As a filmmaker/screenwriter, are you open to an actor adding their own take on the character/dialogue? If the actor has a suggestion, what is the best way for them to approach it (eg., in the moment of the scene, speaking to the director privately, bringing it up during a table read, etc.)?
I think I would encourage it. It’s fun acting totally different just randomly being different. Different personality, different words, different imitations. I like being alone so I can be randomly different LOL it’s not real but You can create interesting situations and then think “what would lead to this situation that shouldn’t be possible and what can make it seem even more possible just off the wall situations like arguing with some lady about a pickle that taste like soap it sounds crazy, but now that I’ve just put this off the wall thought in my head I can be this really weird character that is just different then most about this experience of dealing with the taste of a soapy pickle. 🤣 Wow this sounds really weird reading this vs seeing and hearing it happen (the characters reaction to the unpleasant pickle) it would look different from the description ! LOL It only works if comes from nothing I’d do TH-cam shorts but I don’t think anybody would know what i was doing, a snowball of weirdness scaring all the females away, and flash forward to the future old in a rocking chair, looking out the window of an old folks home as I mumble to myself in an old man voice….you terd, you should’ve never made those videos (right before I knock back a little cup of pills with probably a Xanax in it followed by a wink at the nurse. But I don’t know I might if I can keep finding ways to slip them in on a whim? I don’t know where else to be characters nobody wants to watch someone be in random situations with out the rest of it and I don’t blame them if I didn’t know any better I would think what in the world? LOL
I would think that from an actor's perspective, you would want to wait to be asked for some ad-libs rather than volunteer them. It could look disrespectful to the writers, or like a sign of hubris from the actor. On the other hand, depending on an actor to ad-lib their way through a script can also be daunting for the actor. (No offense to actors, but) Actors' strong suit is interpretation, not seeing or crafting the big picture of an entire narrative. For me, the worst example of relying too much on actors to create the movie through ad-libbing is 2016's Ghostbusters, and it was AWFUL. I imagined any other job where you show up and your boss says "cool, so today, you'll be doing my job too. Have fun with it!"
Making a movie is a collaborative effort. As a screenwriter I don't always have a say in the matter after I've sold a script, I no longer own it; I'm out of the picture (most of the time). But as a director I would want to feel my way through a scene during rehearsals and get it locked in during rehearsals so we're not doing 30 takes on the set in order to get it right. I say let the actors improv because some are trained for improvisation as long as they're improvising along the lines of what was already agreed to during rehearsals and table reads, not just goofing off to make the crew laugh but wasting precious time/money while we're chasing day light. It would make no sense to hire an actor because of their improv experience and then not allow them to improvise or give you as many possible takes on a scene as possible (like Jim Carrey always did), that way once you get to the editing room you have a variety of choices. Sometimes the best takes are the ones you weren't expecting like when R. Lee Earmy started improvising dialogue in the opening scenes of Full Metal Jacket. Those scenes are absolutely classic and if you read the script - it's absolute crap, it would have NEVER happened that way in reality... but R. Lee knew better because he had been a real Drill Instructor so he played it the way it would have really happened. The scene in the script is a little bit too conversational & friendly; that's not the way your first few minutes of Boot Camp OR Basic Training is going to happen.
A writer/director should be egoless & adaptable. It's a collaboration, so the actors should have input & I'd throw away the script if their improvs better served the project. Knowing your actors is key. Gary Oldman needs a script locked in, Downey Jr will literally not even look at it😅
@@liquidbraino Sounds like you'd make a good director! Kubrick was the master. 2001, Strangelove, Clockwork & The Shining all had improvised scenes. There was even some method behind the madness of shooting endless retakes.
Christopher Walken is one that springs to mind! But in general, actors cannot do their best work unless they believe in the material. Like a director who picks a project for the money, they probably won't ask for another take.
Where I train we do a SINGLE very quick read through of the entire screenplay just to get the backbone or arc of the story. While memorizing lines, we write down only our lines, remove all paragraphs and punctuation and memorize by rote so you're not locking in a specific performance. The performance of the dialogue should come from "working off" the other actors. I don't want to know what the other person is going to say. It SHOULD surprise me and if I've over-rehearsed my own lines it loses spontaneity. The lines should come out as if you're making it up as you go but - IN RESPONSE to the other actor. Otherwise you end up working off the "cue" rather than the "impulse" which is never good.
