crying techniques?

Forum covering all aspects of small gauge cinematography! This is the main discussion forum.

Moderator: Andreas Wideroe

User avatar
MovieStuff
Posts: 6135
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:07 am
Real name: Roger Evans
Location: Kerrville, Texas
Contact:

Post by MovieStuff »

keagan wrote:
mattias wrote:roger, you're way off. if you think you can go the extra mile through abusive techniques you owe it to yourself and your film to go for it. otherwise you're a bad director. actors think so too. they don't like directors who don't have the guts to cross boundries. it's part of the job for both.
I agree. As an independant director you have to do what it takes to get your film made. If you are passionate about your project, you'll attract people who are also passionate, and passion can be translated into a willingness to sacrifice.
Oh for crying out loud (pun intended). Only a hack director is going to be so unfamiliar with the script of his own film that he is going to be surprised about scenes requiring emotional outburts or crying when the day comes to shoot them on the set. As such, the director has a responsibility to thoroughly audition the actors for the part to make sure they can deliver what is required when the time comes.

So, when I read comments like:

"...if you think you can go the extra mile..."

"...you owe it to yourself and your film..."

"...it's part of the job..."

"...you have to do what it takes to get your film made..."

"...passion can be translated into a willingness to sacrifice..."

I find it more than amusing that such "sacrifice" doesn't seem to include a thorough auditioning process to cast the appropriate actor.

If you are the director, then you are the point-man for interviewing and auditioning the actors for your project. This is even more true for indie films. If you know you need an actor that can perform a backflip and land on his feet, surely you are going to ask any potential candidate for the part to perform a backflip during the audition. And, if you do not do that and just cast the person based on looks and not ability, then no amount of browbeating or abuse is going to make that person be able to do an effective backflip on the set when needed. Crying is no different.

This thread was started because someone wanted to know about different crying techniques for actors. Well, here's the deal: Crying is the most basic parlor trick that most experienced actors know. Crying is easier to perform on demand than a backflip, in fact. I have worked with hundreds of actors for both film and stage and the idea that a director would have to be abusive to get an emotional result from a competent actor is offensive to any real actor that I know. I'm not saying that some actors don't get off being slapped around and, if that is the technique that they require, well more power to 'em but I would never hire such a person. Abuse on the set is no substitution for being a competent, prepared director that auditions and screens potential actors before casting them, especially if you as the director know going into a project that certain capabilities are required from the hired talent.

Roger
mojohey
Posts: 335
Joined: Fri May 09, 2003 11:32 pm
Location: Scotland

Post by mojohey »

I'm tend to agree with Roger on this one... i've worked with lots of different directors Abusive; cockey; arseholes; funny; ignorant; rude; creative; fast; slow, even worked with a few who have all of the above... but i've never seen a director be abusive to an actor (but thats not to say it doesn't happen) i've seen directors be more abusive to crew... the artiste is something different... they have to be looked after... and if there is a moment that as a director you feel that you have to "cross boundries" then that has to be something that the artiste and yourself should have discussed previously as a way to help them get the performance you are looking for. Very risky trying it as a cold technique... could make the floor seem very small and a horrible place to be... it might not work.

But to answer the original question... Tear Stick.
----------------------------------------------
mattias
Posts: 8356
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 1:31 pm
Location: Gubbängen, Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Post by mattias »

mojohey wrote:then that has to be something that the artiste and yourself should have discussed previously
why? there are no dogmas in filmmaking except those you set up yourself to reach your goal. for the record as a director i'm more of the kind yet manipulating type, so i'm not trying to defend my own way of working here. i just know that if i knew there was something i'd have to do in order to get the results i'm after and i didn't do it i wouldn't have done my job. are there situations i would back down from? sure. if i had to kill someone to create art i wouldn't, but that would only make me a better person, not a better director.

/matt
mattias
Posts: 8356
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 1:31 pm
Location: Gubbängen, Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Post by mattias »

MovieStuff wrote:Crying is the most basic parlor trick that most experienced actors know. Crying is easier to perform on demand than a backflip, in fact.
for sure, but not only that. it's easeir than real emotion too. the reason this thread evolved was that tears in themselves are seldom the goal with the direction given.

/matt
User avatar
MovieStuff
Posts: 6135
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:07 am
Real name: Roger Evans
Location: Kerrville, Texas
Contact:

Post by MovieStuff »

mattias wrote:
MovieStuff wrote:Crying is the most basic parlor trick that most experienced actors know. Crying is easier to perform on demand than a backflip, in fact.
for sure, but not only that. it's easeir than real emotion too. the reason this thread evolved was that tears in themselves are seldom the goal with the direction given.
I agree with this 100% and if all artistically and commercially successful films shared the common denominator of abusive and demeaning direction, then I would have to admit that such technique is necessary. But, of course, that isn't the case. Abusive directors are the exception and not the rule and history is full of wonderful films with true emotion that were produced without such extremes. A film is just make-believe and no film is more important than a person's dignity. It is the job of the director to sort out these problems during the audition and rehearsal stage long before coming to the set.

