CHAPTER
3 The director’s role
Film making must be the most collaborative and co-operative of ail the art forms, and 1 have always believed that the director should look on himself as a catalyst; the ingredient without which the actors in front of the camera and the crew behind it are unable to synthesize into a creative whole. So how does he achieve this? Well, every director has his own method. Some are egotistical monsters, some are quiet (yet hard as nails) control freaks. Some play dumb and get help from everybody, some are genuinely pleasant, creative people, some pride themselves on their efficiency but then are so committed to their visual scheme they leave no room for inspiration from actors or technicians. The list is endless, especially as many directors employ a complicated mixture of all the descriptions above in the course of their careers – sometimes even during the course of one film. It is probably therefore best to discuss what the various elements in the production require from a director and leave the individual reader to work out their own best method of approach.
The producer
The producer has overall financial control of the production. It is the producer who acquires the rights (if the film is based on a novel), commissions the script persuades the star names to join the project and then hires the director. The director then takes over artistic control of the production but, though it is never mentioned, he is an employee of the producer just like the lowliest member of the cast or crew. 1 say it is never mentioned – that is the etiquette – of course, it is usually mentioned during the very first production row.
The director’s first responsibility therefore is to the producer. The producer plans to bring a good piece of work to the screen and make a reasonable profit after paying all the bills. A conscientious producer will use some of that profit to finance another production. The director therefore is often honour–bound to bring the film in on budget. Every director wants to make his masterpiece but accepting a budget knowing that your visual scheme cannot possibly be realized on the money available is a pretty arrogant thing to do. However, as humility is seldom a director’s strong suit, this happens all too often. When a director is well established he can often get his way even in the most dire circumstances of overspend, but it is not a wise plan for the first-time director to overspend. Indeed some financial, and indeed artistic, restraints often cajole the director to be at his most inventive and there are all too many sad instances of the producer, director and star being one and the same person. In these cases there are few restraints – and often few box-office returns either.
The star
It is unlikely, though not impossible, that an inexperienced director will work with a major international star. However, the director of modest fare for television will often encounter big names. The important thing is to strike the right balance between confidence and tact. All actors require a director so a show of undue subservience will cause more problems than it solves. On the other hand, most stars have very well-rehearsed routines to bring an over-assertive young director to heel (for example, Dame Edith Evans’ ‘If you’re not careful young man I’ll do precisely what you tell me’). It is important to remember that stars, like all actors, do not require to be told how to play the part. What they require is help in their search for characterization. If the actor and director agree on the elements that make the character ‘tick’ then there will be few disagreements on the set.
The actors
As stated above the director’s proper function is to help the cast to find a creditable characterization of the part they have been cast to play. The most respected method is for actor and director to decide on the life story and experiences of the character prior to that part of his life that is dealt with in the script. Understanding the biography of the character is an enormous help to the actor’s interpretation and of great help to the director in deciding on how the character will behave in any given situation. It is far more useful for actor and director to agree about why ‘Billy Liar’ tells lies rather than just try to get fun out of the fact that he does tell lies. If, for example, it is decided that Billy is a highly intelligent lad who desperately wants to change his lifestyle but hasn’t got the courage to take action, his escape into lies and fantasy becomes easier to understand as well as giving a reason for the end of the play when he chickens out of his one real chance to break the mould. If a character is a drunk the director and the actor want to agree why he is a drunk. A good script will contain clues on which to work. The reason why Captain Mainwaring in ‘Dad’s Army’ is a sympathetic character, despite the fact that he is often unsufferably pompous, is that over the many episodes we learn that he is an extremely hen-pecked husband.
‘Dad’ Army’ is an extremely well–crafted piece of work in which all the characters are well rounded. The authors have provided cast and director with enough biography for each of them. You are not always so lucky and then the actor and director must come together to decide. Perhaps the character under discussion is similar to Captain Mannering – so perhaps it is helpful to decide that he too is henpecked at home.
It may seem to be rather slavishly following Stanislavsky to adopt the character technique when working on run–of–the–mill corporate video but I assure you it really can work wonders. I well remember working on a rather uninspiring training video for the Open University. The script made the teaching points clearly enough but there was not much character detail. The part of the company manager was particularly hard to bring to life as this rather vague figure drifted in and out with ever more contradictory information for his office team. Fortunately I had cast that consummate actor, Anthony Dawes, in the part and after half a day of rehearsal he said ‘Trouble at home, l’d like to play it as if he has trouble at home’ ‘Fine,’ I said. ‘Let’s try it’ We did and it worked really well. If you consider such methods rather precious then do beware. They honestly do help actors in the creation of a role and it is the most barren scripts that require the most help.
Rehearsals
It is a sad truth that single camera drama is very seldom sufficiently rehearsed. Indeed some productions still call cast and crew to set on day one and start shooting with no rehearsal at all. I wonder if this tradition goes back to the days of the silent movie when the director could shout instructions at his cast while the camera was turning (a pastiche example of which can be seen in the film ‘Singing in the Rain’).
