I think I've lost faith in Bresson.

[Pop Trash]

I put on Pickpocket this evening, which is a film I used to like even though it was never my favorite of Bressons, and a strange thing happened: I started wonder why I liked Bresson in the first place. Keep in mind that this used to be someone who I consider a pretty great filmmaker. I understand all the intellectual arguments about his cut-and-dry style and use of non-actors to put the viewer off and somehow this is supposed to actually suck the viewer in or something (not sure if it works) Also, as a sometime actor myself, I find his use of non-actors kind of offputting. I certainly don't mind people who use non-actors in films but Bresson gets his "actors" to act in a dead, lifeless, monotone, zombie style that I think is just as bad, in an opposite way, as overacting. No one in real life is this lifeless, unless they are severely depressed. Does anyone in his films ever smile? Is this how life is? Or is this just how Bresson wants to present life?

I got to thinking about how I'm starting to tire of certain types of arthouse films that have a similar style to Bresson. A film like The Death of Mr. Lazarescu. Sometimes these films are so formal that all life is sucked out of them. I get that these filmmakers are hung up on long takes and static cameras but I think there is such a thing as being formal to the point of being dead and lifeless with your film.

Not all arthouse filmmakers are like this. With Wong Kar Wai's films I always get a certain love of life and film. Even if they wind up technically unhappy (with a main character dying or something) I never get an empty, dead feeling from his films. Terrence Malick's best films are like this as well. Pulp Fiction, Trainspotting, and most of Godard's films give me this feeling too.

I was thinking about Wall-E and Pickpocket. I realize the films are vastly different so bare with me. I think if you showed someone in some small African village Wall-E they would "get" it. Meaning it would translate and all the humor and humanity would register, even if these people had seen no or very little films in their life. You couldn't do that with Pickpocket. You would have to over explain the filmmaking styles and people would get bored and not "get" it and whatnot. I think the best films are the ones where you don't have to explain why something is great, it just is great. With Bresson, it seems like you'd have to explain his style for people to understand what it's on about. Hence the intro on the DVD by Paul Schrader, holding your hand and explaining why Bresson is great, in case you, like me, just think it's dry and lifeless and coma inducing.

Thoughts?

[Spinal]

I certainly don't mind people who use non-actors in films but Bresson gets his "actors" to act in a dead, lifeless, monotone, zombie style that I think is just as bad, in an opposite way, as overacting.

I agree with a lot of what you say, but particularly this. His insistence upon non-stylized acting is more distracting than the thing that he is supposedly critiquing.

[Derek]

I agree with a lot of what you say, but particularly this. His insistence upon non-stylized acting is more distracting than the thing that he is supposedly critiquing.

I wish I had more time to respond, but I'll say two quick things - 1) Bresson's films should not in any way, shape or form be mistaken as attempts at (neo-)realism and 2) his critique of trained actors is simply a by-product of his use of models. The purpose is not to criticize other styles of acting, but to find a mode of performance that is in line with his stipped-down, essential formal system. To a certain degree, this issue with performances, at least inasmuch as they're judged for how "realistic" they are, is a "problem" with many art films which seek truth not through simple mimicry (ie, Jamie Foxx in the painful 10 minutes of Ray I caught earlier today) or imitation.

[Qrazy]

While I acknowledge some of your criticisms of 'elitist' art in general (although I feel it has it's own merits), I don't feel they particularly apply to Bresson. His art much like Samuel Beckett's prose or William Carlos Williams poetry, requires an open mind to appreciate it, but it does not require a wealth of symbolic and historic knowledge (like James Joyce, TS Elliot or Godard).

You say you 'get' the use of models etc and perhaps you do, but based on your post alone I remain unconvinced. I say this only because the purpose of the models is not only for the 'distancing effect' you mentioned. Aside from that element, the purpose of his non-acting is to remove the art-form of acting from the cinema so that the illusion of movement itself comes to the forefront. As I understand it Bresson views acting as a cinematic crutch because it forces film to rely on pre-formed notions of theatricality to generate it's emotional resonance. By removing dramatic distractions Bresson is able to keep the viewer fixated purely on the cinematic extrapolation of the story/idea he wishes to express removed from dramatic convention... which he expresses through a vary unique means... multiple uses of ellipses, tracking shots of hands, feet, etc. He is no longer bound to the visual conventions that dramatic conventions often bind filmmakers to.

