It's a writer's or director's role to be cerebral, whereas for an actor it should be a visceral, gut thing. When the action starts, it's best to turn the brain off and let it become an instinctual thing.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Part of an actor's job, in my opinion, is adjust to the characteristics of the director and try to understand to how he tries to work.
An emotional performance is usually more instinctive to an actor.
When a subject pops into a director's head, you either fit in there somewhere, or you don't. An actor is only who he is. Especially as you get older, there's not as much of a range of potentially feasible parts.
I feel whatever an actor does on screen is something the actor 'does,' and what the director can do is to tell, talk or instruct. So, all the credit for an actor's performance goes to the actor alone.
Directing remains very psychological, and it takes a lot of time and reflection. When you're an actor, it takes less time, and you can express yourself physically.
As an actor, you're always nervous as to what a director will do with something.
As a director, it is important to understand the actor's process.
As an actor you have to bring to the table your creative input. But when a director like Ridley Scott says I want you to do this this way, you know when he gets to the editing room he has a reason for it. It's like watching a masterpiece.
Sometimes I think being an actor is like being a dog for a director; it's like they throw a stick, and you want to fetch it and bring it back to them. You want a pat on the head for it.
You can be playing a line some way and the director wants you to change that, or you can disagree. But I always think that the creative conversation between director and actor is what leads to good work.
No opposing quotes found.