stuactical aestheticals
IN response to "Connection, Conflict and Clues" over at $1000 Movie
For me, practical aesthetics is about stripping direction from waffley over-intellectualisation to something sparse: unaffected and playable. Don't confuse directing with talking too much.
There are two ways to do this.
1. Give direction in verbs.
Rather than asking an actor to be angry in a scene, offer a verb to focus the behaviour of that character. Yell. Sulk. Mope. Blame. Often the best verb choices create a relationship between that character and others in the scene. Rather than asking them to sulk, ask them to avoid talking to character x or to blame character y…
2. Give direction in goals.
Give the actor a goal for the scene. “Make Christy feel guilty” may be a goal for a character who is meant to be angry… but so could “Think of all the things that Christy has done to piss you off… tell me after we’ve shot what they are”. One is more of a blame behaviour, while the other is moping.
The real genius
But the real genius is when you have two actors in the scene and you create CONFLICTING actions or goals… and you don’t tell the other actors.
e.g.
(To Christy) — You want John to admit his mistake. Don't leave the room until he does.
(To John) — Make Christy feel guilty.
which is a direct conflict, but you could have two indirectly conflicting goals (which may resolve at the end of the scene):
(To Christy) — Get John to call his mother in law.
(To John) — Get Christy to shut the fuck up and leave you alone.
... and the conflict can be internal. Ask John to make Christy feel guilty (the goal) by seducing her (the action). Ask Christy to get John to call his mother (goal) by flattering him (action).
Its so much fun going for really zany choices for scenes... then pulling back from then. Over time, you build a language of behaviours for characters that you and your actors can tap into. How does John behave? What is his methodology? How would he act in this scene? How would he get what he wants from Lisa?
For me, practical aesthetics is about stripping direction from waffley over-intellectualisation to something sparse: unaffected and playable. Don't confuse directing with talking too much.
There are two ways to do this.
1. Give direction in verbs.
Rather than asking an actor to be angry in a scene, offer a verb to focus the behaviour of that character. Yell. Sulk. Mope. Blame. Often the best verb choices create a relationship between that character and others in the scene. Rather than asking them to sulk, ask them to avoid talking to character x or to blame character y…
2. Give direction in goals.
Give the actor a goal for the scene. “Make Christy feel guilty” may be a goal for a character who is meant to be angry… but so could “Think of all the things that Christy has done to piss you off… tell me after we’ve shot what they are”. One is more of a blame behaviour, while the other is moping.
The real genius
But the real genius is when you have two actors in the scene and you create CONFLICTING actions or goals… and you don’t tell the other actors.
e.g.
(To Christy) — You want John to admit his mistake. Don't leave the room until he does.
(To John) — Make Christy feel guilty.
which is a direct conflict, but you could have two indirectly conflicting goals (which may resolve at the end of the scene):
(To Christy) — Get John to call his mother in law.
(To John) — Get Christy to shut the fuck up and leave you alone.
... and the conflict can be internal. Ask John to make Christy feel guilty (the goal) by seducing her (the action). Ask Christy to get John to call his mother (goal) by flattering him (action).
Its so much fun going for really zany choices for scenes... then pulling back from then. Over time, you build a language of behaviours for characters that you and your actors can tap into. How does John behave? What is his methodology? How would he act in this scene? How would he get what he wants from Lisa?
posted by stu willis at
12:50 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home