Movies have been an escape, an instructor on life, and an art form for me for most of my life. Beginning in Scranton, Pennsylvania at age 10 years old I attended a movie every Saturday afternoon, mostly cowboys. A pony was paraded on stage and we were led to believe we might win that pony in a raffle. When we moved to Florida in the 1950s, my movie experience got even better. Sitting on a pillow in my pajamas in my mother’s Ford Fairlane convertible, the drive-in movie allowed me to watch “The Creature from the Black Lagoon”, “The Incredible Shrinking Man” and other movies, safely.
Years later, while watching a movie with my friend Artie, he dumped a box of buttered popcorn on my head and asked, “Will you please stop talking about this movie while we are watching it?” I no longer know where Artie is. I continue to talk about movies with anyone who wants – and some who don’t.
My attachment to movies is on several levels. When I became an actress, three of my acting teachers (one continues) had made several movies, working with Elia Kazan, Otto Preminger, Arthur Penn, Sidney Lumet, and other great directors. One of my teachers (Lee Strasberg) was nominated for an Academy Award (“The Godfather” part two).
Deconstructing any art form leaves a certain amount of mystery that the artist can’t define. Film-making is a relatively new art form, compared to music, theater and painting and it is still evolving as we speak.
Movies can potentially be works of art or superficial wastes of an hour or more. After the recent strikes in acting and writing communities, we are approaching the Academy Awards with an old-fashioned knock-out drag-out fight involving some art and some nonsense. Since “The Revenant” (one of the most imaginative films I have seen in my adult life), starring the amazing Leonardo DiCaprio, in a performance enhanced by the equally terrific Tom Hardy, directed by Alejandro González Iñárritu, I have waited for a film of that scope and imagination.
Recently a friend discussing film with me, said he didn’t know what a director does, he just watches the actors. In years gone, directors were all-powerful in film-making. More recently it appeared that films were becoming commercial corporations, with directors having less power than in the past. It also seemed that cultural pressures from interest groups were influencing who got to make what film. And the makeup of the production crew and cast was dictated by quotas and protests by interest groups at award ceremonies and elsewhere. As is often the case as effective and perhaps correct as these protests were, they limited opportunities for directors (and other artists). The issue of equality in the art of film-making is an issue all to itself. I’m looking at Directors, what they do, and how good to great films are influenced by a director.
This past year, “Oppenheimer”, directed by Christopher Nolan, starring Cillian Murphy and a cast of real actors, some of whom are also movie stars, arrived. What happened that “Oppenheimer” was above all films I’ve seen in the past years, overwhelmingly brilliant? My answer is the director. It wasn’t until “Insomnia” that I began to realize that director Christopher Nolan was excellent (an understatement). Working with movie star actors with great talent is no easy task. Left to their own devices they can become caricatures of themselves with a director who is timid about correcting or directing them. Pacino takes to huffing his voice getting stuck in the rhythm of speech which doesn’t allow for interaction with other actors. This did not occur in “Insomnia”. Nolan sets an ambiance conducive to accepting the exhaustion and mental confusion of Pacino’s insomniac character, allowing the actor to call upon work he knows how to do – if guided and in the right hands. The visual view of the constant daylight in the damp dreary Alaska setting is a character in itself, allowing actors to interact with and be influenced by it.
I have watched this film about fifteen times, never tiring of the cinematography Nolan directed or the on-point acting he got from Pacino, Williams, and Swank, all major talents acting-wise.
This relationship with the environment was also an important feature dictated by the director of “Revenant”, González Iñárritu, who shot his film with ambient light (no film lighting just the environmental light).
Nolan, who had gained a good reputation in the filmmaking community was able to cast Cillian Murphy, (whom he had worked with several times in the past), for the lead but, who was a casting risk compared to the major movie stars in “Oppenheimer”. The director and the actor had that relationship which allowed Murphy to call upon his extensive theatre training as well as film experience and shine. Murphy is no beginner although this was his biggest lead role to date but director Nolan placed the burden of this amazing film on the actor’s shoulders.
Nolan calls “cinema’s magical point of view,” the camera’s ability to immerse the audience so deeply in the experiences of the people on the screen that we feel what they’re feeling—root for what they’re doing—even if we don’t want to. A lot of that was necessary in Oppenheimer, Nolan’s biopic of the life of J. Robert Oppenheimer, the man who led the Manhattan Project—the government program that developed the atom bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II. Oppenheimer’s work, unlike the murder in Psycho, claimed 200,000 lives, not just one. And Oppenheimer’s really happened: those cities were incinerated; those 200,000 lives were lost.
So Nolan took a lot of steps to make sure we remained on Oppenheimer’s side. He wrote the stage directions in the screenplay in the first person—not “Oppenheimer enters the room,” but “I enter the room,” to help Cillian Murphy, who is nominated for an Academy Award for his portrayal of Oppenheimer, feel more central to the scene, and help moviegoers feel that too. The cameras huddled up closer to Murphy than they did to other characters as well, says Nolan. And the film opens and closes with matching shots—Murphy’s face with his eyes closed. (From Time Magazine interview with director Christopher Nolan)
If given the chance the director auditions and then decides on which actors will play which part in a film he is going to direct. Casting is an important role for the director. In recent years commercial considerations usurp talent when casting, making casting a group corporate decision.
