Tip #58: Give actors what they need

(Interview with 'Ambleton Delight' cast member Andrew Elias)

Following on from our interview with leading actor Jos Lawton, we have asked supporting actor Andrew Elias, who provided a memorable performance as Town Clerk Colin Wilkinson along side the Mayor played by Brian Capron, regarding practical ways of making life easier for an actor on a low budget film.

What do you need from a director prior to filming?
I really appreciate being able to sit down with the director to discuss my character. It sounds obvious, but it’s amazing how many directors send supporting actors a character description, and then expect them to turn up on set and ‘act’ without any further character discussion, whilst focusing entirely on the leads. Every director works differently, but being able to sit down (even just for five minutes) and chat about the character is essential. It helps the actor know what the director’s expectations of both the actor and the character are. It also means that there doesn’t need to be any ‘what is my motivation?’ questions on set during filming, which can be infuriating to a director trying to stick to a tight schedule.


What do you need from a director on set?
I like to feel that my contribution to the production, no matter how small, is integral to telling the story and fulfilling the director’s vision. A great director is one that makes an actor feel important no matter how small the part. Contrary to popular belief, most actors are insecure about their abilities, so a bit of praise after a shot is also really helpful. I personally liked to be pushed to my limits as an actor. I worked with a director years ago who was making me repeat the same scene over and over, and the rest of the cast said to him ‘Give him a break’, to which he replied: ‘I will only push Andrew as far as I think he can take it, and he’s got a little way to go yet’. How right he was.


What do you need from a director afterwards?
Evaluation is always helpful, especially in a social setting (a pub!) away from set, where you can both relax and discuss informally how the scenes went.

What should they not do?
Break down in tears, smash things up or hit people. Seriously...it happens, and it doesn’t inspire confidence! A pet hate of mine is when directors say ‘do it like this’ and do a specific action, or ‘say it like this’ and adopt a strange accent/intonation. Not only does this make a mockery of the casting process, it is also incredibly soul destroying for an actor and has nothing to do with building character. As I’ve already said, I do liked to be pushed, but there’s a big difference to being stretched as an actor and being asked to do an impersonation of the director.

What can filmmakers/producers do to make your job easier?
Detailed call sheets and frequent correspondence are incredibly helpful. This helps concrete the feeling of ‘belonging’ rather than just ‘passing through’.


What should actors do/not do to make filmmakers' job easier?
Where do we start? Well, Spencer Tracy famously said that to be a good actor you merely have to learn lines and not bump into the furniture! Patience, flexibility and a good sense of humour go along way on a film set. It’s also very important to know where you, as a performer, stand in the ‘pecking order’ on set. For example, the Star can make Big suggestions, a Supporting Actor can make Small suggestions, but an Extra should keep schtum! Patrick Tucker’s Secrets of Screen Acting outlines basic, accepted, screen acting etiquette and is an essential read for actors wishing to avoid any faux pas on set.

For more, check out Andrew Elias' insightful acting blog: http://andrewelias.blogspot.com/

Tip #52 Directing basics - Blocking, eye-lines and takes

By Dan Parkes (Director)

We have previously mentioned the importance of the director having a vision and being able to communicate this effectively (depending on his style of directing). But we must also not overlook some basic tools that all directors should use:

1. Blocking and shot selection
While 'blocking' is originally a theatre term this is equally important for film, as it involves not only the positioning of the actors within the frame but also the movement of the camera. This often first occurs during rehearsals when the director works with the actors to establish how they might stand or interact with each other. However this becomes far more critical on set, as the contraints of the location and props etc may dramatically affect the feasible logistics of the blocking. Not only that, but it will also be necessary for camera positions, lighting and focusing to know where each actor will stand, and in some cases these positions may be marked on the floor (hence the need for actors to 'hit their marks').

Along with blocking is shot selection using different lenses (wide, medium and close up). A 'master shot' will often include all of the blocking as decided from one camera position, then allowing for filming of medium and close-ups later. Once the master has been shot the blocking cannot substantially change -otherwise it will affect the conintuity.

