Acting : Observation by Bill Kautz

I often agree with you Bill Kautz and in my opinion its not always the actors fault. sure there are plenty of terrible actors that somehow keep on working and there are great talents that never break out, and then there are those rare actor that can make the phonebook feel like shakespeare, but all too often the writer fails to differentiate the voice of each character. The characters have no individual voices so the actor does not have a fighting chance at forging a compelling performance. i am having this problem with a writer now on a feature we have in development and aside from the the two main characters everyone feels the same on the page.

As Devlin says, the script dialogue has got to give every character a voice the actors and director can invest time developing. That said, live recorded sit-com actors like Jennifer Anniston are masters of great line delivery.

"...phonebook feel like Shakespeare...." Love it! What I sensed in watching those films wasn't so much as what was said, rather the way - meaning the (spoken) dialogue sounded or didn't sound, "natural" and by extension, "not convincing." Put another way; it was in many cases, like the actors were in rehearsal and barely off-book, with a long way to go before opening night. When you say "voice," I take it you mean the character in the script. Here I'm speaking of the way the words in the script are spoken. I also know what you mean about supporting characters "sounding" the same, only I think you mean there's nothing to distinguish one from the other in the script.. In "Catch A Falling Star," I wrote the leads first and when I needed a supporting character, tossed one in. Then, I went back and concentrated on the secondary characters one at a time (layering the story) and in the end, the ones that survived were unique individuals. The mother of the male lead for instance. She started out being a throw-away but in the re-writes morphed into the main (female) supporting character with a unique, stand alone personality all her own that bridged the gap between her son and the female lead, from starting out being "bland" to a unique personality that advances the story. The biggest surprise however, was a dog! He went from a visual (everybody in the country is expected to have a dog) I tossed in to playing a vital role in the story-line! In fact, without him, there wouldn't be a story worth telling! There is however, a problem in the way I develop characters and that's the risk of having the secondary characters (like mom and the dog nearly do in "Catch") and that's overshadowing the leads. The same topic is going to factor in when/if "Catch" is cast. The female lead MUST be able to sing (there are three songs in it, one sung a cappella [Italian spelling] and that can't be faked) PLUS act. That I understand is extremely rare. The only actress I can think of who could do both was Whitney Houston (The Bodyguard). If there's someone with her talent out there (who plays in her mid twenties and can carry a film), let me know - PLEASE! I've already been told it's going to be nearly impossible to find her.

CJ: With Jennifer Anniston, it's nearly impossible to tell when/if she's acting (from a script) or making a guest appearance on a talk show.

I have to say it is fun and refreshing to talk about these issues with other professionals who are not pushing an agenda, just having a frank and honest exhange of ideas/opinions thanks to all

Sing and act: Rare? They're all over Broadway. And they can dance too! Try Betsy Wolfe, Sierra Boggess, Heidi Blickenstaff, Laura Benanti, Jessie Mueller to name a few.

I feel like an idiot for not having thought to look at Broadway. The ones you mentioned all looked great, meaning more or less what I had in mind when I wrote the script. Thanks. Monday I'll try to find out who their A&R or manager or agent is and contact them.

Yes, each of the superb professional and skilled actors I mentioned are in shows on Broadway now. They prove their abilities 8 times a week, twice on Wed and Saturdays. Broadway is filled with skilled artists.

mark is absolutly right, another discussion thread that would be interesting is one I hear often on sets and it always puzzles me, is the percieved difficulty in transitioning from broadway or theatre in general i suppose to film and tv. To me acting is much too complex and individual to be boiled down to one platitude but if i had to try i think i would choose acting is about being in the moment and to share that moment is no different when including the camera as audience the. when the audience has 1500 live souls laughing, coughing , and hopefully listening in on the private moment you are living publicly. there are certain technical ascpects to be considered and it can be very difficult to craft an emotional arc out of order, but the fudamentals dont change, what do you say all?

A lot of it, I think, agreeing with you, has to do with the way films are shot - in an order of scenes designed to be cost effective. That involves the talent having to switch "moods" back and forth perhaps dozens of times, plus do (sometimes) dozens of takes, mostly depending on the number of cameras employed. On the stage, if a line is dropped or there's a goof, they move on. They have to. Not so in film.

A stage production in its final form, the 'director's edit', is presented to the audience in the flow of the script, yes. But they are rehearsed, cost effectively, just like films are shot: big dance numbers first, then the demanding conflict or loves scenes, and it's not all put together until the first run throughs which could be at tech or dress rehearsal. The cast has no sense of the show until then. So, stage actors always have to work out of sequence in the construction of their characters and the show. Now, the issue of 'moods' is one, as a teacher of the Hagen Process, that I deal with constantly in the entertainment market. The great masters from Stanislavski down through his prominent descendants: Strasberg, Adler, Meisner and through Ms. Hagen's 10 Object Exercises, never, never, never, NEVER considered the term/issue/concept of 'mood'. No such thing. Not for the actor. If the actor is dealing with mood they are already outside the spontaneous, subconscious creation of reactive behavior and are in external formalized performance, the 'look' of it, or the 'sound' of it. Every day in my work with actors in LA, NY, Miami and even around the world, I bump up against the commercialized, prepackaged, just add emotion, 5 easy step, let's just tweak the acting perspectives which are dichotomous in their creation. We, in the Hagen Process, look at the physical circumstance, the Facts, and then uncover the widest range of actions specific to the psychological makeup of the character, and then we 'do it'. We don't play 'moods'. That's the director's job in how he lights it, scores it, edits it, and yes how he connects with each actor is assisting them in connecting with the character's Thoughts into Desires into Wants. No 'moods'. I know I may have strayed a bit from the original thread but I just wanted to pose that point since it is what I, and all teachers of proven techniques, must combat in the ubiquitous onslaught of Hollywood commercialized externalized acting coaching.

Sir Michael Caine said in a workshop on Film Acting "While rehearsing something with a fellow actor, if a crew member can come up and recognize you’re rehearsing vs. having a real conversation, then you aren't doing it right." http://nofilmschool.com/2012/03/michael-caine-teaches-act-film/ And I think this greatly applies.

But film is a visual medium and written that way. Stage scripts are almost entirely dialogue oriented. I recently watched a stage production our local community theater did - with the sound off. I didn't have a clue as to what was going on (had I not read the script). To check myself, I watched part of a film in the same way, and had little trouble understanding what was going on. Then I swapped, visuals with sound, and had the exact opposite experience.