Some old-guard directors still choose to work without rehearsal. Maybe they feel that time for performances to develop will reduce their autonomy. Fortunately rehearsal time is increasingly being seen for the important value–for–money commodity that it is.
The director’s approach to rehearsal is necessarily rather complex. He needs to have a very full knowledge of the script and understand the actions and motivations of the characters. He should have a strong overview of the atmosphere that is required on-screen for each scene, by that I mean the type of photography required, the look of the lighting, make-up, costume and, of course, the part that sound effects and music are going to play. However, he should not approach the actors like a puppeteer. For example if a scene starts with an actor and actress lying in bed in a dingy room, it won’t matter to the artists who is on which side of the bed. If the actor has to get out of bed at some point (to get dressed and go to work?) the director should have a good idea at which point in the dialogue the move should occur. If the actor feels that the move to get dressed should be earlier or later, then the director should give such a suggestion serious consideration and, if it works with the timing of the rest of the scene, it would probably be best to go along with the actor’s wishes.
It is well for a director to remember that he is not acting the scene – the actors are and if they are more comfortable with a move then the chances are it will look better on–screen simply because they will execute it with more confidence, if the director is really sure that his move is the best one then the job is to convince the actor that this is the case and do so by persuasive arguments. A director can only afford to be adamant if he knows the script inside out. Again it is worth repeating that rehearsals are not simply a process whereby the director drills his cast into ultimate submission but a period when cast and director are working to get the very best from the scene. The director provides the framework in which the actors explore possibilities under his guidance.
Reverting to the bedroom scene; the director has determined the lighting with the director of photography and the look of the room and the furnishings with the designer, he has decided which key lines will be played in close-up. Is it really worth a row about what line the actor uses to get out of bed?
But perhaps we are getting ahead of ourselves. The first thing that happens at any rehearsal is that the cast gather together for a read-through. This should be exactly that – an uninterrupted read, a chance for the actors to become familiar with the script and the other members of the cast with whom they will be working. The director should not interrupt the read-through – it should proceed from the start of the script to the end without a break, in fact it is best for the director to remain silent unless he chooses to read the stage directions that may be required for a full understanding of the scene. It is well to realize that a lot of actors hate read-throughs. They feel conscious that the director and other members of the cast may be judging them. For this reason a lot of actors give very little on the read-through and the inexperienced director may panic and wonder if the actors are going to be that ‘flat’ in actual performance. In fact, generally, the actors you need to worry about are those who tear into the read-through giving a bravura performance. They are likely to be the hardest to direct as they have already decided on their performance and will take a lot of persuading to change should the director not like it. Also they are in great danger of having peaked too early and it is therefore unlikely that they will have much to add to their on–screen performance.
it is quite possible that some film read–throughs will not have all the cast in attendance. Some smaller parts may well just be played by actors who arrive on set for one or two days. Even so, a read-through Is still of enormous help as an Icebreaker at rehearsals.
Blocking
Once the read-through Is over then the blocking starts. This is the process whereby actors, script in hand, work with the director to find their positions on set and work out their movements and business in the scene, it is during the blocking that i believe that the wise director should be most flexible and tolerant The actors are having a very difficult time; discovering truths about the characters they are playing, learning their moves and establishing a working relationship with other members of the cast The director must be aware of this. It is well to have a good idea of the positions for the actors at the start of each scene. Joan is looking out of the window and Warren is working at his desk when Fiona enters from the hail, it is obviously sensible to have a plan in your msnd (or on paper) as to how the scene will progress, but, as 1 have said earlier, an inflexible approach at this stage could well hinder the full potential of the scene. The actors may have some excellent ideas of their own. Of course, the director must have sufficient charisma to make it clear that his decision is final and you certainly do not want a situation to develop where one actor-takes over or, worse still, where all the actors chip in with ever more contradictory opinions. Sometimes an actor will want to try some move or business that the director honestly believes to be quite wrong. Even so, let them try it! If you have an honest working relationship with that actor then one of two things will happen. After a few tries the actor will discover that he is wrong and should feel minimum embarrassment in admitting the fact, it is by no means inconceivable that after a few tries it becomes obvious that the actor is right and his idea is better than the director’s. In this case the director should admit it. Too many directors feel threatened if their ideas are questioned. I think this is a bad mistake – as long as the director’s overall concept is not under threat then any incidental idea should be welcomed as long as it is better than the one which it replaces.
Films are frequently rehearsed, if they are rehearsed at all, in rehearsal rooms away from the intended location. It is up to the director as to how detailed any of the rehearsal furniture needs to be.