2. Eye-lines /180 degree rule.
Once the blocking has been decided and a master shot is about to filmed it is important to consider the actor's eyelines and future camera positions so as to not "cross the line". This is also known as the 180 degree rule. It can sound more complex than it really is, but is all about spacial relationships and continuity, so as not to confuse the viewer. Ulimately it means that the camera positions consistantly remain on one-side of the action (similar to a theatre audience). It is as if the scene has an imaginery axis, and if the camera was to suddenly pass over that axis it would disorientate the viewer. The end result should be that the actors have the same left/right relationship to each other.

Take a look at this practical example from a scene in the 'Ambleton Delight' and notice how the camera stays on only one side of the invisible line between the two characters:

A master shot of both John and Chris (28mm wide lens)

A medium shot of John (50mm lens)

A reverse medium shot of Chris (50mm lens)

Of course these above 'rules' are made to be broken if a conscious decision to do so, but if done accidentally will cause confusion and look amatuerish. In the case of crossing the line there are ways and means of getting the camera over the line if required, such as cutting to an image that is not spacially related to the action.

3. Takes
Stanley Kubrick apparantly holds the record for the most takes of a scene with 125 for the scene were Shelley Duvall climbs the stairs in The Shining.

But while it can the mark of a perfectionist, a common trap any director can fall into is filming several takes out of 'habit'. In reality it is important to reflect on the purpose of another take, which should ultimately be due to improve on the previous one (or filming one for 'safety' if there was a possible issue). Before filming another a take a director can ask himself: What can I do to improve? What isn't working? Should we change the dialogue, the blocking? How about trying it faster or slower to provide pacing options in the edit? How about changing camera positions or framing?

Note: It is also good for the director to reassure the actors the reason for another take -especially if it not due to an issue with their performance which they may assume if no reason is given and thus be waiting for direction. Too many takes without clear differences will only exasperate the cast and crew and waste valuable production time.

Tip #51: Directing - The art of communication

By Dan Parkes (Director)

Directing is primarily about efficient communication so that the all-important overall vision (as discussed in the previous blog) can be achieved. There are three main aspects to this:

1. Communication style

There are 5 different types of directors (other than of course those who specialise in features, TV, theatre etc) and thus five different working methods (these are basic generalisations and the examples only guides as most directors frequently reinvent themselves):

• The Actor Director. This director works very closely with the cast, is good at developing solid characters, works well with ensembles, and leaves the technical aspects of filmmaking in the hands of his crew. These directors often come from a theatre background or were/are actors themselves (example: Mike Leigh).

• The Story Director. This director is propelled by narrative, is a storyteller and often works very closely on the script. Some of these directors may have started as writers. (example: Chris Nolan)
• The Auteur Director. Often described as having 'complete artistic control of the film' and also used for directors who are also writers, cinematographers and composers on their films. Their work can sometimes called 'passion-pieces'. (example: Alfred Hitchcock)
• The Visual director. A director whose primary concern is the look of the film. Often a lot of emphasis on the technology and special effects to achieve it, with story and acting taking secondary roles (example: James Cameron)
• Franchise director. A director who is called in to direct an already established franchise (book, cartoon, film) and often ends up having little control over the look and feel due to certain branding guidelines and audience expectations (example: Chris Columbus)

It is important for everyone including the director himself to recognise what type of director he is, as this will assist with effective communication, levels of expectation and personal areas for improvement (for the director that is!).

2. Communicating with cast/crew

Effectively communicating the overall vision to cast and crew can sometimes be no easy task and in recent times storyboarding and computer pre-visualisation tools have certainly assisted with this. However, ultimately this comes down being able to describe in precise ways what the objectives are. I once attended a discussion with director Stephen Frears who made the interesting point that the secret to directing is to surround yourself with people who are very good at what they do and then find a way of being able to effectively communicate what you want with them. He used music as an example and said that he cannot write a note of music but can express himself well enough to the composer so that they know exactly what he wants.

3. Communicating with the audience

The director must not overlook the fact that they also communicate via the camera. In many ways the camera is like another character in the film, and so the framing, lens selection and camera movement can all dramatically affect our interpretation of what is happening. For example, the use of wide shots can create distance from the characters, while extreme closeups can feel quite intimate. Subjective or objective angles can also make a character look superior or inferior.