That said, recently I watched Leonardo Di Caprio go way off in a part he was not right for because he bullied the director, Scorsese, into letting him play that part. The director initially wanted Leo as the FBI agent but the movie star might have overruled the actor’s sense of himself and I think this miscasting amongst other things ruined the film, “Killers of The Flower Moon” and unrestrained Di Caprio made wrong acting choices on several levels. I.e. No real emotional connection between him and Lily Gladstone we believed or justification for his allegiance to Robert De Niro’s character.
De Niro was able to take care of himself despite DiCaprio’s miscasting (he is exceptional) and gave an exquisite performance. Again that is where the director lost control of casting, the important part of film-making. Scorsese, who directed an ensemble cast of major talented actors to an almost perfect film in “The Departed”, appears to have lost control of one actor in that film, Jack Nicholson, who was characterizing (not being real) and wasn’t really talking to the other actors, but he did not manage to bring the entire film down as DI Caprio did in “The Killers of the Flower Moon”.
Speaking the same film language is important for a director when casting a film. Good directors often develop a group of actors they might rely on due to their common language about the process of building a character, it makes it easier for the director to direct. Method-trained actors were easier for Elia Kazan to direct because he used those techniques as an actor himself and while directing actors. Salem Ludwig, an actor (and teacher of mine) worked frequently with Kazan and said that Kazan learned about his actor’s personal life, saved the story and when necessary might take the actor aside and say, “This character is like a man who…..then repeat a story he knew about the actor’s life experience. In Salem’s case, Kazan spoke about the bombing of Hiroshima, where Salem was one of the original ground troops afterward and never recovered from it. These techniques are used cautiously in a safe filming environment. Actors not trained in this technique might be in danger emotionally. Actors and directors informed in this technique speak a common language.
That said, Leonardo DiCaprio did not study acting. There are those exceptions (Marlon Brando did study but was a natural talent as well) who can call on reality without the director using the techniques mentioned above. The director has a vision for the film and in conjunction with the actor, assists him/her in fulfilling that vision. Ultimately it is up to the director to get what he/she wants the actor to do for his character.
Clint Eastwood is a terrific director. Actors speak about being on the set with him, which is quiet and supportive. Eastwood is constrained and cardboard-like as an actor but sets an environment for actors (as a director) which allows them to use the tools of acting they know. According to Sean Penn, during the filming of “Mystic River” Eastwood had no rehearsals, so the actors got together in their room at night and rehearsed together, creating what Eastwood calls, “Good old-fashioned ensemble acting.” Eastwood was able to cast major seasoned, talented actors for that film, allowing him to trust them to deliver for their characters. Eastwood presents as understanding an interesting script, casting appropriately and allowing actors to work in a safe environment. Emphasis on understanding a good script. Eastwood acted in and directed a socially relevant, important film, “The Gran Torino” but managed to establish a relationship with the young actors which was important for our caring about and believing his characters actions.
“Barbie” a major commercial success, is a film in the hands of a director who is not certain (at least in this film) what comprises conflict necessary to move a story along. Shot nicely with willing actors, who presented as capturing the director’s ideas, there was no storyline to follow. Watching Greta Gerwig, Barbies’ director, act in a different film, the same issue comes up in her acting, uncertain what her character’s motivation is or how to implement it in her acting, she presents as charmingly superficial and leaves the audience bewildered.
Aside from picking a project, casting the actors, the director unites the actors with a vision for the film’s story, assembles the lighting, cinematographers, set designers et al often relying on artists who share a like sensibility toward film making. (When possible). Choices all of the gathered artists make is directed by the vision of the director (if he/she has control of the project) and knows the story he/she wants to tell.
“Oppenheimer”, “ Killers of the Flower Moon” and “Barbie” have several famous actor/movie stars in smaller parts i.e. DeNiro in a supporting actor role. The trend presents as returning toward the director’s control, actors appear to be willing to work with a director who might help them to shine in a less than starring ensemble role.
“There are no small parts, only small actors”
1.The link below connects to a video “Directors on Directing”. Scorsese, Hitchcock, Lucas, Spielberg, Gerwig, Nolan (and more) speak to casting actors, rehearsals time (Spielberg no longer rehearses without the cameras running), improvisation and giving actors notes about their work.
2.The link below is to Elia Kazan, considered one of the best directors in modern times, speaking about his directing techniques
3.The link below connects to a round-table of directors (Scorsese, Gerwig, and more) discussing the business considerations in film making and streaming outlets for movies and how it effects their film making as directors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iLtjMwkOlg
Carol Schaye has had several short stories published by McFadden’s Women’s Group, Sierra Nevada Ally and other publications. Carol has written for two west coast newspapers and has worked extensively in television. A fan of Flannery O’Connor, Carol studied acting with Lee Strasberg and Austin Pendleton and writing with Salem Ludwig. She attended Marymount College majoring in theater.
If you want to submit a “Comment to the Editor,” please use the following;