Working with Non-Actors

 

by Giovanni Galindo @giovanniagalindo

    When you begin making films as an independent filmmaker, you soon find out you will rely heavily on volunteers. I don't know if there is a more acceptable term than volunteer, but hope you don't take it as a negative connotation. As much as I would've liked to, I simply don't have the funds to financially compensate everyone that comes to work on one of my films. The neat thing about this is you more often than not end up working with people that are passionate about the art of filmmaking that want to help out. 

    Crew positions, paid or not, usually go to people that are already trained in that craft. It would be hard to have someone volunteer to be a cinematographer when they've never even used a DSLR. Granted, I've had to give key crew positions to volunteers, but that doesn't always end well, and that's at no fault to the person that kindly agreed to help out. 

    However, the one role that can easily be given to a volunteer with no experience is acting. I wanted to write about this because I've started to see a simplistic element that enhances my films when I work with non-actors. I was glad to see I'm not the only one. 

Paul Greengrass on set of Captain Phillips

    Paul Greengrass, director of United 93, Captain Phillips, and some of the Bourne films is a huge promoter for hiring non-actors. In fact, in the film Captain Phillips, Barkhad Abdi received a Best Supporting Actor nomination even though that was his first time acting in a film. He's gone on now to continue acting, but when he was first hired for the role in Captain Phillips Abdi was working as a limo driver. Mr. Greengrass has used this idea of hiring non-actors that give his films a distinct feel like no other. 

    Though I began working with non-actors out of necessity, I personally enjoy the process as well and how the performances enhance the film in a way, quite frankly, I don't think a trained actor could. There is a balance to it, I believe. For the most part, your main protagonist and antagonist are better portrayed by actual actors. At least in my films and for most, your main characters are dynamic and constantly changing through the story, something that would be hard for non-actors to do. But when it comes to supporting actors, that's when non-actors can work the magic. 

    I wish I knew exactly what it was, but there's a genuine feeling when a non-actor plays a role. Many times, even with bigger actors, when watching a film you feel as though they are acting. You know it's a person playing a role. While some great actors are able to completely become a character, most of them fall short and we see their ability to act more than the role itself. 

    Most of my films contain a variety of people acting. I do try to give my main roles to actors, more than anything, because those roles do require more time and effort, especially with memorizing lines. The neat thing with actors is they usually can create their own version of the character based on the dialogue and the script as a whole. Non-actors require more direction about how to take on the role; though I've learned they take direction very well and can follow the directions you give them.

Bryant McDowell in Lunchbox

    My films that have been most well-received have a majority of non-actors in front of the screen. There is always a simple and genuine portrayal that comes across when non-actors play a role. There are limitations and I think at the end of the day, not everyone will agree with me on this. I get it. Depending on your film, the genre, the arc of your character, a non-actor will not always be the way to go. 

    With the types of films I make, I have found non-actors enhance the film. The honest portrayal gives the film more of a human touch. This is why this approach works well for Paul Greengrass as well. He hires people that actually do what they are doing in the film. For example, in his film Green Zone, besides most of the key characters, the rest of the people in the film actually are in the military. This approach worked well for Clint Eastwood's 14:17 to Paris. I really enjoyed this film and appreciated the genuine touch when the main actors were the people that actually lived the events. It almost had an ironic effect where the roles in that film that were played by actual actors seemed cheesy and bad acting, because the rest of the film we were seeing a whole different type of acting with non-actors. 

Alejandro Uribe in Shoot 'Em Up, Gavin!

    Hiring non-actors probably won't work with fantasy films or superhero movies. But if like me, you are trying to tell stories that appeal to our humanity and unity, I believe you'll see working with non-actors will make your film better than you think. It also makes you a better director. 

    I understand this may be a hot take as they say, but I believe I'll work with non-actors even when I have the means to hire trained actors. There is a beauty to it. I still can't say exactly what it is, not sure if anyone can, but you know when you see it. Give it a try, I think you'll enjoy the results.