While communication is vital, a director also needs some basic on-set tools such as blocking, the use of 'takes' and eye-lines, which will be discussed in the next blog.

Tip #50: Have a director with a vision

By Dan Parkes (Director)

"What is the difference between God and a director? God doesn't direct".

That was a sarcastic comment made to me after a recent blog which mentined that in addition to directing I also sometimes DoP. Of course the inference being that directors believe themselves to be "God"! And with the symbols of directing often being the cap, the beard, the megaphone and the chair, this egomanical stereotype has also unfortunately been impressed into the general public's consciousness by several high profile directors so that their real role on set is lost to such clichés.

In reality a director has an extremely difficult and mostly less-than-glamourous job of being ultimately responsible for the success or failure of the film, and often working on multiple levels at once: helping actors create realistic portrayals while at the same time taking into consideration technical options and limitations, scheduling and budgetery contraints. He or she is a conduite of collective creativity, the one who hones this into a single unified vision. Their passion and subsequent direction of the production can sometimes be misinterpreted as 'ego' -especially if their vision does not agree with cast or crew who become disgruntled due to being overworked or their creative input being ignored, something which directors should be keenly aware to avoid.

When the word "director" is used in another setting -such as a company director, or directing traffic- few would attribute this purely to ego, but out of necessity of having someone who has a clear vision and helps unify everyone towards that objective. Rather than fighting with a director over the vision it is important that cast and crew realise the necessity of having a director in the first place and their responsibility to trust -rightly or wrongly -that they have a strong overall vision and hence in many respects the final say. Films -like some other aspects of life- are difficult to make by committee.


It is hence the manner in which a director goes about that process which can dictate their success in achieving a unified vision. It is absolutely vital to the production that they have a strong and clear vision of the film. They should be able to describe the look, feel and message of the film in detail before a frame of film has been shot. But then also be flexible enough to encourage cast and crew to have creative input, and try to include it as much as possible.

In the following blogs we are going to look at the different types of directing styles, the art of communicating with cast and crew, and some basic creative considerations such as blocking, eye-lines, crossing the line, and filming several takes of the same shot.

'Dark arts?': The Great DoP Debate

By Dan Parkes (Director)

'What debate?' you may ask. And I agree. There isn't one. In my opinion, No DoP (Director of Photography) = No film. However, when I released "Tip #42: Simple and effective lighting equipment" (http://bit.ly/bwtl2w) the number of hits on the blog skyrocketed. Not only that, but I suddenly started receiving increasingly unpleasant comments and e-mails including those recommending me to "keep it to yourself," saying that I think of myself as "God" and that I have been "disloyal," "unappreciative" and even 'abusive,' making a "huge public gaff," a "massive fool" with a "high bizarre value". Ultimately, it has been labeled the "Ambleton Delight Debacle" by none other than blogger Ben Blaine, called a "DP bashing" by others and a widespread call for me to delete the blog and publicly apologise.

So what was the source of all of this offence? Was it the 'magic' reference at the beginning? The blog was about only the kit (part two being about the techniques: http://bit.ly/ag5NKO) so was there something incorrect in the list? Well yes, I wrote "diffuse" instead of diffusion. And somebody pointed out I could have included "black foil, colour meters and light meters". But still not enough to justify the vitriol, surely?

Brilliant cinematographer Jack Cardiff

I was determined to track it down and found it led to a post on cinematography.com in which a certain Karel Bata created a thread entitled "Blog on why you don't always need a DP on a feature -Unbelievable". This had a link to tip #42, but no normal link -it had been cleverly renamed "NoDphere". The thread of course resoundly condemns the alleged 'no DP' blog and it is finally all dismissed as not even worthy of attention and goes on to discuss the more important issues of using the terms "camerawoman" and "cinematographer".

