‘Carne admires actors, and this is exactly what great directors of actors do not do.’ I don’t necessarily agree with this quote from Antonioni. In watching a lot of interviews with actors, I have often heard the saying that a director is an ‘actor’s director’. This is often a director who has acting experience themselves or is simply understanding of the processes that actors go through and there have been some beautiful performances as a result of this kind of relationship. Antonioni then says that Sternberg, ‘in despising actors he dominates them’. This mindset, apart from being morally questionable, is also not one that I think I would like having on a set. One of the things that made me want to get into the film and television industry in the first place was seeing behind the scenes footage of shoots that looked so much fun because everybody was getting on and having a good time. I feel as though no, one job on a film set is more important than another and holding the view that directors can pretty much bully their actors seems to undermine the teamwork that goes into making a good film. ‘An actor does not have to understand’ is another quote that I think is dated. Certainly, most of the modern films I have seen benefit from the actors doing all they can to understand their character, even putting themselves through pain to get there. 

This is not to say that Antonioni or Sternberg’s films were no good because of this. It is true that these director/actor relationships might lead to outstanding performances but it gets to a point where you have to ask at what cost? For Jeanne Moreau to say that she felt near to suicide because of Antonioni’s directing is concerning. Even if an actor gives a performance of their lifetime, if they feel this way because of a director, it was not worth it.

If director’s need a very controlled performance, then surely they can ask their actors to perform in this way without actually manipulating them in real life. If an actor is good at their job they should be able to do this. It does bring up the question about ‘authentic’ performances, however. I think there are many ethical reasons that have to be considered in what actors are made to do and this is something with no clear lines. This means that both actors and directors will continue to do crazy things in order to achieve authentic performances and this is both good and bad.

It is interesting to read how Antonioni played around with all the freedoms that come along with film acting compared to stage acting to create new meanings. The fact that he put so much time and care into perfecting setting and planning of camera placement before rehearsing shows a kind of attention towards his actors that perhaps shows that he did care for them. However, this reading has left me questioning whether it were the actors or the performances that he actually cared about and these have very different implications.