All that being said none of the above means Bresson is above reproach. I only find a few of his films genuinely masterful, the rest are in turns mild successes and sometimes failures.

[Pop Trash]

While I acknowledge some of your criticisms of 'elitist' art in general (although I feel it has it's own merits), I don't feel they particularly apply to Bresson. His art much like Samuel Beckett's prose or William Carlos Williams poetry, requires an open mind to appreciate it, but it does not require a wealth of symbolic and historic knowledge (like James Joyce, TS Elliot or Godard).

You say you 'get' the use of models etc and perhaps you do, but based on your post alone I remain unconvinced. I say this only because the purpose of the models is not only for the 'distancing effect' you mentioned. Aside from that element, the purpose of his non-acting is to remove the art-form of acting from the cinema so that the illusion of movement itself comes to the forefront. As I understand it Bresson views acting as a cinematic crutch because it forces film to rely on pre-formed notions of theatricality to generate it's emotional resonance. By removing dramatic distractions Bresson is able to keep the viewer fixated purely on the cinematic extrapolation of the story/idea he wishes to express removed from dramatic convention... which he expresses through a vary unique means... multiple uses of ellipses, tracking shots of hands, feet, etc. He is no longer bound to the visual conventions that dramatic conventions often bind filmmakers to.

All that being said none of the above means Bresson is above reproach. I only find a few of his films genuinely masterful, the rest are in turns mild successes and sometimes failures.

I don't know...I do like the focus on hands, feet, legs (although people like Bunuel and Tarantino do this as well for a different fetishistic effect) in his films. That never bothered me. It's mostly the acting styles. Even in the intro Schrader said something like "Bresson never has actorly things like smiling in his films." What the hell? I thought smiling was...oh I don't know...a human thing to do? I didn't realize it was only relegated to actors.

I think it bothers me only because I really want to like Bresson. A lot of my favorite directors/writers name him as a big influence. People like Scorsese, Paul Schrader, Jim Jarmusch (who's style is admitantly dry as well but at least injects some humor and humanity into his films) and others. I just feel like he is a better filmmaker in theory than in actuality.

[Spinal]

I'm pretty sure that my theories on art and cinema are approximately the polar opposite of Bresson's.

[Pop Trash]

I'm pretty sure that my theories on art and cinema are approximately the polar opposite of Bresson's.
Please share.

[Spinal]

Please share.

Share my theories on art and cinema? All of them?

I would just say that, in brief, I value theatricality and bold, reckless gestures. I'm not typically a fan of artistic asceticism.

[Pop Trash]

Share my theories on art and cinema? All of them?

I would just say that, in brief, I value theatricality and bold, reckless gestures. I'm not typically a fan of artistic asceticism.
Hmmm gotcha.

[Boner M]

I would just say that, in brief, I value theatricality and bold, reckless gestures. I'm not typically a fan of artistic asceticism.
I'd say a lot of Bresson's films are bold, reckless gestures; his last two films in particular (The Devil, Probably and L'Argent) are incredibly bold in their all-out, take-it-or-leave-it despair (the former was called 'the most punk film ever made' by Richard Hell).

Anyway, I was wondering how you can like something like Haneke's The Seventh Continent and not Bresson... my only guess is that the former uses real actors (and I admit that T7C's best scene - the wife's breakdown in the car wash - is acting-based).

[Epistemophobia]

Au hasard Balthazar is pretty much the only film to ever elicit a strong emotional reaction out of me on multiple viewings. I will admit that I need to be in a certain state of mind to give myself over to Bresson's films, but when I do I find them more rewarding than nearly any other director.

[Sven]

I think if you showed someone in some small African village Wall-E they would "get" it. Meaning it would translate and all the humor and humanity would register, even if these people had seen no or very little films in their life. You couldn't do that with Pickpocket. You would have to over explain the filmmaking styles and people would get bored and not "get" it and whatnot.

