East Coast Musings 12.07.08: Actor vs. Director

Posted by James Craig on 12.07.2008

Talant can be found on both sides of the camera, but which is more important to the film?

In this column, I will explore various facets of the film world and offer my views on why things are they way they are and where I feel the subject of each topic in heading in the future by weighing both the pros and the cons each is facing. Nothing is safe and no one is safe as from my focus.


This has been a slow week in terms of goings on in the film world. However some news from Bryan Singer and his future involvement in the Superman franchise. It wasn't so much that the interview he was featured had him all but confirming he won't be back on the next installment, but it was rather the comments that followed the news. The comments that followed were a mix of celebration, debate on the worst Superman film ever and so on. While it seems that when it comes to movies being announced, it is usually the choice of casting that becomes the hottest point of contention. Only when "big name" director's are attached to a film project does it seem that there is any sort of commotion. This has lead me to wonder, is it the actor's who make a film, as they are the ones that we see on screen? Or is it the director behind the scenes, bringing a vision to the screen that makes the film?

Obviously these two components to a film can't be mutually exclusive, however, there are far too many bombs in terms of films out there that many will either blame on on or the other. Both the on screen talent and directors have their detractors as well as their fans. What the ultimate question is, is it more the force of a talent's own will that can overcome flawed material, performance or vision? Personally, I identify films initially in terms of who the director is first and then go from there. Very often, if a director has had on film that I have liked, i can count on other projects from the same person to hopefully hit the same notes with me. I was actually surprised to find that many of my co-workers and friends don't do this and actually have a hard time naming many directors other then the ultra famous ones. The on screen talent on the other hand, it was easier for them to identify and generally will go see a film based on who is in the film, rather then who is directing it. It really should not have been a surprise to me, as this was how I used to base what I would want to see if I wasn't sure of a plot.

It wasn't really until I became fully exposed to Tarantino that I started evaluating films based on direction. sure I was familiar with the Speilberg's and Lucas' of the world, but beyond them I was very much like those same co-workers that caught me off guard. After seeing Pulp Fiction, I had a need to track down more work by Tarantino as very much of the critical acclaim for that movie centered around him. It was something new to me, but I had finally taken the first step in a new way to evaluate films.

It is very easy to reason why the casual film goer would base their initial reaction to a film based on who is in it, as very often it is the on screen talent that the individual can identify with. If a Tom Hanks has made you laugh before and a new comedy is right around the bend, then it stands to reason that the same can be said of the next film. Generally if someone is a complete waste on screen, Pauly Shore, nothing in the world can sway some people as to whether or not a film of theirs can e anything other than a complete waste of time. This is where I think the biggest and probably most important difference will arise. Actors tend to change their taste in films they take on over the course of a career, based on many things (age, social/political climate, personal taste), while directors, by in large, will work themselves into a comfortable niche and will seldom deviate from that chosen course.

Sticking with the Tom Hanks example, he was, early in his career, a mostly bankable comedic actor that only occassionly showed flashes of anything else. That is why, when Philadelphia came along a lot of people were blown away by what the man was able to accomplish on the screen in a role that was so far removed from what he had done earlier. It was largely a word of mouth occurance mostly for the film and just how good it was and how surprisingly good Hanks was in his role. Perhaps then is was the director who was able to bring such a powerful performance from Hanks.

Jonathan Demme was at the helm of the film and was seen, the time as one of America's top talents in the director's chair, having come off of the biggest hit of his career, the wildly popular The Silence of the Lambs, he was seen as a director able to utilize characterization and work with top Hollywood talents like Hanks, Denzel Washington and Anthony Hopkins. This very well may have been a case of where the vision coming from behind the camera was able to translate into the performances happening in front of it. As I brought up in my column focusing on Clint Eastwood's directorial career, it seems that those acting for him seem to put on their work boots for the man and turn in an honest day's work. For me, this was very much the case and Hanks seems to have taken the ball of dramatic actor and run with it and it is hard to imagine him as the goofy comedic actor we were used to in the 80's.

So, while the connection may be tenuous, there seems to be a correlation between an actor's performance and the director getting that performance. However, I think the biggest indication of a director's influence over who is in a project and how they work is by watching and listening to the actor's themselves before they are ever attached to any particular project by a director. It is no secret that certain directors have reached a pinnacle in their career where they are seen more as an institution in Hollywood rather than simply a director. Names like Scorsese, Coen and Del Toro have been so successful and have had such a run of quality, that the projects the are associated with are seen not only as a chance to have a good pay day for actors, but also to be part of something important. The Coens are perhaps the best example as many of their films aren't necessarily the splashiest in terms of hype, but are of such quality that they can attract faily significant names to turn in performances. This isn't to say that the likes of a Matin Scorsese doesn't draw the same respect and interest from his peers, but his films can be viewed as more box office fair and generally of a much greater budget. The fact names like Pitt, Cloney and Hanks will put aside the "big payday" in order to be part of a smaller film says a lot about not only the material but the faith they have in the Coens to direct a quality film that will mean something more than box office.

It also seems that fringe actors or life long supporting actors have their game brought up to a higher level when working with a director who has a reputation for producing quality film projects. Viggo Mortensen is an example I can think of, who in works like Hidalgo seems to fade, but working with an auteur type director like Cronenberg is able to bring his work to a whole new level with his work in A History of Violence and Eastern Promises.

For what ever reaon, when you it comes to films of some substance, there is a trend that certain directors are more bankable than others. One director that may not have gotten very much press in the past, but was able to get some acclaim for his most recent film would be Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu with Babel. This man was able to bring out an incredibly painful performance from Benicio Del Toro in 21 Grams as well as attract a Brad Pitt to Babel based on the reputation he had built with his earlier work. This more than any other example given should help to illustrate how quality directors are able to attract the big names and perhaps it isn't the other way around.

While there are cases of some director's remaining loyal to certain talents that have helped them in the past, Scorsese being the director that comes to mind immediately as he has returned to several talents over the years for various outings it seems that a director worth his salt will be able to sculpt a quality film regardless of the talent in front of him. The Coens seem to understand this, and almost go back and forth from their serious, Oscar caliber films with the lesser known or smaller in magnitude type stars no Country for Old Men to going to bigger budget production with the bigger names meant to earn more ox office, Burn After Reading. It almost as if they use the"serious" project.


To my mind there are few cases where an actor(s) has been able to work with a completely unknown director and help produce greatness. The only example that I can think of off the top of my head, is in the case of American Beauty where Kevin Spacey was able to help, along with the top notch performances from the rest of the cast, to take the very first Hollywood production for directorial "rookie" Sam Mendes and get the film to the best picture at the Oscars. This isn't to say Mendes is not of great talent, but he certainly benefitted from the talent around him as opposed to the other way around as it would seem for the likes of the Coens.

As with all thing artistic, this is an argument based strictly on one's own taste. However, I think that it is of more merit to examine who is directing a film, as opposed to who is in the film and you may be able to figure out if what you're going to get before ever stepping into the theater. You know that with a Michael Bay film you will see something blow up and it should be a decent to very good "pop corn" film. If you see Scorsese or Coens attached, the film will most likely be of the utmost quality and you can take something away from the film. While the talent involved on screen is important, you never know what you may get as it is in the very nature of the actor to switch roles. They are in the business of change while directors are very often in their own niche and you can guess at what you will get. Of course there will always be the occasional bomb of deviation thrown into the mix to keep things interesting.