For years there has been much discussion of how digital video (DV) is going to change the face of filmmaking. And finally, audiences are now seeing digital features being produced on an ever-larger scale as film festivals and major distributors begin to regularly accept DV projects as worthy competition to the film standard. A recent example of a digital feature with major distribution is last month’s release of Wayne Wang’s "Center of the World" shot on DV and transferred to 35-millimeter.

Yet little attention has been paid to the ways in which this technological revolution will potentially impact actors. Will digital video and digital technology lead to opportunities or obstacles, or a combination of both? And, importantly, how does working with actors in digital video differ from that process when shooting film?

The process of filmmaking has changed radically over the past decades. Film’s technological growth has not only gradually modified its aesthetic, but has also led to a gradual evolution of the role of the actor.

One of the most revolutionary features of digital technology has been the radical drop in production costs. This has meant that many actors have been able to assume greater creative control as producers and collaborators. In addition, the fact that both the production and post-production costs of digital video are so low has meant that it can be shot anywhere, and its post-production done utilizing desktop computer tools, such as the immensely popular, easy-to-use editing software Final Cut.

Another result of the low cost of digital video is that the camera can be left running almost indefinitely. Mike Figgis took this to the extreme with his digital feature "Timecode," which was shot with four cameras running simultaneously to create four single shots which play together on a screen split into quadrates. This freedom to burn tape has led to a renaissance for improvisational acting. This road was paved by many factors: filmmakers such as Mike Leigh, who uses improv to develop written scripts, improvised mockumentaries like "This Is Spinal Tap," and the growth of reality television, which has a freshness that scripted acting often cannot meet.

In search of answers to questions about how digital technology affects the actor, I interviewed three Bay Area artists directly involved in the creation of digital projects. Firstly, I spoke with San Francisco-based video artist and director Lynn Hershman, who has always embraced the latest technology before most people were able to even get their hands on it. Her last feature film, "Conceiving Ada," utilized live actors in computer-generated sets. Her latest work, "Teknolust," now in post-production, was shot on high-definition video with 24p cameras (the same kind of equipment George Lucas is using for the next "Star Wars" installment). My second expert, director Peter Hyoguchi, shot his first feature in 16-millimeter, but is a convert to digital. He shot his award-winning feature "First, Last, and Deposit" on DV, and hasn’t looked back to celluloid since. And finally, I talked with San Francisco actor Drew Lanning, who has appeared in a number of digital projects, some of which he has found through Casting Connection.

Hershman says that although her fundamental process hasn’t changed much, the new tools have made working with actors somewhat easier: "While working with Jeremy Davies ("Teknolust"), we were able to do one take that was an hour and twenty minutes. We just ran the tape and we just kept improvising. If anything, we do more improv, and it’s less restricted."

Director Hyoguchi agrees. "I found that working on digital, especially with a small crew, or no crew at all, and with a small camera, I get way better performances." His actors, he says, "…are not intimidated by it. We can do a million takes if we want. There’s no pressure." As a result, inhibitions leave. For him, this almost functions as a shortcut to a state of artistic grace sought by all directors. "There’s more of an intimacy between me, the director-slash-camera operator, and my subject or actor. So performances on digital film, in my experience, are heightened."

As an actor, Lanning also loves such openness to creative variation, and notes a key difference in his process between video and film. "One major film project I did, we rehearsed it to death, and then it kind of lost all its spontaneity." He continues, "All the micro-management of the actors actually made the project suffer. But now, with the digital projects, I’m able to say, ‘Let’s not rehearse too much,’ and then get on the set and do it three or four different ways."

Because of this newfound flexibility inherent in digital tools, Hershman also values a reciprocal flexibility from her actors, and said that it does affect her casting process. "If you have certain actors that can only work with a script and aren’t open to improv, or just trying other things, then it’s a problem. I find it's is more beneficial to have people who are willing to experiment and take chances."

"With the digital projects," notes Lanning, "directors are much more willing to forego a lot of rehearsal and to just trust the actors and the choices that they make."

Hyoguchi’s casting process, like Hershman’s, is also affected, and in a way that might sound alarming to some professionals. "I’m more free to cast people with less experience, who are literally the characters I want, because I can coax performances out of them that I would otherwise not be able to with a big intimidating camera and crew on a film shoot." This doesn’t mean, however, that Hyoguchi abandons traditional casting. "I can mix experienced actors with non-actors…and I’ll have an overall better performance, more realism."

Hyoguchi also says that digital production leads to a creative versatility that changes the entire nature of the actor/director relationship. "It enables actors and filmmakers to grow and experiment with their abilities, and it opens the territory up. It’s much more of a collaboration." Ultimately, Hyoguchi sees the technology changing the role of the actor entirely. "It enables the possibility of the actor becoming more of a central collaborator than of a puppet."

One possible concern for actors in the realm of digital media, given the appearance of such new films as "Final Fantasy," which uses computer-generated actors, is the rise of the "virtual actor."

Hershman, having used computer-generated sets, was already closer than most directors to using digital performers and has incorporated them into "Teknolust". Yet she doesn’t foresee removing flesh-and-blood humans from the process. "I think that they’ll never replace actors, because what I like about actors is that they’re unpredictable, and when you use a synthetic actor, you know what they’re going to do because it’s programmed."

Lanning also isn’t worried about losing his job any time in the near future. "Virtual actors require the interpretation of animators, who aren’t actors," he says. "You’re never going to have happy accidents."

Hershman mentioned one future danger to people who allow their image to be digitized. "When you shoot these kinds of things, you kind of capture the actors…you can do anything with them afterwards, and they don’t have to approve." This very real fear on the part of actors to have their image re-used or stolen could lead to a Pandora’s Box of potential digital image-theft. "I think it’s sort of like Napster…it goes with the territory and I think that actors have to be prepared to take that risk."

Although many of the long-term effects of digital technology are still evolving, what is clear is that these new tools have already spawned new ways of working that will challenge actors to push their performances in new directions. At the moment it seems likely that the advantages and new possibilities offered by digital media far outweigh the disadvantages, yet unexpected consequences may still take us by surprise.

Whatever happens, it won’t be dull.

article menu