This is the strangest assumption. I would think that WALL E would have too many cuts, move too quickly, be too abstract (being science fiction, set in the future, with strange robots and even stranger people) for someone who's never seen movies to comprehend.

[balmakboor]

I've long thought that Bresson's films are one of the best examples of the theory of directing expounded by David Mamet in his book On Directing Film. He feels (or at least felt in that book) that films should be assembled out of uninflected materials -- a shot of a man walking, a shot of a doorknob turning, a shot of a gun being fired, a shot of a giraffe falling to the ground, ... (Those last two -- a cartoon shot of a gun firing and a live-action shot of a giraffe falling to the ground in Africa -- are actually cut together in Sans Soleil.) The meaning is all in the juxtaposition.

Mamet extended this to acting and considered old school actors like Fonda and Bogart much better suited to film than the more strenuous method actors. He refers to an interview with Bogart where he was asked how he made such a strong impression in his entrance to a particular scene. Bogart said, "I was told to walk in, close the door, stop, and look to my left. And that's what I did." It also reminds me of that old Kuleshov experiment. You know, man sits blankly in a chair and is intercut with shots of a steaming bowl of soup, a pretty girl, and a coffin. An audience then raves over his versatility in expressing hunger, desire, and grief.

I actually think that, by functioning in this way, Bresson's films are probably more universally accessible across cultures than most films. I think that the greatest area of both difficulty and interest in Bresson's work is that we are never told and are often unsure how we are supposed to be feeling and reacting to what's on screen. I have many mixed and conflicting emotions and thoughts while watching the car "seduction" scene in Balthazar for instance.

[Pop Trash]

I still think his zombie-esque direction of (non) actors is antithetical to being human. And I still think Wall-E would play better to novice movie goers in my imaginary African village.

[balmakboor]

I still think his zombie-esque direction of (non) actors is antithetical to being human. And I still think Wall-E would play better to novice movie goers in my imaginary African village.

And I won't argue with you. We all have to define our critical boundaries somehow. You seem to require performances to relate to "being human." I've simply never established a similar requirement.

[Spinal]

I like acting.

[Spinal]

Anyway, I was wondering how you can like something like Haneke's The Seventh Continent and not Bresson... my only guess is that the former uses real actors (and I admit that T7C's best scene - the wife's breakdown in the car wash - is acting-based).

I liked two out of the four Bresson films I have seen. Just don't agree with his philosophy.

[ledfloyd]

is the title of this thread a pun? i LoLed.

[balmakboor]

is the title of this thread a pun? i LoLed.

Most likely. It was the first thing I noticed. I do think the pun -- if it is a pun -- would be more appropriate if the thread were about Dreyer though.

[DavidSeven]

Based on just the two Bresson films I've seen, I wouldn't disagree with your assessment at all.

[Sven]

I still think his zombie-esque direction of (non) actors is antithetical to being human. And I still think Wall-E would play better to novice movie goers in my imaginary African village.

You can think that, but it proves nothing.

[Boner M]

And I still think Wall-E would play better to novice movie goers in my imaginary African village.
That example just proves what great populists - not artists - Pixar are compared to Bresson.

[Sven]

That example just proves what great populists - not artists - Pixar are compared to Bresson.

It doesn't even prove that. PT just thinks it does.

[monolith94]

I've long thought that Bresson's films are one of the best examples of the theory of directing expounded by David Mamet in his book On Directing Film. He feels (or at least felt in that book) that films should be assembled out of uninflected materials -- a shot of a man walking, a shot of a doorknob turning, a shot of a gun being fired, a shot of a giraffe falling to the ground, ... (Those last two -- a cartoon shot of a gun firing and a live-action shot of a giraffe falling to the ground in Africa -- are actually cut together in Sans Soleil.) The meaning is all in the juxtaposition.