@@DAMON409 That's why I said "Where I train". None of the actors where I trained are useless because they're in school for it and if they're not getting it; not connecting and "working off" then they're never going to get promoted from beginner to intermediate because that is exactly what we are training to do. On set it's different because you don't always know who you're about to be working with; what kind of training they've had (if any at all). But occasionally I'll arrive on set and the other actors want to do "reps" - and I know exactly what they're talking about. Or I show up and see someone I recognize, I know she trained with Sandy - and I know we're good. I *have* been on stage and on set with actors that were just in their own world; usually Method actors or untrained actors. It's like they're not even looking at you but through you because they're all up in their heads trying to remember a performance they've already got locked into their heads regardless of what you're doing. You can literally see their eyes glazing over like they're on autopilot.
@@liquidbraino You have to know the other actor's lines. You're not reacting to their lines. You are reacting to their behavior. If you don't know their lines you will not know when to come in with your lines. Could result in a disaster.
For me. Authenticity is the most important thing. If I’m adapting a show and there’s something that comes up where either myself or even the actor feels like the character should derail from who they are in the source material of what I’m adapting? Then that feels narcissistic to me and at that point we should be focusing on making our own ip and not adapting a pre established one.
If the writing is great, forget about actors since they're mainly useful where bad writing is concerned. Let writers play the parts. After all, even children play. If the writing is great, anyone can play the characters. They practically play themselves.
Makes a lot if sense to understand the world building and source material. Though this leads to a lot of questions. Why are actors encouraged not to read source material or learn original source material to alot of productions these days. There are a lot of actors who confirm in interviews that they have been told not to learn source material for the shows or movies they are to star on... which makes no sense to me
this is not the actor's job. their job is to receive direction and perform their lines as stated in the script. the approach suggested here would get you fired off of my set.
@@liquidbraino I hope more people find it OK that some others don't aspire to anything more than being FIRST to comment a video. Simple goals, simple joys.
As a filmmaker/screenwriter, are you open to an actor adding their own take on the character/dialogue? If the actor has a suggestion, what is the best way for them to approach it (eg., in the moment of the scene, speaking to the director privately, bringing it up during a table read, etc.)?
I think I would encourage it. It’s fun acting totally different just randomly being different. Different personality, different words, different imitations. I like being alone so I can be randomly different LOL it’s not real but You can create interesting situations and then think “what would lead to this situation that shouldn’t be possible and what can make it seem even more possible just off the wall situations like arguing with some lady about a pickle that taste like soap it sounds crazy, but now that I’ve just put this off the wall thought in my head I can be this really weird character that is just different then most about this experience of dealing with the taste of a soapy pickle. 🤣 Wow this sounds really weird reading this vs seeing and hearing it happen (the characters reaction to the unpleasant pickle) it would look different from the description ! LOL
It only works if comes from nothing I’d do TH-cam shorts but I don’t think anybody would know what i was doing, a snowball of weirdness scaring all the females away, and flash forward to the future old in a rocking chair, looking out the window of an old folks home as I mumble to myself in an old man voice….you terd, you should’ve never made those videos (right before I knock back a little cup of pills with probably a Xanax in it followed by a wink at the nurse.
But I don’t know I might if I can keep finding ways to slip them in on a whim? I don’t know where else to be characters nobody wants to watch someone be in random situations with out the rest of it and I don’t blame them if I didn’t know any better I would think what in the world? LOL
I would think that from an actor's perspective, you would want to wait to be asked for some ad-libs rather than volunteer them. It could look disrespectful to the writers, or like a sign of hubris from the actor.
On the other hand, depending on an actor to ad-lib their way through a script can also be daunting for the actor. (No offense to actors, but) Actors' strong suit is interpretation, not seeing or crafting the big picture of an entire narrative.
For me, the worst example of relying too much on actors to create the movie through ad-libbing is 2016's Ghostbusters, and it was AWFUL. I imagined any other job where you show up and your boss says "cool, so today, you'll be doing my job too. Have fun with it!"
Making a movie is a collaborative effort. As a screenwriter I don't always have a say in the matter after I've sold a script, I no longer own it; I'm out of the picture (most of the time). But as a director I would want to feel my way through a scene during rehearsals and get it locked in during rehearsals so we're not doing 30 takes on the set in order to get it right. I say let the actors improv because some are trained for improvisation as long as they're improvising along the lines of what was already agreed to during rehearsals and table reads, not just goofing off to make the crew laugh but wasting precious time/money while we're chasing day light.
It would make no sense to hire an actor because of their improv experience and then not allow them to improvise or give you as many possible takes on a scene as possible (like Jim Carrey always did), that way once you get to the editing room you have a variety of choices. Sometimes the best takes are the ones you weren't expecting like when R. Lee Earmy started improvising dialogue in the opening scenes of Full Metal Jacket. Those scenes are absolutely classic and if you read the script - it's absolute crap, it would have NEVER happened that way in reality... but R. Lee knew better because he had been a real Drill Instructor so he played it the way it would have really happened. The scene in the script is a little bit too conversational & friendly; that's not the way your first few minutes of Boot Camp OR Basic Training is going to happen.
