Getting Better as a Director: Using Objectives

thank you for these interesting posts!

Great article! Very well explained. I can also recommend "Directing
Actors", it's a really helpful book.

My respect for you continues to grow Mr. Sellars. It's nice to know there's professionals like yourself who understand the actors task, and have developed/adopted personal methods to get what you need when you need it. To humbly add to the perspective, I come from a school of "doers" (not the Scotch). What you are physically doing onstage is the river the dialog rides on. It should reinforce or reveal something in what your "saying". So often it conflicts, purposely. "I hate you" (but I'm in your arms), "You know I love you" (but I'm across the room, staring out the window).

And know what your doing in a scene, but not so you can't pay attention to what the other actor(s)/forces/obstacles are "doing" to you. Do, but LISTEN. Your probably not "in your head" if you're really keen on your partner/situation. You'll notice something, often subtle, that should "pinch" something out of you, and we're off and running. I like to phrase things like "You suspect she..." "You wonder if he...", to subliminally get actors to watch each other like hawks in addition to "...likes you" "...is cheating" , the main action.

Acting is a verb, and I think of that as knowing what you're "doing". But the bottom line is each script/actor/director is different, so you'll be solving the problem many ways in practice. "if you don't like it, you haven't solved it". Good luck...ML

Directing Actors is a wonderful book. Great article, thank you for sharing.

Really enjoying all the articles you've written! Keep up the great work!

Thanks again Randolph, this is the kind of digging in that makes directing and acting fun & challenging, and ultimately leads to interesting conflicts, characters and stories.

ML,
Great points. Listening is a crucial part of creating spontaneity and dynamic in a scene. When actors are really in the zone, listening for the stimulus becomes almost innate, and they are capable of responding or reacting to it as if it is the first time they have received it.

Sometimes conflict arrises when characters want different things. Sometimes characters want the same thing but are taking opposing measures to get what they want. Often in "romantic" scenes the characters just can't say what they want, so they keep saying little things trying to open a door (often in opposing ways), trying to drop a hint or, trying to figure out if it is safe to say how they really feel.

Another major tool for the actor is the awareness and use of beats. A beat is a point in a scene when some new idea, argument, tack, realization, etc. occurs. There are usually numerous beats within a scene. Finding beats is a technique that can help actors navigate through the music of a scene. Often beats support an overall scene objective, but sometimes they can serve to heighten or change a characters objective. Beats are in the story and are to be discovered like the notes in a musical score, so the more one looks at a scene musically the easier it becomes to see the beats and play them.

It is always helpful to include beat work early, but I also find that it can be a great way to work while in production. Some actor's get stuck playing objectives at one pitch and often turn "trite". The introduction of a new beat in a scene offers variations (subtle or not so subtle) which often help to keep them moving toward there objective on more than one note.

The more a director works with objectives, beats and other foundational techniques, the easier it becomes to artfully communicate with actor's in a non-technical, down-to-earth, human way, which, in my experience, garners the best results.

Koo have you read "On Directing Film" by David Mamet? It's a short little book.

It came to me highly recommended...and he puts up a compelling and interesting argument.

He argues that all of which you outlined is not the job of the actor. Any sort of characterization by an actor is bullshit and impossible. All of this is done in the screenplay, the directors choice of shots and in the editing.

Actors job is to do the actions outlined by the director as simply and as quickly as possible.

Has anyone read this book? What are your opinions on this?

Great book! Anyone interested should buy it immediately. Don't think about it, just do it.

Will,

I have read it, it is a great little book. "A Practical Handbook for the Actor" is another short little book written by a group of actors who trained with David Mamet and W.H. Macy early on in their careers, which basically states that all an actor can do is play actions.

I don't think that Mamet's book opposes what is being said. What I get from the book is that the character is defined by his actions and that those actions are defined by the script or play (if it is well written) and outlined by the director. To me this article is about how a director communicates his outline to the actor. The more an actor understands the story and his character's objectives, the more apparent his actions become. David Mamet is a writer first, and he cuts the fat out of everything he touches. I think that it can be easy to misconstrue what he says and end up "throwing the baby out with the bathwater."

It is the job of the director to outline the actor's actions. This process begins in casting, which is often where the director finds the actors that are able to best play the parts in line with the directors vision. I always take some time to see if an actor can follow direction, it is a huge consideration, and one of many during an audition.