Mamet extended this to acting and considered old school actors like Fonda and Bogart much better suited to film than the more strenuous method actors. He refers to an interview with Bogart where he was asked how he made such a strong impression in his entrance to a particular scene. Bogart said, "I was told to walk in, close the door, stop, and look to my left. And that's what I did." It also reminds me of that old Kuleshov experiment. You know, man sits blankly in a chair and is intercut with shots of a steaming bowl of soup, a pretty girl, and a coffin. An audience then raves over his versatility in expressing hunger, desire, and grief.


Kuleshov actually wrote a book about cinema, and it sounds like Mamet's view on film theory are pretty much just a rehash of that text, from how you describe it.

[Qrazy]

Why even Kuleshov? It sounds very Eisensteinian to me. Anyway I pretty much disagree with the whole uninflected materials/montage style as the pinnacle of cinema. I'm with my man Tark on the matter.

[balmakboor]

Kuleshov actually wrote a book about cinema, and it sounds like Mamet's view on film theory are pretty much just a rehash of that text, from how you describe it.

Mamet makes his indebtedness to Kuleshov clear in the book. I've never read the earlier work but I imagine Mamet has done something of an updating for contemporary readers. I do know that Mamet's short little book is one of the most enjoyable reads of my life.

[balmakboor]

Why even Kuleshov? It sounds very Eisensteinian to me. Anyway I pretty much disagree with the whole uninflected materials/montage style as the pinnacle of cinema. I'm with my man Tark on the matter.

Mamet also talks about Eisenstein a lot in the book. Tarkovsky is precisely the sort of director Mamet criticizes in the book -- although he never singles out any particular director by name for this treatment. The only film I recall him mentioning specifically is Dumbo which he praises as a shining example of what he is promoting.

I don't subcribe fully to any particular approach, but, if I was ever given a choice between Dumbo and anything by Tarkovsky (who made fascinating films that bore me to death), I'd go with the flying elephant with big floppy ears.

[Pop Trash]

Mamet makes his indebtedness to Kuleshov clear in the book. I've never read the earlier work but I imagine Mamet has done something of an updating for contemporary readers. I do know that Mamet's short little book is one of the most enjoyable reads of my life.
I read parts of Mamet's recent book about Hollywood (forget the title) and he came off pretty bitter and sour grapes about a lot of stuff. He complained about the lack of imagination with a lot of screenwriters but then put out his own rules and structures that he thought people should follow that seemed just as unoriginal and unimaginative as what he was talking about. He's another guy that I have issues with but is so respected that people think you are an idiot if you dare criticize him.*





*That said I do really wanna see Redbelt. It might be kind of awesome.

[balmakboor]

I read parts of Mamet's recent book about Hollywood (forget the title) and he came off pretty bitter and sour grapes about a lot of stuff. He complained about the lack of imagination with a lot of screenwriters but then put out his own rules and structures that he thought people should follow that seemed just as unoriginal and unimaginative as what he was talking about. He's another guy that I have issues with but is so respected that people think you are an idiot if you dare criticize him.*





*That said I do really wanna see Redbelt. It might be kind of awesome.


Maybe you should read the whole thing. I found it witty rather than bitter. I also recall no rules set forth, just general suggestions that could be applied in infinite ways. I would consider it essential reading by any student director planning to make a film with no budget and non-actors.

[Pop Trash]

Maybe you should read the whole thing. I found it witty rather than bitter. I also recall no rules set forth, just general suggestions that could be applied in infinite ways. I would consider it essential reading by any student director planning to make a film with no budget and non-actors.

Meh. Waste of time. The best thing people can do to improve American filmmaking is to use their own imagination.

[balmakboor]

I had very little time to make the prior post -- car issues today. :frustrated:

Mamet really makes two essential points in his book:

1. Don't put something in a script that can't be acted upon.

He talks of having read countless scripts (and I believe him; I'm sure he's read a helluva lot more scripts than I have and I've read this sort of thing multiple times) that contain something like "[charcter] enters the room filled with concern, expecting the shit to hit the fan any second." Now, that may sound good to a reader, but imagine telling an actor to do that. It would be a challenge for Robert Deniro. Imagine a non-actor trying to act "filled with concern, expecting the shit to hit the fan."