Roger
mojohey
Posts: 335
Joined: Fri May 09, 2003 11:32 pm
Location: Scotland

Post by mojohey »

mattias wrote:
mojohey wrote:then that has to be something that the artiste and yourself should have discussed previously
why? there are no dogmas in filmmaking except those you set up yourself to reach your goal. for the record as a director i'm more of the kind yet manipulating type, so i'm not trying to defend my own way of working here. i just know that if i knew there was something i'd have to do in order to get the results i'm after and i didn't do it i wouldn't have done my job. are there situations i would back down from? sure. if i had to kill someone to create art i wouldn't, but that would only make me a better person, not a better director.

/matt
I'm trying to point out what the relationship between you as a director and the cast should be... if there is an agressive out burst from a director to try and get a better performance... then it should be in a way that the actor is not distracted... but takes the note... For me part of the craft of drama is to make it real... there are alot of people in alot of departments at hand to a director to give him what he wants... to make the shots work that can be put together in a sequence to make a scene that works. Rehearse rehearse rehearse.

In my experience if an actor isn't giving out the performance the director is looking for, its because they don't know the words they are saying.
2 more things, what you say Matt is always interesting... and I should mention at this point that i am not a director.
----------------------------------------------
User avatar
MovieStuff
Posts: 6135
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:07 am
Real name: Roger Evans
Location: Kerrville, Texas
Contact:

Post by MovieStuff »

mattias wrote:i just know that if i knew there was something i'd have to do in order to get the results i'm after and i didn't do it i wouldn't have done my job.
Agreed. In fact, this reminds me of a funny story that Dolly Parton told about the making of "9 to 5". Apparently she walked up and overheard the director complaining to the producer that Dolly could not act. Parton replied, "Oh, hell, boys, I know that. But you didn't hire me because you thought I could act. You hired me because you thought it would make you a lot of money.... Now earn it."

The director should do his job. But having to demean an actor on the set to get an emotional response seems to suggest that the director did not "do his job" during the audition, rehearsal or prep stage of the project, wouldn't you agree? I am 100% with you that, as a director, you often have to push, push, push people beyond their natural limits, both in terms of emotional boundries as well as physical capabilities. This is because the cast and crew can not "see" the finished film in their minds like the director does and they do not understand sometimes that a seemingly small detail can have a huge impact on the final on-screen product. So, in this sense, I think we agree more than not. The director is in total charge because it is his ass that is on the line.

But, even as a director, you do not own your actors and I find that abusive directors are simply bad communicators that do not know how to relay their thoughts and ideas to the talent or how to draw out the best performance. As a result, they get frustrated and lash out in a desperate attempt to achieve their goal. But even if they do achieve their ultimate goal via this method, the end does not justify the means. Unfortunately, books about abusive but successful directors spin this to make such behavior seem "dynamic" or "visionary" and artficially validates what is, in reality, simply a sloppy and unprepared work habit. Abuse should never be confused with technique since abuse is actually the lack of technique, in my opinion.

Roger
keagan
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:13 am
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada

Post by keagan »

MovieStuff wrote:But, even as a director, you do not own your actors and I find that abusive directors are simply bad communicators that do not know how to relay their thoughts and ideas to the talent or how to draw out the best performance. As a result, they get frustrated and lash out in a desperate attempt to achieve their goal. But even if they do achieve their ultimate goal via this method, the end does not justify the means.
This is true. Abusive techniques are never acceptable as a substitute to bad communication. And what you say about drawing everything out in the casting stage, making sure everybody is on the same page, is also true.

what I was trying to say earlier is that I am not a very experienced director. I also don't have money to hire profesional actors. (this is all theoretical anyways, i'm not hiring ANY actors at the moment). So... if you're super passionate about your idea, and you find an actor who is also super passionate and wants to be in your film, then maybe, if both you and the actor discuss this before hand, you as the director may have to act in order to give your tallent something to act against. Act like a jerk, and they can respond by acting hurt and sad.

I'd say that the working with actors part of directing DOES require you to also be an actor. I don't condone serious abusive behaviour in any context. If you do have to resort to this, you better make damn sure your set is well catered with good beer!
Keagan
User avatar
MovieStuff
Posts: 6135
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:07 am
Real name: Roger Evans
Location: Kerrville, Texas
Contact:

Post by MovieStuff »

keagan wrote: what I was trying to say earlier is that I am not a very experienced director. I also don't have money to hire profesional actors. (this is all theoretical anyways, i'm not hiring ANY actors at the moment). So... if you're super passionate about your idea, and you find an actor who is also super passionate and wants to be in your film, then maybe, if both you and the actor discuss this before hand, you as the director may have to act in order to give your tallent something to act against. Act like a jerk, and they can respond by acting hurt and sad.
Okay, but this reflects exactly what I said earlier: An experienced director will not have to treat an experienced actor in that fashion. For William Wyler to have to insult and belittle Audrey Hepburn to get her to cry calls into question the abilities of at least one of them, in my opinion, whether she got an Oscar nod or not.