A theatre play or play destined for the multi-camera TV studio needs to be rehearsed using furniture, as near as possible, the same size as that which will be used on the set The shape of the set with windows and doors, etc, is marked on the floor with coloured marking tape. (The ‘mark-up’ is one of the television assistant floor manager’s least glamorous jobs.) Frankly, a film can only be fully rehearsed on location or in the studio so I would question the need for a very full mark-up of the rehearsal room. What is important is for the actors and director to decide how they are going to tackle each scene when it is in front of the camera. If you are going to film a scene around the refectory table at Knebworth House, then in rehearsal you need a trestle table and some chairs and a knowledge of where the doors and windows are. A full-scale mark-up of the room would seem to me to be a waste of effort.
There is a huge difference between rehearsing for a play and rehearsing for a film. When the director finishes the rehearsals of a stage play, he and the cast must be confident that the performance can sustain night after night from curtain-up to the final scene reaching its internal climaxes of comedy, tragedy or whatever exactly as rehearsed. At the end of the rehearsals the piece should be polished and complete. I have never known this to be the case with a film, neither should it be. A film actor’s performance should peak on the set (round about takes 2 or 3). The director is present to give final note before each shot and the actor knows that the speech will be filmed from a number of different angles. The whole mental attitude to the rehearsal process is, therefore, very different. For film it is more than sufficient at the end of rehearsals for the actors to be confident about their moves and motivation and reasonably secure with their lines. They should feel that there is plenty ‘left to give’ for the camera.
If a cast and director can work quickly to achieve good blocking for a scene this can pay dividends on location as the crew cannot set about lighting the set until they have an idea of what is going to happen. The ideal working method is therefore to aim to complete the filming of the scene at a reasonable hour (say 18.30 hours) then wrap the crew but work on with the actors for another hour to block the next day’s scene. At 09.30 the next day you can call the actors out of make-up and costume to run the scene that you blocked the previous evening. Once the director of photography has seen the block he can start to light the set and the actors can return to complete their make-up. This is a very important point. Far too many directors wait until the actors are fully costumed and made up before bringing them to the set If this is for a new scene it is an appalling waste of time as the director of photography can do nothing until he has looked at the scene. Then the actors can do nothing until he has lit it, so they just sit around getting hot and ruffled. By the time the scene is lit they will probably need to return to costume and make-up before they look fresh enough to start shooting. All this is avoided if you run the scene before the actors are fully made up and return them to costume and make-up to complete while the lighting takes place,
David Lean would often remind an actor that a camera can see what a performer is thinking, which was a tactful way of requesting a less expansive performance. It is certainly wise for the director new to single camera to think twice before asking an experienced screen actor to ‘give a bit more’. 1 well remember directing a Gothic piece, all werewolves and bodies in the belfry, in which we were fortunate enough to have George Baker starring as the head of the doom-laden family. 1 left the set after day one convinced that 1 would have to ask George to bring his performance up a bit, but fortunately 1 had the sense not to say anything to him until 1 had seen the rushes. Next morning when 1 saw the performance on screen 1 realized that, of course, George had judged his performance level exactly right and if anything it would be best to ask the other members of the cast to bring their performances ‘down’.
Rushes
Two lessons can be learned from this. The first is not to easily dismiss the experience of other colleagues on a film who have been working in the industry for much longer than you have yourself. The other is the importance of viewing the rushes every morning. This used to be standard practice in the heyday of the studios but often nowadays is let slip. Seeing the results of the previous day’s work can save time and money as any shortcomings can be put right then and there. Film presents a problem with rushes on location and you may not get a daily service. Even so, it is a brave, some would say foolhardy, director who breaks location without having seen the material he has shot. Video has the advantage of being available for viewing immediately and film cameras with video assist also allow a tape replay. It is very important to realize that while you can judge performance and camera moves, boom shadows, etc. using ‘video assist’ recordings you cannot judge the visual impact that the images will have on the processed film. This is because video finders fitted to film cameras are ‘add-on’ units designed to steal a small amount of light from the camera viewfinder and send it to a video chip which records a useful picture but a picture that in no way whatever equals the colour and contrast capabilities of colour negative film stock.
Who should be at the rushes?
The question arises exactly who should view the rushes? My advice would be as few people as possible – certainly, the director of photography and the – camera operator, the set designer, make-up designer and costume designer, the sound recordist and the editor. Obviously, you, the director, and the producer will have to be asked (if he is around). That really is the ideal limit. Rushes viewing is not a party. If the footage is to be properly evaluated it needs a degree of quiet concentration. It is hard for the operator to say ‘God, I never noticed that shadow’ or make-up to exclaim ‘look at that wig lace!’ if the whole unit down to the last bit part player, is present. If the film is going terribly well and there is a family atmosphere then perhaps arrange a viewing of selected rushes at some point but don’t confuse this with the proper procedure.
It is always unwise to show rushes to an inexperienced corporate video producer who, despite all expostulations to the contrary, will never be able to imagine how the footage will look when it is cut together. Put them off until you have at least a rough cut to view. You might even then consider using the old film editor’s trick of including a couple of really awful cuts (which are in fact very easy to correct). The producer will then notice these, ask for them to be altered and leave the cutting room in a warm glow of creative achievement If they don’;t notice the duff edits then you know you are working with a no-hoperl