re: Casting Yourself In Things You Direct?

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 11/5/06 at 2:06am

What are your thoughts on this? I love acting, writing, and directing all equally and I attempt to combine them all by writing my own material. I'm afraid this might be seen as selfish or indulgent or completely asshole-ish in this way.

But what I've noticed is that most writer-directors who act in their own material pretty much play the same character over and over (Clint Eastwood, Woody Allen, Albert Brooks, etc...). This is not something I want to do. Yet, by doing this, I'm still afraid it might be seen as completely indulgent.

What do you guys think?

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 11/5/06 at 2:11am

If the final product is well-received, then obviously it worked fine. If it is not well-received, then the actor/director is going to receive double the criticism. I've seen both cases.

If the final product is good, then people aren't going to think it's "selfish or indulgent or completely asshole-ish". They're going to praise the piece of art that they like.

You should focus on doing what you love and what you want and what makes you happy. If you sit around wondering what others are going to think of you, then what's the point of art? Are you going to censor what you want to express just to please others?

If there's not a law against it, people can do whatever the hell they want, and they should, especially when we're talking about creative freedom.

Updated On: 11/5/06 at 02:11 AM

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 11/5/06 at 2:22am

Definitely, man. Thanks.

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 7/13/07 at 6:00pm

bumpz!

[glancingforward]

Posted: 7/13/07 at 6:05pm

its a bad idea and i have never seen it work on stage. it also makes for very confusing lines of authority during the process. there a great directors out there. find them its not that hard

[Weez]

Posted: 7/13/07 at 6:07pm

If you can do it well and not drop dead of exhaustion, why the hell not?

But most sane people would stay WELL away from this avenue. Particularly if you're doing theatre. Clint Eastwood and Woody Allen can direct themselves, but they have a solid crew around them with a mini-team of secondary directors. Theatre is a whole different ball-game.

[glancingforward]

Posted: 7/13/07 at 6:11pm

in film i agree there is a better chance of succeeding..but stage is not the same and if you try it..boy you better be really something special otherwise it looks like emotional masturbation

[supportivemom]

Posted: 7/13/07 at 7:08pm

Barbra Streisand did it all the time. Seems like if a man does it- it's okay but when a woman does it- she's considered a bitch. I'm not a feminist or anything- just relaying how the media has portrayed it. I actually admire anyone who can take on all of these roles. I say go for it and stop over-thinking what others will think. It's your project- you can do what you want!

[DRSisLove]

Posted: 7/13/07 at 9:17pm

I recently saw a production of ON THE 20TH CENTURY and the director always makes himself the lead. He's pretty horrible in everything and in this show he was at an all time low.

The production itself was a disgrace and the fact that he was the worst one in the show made me feel if someone good had been cast, the show may have been a bit better.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 7/13/07 at 9:31pm

There's a local theatre by me that has a group of actors and directors that are constantly casting and directing each other in musicals and plays. The two leads are a husband and wife team and they almost always play the leads and direct the productions, but lucky for them they're fairly talented so it works I guess. I just think a line should be drawn and if you're going to direct and appear in your own productions you need to pick the role that best suites you. Not the lead just because you want to play the lead. Obviously this does not apply to one man shows, but if you're brilliant it can work.

[LuPonatic]

Posted: 7/13/07 at 11:46pm

I really like directing, and right now I have to cast myself in shows only because of a lack of guys, but it is never the role I would want to play. I cast the people who auditioned first, then I try to seek out extra cast members, then when all else fails, I cast myself. It does make for a very hectic rehearsal experience, but I want my little theatre to grow so I am picking shows that need a little more than our regular group of seven or eight. :O)

[DirtyRottenGirl]

Posted: 7/13/07 at 11:49pm

Is that why you are always the lead luponatic?

[GuitarGirl]

Posted: 7/13/07 at 11:59pm

If the director can act, then it might not be such a bad thing.

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 3/25/08 at 2:40am

Bump.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 3/25/08 at 2:45am

I wouldn't be opposed to it if I did finally get the opportunity to direct a show, but I would prefer an assistant director to give notes on my performance.

[Lance2]

Posted: 3/25/08 at 8:27am

I once saw a show where the director wasn't only the director and lead. He was also the lightning designer, set designer, choreographer, sound designer and costume designer...

As you can imagine, it was a horrible production.

Don't want to do to much. Directing youself is incredibly hard.

[ShbrtAlley44]

Posted: 3/25/08 at 12:09pm

I did it when I directed Godspell in high school. I think we actually did quite a good job, though in re-watching the video there are many things I should have tightened up.

[Hello Dawley]

Posted: 3/25/08 at 3:53pm

I have done it once, and only because I was already cast in the show when the director got a new job in a new city, so the artistic director of the theatre told me to do it. It was the second time I played the role of Bat Boy, so I already knew the role...but I also had to do some choreography, lights, and a few other things...and my assistant director just didn't show up during tech week. If I didn't have a shaved head at the time, I would have pulled all of my hair out. I never want to direct again if I'm in the show. It turned out to be a good production, but at the same time, there is a lot I would have done differently if I could have seen everything.

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 3/26/08 at 3:33pm

Bump.

[piperlacyboo]

Posted: 3/26/08 at 3:55pm

You are much better off casting hunky auto-mechanic Johnny Savage as the lead and then when he calls on the day of the show y'all saying he can't come because his dad is making him work, you can:

a) tell him "I hate you and I hate your a#@ face!"

b) cast yourself in the lead and look like a hero

It worked for my friend Corky.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 3/26/08 at 4:33pm

That's actually why I dislike Kenneth Branaugh (sp?). He does that ALL of the time.

That and he's the first (and so far only) Iago I've ever disliked.

[Katurian2]

Posted: 3/26/08 at 5:27pm

I've directed and acted in the same production before. I think if you have experience in both fields, it is very doable. I actually think that production turned out better for it, since I was on the same level as my cast, and it was a very ensemble-driven show. We all needed to be on the same plane, and I think we got it. As long as you can check yourself and not holding yourself above your cast, I think it's a very fine idea.

[sondhead]

Posted: 3/26/08 at 5:41pm

"If you can do it well and not drop dead of exhaustion, why the hell not?"

It's not even about this. Even the most talented actor needs someone on the outside to give notes on the whole process, who is controlling the production as a whole. It is my opinion that as an actor on the stage you can't properly control the whole picture because you're on stage playing your part! Find somebody to help you out.

[maybethistime]

Posted: 3/26/08 at 5:48pm

Gene Kelly starred in, directed and choreographed "Singin' In The Rain" and "American In Paris," among others. While some criticize his apparently "self-indulgent" dance sequences, most agree that his work was pretty darn amazing.
If you can juggle it all and validate it with a decent product, I say more power to ya!

[TonyVincent]

Posted: 3/26/08 at 6:03pm

This is an especially poignant topic this year with PASSING STRANGE and IN THE HEIGHTS in theaters.

I see positives and negatives. On one hand, no one understands the main character like the person who wrote it, especially if it's somewhat autobiographical. On the other hand, it's a LOT of work, which may lead to a lack of quality. Not to mention you don't get the added benefit of two points of view--a director and/or writer molding an actor.

I saw Stew do it and found him to be terribly vain in the way he portrayed himself as the narrator describing his life. But I don't think that was necessarily a product of the setup, more just him.