Paste your essay in here..In the world of film there are two main groups of people that craft the performance that the audience see, actors and directors, and these two groups of people have various different methods of drawing the best performance out of the scene. Be it through techniques that directors put their actors through or the process in which actors go through themselves in order to feel like they are really in the moment in order to create the most believable performance they can. In this case study, I will be delving into the practises used by various practitioners within the film industry. I will be looking at eight different practitioners and looking in depth at their techniques and how useful I believe they could be within a working environment.
Firstly, I will be looking at the legendary film maker, Stanley Kubrick and his slow and methodical way of making film. He is famous for putting his actors through long and repetitive work days. ‘ when actors where ready to play, the director wanted them to know their lines perfectly and to have understood their roles. They should not only have learned their dialogue, but also have been able to live their characters’ lives, to feel their emotions’ this shows that his way of working with film is incredibly detailed. He wanted actors to be able to become their characters, leaving no trace of their real identity within. This would often lead to doing the scene until the director fully believed that what he was watching was reality. This would often take hours for a short scene. this method he would use is not to dissimilar from the way ‘Konstatin Stanivlasky’ would direct theatre. However, Kubrick applied this to every part of his own filmmaking philosophy. he said that ‘your own style, if you get a chance to make a film, is really the result of the way your mind works’ again he is showing that he is wanting to showcase a man, Kubrick, and how he seeks perfection out of the performances he expects his actors will give. Famously, during the filming of his smash hit movie ‘the shining’ there is a scene. infamously called the ‘bat scene’ because he made actors; Jack Nicholson and Shelley Duvall re-create the scene 127 times until he was happy with the end result. This is because he wanted Duvall’s character to show real fear and tiredness and so he made everyone do the scene until the actress was so tired she eventually gave a performance which encapsulated the sheer exhaustion and fear of running away from her attacker.
I believe that Kubricks methods, while creating some absolute works of art, are merely too much. Personally, I believe that the key to a truthful performance is through the way an actor would attack the situation themselves and taking that and putting some of that into the character they are portraying. This is because I am in the school of thought that acting really means something if the actor can place themselves into that situation and believe they are there and that moment in time. With this in the mind I believe that you can truly get a real performance from someone because they aren’t pretending to be someone they aren’t. rather they are being an aspect of themselves with a different name. so to conclude my research on Kubrick, whilst a film making genius. I would not use his methods of
dragging a performance out of someone. I believe that it can affect the actor mentally and do some serious damage. For example, it left a lifelong damage to actor ‘Shelley duvall’ after the filming of the shining because she was known to have to cry up to 12 hours a day due to her characters disposition in the film. This, with the way he would use his actors created a lot of tension between the actor and director. This is why I believe it is not the best use of time.
Next, I would like to look at is director ‘Quentin Tarantino’ and his radical new methods of making film. With his movies, all you have to do is listen to the dialogue and the you can realise why he is different. A lot of his movies could be radio dramas if he ever so pleased because the way in which he focuses on the dialogue of the scene is nothing but masterful. He writes in such a way that most don’t. the dialogue in his movies are stripped back, raw and unpolished by Hollywood. In other terms, he is writing how real people talk. He said that he writes is like walking. He said ‘The way I write is really like putting one foot in front of the other. I really let the characters do most of the work, they start talking and they just lead the way.’ This shows that he has a basic structure to his scenes but he allows for there to be space for the scene to make a turn and go somewhere before coming back round to what the true goal of the scene is. This is a lot like the way we regular people do things which make his dialogue a lot more grounded and realistic as opposed to what is actually going on during the scene. so, while his movies are feature extreme violence and graphic scenes. We are still grounded by his realistic dialogue in such a way that it helps us, the audience, digest what is happening on screen and not feel too overwhelmed.
I believe that the way Tarentino writes his movies is an incredibly unique talent which I would love to re-create. However, I believe that his style is so niche that it is unable to replicate. This is due to the fact that the movies he directs are also a brainchild of his. So, there isn’t a huge body of work for other people to make their own attempt and have it be in the style of him. Whilst being a new concept for work. So, in conclusion I would jump at the chance to work like this. But, I do not have the skill required to attempt his style of directing/writing.