I remember an interview with Anthony Hopkins (more than twenty years ago) in which he was asked about his 'process'. His reply was that he read the script over and over, often over a hundred times and that was all. Any other 'process' was "mental gymnastics". I think that this is true for most actor's who have years of experience. They develop intuition. . . or an ability to go in-to-it with all of their senses, so the mental process becomes merged and perhaps more quiet and unnoticeable.

Most systems begin with deconstruction, followed by reconstruction, and with enough experience, embodiment, which seems a lot like abandonment.

Thank you all for your kind and thoughtful feedback. I really appreciate everyone adding to the conversation. Michael, I really like what you said about "doing" and truly "listening." These are the essence of the actors job. And part of the director's job is to help the actor with these tasks which are simple in concept, but often challenging to maintain. Granville, thanks for bringing up the "beats" within a scene - you describe and articulate the concept very well. Will, I haven't read Mamet's book, so I don't know how he works with his actors. I do respect most (but not all) of his work as a writer and director. He obviously has a great rapport with his regular ensemble of actors. I agree with what you attribute to Mamet with respect to the director's job - to outline the actions of the actors. The director is ultimately in charge. However, keep in mind that the actors are the ones who must ultimately perform the outlined actions and the dialogue. They must be involved in the process of creating a performance. Remember, we can't MAKE anyone perform exactly like we want - even if the person wants to do exactly as we say. A skillful director must find unique ways of working with different actors that accommodate THEIR working style and strengths. A director can be 100% correct in their opinions and interpretation of a film - but if they can't work effectively with their actors, they will never get the performances close to what they desire.

So long as we're discussing short books that'll make you a better director, Sidney Lumet's "Making Movies" is a fast read that touches on all the important aspects of film making - casting, cinematography, set design, screenwriting and rewriting, and yes, working with actors. A great aside was how he set up two cameras with multiple mags to let Pacino perform the telephone scene with Leon in DOG DAY AFTERNOON in an uninterrupted take.

Thanks again for these, Randolph!

Randolph,

Your response really gets to the crux of the matter, which is that in the end the actors have to perform in order for the film to work. The more we understand as directors, the better our chances at helping them to pull it off without getting in the way.
I think that at a certain point all science yields to magic (or something unnameable). As useful as any process is, it is important not to mistake the raft for the shore.

Another fantastic book on acting is "Intent To Live" by renowned acting coach Larry Moss. If you ever get a chance to attend one of his workshops, he's one of the best in the business.

Acting is all about finding the emotional truth in a scene and conveying it as simply and as powerfully as possible. If you can learn this language and communicate with your actors successfully, it really doesn't matter what you shoot on or how high the production value is. If the material is truthful and connects with the audience emotionally they'll be invested.

Subtext or the intent of a scene really is where the magic and the power is. I remember years ago seeing an interview with Jack Lemmon where he talked about it in regard to love. He said that it's one of those things that many actors get wrong. For example, when a character asks "Do you love me?" what they are really saying is "I love you" and when a character says "I love you" what they are really asking is "Do you love me?" This example really helped me understand how to look beneath the external layer of the text and dig deeper.

Great articles the last little while guys. It's such a refreshing change from the usual camera tech stuff.

i think this is the only helpful post i have ever seen on this site so far regarding the importance of story telling film making , yeah it's exciting to know about the tools (for the geek side of us)but even if we have gazillion k camera with all the best gear's known to the industry. if we don't know how to write story or pull performance out of actors. i don't think one can be a true film maker. so Koo please keep this kind of posts coming it really is necessary for the self taught indi film maker, since specially this days most novice film makers focus on only equipment as if the equipment could make creative decision for them.

Directing Feature films by Mark Travis really good book about directing and the creative collaboration between directors, writers, and actors.

As someone who has done quite a bit of acting, the "objective" concept is really helpful. Most people that have been trained will already have something in mind, so knowing they are using the idea of "objectives" already opens up a whole new avenue of creative conversation if you can use it too. Non actors may have never thought of it this way, and it gives them a good way to play subtext without getting too actor-y for them.

This is great! A whole new dimension of directing actors!

I LOVE that you mentioned Judith Weston's book! I have had the fortunate opportunity to study under her, and I can say that what I learned from her I will carry for a lifetime! And she is such an amazing person, at that! Great article.