I am the actor Andrew mentions at about 1:09 and I'm SO GLAD Andrew told about this incident as it's an anecdote I've remarked on in conversations, film panels, etc. as one of my most valuable "director moments" I've ever had on set or on stage. What he doesn't mention is that we were shooting on location, desperately losing light and really only had time for one MAYBE two more takes. Add to that that he was directing at the same time as being emotionally wound up in character himself and it's all the more remarkable he was able to distill his direction so efficiently. I remember him muttering in my ear the words "This isn't about you" (meaning "you" the character, Ted, not the actor, Michael, LOL!). Thank God I was able to immediately "get it", wipe my eyes and shift gears. It's now one of my favorite moments in the film, all the more for having been so well-earned.
the problem comes lower down the food chain on low-to-no budget films where oftentime the actors are inexperienced and lack confidence. micromanagement is a key director skill in these lower leagues.
As an actress myself I can only say that I fully agree with him. Give me a situation, knowing my character I will react accordingly. A film/play is a team game, we all have to work together closely
Very helpful. The actor's language is emotion. They have high emotional IQ. I love the idea of collaborating with the actor. When I write a screenplay, I want to work with the actors to see if the line feels right, is easy to say, and conveys what it needs to convey. Their input is invaluable. Film is a group effort.
Great interview! I really liked Andrew's points about STORY BEING FIRST! I also like his ideas on treating actors as professionals, avoiding line readings and indicating. I especially like his comment of treating collaboration with actors like psychotherapy! As a matter of fact, that's part of the reason that I got a B.A. in FIlm AND a B.S. in Psychology in undergrad before going to film school. I wanted to be able to relate to actors in a manner similar to a therapist and patient. Therapists (in talk therapy) don't TELL a patient what's wrong with them. They mostly ASK THE RIGHT QUESTIONS and allow the patient to discover how they should be behaving, feeling, or thinking with these leading questions. When I collaborate with actors (I rarely use the term "direct actors" we make discoveries together led by these questions. I didn't know anybody else was using this technique. But it's great that Andrew is! Another emotionally-driven technique that I like to use is to employ MUSIC. I introduce a song to an actor on set that captures the tone of the scene (it works only in MOS shots but you can use it in rehearsals or give he tracks to the actors to take home). Music is so nuanced and complex that there is a LOT of material in a track that can communicate the director's vision of the scene using more than often inadequate, heavy-handed words. I "Director-splain" as little as possible. Using music also leaves plenty of room for the actor to make the performance his or her own: they can interpret, express and expound upon the emotional notes in the music. In my opinion, Instrumental or symphonic music works best for think, especially scores. He's such an intuitive and internally-driven director that i would be surprised if Andrew HASN'T done something like this too!
Great comment Jabbar! Interesting to hear you talk about employing music. Not sure that comes up often. Although we feel like Tarantino is one who may use music to set a mood on set. Can anyone verify that?
I prefer giving the actors a do-able task/intention than focus on emotion. Instead of get angry, "punish him". It comes out more organically. From my old acting days, Mood=Doom.
Basically what you have to do as a director. Inform the actor what the character's current situation is. Describe the character's emotional beats and the event beats of the scene which the actors will use as a guide for their performance.
My buddies and I still argue about this. I was acting in one of their movies. The director performed my lines and blocking for me. He expected me to do it verbatim, same gestures, same tone, same inflection, and even pause at the same moments he did. I couldn't have reproduced his performance even if I wanted to. We never finished that movie.
When directing actors: Story is first. Actors are smart. They are emotionally smart so speak to them in a way that is prodding or inviting ideas rather that telling them how to say a line or say it in a certain way. Ask about the actor's perspective on the character and you 2 talk about it, giving ideas/suggestions. Ask them what you think happens here or next? No actor likes to be told how to do stuff. But they love notes. Don't criticise or give actors notes, in public but privately. Metaphorical direction. Emotions behind the scenes and characters. Feelings of a character within a scene. If a director says that an actor should go bigger, they will go bigger same with if they want them to go smaller. Be a psychologist.
About that "looking to you as a director" point, what would you guys do when the actors, instead of looking to you as the director, they treat you instead like their personal problem solver because they want to be portrayed in a certain way and they assume that the director's job is to "make them look cool"?
This is excellent advice and very helpful to the writer/director who knows the story inside and out but may not know how to communicate with the actors. To know the beats that the actor has to hit, you have to do script analysis. Read Judith Weston's book "Directing Actors", it will teach you how to do script analysis.