2. Don't make your film be a record of what your characters did.

By this, he means don't just follow them around with a steady-cam, etc. because it forces you to make whatever it is they're doing interesting -- and increasingly interesting as the film goes on to keep the audience's attention. If, however, the film is assembled together and carried along shot by shot, then the shots don't have to be interesting at all. They can be very mundane actually, even crude, and yet they work as long as they serve the basic purpose of keeping the audience asking "What's next?"

As far as this second point goes, I don't consider it hard and fast or anything. On the one hand, Mamet is obviously taking a poke at the Tarrs and Tarkovskys and Tsais and Hous of the world -- and I quite a bit agree with him. I find their films visually stunning and very interesting -- for a while -- but ultimately tiresome. Something like Goodbye, Dragon Inn had me saying out loud "Okay, I get it. You like to make us stare at a space with nothing going on for a looooong time. Cool. NOW GET ON WITH IT!"

Recent films like No Country For Old Men and There Will Be Blood are almost perfect embodiments of Mamet's ideal -- and I find both absolutely riveting from start to finish.

But of course, my favorite film for many years now has been Linklater's Slacker. And what is it? It's a film that does nothing but follow some odd characters around for 90 minutes.

[balmakboor]

Meh. Waste of time. The best thing people can do to improve American filmmaking is to use their own imagination.

Naw, I watch lots of first time features and shorts and one thing many of them don't lack is imagination. When they fail, it is often because they set themselves up for failure. Pages of terrible dialog and performances that become laughable because they demanded their non-actors to hit specific emotional notes on cue.

A Man Escaped is an amazing and compelling film that contains very little dialog and nothing beyond the means of a non-actor in the way of performance. Why don't first time directors make films like A Man Escaped? Such a film could be made for very little money with non-actors and only basic camera and editing skills. All of the filmmaker's energy can be focused on imagination and telling a good story -- as it should be.

[balmakboor]

I once had a conversation with Neal Jimenez (he wrote River's Edge) about Tarantino. He said that Tarantino is an amazing writer, but that nobody should even attempt to write the way he does. He can write reams of dialog and it sounds great, just dances around on a actor's tongue. But so many without Tarantino's chops have tried the same and fallen flat.

As a director, Tarantino goes against all of Mamet's suggestions -- and gets away with it because he knows how to keep it interesting. He is a rare talent. Soooo many bad first films I've seen over the years have had Tarantino's influence to blame.

[Pop Trash]

I had very little time to make the prior post -- car issues today. :frustrated:

Mamet really makes two essential points in his book:

1. Don't put something in a script that can't be acted upon.

He talks of having read countless scripts (and I believe him; I'm sure he's read a helluva lot more scripts than I have and I've read this sort of thing multiple times) that contain something like "[charcter] enters the room filled with concern, expecting the shit to hit the fan any second." Now, that may sound good to a reader, but imagine telling an actor to do that. It would be a challenge for Robert Deniro. Imagine a non-actor trying to act "filled with concern, expecting the shit to hit the fan."

2. Don't make your film be a record of what your characters did.

By this, he means don't just follow them around with a steady-cam, etc. because it forces you to make whatever it is they're doing interesting -- and increasingly interesting as the film goes on to keep the audience's attention. If, however, the film is assembled together and carried along shot by shot, then the shots don't have to be interesting at all. They can be very mundane actually, even crude, and yet they work as long as they serve the basic purpose of keeping the audience asking "What's next?"

As far as this second point goes, I don't consider it hard and fast or anything. On the one hand, Mamet is obviously taking a poke at the Tarrs and Tarkovskys and Tsais and Hous of the world -- and I quite a bit agree with him. I find their films visually stunning and very interesting -- for a while -- but ultimately tiresome. Something like Goodbye, Dragon Inn had me saying out loud "Okay, I get it. You like to make us stare at a space with nothing going on for a looooong time. Cool. NOW GET ON WITH IT!"

