Oh well a lot of times people explain things you don't see later on though. Basically I wanted to establish in the plot that she was going out to dinner, but I didn't want to show the dinner cause it wasn't necessary. But the fact that was going out to dinner that night, I thought was relevant.

And she didn't have too much dialogue that she wouldn't have been able to not finish it before reaching the door. She just couldn't walk and talk simultaneously. It wasn't a timing thing, she was having trouble multitasking.

If you don't see things and they don't have anything to do with the story, why are you putting them into script?

The plot isn't the story, it's how you organise the story.

Oh okay, I believed that the conversation did have to do with the story. You don't have to see everything though, and many movies do not show everything, but still establish certain things in dialogue.

For future scripts I can be sure to ask if there is any exposition in them though. However, as a director though, I want to get better at directing actors, and that was just one example, of how I couldn't get an actor to walk and talk simultaneously. So is there anything I can do to get better at things like that, and pulling out better performances?

How the actor performs a scene can be influenced by the dialogue and the beats within a scene.

Dialogue about a dinner that's so unimportant that you don't show it, what has it to do with the story? It may be a bit about the character, but it becomes more important if she can't go to the dinner because of the story is destroying her personal life.

This has been mentioned before, but doing acting classes should help with the directing

Okay thanks, I've done acting classes before, and about do them again, once they start up again soon. I was also told to get better actors and a better DP. When I post for casting calls for example, it's always the same group of actors that apply it seems. I feel I want the next short to be really good, I need actors who can really knock it out of the park. Is there other places I can be looking though, rather than just posting on facebook, craigslist, university theater, etc?

This problem is really just an example of what you get using non-professional actors. It's not even about training - it's about ability, and she clearly has none!

Well where can I find the professional ones though? People say to use theater actors, but I found the acting to be too theatrical for the camera. Maybe that can be good, but I think people will be bothered by it.

You'll have to train them, I've used professional actors who've had little or no film experience in the past and it's worked out. Lend them a copy of Micheal Caine's book on acting, after you've read it yourself.

These days most have had some experience, but they are usually keen to get more film experience, which can work to your advantage.

The auditions are the time to select actors who can make the leap.

I'm working with a guy who has been acting for a very long time. He is in a current sitcom, and also on stage.

Acting is acting - the differences between theatrical, which involves special skills such being able to project - to fill a space are sadly lacking from some people who act on TV and film, where their acting skills might be just reading a script and remembering it. Most are in between somewhere. Acting for film and TV misses out the specific theatrical bit, but most decent actors can do TV and film, even if they struggle unamplified with a 1000 people listening.

If they act badly for the camera, then they simply weren't very good.

Your problem seems to be that you have no idea if they're good or bad until you ask your friends for opinion, then you say "I was told they were a good actor" when you simply advertise traditionally or on line for professional actors and you pay them what it costs. nothing wrong with amateurs if they meet the same standards.You are describing amateurish which is a totally different thing.

If you cast the right amateur or even non actor in the correct role they can hold up extremely well with the professional actors, some may be even better and go on to become professional actors.

Indeed - one of those jobs you can either do, or not do. Being paid for it is no guarantee of acting excellence, and doing it for fun can produce excellent work.

Okay thanks. I think one of the reasons that short term didn't turn out as well, as the actors seem to do better in the auditions and rehearsals, but then one actor became unavailable as well as one of the locations so I had to rewrite the script, and then that caused the acting to not be as good after, since changes had to be implemented. So I will try to adjust to that better next time as well.

script rewrites don't change the acting standard with real actors - scripts get changed continually. The actors just get told to go from the bottom of 49, cut everything untill he says"uncertain future" then continue up to the door slam, then look at him and say.... They scribble in the script and it's done. That's their job. If you direct them and say "this is where you stare him back in the eyes and wait.." they write it down, and do it.

Oh it's just that since one actor left, I scrapped the character, but then since the character left, I had to change a good deal of the dialogue, and I thought maybe that is why the performances were not as good cause the actors had to memorize new dialogue on a shorter notice before shooting I thought.

Auditions usually offer you alternatives, you check up on the other possible actors to replace them. I did this on the day with one film when one actor couldn't make it. The replacement learnt his lines on the day.

Given enough notice you can often find alternative locations or reschedule that scene to another day, when the alterative is found. One short film I worked on did this with a shop.