Two things: Unless you have graduated with a Bachelor's or higher in degree in psychology in the last ten years, do not reference doing psychology in any way, shape, or form. Hollywood had done way more harm than good by being too intellectually lazy to actually learn about the subject. Freud is considered a joke. Jung is considered a joke. The people who don't consider them to be jokes are considered jokes. Only two form of therapy have any scientific basis: behavioral and cognitive-behavioral. Meds really aren't over prescribed, and for the most part, they work -- in many cases they work wonders. Thinking you understand therapy because you've gone to therapy is like thinking you know how to run a factory because you've worked on an assembly line screwing in bolts with a pneumatic drill. Second, somebody is going to have to explain to me why directing actors isn't the easiest thing in the world. I feel like I've never really connected to any person in my entire life, and I've never missed a person because that's apparently an emotion I'm incapable of having. But it's dead easy to put myself into unfamiliar shoes, thread together a compelling narrative, and put it into words. From the overwhelming wonder of scientific discovery, to the literally-indescribable horror of being mangled in an injury, it seems trivial to sit down and paint a compelling picture for someone with a curious mind.
That seems like a very narrow-minded view of psychology... ^^; As for why acting is hard... Try to picture this: First, you need to memorize your lines and actions. So far, so simple. Then (assuming you are in a naturalistic/realist production, which most film/television productions are) you need to be able put yourself in the character shoes and do it in a way that feels true to life. However, just "feeling" what you need to isn't enought, you must act in way that clearly conveys the important information to the audience. (which means you need to articulate your lines clearly - without it feeling artificial - and be conscious of what you are doing with your whole body.) Also, you need to be aware of how much the camera is capturing, and how much you can move. And since several shots of the same action may have to be filmed - and someone is going to need to edit into a single sequence afterward - you need to be able to reproduce both your physical movements and emotional beats with some precision, or else several continuity issues are sure to arise. Also, movies are not usually filmed in chronological order, due to time/budget/organizational constraints. (setting up the scenario/cameras/lighting/sound/etc. Takes much more time than the actual filming) so actors have to be able to quickly jump in and out of whatever state the character was in that particular moment. And may need to repeat their performances not only if a mistake happens in the acting, but also if any technical issues arise. And on the matter of fumbling a line, or any other mistake... As I've said, filming involves A LOT of stuff (lighting, sound, scenario, make-up, costumes...) and you are constantly working under monetary and time constraints. Which means that, while an occasional mistake is fine, every time you mess up you are costing time to the whole crew. And the director can't afford to just let you try again several times until you get it right. And some scenes may not allow for a secound chance at all (if a part of the set needs to be destroyed, for example) Oh, on top of that, you normally have nowhere near as much time to rehearse as if you were in a live theater production. So yeah... That's a lot of stuff you need to keep track of, and it's a lot of pressure. I can only imagine how difficult it must be from the director side of things, when they can only afford some much time to actors. Especially when actors that don't have much experience working in this enviroment are involved...
Yea bud. I don't think you know how hard it is to be a succefull director. As a director you're not just guiding the actors, you're guiding the entire film production. The film is your vision and as such you have to guide the entire crew towards that vision. That means you have to have a deep understanding of Mise-en-scene. Of how all the elements of a film comes together in the cinematic language to create meaning. Often times you have to struggle with the egos of other crew memebers who believe they have a better way with regard to "X". Sometimes their way may be better, but other times they may not. Then there is the limitation you may be having. What makes a great director is being able to create something brilliant while being limited by what you can actually do. And if the film fails, the director is held responsible for that failure which could result in him not having much future work as a director. There's a lot of pressure a director faces. You've got to have tough skin in the industry.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
I am the actor Andrew mentions at about 1:09 and I'm SO GLAD Andrew told about this incident as it's an anecdote I've remarked on in conversations, film panels, etc. as one of my most valuable "director moments" I've ever had on set or on stage. What he doesn't mention is that we were shooting on location, desperately losing light and really only had time for one MAYBE two more takes. Add to that that he was directing at the same time as being emotionally wound up in character himself and it's all the more remarkable he was able to distill his direction so efficiently. I remember him muttering in my ear the words "This isn't about you" (meaning "you" the character, Ted, not the actor, Michael, LOL!). Thank God I was able to immediately "get it", wipe my eyes and shift gears. It's now one of my favorite moments in the film, all the more for having been so well-earned.
"Being an actor first" ... that's the key, right there.