Recent films like No Country For Old Men and There Will Be Blood are almost perfect embodiments of Mamet's ideal -- and I find both absolutely riveting from start to finish.

But of course, my favorite film for many years now has been Linklater's Slacker. And what is it? It's a film that does nothing but follow some odd characters around for 90 minutes.

I definately agree with the first part. That is screenwriting 101. That is to say that a screenplay shouldn't do the job of a)the director-but if you want it to look like what it is in your head then direct it yourself. Otherwise just hope, or better yet make sure, it is in the hands of a director who's style you like and b) the actor

The second part I sort of agree with sometimes. Depends on the movie and my mood. But I know what he is getting at. Still, it seems limiting and schoolmarm-ish for Mamet to tell people what they should or should not be doing with their film.

And yes Slacker is great.

[Pop Trash]

Naw, I watch lots of first time features and shorts and one thing many of them don't lack is imagination. When they fail, it is often because they set themselves up for failure. Pages of terrible dialog and performances that become laughable because they demanded their non-actors to hit specific emotional notes on cue.

A Man Escaped is an amazing and compelling film that contains very little dialog and nothing beyond the means of a non-actor in the way of performance. Why don't first time directors make films like A Man Escaped? Such a film could be made for very little money with non-actors and only basic camera and editing skills. All of the filmmaker's energy can be focused on imagination and telling a good story -- as it should be.

I don't think this has to be true. I see what you are saying but, take a look at my avatar for example. That is a great film (IMO) by a first time filmmaker and starring first time (aka "non-actors"-I kind of hate that phrase but not as much as I hate the phrase "models" for acting) actors. David Gordon Green got great performances out of nearly all of them. And these are mostly kids.

[Pop Trash]

I once had a conversation with Neal Jimenez (he wrote River's Edge) about Tarantino. He said that Tarantino is an amazing writer, but that nobody should even attempt to write the way he does. He can write reams of dialog and it sounds great, just dances around on a actor's tongue. But so many without Tarantino's chops have tried the same and fallen flat.

As a director, Tarantino goes against all of Mamet's suggestions -- and gets away with it because he knows how to keep it interesting. He is a rare talent. Soooo many bad first films I've seen over the years have had Tarantino's influence to blame.

I agree, I've seen some pretty lousy films by people who thought they were Tarantino or Kevin Smith (and I like Tarantino and Smith)

[balmakboor]

I don't think this has to be true. I see what you are saying but, take a look at my avatar for example. That is a great film (IMO) by a first time filmmaker and starring first time (aka "non-actors"-I kind of hate that phrase but not as much as I hate the phrase "models" for acting) actors. David Gordon Green got great performances out of nearly all of them. And these are mostly kids.

That's a great example. There are all sorts of examples where a first time (or very early) director broke the "rules" and stacked the deck against himself as if courting failure. George Washington, Stranger Than Paradise, Reservoir Dogs, Clerks, and Slacker all come to mind. But I consider all of these directors to be quite exceptional, a few possibly even geniuses of the medium.

Most people who attempt to make films don't have those directors' talents though. I guess I'll just use myself as an example. I'm a guy of more or less average filmmaking chops. I would probably fall on my face if I wrote a 90 page script of solid dialog and tried to pull it off. The same would probably happen if I tried to make a film consisting of long, static, deadpan, black & white, single shot scenes or a film without no main character other than a town in Texas that bounces from one oddball character to the next quite randomly for 90 minutes.

Then again, maybe I'd surprise myself. And I'm definitely with you in the belief that young filmmakers should follow their muse wherever it takes them, damn the rules.

[balmakboor]

I definately agree with the first part. That is screenwriting 101. That is to say that a screenplay shouldn't do the job of a)the director-but if you want it to look like what it is in your head then direct it yourself. Otherwise just hope, or better yet make sure, it is in the hands of a director who's style you like and b) the actor

The second part I sort of agree with sometimes. Depends on the movie and my mood. But I know what he is getting at. Still, it seems limiting and schoolmarm-ish for Mamet to tell people what they should or should not be doing with their film.

And yes Slacker is great.