Actors seem to use their short term memory on films, on one production we had to reshoot something later in the day (I've forgotten the reason) and the actor had to relearn the lines again. He had learnt the lines (or at least refreshing his memory) just before shooting each scene, BTW these were 2 or 3 minute monologues.

That's a good skill to have on soaps, which work at a fast pace with new episodes on the conveyor belt.

BTW Your films seem to be rather dialogue heavy, which tends to make them televisual than cinematic.

Oh okay, the actors from before were no longer available by that time. I could have rescheduled to another location on another day, but I felt it was risky, and thought I shouldn't loose the shoot day I already have, cause people I had were becoming less available later.

But next time I could try to chance it.

Sounds like you need to consider the business side more carefully.

Your productions have costs, therefore you need commitment from your people - technical and artistic. Do you have a proper contract with them? When, what, how, who and why? Dates and times are critical. many actors may have commitments with other production companies so you cannot just say stay late, start early - they will have put your production in their diary slots. If they agree to your times and then duck out costing money, then you need it in writing what the consequences could be - as in they are responsible for extra costs, but at your discretion. Unions, though I think I'm a bit negative union membership at the moment having been let down by one, can be useful for policy, payments and systems.

You can also include callbacks if shooting gets unavoidably delayed through no fault of yours. You can even build in marketing and merchandising into them. Publicity stills as a minimum.

If you want a particular actor because they're right, you don't want them going off on a better paying job, so you need to deal with this early in the negotiation stages. You have, it seems, a drama club - where people do work for you for a leisure activity. They can mess you around happily because it's friends not business.

Oh okay thanks. In past projects I had contracts but there were a couple of people who broke it and made no difference to them.

I can to try to get more committed people though.

In my world, your reputation is paramount. Break a contract without good reason and nobody chases you to the court - they just don't ever use you again, and tell everyone who will listen why. Dropping out of a contract is not a thing to do lightly. With good reasons, and time - they can often be sorted pleasantly, but leave a production company in the lurch at your peril. They have long memories.

Oh okay, well the person who dropped out of the contract is now living in Vancouver and is more successful than me and other filmmakers I have worked with. I guess I could have spread the word about him, but thought that would come off as whiny to do do so.

Generally with shorts, if you're not paying freelance people and they get a paying gig, there's an understanding that the paying gig gets priority.

Yep for sure, I payed before with those particular contracts. I can pay on future ones too. I was also told maybe I should do more takes to get better acting since before, having to shoot in a shorter amount of time, I was doing 4 takes per shot on average, but maybe that wasn't enough. But I don't want to do too many either to get it right, cause one time an actor took 17 takes before I called it as good, but then we ran into an extra day of shooting therefore too. So I was wondering how many it takes on average, if I haven't been doing enough.

The number of takes varies, as does the reasons, however, If you were shooting film on a short it would be unlikely you would do 17 takes.

The quality doesn't depend on the number of takes, first takes can turn out to be the best. You do tend to get higher number of takes on commercials, because you're after something caught in a couple of seconds with precise timing on the camera moves ,

If you've got time and budget pressures, you won't be able to go into another day, because you haven't the money. That's real life film making.

There's no set number of takes for quality, you may get it in a couple of takes. If you've got it you move on, there are no rules obout this Some actors are at their best on the first take, while others are better on the third. The director has to balance all this out.

...I was doing 4 takes per shot on average, but maybe that wasn't enough. But I don't want to do too many either to get it right, cause one time an actor took 17 takes before I called it as good, but then we ran into an extra day of shooting...
Table reads and rehearsals beforehand increase not only actor's familiarity with their characters and lines, but also their personal investment in the project. A double win!

Oh okay, well the person who dropped out of the contract is now living in Vancouver and is more successful than me and other filmmakers I have worked with

Why don't you call him and see if he can help you get your foot in the door. Seems to me he owes you a favor if he blew off the contract.

But I don't want to do too many either to get it right, cause one time an actor took 17 takes before I called it as good

The usual reason for a large number of takes is the actor blowing their lines or corpsing, also delivering a single line in isolation can involve quite a few takes. The latter tends to happen in commercials.

However, you usually can tell when you've got the best you're going to get when the performances start to tail off. Trying top build up emotional intensity can involve a number takes, allowing the actor to risk more each time and dig deeper.