A writer/director should be egoless & adaptable. It's a collaboration, so the actors should have input & I'd throw away the script if their improvs better served the project. Knowing your actors is key. Gary Oldman needs a script locked in, Downey Jr will literally not even look at it😅
@@liquidbraino Sounds like you'd make a good director!
Kubrick was the master. 2001, Strangelove, Clockwork & The Shining all had improvised scenes. There was even some method behind the madness of shooting endless retakes.
An actors job is to make sure that their performance that they give is genuine and feels real, whether the writing is terrible or amazing!
A great actor can recite Humpty Dumpty with tears in their eyes (or at least a well trained actor).
@@liquidbraino 🤣🤣😂😂
Christopher Walken is one that springs to mind! But in general, actors cannot do their best work unless they believe in the material. Like a director who picks a project for the money, they probably won't ask for another take.
Our job as an actor is to sell the lines on the page, but also to use the in-between times to help make everything else work through nonverbal cues.
Where I train we do a SINGLE very quick read through of the entire screenplay just to get the backbone or arc of the story. While memorizing lines, we write down only our lines, remove all paragraphs and punctuation and memorize by rote so you're not locking in a specific performance. The performance of the dialogue should come from "working off" the other actors.
I don't want to know what the other person is going to say. It SHOULD surprise me and if I've over-rehearsed my own lines it loses spontaneity. The lines should come out as if you're making it up as you go but - IN RESPONSE to the other actor. Otherwise you end up working off the "cue" rather than the "impulse" which is never good.
in theory, yes, but if the other actor is useless, you can't work off them. Readers at auditions feed you robotic lines.
@@DAMON409 That's why I said "Where I train". None of the actors where I trained are useless because they're in school for it and if they're not getting it; not connecting and "working off" then they're never going to get promoted from beginner to intermediate because that is exactly what we are training to do.
On set it's different because you don't always know who you're about to be working with; what kind of training they've had (if any at all). But occasionally I'll arrive on set and the other actors want to do "reps" - and I know exactly what they're talking about. Or I show up and see someone I recognize, I know she trained with Sandy - and I know we're good.
I *have* been on stage and on set with actors that were just in their own world; usually Method actors or untrained actors. It's like they're not even looking at you but through you because they're all up in their heads trying to remember a performance they've already got locked into their heads regardless of what you're doing. You can literally see their eyes glazing over like they're on autopilot.
@@liquidbraino You have to know the other actor's lines. You're not reacting to their lines. You are reacting to their behavior. If you don't know their lines you will not know when to come in with your lines. Could result in a disaster.
For me. Authenticity is the most important thing. If I’m adapting a show and there’s something that comes up where either myself or even the actor feels like the character should derail from who they are in the source material of what I’m adapting? Then that feels narcissistic to me and at that point we should be focusing on making our own ip and not adapting a pre established one.
If the writing is great, forget about actors since they're mainly useful where bad writing is concerned. Let writers play the parts. After all, even children play. If the writing is great, anyone can play the characters. They practically play themselves.
I learned so much with this! It made a tone of sense! Congratulations!🎈 ❤
OMG❤I love this guy! Really honest, funny, and full of knowledge for us creatives👏thanks Film Courage!
Glad you enjoyed it Cheri!
I love that metaphor of as actors we create characters as adding flavour to the baked potato. I'm going to remember that!
That sounds like the definition of a writers job
Agree with title, although the actor's portrayal is limited to the site of the Director.
Makes a lot if sense to understand the world building and source material. Though this leads to a lot of questions. Why are actors encouraged not to read source material or learn original source material to alot of productions these days. There are a lot of actors who confirm in interviews that they have been told not to learn source material for the shows or movies they are to star on... which makes no sense to me
Complete disagree with the title. Not an actor’s job to make anything out of a bad script. That’s another screenwriter’s job.
I disagree. Bad writing is bad writing and when all the elements arent in concrete (i.e. the writing) its not the actors job to rescue the scene.
❤!!!
this is not the actor's job. their job is to receive direction and perform their lines as stated in the script. the approach suggested here would get you fired off of my set.
Stan, I like what you're doing, but a little m more barbeque sauce on the potato please.
1
Is this the first time in your whole life you ever came in first? Do you want a star sticker for it?
@@liquidbraino you seem agitated by the number 1 lmao
@@ferro1398 It's not about the words, it's about the meaning behind the words. BTW, here's your star 🌟.
@@liquidbraino I hope more people find it OK that some others don't aspire to anything more than being FIRST to comment a video. Simple goals, simple joys.