Question

I am currently researching Actor - Director Relationships

Has anyone here done similar work?

Topics

2 / 0  ·  14 Answers  ·  243 Views

All Answers (14)

  • Vittorio Aime · University of Latvia
    Si, è una sperimentazione che conduco ormai da qualche anno, sia come attore che come regista teatrale anche se a livello amatoriale.
  • Balaji Dhanraj · SRM University
    Sorry vittorio , iam not able to fallow italiano
  • Vittorio Aime · University of Latvia
    Excuse me, I try with Google translator: Yes, I conduct a study for some years now, both as actor and theater director though not professional.
  • Balaji Dhanraj · SRM University
    its good that you contacted me.it would be much helpful for me to discuss the nuances of the subject. And your profile suits me well. you being an actor and director i can have my doubts cleared.to start with , my first question will be....(1) Why do you think that it is essential to have a good relationship between an actor and director ?
  • Vittorio Aime · University of Latvia
    Well, then let's begin! First of all will be good to clarify what we mean by "good relationship" between actor and director! I personally believe that a good relationship with mutual respect is what tends to the best result.
  • Vittorio Aime · University of Latvia
    In theater, the best result, in my opinion, is when the audience feels involved with the carrying out of the stage: why the interpretation is credible and believable enough to make much sense to the viewer's emotions, feelings and feelings that the "character" (not the actor), evidence in the course of the narrated action. So, the relationship between actor and director, will consume all of the characters in-depth study of the character, occurring within the given circumstances according to the problems raised by the partners, the place (the scene) and the motivation of the whole of the characters. Once this phase of study in common with the other elements of theatricality: costume designer, lighting technician, sound technician, master, etc. .., each will try to develop their own point of view and then, during the tests, you will experience the harmonies dissonances and finding the best solution. The director will be responsible for coordinating this stage and where there are differences seem difficult to overcome, will determine what will be the best line to follow. This virtue of the fact that the poster's name appears as the director responsible for the entire work.
  • Balaji Dhanraj · SRM University
    Thats fine. Actually what i meant by good relationship is what kind of mental wavelength should prevail between them to bring out the best results on stage. For example if the director wants to convey what he wants from the actor and for the actor to understand what that is required for the character. This can be achieved only if there exits good working relationship between them. What then is required at this point is what i asked.
  • Vittorio Aime · University of Latvia
    For me, is required the ability to hear the impressions of others. Without prejudice, without discriminating role, but in the accordance whit the role of each, deploy all available energies. I have experienced, as a director, that the actors, when they are involved in the study of work (study of the characters, situations, circumstances, motivations) offer an efficiency much higher than when they are commanded in an authoritarian way. Their performance was much higher level, more appreciated by the audience and more satisfying for them.
  • Matthias Bronnenmeyer · Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg
    You might want to message me, I am working on a similar project at the moment.
  • Niki Dudgeon · University of Canberra
    Hi there. I have been directing for many years and I believe that working WITH your actors is all important to the process. We explore and discover together. I offer exercises to help them discover the style and the characters etc and then we refine and build. It is important to share the goal with the understanding that the director brings it all together. Whilst the actors often have an internal focus projected externally the director brings everything together as a conductor does with a piece of music so that each instrument compliments the other in the storytelling, guiding the pace and volume, the intensity and the movements to form the whole piece. Thus, the director must respect the skill of his/her actors and the actors must respect the skill of the director as well as the defining role of the director - and trust him/her implicitly and explicitly. An excellent working relationship is reflected in the outcome of the performance and on a daily basis, throughout the creative process.
  • Balaji Dhanraj · SRM University
    Hi Niki. i accept your opinion that there should be a mutual understanding between the actor and the director. I would like to state here further that the director being the 'Captain of the ship' has got more responsibility in bringing out the best from the actors. Most of the time the film actors does not (or) necessarily have not have to know about the story since film being the directors medium. Most of the time the film is shot in out of the chronological order, scene and shot order is jumbled for the sake of saving the time and energy. In this scenario it is the duty of the director to explain the nuances of the character to the the actor to get the best out of them.