I found this helpful as a writer, knowing where your character is in their arc is so important.
You a scriptwriter or a novelist...?
the problem comes lower down the food chain on low-to-no budget films where oftentime the actors are inexperienced and lack confidence. micromanagement is a key director skill in these lower leagues.
As an actress myself I can only say that I fully agree with him. Give me a situation, knowing my character I will react accordingly. A film/play is a team game, we all have to work together closely
Very helpful. The actor's language is emotion. They have high emotional IQ. I love the idea of collaborating with the actor.
When I write a screenplay, I want to work with the actors to see if the line feels right, is easy to say, and conveys what it needs to convey. Their input is invaluable. Film is a group effort.
Great interview! I really liked Andrew's points about STORY BEING FIRST! I also like his ideas on treating actors as professionals, avoiding line readings and indicating. I especially like his comment of treating collaboration with actors like psychotherapy! As a matter of fact, that's part of the reason that I got a B.A. in FIlm AND a B.S. in Psychology in undergrad before going to film school. I wanted to be able to relate to actors in a manner similar to a therapist and patient. Therapists (in talk therapy) don't TELL a patient what's wrong with them. They mostly ASK THE RIGHT QUESTIONS and allow the patient to discover how they should be behaving, feeling, or thinking with these leading questions. When I collaborate with actors (I rarely use the term "direct actors" we make discoveries together led by these questions. I didn't know anybody else was using this technique. But it's great that Andrew is! Another emotionally-driven technique that I like to use is to employ MUSIC. I introduce a song to an actor on set that captures the tone of the scene (it works only in MOS shots but you can use it in rehearsals or give he tracks to the actors to take home). Music is so nuanced and complex that there is a LOT of material in a track that can communicate the director's vision of the scene using more than often inadequate, heavy-handed words. I "Director-splain" as little as possible. Using music also leaves plenty of room for the actor to make the performance his or her own: they can interpret, express and expound upon the emotional notes in the music. In my opinion, Instrumental or symphonic music works best for think, especially scores. He's such an intuitive and internally-driven director that i would be surprised if Andrew HASN'T done something like this too!
Great comment Jabbar! Interesting to hear you talk about employing music. Not sure that comes up often. Although we feel like Tarantino is one who may use music to set a mood on set. Can anyone verify that?
Was this helpful? What other tips do you have?
Very helpful
Super! Your channel is amazing and teaches me much more than film school theory!
Story trumps everything. Story is the sun, and the actors are flowes. Story is what allows the actors to bloom.
Extremely helpful. As he was talking, I was thinking about my characters and their journeys and how to best deal with this.
I prefer giving the actors a do-able task/intention than focus on emotion. Instead of get angry, "punish him". It comes out more organically. From my old acting days, Mood=Doom.
AP! I was in a few acting classes with him years ago at Saddleback, one of the nicest people I've met
Basically what you have to do as a director. Inform the actor what the character's current situation is. Describe the character's emotional beats and the event beats of the scene which the actors will use as a guide for their performance.
Thank you Andrew Guerrero
Thank you for the advice on this, I was wanting to and I'm right now wanting to become an actor myself.
My buddies and I still argue about this. I was acting in one of their movies. The director performed my lines and blocking for me. He expected me to do it verbatim, same gestures, same tone, same inflection, and even pause at the same moments he did. I couldn't have reproduced his performance even if I wanted to. We never finished that movie.
"The director performed my lines ... for me" -- Did he get the role?
Hitchcock apparently demanded actors do the exact gestures/movements as he envisioned. And he didn’t exactly do badly...
Andrew always has great advice. Thanks!🙏👏
🤗
When directing actors:
Story is first.
Actors are smart. They are emotionally smart so speak to them in a way that is prodding or inviting ideas rather that telling them how to say a line or say it in a certain way. Ask about the actor's perspective on the character and you 2 talk about it, giving ideas/suggestions. Ask them what you think happens here or next? No actor likes to be told how to do stuff. But they love notes. Don't criticise or give actors notes, in public but privately.
Metaphorical direction. Emotions behind the scenes and characters. Feelings of a character within a scene. If a director says that an actor should go bigger, they will go bigger same with if they want them to go smaller.
Be a psychologist.
About that "looking to you as a director" point, what would you guys do when the actors, instead of looking to you as the director, they treat you instead like their personal problem solver because they want to be portrayed in a certain way and they assume that the director's job is to "make them look cool"?
ON my indie film I will direct myself & do my OWN stunts
Tarantino does line readings though.