So was there really no DoP on the feature Ambleton Delight? Far from it! As the blog and elsewhere clearly states, we had a dedicated DoP for all the major scenes, with supplementary material being DPed by me with assistance from the camera team and assistant director -two of us are jobbing lighting cameraman, so this was never going to be a huge issue. I believe it is essential to 'paint with light' on a film -as a child the very first word I ever uttered was not "mummy" but according to my father I said 'light,' so it was clearly important from a young age! Not to mention the initials of my name happen to spell "D.P."...

British DP Roger Deakins

Is the fact that there was more than one DoP on the film the issue? A high level example of how this should not be an issue is the fact that Stephen Daldry's recent film "The Reader" had two DPs (Roger Deakins and Chris Menges) due to scheduling. Of course we are in no way comparing ourselves to such well respected professionals, but it shows that continuity can be maintained with more than one DP.

So may be the issue is that the director, in this case myself, was also DPing? Is this normal or evidence of an ego trip? Again, without ever wanting to compare myself to such luminaries of the film world but rather wanting to be inspired by them, here is a list of directors who have or continue to simultaneously direct and DP:

• Steven Soderbergh (pseudonym Peter Andrews)
• Peter Hyams
• Robert Rodriguez
• Doug Liman
• David Lynch
• Nicolas Roeg
• Lars von Trier
• Quentin Tarantino (in Death Proof)
• Christopher Doyle (in A Way with Words)
• Josef von Sternberg
• Rainer Werner Fassbinder
• Gaspar Noé
• Ermanno Olmi
• Mario Bava
• Philippe Grandrieux
• Shinya Tsukamoto

Director/Cinematographer Robert Rodriguez

Stanley Kubrick also, according to rumour, DPed his films, with the credited DP complaining he ended up just the gaffer. Other directors such as James Cameron, Ridley Scott, Steven Speilberg and John Cassavetes have also been known to camera operate. There is of course the issue of being distracted from their role as director. However, if this causes such an outcry, one wonders why the acting community is not more vociferous when directors also act in their films, as surely this is an equal if not worse crime. But few seem to criticise Clint Eastwood or Woody Allen for also acting in their films, attribute it to ego or feel that by doing so reduces their efficiency as a director. Why is DPing any different?

Director James Cameron with his 3D camera

My personal take on this is that I often end up lighting and camera operating on small interview and corporate shoots and I enjoy it immensely. However for a feature I would much rather have a dedicated DoP so I do not compromise what is expected of a director on set -especially when it comes to working with actors. I also believe other DPs are more likely to do a better job!

In the case of Ambleton Delight we had extensive rehearsals with the actors so there was not a huge amount of ground to cover on set. Also the scenes in which I was both director and DP were much smaller -often 'two-handers'. And in some cases the lighting design had already been previously set by the dedicated DoP and so was just a case of replicating it. And the final product speaks for itself. There is no obvious differences between shots lit by the dedicated DP and when I was DPing. I challenge anyone to be able to point it out.

DP Christopher Doyle

But to finish, here is a most interesting point: This was tip #42. Previously we have discussed location scouting, production design, script writing, catering and many other departments. Professionals in each respective area could well have taken equal offence because we did not have dedicated crew for the entire shoot or possibly overlooked some minor detail in their role. But we have only received support and encouragement. However, as soon as we list some lighting equipment and mention there was only a dedicated DoP for key scenes we are inundated with complaints. It makes you wonder if that 'magicians code' quip was somehow correct after all. Are DPs really the "luvvies" of the crew department, needing constant reassuring of their necessity on set and determined to keep their profession a 'dark art' to ensure this? I would never have thought so, but it seems such a shame that some are intent on giving that impression.

Some useful links:
http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=46963
http://www.stevensoderbergh.net/articles/2002/cinematographer.php
http://mubi.com/topics/3767

Cinematography For Directors (book):
http://galileo.dv.com/inreview/article/87446
Great Director-DoP relationships:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_director_and_cinematographer_collaborations
Also: http://www.dailyfilmdose.com/2007/06/great-cinematographer-director.html
Casting cinematographers:
http://www.moviemaker.com/editing/article/casting_your_cinematographer_3317/
British DP Roger Deakins website forum:
http://www.deakinsonline.com/forum2/