Actors Vs Directors

Daz said: 'What I meant was I like to have the space to create rather than copy a director who is trying to be an actor.'

I think this discussion rests on a further question: what is the role of a director and what is the role of an actor?

Quite a few directors, and a number of actors, would argue that the artistic
side of the performance IS the job of the director (and writer, for that matter), whilst acting is the craft that gives it humanity. Of course, a lot of other actors disagree with that, and well I don't intend to try to settle the art v craft debate personally.

I don't think one can generalise readily on this point. Some actors need more direction than others. For example, I know actors who when reading a script will normally look for and find the thematic qualities as well as the human relationships, and will combine them without being told. Others wouldn't know a literary theme if it smacked them in the face - but are still good actors, because they can do their job of giving the characters truth and humanity - they just need to be told a bit more often where to modify their performance for the sake of the show as a whole. I also think that most of us have, at some stage, had the over-controlling director who can't let go of their exact mental picture, and ends up forcing a performance based on charactature and mimicry rather than emotion.

I can say, however, that there is an innate tendency in many actors, and I'm certainly not excluding myself from this criticism, to be predisposed towards the selfish, ie creating a character in a way that feels right for 'you' even if it detracts from the story as a whole, or from the thematic qualities of the script. Yes, theatre is about humanity and relationships, but many plays/films are ALSO about concepts that go beyond 'truth' of character. Take, for example, the film Apocalypse Now. Yes, the characters are well-played, but it would be just another war film, if they weren't played within the directorial constraints that allowed the film to talk not just about war, but about existentialism, nihilism and imperialism (and lots of other -isms that escape me right now). If actors were to have full control over their character, there is no way that scripts like that could be touched.

On a more practical note, sometimes the actor's prefered interpretation of a character may have to be sacrificed for things like pacing, or even the growth of other characters. Obviously, there's no point doing Hamlet unless you're willing to give the lead actor a lot of artistic freedom. But if 'third lord', or maybe even Laertes, was to insist on total artistic freedom it would damage not only the director's vision, but also the ability of the actor playing Hamlet to fully explore and develop the character.

And then there's film. Suffice to say, when over half the emotional content of a scene is being created by elements that aren't present on set (sound, lighting. camera angles - just watch Memento a few times, so much emotion in the character, so little of it given by Guy Pearce, not a criticism - he did what was needed), the actor can't possibly create the character with a solo effort.

To be fair, I have seen situations where the director wanted a picture of the character that wasn't 'real' and sometimes the actor is in a better position to realise that. And I think a lot of directors would benefit tremendously from asking 'does that feel right to you?' But you are never going to achieve your best performance by trying to create the character purely by yourself. I guess it partially depends on whether or not the director genuinely does have a great 'vision' for the play, or for that matter the type of script (sometimes 'workshopped' rather than 'directed' plays can work). But I think its very easy to lose sight of the fact that whilst as actors we may be in the best position to 'know' the character, the director is normally in a much better position to see how they relate to the script and to the play as a whole.

Just a rant,
Craig