This is excellent advice and very helpful to the writer/director who knows the story inside and out but may not know how to communicate with the actors. To know the beats that the actor has to hit, you have to do script analysis. Read Judith Weston's book "Directing Actors", it will teach you how to do script analysis.
0:18
Useful video,
Great Advice.
Awesome advice!
Thanks for watching!
I just shot a commercial and the director was so rude and mean to me that I had to tell him to give me a break several times.
I just realized I’ve been an asshole for 5 years
Yep
It's hard work! So glad I don't have to work with human actors 😹
Two things: Unless you have graduated with a Bachelor's or higher in degree in psychology in the last ten years, do not reference doing psychology in any way, shape, or form.
Hollywood had done way more harm than good by being too intellectually lazy to actually learn about the subject. Freud is considered a joke. Jung is considered a joke. The people who don't consider them to be jokes are considered jokes. Only two form of therapy have any scientific basis: behavioral and cognitive-behavioral. Meds really aren't over prescribed, and for the most part, they work -- in many cases they work wonders. Thinking you understand therapy because you've gone to therapy is like thinking you know how to run a factory because you've worked on an assembly line screwing in bolts with a pneumatic drill.
Second, somebody is going to have to explain to me why directing actors isn't the easiest thing in the world. I feel like I've never really connected to any person in my entire life, and I've never missed a person because that's apparently an emotion I'm incapable of having. But it's dead easy to put myself into unfamiliar shoes, thread together a compelling narrative, and put it into words. From the overwhelming wonder of scientific discovery, to the literally-indescribable horror of being mangled in an injury, it seems trivial to sit down and paint a compelling picture for someone with a curious mind.
Nobody reads baby novels anymore.
Get straight to the point..
That seems like a very narrow-minded view of psychology... ^^;
As for why acting is hard... Try to picture this: First, you need to memorize your lines and actions. So far, so simple.
Then (assuming you are in a naturalistic/realist production, which most film/television productions are) you need to be able put yourself in the character shoes and do it in a way that feels true to life.
However, just "feeling" what you need to isn't enought, you must act in way that clearly conveys the important information to the audience. (which means you need to articulate your lines clearly - without it feeling artificial - and be conscious of what you are doing with your whole body.)
Also, you need to be aware of how much the camera is capturing, and how much you can move.
And since several shots of the same action may have to be filmed - and someone is going to need to edit into a single sequence afterward - you need to be able to reproduce both your physical movements and emotional beats with some precision, or else several continuity issues are sure to arise.
Also, movies are not usually filmed in chronological order, due to time/budget/organizational constraints. (setting up the scenario/cameras/lighting/sound/etc. Takes much more time than the actual filming) so actors have to be able to quickly jump in and out of whatever state the character was in that particular moment. And may need to repeat their performances not only if a mistake happens in the acting, but also if any technical issues arise.
And on the matter of fumbling a line, or any other mistake... As I've said, filming involves A LOT of stuff (lighting, sound, scenario, make-up, costumes...) and you are constantly working under monetary and time constraints. Which means that, while an occasional mistake is fine, every time you mess up you are costing time to the whole crew. And the director can't afford to just let you try again several times until you get it right. And some scenes may not allow for a secound chance at all (if a part of the set needs to be destroyed, for example)
Oh, on top of that, you normally have nowhere near as much time to rehearse as if you were in a live theater production.
So yeah... That's a lot of stuff you need to keep track of, and it's a lot of pressure.
I can only imagine how difficult it must be from the director side of things, when they can only afford some much time to actors. Especially when actors that don't have much experience working in this enviroment are involved...
Yea bud. I don't think you know how hard it is to be a succefull director. As a director you're not just guiding the actors, you're guiding the entire film production. The film is your vision and as such you have to guide the entire crew towards that vision. That means you have to have a deep understanding of Mise-en-scene. Of how all the elements of a film comes together in the cinematic language to create meaning. Often times you have to struggle with the egos of other crew memebers who believe they have a better way with regard to "X". Sometimes their way may be better, but other times they may not. Then there is the limitation you may be having. What makes a great director is being able to create something brilliant while being limited by what you can actually do. And if the film fails, the director is held responsible for that failure which could result in him not having much future work as a director. There's a lot of pressure a director faces. You've got to have tough skin in the industry.
Please share your screenplay with us all as its very easy for you to thread together a compelling narrative. I will eagerly read it.
@@leroystreetproductions5870 Ad hominem. Get back to me when you understand that.