Based on a lot of scripts that I've read (major AND indie), If actors stuck to what was 100% on the page, 90% of all movies would probably suck (sadly). The actor's actual job is to interpret what's on the page in their own way, not to do a line-by-line reading of the script. I agree, trob226. Movies are a collaborative effort. Besides, the end result is normally what the director wants. The writer is usually out of the picture by the time the cameras start rolling. Also, none of this *beep* is Shakespeare.
I undertsnd and agree with collaboration but don't completely agree with an actor having complete autonomy in assessing whether a script sucks or not. An actor's job is to bring to life the words on the page and if he/she doesn't understand the words, it is his/her job to mine to the fullest extent possible what the script (all included circumstances, phrases, colloqialisms) is offering and marry it with what the actor comes up with (backstory/inner dialog of the character. etc) and present the performance the way THEY uniquely would present it. Not to re-write it. Hell, they may learn something in the process
For intstance, you are right when you say this isn't Shakespeare but be honest and think how many lazy/uneducated/underappreciating actors would want to paraphrase the Bard in order to make it easier for them or "make more sense" when they just didn't bother to dig deep enough. If he wasn't held in such high regard, I'm sure many would include Shakespeare in your 90% figure above. BTW, 90% would suck? Hmm. That's a...little hyperbolized, no? :-)
I also agree that some scripts (especially ones written by amateurs and I've read and acted a ton of amatuer and professional scripts) are horrible or perhaps are written by folks who may know LESS than the actor portraying the character does about the script content at hand. That is a case where dialogue with writer and director is warranted. But in my opinion, that should be an exception. Afterall, writers attain professional status for a reason I suppose. As do actors so each should really concentrate on their own job before telling the other how they should do theirs (which is really my main point here).
And yes, in the end, it is the director's call. I am all for collaboration especially in a medium like stage or film where an actor should be saying at times to the director: "Can I try something else to see what it looks like?" Afterall, you don't want a robot for an actor but again, the actor should fall in line as much as possible with the director's vision and the writer's intent and his/her way of saying things (especially if it is a regional piece like Coyle). Otherwise chaos and egos reign and money and time are wasted AND there is no guarantee that the actor's way is better anyway. Especially an amatuer actor who has heard too many romantic tales of wild-card "stars" improvising scenes at the expense of a script that may be just as good if it were given an honest try.
I appreciate your comments though and agree with some of it but not all. All MHO of course! :-)
reply
share
malcolmi
15 years ago
My experience in acting (stage, film, tv) and directing (stage) makes me certain that in most productions an actor can't be expected to know the whole script well enough to improvise new dialogue for his or her part, because the whole focus for an actor has to be the nature of one character. Each character is the 'star' of his or her own story. Each actor feels the impulse to enhance that 'stardom' with new words and business. But the writer, and the director, have the larger sense of characters' personalities, and the shape and energy of the story. Once the writer has written the script, the director must help actors make their characters real using the script's words, to create the balance of disparate characters that makes the story work. If a new sense of the story emerges in rehearsal, and the writer is willing & able to do rewrites, then the actors can make discoveries and suggestions. The writer should be the final arbiter of the script, though, and the director the final arbiter of performances. The good news for actors is that the discipline of finding the meanings in the script's words, and finding the way of speaking & acting those words in the most real way (as determined by the director), is wonderfully challenging and enlarging. It's more trustworthy, finally, than trying to insert language that 'feels more right' - because such feelings are often based on the actor's own personality & comfort zone, rather than on the character's vision. I guess these thoughts are an agreement with Peter Yates in his commentary for "The Friends of Eddie Coyle".
reply
share
trob226
15 years ago
Great quote, I think by Lee J. Cobb - "The stage is the actor's medium, film is the director's medium, and television is nobody's medium." I'm not an actor, director or writer, but I'd bet anything that the talent and skill of an individual bring a ton to whatever the project is and who gets to give advice, and for that matter, whether any is even needed. In "Eddie Coyle," you had talent and skill all over the place, and I understand they filmed it really fast. The writing was good, the directing was good, the acting was good, and I'll bet there was little in the way of rewriting or actors even trying to adlib. Bing, bang, boom, and you've got a masterpiece. No wonder Yates was so happy with making it.
reply
share