consciousness’ as my strength rather than that my consciousness is my protection, not only in my acting but also in life. Letting go of self-consciousness – the right to be myself – actually helps me to speak up or leave, should i need to.
Don’t get it twisted – stay strong and keep being you no matter what.
James Devereaux actor/ 12.05.2013
You mis-understand the post …. it’s not about “having a bad experience”, but about knowing your craft, and knowing what you want to achieve, that way the actor can achieve independence creatively, and in their work. Hope that’s cleared that up.
Paul E. Clinco/ 12.05.2013
I am an actor, and a director.
As an actor, I consider my job not only to create a character that the audience will believe, but also to help the director realize his or her vision of the finished work. In villain or comedy roles, I can be “over the top” and I have zero problem with a director telling me “Less!!”
As a director, I completely understand the psychological vulnerability of actors. My goal is not only to achieve the vision of the project, but to provide a working environment of encouragement, respect, and appreciation. Sometimes, when pressed for other decisions, I might not be giving enough time to the actors, but when that happens, having fostered an atmosphere of mutual trust generally smooths things out.
When I hear tales of directorial abuse, I usually consider that there’s more to the story (such as, suits slashing the budget during production) — although some people are simply assholes. Most people have had the experience of working for an asshole, whether in this art or a day gig. Time will pass and it will eventually be over, so don’t rise to provocation and do the best that you can. A pro will know that the job is the boss. It’s better to keep one’s reputation intact. As a director, I insist on a good attitude from my collaborators, especially the actors. That often generates the best performances from them. Actors, of course, have every right to expect a good attitude from me. It’s really the only way — especially at the low budget level — to get a great result and the best possible movie.
James Devereaux actor/ 13.05.2013
“the job is the boss” – that’s a great way of putting it, Paul. I broadly agree with your points, but I think actors still need to be able to recognise situations where the director isn’t helping. I think this is something which is not discussed enough, taboo even – we want to believe all directors are always looking after the actor’s best interests, but this is simply not true, nor is it realistic. We need to encourage actors to think for themselves, rather than just rely on the director. Many thanks for your comment.
James Devereaux actor/ 13.05.2013
Absolutely, trusting yourself is the flipside to the main thrust of the post. Knowing your stuff not only prevents you from being exploited, but also, as you say, helps you stay open to working with directors, open to that trust which is so important. Many thanks for your insiteful contribution.
The Great Acting Blog: “Acting Is A Mysterious Gift” – The Great Acting Blog/ 22.05.2013
[…] I went to pay for my groceries at the store, and as the salesperson was bleeping my stuff through, she asked me if I wanted two bags. I was non-plussed. I didn’t think the number of bags was determined by my preference, but by the volume of goods I was buying. I replied to the girl that I would use one bag if everything fitted in, but two if it didn’t (obviously) . I understand why the salesperson asked me what she did, she was trying to be “eco-friendly” (and no doubt she was acting on a policy enforced upon her by her superiors), but the true purpose of the bag had been  subverted in order to “do good”; the true purpose of a bag is to hold things, but here the purpose of the bag has become to “Save The World”. Saving The World is a noble purpose indeed, but what if, in my desperate attempt to be seen as a “good citizen”, I said I only wanted one bag instead of the two that was actually needed,  and later, halfway down Hackney Road, the bag splits and my groceries spill all over the pavement. I would feel pretty silly then wouldn’t I, not to mention inordinately frustrated. This mess is what happens when we prioritise good intentions over accomplishing objectives. This mess is what happens when a theory is mistaken for a practical necessity. This mess is what happens when things are not employed in their true purpose. Often there is a gap between acting theory and the exigencies of preparing an actor to give an actual performance. Let us remind ourselves that the work of the actor, his purpose, is to communicate the scene to the audience. Therefore, all efforts should be directed toward that end. And these efforts are not always polite, not always charming and cute, oftentimes, they are fiery and require brash individualism. Drama is about conflict, and that conflict takes place between the actors (as the protagonists in the story) within imaginary circumstances. Most acting theory I have encountered is incomprehensible, or at least I found it little useful in terms of getting me ready for performance. Infact, I found the employment of these theories actually created a barrier between myself and the performance, which is to say that the moment when you are ready is constantly being deferred until the theories are mastered (which is never). Acting theories sprung up because of peoples’ good intentions, out of their desire to do good, but they don’t work, because the purpose of acting theory is not to help actors in their work, but to demonstrate that those who promulgate and participate in them are “good citizens”  who “work hard”, that they are polite members of society. Similar to self-concerned directors, acting theories do not serve the true purpose of the actor even though they profess to. If the actor mistakes the theory for the necessities of performance, then all he will create infront of the camera or upon the stage is a mess, which is no creation at all. Acting is not a theory, it is a mysterious gift. RECENT POSTS Vital Actors & Directorial Limitations Notes On A New Theatre Know What You’re Doing And Know What You Want […]
The Great Acting Blog: “How Do You Measure Improvement?” – The Great Acting Blog/ 03.06.2013
[…] Know What Your Doing And Know What You Want […]
heavenly harp/ 09.10.2023
heavenly harp