I just finished my first short film, and I’m about to work on a feature-length piece, so I’m looking for some new ideas on directing actors (which I didn’t have to do in the short).
I recall reading somwhere a few years ago about a foreign director who was I think German, or possibly French. His routine with actors was to have them rehearse a scene over and over and over and over, almost literally ad nauseam, until there was no feeling at all in it, no sense, no acting. They’d be like wooden dolls with words coming out. The idea was apparently to have the film carried by the script rather than the acting.
I’m curious to see some of this guy’s films, but I have no idea who he is. I don’t recall where I read about him or when he made his films, either.
Doesn’t ring a bell, but it sounds to me like a terrible technique. Why not just write a book if you don’t want the acting to come across?
Congrats on finishing the short film, though! You submitting it to any festivals? There’s a good book called Directing Actors, written by Judith Weston, which I’d recommend if you’re looking for more information on the topic.
Bingo, RealityChuck! I think that’s where I read about him, too; the idea semed so counterintuitive for a director that it stuck in my mind.
Any suggestions as to where to start with Bresson? I’ve never seen any of his films, but I’ll be heading to the video store this evening.
Anamorphic, thanks for the congratulations. I’ve submitted it to the IndieMemphis festival, so we’ll see if it gets accepted. It’s really a pretty sloppy project; it cost about $25 (mostly for parking on the days I edited it at a friend’s office) and we did it with a “one good take and let’s move on” attitude. We were pretty much considering this our “film school.”
lissener, I don’t know anything about Mamet’s technique with directing actors, but he’s definitely a favorite of mine; I’ll be rewatching some of his for technique ideas too.
I don’t know if I’d say ‘a lot’. Only insofar as Mamet likes to have his actors not ‘act’, ie, not analyze the part or refer to other films. I’d say going for a more naturalistic style is a far cry from over-rehearsing your actors to the point where they’re wooden, which, as far as I know, I’m pretty sure Mamet didn’t want. Of course, I could be wrong about Bresson wanting that too, as I freely admit I don’t know much about him; I’ve heard the name but don’t think I’ve seen anything by him. It’s only the impression I get from the OP’s description of his technique.
Good luck with the fests, jackelope! I’ve done a few, so if you have any questions, feel free to shoot 'em my way. And in any case, keep us updated!
Mamet has a very distinctive style of writing (and his directing certainly involves having the actors stick to the way he imagined hearing his dialogue done). But I don’t think it’s wooden. He does heavily emphasis rhythm, including apparently having his actors rehearse with a metronome to get it right. I guess I can see where there can be blurring.
I like Mamet, but I don’t think he’s nearly as naturalistic as he thinks he is (or as critics generally say he is).
The same has been said of Yasujiro Ozu (aka Japan’s greatest director). Here’s what Shohei Imamura said about the master:
Bresson & Ozu were masters of the medium, but they had similar styles: sparse & economical, few camera movements & more emphasis on fixed compositions, story (and dialogue) taking a backseat toward a more meditative tone and pacing.
Needless to say, this is not an easy thing to make (or watch, for that matter). It demands exceptional confidence in your instincts, and these films are not often rewarding for audiences with more mainstream expectations in films. There were also thematic reasons for taking this approach with actors: Ozu was constantly commenting on social expectations in Japanese society, and Bresson explored issues of religion, faith, and fate. In both cases, their approach demanded an extreme type of understatement, something which they might have found easier to obtain by rehearsing the material until a fatigued, lived-in type of naturalism was achieved.
Given all these factors, it doesn’t seem to be a strategy that would work for most artists in most cases. Good luck with your film nonetheless.
I don’t think I’ve seen any Bresson, but now I’ll be searching him out: Ozu is one of my favorite directors, and Tokyo Story is usually in my lifetime top ten.
Robert Bresson only made a handful of feature films that are commercially available in the US. His greatest film, Au Hasard, Balthazar, has a donkey for its protagonist, so I wouldn’t start there. Instead, try Pickpocket, A Man Escaped, Diary of a Country Priest, and L’Argent for starters.
As for Ozu, his films are also essential. He made some great comedies (I Was Born, But…) that probably don’t quite fit your purposes. I would go with Tokyo Story (the most readily available) and continue with An Autumn Afternoon, Late Spring, and Floating Weeds.
Yup, Tokyo Story is a phenomenal film. If you’re comparing him to Ozu, perhaps I should check this Bresson fellow out. “A donkey for its protagonist” actually sounds familiar; I actually may have seen that one in school.
I like where this thread is going: I love Paul Schrader’s films (especially the often-overlooked Touch), and I’m getting a good list of new films to check out.
(One wonders, though, whether right before starting a new project is the time to start exploring brand-new avenues. Might as well, I suppose.)
Netflix, my first line of attack nowadays, has only one: Les Dames du Bois de Boulogne, which I just ordered.
My next step the Seattle Public Library, has three more (in additio to the first one):
Un condamneì aÌ mort s’est eìchappeì, ou, Le vent souffle ouÌ il veut
Une femme douce
Journal d’un cureì de campagne
–which I’ve just reserved (and I’ve read the novel Journal d’un cureì de campagne).
My next step is Scarecrow video, and they have 13 of his titles, so I’ll drop by there when I’ve seen the first four.
re: Paul Schrader: almost as uneven as Alan Parker, although not as bad at his worst as Parker is. Touch was OK, but I like his writing more than his directing; I don’t think he’s ever directed a movie that didn’t leave me disappointed; usually especially so because he gets so close.
Charlie Chaplin demanded a week’s worth of retakes when he was directing Lydia Knott in A Woman of Paris (1923). He wanted her performance to be deadpan when her character learns of the death of her child, while Knott argued for resolute fortitude. He kept demanding retakes until she became sullen, which is what he wanted all along.
Of course, that’s like saying “Brian DePalma? The one who made Bonfire of the Vanities?? BLECH…”
Schrader has made (as writer or director) more good films than bad, and you’ll be hard pressed to find any genuine artist with a long career who hasn’t made a less-than-satisfying movie once in a while.