Roger
ccortez
Senior member
Posts: 2220
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 3:07 am
Location: Austin, Texas

Post by ccortez »

mojohey wrote:I'm tend to agree with Roger on this one... i've worked with lots of different directors Abusive; cockey; arseholes; funny; ignorant; rude; creative; fast; slow, even worked with a few who have all of the above... but i've never seen a director be abusive to an actor (but thats not to say it doesn't happen) i've seen directors be more abusive to crew... the artiste is something different... they have to be looked after... and if there is a moment that as a director you feel that you have to "cross boundries" then that has to be something that the artiste and yourself should have discussed previously as a way to help them get the performance you are looking for. Very risky trying it as a cold technique... could make the floor seem very small and a horrible place to be... it might not work.

But to answer the original question... Tear Stick.
I can't even believe this thread is still alive. I thought only teenage girls believed the industry worked as some here are claiming, with the abuse and psycho tricks and all that. Blah...

The answer to the question is "tear stick" as stated (and I'm sure there are many similar options) just like the answer to simulating cocaine on stage or in film is vitamin powder or powdered milk or some other awful choice. I don't want an actor breaking down and crying from real pain on set any more than I want him snorting real coke at work (or at home).

i have to agree with roger (and others) 100% and without much if any grey area admitted. it all comes down to the contract between artist and audience. as an audience member, i'm supposed to be watching a performance, not witnessing an act of abuse.

- c.
Evan Kubota
Senior member
Posts: 2565
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 9:04 am
Location: FL
Contact:

Post by Evan Kubota »

[yawn] I don't think anyone is saying that the actors should be raped or beaten with whips until they almost black out.

Of course you can get someone to cry with a tear stick or onions. It seems to me that the discussion moved into the other elements surrounding 'real' crying, as Tim pointed out, which is more than stage tears. Squirting saline solution to fill someone's eye sockets, as I advocated, is effective for getting the look of tears but certainly not the overall emotional effect. I used it for a Chaplin-type piece that was already very manipulative.

I don't really understand if the director being "good" can be determined from the way he works with actors. I'm interested in how good the films are, not some arbitrary determination of how "good" a given pairing of director and actor are. As we all know, "good" directors can make awful films, but great films are not generally made by horrible directors.

Murdering an actor to get the effect of a real death is basically beyond most people's boundaries (but I wouldn't be surprised if a film by a director who was going to die incorporated footage of his or her own death - if it were me, I'd do it for the simple reason that it has a chance of exposing truth). On the other hand, limiting the interaction between the director and actor to SAG-approved type stuff is not benefiting the form. It all depends on what type of relationship is understood between the actors and director. If they are both dedicated to the project then unusual behavior with the intent of eliciting a specific response should not be out of bounds unless it involves significant, tangible risk or permanent injury.[/quote]
User avatar
MovieStuff
Posts: 6135
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:07 am
Real name: Roger Evans
Location: Kerrville, Texas
Contact:

Post by MovieStuff »

Evan Kubota wrote:[yawn] I don't think anyone is saying that the actors should be raped or beaten with whips until they almost black out.
You're right. No one was discussing that at all.
Evan Kubota wrote: Squirting saline solution to fill someone's eye sockets, as I advocated, is effective for getting the look of tears but certainly not the overall emotional effect.
Right, again. That's why you hire an actor. ;)

Roger
User avatar
paul
Posts: 766
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 2:22 am
Location: netherlands

Post by paul »

MovieStuff wrote:
Evan Kubota wrote: Squirting saline solution to fill someone's eye sockets, as I advocated, is effective for getting the look of tears but certainly not the overall emotional effect.
Right, again. That's why you hire an actor. ;)

Roger
I agree as well but I am not hiring an actor but I am working with amateurs. The script I am writing is based on their personalities though. I am sure they can give a crying look, but without the tears. The girl doesn't cry easily, as she told me.


I received the tearsstick by mail. It's just an eucalipta stick, as I was informed. I don't have a clue how to apply it. Should it go under the lower eyelid or on top of it? Anybody experience with it?

Paul
User avatar
Davideo
Posts: 372
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 12:21 am
Location: Seguin, Texas
Contact:

Post by Davideo »

Do what comic actor Dom DeLuise does...pull out your nose hairs right before the moment you need to cry.
Post Reply