  • Niki Dudgeon · University of Canberra
    Absolutely! That was my point about helping the actors to do their stuff but that the director's role was way bigger than that. Putting a show/film together is like life really in that we only understand the picture from the point of view of ourselves but 'God' has a bigger picture in mind. As a director we have to ensure that the actor's interpretation of the character fits in with the nuances of the overall picture to bring together the story and that the story is told in line with the director's vision. If an actor does it only his way, it can have a detrimental effect on the piece; the director and the actor must have a good working relationship where the director can effectively communicate his vision and so that the actor trusts this vision even when it takes him out of his comfort zone or doesn't quite make sense to him at the time. If you are talking film where scenes are filmed out of sequence, this is important as the actor has no ability to see things in context until the whole piece is complete; however, on stage, this is also important becasue the actor NEVER has the opportunity to see the piece from the audience's perspective.
  • Balaji Dhanraj · SRM University
    Hi.i do not agree with you that the actors on stage will NEVER get an opportunity to see their piece from the audience's perspective. if they want to they can capture their entire performance in camera and can look into their plus and minus. now its a digital era and its become easy to handle these cameras. you can ask any of your assistants to shoot. Even during the rehearsal time you can do that. Then you can have an idea from the perspective of the audience. how your physical appearance looks from down the stage,body language and so on...On the other hand there is one more difficult part that can be so disorienting to the film actors--- the emotional continuity. On stage the duration of a play takes at the maximum two hours. But that can not be the case for film actors. it will take days , months, some time years to complete a project. A film actor should have the capability to carry forward their character in spite of number of break-ups in the shooting schedule. Even the intense emotions has to be carried forward. And on stage most of the time you will have your co-actor giving counter reactions to your actions and emotions which will make your performance easier. But for film acting it will be the camera for which you will be performing, imagining it as your co-actor which disturbs your concentration at times.Moreover the camera is a close-up medium, an actor can not lie to it. wherein the stage actor has overdo most of the time.These nuances can only be differentiated if the director has the capacity and good relationship with his/her artistes to bring out the best from them
  • Niki Dudgeon · University of Canberra
    This is a bit of fun… I wish we were having this conversation in person! I agree that the actor does have the opportunity to view scenes during the rehearsal period in ‘isolation’ if they wish to but they will not get the opportunity to see the ‘whole’ story until it is complete. Even if actors have the opportunity to see themselves during rehearsal or to watch the ‘rushes’, they are often seeing it from an internal perspective (quite apart from the fact that video rarely translates stage performance very well), from their own perspective and with regard to their own performance. On stage, yes the actor must sustain the performance for two hours and be able to repeat it six days a week, sometimes two shows a day and still produce the same delicate rise and fall, action and reaction and during rehearsal the director must be able to communicate with the actor that even if he/she feels that a certain response is warranted at a certain point, that it is necessary to delay that response in the best interests of his/her interpretation. In this way the actor has to have a good working relationship with the director to trust his/her vision and the director must have a good working relationship with the actor in order to convey it in the language of the actor. In theatre, the actor has the power (if they so desire) to throw everything out of balance – particularly as the director has no influence following opening night. On film, the director can create the atmosphere, mood, rise and fall, and even make a not so good actor seem to be a much better one with the use of film technique, angles, editing, etc. and once the film has been put together to his/her satisfaction no-one can mess with it. In film, the rehearsal and performance period are combined. The actor only has to do it ‘right’ once and it is captured. If they can’t do it ‘right’, the director still has the ability to make the scene speak to the whole vision by applying other techniques, angles, overlayed music, or by reducing a role, cutting out scenes, writing new ones until the film tells the story he envisioned. In theatre, the director and the actors spend a great deal of time together and get to know one another quite intimately; in film, this may not be as necessary. So perhaps, it is more important for a theatre director and a stage actor to have a good working relationship than the film director and actor?

Question Followers (8)