Now, I would like to look at the actor ‘Daniel Day Lewis’ and how his acting style has inspired a new generation of actors. Now, to call Lewis a method actor is cruel understatement because he practically mastered the craft of method. Although, method acting as we know it today finding its roots in America by director Lee Strasberg who popularised elements of Stanislavski’s teaching. Unlike the great American method actors such as; Marlon Brando, Robert Deniro and Al Pacino’ who are still recognisable whilst in the guise of their characters. Lewis however disappears into his roles making him un recognisable in his roles. In his run as an actor he will completely believe that he is that character throughout the shoot. ‘Most famously, in his first Oscar-winning role, as the Irish artist Christy Brown who had cerebral palsy in Jim Sheridan’s My Left Foot, he spent almost the entire shoot in a wheelchair. “He’d call you by your film name, and you’d call him Christy. It was madness. You’d be feeding him, wheeling him around. During the entire film’
This, again leans into the strict way of working. Similar to Kubrick, however Lewis is strict to himself. Thus, he is creating a way of working that could be intoxicating for the actors around him and then it could help the whole team working with him get into the mind-set of the world in which Lewis is trying to live in.
Personally, I don’t think I could work in this way because yet again I am a strong believer in leaving a part of myself in a character rather than creating a whole new identity within myself. whilst an extremely effective way of working. I believe that it is way too taxing on the mind and body to physically be a viable way of working.
I would like to now move on to another actor, Cate Blanchett. She is a classically trained actress who uses her imagination and expression in order to capture her performance. She likes to use improvisation in order to unlock answers to her characters and gain a greater understanding of her role. Whilst not having a set process for her characters. She uses the director and other actors around her in order to create the world in which they are in. although in an interview she shared an opinion that amongst actors is not usually thought. She said ‘So I think one can be compassionate, but you don’t necessarily have to like your character.” This thought is unpopular amongst actors because the general thought is that in some way you have to connect with your character and somehow find a way to sympathise with your character. Thus, showing that you have bonded with your character and you then can play them much more truthfully. Whereas Blanchett is subverting the norm. this could also prove some merit in her favour because it would make her characters a lot more complex and in a constant dichotomy with themselves. Furthermore, I believe the way she works is extremely admirable and is very close to the way in which I work because she creates the character and doesn’t leave herself at the door. She is still there with the character. However I differ from her because I like to sympathise with my characters fully and justify what they are doing in order to get a better feel for why they are doing whatever it is they do, be it horrible or not.
Next, I would like to discuss British film director, Ken Loach. He goes by one word ‘realism’ he wants to capture the realism of the scene and not skate over the bumps and ugly contours whilst going along. Much like Tarantino his dialogue is extremely grounded and raw. He differs in the sense that his stories are real and they represent the working class and his left wing political agenda. He is obsessed with telling the stories of real people and not leaving anything out. For example, his movie ‘I, Daniel Blake’ depicts the current situation regarding the benefits situation in England. This type of writing and film making are different to other films because what ken loach is getting across is the message of the film. He isn’t putting a hidden true meaning in a movie like some modern directors. He is outright saying that there is a problem and it needs fixing. Its smaller scale movies with a voice. This type of film making I really admire because I would love to work in this way. Rather than making a blockbuster movie with themes that highlight some problems in the world. Loach Is grabbing the bull by the horns and telling us that there is a problem and this is it. He doesn’t pull any punches and omit anything. I believe this is one of the best ways to work when working on a film.
I would now like discuss a variation of actors rather than a set actor. This style is called character acting. this is usually the name given to actors that play side characters and supporting roles that employ certain eccentric tendencies. I could not choose one certain practioner for this tYpe of acting beause it is such a broad and overlooked style. This is because all actors can be described as character actors using broad strokes. However, it should be used for an important supporting character and they are often distinctive from the rest of the characters in the film/ tv show. Normally, it is an actor that you can recognise but they put their own spin on the performance of a character. For example, some prime examples of this type of actor is ‘John Turturro, Steve Buscemi, Gary Oldman, Alan Rickman. The list could go on, however lets take John Turturro for example he knows the type of character he can play and doesn’t really leave that zone. This is because the parts he plays are so befitting to him and different In their own respect, no one else could play it like he could and bring the energy and quality that he could. This is a badge that he wears proudly and even admits that himself. I believe that this is my acting style through and through because every performance I take part in. I mostly play important supporting roles and the character is extremely distinct and individual from the rest of the characters. This allows me to take my spin on the character and make them my own rather than staying glued to the script and being a character actor I have a certain creative licence that leading roles do not.