Actors, directors and psychological manipulation

[darquegk]

Posted: 8/5/10 at 4:24pm

I have heard many stories of directors trying to influence the performances given by their casts by meddling in their lives- see the current A Chorus Line thread for discussion of the incident in which Michael Bennet tried to turn the cast against Cassie by starting a rumor she was getting better pay than the rest of them.

I have also seen firsthand an incident in which two usual "leading players" of a theater company, a happy couple, were led to distrust, hate and fear each other by the director of the theater company, who believed that their happiness had made them complacent. As two sad, angry and broken people, they put mor eof themsevles into their role since they had less to invest in their personal lives.

Is this ethical? Is this normal, at least? And most importantly, beyond the people it hurts, is it really good for theater?

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 8/5/10 at 4:32pm

Nope. Not ethical, not normal, and not good for theater. Jerome Robbins was another one known for that nonsense, keeping the Jets and Sharks apart and creating tension between them.

Another thing that Bennett did was to pretend that he was injured (a la Paul in ACL). It's a lazy and sadistic way to get a response from your cast. There are better ways.

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 8/5/10 at 4:57pm

Bennett also manipulated the hell out of Jennifer Holiday in "Dreamgirls." I think he even at one point had her convinced he was in love with her.

That said, according to Robert LuPone, he [LuPone, that is] was on to Bennett's tricks and used some of his own to manipulate him [Bennett, that is], although specifics weren't given.

[mikem]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 7:13pm

It's bad enough to take co-workers and pit them against each other, but to try to introduce tension into a happy couple so that they can focus more on work -- that is major-league messed up.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 7:26pm

Attempts at psychological manipulation by directors has a long history, in both theatre and Hollywood.

Others have already mentioned Bennett and Robbins.

Ellen Burstyn and Jason Miller reportedly got into huge fights with William Friedkin due to his attempts at manipulation of the cast to get what he felt were genuine reactions while filming The Exorcist. Margaret O'Brien has spoken about being told that her dog had died or would be killed during filming of her crying scenes in Meet Me in St. Louis.

It's a cheap and, quite frankly, lazy trick for a director to do this to an actor.

[After Eight]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 10:06pm

I think such tactics are loathsome. There is no justification for them in any walk of life.

[BosBroad]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 11:03pm

Wow. I didn't realize things like this were so pervasive. Interesting thread.

[Kad]

Posted: 8/7/10 at 12:01am

I find such methods to be lazy and detrimental to the psychological health of an actor. It completely robs actors of the joy of making their own discoveries, not to mention destroying the idea of the rehearsal room as a "safe space".

Directors, if they are finding that actors are not where they need to be, need to find a positive alternative route for getting what they want and what they feel the moment needs. Not telling the actors that they just received word that a loved one died in a car crash or that everyone hates them.

[ThankstoPhantom]

Posted: 8/7/10 at 3:02am

This method of acting is odd to me because it works at getting the PERSON to be personally reacting to things. This is not transformative work as a result. It is so much more of an actual art if the actor is able to separate themselves from the character and create a new person to delve into. Obviously, it can't be helped but to bring some of oneself to a role, but there is nothing interesting to me in seeing a show where there is no work, but everything letting their personal issues get in the way.

It is also disrespectful and manipulative to the PERSON's life, and completely unnecessary. A director simply has to hire actors with SKILL, and they will get the dangerous results they seek. Challenge the ARTIST.

[BosBroad]

Posted: 8/7/10 at 3:10am

^
Yes, but do you think it's really about creating work that the director wants? Or is it a method of control?

It's true that the creative process would be destroyed for the actor in this way, moving the control of the process to the director. Those who consistently use these methods must like the idea that they can control others like pawns. Not nice or fair.

Updated On: 8/7/10 at 03:10 AM

[ThankstoPhantom]

Posted: 8/8/10 at 2:07am

Your idea intrigues me. A professor I knew of (but thankfully avoided) used the tactics in her classroom. Looking back, it is probably more of a control thing under the guise of art's name.