On camera for indie feature #2.
Here’s an example of a not-actor not-doing her not-job. Because she’s not an actor; she’s a line-sayer. She’s only on screen because she has nice tits and good enunciation. She has no emotional depth. Oh, I shouldn’t rant before I tell the story.
So, Actor Midge (playing Mrs. Mondello) and Tit-Owner-But-Non-Actor Alice (playing Mrs. Antonyk) are doing a scene. Camera is rolling.
Mrs. Mondello: â€œWelcome to parent’s night.â€
Mrs. Antonyk: â€œWhere is the principal?â€
Mrs. Mondello: â€œSometimes we don’t have him at these events.â€
Tit-Alice: â€œNo, it’s â€˜sometimes he doesn’t come to these events.’ â€
Hello! Who the hell made you the director plus writer? Are you so stupid or arrogant that you can’t respond with your own dialogue? Could you not just have remained in character and said:
Mrs. Antonyk: â€œI was expecting him.â€
The director is forced to call, â€œCut.â€
Yeah, duh. Tit-Alice ruined the take.
What ifâ€¦just what ifâ€¦accidentallyâ€¦ that take was actually good up until the blunder. Lighting right, emotional tone right, timing right, hit the marks, oh yea the audio was actually clean? And Tit-Owner-Alice ruined the take by being some sort of script supervisor or continuity chick or dialogue coach, because she didn’t know her damn-ass job of being an actor. This means, by the way, to remain in your emotional truth as the character. Duh.
Of course, the director wants to ball Tit-Aliceâ€”that’s why he cast her in the first place, eh. So he just does the take again.