The point of my first point wasn't the screenwriting 101 dictum "Leave the directing to the director." That usually refers to the "no nos" of putting camera directions and instructions that indicate how the film will be broken into shots. It was more of a common sense thing. Don't write "[character] waited with agitation." (Imagine telling your friend who is helping you out by acting in your movie, "Your job in this scene is to be agitated.") Give the character screen directions that suggest agitation like his leg constantly moving as he sits and having him keep getting up to refill his coffee even though he isn't drinking it. (Sorry, those are pretty cliche but you know what I mean.)

And yes, Slacker IS great.

[Qrazy]

The point of my first point wasn't the screenwriting 101 dictum "Leave the directing to the director." That usually refers to the "no nos" of putting camera directions and instructions that indicate how the film will be broken into shots. It was more of a common sense thing. Don't write "[character] waited with agitation." (Imagine telling your friend who is helping you out by acting in your movie, "Your job in this scene is to be agitated.") Give the character screen directions that suggest agitation like his leg constantly moving as he sits and having him keep getting up to refill his coffee even though he isn't drinking it. (Sorry, those are pretty cliche but you know what I mean.)

And yes, Slacker IS great.

I don't see the problem personally, any good actor should be able to translate inner emotions such as agitation to behaviour such as leg tapping or whatever. Writing out behavioural guidelines seems more limiting to me than describing vague emotions which is a perfect initial guideline for the actor to take the character in their own unique direction (versus solely dialogue). If an actor doesn't know how to play agitated then they're just a meat puppet unworthy of the profession.

As someone who has done a bit of acting I would much prefer the former direction (emotional trajectory) versus an overlimiting behavioural direction.

Also on a somewhat ironic note Slacker is chock full of bad acting. But yeah Linklater's enthusiasm for cinema makes it more effective than it has any right to be.

[balmakboor]

I don't see the problem personally, any good actor should be able to translate inner emotions such as agitation to behaviour such as leg tapping or whatever. Writing out behavioural guidelines seems more limiting to me than describing vague emotions which is a perfect initial guideline for the actor to take the character in their own unique direction (versus solely dialogue). If an actor doesn't know how to play agitated then they're just a meat puppet unworthy of the profession.

As someone who has done a bit of acting I would much prefer the former direction (emotional trajectory) versus an overlimiting behavioural direction.

Also on a somewhat ironic note Slacker is chock full of bad acting. But yeah Linklater's enthusiasm for cinema makes it more effective than it has any right to be.

I agree with you although I don't have any experience with acting or working with actors. What I'm talking about though is non-actors (you know, what is available to most first-time, no-budget filmmakers) and how likely it is for a fledgling director of average talent to get a good performance out of one. Require a non-actor to perform simple tasks or to extrapolate external actions from internalized emotional states. In the first case, the non-actor can't help but get things right. In the latter, he can hardly help looking foolish and an amatuer.

[balmakboor]

As a follow-up note to my previous post, I'll relate a story about Steven Soderbergh. He was doing publicity for his film King of the Hill (a remarkable and little-seen gem) and was expressing how proud he was that he was able to shoot in long takes using a child actor and get away with it. He said he went into the project fully expecting to have to piece the film together with a child actor being unable to sustain a performance for more than 10 seconds or so at a time. He was expecting to have to take the approach of directing a non-actor that I was describing. Somewhere along the line though, his talent for directing managed to connect with a extraordinarily gifted non-actor child. It does happen. Jesse Bradford's performance is much more impressive in terms of acting due to this fortunate bit of magic than, say, the comparatively pieced together performances in E.T. The performances in E.T. are just as effective though in terms of cinematic storytelling.

[Qrazy]

I agree with you although I don't have any experience with acting or working with actors. What I'm talking about though is non-actors (you know, what is available to most first-time, no-budget filmmakers) and how likely it is for a fledgling director of average talent to get a good performance out of one. Require a non-actor to perform simple tasks or to extrapolate external actions from internalized emotional states. In the first case, the non-actor can't help but get things right. In the latter, he can hardly help looking foolish and an amatuer.

Ah right, reasonable.